The Taliban has released a video of two professors from the American University of Afghanistan who were abducted in August, the first public evidence that the rebel group is holding the two men hostage. The group wants imprisoned insurgents to be set free in exchange for the two Westerners. In the video, American Kevin King and Australian Timothy Weeks ask the U.S. government to cooperate with the Taliban so that they can be released.

The video clip portrays the two men as fragile and bearded, breaking down in tears and begging President-elect Donald Trump to lead negotiations. “Donald Trump sir, I ask you please. This is in your hands. I ask you please to negotiate with the Taliban. If you do not negotiate with them, we will be killed,” said Weeks.

Taliban video shows US and Australian hostages https://t.co/2tp1qEMWr6

— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) January 12, 2017

The professors were abducted at gunpoint from their car on August 7, close to the university campus in Kabul. A team of Navy Seals and Army Rangers launched a rescue mission to free them, and the battle resulted in the death of several rebels. But the abducted men were not to be found–the U.S. troops were believed to have missed them by only a few hours.

A few weeks later the Taliban launched an armed attack on the university campus, killing 12 people and wounding many more. Classes have been suspended all fall and were just about to begin again when the video of King and Weeks was released. The school’s president, David Sedney, immediately issued a statement calling for the release of his colleagues:

We call on the Taliban to release immediately and safely Kevin and Tim and all other hostages. Kevin and Tim came to Afghanistan as teachers, to help Afghanistan. These innocent people have done nothing to harm anyone and need to be reunited with their family, friends and colleagues.

According to U.S. officials, the Haqqani wing of the Taliban is holding the men. That is the same group that also held U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl, who was freed in 2014 and was featured in the podcast Serial last winter. The Haqquanis are also believed to be holding a Canadian-American couple hostage, who allegedly have had two babies since being captured.

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 Abducted Professors Beg U.S. Government to Negotiate With the Taliban appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. government allegedly paid a British PR firm half a billion dollars between 2007 and 2011 to produce fake al-Qaeda videos as part of a propaganda program, the British Bureau of Investigative Journalism revealed on Monday.

A British PR firm called Bell Pottinger reported frequently to the CIA, Pentagon, and the National Security Council. The staff produced videos made to look like amateur footage shot by rebels, and Arabic news programs.

One of the video editors, Martin Wells, called the operation “shocking, eye-opening, life-changing,” and provided comments to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. When he applied for the job in London in May of 2006 he only knew it involved a project in the Middle East. When he went for an interview it surprised him to find guards watching the room where it took place. When he asked when he would find out if he got the job, they said: “You’ve already got it. We’ve already done our background checks into you.”

Bell Pottinger in the spotlight for creating propaganda videos for US military in Iraq: https://t.co/QzBAPV0HSn #comms pic.twitter.com/ALM9asdimZ

— PRWeek UK (@prweekuknews) October 4, 2016

Wells then had 48 hours to prepare for a flight to Baghdad, where he spent his time producing fake news segments and low-quality, violent commercials for al-Qaeda. He and the other staff sent out the videos to local TV stations and the military dropped digital copies off in different raids. Since the video files contained embed codes they were able to trace where and how the footage was being watched—and also trace the people who were watching them–a powerful counter-terrorism tool.

This was not a small operation—it cost over $100 million a year. Sometimes approval came straight from the White House and at one point almost 300 staff members from Britain and Iraq were involved. Wells stayed for two years. The whole operation ended in 2011, when American troops withdrew from Iraq. It was not the first time the government has used the media to spread its views and policies.

In 2005 the government hired a Washington-based firm called the Lincoln Group to pay Iraqi newspapers thousands of dollars to publish pro-American articles, written by the U.S. military. In 2009 it was revealed that the Pentagon hired controversial PR firm Rendon to monitor journalists embedded within the U.S. military to see whether they were covering their missions in a positive way.

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 Did the U.S. Pay Half a Billion Dollars for Fake Anti Al-Qaeda Propaganda? appeared first on Law Street.

Just in time for the first day of school for many kids, Federal Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas announced that he is blocking the Obama administration’s directive that allows transgender students to choose whichever bathroom is consistent with their gender identity.

This means schools will face no consequences if they do not accommodate bathroom or locker room options for transgender students. The blocking of the order will apply nationwide for the time being.

The government’s bathroom directive became official in May after the Justice Department sued North Carolina over its bathroom bill, HB2, which prohibited people from using bathrooms that do not correspond with the sex on their birth certificate. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch compared North Carolina’s policies to racial segregation.

On August 12, Texas and 12 other states filed a lawsuit against the government at a hearing in Fort Worth, saying the bathroom rules are unconstitutional and complaining they would loose billions of dollars if they do not follow the rules. The Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, called Obama’s “illegal federal overreach” and said to Associated Press:

This president is attempting to rewrite the laws enacted by the elected representatives of the people, and is threatening to take away federal funding from schools to force them to conform. That cannot be allowed to continue, which is why we took action to protect states and school districts.

But the Obama administration disagreed and argued earlier this year that the bathroom guidelines are non-binding and have no legal consequences.

Even though the government never explicitly said that schools need to follow the bathroom rules to not lose their funding, it was implied in court documents that stated the schools that get federal funding ”are clearly on notice that anti-discrimination polices must be followed.”

Judge O’Connor also claimed that existing laws that require schools to not discriminate people on the basis of sex do not apply to transgender students since “the plain meaning of the term sex meant the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth.”

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 Texas Judge Blocks Obama’s Directive on Transgender Student Bathroom Use appeared first on Law Street.

Microsoft came out with more big news this week following its announcement that it will buy LinkedIn. The tech giant is dipping its toes in the marijuana industry, partnering with a startup company that will track legal marijuana to make sure everything is in compliance with regulations from “seed-to-sale.“

As more and more states legalize marijuana either recreationally or medically (the total count is up to 25 states now) corporate companies are shying away from joining the green profit boom–marijuana is illegal in the eyes of the federal government, after all. But, Microsoft is the first big tech company to break this taboo.

KIND Financial, a company focused on cannabis technology, and Microsoft will collaborate with governments to ensure marijuana stays within legal realms. The software will monitor the entire process, from growth and harvest of marijuana plants to sales in stores, entering a special niche in the marijuana market.

Only nine of the twenty-five states that have legalized pot, either medical or recreational, have implemented regulatory systems. These sorts of systems can also track how much marijuana is being sold to whom, the taxes that are being collected, and if growers and sellers are obeying the law.

“Microsoft is helping us support governments in their expansion of cannabis legislation,” KIND CEO David Dinenberg told The New York Times. “They’re experienced at providing platforms for government regulation. This is something Microsoft does every day of the week with other businesses in other categories.”

For now, Microsoft is sticking strictly to the government and compliance side of business, while KIND is more hands-on with the weed, but that could change. In the beginning, Microsoft will market the software at government-employee conferences, but it could eventually make appearances at cannabis events where KIND already has a regular presence. KIND, a start-up from Los Angeles, is one of the many companies trying to mainstream the marijuana industry. One of their most popular products is an ATM-style kiosk that dispenses marijuana.

“We do think there will be significant growth,” Kimberly Nelson, the executive director of state and local government solutions at Microsoft, told The New York Times. “As the industry is regulated, there will be more transactions, and we believe there will be more sophisticated requirements and tools down the road.”

Although KIND and Microsoft do not currently have any state contracts, they have applied to provide their software to Puerto Rico, which legalized medical marijuana earlier this year. Microsoft’s willingness to join the up-and-coming legalized weed industry is a big step forward.

“Nobody has really come out of the closet, if you will,” said Matthew Karnes, the founder of Green Wave Advisors, a company that provides data and analysis of the marijuana business. “It’s very telling that a company of this caliber is taking the risk of coming out and engaging with a company that is focused on the cannabis business.”

State governments and weed stores alike are relying on start-ups like KIND to facilitate the sales flowing through the industry. Because many banks are unwilling to hold money that is “illegal” in a federal sense, dispensaries are forced to rely on cash or the types of kiosks like those that KIND provides. States like Washington, New Mexico, and Illinois currently depend on start-ups similar to Kind to monitor marijuana sales.

Either way, partnering with KIND was a solid business decision for Microsoft, whose revenue is declining from its fading software business. Legal marijuana sales are expected to jump to $6.5 billion this year, from $4.8 billion last year; and another five states will vote in the fall on whether or not to legalize marijuana.

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 Microsoft Enters the Marijuana Industry appeared first on Law Street.

Puerto Rico’s Government Development Bank defaulted on $422 million in debt on Monday, a small but important portion of the island’s $72 billion debt. This isn’t the first time Puerto Rico has failed to pay its debt; the country has been in dire financial trouble for a long time and its governor announced last June that the island’s debts were not payable. But Monday’s default marks the first time that Puerto Rico’s Government Development Bank will not be able to make a payment, a signal that the crisis in Puerto Rico is worsening by the day.

As the island continues to default, Peurto Rico faces increasing economic turmoil and may eventually fail to pay for the debt on its general obligation bonds, which are actually guaranteed by its constitution. The government in Puerto Rico has already taken harsh measures to cut spending and make some payments on outstanding debt. But as it reduces public services it threatens to weaken its economy even further.

Read on to learn how we got here and what’s in store for Puerto Rico’s future.

What Happened on Monday?

The entirety of Puerto Rico’s $72 billion debt is not due all at once, and on Monday, it only failed to pay most of the $422 million that it owed. Puerto Rico is a unique case in that there is not a single entity responsible for issuing all of its bonds, but the Government Development Bank is the commonwealth’s largest bond issuer–meaning its default is particularly significant.

The GDB did manage to make an agreement with credit unions to push back $33 million of its debt for another year, though much of the outstanding debt remains. In early April, Peurto Rican lawmakers passed a bill issuing a moratorium on debt payments, effectively allowing the government to stop paying its debts until 2017, though bondholders quickly took the issue to the courts. The island will continue to negotiate with its bondholders to the extent that it can, but because Puerto Rico cannot declare bankruptcy, there is no established process for doing so.

While the commonwealth has already defaulted on some of its debt, it has, so far,  managed to stay current on its general obligation debt–which it is constitutionally required to pay (there are several different types of bonds issued by Puerto Rico, but the general obligation bonds are considered to be particularly important). As the government continues to default, staying current on its general obligation payments will become increasingly less likely. Notably, the government will need to pay more than $800 billion in general obligation debt on June 1, which many consider the deadline to work out a resolution before the crisis peaks.

How did we get here?

Economic woes in Puerto Rico largely began after a 1996 law removed tax incentives for companies located in Puerto Rico. That law began a 10-year phase out of section 936 of the tax code, which had previously given significant tax benefits to companies with subsidiaries in Puerto Rico. Since then, the island has been in the throws of economic contraction and large numbers of Puerto Ricans have fled to the U.S. mainland.

The island has been in a recession for nearly 10 years, which has increased the local government’s cost of borrowing money. As a result, Puerto Rico has had to raise taxes and cut back on services to pay its bondholders. In 2014, Puerto Rico managed to strike a deal with several hedge funds to provide much-needed funding to keep the commonwealth solvent. But it was forced to take on short-term debt at a high interest rate, making its current situation even worse.

Underneath its current fiscal concerns, Puerto Rico has been dealing with ongoing economic contraction. A report commissioned by the government outlines many of the current challenges–from laws like the Jones Act, which inflates the cost of goods on the island by requiring all shipments to be made with U.S. boats; the federal minimum wage, which particularly high relative to the average income on the island and can prevent companies from hiring; and mismatching welfare needs relative to the mainland United States–that limit the island’s economic prospects. These problems have also caused many to leave the island altogether.

This chart from the Pew Research Center illustrates how the rate of population decline in Puerto Rico has been increasing in recent years:

Hope that Puerto Rico will one day be able to pay off its more than $70 billion debt is leaving the island as quickly as its residents. As the commonwealth’s population dwindles so too does its tax base, which is a crucial factor in the local government’s ability to increase its revenue and pay of future debt.

What about Wall Street?

Some argue that hedge funds exploited the situation in Puerto Rico by purchasing large amounts of government debt at very low prices. Economic troubles pushed interest rates on Puerto Rican bonds to over eight percent, which combined with significant tax advantages, made the island’s debt particularly appealing. Puerto Rico is able to issue triple tax-exempt bonds because Congress made the government and its public corporations’ debt exempt from federal, state, and local taxes.

That, combined with the constitutional guarantee–the general obligation bonds take precedence over all other public expenses–made Puerto Rican debt look particularly attractive to large investors. The New York Times summed this point up in an in-depth look at the situation last December:

There were plenty of reasons for the hedge funds to like the deal: They would be earning, in effect, a 20 percent return. And under the island’s Constitution, Puerto Rico was required to pay back its debt before almost any other bills, whether for retirees’ health care or teachers’ salaries.

Critics note that hedge funds have been taking advantage of attractive bonds issued by Puerto Rico and are now turning to the courts to ensure that they are paid the full price for bonds that they bought at a discount.

Is there a solution?

In light of Puerto Rico’s dire situation, the commonwealth’s fate lies almost exclusively in the hands of Congress. In light of its ongoing economic contraction and population decline, Puerto Rico will almost certainly be unable to stay current on its debt. Congress is now tasked with deciding if and how it will help the Puerto Rican government deal with the crisis.

The government in Puerto Rico is currently asking Congress to allow it to restructure its debts using the formal Chapter 9 bankruptcy process or something similar. Currently, Puerto Rico is unable to go bankrupt and has very little ability to negotiate with its creditors. Going bankrupt would allow the commonwealth to negotiate a plan to pay all or part of its debt over on a new time frame with different interest rates. U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew argues that if Congress doesn’t act now and allow Puerto Rico to restructure its debts a bailout may actually be needed in the future.

Republicans in Congress have proposed a slightly more hands-on approach–creating a panel to manage and restructure the island’s debt obligations. The fiscal control board would allow the island to restructure its debts but would have a guiding authority to handle the politically difficult decisions involved with cutting back services and negotiating with bondholders. But that plan has faced opposition on both sides of the aisle.

Many conservatives have been wary of granting Puerto Rico the ability to restructure its debts, arguing that doing so could create a dangerous precedent and may amount to a bailout. It would not, in fact, be a bailout–debt restructuring would not involve any government funding–restructuring would merely allow the Puerto Rican government to renegotiate with bondholders without any taxpayer funds. Democrats argue that creating a control board would put too much control in the hands of an undemocratic entity. Puerto Ricans are also particularly wary of giving up control over their finances to a board of people installed by Congress.

While disagreements over how to deal with Puerto Rico’s imminent default persist, it’s important to note that such measures would only go so far in solving the island’s fiscal crisis. Even if it manages to renegotiate its debts, the commonwealth will need to rebuild its economy in the face of consistent population loss. As further cuts to public services are necessary to meet its debt obligations, the island will have an increasingly difficult time bringing money in to make future payments.

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 Puerto Rico is Defaulting: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

On November 18, 2015, the House voted 289-137 in favor of the the newly proposed “American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act,” or “SAFE Act,” with a larger than expected number of Democrats (47) joining the Republicans in passing the legislation. The major issue it seeks to address is national security in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks and the Syrian refugee crisis that has been plaguing Europe for the last few months.

The act itself calls for a more in-depth screening process for “covered aliens,” granting the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) the power to “take all actions necessary” in order to ensure a squeaky clean security clearance prior to admission as a refugee. What this means for the general population and the citizens of the United States is nothing more than a little security blanket we can drag around made out of taxpayer dollars. What this means for Syrian and Iraqi refugees, a group that already endures the most stringent admission into the United States lasting from 18-24 months, is more time in hell as we idly stand by bureaucratic red tape and paperwork that, statistically speaking, is not likely to affect us. Particularly insulting to this irrational and illogical spread of institutionalized fear and propaganda is that the Paris terrorists that have thus been identified are of French and Belgian nationalities. So naturally, Syrian refugees bear the weight of consequence.

Image courtesy Of [Dominic Chavez/World Bank via Flickr]

What most catches the eye in the “SAFE” Act is the use of “covered alien,” which is defined as “any alien applying for admission to the United States as a refugee who A) is a national or resident of Iraq or Syria; B) has no nationality and whose last habitual residence was Iraq or Syria; or C) has been present in Iraq or Syria at any time on or after March 1, 2011.” While the ironic use of “covered alien” is unmistakable, the inclusion of Iraqi refugees in a discussion about national security pertaining to the admission of Syrian refugees into the United States is questionable.

American interests in Iraq have been evident long before President George W. Bush invaded the country on March 19, 2003. Following that date, the United States embarked on the longest invasion since the Vietnam War, costing an upward of $815.8 billion, claiming the lives of 149,053 civilians, as well as 4,637 military members, a majority of whom were United States soldiers, and resulting in a large migration of Iraqi people to find peace and refuge. While there is no question that many innocent Iraqi people were displaced during the invasion of Iraq for which U.S. decision-makers are responsible and have an obligation to, it appears that policy and lawmakers are, in part, trying to circumvent that obligation by lumping Iraqi refugees into a national security issue that has only been applied to Syrian refugees in an effort to cut some weight off of dues owed.

Iraqi refugees, who are not at the forefront of discussion in the Syrian refugee crisis, have now not only been displaced as a collateral consequence to the U.S. invasion, but are being further unjustly treated through cunning deceit by the hands of the very people that displaced them from their homes.

What is the political agenda here? United States citizens need to recognize the misguided policy-making taking place. The Syrian and Iraqi people are individuals trying desperately to survive. These are human beings that the United States has the capability to keep alive and an obligation to do so. Refugees are not the enemy and should not be treated as such, particularly through sloppy policy. While the focus stays on the “covered aliens,” citizens needs to be prudent and work to uncover policy truths.

While it is imprudent to say with certainty what is in store for the “SAFE” Act, speculation can be made on the basis of what has occurred. It remains unclear whether the Senate will indulge in any legislative discourse or action pertaining to the act, but if the bill were to pass Congress, President Obama has made clear that he would use his veto power to stop the act from becoming law. The problem with President Obama’s pledge is that the House only needs 290 votes, only one more than the last time it voted on the act, to override the president’s veto (with the Senate’s help too, of course). Only one thing is certain–this could lead to a power showdown between Congress and the Commander-in-Chief.

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 The “Covered Alien?”: House Votes for the SAFE Act 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.

Law degrees are undoubtedly expensive, difficult to complete, and very time consuming. After finishing the requisite three years in law school, students might start to reconsider their intended career field, which can seem quite daunting and somewhat limited. Being a lawyer can be very rewarding, although it can also be a very stressful and intense job. Fear not, graduates, as contrary to popular belief, it turns out that there are a plethora of opportunities for those who hold law degrees besides practicing law. Attending law school gives students a wealth of knowledge and expertise in a multitude of areas, all of which can all of which can be utilized in some very interesting and unexpected jobs. In a world where it seems like society is rife with lawyers but with few available jobs, it is comforting to know that there are other options for those who either don’t make it practicing or realize that they wish to pursue something entirely different. While not all of the following jobs are as lucrative as being a lawyer at a top firm, they can still lead to some very compelling professions.

People who receive J.D.s acquire plenty of skills in the process, such as learning persuasive writing, argumentation skills, critical thinking and analysis, public speaking, counseling, and researching. These skills can be applied in a variety of settings, not just in a typical legal environment. While some of these options are still within the realm of the legal field, others are very different, so if you wish to make an exit from practicing law, you do still have some viable choices.

Professional Writing

One of the most valuable skills acquired in law school is learning how to become a strong writer. Did you know that some of the top writers in the industry first started their careers by attending law school? A surprising amount of lawyers have launched successful careers within the writing field, many of them choosing to focus on the subject of crime in their works. A few notable authors who also hold the title of J.D. include John Grisham, Meg Gardiner, and Scott Turow. Each of these novelists first dappled in the field of law and then later gained international fame for their thriller pieces. Even if you don’t want to write long, extensive novels, you can still write for the masses by becoming a freelance writer or a blogger like Kat Griffin who launched corporette.com. Journalism is also a possibility, since lawyers learn how to investigate and problem solve through their schooling and careers, so this can be translated over to professions within the communications sphere, such as reporting. Becoming a literary or media consultant could also be an option where you can offer your legal knowledge for the production of books, movies, and television shows.

Business

If you would like to go in the route of the corporate sector, then there are many potential opportunities for those who hold law degrees to work in major companies or to even become entrepreneurs. People with law school experience could find promising careers in finance, such as being chief operating officers, chief financial officers, or human resources directors. One former attorney credits her background as a lawyer with helping her to achieve success in the entrepreneurial sphere, since her education helped her to better understand and negotiate contracts within her business. These positions include many different areas, and so they give lawyers a chance to experience a wide array of fields in one setting while utilizing the many skills they learned in law school.

Government

If you’re interested in the political route, then having a law degree is always a good option. Many of our presidents, past and present, were first top lawyers in their respective cities, such as Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Getting involved in politics of course requires a deep understanding of the law, and so first becoming a lawyer while building your political career from the ground up can lead to a prolific career. Having a law degree also could be a segue into working for the government or a federal agency, where lawyers are often in demand. Lawyers learn how to become expert negotiators and mediators through their training, both of which are crucial skills if one would like to work for organizations such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations or the Central Intelligence Agency.

Entertainment

Many lawyers have gained fame by putting their oral and presentation skills to use in the world of entertainment. One of the anchors of “The Today Show,” Savannah Guthrie, started out her career by first obtaining a law degree. “Judge Judy” is a popular television show that is based off of the real life proceedings of Judge Judy Sheindlin in her courtroom. The founder of TMZ.com, Harvey Levin, was first a lawyer before creating his popular celebrity gossip website. Star Jones also was a lawyer before she became one of the hosts of the popular talk show, “The View.” Many actors also received their law degrees before making their big debuts in Hollywood, such as Gerard Butler and Rebel Wilson. If you prefer to be behind the scenes, then maybe you could be an agent for those in the spotlight by acting as their advocate.

Other Options

Lawyers are perhaps most relied upon for giving advice to their clients, and so this tool can be transferred to a variety of other fields. Lawyers could make careers out of becoming legal counselors on multiple different platforms, such as with nonprofit organizations or major companies. Others choose to teach after receiving their law degrees, a job which can incorporate almost all of the skills needed to be an effective lawyer. Given how much lawyers are forced to analyze when examining cases and legal arguments, their skills can be put to good use in a public policy analyst or policy strategist position.

Whether you are a recent law school graduate, have a couple of years of legal practice under your belt, or have been in the field for a few decades, it’s never too late to try your hands at something different if you become tired of your job. The many skills learned in law school can aid lawyers in many different tasks in various careers. If you had the work ethic and determination needed to complete law school, then you can likely hone in on these abilities and use them towards almost any career you desire. In the end, the possibilities are endless for those who possess law degrees.

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unexpected Jobs You Can Get With a Law Degree appeared first on Law Street.

Praised as a “tremendous step forward” toward meaningful penal reform, the Mandela Rules provide a framework for what is and is not permissible in terms of detention conditions in prisons across the globe. With 10 million people in prisons worldwide, it’s easy to assume that there is a high demand for the humane treatment of prisoners. However, while the Mandela Rules have been commended for their progressive revisions of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMRs) that have been in place since 1955, there is still no guarantee that prisons, domestically or internationally, will improve.

For a document that is supposed to provide governments the guidelines necessary to ensure that basic rights are afforded to prisoners, the Mandela Rules fail to provide incentives to abide by them or a method of accountability for prisons that break them. Furthermore, the lack of widespread discussion on the new rules is shocking, and perhaps telling of the low level of importance that both the public and politicians place on reforming the criminal justice system. Just like under the previous SMRs that the Mandela Rules revised, prisons will continue to cut corners, mistreat prisoners, and break this agreement unless there is more legal pressure and incentives to treat inmates with dignity.

The SMRs have since 1955 acted as the universally acknowledged minimum standards for the detention of prisoners and for the development of correctional laws, policies, and practices. On May 22^nd of this year, however, the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (the Crime Commission) passed a resolution approving the revised standards, named the Mandela Rules after the late South African President Nelson Mandela who was imprisoned for 27 years. These changes were prompted after a review of the SMRs in place concluded that advancements in human rights discourse since 1955 left the SMRs out of date. The Crime Commission identified nine areas for revision, agreeing that the new standards should reflect advances in technology and society.

Rules on health care, LGBT rights, and solitary confinement are the key modifications in the Mandela Rules, but a prison that does not want to be held accountable for treating inmates with dignity can easily dismantle almost all of the updates. One of the most acclaimed aspects of the new rules is that indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement is prohibited. Solitary is defined as confinement of a prisoner for 22 hours or more a day, and prolonged solitary is defined as confinement for fifteen consecutive days. So solitary confinement for fifteen consecutive days is not allowed, but what about fifteen days in confinement, one day out of confinement, and fifteen more days within? The new Rules have so many loopholes and almost no accountability for the “advances” they claim to make in the treatment of prisoners.

The Rules emphasize that prisoners should be protected from torture and inhumane or degrading treatment and punishment. The United Nations will adopt these Rules later this year, though nothing but the potential for an internationally-backed slap on the wrist will prevent prisons from operating under standard minimums. If anything, the Mandela Rules simply say, “Look, we know prisons are bad, and prisoners are being tortured around the world. There’s not much we care to do about that, but here’s some advice that you should follow if you want.”

Yes, state and federal prisons do have their own separate laws in place regarding the treatment of prisoners, but are those laws abided by? The answer, especially in the United States, is a resounding “No.” Even though prison guards are expected to keep inmates safe, there were more than 5.8 million violent crimes self-reported by inmates in 2012. Four percent of the prison population reports being sexually victimized while in prison in the past year, and over half of the incidents involved a prison guard or other staff member. Even though health care is supposed to be afforded to prisoners, 1,300 lawsuits have been filed in the past ten years in Illinois alone against the state because health care in Illinois prisons is so poor that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. These are only a few examples of failures of concrete laws that have been breeched, and continue to be broken, in prisons across the country. If the initial SMRs were never fully realized in prisons across the world, what hope do we have that the Mandela Rules, which raise the standards that were never even abided by in the first place, will actually be implemented?

Several sponsors of the new SMRs note the importance of civil society in the success of the Mandela Rules. The American Civil Liberties Union’s David Fathi said, “The Rules are only as good as their implementation.” Fathi expressed that both the public and decision makers must be aware of the rules and see them as a national priority in order for the Mandela Rules to be effective. But what if we live in a society in which the public does not see the humane treatment of prisoners as a national priority? And what if we live in a society in which private groups are swaying lawmakers to extend prison sentences and to create harsher punishments? While the Mandela Rules do offer a sort of cheat sheet for evaluating a state’s prison performance, they do not do anything about the public apathy towards the inhumane treatment of prisoners and they do not erase the negative stigmas that pro-prison lobby groups and lawmakers have instilled in the minds of millions. None of the 2016 U.S. presidential candidates have mentioned the Mandela Rules in their campaigns or expressed a plan to ensure that they are implemented in our prisons. If civil society has a critical role to play in the humane treatment of prisoners, and the current campaign rhetoric by governmental leaders is any indication of what civil society cares about, the outlook for prison progress looks bleak.

How do we ensure that these minimum rules will be followed? While the Mandela Rules do call for a more humane treatment of prisoners, and require a more accepting environment and safer prison standards, which is certainly wonderful, they should not be praised as a revolutionary feat. What would be revolutionary is if the United States and other countries would actually adopt these rules in practice rather than merely going through the motions.

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 Prisons Won’t Get Better Just Because We’ve Signed Another Document appeared first on Law Street.

Columbia University made history last week when it became the first U.S. university to divest its endowment from the private prison industry. A student-led activist campaign has put pressure on the Board of Trustees to divest since early 2014 when a small group of Columbia students discovered that the school was investing in G4S, the world’s largest private security firm, and the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the largest private prison company in the United States. After a vote last week, Columbia’s $9 billion endowment will now be void of its shares in CCA and its estimated 220,000 shares in G4S. Divesting from an industry that makes its money by breeding human suffering is a move that should be loudly applauded.

The divestment vote occurred within the larger discussion of mass incarceration and the tribulations that stem from the systemic injustices that American prisons propagate. While local jails and state and federal prisons all seem to value a punitive rather than rehabilitative approach, private prisons are by far the cruelest. There is an inherent conflict between the supposed goal of the criminal justice system–rehabilitation–and companies’ profit motives. For-profit, private prisons make up a multibillion-dollar per year industry. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that as of 2013, there were 133,000 prisoners in private prisons, or 8.4 percent of the U.S. prison population. These numbers break down to 19.1 percent of the federal prison population being detained in privately owned prisons, and 6.8 percent of the state prison population.

Since 1990, violent crime in America has dropped 51 percent, property crime has fallen 43 percent, and homicides are down 54 percent. But incarceration rates since 1990 have increased by 50 percent. If crime is down, why do we have so many more people in prison? Due to the war on drugs and the increase of harsher sentencing laws, more low-level and non-violent offenders are sent to prison. Almost half of state prisoners are serving time for non-violent crimes, and more than half of federal inmates are imprisoned for drug offenses. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote, “This prodigious rate of incarceration is not only inhumane, it is economic folly.” The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population but 25 percent of the world’s prison population. We incarcerate a greater percentage of our population than any other country on Earth, and our compulsion to incarcerate costs taxpayers $63.4 billon per year.

The overcrowding of jails and prisons across the country and a reluctance to adequately finance these correctional facilities precipitated the movement toward private prisons, which proponents claimed could result in overall prison cost reductions of 20 percent. However, allowing the facilities to be operated by the private sector has resulted in a meager 1 percent cost decrease. With crime rates on the decline, private prisons began doing everything they could to increase imprisonment rates so that they could stay in business and continue to make money. From 2002 to 2012, CCA, GEO Group, and Management & Training Corporation (MTC), a contractor that manages private prisons, spent around 45 million dollars lobbying state and federal governments, arguing for harsher laws and more arrests. These corporations also poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the election campaigns of governors, state legislators, and judges in order to ensure that their plans become laws that guarantee more people will be incarcerated, so they can continue to make money.

Some people try to justify this system with the thought that people who are in prison are there for a reason. But this wishful thinking is untrue. About 50 percent of immigrants who are in prison are detained in privately owned prisons, and the majority of these people are simply being detained while waiting for their cases to be decided in court. In other words, immigrants who have not been convicted of any crime are being housed in violent, corrupt, dangerous private prisons while they wait for months for courts—that are often illegally being paid off by corrupt companies like CCA to keep people in prison—to decide their fate. The private prison industry has an incentive to keep people in jail. If their business plans included imprisoning to rehabilitate and treating people for mental health or drug addiction issues that may have contributed to their arrests, the industry would collapse. Instead, private prisons are rampant with abuse, neglect, and misconduct; private prisons understaff their facilities to save money, ignore pleas for help and prisoner-on-prisoner violence within the prison, and even refuse healthcare to inmates. In order to make the most profit, the private prison industry wants harsher drug laws, longer sentencing, and wants to increase recidivism rates.

In New York, about $60,000 of government money is spent per year to keep just one inmate imprisoned, while just under $20,000 is spent to educate an elementary or secondary school student. This trend extends nationally: no state in the country invests more—or even an equal amount—on educating an individual student than on housing a prisoner. Maybe if we relaxed drug laws and unreasonable sentencing, focused more on rehabilitation than punishment, did not allow prejudiced and ill-intentioned companies like CCA to spend millions on lobbyists, and we invested more on education than on our corrupt criminal justice system, the United States would be a happier, healthier place.

Columbia University’s divestment from the private prison industry will not solve the issue of mass incarceration. It will not redesign the broken system that we call criminal “justice” in America. It won’t even put CCA or G4S out of business or make a sizeable dent in their net worth. But what divestment will do is beyond economic comprehension. Refusing to reap benefits from companies founded upon violence forced on people by virtue of their race, class, or citizenship status is a social stance that proves a complete rejection of everything private prisons stand for. When you stop investing in something, you’ve stopped believing in it. And no one should believe in the private prison industry.

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 Columbia University Backs Away From Private Prisons: We Should Follow Its Lead appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton might have some explaining to do before she can claim the top spot in the Democratic primary. Any pro-Hillary voters who prioritize moral plans for American foreign policy should probably look into the candidate’s past in Haiti. The Pulitzer Center hosted journalist Jonathan M. Katz on Monday night for a discussion about the Clintons’ influence and rather infamous legacy in Haiti and I was fortunate enough to be able to attend. It’s surprising how little the failures and destruction of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s presence in Haiti have been brought up so far. Hopefully by 2016 this topic will be making headlines.

First, some background on the topic: on January 12, 2010, the deadliest natural disaster ever recorded in the hemisphere, a magnitude-7.0 earthquake, devastated Haiti’s southern peninsula and killed 100,000 to 316,000 people. Former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led the Haitian reconstruction effort and vowed to help the country “build back better,” so that if another disaster struck, Haiti would be able to respond more quickly and with more efficiency. Hillary described their efforts as a “road test” that would reveal “new approaches to development that could be applied more broadly around the world.”

The Clinton Foundation alone has directed $36 million to Haiti since 2010. Another $55 million has been spent through the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund, and an additional $500 million has been made in commitments through the Clinton Global Initiative’s Haiti Action Network. But what does Haiti have to show for all of these investments? Not much, according to Katz. “Haiti and its people are not in a better position now from when the earthquake struck,” he said. The hundreds of millions of dollars and the years of reconstruction efforts have yielded negligible results. For a project so expansive, Hillary has kept relatively quiet about Haiti thus far in her campaign. Her spokesman declined to comment on how Haiti has shaped her foreign policy, saying Hillary would address that “when the time comes to do so.”

Hillary’s big plan for how she would “rebuild” Haiti in the wake of desolation was characteristically American: through business. With big corporate plans on the horizon, Bill and Hillary became exceedingly familiar faces in Haiti leading up to the 2011 presidential elections. It’s not surprising that the candidate who vowed to make Haiti “open for business” was ultimately the victor. Former Haitian pop star Michel Martelly eventually won the race, after Hillary salvaged his candidacy when he was eliminated as the number 3 candidate by convincing the parties to accept him back into the race. Katz said that this vote was fraudulent. Martelly, a businessman and strong proponent of foreign investment in Haiti, was “attractive” to the State Department, Katz noted. He very much had a “Clinton view of Haiti and a Clinton view of the world.”

That’s how Caracol Industrial Park, a 600-acre garment factory geared toward making clothes for export to the U.S., was born in 2012. Bill lobbied the U.S. Congress to eliminate tariffs on textiles sewn in Haiti, and the couple pledged that through Caracol Park, Haitian-based producers would have comparative advantages that would balance the country’s low productivity, provide the U.S. with cheap textiles, and put money in Haitians’ pockets. The State Department promised that the park would create 60,000 jobs within five years of its opening, and Bill declared that 100,000 jobs would be created “in short order.” But Caracol currently employs just 5,479 people full time. “The entire concept of building the Haitian economy through these low-wage jobs is kind of faulty,” Katz stated on Monday. Furthermore, working conditions in the park are decent, but far from what should be considered acceptable.

Not only did Caracol miss the mark on job creation, but it also took jobs away from indigenous farmers. Caracol was built on fertile farmland, which Haiti doesn’t have much of to begin with. According to Katz, Haitian farmers feel that they have been taken advantage of, their land taken away from them, and that they have not been compensated fairly. Hundreds of families have been forced off the land to make room for Caracol. The Clintons led the aggressive push to make garment factories to better Haiti’s economy, but what it really created was wealth for foreign companies. This trend was echoed when the Clintons helped launch a Marriott hotel in the capital, which has really only benefited wealthy foreigners and the Haitian elite.

Mark D’Sa, Senior Advisor for Industrial Development in Haiti at the U.S. Department of State, said that many of the Clintons’ promises remain unfulfilled and many more projects are “half-baked.” Haiti remains the most economically depressed country on the continent. If Hillary wins in 2016, U.S. policy geared toward Haiti will undoubtedly expand, meaning even more money will be funneled to the Caribbean nation to fund the Clintons’ projects, for better or for worse. According to Katz, the truth is that we don’t actually know how much money has been thrown into the Caribbean country to “rebuild” it, and that with economic growth stalling and the country’s politics heading for a shutdown, internal strife seems imminent.

The introduction of accountability for the foreign aid industry is the most important change that can be made, according to Katz. Humanitarian aid does nothing positive or productive if there are not institutions in place, managed by individuals who actually live in these countries, to oversee that aid is serving rather than hurting the people it is supposed to “help.” Hillary Clinton’s efforts in Haiti have fueled political corruption, destroyed arable farmland, and have forced hundreds of families to leave their homes and their jobs to make room for a factory that has not given even a fraction of the amount to Haiti as it has taken. If the introduction of accountability is the way to go, then we first need to start talking. So Hillary, what do you have to say about Haiti?

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 Why U.S. Foreign Policy Isn’t Ready for Hillary appeared first on Law Street.

Can Afghanistan stabilize as U.S. forces plan their exit? This was the question posed to five foreign policy experts at a United States Institute of Peace (USIP) panel I attended on Tuesday morning. The panelists examined ongoing crises in Afghanistan and addressed the next steps that they believe are essential to protect the future of the state. My major takeaway from the panel is that serious reconsideration should be given to whether or not leaving Afghanistan is the best policy at the present time. As a student studying international relations, I’ll admit that I am biased in my interest in this topic. But this decision affects us all and given the current status of Afghanistan, should be debated throughly among the 2016 presidential contenders. My vote will not be for a candidate who does not have a polished foreign policy strategy designed to work with the needs of Afghan leaders and communities.

There are certainly many very prevalent concerns about the state of Afghanistan. USIP’s Dr. Andrew Wilder opened the discussion by saying, “We’re going to struggle to find a few positive things to say during our panel.” Wilder, Vice President of South and Central Asia programs, just returned from Afghanistan on a USIP assignment and said the current situation in the country is bleak. Political paralysis, a sense of economic collapse, a deteriorating security situation, and rapidly fading international attention have caused turmoil in Afghanistan. There are international fears that the national unity government (NUG)–which was just formed in September 2014–may not be able to withstand the external violence and the internal political fragmentation and ethnic divisions within Afghanistan. Wilder said that we have arrived at a critical juncture in Afghanistan and the next several months will tell whether or not the country will be considered a “success story for U.S. foreign policy.”

These revelations coincide with the U.S. presidential candidacy announcements and I am skeptical of the fact that these pressing issues are not in the forefront of any campaign. The United States’ plan to withdraw troops by the end of 2016 and the international community’s decision to significantly cut foreign aid to the country are untimely, given the many factors contributing to the turmoil occurring there.

For example, security concerns in the state are still paramount. Ali Jalali, USIP Senior Expert in Residence on Afghanistan, discussed these issues, saying that there is tension within the government of Afghanistan to maintain unity and to govern effectively, and “sometimes effectiveness has been disregarded to maintain unity.” According to Jalali, in 2015 Afghan security forces, including local police, have suffered a 70 percent increase in casualties from this time last year. The average count of casualties per week currently stands at around 330. This increase in violence is directly related to the decrease of foreign aid and military services. The toxic combination of a new unstable government with leaders who have not yet been proven trustworthy, and the simultaneous withdrawal of U.S. troops is increasing the likelihood of a resurgent Taliban and potentially wasting years of war and the American lives lost during the conflict. The withdrawal at this critical yet sensitive time in Afghanistan’s move toward stabilization also provides the perfect breeding ground for ISIL to gain power and control. How to deal with those concerns will be a major hurdle for our next leader–the hands-off strategies we have mapped out will almost certainly need to be rethought.

Another consideration is the precipitous decline in economic growth sparked by the international drawdown of troops and aid–expanded upon at the event by Dr. William Byrd, USIP Senior Expert on Afghanistan. Byrd stated, “The fiscal crisis is quite dire with no end in sight.” He offered his opinions on how to make economic improvements in the country, but all of the strategies are so fundamentally intertwined with security and political implications that it is difficult to offer many viable solutions. For example, Byrd said that the best way to make improvements in the short run is by increasing the number of businesses in the country; however acknowledged that, “businessmen will look at the political and security situation and will not want to invest in Afghanistan due to the instability.”

To improve the chances of the Afghan government’s survival, the U.S. needs to support the NUG militarily, politically, and financially. Scott Smith, Director of USIP’s Afghanistan and Central Asia program, stated, “Two years is far too short a period to have all of this take place.” In other words, the level of support necessary to prevent collapse in Afghanistan cannot be achieved with a 2016 U.S. withdrawal. The United States and the United Nations should adopt a situational withdrawal policy rather than a time-oriented plan. We need to stay until the situation is stabilized and finish what we started. Yes, we should push for eventual Afghan independence, but we should not expect that so soon; to do so is detrimental to a potentially stable future. Politicians and voters should be rethinking these decisions and questioning whether they value idealistic or pragmatic plans more. Dr. Wilder ended the discussion by stating, “We should try to remain engaged, certainly not at the levels of the past, but enough to increase the prospects of peace, stability and independence in Afghanistan.” This advice should act as a guide for our presidential contenders and is something all Americans should keep in mind as we move toward 2016.

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 U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Timely or Dangerous? appeared first on Law Street.

Multiple public and private agencies make up the child welfare systems across the country. Although the primary responsibility falls on the shoulders of state governments, the federal government supports the states through funding, program development, and legislative initiatives. Both state and federal governments are essential to the process. The child welfare system’s mission is to create safe and permanent environments for children and to strengthen family units. It is an immense and complex project. So immense and complex, however, that important aspects of child safety fall through the cracks. Oversights are often devastating. Read on to learn more about the challenges that abate the U.S. Child Welfare Systems’ mission.

Overview of Child Welfare Systems

Child welfare systems generally do the following:

Receive and investigate reports of possible child abuse and neglect, provide services to families that need assistance in the protection and care of their children, arrange for children to live with kin or with foster families when they are not safe at home, and arrange for reunification, adoption, or other permanent family connections for children leaving foster care.

Public and private agencies also work to provide services such as “in-home family preservation services, foster care, residential treatment, mental health care, substance abuse treatment, parenting skills classes, domestic violence services, employment assistance, and financial or housing assistance.”

The Children’s Bureau, part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is the primary federal institution working with state and local agencies to implement federal child and family legislation. Collaboratively, they create programs that prevent child abuse and neglect. Such efforts are authorized by the Child Abuse and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1974. CAPTA provides “federal funding to states in support of prevention, assessment, investigation, prosecution, and treatment activities” and awards “grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations for demonstration programs and projects.”

The Process

First, a concerned person reports suspected child abuse or neglect. More often than not, this person is a “mandatory reporter,” a person required by law to submit a report if he or she suspects child abuse or neglect. Mandatory reporters include individuals who have regular contact with children such as social workers, school personnel, healthcare workers, mental health professionals, child care providers, medical examiners or coroners, and law enforcement officers. Approximately 48 states and other territories have mandatory reporter laws. In many states, every person, regardless of occupation, is legally required to make such a report.

After a report is submitted, it is either “screened in” or “screened out” depending on the amount of information and sufficiency of evidence. If a report is screened in, a Child Protective Services Caseworker will come in and assess the situation. He or she will talk to the child and relatives. If a child is suspected of being in immediate danger, then the child will be brought to a shelter, foster home, or relative’s house while the investigation plays out. At the end of the investigation, the case worker will typically either find the case unsubstantiated or substantiated depending on the evidence. The agency can then initiate a court action if it feels the authority of juvenile court is required during the trial in order to remove the child from the home. In substantiated cases where there has been child abuse or neglect, the threat is labeled as low, moderate, or high. Depending on the severity of the case, the caseworker may recommend community-based resources and service systems, or recommend complete removal of the child from the home. Low-risk parents are often provided support or treatment services, while high-risk parents may be indicted on criminal charges.

Child Welfare System Challenges

Many of the most severe challenges in the Child Welfare System lie in the Foster Care System. Nearly 400,000 children in the United States are living in the foster care system without permanent families.

Over-Institutionalization of Children

You don’t need to be a licensed therapist to know that a positive family dynamic is essential to a child’s well being and mental health. Today, a disturbing amount of children in the child welfare system are placed in institutions rather than homes. Approximately 57, 000 children are living in group placements. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, a children’s advocacy group, recently published a report on this serious issue, advocating that “secure attachments provided by nurturing caregivers are vital to a child’s healthy physical, social, emotional and psychological development throughout his life.”

Children in group placements are at greater risk of abuse and arrest. One in seven children in the child welfare system lives in group placements and 40 percent of those children do not have “documented behavioral or medical need that would warrant placement in such a restrictive setting.” Young people stay in group placements for an average of eight months, although research recommends a stay of three-to-six months for those who require residential treatment. Kids in group placements also suffer from an inappropriate mixing of ages. According to the Society of Research in Child Development, young adults are more susceptible to peer influence. Younger children can suffer from being placed with older kids with behavioral health problems.

Insufficient Background Checks

A major source of controversy in the child welfare system is adequate background checks performed by case workers. There is an overload of cases of foster parents with a criminal background taking in children. For example, Oklahoma is currently under investigation for child abuse and neglect in its foster care system. A recent report, conducted after the death of a 20-month-old boy in foster care, showed that less than 5 percent of the 125 cases investigated for abuse in Oklahoma contained criminal background checks for foster parents.

Caseloads

Caseworkers across all child welfare systems consistently have extensive caseloads. The more cases, the less time and effort a caseworker can devote to each individual child. It also minimizes the ability for a child and caseworker to develop a meaningful relationship, and caseworkers are sometimes blamed for child abuse or neglect in foster homes under their supervision. For example, Catherine Davis, a family services agency caseworker in New Jersey, was suspended after seven-year-old Faheem Williams was found starved to death in his home. His two brothers were also malnourished and burned. Davis had somewhere between 99 and 107 cases. The Child Welfare League of America recommends that “workers carrying ongoing in-home protective services cases…carry no more than 15-17 families.”

Aging Out

When foster children turn 18, they age out of the child welfare system. Many of these children move forward with very little or no support at all. In 2012, 23, 396 foster children aged out of the system. Almost 40 percent were homeless or couch surfing, and 48 percent were unemployed. Fifty percent experienced issues with substance abuse, while 60 percent of the young men had been criminally charged. Nearly a quarter of those aging out did not obtain a high school diploma or GED, and only six percent had graduated with a two or four-year degree.

Case Study: Active Class-Action Suit MD. vs Perry

On behalf of the children in the Texas child welfare system, the Children’s Rights Law Firm of New York, along with co-counsel Haynes & Boone, Yetter Coleman and Canales & Simonson, filed suit against the state of Texas  for “violations of plaintiff children’s constitutional rights, including their right not to be harmed while in state custody and their right to familial association.”

M.D. is one representative of the plaintiff children. She entered foster care at the age of eight. Although initially sent to live with relatives, she returned to state custody after sexual abuse occurred in the home. She moved to multiple placements, including group institutions, where her mental health suffered. When the original complaint was filed, M.D. “lived in a restrictive short-term therapeutic placement with no visitors or basic privileges.”

The main focus of Children’s Rights in this suit is to give children in the Texas welfare care system permanency, whether obtained from reunification with relatives or adoption. Children’s Rights primarily looked at cases where the child had been in foster care for a minimum of 12-18 months, as after a year to a year and a half, foster children’s success rates plummet. Chances for emotional and psychological distress increase and they often act out and exhibit unruly behavior, severely ruining their chances for adoption/permanency. Children without a permanent home age-out without any kind of safety net.

The suit was filed March 29, 2011 and is currently in progress. Children’s Rights is currently in litigation with eight other states as well.

Conclusion

Child welfare systems are broken and reform is inevitable. Travesties occur way too often and are not publicized enough. We need to give foster children a fighting chance to survive on their own after 18. That starts with creating a safe and permanent environment for them while in the welfare system. Turning 18, after a lifetime of struggle and little support, does not make an adult. Fortunately, there are multiple advocacy groups across the country on a mission for reform.

Sources

Primary

Child Welfare Information Gateway: How the Child Welfare System Works

Additional

AFSCME: Caseloads

Annie E. Casey Foundation: Too Many Kids in U.S. Child Welfare Systems Not Living in Families

CCAI: Facts and Statistics

Children’s Rights: In Oklahoma, Asking a Few Questions Might Have Prevented a Boy’s Tragic Death

Child Welfare Information Gateway: Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect

The New York Times: Caseworkers Say Overload Makes it Risky For Children

Society of Research in Child Development: The Detrimental Effects of Group Placements/Services For Youth With Behavioral Health Problems

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 The Child Welfare System: Kids Falling Through the Cracks appeared first on Law Street.

Once again, the fate of the Affordable Care Act–Obamacare–rests in the hands of the nine justices of the Supreme Court. This time, the case is called King v. Burwell, and today, on this rainy Wednesday, oral arguments began. The case itself serves as an argument for proofreading and very deliberate writing, given that most of the accomplishments made by the implementation of Obamacare pretty much hang on one word written into the law: “state.”

Here’s a quick summary: Obamacare requires everyone to have insurance, and for those who buy insurance from the Exchanges implemented by the law, subsidies are supposed to be provided. Now, some states didn’t set up their own exchanges but instead relied on the federal exchange. Which should be fine, except there’s this one little part of the law that says:

The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—

(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Actor

A very literal interpretation of this clause would make it seem like those subsidies only apply to those who get their insurance on the state exchanges. But the IRS went ahead and gave subsidies to those on the federal exchange anyway, mostly because the government is arguing that the law was intended to be chopped up like that.

To put it simply: we’re watching a Supreme Court case over the use of the word “state” when it maybe should have said “government” or another less descriptive word.

Anyway, it’s not that this is a traditional legal issue. It’s a political play masked as a lawsuit–Republicans don’t want Obamacare to survive, and this is yet another attempt to get the law rendered significantly less effective than it is now.

No one knows exactly what’s going to happen–while the argument itself seems relatively specious, justices’ political beliefs could play a part. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the perennial swing vote, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who wrote the decision in the last big Obamacare case, are both being viewed as potential defectors from the conservative side of the bench.

Protesters from both sides have shown up at the Supreme Court, despite a rainy morning. In fact, I saw people camped out there as early as midnight last night–awaiting the chance to make their opinions about America’s healthcare future known.

TOP’s Claudette w/daughters demanding #SCOTUS keep health care for 9.6 mill. Americans #KingvBurwell #DontTakeMyCare pic.twitter.com/Z6XZDiJ1WO

— TXOrganizingProject (@TXOrgProject) March 4, 2015

Good size turnout of happy patriots defending the Constitution. “KEEP THE IRS OUT OF MY HEALTH CARE!” #KingvBurwellpic.twitter.com/BlWccHjGvL

— Tea Party Patriots (@TPPatriots) March 4, 2015

In some ways the biggest question isn’t what the court will do–after all that’s out of everyone’s hands with the exception of the nine justices–but what will happen after King v. Burwell is decided. If it’s decided that people can’t, in fact, get subsidies from the IRS if they’re on the federal exchange, the federal government can’t really do anything.

So that leaves two possible groups who can act–the United States Congress, and the states that relied on the federal exchanges. Unfortunately, it’s relatively unlikely that either will act. The states that chose not to set up the exchanges in the first place often did so because they did not agree with Obamacare. Congress…well a Republican-controlled Congress, will certainly not amend the law to fix it.

The most recently floated possibility came in the form of an op-ed from Representatives John Kline (R-MN), Paul Ryan (R-WI), and Fred Upton (R-MI). Entitled “An Off-Ramp From Obamacare,” and published in the Wall Street Journal, Kline, Ryan, and Upton used heavy-handed car-wreck metaphors to describe an alternative to the subsidies should King v. Burwell find that the federal subsidies are not allowed. This new plan would allow states to opt-out of Obamacare’s mandates, both for the individuals and employers, and would give people tax breaks rather than subsidies to buy insurance.

That doesn’t seem that different, but there is a worrisome element to the plan put forth by Kline, Ryan, and Upton. And that is the idea that people can afford to purchase the insurance and then wait until tax time to recoup that money. For the millions of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck, that isn’t necessarily a possibility.

Let’s be honest here, this entire thing is a mess. The Supreme Court could go either way, and if it chooses to declare the subsidies null and void, there will be a lot of people struggling to figure out what that means for their health care. If that’s the case, there’s no guarantee that House Republicans will actually get their crap together to make this “off-ramp” a reality, and even if they do, there will still be a lot of problems. The future of Obamacare looks just as messy as its past.

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 King v. Burwell: Win or Lose, the Newest ObamaCare Case is a Mess appeared first on Law Street.

As more and more young people become interested in what is going on in the Supreme Court, there has been a call for cameras to be allowed inside the deliberations. With an especially important verdict on gay marriage rights for all 50 states coming in April, as well as many other heavy decisions, it seems like there’s no time like the present to install cameras in the hallowed halls’ however, two justices–Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor–recently spoke against the move, making it unclear if the American people will ever have a glimpse into the court’s proceedings.

There is such transparency for some courts and cases–especially those involving celebrities and high-profile individuals. A group of media and legal organizations have joined together to form an organization called the Coalition for Court Transparency, and it petitioned Chief Justice John Roberts to start televising the arguments occurring in the nation’s capital. His response? “There are no plans to change the Court’s current practices.”

Throughout the last two decades or so, the justices have given many different reasons for banning cameras inside of the courtroom, including: cameras will encourage “showy” testimonials, the media will use embarrassing sound bites, or that people will misunderstand and judge without looking into the details; however, there are some who speak of the importance of having some transparency within the Supreme Court because it would encourage Americans to learn more about their judicial system: “There’s a real hunger out there from people to know more about the Supreme Court and the justices,” said Ariane de Vogue, Supreme Court correspondent for ABC News. “I think it would be a marvelous educational opportunity.”

Read on to learn about the considerations that must be taken into account during the debate over whether or not to put cameras in the Supreme Court.

Why should we break tradition?

The Supreme Court stands virtually alone when it comes to cameras inside the courtroom. States make their own rules when it comes to this issue, but many do allow them–as do the highest courts in some nations. Some states even livestream proceedings.

Jerry Goldman, director of the Oyez Project at the Chicago-Kent College of Law at the Illinois Institute of Technology says that the Supreme Court is simply behind the times and always will be unless there is some new blood within its walls: “It’s just uncomfortable with change,” said Goldman, whose website catalogs oral argument audio. “They’re always in the caboose.”

Another professor, Sonja West from the University of Georgia School of Law, sees it a different way: the Supreme Court Justices fear breaking something that already works well, afraid what such a monumental change will bring: “They feel very much like the guardians of a very important institution,” said West, who wrote about the Court’s camera policy in the Brigham Young University Law Review. West also says that the Court is so staunchly traditional because of the respect that shroud of secrecy gives–and respect is a main source of power.

Yet another professor, this one of Constitutional Law at Georgia State, Eric Segall, argues that because the justices are government officials, they should not have the choice of whether or not to be transparent. He suggests that the Court should have the burden of proving why cameras should not be allowed, and not the other way around. “This is a public hearing,” Segall said. “It’s open to the public. It’s material. It’s relevant, and people want to televise it. We should be allowed to see it.”

“We have three branches of government,” Dahlia Lithwick, who covers the Supreme Court for Slate, said about camera access. “Two of them are totally transparent, and one of them is completely secret, and that’s a problem.”

Why might the Supreme Court not want cameras?

There have been a few arguments made repeatedly by the Supreme Court justices and those who support them in their calls for privacy. Each one has reasons why it’s a good idea to retain some mystery, but there are also reasons why the need for transparency may overcome the possible adverse effects.

The Public Will Misunderstand What is Going On

Justices have traditionally opposed cameras because people will not understand the role of oral arguments and will jump to conclusions and “root” for an outcome of the case. Justice Scalia has even gone on record to say that the complexity and interworking of the law “is why the University of Chicago Law Review is not sold at a 7-Eleven.”

Sotomayor told a reporter that arguments should not be televised in part because most viewers “don’t take the time to appreciate what the Court is doing.”

However, to some, this view has it backward. Broadcasts of arguments would help the public learn about the Court’s operations, according to Segall. “The more we see Justice [Antonin] Scalia being obnoxious, the more we see Justice [Anthony] Kennedy acting like a law professor, the more we see Justice [Clarence] Thomas sitting there and doing nothing, the more we have insight into the people who work for us.”

Still, there is a chance that people will misunderstand what is happening with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has always had problems when it comes to public opinion with consistent periods of low approval ratings, it is easy to see why that could be a fear. A simple misunderstanding could create mistrust between the public and the Court, undermining their effectiveness.

Even for those who are college educated, law isn’t typically a mandatory course like math or even political science. It will be difficult for the general public to grasp some of what is happening within the Supreme Court.

Picking and Choosing

Justices have also feared that putting video cameras into the proceedings will allows journalists to take quotes from the hearing and use them as sound bites for laughs and shock.

Kennedy once said he does not want the Court to become part of “the national entertainment network.”

And Scalia told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “[F]or every ten people who sat through our proceedings gavel to gavel, there would be 10,000 who would see nothing but a thirty-second takeout from one of the proceedings, which I guarantee you would not be representative of what we do.”

Pretty much every news network uses videos of politicians in order to prove points–and taking things out of context seems to be the norm. So, is there something to be said about fearing the editing process? Of course–as with anything. However, it will be up to the journalist to uphold ethics when reporting the news. What comes out of the mouths of the Justices isn’t always how they truly feel or how they want the case to go. Any footage that is taken from the proceedings will have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Cameras and Audio

In addition to video imaging from within the Supreme Court, there has also been a ban on audio recording from within the chambers. In the past, audio recordings have been doctored and then misreported by news outlets, leading to headaches. That has slackened some, and audio recordings are now available after the verdict has been announced. Sometimes they will release same-day audio for high-profile cases, but this is extremely rare.

Notably, one can still get same-day written transcripts of the oral arguments and opinion announcements; however, these do not take things like tone and delivery into consideration. The Justices have learned to choose their words wisely so that they do not come across wrong on paper.

Sotomayor discussed the problems with all reporting to The New York Times, saying:

I don’t think most viewers take the time to actually delve into either the briefs or the legal arguments to appreciate what the court is doing,” she said. “They speculate about, oh, the judge favors this point rather than that point. Very few of them understand what the process is, which is to play devil’s advocate.

It obviously took a while to get to the point where audio recordings are allowed as well, and it might seem like they’re pretty much the same thing as video recordings; however, they’re probably less likely to be mass-distributed on platforms such as news shows, and therefore, less likely to be misconstrued.

Performance Issues

There are also concerns that if cameras are brought into the Supreme Court, the advocates will pander to them. Instead of focusing on the merit of their arguments, they will try to be more convincing and flashy. That being said, that worry gives very little credit to the attorneys arguing the cases–their arguments would still be what the Supreme Court decided on, so there would be little value in creating a performance for outside audiences.

Conclusion

Putting cameras in the Supreme Court is going to take some work from everyone involved. It isn’t going to be something that can have a seamless transition and just happen overnight. Instead, it is something that journalists, viewers, lawyers, and justices will have to come to terms with, and change their behaviors accordingly.

Whatever the change is, there needs to be more transparency in a system that is broken. The Coalition for Court Transparency claims:

Currently, to attend Supreme Court hearings, individuals must stand in line outside the building and wait to be ushered in. There are roughly 400 seats in the courtroom, only a fraction of which are available to the public. That means countless Americans hoping to view the arguments are unable to, especially in cases that have broad public interest, such as the marriage equality, Obamacare, voting rights, and affirmative action cases in recent terms. For these types of cases, interested citizens must often line up hours, if not days, in advance of the arguments. In some instances they have to compete with “line-standers” whose employers have been paid thousands of dollars to hold a powerful or wealthy person’s place in line.

Stay tuned for the next few months as the changes are sure to come quickly.

Resources

Primary

Oyez Project: Latest 

Supreme Court: Transcripts and Recordings of Oral Arguments

Additional 

BYU Law Review: The Monster in the Courtroom

Slate: Amicus: Cameras in the Courtroom

Open SCOTUS: Coalition Letter

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: Holding Out Against Cameras at the Supreme Court

National Constitution Center: Justices’ Comments Cast More Doubts on Supreme Court Cameras 

USA Today: Justices Rock it on the Road, If You Can Find Them

Blaze: New Push to Get Video Cameras in Supreme Court

NPR: Once Under Wraps, Supreme Court Audio Trove Now Online

Slate: Punch and Judge Judy

Tampa Bay Times: Sotomayor No Longer Favors Video Cameras at Supreme Court

CNN: Supreme Court Agrees to Take on Same-Sex Marriage Issue

Slate: Supreme Court Justices Are Not Really Judges

Daily Signal: Public Opinion and the Supreme Court

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Televised Trials: Should Cameras Be Allowed in the Supreme Court? appeared first on Law Street.

United States Central Command (CentCom) reported today that its social media accounts had been hacked by people claiming to be from ISIS. CentCom, part of the Department of Defense, has played a main role in recent conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and others. Based in Tampa, Florida, it’s responsible for American security interests in more than 20 different nations. Here’s what the account looked like before it was suspended:

DEVELOPING: CENTCOM’S Twitter account appears hacked http://t.co/TYVHIsjUN1 (Twitter screenshot) pic.twitter.com/FS8AFYRGjO

— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) January 12, 2015

Whoever hacked the account posted threatening messages to American troops such as “AMERICAN SOLDIERS, WE ARE COMING, WATCH YOUR BACK. ISIS.” There was also a tweet that linked to a longer statement that included:

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, the CyberCaliphate under the auspices of ISIS continues its CyberJihad. While the US and its satellites kill our brothers in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan we broke into your networks and personal devices and know everything about you.

You’ll see no mercy infidels. ISIS is already here, we are in your PCs, in each military base. With Allah’s permission we are in CENTCOM now. We won’t stop! We know everything about you, your wives and children. U.S. soldiers! We’re watching you!

ISIS propaganda photos were also posted on CentCom’s YouTube page. Its Facebook page, however, appears to be untouched. Central Command has confirmed that its accounts have been compromised.

The hacking occurred while President Barack Obama was delivering a speech to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) about cyber security. As of now, however, the only thing that the White House has said is that they’re “obviously looking into” the breach.

Most concerning of all, whoever hacked the accounts claimed that they had also gotten access to confidential information from CentCom, although that’s yet to be confirmed, and Defense officials have said that they don’t believe any information was taken. Some of the posts linked to documents, but those documents could have been found on Pentagon websites, among other places. They’re surely a far cry from damaging confidential information.

This comes less than a day after “hactivist” group Anonymous declared war on the organization.

Cyberwar has become a real issue, and it appears that no one is completely safe.

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 ISIS Supporters Hack US Central Command Online Accounts appeared first on Law Street.

I am a Libertarian.

Well, I think I’m a Libertarian, and I believe that this is in the same sense that I used to think I was a feminist. (I am definitely a feminist.) But everyone’s idea of what being a Libertarian actually means is still evolving.

The other day, I made this confession of politics to my roommate who is very much a Democrat. (My other roommate is a self-proclaimed Communist–it’s a very interesting household.) He responded, “Oh, so you’re one of those people who doesn’t give a shit what anybody does as long as it doesn’t affect you?” We laughed because he was joking, but it did make me think.

I’ve heard people use the word Libertarian as a replacement for Tea Party (um, no) and in association with Ron Paul (um, yes!). That’s pretty much it for references in daily life, other than the stray notion during the 2012 election that there was this mysterious third party on the fringes of society that could maybe be something someday but probably not because two-party system AM I RIGHT?

So let’s have a chat about what this term really means.

And I’ll go ahead and place my disclaimer here: I’m still learning about Libertarianism (as I think the vast majority of society is). Just as there are nuances for Republicans and Democrats (yes there are), what I think about this party won’t align perfectly with every party member.

Wanting this to be more than what the party means to me, I started where everyone seems to start in 2014–a quick Google search. The first result was the party website. Okay, I thought, this is an excellent sign. If they didn’t have a website, I might have to rethink some things.

The first thing I saw on the website was the party slogan (who knew?), which is “Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom.” Even though these are my beliefs in a grossly oversimplified form, I still started to panic. Is this crazy? Is this a viable point of view? Then, I panicked a little more when I saw the link to a quick political quiz, which asked, “Are you a Libertarian?” I… I don’t know anymore. Am I? Is my whole system of belief a sham? (I imagined the website asking me in an intimidating, booming voice. I don’t know why.)

Well, I took the quiz and easily landed in the little Libertarian sector. My results didn’t show perfect 100 percent Libertarianism, but that wasn’t what I was expecting. (Side note: The quiz is literally ten questions, I highly recommend it just because it’s interesting.)

Having reaffirmed my party choice, I started to explore its values. First, let’s revisit the slogan. While to me “Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom” sounds heavy-handed, “We Should Reduce the Size of Government so Citizens can Have the Utmost Freedom and Control Over Their Own Lives Except When They Need to be Protected from Unjust Harm” just doesn’t have the same snappy ring to it. I would consider “Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative” a strong contender, but it’s probably a bad idea to create a party identity that relies on other parties’ definitions.

Then they have this excellent little table that shows the differences between Libertarians, Democrats, and Republicans; however, it’s a little smart-ass-y and doesn’t go into further details, so I’ll explain a few of these that I think exemplify key Libertarian traits.

On education: “Return control to parents, teachers, and local communities.” Essentially, Libertarians believe education shouldn’t be standardized (or, in my belief, as standardized) so a teacher can find what works for his or her classroom. In addition, not all teaching responsibility should be laid on the school system, as learning starts at home. I realize that one can’t count on all parents to value their child’s education (which is a sentence that makes my heart sad), but right now we’re talking about party ideals, not the complexities of execution.

On the war on drugs: “End it! Release non-violent prisoners. Allow medical cannabis.” Why are we spending taxpayer dollars incarcerating someone who wanted to smoke a little weed? Plus, there’s a grievous sentencing disparity in drug-related crimes. Ignoring the racial aspect of drug arrests (because that’s a whole other blog post), punishment for drug offenses is often just plain excessive. As of January of this year, at least 25 people were serving or had served life in prison for selling pot–and not all were at the top of distribution, either. Life. In. Prison. For a nonviolent crime. While rapists and murderers get released. Let me tell you, I would much rather have someone try to sell me drugs than rape or murder me. And that goes for my hypothetical children, too (since the default argument is always “think of the children”). In addition, if medical marijuana can ease a patient’s discomfort (especially in terminal or very series cases), why would we say no? All pharmaceutical drugs used to treat patients come with risks, too. Quite frankly, I’m a little surprised the chart doesn’t just say legalize marijuana use, but maybe that’s still just a little too radical to put on an entire party’s platform.

On military spending: “Reduce spending dramatically. Defense, not offense.” It’s worth noting that these idealistic cuts in military spending come with cuts pretty much across the board. Libertarians aren’t antimilitary, they just aren’t imperialists. Let’s stay out of other countries unless invited or needed to ensure our own welfare. I agree this gets tricky when atrocities are happening abroad, and I’m all for lending a helping hand in theory, but it’s also not quite kosher to storm another country in the name of help at the cost of hundreds or thousands of lives that get caught in the crossfire.

On taxes: “End the income tax. Abolish the IRS. Never raise taxes.” I realize a good portion of readers just rolled their eyes, and I get it, I really do. I’m not sure if we could ever even get to a point where the IRS could be abolished. But I do firmly believe that our tax system is broken, quite possibly beyond repair. And I think if we can’t end the income tax, it should at least be drastically reduced. I would be a lot more comfortable giving my money to the government if they could manage it responsibly, but they just haven’t proven that yet.

This was a central idea Ron Paul expressed when he came to my alma mater, the University of Missouri — Columbia. I wish I could quote him directly, but it was in 2012. Although this was a nearly spiritual experience for me because it was the first time I heard a politician speak and my views aligned accordingly, I can’t quote the Bible, either. However, Ron Paul did a great interview with Charlie Rose in which he defines Libertarianism as nonintervention.

Note: During the video they make the association with the Tea Party again. I still deny this. Maybe there’s something I don’t get about the Tea Party, but these are still two distinctive groups as I understand them. Maybe the Tea Party is the more socially conservative cousin of Libertarianism?

Now, just because I love Ron Paul doesn’t mean I agree with 100 percent of what he says, but I thought this video contained a lot of really good explanatory moments, as well as a few that would need to be elaborated on or revised completely.

I would say one of the biggest concerns about Libertarianism is that it is idealistic. In an ideal world, people wouldn’t need to be policed. But we don’t live there, and I get that. That’s where compromise comes in. I am all for having some standards in education, and I think even if it’s a personal choice to do meth, there are a lot of social, environmental, and safety risks to its production and use. To me, the point of Libertarianism is pushing the government out of where they aren’t needed and reforming the areas where the government is needed to heal a broken system. Stop creating laws to repeal laws–just abolish the unnecessary or archaic ones. Simplify taxes to where an average human can understand them. Don’t tell a group of people they can’t get married so you don’t have to justify your values to your children.

Maybe this third party is just a way for me to rebel against an infuriating system, but maybe the system as it stands is something worth rebelling against.

Kelsey Kennedy

Kelsey Kennedy is a freelance editor with degrees in Magazine Journalism and Performance Theatre from the University of Missouri, Columbia (MIZ!). When she isn’t out exploring New York, she loves getting far too invested in characters on the page, stage, and screen. She ultimately wants to make a difference in the world and surround herself with creative people. Contact Kelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post I’m a Libertarian, and You Just Might Be Too appeared first on Law Street.

The ability to filibuster has long been an important tool for the United States Senate and some state legislative bodies. But some worry that it leads to unnecessary delay and a stop to productivity. Read on to learn about the development of the filibuster, its uses, and its abuses.

What is a filibuster?

In the Senate the general rule is that a Senator may speak for literally as long as he or she is physically able to do so.  When a Senator realizes that his or her position regarding a potential act of Congress is a minority one, the filibuster allows prolonging that debate indefinitely or using other dilatory tactics in order to prevent Congress from voting against that position.  Any bill can be subject to two potential filibusters. A filibuster on a motion to proceed to the bill’s consideration, and a filibuster on the bill itself. The typical practical effect of this tactic is that Congress will usually move on to other business for expediency’s sake if a filibuster is threatened on a controversial bill. Filibustering is generally very difficult if the proposed action is not controversial.

However, a filibuster in the U.S. Senate can be defeated by a procedure called cloture. Cloture allows the Senate to end a debate about a proposed action if three-fifths of available Senators concur.  After cloture has been initiated, debate on that bill continues for an additional thirty hours with the following restrictions:

• No more than thirty hours of debate may occur.
• No Senator may speak for more than one hour.
• No amendments may be moved unless they were filed on the day in between the presentation of the petition and the actual cloture vote.
• All amendments must be relevant to the debate.
• No other matters may be considered until the question upon which cloture was invoked is disposed of.

This process prevents filibustering from being used by a minimal number of Senators to obstruct bills that the vast majority of Congress wants to pass. However, cloture has drawbacks. It is difficult to implement because it often requires bipartisan support in order to get three-fifths of Senators to vote for it. It also takes time to implement because it must be ignored for a full day after it is presented. Finally, it requires a quorum call before voting so a large enough group of Senators can further delay voting by being absent so that a quorum is no longer present.

One of the most recent filibusters in the US Senate was conducted by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY):

Paul filibustered for nearly 13 hours, which is impressive. The longest Senate filibuster ever recorded was by Strom Thurmond, who filibustered for 24 hours and eighteen minutes.

What’s the argument for getting rid of filibusters?

Proponents of eliminating the Senate’s ability to filibuster argue that filibustering is childish and prevents proper resolution of disagreements about proposed bills. Filibustering allows belligerent legislators to seek acquiescence rather than compromise. When a filibuster is threatened, proponents of a bill may accept amendments to the bill that they do not favor in order to end debate. Even worse, double filibusters can make passing some bills much more time consuming. Moreover, filibusters can create dire consequences for bills that are proposed in time-sensitive circumstances e.g. when the fiscal budget is near expiration and voting is obstructed in order to advance policy interests.

What’s the argument for keeping the ability to filibuster?

Opponents of ending filibustering argue that the maneuver is necessary to preserve the fair representation and consideration of minority views. Without it, a simple majority could pass oppressive restrictions and hardship onto the minority and there would be no recourse against a duly passed law. The filibuster has been used to protect the rights of minorities in this country for a long time. The Senate was designed to ensure that the public’s representation in the decisionmaking process is not entirely controlled by the whims of the majority so that the power dynamic between majority and minority interests did not render the minority intrinsically powerless.

Recent Developments in Filibusters

In 2013, the power of the filibuster hit a road bump. The Senate voted to eliminate the possibility of using the filibuster on federal executive and judicial nominees (excluding Supreme Court nominees). This move was called the “nuclear option,” and it meant that it would just require a simple majority of Senators in order to move forward on confirmation votes. There were many Obama administration appointees stuck in a limbo because they could not get Senate approval.

168 filibusters of nominees in our history. HALF of them have occurred during Obama years! pic.twitter.com/xbQfsftLGm

— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) November 21, 2013

While the nuclear option was an unprecedented change that will have real effect on the confirmation process for a long time to come, it only affects cloture and filibuster situations in that particular context.

Conclusion

The filibuster has, for many years, played an important role in the American legislative process. But in the United States’ current condition of hyper-partisanship, it may no longer make sense for the filibuster to hold such a strong pull. Filibustering was created to allow the minority to be able to speak on issues that they feel strongly about — but when does the minority abuse that power to take the majority hostage? The Democrats’ 2013 choice to invoke the “nuclear option” may end up being the first in many changes we see to the filibuster moving forward.

Resources

Primary 

Federalist Papers: No. 62

Additional

Fire Dog Lake: The Filibuster Should be Traded for Eliminating Lifetime Judicial Appointments

Moyers and Company: Larry Cohen on Eliminating the Filibuster

Think Progress: The Filibuster is Bad

Salon: 5 Reasons to Kill the Filibuster

American Prospect: Let’s Shutdown the Filibuster

American Prospect: Don’t Eliminate the Filibuster, Restore It

Real Clear Politics: The Filibuster is a Good Thing

Campaign for Liberty: Filibusters: Good For Restraining Government

Harvard Political Review: In Defense of the Filibuster

Washington Post: Talking Filibusters Are Good For Democracy

How Stuff Works: How a Filibuster Works

Daily Banter: Our Guide to the Filibuster: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Atlantic: If You’d Like a Good, Clean Explanation of the Filibuster Disaster

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Senate Filibuster: On Its Way Out? appeared first on Law Street.

The bone-chilling, stomach-churning sounds of a knife tearing through human flesh followed by the camera panning over a decapitated corpse lying in a pool of the blood that once sustained it played on the screen. Yet, following this savage montage of brutality, no credits rolled. Those nauseating and disturbing sounds were not fabricated in a Hollywood studio. Those haunting images, permanently tattooed into the viewer’s mind, were not created with fake blood and body parts.

The most recent video released by the Muslim extremist group ISIS is a jarring demonstration of the sheer brutality going on in the Middle East today. Immediately after viewing this heinous, offensive act, it took awhile for the feeling to return to my numbed face. I felt as if I had received a massive blow to my gut. Once I could wrap my mind around what I had just seen and the revelation that yes, this was real, I was overcome by a tidal wave of emotion. Rage, sadness, and helplessness were just the tip of the iceberg of what I felt.

After discovering more about the man who was mercilessly slaughtered for all to see as a warning to the United States and its allies, I became even more outraged. Alan Henning was a father of two and dedicated husband from England who had traveled to Syria to partake in aid work. The injustice of his death astounded me. I simply cannot imagine the depth of grief his family is feeling right now, and will continue to feel for the remainder of their lives. I was struck with the revelation that this is exactly how ISIS wanted the viewers of this murder to feel.

Then the questions began swirling dizzyingly in my mind. Why is ISIS committing these unforgivable acts of barbaric violence? In a recent article, Britain’s Telegraph provided insights into the psychological motivation for such public brutality. First on the list is the dissuasive power of fear. One of the reasons the Iraqi people have withheld from engaging ISIS in battle, the article purports, is the sheer element of extreme violence utilized by ISIS fighters. The article makes the insightful inquiry, “which poorly paid soldier wishes to risk decapitation, impalement, or amputation for the sake of a distant, crumbling government? Fear is a uniquely effective weapon.”

Additionally, the members of the Islamic state feel that the United States and its allies will be equally deterred from engaging in militant action against them if it means its citizens will meet such an abhorrent fate. But honestly, I cannot imagine that its enemies ceasing their attempts at military interference would halt ISIS’ streak of terror.

The last point made by the author of the article explains why the murder of an individual rather than a large population affects us so much. Selecting a single person via a methodical, calculated process produces a means of propaganda not likely to be forgotten, which is the nature of terrorist acts. With the detonation of a bomb, the deaths are numerous and quick and lack a specific individual target. Although deaths by any means of violence are horrific, acts of beheading are chilling and terrifying in that they are a complete desecration of the body by the hand of another human.

However, when addressing the effectiveness or lack thereof of these acts, the article points out that they often backfire entirely. When my eyes beheld the merciless slaughter of an innocent man by the ISIS executioner, I was anything but turned to sympathy for their cause. It merely deepened the chasm of my anger and hatred for their “cause,” if you can even call it that. It made me realize the gravity of the challenge imposed by the extremist group in terms of its defeat. By demonstrating the lack of humanity possessed by its members, ISIS has hurled coals into the already blazing fire of animosity and antipathy bore by its enemies.

Has ISIS learned nothing from its predecessors? Engaging in brutal violence that clearly knows no bounds was one of the major downfalls of al-Qaeda. I desire one thing to be the response to the question posed by the article in the Telegraph, “the modern jihadist’s dilemma: when does a strategy of calibrated terror turn into a self-defeating orgy of violence?” I hope that their “strategy” brings about their downfall before anyone else falls victim to it. No child should have to lose a parent, no one should have to lose a dedicated friend, and no innocent person should perish at the hands of hate.

Watching the brutal killing of this man grounded, humbled, outraged, and upset me in ways I never could have imagined. I would never wish my worst enemy to see the video. The menacing voice of the executioner, the sounds of the beheading itself, and the final words of the victim will forever echo in my mind. The images I beheld are forever seared into my retinas. Now, my passionate desire to see the end of violence in the Middle East is stronger than it ever was.

Marisa Mostek

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

The post ISIS: The Mentality of Madness appeared first on Law Street.

If there’s one thing most Americans can agree on it’s that our education system is in dismal shape. A big chunk of that comes from the fact that our public schools have not, in some places, been able to provide students who come from low-income families with the resources that they so desperately need to be successful. One proposed way to fix this for at least some students is to institute a system of school vouchers. The idea of such programs has been heavily debated and discussed for decades. Read on to learn about school voucher programs and both sides of the debate.

What are school vouchers?

Vouchers parents to send their children schools outside of those assigned to them by location. These schools are often described as more innovative charter schools than are found in the traditional public system or private schools. Use of school vouchers varies throughout the United States, with some programs run at the state level, and others at the city level. Some notable long-lasting programs include those launched in Milwaukee in 1990, and Cleveland in 1995.

What is the argument in favor of school vouchers?

Providing families with more choices about how to raise their children is a staple of the American way and the voucher system would give control to parents to select the school that is best for their child. Vouchers would also allow children in low-income areas to escape the vicious cycle of poverty and go to a higher quality school so that they can get a better education. Additionally, private school vouchers would create direct competition between private schools and public schools and the competition will force all institutions to better themselves in an effort to attract students.

What is the argument against school vouchers?

For all the potential benefits that could come if state and local governments provided school vouchers, the policy also has notable flaws.  Opponents argue first and foremost that private school vouchers compromise the integrity of the entire public school system. The government operates public schools, yet it also incentivizes families to avoid them.  The conflicts of interest in this scenario makes it seem ineffective. Any public funding that goes to school vouchers is money that could have been spent improving the public school system, which cannot improve without support and investments from the government. Opponents also argue that many private schools are religiously affiliated and school vouchers provided by the government is essentially taxpayer funding of religious institutions.

How do school vouchers hold up in court?

The constitutionality of school vouchers has been heard in several court cases. Cleveland launched its program in 1995 in response to the city’s dismal public schools; however, because Cleveland’s program allowed students to use the vouchers to attend private schools with religious affiliations, the program was almost immediately the subject of lawsuits. Eventually, the question made it all the way to the Supreme Court in the 2002 case Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. In Zelman, the plaintiffs argued that the case violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which provides for the separation of religion and state. The court ruled that the vouchers could remain, because even though the religious schools were receiving government funding, the purpose of the vouchers was compelling and there were non-religious options possible. In addition, the program didn’t go to the religiously-based schools, but rather the parents and students who needed the aid, and the program didn’t proselytize or advocate for the religiously-run schools.

Case Study: Milwaukee Public Schools

Vouchers have been an option for students since the early 1990s, but whether or not the implementation has been effective is still up for debate. Thousands of students in Milwaukee take advantage of the voucher program, and like in Cleveland, many do end up in religiously-run institutions. The main question is whether or not it has worked.

The consensus seems to be: sort of. Evidence from the 2012-2013 school year shows that students in Milwaukee’s voucher program are not outscoring their public school peers as a whole on state tests. That sounds disheartening, and would seem to indicate that vouchers have been a failure, but there’s some evidence to suggest that the picture requires more digging than that. The voucher students have, in fact, scored better than their low-income public school peers. Also, test scores in the Milwaukee voucher program have on the rise, perhaps indicating that the program is on the right track.

Conclusion

The voucher system is a creative solution to a debilitating problem in the American education system — particularly in some of our low-income public schools. The argument for vouchers includes the ability for parents and students to inject more choice into their education — hopefully creating more competitive school systems. In practice, however, it hasn’t necessarily worked out to that way. They’re also expensive, and could lead to public schools receiving less funding in the name of creating stronger charter schools. While some students may receive a better education, students as a whole population are left in a worse position. What’s indubitable is that we’re really not sure about the ultimate effects of vouchers yet as there’s no nationwide system to study.

Resources

Primary

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction: School Choice Programs

Cornell University Law School: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Additional

World Bank: How Do School Vouchers Help Improve Education Systems?

PBS: The Case For Vouchers

NJ.com: Christie Tours Pro-Vouchers, Anti-Union Message in Philadelphia

Washington Post: Are School Vouchers Losing Steam?

Carnegie Mellon University: Estimating the Effects of Private School Vouchers in Multidistrict Economies

Education Next: The Impact of School Vouchers on College Enrollment

WRAL.com: Voucher Bill Provides Public Money For Private School

Anti-Defamation League: School Vouchers: The Wrong Choice For Public Education

Americans United For Separation of Church and State: 10 Reasons Why Private School Vouchers Should Be Rejected

Sameer Aggarwal

Sameer Aggarwal was a founding member of Law Street Media and he is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Sameer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Vouchers: Are They Worth It? appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine this: The year is 2024 and there are humans living on Mars. Sounds like a chapter right out of a sci-fi novel, but this is a real mission that will officially launch ten years from now. In 2011, co-founders Bas Lansdorp and Arno Wielders came together to start a Netherlands-based non-profit organization with the mission of conceptualizing plans for establishing a permanent human colony on Mars. They collaborated with aerospace organizations in the USA, Canada, Italy, and the United Kingdom to solidify a plan. Click here to view a full list of suppliers. In April 2013, a press conference was held in both New York and Shanghai to launch the mission into action.

Click here to view the history of Mars One:

Mars One: The Basics

Applications Process

Starting in 2013, applicants were able to apply to be a part of the one-way mission. Every year a new batch of astronauts will join the group and begin the eight-year training process before the departure to Mars. There are five traits that the Mars One mission deems vital in its astronaut selection: “Resiliency, adaptability, curiosity, ability to trust, and creativity/resourcefulness.” Applicants must be free of both health and mental illness, as well as possess an adequate level of physical fitness.There are four rounds to the astronaut selection process. The first round begins with the submission of an online application. The application will consist of a letter to Mars One, which will include a resume and one-minute video outlining the candidate’s reasons for applying. If selected to proceed to round two, applicants must submit a record of medical health. After the committee reviews the documents, applicants will meet with the selection committee. Round three will incorporate a reality show aspect in which 20-40 candidates will participate in challenges to test their ability to survive on Mars. The selection process will be aired on television and the internet, and will conclude with the selection of one astronaut per region. The rest of the applicants will be selected by the Mars One committee. On the Mars One website, videos of applicants and supporters are open for the public to view.

Training

The training for the first group of applicants will begin in 2015. To prepare for a life on Mars, trainees will be kept in groups of four (to simulate their mission group) and will learn how to become self-sufficient in an isolated environment. Astronauts will go through three phases of training, including technical, personal, and group. At least two people from every group must be fluent in technical training, which will consist of the knowledge of medical equipment, geological studies, and exobiology (the study of alien life). Other specialties will include physiotherapy, psychology, and electronics. As the population on Mars increases, each person will bring more individual expertise to the community, and training time may be decreased accordingly. Personal training will focus on the astronaut’s ability to survive the psychologically straining components of this new environment and lifestyle. Group training consists of simulating life on Mars. Astronauts will learn to grow crops, retrieve water, and maintain their life support systems.

Cost and Finance

Mars One is a nonprofit, non-governmental funded project. It receives funding via donations, contributions from sponsors, and the sale of Mars One merchandise. The estimated cost of the project is roughly $6 billion.

1. Click here to see a full list of sponsors.
2.  Donations can be made on Mars One website.
3. Merchandise can be bought on the Mars One website.

Regulations and Policies

Basic Necessities

Astronauts will reside in living units that produce oxygen; they will grow their crops for food and water will be extracted from the soil and put through a treatment process. Astronauts will reside in inflatable living tanks that will be filled with breathable oxygen, and will eliminate Carbon Dioxide from the unit. Each astronaut will have 20 m3 of personal living space. According to Mars One, “this system will be very similar to those units (that) are fully functional on board the International Space Station.”

Communication

Astronauts can communicate with family and friends on earth via text, voice, or video. Connection can take up to 20 minutes, so direct phone calls are not a practical form of communication.

Technology

Astronauts will have access to television and internet with a three-minute delay from Earth. Astronauts must request a certain broadcast in advance, so that it can be uploaded to the server.

Government

The astronauts will also have to spend time configuring a system of organization for their colony. They will have the responsibility of deciding on a democratic set of rules to appease the community and help avoid chaos or, in the worst case, a demise of the colony. There will be no religion to dictate principles; decision making will be based on the individual’s system of ethics and free choice.

Reproduction

As of now, the policy on conception states that pregnancy is not advised. Scientists are unsure if the conditions — gravity in particular — is conducive to pregnancy. According to Mars One, the issue of retaining the society’s population count will have to be researched more in depth in later years.

Is Mars One Ethical?

A One-Way Trip 

At this point, astronauts who decide to partake in this project will not be coming back to earth. This means that if conditions fail to meet the astronaut’s expectations, they do not have the choice to abort the mission and return. “All those emigrating will do so because they choose to.” Also, astronauts will go through extensive training to ensure that they know what to expect. They have the option to abandon the mission at any point before departure. Mars One ensures that they will attempt to offer the highest quality of life as possible.

Roles on Mars

Mars One assumes that the astronauts will naturally figure out a system of governance. Is it ethical to send people to space with no structured code of governance or appointed officials? Naturally, roles of the colony will evolve based on factors such as personality, intelligence, and physical strength; yet with no strict system, there is no way of telling how the colony dynamics will develop. This poses an ethical issue regarding the safety and happiness of the individuals involved. This issue will have to be addressed once the astronauts establish themselves.

Space Law

Not only is there a question of ethics regarding the colonization of Mars, but we also have to ponder the legal aspect. Generally speaking, Mars One will not violate any legal standing regarding international space law. According to nhbar.org, one fundamental principle of international space law is “that all nations are free to conduct scientific investigation in space.” The plan for 2024 to colonize Mars is experimental; and as long as it remains free of a military presence and does not have a negative impact on the environments of Earth or Mars, it broadly falls in the confines of international space law.

The Outer Space Treaty: Environment

According to nhbar.org, “The Outer Space Treaty obligates States to preserve the environment of outer space in the course of their activities.” In a statement from Mars One, they outline the steps they will take to ensure an environmentally safe project: “Mars One will take specific steps to ensure that the Mars environment will not be harmed. The Mars base will be forced to recycle just about everything, and pay close attention to its energy use and minimize the leakage of materials and energy.” Currently, Mars One ambassadors are speaking with the ICSU Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) to decide how they will successfully protect Mars’ environment. There are currently two major components that will help to protect the environment of Mars:

1. Solar panels will be installed  in 3000 square meters of power-generating surface area.
2. Production and recycling of water and oxygen will be a mandatory practice for astronauts to follow on Mars.

Legal Responsibility

According to Mars One, “Mars One is a private and not a governmental initiative.” This statement does not necessarily protect state actors from legal responsibility; yet, where the sole duty lies is unclear at this time. In the case of Beattie v. U.S., the courts noted in the Outer Space Treaty that “the basic principle is that in the sovereignless reaches of outer space, each State party to the Outer Space Treaty will retain jurisdiction over its own objects and persons.” The project is a “Dutch-based” nonprofit initiative, and is funded by 94 countries worldwide. Mars One is a non-governmental multi-national collaboration; and although one nation may not claim sovereignty to a celestial body, they may be  liable for damage or misconduct in space. If the Outer Space Treaty and international space law is violated, who will be held accountable? Since the project is independent, yet funded internationally, where will legal action be directed if there are violations of international space law? Does this mean that space law has to be updated to accommodate where the responsibility lies? At this time the legality of Mars One remains unclear due to the unique nature of the project.

Legal Protection

Another issue that the Mars One team fails to address is the legal structure on Mars itself. Currently, the astronauts are held responsible for the creation of a government body upon their arrival on Mars; the future colonized Mars is to be collaborative and democratic, yet who will enforce this newly conquered planet’s young and weak system? Who will be prosecuted if there are faults in the general system? Are astronauts held responsible for their actions in space under the laws that govern earth, and if so, whose laws will govern them? Are these astronauts signing away their souls to space research, and lacking any legal protections? According to Mars One, “Mars One identifies two major risk categories: the loss of human life and cost overruns.” The astronauts are agreeing to enter a potentially dangerous situation where there is no law to serve as a buffer between them and a potentially life-threatening situation for the sake of science. There is little stability in terms of a governmental and legal system on Mars, and to trust a small group of average citizens to form an effective operating society seems to be a disaster waiting to erupt.

To hear more from co-founder Bas Lansdorp click here for a full interview.

Resources

Primary 

Mars One: Homepage

Additional

New Hampshire Bar Journal: International Space Law: An Overview of Law and Issues

CTV News: The New Space Pioneers

ABC: Company Offer One-Way Trip to Mars

NBC News: Mars One Pares Down Its List of Red Planet Settlers to 705

MSN: Private Mars One Colony Project: 705 Astronaut Candidates Pass Latest Cut

Huffington Post: On Mars, Who’s in Charge?

Washington Post: Would you Take a one-way Ticket to Mars?

CNN: NASA: Yes, Mars Could Have Hosted Life?

University of Nebraska–Lincoln: The Treaty on Rescue and Return of Astronauts and Space Objects

—

Madeleine Stern (@M3estern) is a student at George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Kevin Dooley via Flickr]

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mankind is Mars-Bound: All the Facts on Mars One appeared first on Law Street.

Attention public workers: Due to legal precedent, the Supreme Court may not be willing to protect your job if you’re forced to testify against your employer.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments April 28 in Lane v. Franks, in which Edward Lane, an Alabama state employee, is suing his employer, who he says fired him after he testified against the agency several years ago. The case poses a serious question: does freedom of speech protect public employees from being fired after exposing harmful practices by their employer?

In 2008 and 2009, Lane was subpoenaed to testify in a public corruption case in which his testimony was key in exposing corrupt practices and spurred a major overhaul of the state’s ethics codes. Despite all of that, Lane ultimately harmed himself with his testimony: he was fired from his position as an employee at Central Alabama Community College.

Precedent set in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) likely won’t help Lane’s case. In Garcetti, the Supreme Court ruled that there is a difference between speaking as a public employee and as a citizen, and that when people issue statements about their duties and roles in a public position they are not speaking as an average citizen and therefore they are not protected by freedom of speech. Because of that distinction, public employees cannot be guarded from the disciplinary procedures of their employers.

The Supreme Court should overturn Garcetti v. Ceballos and protect public workers’ free speech — here are three reasons why:

1. Public institutions must be held accountable for their actions.

During oral arguments in Lane v. Franks, Justice Sotomayor asked, “What are you doing about the truth­ finding functions [in a trial] setting when you’re saying or telling people, employees, don’t go and tell the truth because if the truth hurts your employer, you’re going to be fired?” As the justice points out, ruling that employees are not protected by the first amendment when exposing truthful problems about their employer can lessen the degree to which public institutions can be held accountable for improper actions. If the court rules against Lane, public employees, who have the most knowledge of the inner workings of their organizations will be silenced and will not continue to expose the wrongdoings of public institutions. If public employees cannot speak up and tell the truth about these problems, it’s unlikely that we’ll be able to fix the faults in our public institutions.

2. Public and private employees will be treated differently.

If the Supreme Court’s differentiation between rights of free speech between citizens and public employees is upheld, the U.S. will effectively treat public and private employees differently. Private employees will be treated as ‘citizens’ and will be guaranteed freedom of speech in exposing their employer’s unlawful practices, while public employees will not be given this right. The fact that some, but not all, employees will have freedom of speech is discriminatory and unjust. All American citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech no matter their race, religion, or gender — and this should include type of employment.

3. Subpoenaed public employees have no choice but to testify.

If the court rules against Lane, public employees may have to choose between their jobs and a legal battle. Lane was subpoenaed to testify against Central Alabama Community College. This means it was mandated that he appear before the court to give his testimony, and failing to do so would have put him in serious legal trouble. Additionally, it is against the law to lie under oath, and if Lane had been subpoenaed to testify but issued false statements to protect his employment, he would also face legal charges. This presents a lose-lose situation for public employees. If subpoenas require a citizen’s testimony in court, public employees should not be faulted for following the law. Being forced to testify should not enable one to be fired.

When such important cases can affect the lives of so many Americans, the justices have a duty to make a sound and reasoned decision. But will they be able to do so if some of them can’t recall their own previous decisions? Justice Kennedy, who wrote the Garcetti opinion, couldn’t believe why a subpoenaed testimony wouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment. In order to give justice to Lane and other public employees, the court needs to pay attention to how their earlier decisions can affect later outcomes.

[Washington Post] [ABA Journal] [NPR]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Daderot via Wikimedia Commons]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post 3 Reasons Why the Supreme Court Must Protect Public Workers appeared first on Law Street.

Until recently, everyone thought the Obama administration got away with targeting and killing an American citizen without any disclosure of the legal means that allowed this action to unfold. Now, a court ruling could change this, which draws attention to a very important question: How can we keep the President accountable?

In 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen declared a terrorist by US intelligence, was targeted and killed by a drone strike in Yemen. After committing this action, the government declined to reveal any documents detailing the decision and even their legal reasoning that explained why the President was able to authorize the killing of an American without a trial or due process of the law.

A suit was filed against the government by the ACLU and reporters from the New York Times. The case was brought to a US district court and was decided in January 2013. The decision came out in the government’s favor: the court ruled that the government did not have to release any of the requested information. District court judge Colleen McMahon, commenting on the court’s decision, stated that while she personally criticized Obama for failing to disclose the information, she felt that the court had no authority to force the administration to release any documents relevant to the situation.

However, the case was appealed, and on Monday April 21, 2014, the court of appeals for the 2nd circuit issued a ruling that overturned the lower court’s decision. The three judge panel on the bench of the court ruled that the government must release documents created by the Justice Deparment that describe the administration’s legal reasoning behind the authorization to commit the killing of al-Awlaki.

In the wake of the appeals’ court decision, two important question must be answered: How did the court justify this decision, and will this court ruling change the legal nature of presidential action?

The Court’s Reasoning

The appeals court’s main justification for its ruling was that since the Obama administration had publicly commented on the legal justification for killing al-Awlaki, the government can no longer refuse to disclose the official documents. Judge Jon Newman‘s opinion, joined by the other two appellate judges, explained that if the government makes public claims to convince the public that lawful actions were taken, the government has an obligation to prove those statements are true. The judge stated, “whatever protection the legal analysis might once have had has been lost by virtue of public statements of public officials at the highest levels and official disclosure of the DOJ White Paper.”

The decision also addressed the arguments against releasing the information. The government claimed that by being forced to reveal the documents and other information detailing the legal justification for al-Awlaki’s killing, other agencies will be more hesitant to seek the assistance of the Department of Justice, since they may fear the eventual release of private information used to consult with the DOJ. Refuting this argument, the court’s opinion highlighted the fact that smart officials representing agencies should be fully aware of publicly discussing the advice of the DOJ could result in the mandated disclosure of the legal information. Furthermore, as long as the agency makes no public statements about the assurance of the legality of actions taken with help from the DOJ’s legal advice, the information need not be revealed.

What implications will the ruling have on the operations of the President and the US government?

Keeping in mind the court’s rationale for ruling, the effect this decision could have on the future operations of the President and the government must be explored.

The good news is that the case showcases a way for the public to hold the President and the government accountable for his secret decisions. In a matter of killing an American citizen without due process of the law, the American people deserve to understand the reasoning behind the action. By declaring that the government loses its right to secrecy after publicly commenting on the supposed legality of its actions, the public has gained some recourse for finding transparency within government’s decisions.

But while the appellate court decision marks progress in keeping the President and government accountable, the ruling does not mean that the government must now release information on their reasoning behind every decision. It is important to remember that the court came to its decision after the President made public remarks on the legality of al-Awlaki’s killing. Therefore, while we can celebrate the appellate court’s decision, remember that this ruling is only a step in the right direction in providing more ways to keep the government accountable.

[The Atlantic] [POLITICO] [The Guardian]

—

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post A New Method to Keep the Government Accountable? appeared first on Law Street.

Thanks to petty politics, your local federal court may be lacking in the positions that it needs most to address citizens’ grievances: trial judges.

When it comes to federal court vacancies, the president has an obligation to respect senatorial courtesy, meaning that the president asks the senior senator of his political party to recommend a nominee for an open seat in the district court of his or her state. While this unwritten precedent usually does not extend to senators of the opposite political party, the president may also wish to consult senators of the other party so that their nomination is not blocked in the Senate, as senators have a de-facto power to veto nominees for a court in their home state.

However, many Republicans and even a few Democrats have begun a trend of failing to recommend nominees for vacancies on district court trial benches. These vacancies have significantly increased during Obama’s Presidency. By leaving seats in federal district courts unfilled, senators are undermining federal authority in the states. They are making a statement that demonstrates they would rather leave seats open than fill them with Obama’s appointees.

According to the Alliance for Justice, there are thirty-seven current vacancies and twenty-one future vacancies in federal courts around the country that currently have no nominees to fill these positions. The majority of these vacancies are in states that have at least one Republican senator. And these seats have been open for quite some time. The most extreme example comes from Texas, where one vacancy has been left unfilled for 1,951 days.

There are so many reasons why this trend is troubling, but I’ll attempt to explain just a few:

It’s giving states less federal oversight, and it undermines the rule of law.

By leaving the positions open, senators are effectively limiting federal jurisdiction over states. A lack of enough judges on the bench means that judges cannot handle the amount of cases brought to the court, which slows down rulings and therefore curtails the extent of federal authority over the presiding cases in these states. And states that are more conservative and have more Republican senators are experiencing more of this restriction on federal oversight than Democratic states.

But this policy goes against the rule of law in the United States. Indeed, there are certain matters that can and should be brought to state courts if there is no federal law involved or at stake. However, there are many cases that require a suit to be brought to federal court, and the fact that senators are intentionally leaving open seats on the benches of federal courts goes against the rule of law. Courts need a certain amount of justices to operate, and withholding nominations unjustly limits the power of the federal judiciary. Additionally, there should not be an uneven balance of federal oversight among states. Red states must experience as much federal oversight as blue states, otherwise the level of independence from the federal government of the different states will be unequal.

It’s a prime example of partisan politics at its worst.

As previously said, the majority of federal court vacancies are in states that have at least one Republican senator. Only eleven out of the total fifty-nine current and future vacancies with no nominees come from states with two Democratic senators. States with one Republican and one Democrat are having trouble coming to a consensus on a nominee. For example, Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey (R) and Bob Casey (D) had trouble working together to fill the eight open seats on Pennsylvania’s federal courts. The fact that political differences are now limiting the function of courts is concerning to the operation of government institutions.

Ultimately, it just hurts citizens.

When it comes down to it, the political move of leaving vacancies open hurts citizens and can deprive them of the right to receive speedy justice. Litigants will have wait for long periods of time before their case can be heard and ruled on. And some business is extremely important, such as immigration rulings. It is extremely unfair to keep citizens in limbo over cases that can impact their lives and futures.

While the senators who are neglecting to suggest nominates may feel they are protecting their states from federal judicial oversight, the reality is that they are actually failing to serve their constituents’ needs. They are depriving citizens of their right to court and failing to help them receive justice by blocking appointments. To many residents of the affected states, it doesn’t matter whether judicial appointments came from Bush or Obama; they simply need their cases to be heard. The vast amount of federal court vacancies shows the worst of how partisanship can negatively affect constituents.

Perhaps the most unfortunate part about this problem is that it won’t be solved unless citizens physically take action and rally outside court houses. Senators clearly need a reality check if they feel their methods are helping their constituents.

[The Atlantic] [Alliance for Justice] [Dallas News]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Sorry, Citizens: Senators Won’t Fill Court Vacancies appeared first on Law Street.

The Senate shot down debate on paycheck fairness 53-44 today. Sixty votes are necessary to overcome cloture on the matter. While Democrats and Republicans are using the issue as a political ploy for the midterm elections, there are American women who are waiting for their paychecks to become, if not equal to, as close as possible to the pay grade of their male counterparts. The actual act in question would have closed loopholes seen in the Equal Pay Act of 1963 that aimed to close the gap between male and female wages in the first place. This issue has been contentious for that long, and is not a modern phenomena.

What Congress was attempting to do with this new bill is protect employees from being punished for sharing salary information with their peers, a practice some businesses employ in order to avoid workplace unrest. Such a situation gave way to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which resets the 180-day statute of limitations on gender discrimination with each paycheck given to the aggrieved employee. On top of not being allowed to stop their employees from sharing their salary information, businesses have to show that the pay disparity between two employees is due to performance, and not their gender. Critics of the Paycheck Fairness Act claim that this would open floodgates for lawyers to litigate a slew of discrimination cases. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on Wednesday, “[T]his legislation would double down on job loss all while lining the pockets of trial lawyers.” Supporters may counter that the requirement for businesses to show the reasons behind pay disparity only clears up the situation and can strengthen the position of the employer.

While Congress is stuck debating paycheck fairness for women, the President took matters into his own hands yesterday with two executive orders. On the eve of news that New York City has a pay disparity of 88 cents for every dollar earned between women and men, President Barack Obama signed an executive order mandating that federal contractors report salaries by gender. The other executive order would make it easy for other agencies or contractors to access this data. “Pay secrecy fosters discrimination, and we should not tolerate it, not in federal contracting or anywhere else,” the President said as he signed the orders. Currently, the sound bite being spread around by politicians is that the wage gap between women and men is 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. According to the Pew Research Center, this only accounts for full-time workers. When you account for full-time and part-time workers, the wage gap is more likely to be 84 percent of what men earn, and the gap narrows even more for young women – 93 percent.

As the rhetorical war over paycheck fairness continues, pay attention to the hand-picked figures used by both parties in a year when a lot of Congressional jobs are on the line. Despite the various attempts at closing the wage gap between the two genders, it will be a long time before we see serious progress. As the Pew Research Center points out, women will have to work more in order to cover the gap — yet this does not account for maternity leave or the specific types of labor that skew toward a male demographic, such as construction and other labor-intensive tasks. One thing is clear — the debate is not over, even if it was shot down in Congress.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Martijn Schornagel via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paycheck Fairness Act Fails in the Senate appeared first on Law Street.

Get ready for even more money to enter politics. The Supreme Court overturned limits on federal political donations yesterday. In an election year in which every Representative and a third of the Senate is fighting to keep his or her job, expect this to be the year of record-breaking campaign donations. In a 5-4 decision along ideological lines, SCOTUS ruled that any caps and limitations on federal campaign donations are unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Whereas the infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling allowed for unlimited outside political spending by corporations, the outcome of McCutcheon v. FEC now expands unlimited contributions directly to politicians and their parties.

This does not mean that now every American can send in as much money as they want in a single check to their desired politician. An individual contribution in one check still stands at $2,600 per politico. What has been struck down, however, are the aggregate limitations per two-year cycle of $48,600 and $74,600 to candidates and parties, respectively. Now a donor has free reign in terms of the amount of checks they want to send within any given time frame.

In the majority ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. explained that even if there is popular sentiment that money corrupts the American political system, it is still protected under the First Amendment like other “repugnant” actions.

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects … If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas joined the Chief Justice in his majority opinion, with Clarence Thomas even going so far as suggesting all campaign contribution limits should have been struck down.

Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan signed onto Breyer’s dissent authoring the call that “[the ruling] creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or a candidate’s campaign … The methods for using today’s opinion to evade the law’s individual contribution limits are complex, but they are well known, or will become well known, to party fundraisers.”

The case was brought forth by plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama Republican and CEO of Coalmont Electrical Development. Explaining how he was injured by the campaign limits put forth by the Federal Election Commission in an editorial he authored for Politico, he said, “Somehow, I can give the individual limit, now $2,600, to 17 candidates without corrupting the system. But as soon as I give that same amount to an 18th candidate, our democracy is suddenly at risk.” By arguing the unconstitutionality of campaign finance limits, McCutcheon set himself up to be included alongside legal precedent – and with this ruling he has guaranteed his name in the history books.

But does striking down campaign finance rules under the guise of a healthy democracy truly achieve that aim? As Breyer pointed out in the dissent, allowing more money to flow into the political system can only hurt it more but disenfranchising those who do not donate to their elected official. A report by the Campaign Finance Institute points out that in 2012, the cost of winning a seat in the House chamber was nearly $1.6 million. It is even worse for the Senate, where nearly 10 times the amount, $10.35 million, is needed to win a seat in that chamber. The average voter does not have the same “purchasing power” behind their contributions, as the majority of contributions come from the wealthiest individuals through their companies and organizations. According to OpenSecrets, an organization dedicated to campaign finance transparency, those who give $200 to a politician, political action committee, or party committee only represent 0.12 percent of the United States population.

Pay attention to how politicians and their bases raise money, as it can be expected in this crucial midterm election year to break records for the amount raised and spent. With a Supreme Court more apt to protecting the right of individuals and corporations to donate as much as they would like as frequently as they would like, it would seem that we are on a road to limitless campaign contributions.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [dnkbdotcom via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What SCOTUS’ McCutcheon Decision Means for the Future of US Elections appeared first on Law Street.

The Obama Administration once again announced an extension of an Affordable Care Act deadline this week. For anyone who’s counting, we’re up to at least 11. This time it’s late signups for people who have technical problems that prohibit them from signing up by the March 31 deadline. If that’s you, you can now apply for an extension to mid-April by checking a box on the application. The Administration is trusting that you’ll abide by the honor system and will really only ask for an extension if you need it.

The President has issued many delays since the healthcare law was implemented. Here’s a brief recap:

• Starting in November 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services delayed for a month the decision to set up a federal exchange.
• In July 2013, the employer mandate was delayed. The statute originally imposed fines on businesses with more than 50 employees that do not offer health insurance. Now, no fines will be enforced in 2014.
• November 2013 saw two different delays — one for open individual enrollment in 2015, and the other being open enrollment for small businesses. A month later, the deadline to apply on the individual exchange was delayed twice in a row — first on November 12, and then November 24.
• High-risk pools (groups of people with pre-existing conditions who were uninsured) were slated to end January 1, 2014, but they were extended to March. As soon as we reached that deadline, it was extended yet again.
• The deadline for employers with 50 to 100 employees to offer healthcare was again delayed in February 2014 — they are now allowed to wait until 2016 to offer health insurance.

There is predictably criticism from Republicans ranging from the need to fix key parts of the law to repealing it outright. One suggestion is to repeal the tax on medical devices, a main revenue source for the Affordable Care Act, while others have called for an investigation looking into the constitutionality of the delays. Michael McConnell, quoted in the Washington Post, has said that the continuing deadline delays are blatantly illegal. “Statute does provide broad discretion, but unless there’s some explicit statutory authorization they don’t have the right not to do it … That’s the difference. Suspending and dispensing with statutes are equally impermissible.”

When it comes to allowing the executive branch to implement delays in the law, the main concern is over Congress’ role. Congress, the main federal legislative body, is supposed to take up these delays. By allowing the President to give out executive orders delaying legal statues, legislative jurisdiction becomes confused. Who, in fact, has the right to make these delays?

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Wikimedia]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is it Legal for the President, and not Congress, to Implement ACA Delays? appeared first on Law Street.

I can’t count how many times I’ve heard people complaining about ‘career politicians’. Many people feel that term limits can help fight against this trend by allowing new people to run for office. However, recently there has been talk of getting rid of term limits.

Governor LePage of Maine has brought the issue of term limits into the spotlight again. In a speech made on March 20, 2014, LePage stated that he wants to do away with the term limits imposed on Maine’s state legislators. He explained that they create an influx of “young people with firm agendas” and make legislators feel rushed. The Governor called for an overhaul of the legislation from 1993 that prohibited legislators from serving in office for more than four two-year terms. While LePage made these comments perhaps without any solid argument, the issue remains important. Term limits have come up in many political debates, and 15 states currently have some kind of term limit laws on the books.

So what are some real arguments for and against term limits, and are they valid?

1.Term Limits Give More Power to Lobbyists.

It has been argued that creating term limits for legislators only allows lobbyists to gain more influence over those in office. Because term limits can cause a loss of experienced legislators who have lived out their terms in office, there will be a greater number of newer and younger members of state assemblies and senates. Having less political experience, newer members of state legislatures could turn to lobbyists for expertise on certain issues, giving non-elected individuals power over the actions of legislators.

This argument does have some support; research by the National Conference of State Legislatures found that in their 2006 study, imposing term limits on state lawmakers did increase the influence of lobbyists and other non-elected individuals.

However, the same study also found that term limits also worked against the efforts of lobbyists. Term limits created shorter relationships between legislators and lobbyists. Additionally, the report noted that new legislators bound by term limits tended to be more suspicious of lobbyists. So, really it’s a mix bag theory. 

2. Term Limits Increase Diversity

Some believe that term limits are able to increase diversity among membership in state legislatures. It is known that incumbents have an extremely high likelihood of reelection, and this can preclude legislatures from increasing the number of women and minorities in public office. Instituting term limits, it is believed, can mitigate this problem by opening up more seats for candidates of different genders, ethnicities and backgrounds.

Despite this belief, it has not been proven that term limits are integral in increasing the diversity of state legislators. The 2006 National Conference of State Legislatures found no significant increase in diversity of state legislatures that had instituted term limits. While term limits may have opened up more seats in state houses and senates, the amount of diversity in state legislatures also depends upon the candidates running for office and their opportunities, which can affect who runs for and wins seats.

3. Term Limits Prevent Inefficiencies Like Big Spending.

Another myth is without them, there will inevitably be more inefficiencies in government like increased spending. The argument is that with term limits, the greater amount of newer legislators will have less tenure and therefore vote to reduce spending. This view was made popular in the 1990s when there was growing support for term limits. 

However, empirical evidence suggests there isn’t a real correlation between term limits and government spending. A study that compared the fiscal policies of the states showed that there were little differences in spending between the fourteen states with term limits and the rest of the states without term limits. The same study also found that states that repealed term limits did not significantly increase spending. Therefore, while theories suggest term limits may allow for a decrease in government spending, this hypothesis has not been proven true in practice.

So if arguments for and against term limits haven’t been validated, what’s the point?

If it has not been proven that the existence of term limits make a serious impact on the workings of state legislatures, should we continue to waste time worrying about whether or not to have term limits? I would argue that we shouldn’t.

In a day and age when so many districts are gerrymandered along party lines, does it really matter whether there is a new or old face representing a primarily Republican or Democrat district? And whether or not term limits are enacted into law or done away with, there hasn’t been any evidence suggesting that the amount of time a person can serve in a legislature truly makes an impact on how legislatures function. It’s understandable that people desire their representatives to be more accountable to citizens, but the implementation or deletion of term limits probably won’t fix that problem. Let’s stop worrying about term limits and focus greater attention on methods to increase the accountability of whomever sits in public office, whether they can continue to run for that office or not.

[Bangor Daily News] [Washington Post] [Legislative Quarterly]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Again, with Term Limits: Debunking 3 Myths in the Media appeared first on Law Street.

The GOP has really struggled over the last few years with how to woo the young demographic. Voters between 18-29 overwhelmingly voted for Obama in the last two Presidential elections — 66 and 60 percent in 2008 and 2012, respectively. Pundits have done analysis after analysis into the GOP’s young voter problem, and the conclusion is that…many young voters just don’t like the GOP’s message.

So, the GOP has tried to reach out to those wayward young voters, despite this fact. And that effort has created some hilarious results. Here are the top five weirdest ways the GOP has tried to attract young people…and whether or not they’re any good.

Let’s start with the most recent:

5. GOP Hipster Ads

A couple days ago, the GOP released these two ads:

They feature your friendly neighborhood hipster who’s here to tell you why he’s a Republican! There have already been a few parodies released, and to be honest, before I inserted those clips I had to make sure that those weren’t, in fact, parodies. These ads will air on networks that young voters, minorities, and women (all groups the GOP doesn’t do well with) frequent, such as Bravo, Food, E!, Hall, HGTV, Life, LMN, Oxygen, OWN, TLC and We.

Ok so here’s the thing about these ads. They depict a white, 20-something male, who is complaining because a lot of his paycheck goes to filling up his gas tank. But he has a gas tank to fill up. He has a paycheck. He can afford to pay his heating bill. As a white male he has probably faced very little discrimination in his life. He’s doing way better than most millennials. The entire ad campaign comes off as entitled, whiny, and alarmingly fake.

And as Gawker points out, the gas policies that he supposedly thinks will make his gas cheaper would actually probably just make energy companies richer and have no affect on his gas.

4. The one time the GOP tried Crowdsourcing 

One thing that the Democratic Party has always been good at is rallying young people online. So the GOP jumped on the bandwagon and tried crowdsourcing — reaching out to the internet community for ideas. It was called “America Speaking Out.” And it went spectacularly badly.

The ASO site was glitchy and outdated. Despite Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s (R-CA) claim that he, “personally traveled to Washington state and discovered a Microsoft program that helped NASA map the moon,” the site looked like this, with a terrifying mix of fonts and interfaces:

Thanks, ThinkProgress!

The site was almost immediately trolled, because, really, it’s just too fun to mess with an attempt this bad.

A close runner up though, is this throwback:

Thank you for saving this, Tech Crunch.

3. When the Heritage Foundation tried to use Buzzfeed. 

I do give them some credit here. At least they chose a relevant medium, even though it was poorly done. This summer they created a list called, “That One Time I was Really, Really Excited About Obamacare: Until I Realized Everything I Thought About Obamacare was Totally Wrong.”

The entire list truly is a tutorial in contrived marketing, contains a heavy helping of blatant lies, and feels rather patronizing, but my personal favorite is this part:

“… and made the announcement on the 4th of July … WHO IS PAYING ATTENTION TO NEWS ON THE FOURTH OF JULY?!”

Really, Heritage Foundation? You had a list to make a dozen or so points about Obamacare and that’s one of the ones you chose? The 4th of July is Thursday. Sure, most people have it off work, but the news still exists. I still have access to my computer and TV and newspapers.

But really, guys, stop trying. This isn’t even a well done Buzzfeed list.

And speaking of badly done anti-Obamacare propaganda…

2. Remember this creepy Uncle Sam Ad?

Nothing attracts me to a political party like being incredibly creepy. Really, I want to be a part of the party that tells me some terrifying mascot/clown hybrid will soon be my OB-GYN.

On a more substantive note — we all realize what this ad is, right? It’s encouraging young people not to get health care. There’s no way around it. The message is don’t get your health insurance through Obamacare or you will be assaulted by “Uncle Sam.”

AHHHH!

And young Americans didn’t respond well. Pretty much everyone agreed that instead of getting the message across, the ad was just creepy and off-putting.

1. Make Abortion “Funny” 

This was a stated strategy of certain groups in the GOP, particularly in the youth wings. Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins stated at a conference last year, “You can engage with sarcasm, it’s hard with the abortion issue, but you have to. Unfortunately we have to, because this is the generation that we’ve been dealt.”

Abortion is a serious issue. It is a personal issue. It is by no means a thing that you joke about. Ever. This right here is so completely indicative of all the issues the GOP has with young people. They think that we care more about energy policies (like the hipster dude in the first ad) than being given autonomy over our bodies. They think we care more about sarcasm than respect. They think we can be bought with cheap taglines and shoddy listicles. Until they learn how wrong they are, I bet you that 2016 election results will be similar to 2008 and 2012.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Flickr/Don DeBold/Klearchos Kapoutsis]

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 Top 5 Lamest Attempts by the GOP to Reach Young Voters appeared first on Law Street.

Is the federal government ‘too big’ or ‘too small’? Americans have been debating the best size of the federal government since the birth of the Republic. From the Federalist Papers all the way to current court cases seeking to establish the superiority of states rights, the federal vs. state government fight is not a new one. To this day, intellectuals on both sides of the issue fight to prove the merits of their own views, as well as show which government philosophy would be better for taxpayers. Looking at the numbers might surprise you, though. The federal government probably doesn’t spend as much as you think.

The federal government’s budget is one of the most politically sensitive topics there is — entire movements were born from a perceived sense of increased governing spending (hello, Tea Party). While it may be the job of Congress and the President to compromise and agree on a budget, mudslinging and partisanship make its passage very difficult. The most recent budget proposal, presented by the President on April 10, requests nearly $3.8 trillion in expenditures and $3.03 trillion in revenue, putting the deficit at $744 billion, or 4.4 percent of gross domestic product. That’s a decrease in the deficit of nearly $229 billion.

Right now, federal legislative, judicial, and executive branch departments are under what is called ‘the sequester.’ As a result of the failure of Congress and the President to pass a federal budget by January 1, 2013, the Budget Control Act was set to automatically reduce spending in various departments throughout the federal system. Some have applauded the sequester’s sharp curtailing of government spending, while others point to the devastating economic ripple effects the law has had. According to the Government Accountability Office, “19 agencies reported curtailing hiring; 16 reported rescoping or delaying contracts or grants for core mission activities; 19 reported reducing employee training; 20 reported reducing employee travel; and seven reported furloughing more than 770,000 employees from one to seven days.” The Congressional Budget Office has pointed to a possible 0.6 percent contraction of the nation’s economy due to the austerity-minded law.

After the government shutdown in October 2013 due to partisan disagreement over the budget bill, Congressional approval ratings plummeted to 10 percent. Three months later, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act, which sought to increase spending caps enacted by the sequester in exchange for extending the duration of the cuts to 2023 -– lowering the national deficit by $23 billion. Advocates calling for lower government spending should be applauding.

As the nation continues to debate whether the sequester cuts have been beneficial or harmful to the nation, the next date to look forward to is in September when the government runs out of authority to spend taxpayer money. With the national debt at $17.5 trillion and counting, and the midterm elections coming this November, we’ll have to wait and see is Congress will work together to pass a compromise appropriations bill.

As time goes by, the federal budget inevitably increases in order to meet the country’s demands. As our infrastructure continues to crumble, more Americans retire, and workers demand a living wage, increased spending cannot be stopped in general, no matter the amount. It is up to our elected officials to take action and simplify the tax code, increase revenue, and close corporate loopholes and subsidies.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Ryan McFarland via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does the Government Really Spend Too Much? appeared first on Law Street.

Beggars still can’t be choosers.

My first job after 1L year was for the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. I accepted the position knowing little to nothing about the role of the U.S. Attorney or the city of New York. All I knew was that, after two months of applying, I had the all-important first year internship. I had decided before law school that Washington, D.C. was where I would practice law after graduation, and this job in New York threw a wrench in my plans. The legal economy then, in the spring of 2011, was as tough as it is now. In light of that fact, I took the best job that I could get and accepted the USAO’s offer.

At the beginning of the summer, I moved all of my suits and summer clothes to a small studio in midtown east on 45th & Lexington. I arrived on a Sunday, and my first day with the USAO was the following week. In my eight days of downtime, I decided to explore New York City.

At first I didn’t really feel a need to take myself on a walking tour of a city that I already knew very well.  My mother is from Brooklyn, and I’ve been visiting my family members there and in the Bronx forever.  Additionally, friends from college and high school had all settled there.  I’d spent many drunken weekends causing a scene on side streets of the Lower East Side and Greenwich Village, but always as the annoying weekend visitor.  Now, as a resident, I felt I owed myself a different city experience.

And experience the city I did.  I walked across town via 45^th Street from Lexington to 8^th Avenue, and then I walked down 8^th Avenue to 12^th street before making my way back East.  In between, I probably said “I’ve got to check this place out,” over one hundred times.  That’s the thing about New York: it’s a city begging to be explored.  I spent three months exploring its sights and sounds, and I was hooked.  I knew that after law school I wanted to move there.

I took steps to further that goal.  During my 2L summer, I worked there again, this time in a different government office but one that furthered the legal goals I endeavored to achieve. Finally, in the first semester of my 3L year, through channels of networking and “people who know people who know people,” I was offered a full-time position with a small company.

“This,” I thought, “is it.”  I had my dream job in my dream city, which I knew I’d earned after the three-year circus of indignities that is law school.  I don’t need to get in to the specifics here, but it didn’t work out.  The job fell through, and I immediately redoubled my efforts to get back to New York.  I applied for countless jobs (chronicled here…it’s depressing) and nothing.

In the mean time, I took up side jobs of both the legal and non-legal varieties.  I was fortunate enough to find this blog, and I began to volunteer with a legal organization.  I was also a host at a restaurant and did temp work.  I went on a ton of interviews, but the “perfect New York City” job consistently evaded me.

And then the unthinkable happened.  A close friend referred me to an open position in D.C., and I was offered an interview.  I prepared for the interview, and it went really well.

And then they offered me the job.

The job I was offered is not a job that one declines.  After discussing my options with my parents and a few friends, I decided to accept the position.  My acceptance effectively derails my New York City dreams for the foreseeable future.  Initially I didn’t want to end my pursuit of a big city job, but I considered both the economy and the markets in which I looked for work, and both are difficult.  It would have been much more imprudent to turn down a position and assume that another one is going to come.

And so, in October 2013, I made the same decision that I made in February 2011.  Accept the best job that comes to you, even if it’s in a city that you weren’t planning to live, and make it work.

To everybody out there with a J.D. and a dream: the job is coming!  As Ted Kennedy said, “the dream will never die.”  He was obviously talking about searching for work in a down legal economy, right?

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Featured image courtesy of [Jason Taellious via Flickr]

As always, all .gifs provided by T. Kyle MacMahon of RealityTVGifs!

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beggars (Still) Can’t be Choosers in Today’s Job Market appeared first on Law Street.

Day two of the government shutdown has come and gone, and the streets of Washington, D.C. remain much emptier than they were two days ago.  Today though, hope of a compromise shone through the darkness of out-of-office messages and locked government buildings.

President Obama hosted an afternoon meeting of Congressional leaders that lasted for an hour and a half.  Parties present at the meeting reported that it was unproductive, but the fact that the meeting occurred is slow progress.  In the beginning of this debacle, the President had stated that the resolution was squarely on the shoulders of Representatives and Senators.

Obama’s intrusion into the stalemated talks for funding of the government evidences the urgency with which this shutdown is being approached.

The first day of the shutdown was met with a collective shock at the actions of our politicians, as it perfectly illustrated the pettiness often associated with legislative politics.

The public relations and communications teams for politicians are likely working around the clock to restore the battered images that are resulting from the shutdown.  In addition to this meeting, 108 lawmakers have pledged to donate their salaries to charities in solidarity with the hundreds of thousands of federal employees not receiving pay.

 Congress will continue working over time until a compromise is met, especially because the minute this conflict is resolved, they will need to decide whether to raise the debt ceiling.  The deadline for that decision is October 17, and is the determining factor in whether the government will be able to pay its bills.

 The debt issue is as big a deal as the government shutdown, and could have a much more devastating effect on the steady economic progress the country is experiencing.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Marina Noordegraaf via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Shutdown 2013: The End of Day Two Sees Slow Progress appeared first on Law Street.

If you watched the news coverage, the night of Monday, September 31st felt like New Years Eve. News channels were so excited about the government shutdown that they had countdown clocks on their screens.  Bill Hemmer, of Fox News, said “I thought the sky was going to fall, but the sun came up,” while the same station’s Sean Hannity claimed that the shutdown was not a big deal to him and did not affect him mentally at all.

The question remains, what about the 800,000 government employees who are jobless and have bills to pay at the end of the month? What about a young infant who needs milk every night before going to bed? The government shutdown will also suspend special supplementary nutrition programs for women and children, such as the WIC program. The government shutdown may not affect a casual observer immediately, but it will have long term ramifications.

Does this shutdown indicate that our politicians are so ruthless and stubborn that they do not care about people losing their jobs or the children who might be deprived of the nutrition they need? According to a CBS News poll, 44 percent of Americans blame Republicans for the shutdown while 35 percent hold Democrats responsible and 17 percent blame both parties. A Fox News poll of registered voters found that 42 percent blame Republicans while 32 percent blame Democrats for the shutdown.

In March, when President Obama shut down the White House tours, critics called it, “a political game” and also blamed him for punishing innocent tourists and school groups. Now, even though most Americans think that Republicans are the reason for the government shutdown, and despite the fact that children may not be getting food, they still act impassively toward the issue.

It’s not the first time the government has shutdown; it happened before in 1995-96. The economy recovered quickly then, but the situation is not so promising this time. Our continued military interventions in the Middle East have also played a significant part in bringing this country to its knees financially, as a significant portion of our income is spent on war.

We are barely operating under our credit limit of $16.7 trillion, and yet politicians seem to behave like obnoxious children without realizing the consequences of this shutdown.

According to HIS Inc. (a global market research firm) the shutdown will cost nearly $30 million each day it continues. Millions of veterans may not receive their benefits if the shutdown continues for more than four weeks. The CDC may halt flu vaccines, despite the fact that flu season is on its way.  Tourism would be significantly affected due to the shut down of national parks and monuments. Children’s Head Start programs would also be affected and eventually close down while disability benefits  could also be interrupted.

Should we assume that the “American dream” is coming to an end and we are about to wake up to a harsh reality that being American is no longer a sign of pride? Due to the lousy, incompetent, and stubborn nature of these politicians who have been charged with a great responsibility to make this country the best place to live and a symbol of pride for all its citizens, this question may become reality.

[Wall Street Journal]

—

Featured image courtesy of [woahfrisla via Flickr]

Asim Mian

Asim Mian is a graduate of George Mason University. Contact Asim at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Government Shutdown: One Step Closer to the End of the American Dream? appeared first on Law Street.