Following their failed effort to pass health care legislation in March, House Republicans are set to vote on a bill Thursday that would repeal and replace large chunks of the Affordable Care Act. According to House Majority Leader, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the bill has secured enough votes to pass. “We have enough votes,” he said on Wednesday night. “It’ll pass.”

The renewed push for a Republican health care overhaul began in mid-April when Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) introduced an amendment aimed at attracting the more conservative congressmen who balked at the initial bill. The so-called MacArthur amendment needed a boost, however, and Rep. Fred Upton, a Republican from Michigan, recently introduced another addition to the law: an $8 billion infusion for insurers to cover patients with pre-existing conditions.

“It’s our understanding that the $8 billion over the five years will more than cover those that might be impacted and, as a consequence, keeps our pledge for those that, in fact, would be otherwise denied [coverage] because of pre-existing illnesses,” Upton said at the White House on Wednesday.

Even if the bill passes the House, Republicans in the Senate could gum it up and give it a major facelift to attract Democratic support and make it more palatable to members of their own party. With a 52-48 majority in the Senate, Republicans have a much narrower margin of error. In order for the bill to pass the Senate, it would need 60 votes–eight Democrats would need to support it.

Republican Senators in states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare–like Ohio and West Virginia–would likely take issue with the Republican bill’s squeeze on Medicaid payments. And hard-line conservatives like Mike Lee (UT) and Ted Cruz (TX), could nudge the bill more to the right. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told reporters passing the bill will “be a real big challenge on the Senate side as well.”

Meanwhile, the top ranking Democrats in the House and Senate, Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Chuck Schumer (NY) respectively, strongly rejected the new Republican bill. Schumer tweeted that Upton’s amendment is “like trying to cure stage 4 cancer with cough medicine.” Pelosi, in public remarks on Thursday morning from Capitol Hill, said “Republicans are in a lose-lose situation.” She added that for Republicans supporting the Obamacare replacement bill, “This is a scar that they will carry.”

A number of health industry organizations, including the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, and AARP, have expressed their opposition to the bill. Andrew Gurman, president of the American Medical Association, said Upton’s amendment and other changes “tinker at the edges without remedying the fundamental failing of the bill–that millions of Americans will lose their health insurance as a direct result of this proposal.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post If the Health Care Bill Passes the House, Will it Pass the Senate? appeared first on Law Street.

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

What is a “Government Shutdown?”

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

Is there anything Congress can do to avoid a shutdown? 

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

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

When has the government shut down in the past?

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

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

What Actually Happens During a Shutdown?

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

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

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

How Does Impeachment Work?

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

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

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

Impeachments Throughout History

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

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

The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson

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

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

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

Richard Nixon’s Narrow Miss 

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

President Bill Clinton’s Impeachment 

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post How to Impeach a President appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, House Republican leaders introduced their new health care plan, the American Health Care Act. The effort was ultimately unsuccessful, and on March 24 the bill was withdrawn, largely because of Republican infighting. Republican moderates worried that the bill was too extreme, and would be harmful for their constituents. But Republicans further to the right disagreed, arguing that the bill actually didn’t go far enough. Those right-wing Republicans were led by the House Freedom Caucus, a caucus that has only been in existence for two years, but in the Trump era, has made quite a name for itself. Read on to learn more about the inception of the House Freedom Caucus, its ideology, and its members.

History of the House Freedom Caucus

The formation of the House Freedom Caucus was announced in January 2015. Its founding members were all hardline Republican representatives: Scott Garrett of New Jersey, Jim Jordan of Ohio, John Fleming of Louisiana, Matt Salmon of Arizona, Justin Amash of Michigan, Raúl Labrador of Idaho, Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, Ron DeSantis of Florida, and Mark Meadows of North Carolina. The nine founders reportedly planned their new caucus at a retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania, a few weeks before they announced its formation.

According to a statement that offices of the members released:

The House Freedom Caucus gives a voice to countless Americans who feel that Washington does not represent them. We support open, accountable, and limited government, the Constitution and the rule of law, and policies that promote the liberty, safety, and prosperity of all Americans.

The House Freedom Caucus is notably more conservative than the rest of the House, and Americans in general. According to Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone:

The Freedom Caucus acts like a third party in Washington because the political fates of its members are not yoked to the national GOP. Their districts rate R+13, according to Cook Political Report data crunched by Rolling Stone. This means their districts vote 13 percent more Republican than the nation as a whole — and are nearly a third more partisan than the median GOP seat (R+10).

The Split from the Republican Study Committee 

The House Freedom Caucus was an offshoot of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a much larger, but traditionally very conservative, caucus. However, in 2015, the year the House Freedom Caucus was founded, some conservative Republicans thought the RSC had become too centrist. The RSC had also become quite clunky and large–it currently has over 170 members.

Reports on whether the House Freedom Caucus’s split from the RSC was amicable have differed. The founding members tactfully told the press that they believed a smaller, more mobile organization was needed to pull the party to the right. Some members of the House Freedom Caucus remained as RSC members, while others left the larger group.

The House Freedom Caucus and House Speaker John Boehner

Congressman John Boehner announced that he would step down from the position of Speaker of the House in September of 2015. He had held the post since 2011, when Republicans gained majority control of the House.

It was reported that Boehner stepped down, at least in part, due to pressure from the House Freedom Caucus. If all of the 30-odd members of the caucus had refused to support him, he would not have had enough votes to remain the House leader. The House Freedom Caucus members wanted Boehner to push harder on some far-right issues, like defunding Planned Parenthood.

Who are the Current Members of the House Freedom Caucus?

No one is completely sure. The invite-only group isn’t public with its roster. However, a number of media outlets have identified the members who have been open about their relationship to the caucus. Here are the congressmen who are believed to currently be part of the House Freedom Caucus:

• House Freedom Caucus Chair Mark Meadows, North Carolina
• Alex Mooney, West Virginia
• Andy Harris, Maryland
• Bill Posey, Florida
• Brian Babin, Texas
• Dave Brat, Iowa
• David Schweikert, Arizona
• Gary Palmer, Alabama
• Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
• Jim Bridenstine, Oklahoma
• Jim Jordan, Ohio
• Jody Hice, Georgia
• Joe Barton, Texas
• Justin Amash, Michigan
• Ken Buck, Colorado
• Mark Sanford, South Carolina
• Mo Brooks, Alabama
• Morgan Griffith, Virginia
• Paul Gosar, Arizona
• Rand Weber, Texas
• Raul Labrador, Idaho
• Rod Blum, Texas
• Ron DeSantis, Florida
• Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee
• Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
• Steve Pearce, New Mexico
• Ted Yoho, Florida
• Tom Garrett Jr., Virginia
• Trent Franks, Arizona
• Warren Davidson, Ohio

Who are the Former Members of the House Freedom Caucus?

There are also some former members associated with the caucus. These include congressmen who lost re-election bids in 2016, including founding member Scott Garrett of Florida and Tim Huelskamp of Kansas. Former Congressmen John Fleming of Louisiana and Marlin Stutzman of Indiana ran for other positions and were defeated.

Retired Congressmen Curt Clawson of Florida, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, and Matt Salmon of Arizona also used to be counted among the members. Lummis seems to be the only female member ever associated with the caucus, so as it currently stands, the caucus appears to be entirely male. One founding member, Mick Mulvaney, was appointed by President Donald Trump as the director of the Office of Management and Budget, and therefore is no longer in the House of Representatives.

There were some members who decided to remove themselves from House Freedom Caucus membership. Congressmen Tom McClintock of California and Reid Ribble of Wisconsin quit after the group’s role in forcing Boehner out of the Speaker of the House position. After he quit, McClintock said: “I feel that the HFC’s many missteps have made it counterproductive to its stated goals and I no longer wish to be associated with it.” And Ribble took his complaints a step farther, saying:

I was a member of the Freedom Caucus in the very beginning because we were focused on making the process reforms to get every Member’s voice heard and advance conservative policy. When the Speaker resigned and they pivoted to focusing on the leadership race, I withdrew.

Representative Keith Rothfus of Pennsylvania resigned from the caucus last winter, saying that although his ideology still matched the group’s, he wanted to focus on “substantive policy work rather than procedural mechanisms the group uses to exert influence.” Representative Barry Loudermilk, of Georgia, also quit quietly, saying that he just didn’t have the “bandwith” to be in the group.

Most recently, Representative Ted Poe, from Texas, quit the House Freedom Caucus after the group’s role in the health care bill failure at the end of March. Poe said in an interview on “Fox & Friends” that he felt as though the caucus was saying “no” too much:

The president, Speaker Ryan, came to the Freedom Caucus and made some changes that we wanted several times. But no matter what changes were made, the goal post kept getting moved and at the end of the day, ‘no’ was the answer. And sometimes you’re going to have to say yes.

Poe chose to resign, saying that, “at some time we’re going to have to say ‘yes.’ We are in power. We need to lead.”

The Freedom Caucus in the News

Since its inception, the two most news-worthy events involving the House Freedom Caucus were its founding, and its role in John Boehner’s resignation. But the Freedom Caucus was recently vaulted into the spotlight with the AHCA controversy.

The American Health Care Act

Regardless of whether the assessment is fair or not, the House Freedom Caucus has been largely blamed by the media, President Donald Trump, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and others, for the bill’s failure.

The big sticking point with the AHCA for many of the members was that it wasn’t conservative enough, and didn’t provide for a full repeal. At one point, it was reported that the Trump Administration was negotiating with the House Freedom Caucus to secure the needed votes to pass the bill in the House of Representatives. The Trump Administration offered to get rid of “essential health benefits” that were guaranteed under Obamacare. These essential health benefits included maternity care, emergency room visits, and mental health services. But, the Freedom Caucus still claimed that the bill didn’t go far enough, and on March 24, the bill was pulled.

Trump’s Attack 

In the wake of the AHCA withdrawal, President Donald Trump started criticizing the House Freedom Caucus. On March 27, Trump tweeted: “The Republican House Freedom Caucus was able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.” He followed that up on March 30, by tweeting: “The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don’t get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!” The verified Twitter account for the House Freedom Caucus responded to Trump’s criticism on March 31, saying that the group wants to hold true to its promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and arguing that only 17 percent of Americans supported the AHCA.

Conclusion

The House Freedom Caucus is relatively new, having just been founded in 2015, and best known for being involved in Speaker of the House John Boehner’s resignation. But in the Trump era, with both the Executive and Legislative branches controlled by the Republican Party, the House Freedom Caucus has become an increasingly influential part of GOP House dynamics. What the group will do with that newfound power remains to be seen.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post What is the House Freedom Caucus? appeared first on Law Street.

“The Watcher” is back. The mysterious stalker who sent letters to a New Jersey couple a few years ago, claiming to be watching them, has sent a fourth letter after a new tenant moved into the house in February. The stalker was apparently not happy about this and seems to think that the house rightfully belongs to him.

Apparently the new letter was even creepier than the previous ones. “This letter contained specific threats and was more derogatory and sinister than any of the previous letters,” the family’s attorney Lee Levitt wrote in a brief filed earlier in March. Police are currently investigating the threats, but that’s pretty hard to do, as no one knows who the stalker is–or where he is.

In 2014, Derek and Maria Broaddus bought the six-bedroom house for $1.3 million. But then they started receiving letters. One of them said that the stalker’s family had been watching the house for generations: “My grandfather watched the house in the 1920s and my father watched in the 1960s. It is now my time… I have be (sic) put in charge of watching and waiting for its second coming.”

“The Watcher” stalker sends fourth, “more sinister” letter to New Jersey home https://t.co/IUlZIzm4HF pic.twitter.com/4I42S8yDYk

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) March 30, 2017

The stalker soon got the nickname “The Watcher.” Another letter described how the windows and doors of the house allowed him to track the family members as they moved through their house. But one of the creepiest lines must be: “Have they found what is in the walls yet? In time they will. I am pleased to know your names and the names now of the young blood you have brought to me.” As if this wasn’t horrifying enough, he followed up with: “Who has the rooms facing the street? I’ll know as soon as you move in. It will help me to know who is in which bedroom then I can plan better.”

NJ Family Getting Creepy Anonymous Letters From Mystery Stalker ‘The Watcher’ https://t.co/YajhdOiNhA

— Xoobug Feed (@xoobugFeed) March 30, 2017

The Broaddus family didn’t feel like sticking around to find out. They also have three young children, which probably made the part about the young blood especially disturbing. So instead they tried to sell the house, but obviously no one felt like moving into a home that comes with a deranged stalker. So the Broaddus couple sued the people who sold them the house, John and Andrea Woods, for not telling them about “the Watcher.’ The Woods had admitted to having received at least one letter themselves, but they still countersued the Broaddus family for defamation.

After that, Derek and Maria Broaddus tried to get a permit from the township to tear the house down and build two smaller houses on the property. But the request was denied, since two smaller houses wouldn’t fit the street’s image, according to residents and township officials, who were determined to protect the “beautiful street.” But the family filed another lawsuit in the beginning of the month, aiming to overturn that decision.

For now, the Broaddus couple is stuck with renting out their house while living somewhere else. It’s uncertain if we’ll ever find out who the actual stalker is. And now most of us want to know–what exactly did that latest letter say?

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 “The Watcher” is Still Out There, Sending Creepy Letters to New Jersey Families appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

Hashtag of the day: #HalftimeShow. People are prepping for the Super Bowl on Sunday and Lady Gaga is the halftime performer. As Gaga has been very vocal in her critique of Donald Trump, many are expecting her to make a political statement. All she has said so far is, “I believe in the spirit of equality.” Let’s hope for a good show and read on for today’s rants:

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

Kellyanne Conway Just Gave Us More #AlternativeFacts

Ever since Kellyanne Conway coined the term “alternative facts,” she has been on a roll. In an interview with MSNBC last night she talked about the “Bowling Green Massacre” as justification for President Donald Trump’s travel ban. She claimed that President Obama banned Iraqi refugees in 2011 after two refugees carried out a massacre in Bowling Green, Kentucky.

.@KellyannePolls says that 2 Iraqi refugees “were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre.”
(There was no such massacre.) pic.twitter.com/sD3Nnb5xfE

— Joe Sonka (@joesonka) February 3, 2017

But, there was never such an attack. The Obama Administration did slow down the intake of refugees in 2011 after two Iraqi men tried to send money and weapons to al-Qaeda. But those men never planned a massacre and most certainly didn’t carry one out. And Obama’s “Iraqi refugee ban” is a significantly more complicated and nuanced issue than Conway made it out to be. People on social media immediately started having fun with the new “alternative facts,” but it’s no joke to many that some members of Trump’s team believe they can spout completely false information to justify their actions.

I was a student at BGSU when the Bowling Green Massacre didn’t happen. I’ll never be able to not forget what I didn’t see that day.

— Jim Osborne (@ozzy4873) February 3, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

— Ron DeSantis (@RepDeSantis) January 3, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

On Monday, American media picked up a Chinese news story that had actually been around for two weeks. A young Chinese woman recently found a solution to a problem many of us have. In order to afford a new house she made each of her 20 (yes, 20) boyfriends give her a new iPhone 7. She then sold the phones to a website that recycles used cellphones and got enough money for a down payment on a house. The woman, who is being called Xiaoli by local media, got a total of 120,000 yuan for the phones, which equals $17,700.

A Chinese woman bought a house selling the 20 iPhones her 20 boyfriends gave her. Shameful.
I built my house brick by Nokia brick.

— Gavin Eddings (@GavinEddings) November 1, 2016

The media attention has been so concentrated that the woman allegedly turned down requests for interviews. According to a local blog where the story first broke, Xiaoli comes from a family in Shenzen in the south of the country and was perhaps under pressure to buy her aging parents a house. Her mother is a housewife and her father is a migrant worker, and it is customary in China that children take care of their parents.

But most people are just stunned that she managed to juggle 20 boyfriends:

I’d get 19 more bfs to pay for grad school. LOL “20 boyfriends and 20 iPhones: How one Chinese woman bought a house” https://t.co/NxKDTpsAN6

— mpsm (@mahreeann) November 1, 2016

However, on Monday evening Buzzfeed made an attempt to debunk the story, which is questionable since it first appeared on a blog that is often used as an online gossip forum. The blogger who first posted the story claimed to have heard it from colleagues, but he posted screenshots of text messages that showed that he was the one spreading the rumor. There was also no personal information or photos of any “colleagues” or the woman in question. One theory is that the blogger works for the used phone company that he claimed bought the phones and tried a publicity stunt.

True or not, it would have been a pretty innovative way to get a new house.

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 A Woman Really Swap 20 iPhones from 20 Boyfriends For a House? appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

The Senate passed a defense bill yesterday that will require women to sign up for Selective Service, and potentially be drafted in the future. The bill will place the existing requirements for young men on women as well, and the new rules will apply to any woman who turns 18 beginning in 2018.

Senator John McCain, who serves as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee stated:

The fact is every single leader in this country, both men and women, members of the military leadership, believe that it’s fair since we opened up all aspects of the military to women that they would also be registering for Selective Services.

The head of each military branch has also stated support for the inclusion of women in the draft.

The National Defense Authorization Act passed 85-13–some of the votes against it came from Republicans who oppose including women in the draft. Right now this provision is only in the Senate version of the bill–the House chose not to include it–so that will have to get ironed out before this even goes to President Obama for consideration. But it seems like a common-sense next step after the military has made moves to fully integrate women into combat. The debate over whether or not to include women in the draft really heated up this winter; check out our coverage back when the Senate Armed Services Committee heard testimony about the idea from top military officials.

But, the debate continues. Senator Ted Cruz, for example, spoke out against including women in the draft, saying:

It is a radical change that is attempting to be foisted on the American people. The idea that we should forcibly conscript young girls into combat, to my mind, makes little or no sense. It is at a minimum a radical proposition. I could not vote for a bill that did so, particularly that did so without public debate.

It’s important to remember that the draft hasn’t been used by the United States since the Vietnam War. But depending on the how the House responds, women may start having to sign up with Selective Service soon.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Senate Passes Defense Bill That Includes Women in the Draft appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

Today, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) dropped out of the race to fill the Speaker of the House position being vacated by current Speaker John Boehner. This came as a surprise to many, and there were reports of “audible crying” on the Hill. But, on the bright side, the Twittersphere took it on as fodder for some pretty entertaining reactions. Check out some of the best Twitter reactions to McCarthy dropping out of contention in the slideshow below:

Excellent Gif Use

House GOP caucus, right now: pic.twitter.com/oIwkuDHyzq

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) October 8, 2015

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 Kevin McCarthy Drops out of Speaker Race: Twitter Reacts appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Questions about Richards’ Salary

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

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

3. Richards Could Barely Get a Word In

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

2. Everyone Freaked Out About Mammograms

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

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

1. Really Just the Worst Chart

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

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

— Vox (@voxdotcom) September 30, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

What happens when your dream house becomes a nightmare? A couple in Westfield, New Jersey found out when they started living the plot of a horror movie after buying their so-called dream house last year.

What they want to know now is who is “the watcher” and why didn’t the previous owners mention him?

Courtesy of Giphy.

The Story

After purchasing a $1.3 million house, you might like to move into it; however, when the watcher doesn’t want you to, then you might not. Which means that $1.3 million just went down the drain.

A couple found this out the hard way when, after putting down the $1.3 million, they started getting threatening letters from someone who called himself “the watcher.” And the watcher had a lot to say.

For example, he claimed he had been watching the house for a decade and that his father watched the house before him and his grandfather before that. He claimed the former residents knew about him and that he had asked them to give him some young blood.

Creepy quotes from the letters include:

• “Do you need to fill the house with the young blood I requested? Once I know their names I will call to them and draw them to me.”
• He once “ran from room to room imagining the life with the rich occupants there.”
• “Have they found what is in the walls yet? In time they will.”
• “Who has the rooms facing the street? I’ll know as soon as you move in.”

Courtesy of Giphy.

Now, it is understandable that you might be a little freaked out if you started getting these letters because at the very best it means you are about to get one weird neighbor, and at the worst it could be a whole lot worse than that.

However, if you disclose these skeevy letters, you might have a little problem selling your house because nobody wants to buy a house being watched by a creepy weirdo. Which is the situation this couple finds themselves in now.

The previous residents did not disclose this information–even though it is alleged that they got at least one letter from the watcher a couple of weeks before they closed–and they sold the house. This couple made a big deal about it (because why wouldn’t you? I’d want some police protection, too) and now everybody knows and nobody wants to buy.

Which is why the buyers decided to sue.

The Lawsuit

The buyers decided that the sellers had a duty to disclose the watcher and that the watcher had a duty to not stalk them. Because of this, they decided to sue them both.

Here is the problem with both of the suits:

• Under New Jersey law, you have to disclose latent defects–think, the old wiring is likely to start a fire. However, there is no known requirement to report other things such as house stalkers. While there is a chance that a lawyer could somehow turn this on its head and win the case (since this is pretty unique and there is no current case law to give us a hint to the verdict), the chances are probably pretty low.
• Since nobody knows who the watcher is, it will be pretty hard to serve him papers. Though, of course, they could always deliver them to the house where the watcher seems to spend a lot of time. He will probably see them when they come if he is as good a watcher as he claims to be.

If You Know Anything …

The biggest problem in this case, of course, is that nobody seems to know who the watcher is, which makes it hard to catch him (or her, but I’ve been using him in the most gender-less way possible).

So if you live in the area and have information, don’t hesitate to tell the police. It would be nice to get this guy–or girl–off the streets.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Home Sellers Didn’t Disclose “The Watcher” and Now Face Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

For some, the term “lobbying” evokes the thought of fat cat plutocrats piping money into Congress to keep their interests and deep pockets protected. But while voting is the most fundamental aspect of a democracy, lobbying–for better or worse–is one of the most direct ways to influence policy making. Read on to learn about the lobbying system in the United States, as well as the benefits and negative effects of this system.

What is lobbying?

Lobbying is a right protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and ultimately allows citizens to shape legislators’ decisions. U.S. citizens have the right to petition, free speech, and freedom of the press, so when citizens want to influence government policy, they are constitutionally protected.

Those who hire lobbyists are usually called special interest groups–groups of people who use advocacy to influence policy and public opinion.

Types of Lobbying

There are two core types of lobbying: inside and outside. Inside lobbying occurs when individuals contact their legislators directly, mostly through phone calls and letters. Outside lobbying is when citizens or interest groups form campaigns or organizations to influence public opinion or to pressure policymakers.

Types of Lobbyists 

While lobbying by businesses that see a particular benefit in swaying our lawmakers is very common, there are other motivations for lobbying as well. Unions, for example, also lobby for issues pertaining to taxes, workers’ rights, and the minimum wage, just to name a few.

Religious lobbying is another good example. The head of a church or religious organization might lobby Congress to denounce a bill that would not fit the view of the congregation. The number of religious lobbying organizations has increased from less than 40 in 1970 to more than 200 in 2012. Catholic organizations lead the way, making up 19 percent of all religious lobbying groups. So, lobbying isn’t just about the money, it can take the form of moral or personal interests as well.

Lobbying is not only popular on the federal level, but also at the state level. A 2006 survey by the Center for Public Integrity reported that there were 40,000 paid lobbyists working with state legislatures, with that number expected to rise. Other lobbying efforts are even more local. Trying to persuade a city council to halt something like a construction project to preserve wildlife is another common example of lobbying.

When is the best time for lobbying efforts?

Lobbying is most common weeks before a bill is set to be voted on, when proponents of the bill gather to discuss how they will go about presenting the initiative. Another common time to see lobbyists is during election season. This time is crucial as lobbyists can put more pressure on members of Congress to please their constituents and recognize the immediate effect of voting against their constituents’ opinions.

Show Me the Money: Lobbyists and Spending

The amount of money spent on lobbying since the late 1990s has increased dramatically, despite fluctuations in the number of lobbyists. According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets, in 1998 there were 10,405 individual lobbyists and lobbying spending totaled $1.45 billion. In 2010 there were 12,948 lobbyists, and spending totaled a high of $3.52 billion. This means that there was a 24 percent increase in lobbyists, and a staggering 143 percent increase in total spending. Fewer lobbyists are representing more wealthy interest groups.

While the fundamental practice of lobbying is notifying members of the legislative branch of the positive and/or negative consequences of their decisions, this simple practice is made complicated by companies and organizations that spend millions of dollars per year to convince members of Congress to vote for policies that positively benefit their businesses. The following list, also compiled by Open Secrets, shows the spending of the largest Congressional lobbyists in the U.S. in 2014.

• U.S. Chamber of Commerce: $124,080,000
• National Association of Realtors: $55,057,053
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield: $21,888,774
• American Hospital Association: $20,773,146
• American Medical Association:  $19,650,000
• National Association of Broadcasters: $18,440,000

According to Open Secrets, $3.24 billion dollars was spent on lobbying Congress and federal agencies in 2014. While that’s not quite as high as the peak in 2010, it doesn’t show signs of slowing down significantly anytime soon.

Regulating Lobbying

The U.S. has very tight restrictions on lobbying, with violations of these restrictions punishable by jail time or fines. These punishments can sometimes take very severe and costly forms. For example, the Sacramento Bee reported in 2014 that the California Correctional Peace Officers Association was hit with a $5,500 fine for failing to disclose $24,603.50 in gifts to state representatives. In another case, documented by the Los Angeles Times, a lobbyist was fined $133,500, the highest lobbying fine ever, for making illegal campaign donations to 40 California politicians.

The Lobbying and Disclosure Act of 1995 was a major piece of legislation that attempted to regulate and hold lobbyists accountable. While this law helped bring transparency to lobbyists, there were many loopholes, such as the fact that small grassroots lobbying groups whose “activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time engaged in services” were not regulated. Due to the many loopholes in the original law, parts of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 were amended into the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. The law gives very specific guidelines for Congressional lobbying, and prohibits activities such as bribery.

Lobbying Disclosure Act 

Here is a portion of Section 6 of the act:

Section 6 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), 2 U.S.C. § 1605, provides that: The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall (1) provide guidance and assistance on the registration and reporting requirements of this Act and develop common standards, rules, and procedures for compliance with this Act; [and] (2) review, and, where necessary, verify and inquire to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of registrations and reports.

Essentially, this portion works to guarantee the transparency and accountability of lobbyists and the officials they lobby.

Other provisions of the law include that lobbyists are required to register with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate. In addition, Cabinet Secretaries and other senior executive personnel are prohibited from lobbying the department or agency in which they worked for two years after they leave their position.

Some of the law also regulates interactions between lobbyists and officials. Lobbyists are prohibited from providing gifts, including travel, to members of Congress with the intent of violating House or Senate rules. The law also requires that lobbyist disclosures be filed electronically in both the Senate and House, and mandated the creation of a publicly searchable Internet database of such disclosures. It also prohibits officials from attending parties held in their honor at national party conventions if they have been sponsored by lobbyists, unless the member is the party’s presidential or vice presidential nominee.

How do the American people feel about lobbyists?

While lobbying is an important democratic right, most Americans view lobbyists negatively. A Gallup Poll released in 2013 showed that only six percent of Americans believe lobbyists are honest or have high ethical standards. Further confirming America’s view of lobbyists, seven in ten Americans believe that lobbyists have too much influence in Washington.

Arguments for Lobbying 

Those who support lobbying efforts point out that lobbyists bring to the forefront of the conversation topics that are not in the expertise areas of a politician. For example, a congressman with a background in energy legislation may benefit from more information on foreign affairs topics. Lobbyists also have the opportunity to educate legislators of the opinions of minorities that they may otherwise not learn about. Finally, lobbyists can bring about change directly by influencing the votes of politicians.

Arguments Against Lobbying

Those who disagree with our current lobbying system point to the Citizen’s United Supreme Court case, which allowed unlimited donations to political campaigns. They worry that such a broad decision may give lobbyists more power in negotiating a legislator’s vote. In addition, the pressure of interest groups influences politicians to vote in favor of the interest group, which may not line up with their constituents’ viewpoints. Finally, there’s a consistent fear that lobbyists use bribery and monetary threats to guide government actions.

Conclusion

Lobbying is important to the democratic process as it allows citizens to express their interests and opinions and in turn influence policy making. Second to voting, it may be the most important democratic right. But concerns abound that this right has been used increasingly in recent decades as a way for large corporations and interest groups to pressure politicians into passing legislation that favors their interests. While lobbying remains an important right, popular dissent and distrust means that it often leaves a sour taste in the mouths of many.

Resources

OpenSecrets.org: Lobbying Again on the Downward Slide in 2012

Mother Jones: K Street is Holy Place

Aljazeera America: Lobbying Tapered off in 2014 Amid Congressional Gridlock

Office of the Clerk: Lobbying Disclosure Act Guide

Sacramento Bee: Prison Officers’ Union Accepts Fine for Lobbying Violations

Gallup: Honesty and Ethics Rating of Clergy Slides to New Low

Pew: Lobbying for the Faithful

Center for Public Integrity: State Lobbying Becomes Million-Dollar Business

—

Mike Stankiewicz

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

The post Lobbying: Washington’s Dirty Little Secret? appeared first on Law Street.

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

Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S.

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

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

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

What is Obama’s Earned Citizenship Proposal?

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

Provisional Legal Status

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

DREAMers and AgJOBS

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

Combatting Fraud

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

2013 Immigration Reform Bill

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

Border Security

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

Immigrant Visas

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

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

Interior Enforcement

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

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

Stopped in the House

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

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

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

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

Obama’s Immigration Accountability Executive Actions

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

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

 Are the Executive Actions legal?

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

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

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

 Conclusion

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

Resources

Primary

White House: Earned Citizenship

White House: Immigration

Additional

Immigration Policy Center: A Guide to S.744

Immigration Policy Center: The Dream Act

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

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

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

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

Jessica McLaughlin

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

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

I’ve been told that the best way to steal something and get away with it is to be so obvious about what you are doing that nobody takes any notice of you. In other words, if you look guilty, you probably are. This is why I make an attempt to look like I’m not supposed to be buying alcohol when I am at a liquor store–one of these days my sketchy behavior is going to get me IDed and then I’ll go brag to everyone I know about how young I must look.

Courtesy of Giphy.

A good scam is to rob someone in the middle of the day. The neighbors aren’t expecting robbers at this time, so they don’t think anything of it when they see you filling up your van with someone else’s furniture. “Oh, Ms. Solomon must be redecorating,” they say and get back to their gardening.

Another thing people do is take a large purchase item, let’s say a television, and walk right out the front door of the store. It is so obvious and ballsy, that nobody would do it unless they had just purchased the device from another cashier, right?

Now, before I get to my point, I want to give a disclaimer: Everything I know about stealing is information I got secondhand, usually from late-night sitcoms. If you are thinking about starting a life of crime, I would suggest that you find your tips somewhere other than this post.

If I am not trying to create a nation of savvy stealers, though, where am I going with all of this? Well, if the best way to steal is not to hide what you are stealing, then stealing a house ought to be easy.

And so here is the story I am relating to you this week: SOMEONE STOLE A HOUSE! I’m not making this up. It happened in Oregon, but more importantly, it happened.

Courtesy of Tumblr.

To be fair to the thief, and also to be fully honest, this guy didn’t know that he was stealing the house, he thought he was buying it for only $3,000, which was, in his actual words, “a hell of a steal.”

So here is the breakdown of what occurred (dramatized for, well, dramatic effect):

Sheriff Frank Skrah was sitting in a meeting one day thinking that this day would be like any other. In his life on the force, he had seen it all–nothing could shock him. Or so he thought.

In came a deputy to shake what he knew about himself to the core.

“Frank,” the deputy said to him in disbelief, “you’re not going to believe this. Someone just stole a house.” (Again, actual quote.)

Now, if someone had told me when I was picking out careers that as a detective I might one day be able to take part in the Case of the Missing Log Cabin, you can rest assured that I would be in uniform right now.

Courtesy of Giphy.

However, as I didn’t know houses could be stolen, I made other professional choices. Detective Eric Shepherd is luckier than me, though, because once this crime was committed, he actually had to investigate the whereabouts of a missing house. Turns out, it had not gotten far. It turned up about half a mile away in a nearby community. And it only took two days to find. That’s right, folks: an actual house went missing, was hidden less than a mile away, and it still took two days to find it (and I am pointing this out only because it is shocking. I am not saying it should have been found sooner because I honestly have no idea how long it should take to recover a missing house–though didn’t someone in the community find it odd to come home one day and find a cabin where only land had been just that morning?). Anyway, what did I tell you about the big crimes being the easiest? If this house had been moved two or three miles down the road, it might not have ever been found.

So now we are at the point where I explain to you how the guy who took this house thought he was doing it legally. The cabin in question was located in a remote area and was used as a vacation house. It was purportedly co-owned by three men. One of these men decided that he was going to sell it. Which he did, for $3,000, to a fourth man. The seller did not feel it necessary to share this information with the other two men. So the buyer, not aware of any of this, hired a logging company to move the cabin. Shortly thereafter, one of the other men came to visit and was pretty surprised to see that the cabin was no longer actually there. Which is what led to a house being reported stolen in Oregon.

The police are now trying to decide if this is a criminal case or a civil case, but I’m just happy it is a case at all.

To end this on yet another actual quote from this saga, let’s take it back down to Sheriff Skrah: “I’ve seen a lot of scams,” he said, “but I’ve never seen an entire house go missing.”  I couldn’t sum it up any better.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Stolen in Oregon, Found Several Miles Away 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.

Congress by The Sunlight Foundation

The Sunlight Foundation is an educational organization with the mission of increasing transparency in the U.S. government and shining light on the information that, though readily available to the public, is over overlooked.

The Sunlight Foundation’s newest release, Congress for iPhone and Android, is a user-friendly law and bill tracker that allows users to view bills in their real-time process. Congress offers all of its features for free, with the mission of educating and informing the public about governmental activities that often do not receive enough attention.

Features:

• Track and view bills as they happen
• View legislator profiles in the house and senate
• Connect with legislators through Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and their respective governmental websites
• View how legislators have voted on bills and see what they have sponsored
• Follow bills to receive activity updates as they happen

You may also be interested in The Sunlight Foundation’s many other apps including:

Sitegeist

Sitegeist combines open data in a way that allows users to learn more about the area around them. Using publicly available APIs, the app presents infographics with statistics on the people, housing, events, environment and history of a location.

Ad Hawk

Ad Hawk  helps identify political ads as they air. Ad Hawk makes an acoustic fingerprint based on audio recorded while a television or radio ad plays and compares it against a central database for a match. The application will then display information about the candidate, organizations, issues and other relevant information.

Sunlight Health

Sunlight Health is an application to look up healthcare services, medical suppliers and prescription drugs. Using data from government and nonprofit institutions, the app shows government ratings of hospitals and nursing homes, nearby locations to purchase home medical supplies and research on various prescription drug options.

[Sunlight Foundation]

—

Featured image courtesy of [sunlightfoundation via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Mobile App. ‘Congress’ Legislative Bill Tracker appeared first on Law Street.