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 The effort was ultimately unsuccessful, and on March 24 the bill was withdrawn, largely because of Republican infighting.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.

Last night, President Barack Obama’s final White House Correspondents’ dinner as sitting president was held at the Washington Hilton in D.C. Celebrities, reporters, and politicians all dressed up in their finest for a night of (mostly laughs), and Obama didn’t disappoint. Check out five of the funniest moments from Obama’s speech last night.

Obama vs. Donald Trump

It should come as a surprise to no one, but Obama went after the walking joke that is the Republican frontrunner Donald Trump. Obama pointed out that Trump hadn’t attended the dinner, saying:

Well let me conclude tonight on a more serious note. I want to thank the Washington press corps. The free press is central to our democracy and … nah! I’m just kidding! You know I’m gonna talk about Trump! Come on!

And it is surprising: You’ve got a room full of reporters, celebrities, cameras — and he says no.

Is this dinner too tacky for The Donald? What could he possibly be doing instead? Is he at home, eating a Trump steak, tweeting out insults to Angela Merkel? What’s he doing?

And he ended his Trump tirade with this zinger:

And there is one area where Donald’s experience could be invaluable and that’s closing Guantanamo because Trump knows a thing or two about running waterfront properties into the ground.

While the Trump-talk certainly wasn’t a surprise, it was a lot of fun.

via GIPHY

Sanders & Clinton Get Jabs Too

While Obama was harshest on Trump, he also made some comments about the two Democratic candidates still in the race. About billionaire-basher Bernie Sanders, Obama said:

For example, we’ve got the bright new face of the Democratic Party here tonight, Mr. Bernie Sanders. Bernie, you look like a million bucks. Or, to put it in terms you’ll understand, you look like 37,000 donations of $27 each.

Obama also joked about Hillary’s slogan, pretending it was “Trudge up a Hill” as opposed to Bernie’s more youthful “Feel the Bern,” and her seeming inability to connect with younger voters:

You’ve got to admit it though, Hillary trying to appeal to young voters is a little bit like your relative who just signed up for Facebook. ‘Dear America, did you get my poke. Is it appearing on your wall? I’m not sure I’m using this right. Love, Aunt Hillary.’

And a Little Fun at His Own Expense

Obama didn’t shy away from making fun of himself a bit, particularly when it comes to his meetings with world leaders. He made a reference to Prince George greeting the President in his bathrobe:

Even some foreign leaders, they’ve been looking ahead, anticipating my departure. Last week, Prince George showed up to our meeting in his bathrobe. That was a slap in the face. A clear breach of protocol.

Which (side note) led to this adorable picture:

Toddler prince meets President; bathrobe steals the show https://t.co/ofE5Q2cYxP #PrinceGeorge #bathrobe pic.twitter.com/OxnMZzuwZ2

— Acculturated (@Acculturated) April 26, 2016

Obama also commented on his recent meeting with his younger and very handsome Canadian counterpart, Justin Trudeau:

In fact somebody recently said to me, ‘Mr. President, you are so yesterday. Justin Trudeau has completely replaced you. He is so handsome and he’s so charming. He’s the future.’ And I said ‘Justin, just give it a rest.’ I resented that.

via GIPHY

An Actual, Physical Mic Drop

As a fitting farewell to his last White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Obama left the stage with the comment “Obama, out” and a literal dropping of the mic.

WATCH: Pres. Obama drops the mic at end of #WHCD remarks: “Obama out” https://t.co/cpmMPwSnpo

— ABC News (@ABC) May 1, 2016

John Boehner Video

Finally, I’m just going to let this fantastic video about what Obama will do when he’s no longer in office (also starring Joe Biden, Michelle Obama, and John Boehner) speak for itself:

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 Moments of Obama’s Last White House Correspondents’ Dinner Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Representative Kevin McCarthy just abruptly announced that he will no longer be seeking the Speaker of the House position. McCarthy, the current House majority leader, was the clear frontrunner for outgoing Speaker John Boehner’s seat. The election for the speakership, which was scheduled for the end of the month, will now be postponed to a later date. McCarthy’s decision surprised nearly everyone, most notably the Republican leadership who was prepared to back him.

While it is currently unclear exactly why McCarthy decided to stop pursuing the speakership, several recent events may have shaped his decision. McCarthy recently faced a lot of scrutiny after his comments on the Select Committee on Benghazi implied that Republicans used their investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for political gain. In an interview with Fox News, McCarthy said,

Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s un-trustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen.

That comment was perceived by many to imply that the ongoing investigation into Clinton’s response to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya has been used to damage the public’s perception of Clinton–and that those efforts were yielding results. McCarthy later said that his words were misunderstood and defended the integrity of the Benghazi Committee.

Despite these efforts, his original comments have already had important consequences. Hillary Clinton began using what he said in campaign ads and House Democrats initiated an all-out campaign to end the Benghazi Committee based on McCarthy’s gaffe.

But what is arguably the most significant factor at play is the emerging control that the conservative Freedom Caucus is exhibiting over the rest of the Republican Party. In recent years, there have been several signs of the emerging disagreement between the establishment wing of the Republican Party and the more conservative Tea Party wing, but the emerging leadership crisis is particularly significant. Past examples of this include recent budget fights–like the government shutdown over Obamacare in 2013–and the battle over the Department of Homeland Security’s funding, which was due to conservatives’ intense disagreement with the President’s executive action on immigration.

One of the reasons why John Boehner resigned from his position as Speaker was the challenge that the Tea Party created for him and the rest of the Party leadership. This was made clear when North Carolina Representative Mark Medows, filed a “motion to vacate the chair” in July, which in effect was an attempt to fire Boehner as speaker. Although the motion didn’t make it to the House floor–Boehner had to seek out Democratic support to prevent a vote–the message was clear. He eventually stepped down as means to help keep the Republicans together, but the factions within the party remain pronounced.

Although McCarthy was a pretty clear frontrunner for Speaker, he did have challengers. Representative Jason Chaffetz from Utah announced his intention to run for the speakership last week, and the Freedom Caucus recently endorsed Representative Daniel Webster from Florida. The Freedom Caucus, which has about 30 members, has enough influence to render the Speaker election particularly challenging. Once it comes to a vote, the incoming Speaker will need at least 218 votes to secure the position. There are currently 247 House Republicans, which means that if the caucus votes together, a candidate would need to get support from some Democrats to win the election.

While it is unlikely that McCarthy’s decision was because he didn’t think he would win the speakership, it does highlight the influence of Republican infighting on the Speaker election. Sources close to McCarthy told Vox,

It certainly wasn’t about getting the votes. That could’ve happened. However, he’s not going to be repeatedly attacked by 40 members of our conference. Nothing will ever be good enough for them, and Kevin doesn’t want to put his family through that and he doesn’t want to put the 200-plus other members through that.

Regardless of whether McCarthy thought he could win the election, he knew that without the explicit support of the Party’s conservative wing the speaker’s role would be extremely challenging. Republicans will now need to find a leader that can unite the establishment and conservative wings of the party, which will certainly be a tall order.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Republicans in Disarray After Kevin McCarthy Leaves Speaker Race 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.

It was a tough week for men last week on Law Street thanks to Republican resignations and domestic violence admissions. The top spot went to a story about Scott Walker’s withdrawal from the Republican presidential race. The number two story revealed “Empire” actor Terrence Howard’s history of domestic violence, and number three profiled John Boehner’s resignation from Congress. ICYMI check out all three below:

#1 Scott Walker Suspends Campaign, Gives Trump a Metaphorical Middle Finger

Scott Walker has officially dropped out of the race to become the 2016 Republican Presidential nominee. In such a crowded field, it’s not surprising that the herd is starting to thin itself, at least a little bit. But what is surprising is the reasoning that Walker gave–his announcement contained what was clearly a not-so-veiled jab against frontrunner Donald Trump. Read the full story here.

#2 Terrence Howard Reveals Domestic Violence: Do Black Men Support Black Women?

Earlier this week, “Empire” star Terrance Howard confessed that he hit his first ex-wife, describing that he “lost his mind” and “slapped her in front of the kids.” This confession isn’t exactly coming out of left field. Over the last couple of years in his various marriages, Howard has been accused of slapping, punching, and strangling his partners, living up the dark nature of his character on “Empire,” Lucious Lyon. Read the full story here.

#3 John Boehner Resigns: Another Establishment Republican Bites the Dust

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. Read the full story here.

Alexis Evans

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

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

What’s the worst thing you’ve ever accidentally left in a bathroom? A cell phone? Purse? Credit card? How about a Glock pistol?

If you were lucky enough to find the missing item, who returned it to you? A co-worker? Boss? Janitor? Perhaps an eight-year-old child?

Here’s the situation: you are a member of House Speaker John Boehner’s police detail. You are protecting your charge when suddenly, nature calls. You answer this call in a lavatory at the Capitol. As you walk back to your post, you do not notice that you left your gun inside the restroom, in plain sight.

The firearm, a loaded Glock, was found by a child who was visiting the Capitol with his parents.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

You might think to yourself, “How could I have done that!? The gun did not even have a safety on it. I hope no one else ever does what I just did. Come to think of it, I wonder how many times something like this has happened before. I’ve heard of instances where housekeepers or janitors have found unattended guns, but never one where a kid found one. Oh dear. Well, at least Capitol Police are not required to disclose any details about this incident.”

^^But of course, these are all just hypothetical thoughts, and no one knows the true identity of the individual who left his gun in the Capitol restroom. The only thing the public knows about the absent-minded individual is that he got suspended for six days without pay, and could potentially be fired.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This is Probably the Worst Way to Forget Your Glock appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

John Boehner says the House of Representatives is suing President Obama for not faithfully executing the laws he has sworn to uphold. The suit claims that when Obama delayed the employer mandate for ObamaCare, he changed the law, something which can only be done by Congress. But this might not be Boehner’s only motive to sue. It sounds a bit implausible, considering Boehner has no love for the President, but he may be suing Obama to avoid impeaching him. And if that’s the case, it’s a downright genius move.

Boehner himself has said impeachment is not being considered, but he needs to silence the calls from other Congressman and noisy pundits in his party. Impeachment is a bad option for the Republicans for a few reasons. One is that Boehner knows that even if the House did impeach Obama, the Senate would never go along with it. Also, as unpopular as Obama is, he’s still more popular than the House of Representatives. The same thing happened the last time Republicans impeached a president–President Bill Clinton. The whole ordeal led to the Speaker of the House having to resign and Republicans losing the midterm elections. Boehner seems to know that it is a terrible political move to impeach the president.

But perhaps the biggest reason Boehner wants to silence the calls for impeachment is that the Democrats are using impeachment speculation to fuel their fundraising efforts. It’s an election year where the left’s base did not have much to be excited about, but the impeachment talks have riled them up. For example, you’d think that FOX news would be very excited about Obama impeachment rumors, and would be covering the issue far more than any other news organization. In fact, they have mentioned impeachment a respectable 95 times so far this month. But MSNBC, the liberal bastion, has mentioned impeachment a whopping 448 times. Both organizations claim to deliver unbiased news, but I think we all know that FOX and MSNBC are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, and the fact that the liberal news station mentions impeachment so much more shows how they want to get their base riled up. Boehner knows every time a Republican calls for impeachment on TV, it becomes a sound bite at the next Democratic Party fundraiser.

The lawsuit is also largely symbolic. It is doubtful that a court will say the House has standing to sue, and even if the House somehow wins the suit, the result would just be that Obama would immediately have to enforce the employer mandate. But odds are the case wouldn’t be decided until after the mandate begins enforcement in 2015 anyways.

There’s nothing for Boehner to gain legally, but there’s a lot to gain politically. This allows him to show he is doing something for those calling for impeachment. It allows conservative representatives to go back to their districts and tell their constituents that they have taken action against Obama. It is a symbolic gesture against Obama that will come to nothing in the long run–exactly what Boehner needs right now. This move also buys Boehner precious time. He can argue that impeachment would be pointless before the court makes it ruling. He’d be able to stretch out that excuse until the 2016 elections, at which point the whole impeachment argument would become null and void anyways.

Boehner has let the conservative end of his party control him before. For example, he could not get them in line nine moths ago, leading to a government shutdown. This lawsuit is his way of asserting control as the Speaker of the House. While the Democrats will still be able to fundraise by slamming the lawsuit, it gives substance to Boehner’s claim that impeachment is not being considered. The media will also focus on the lawsuit instead of impeachment rumors. This lawsuit has allowed Boehner to appease his conservative base, while limiting Democratic fundraising talking points. He found the narrowest of lines and is balancing on it beautifully. It will only take a slight breeze from his right to knock him off, but until that happens, this is an excellent move on Boehner’s part.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Speaker John Boehner via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Politically Genius: Boehner’s Suit Against Obama appeared first on Law Street.

If anyone believes that the President of the United States has overstepped his bounds, he or she may sue him. Recently, House Speaker John Boehner threatened to do just that. He announced that he plans to urge the House of Representatives to sue President Obama for multiple abuses of executive power.

Like any citizen of the United States, the president can be brought to court. The last time this happened successfully, Senator Edward Kennedy sued President Nixon in 1976 over his abuse of the “pocket veto.” According to Boehner, “the constitution makes it clear that the president’s job is to faithfully execute the laws and in my view the President has not faithfully executed the laws.” How exactly will the process go, should he choose to act?

Though touted in the media as a battle between Obama and Boehner, it would actually be the entire House of Representatives acting as the plaintiff in the lawsuit. Boehner is simply spearheading the legal action by calling on members of the House to bring the case against the president. Boehner plans to bring a bill to the House floor this month to authorize the lawsuit.

This is not the first time a political body has tried to sue a president. In 2011, an independent group of legislators challenged the authority of the president to allow the use of U.S. military force during the Libyan conflict.The case was dismissed by the D.C. Circuit Court due to the plaintiff’s inability to establish standing.

Suing a president differs from impeachment, which is the complete removal of the executive from office, and censure, which is a congressional procedure for punishing the president that has no explicit basis in the federal constitution.

How Can I Sue the President?

1. State Your Grievances: The first step in suing Obama, or any president, is to allege his misuse of power. Doing so is simple — you simply need to state your grievances with his actions. Boehner has already completed this step. Among his complaints, Boehner contends that Obama abused his powers on healthcare issues, specifically changing the “fixed” deadlines in the healthcare law. He also mentioned in a memo to congress that Obama overstepped his bounds in matters of energy, foreign policy, and education.

During his time in office, President Obama has used his constitutional powers to circumvent congress and put a number of laws into effect via executive order. Executive orders are legally binding decisions passed down by the U.S. president that bypass the typical order of passing through both legislative bodies. For example, he required the Department of Labor to allow same-sex couples the right to family leave. Obama also went around congress to raise the minimum wage for federal contractors.

2. Involve BLAG: The second step in the process to sue the president is the involvement of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. BLAG is a body of the U.S. House of Representatives comprised of five members of the House, the speaker, the majority and minority leaders, and the majority and minority whips. The group was enacted by Congress under President Clinton in 1993. BLAG is authorized to guide the office of the House General Counsel to take legal action on behalf of the House of Representatives. As stated by the rules of the House, “the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group continues to speak for, and articulate the institutional position of, the House in all litigation matters in which it appears.”

3. Establish Legal Standing: Step three to sue the president is to establish legal standing in court. To do so, the plaintiff, in this case the House of Representatives, would need to show that they have incurred “injury” as a result of Obama overstepping his boundaries set by the Constitution.

4. Argue Your Case: The final step in the process is for the plaintiff to actually argue the case against the president. If Boehner successfully establishes standing, the House will be permitted to begin expressing its grievances at the trial court level. Whoever loses the case at that level would likely appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court, followed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Will it Work?

So, does Boehner have a chance to successfully sue Obama? Many believe that Boehner’s threat to sue is, as Obama labeled it, a “stunt” simply intended to cause further political divide and steal the spotlight from the lack of legislation that congress has passed lately. Political analysts believe that other governmental bodies will be wary of involvement to prevent deepening divides among parties.

Frank Anechiarico, professor of law and government at Hamilton College, told ABC, “Even the conservatives on the Supreme Court — particularly Scalia — are reluctant to get in the middle of a political fight between the president and the Congress, unless the stakes are much higher than anything currently detectable. But all it takes is for one district judge to rule otherwise and we’re off and running.”

It’s very weird for the speaker of the house to suggest something like this. That said, if the speaker feels the president has violated the constitutional order of powers in a way that has harmed the house, he may feel he needs to sue.

– John Hudak, fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution

As taxpayers would be the ones covering the legal fees, many believe that citizens of the United States would not be supportive of the legal action Boehner wishes to take. Suing the President of the United States is no easy task, and only time will tell if Boehner’s plan to sue Obama over his “king-like” actions will come to fruition.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Take Radio News Service via Flickr, Pete Souza and Valerie A. Martinez via Wikimedia Commons]

Marisa Mostek

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

The post How to Sue Your President, Obama Edition appeared first on Law Street.

Speaker of the House John Boehner invoked the great American cliché in a memo to Congressional Republicans stating his intention to file suit against President Obama: “At various points in our history when the Executive Branch has attempted to claim for itself the ability to make law, the Legislative Branch has responded, and it is only through such responses that the balance of power envisioned by the Framers has been maintained.”

Ah, the Framers of the United States of America! Indeed, Boehner evoked those immaculate men who fought British tyranny to allow life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to flourish in the New World. But Boehner’s argument here, his basis for why there should be a suit filed against Obama, is rooted in a concoction of confused irony. Try to hold in the tears, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, which Framer is he talking about? They aren’t some amorphous blob of white men sharing the same principles and goals. Is he evoking the anti-monarchical, anti-tryannical sentiments of Thomas Jefferson? It would be ironic if one of the most complex, self-contradictory politicians in American history was being evoked as the epitome of some simpler, small-government United States with a backseat executive. Jefferson unilaterally orchestrated massive projects without being checked by the legislature. From the Louisiana Purchase to war with the Barbary states, the republican champion expanded executive authority greatly. Talk about inconsistency, after all this is the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence while owning slaves!

I feel like we forget about that sometimes.

So which Framer is being referred to with regard to a checked executive branch? Maybe it was George Washington or John Adams. Setting aside that both presidents wore ceremonial swords to their inaugurations, Washington established the presidency as a dominant part of the government while Adams threw people in jail for disparaging him. Was Boehner talking about Alexander Hamilton? Hamilton thought that the greatest man to ever live was Julius Caesar and as a result, frequently pushed for greater unilateral power in government outside of the hands of the people. So maybe not.

The point is not that these American founders were all overreaching tyrants, but that they were a diverse group of brilliant and complicated individuals who each had differing visions of the ideal government. Further, each had his own set of competing ideas. Referencing “the Framers” as an entity from which America must never stray is a mistake. Jefferson never wanted posterity to idolize him and his colleagues. Moreover, he was so aware of the Constitution’s imperfection that he recommended it be redrafted regularly. Indeed, many of our founders acknowledged flaws in the government that they created.

This is why it is ironic that “the Framers” are constantly brought up as symbols of American perfection, especially in the way they were used by Boehner. We cannot point to “the balance of power envisioned by the Framers” because no single thing can possibly encapsulate all the different visions of all the different people. It should be noted that many are to blame for putting the Framers on a pedestal this way. I’m calling out Boehner because this is such a high-profile case. And because he’s orange.

But why does it matter? Couldn’t I let this one go and chalk it up to tradition and patriotism? No! It’s actually unpatriotic to characterize the American founders with a singular, idealistic label. It flies in the face of American tradition to ignore the diverse thoughts, ideas, and motives with which our founders wrestled during the creation of our country. When those who claim to stand by the patriotism of the United States become obsessed by an idealization of “the Framers,” their claims are unsubstantiated and their efforts counterproductive.

I could comment more on Boehner’s possible suit against the president, but I just see it as yet another nuisance for Obama that remains insignificant in the long run. Instead, what is most heinous to me is the embrace of a false idea of who our founders were and what they stood for. This is a phenomenon that transcends partisan and demographic lines, plus if I hear someone say “the Framers” one more time I might resort to drastic measures.

Okay maybe not that drastic.

The danger in this Framer obsession hints at the division that plagues our country. By painting all of our founders with one broad brush, we choose to look past the challenges and differences that they overcame to bring America into existence. We choose to praise a dogmatism that never was instead of appreciating the debates that made us who we are. If we remove the compromise and problem-solving from the glory of the American Revolution, we will continue to be mired in polarization and political stagnation today. Didn’t see that coming, did you? ‘Merica.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [Wikipedia]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Founding Fathers Obsession appeared first on Law Street.

On October 22, 2013, the New York Times ran an article describing the various problems that have accompanied the roll out of a central tenet of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), www.HealthCare.gov.   The gist of the article focuses on the technical issues that the public has encountered when trying to shop the online marketplace for health insurance.  Essentially, the volume of interested potential buyers has diminished the ease with which the site was to be navigated.

Because of the apparently gargantuan inconvenience of a website loading slowly, there is a large demand for apologies from all levels of the government, starting with President Obama and trickling down to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

Indeed, after our government’s united front in reopening the government (after a shutdown that was their fault) and subsequent dangerous proximity to reaching the debt ceiling, it was shocking that Speaker of the House John Boehner called for the Obama Administration to answer questions related to the flaws in the website’s launch.

That was sarcasm, friends.

Because a glitch in a website visited by thousands of people a day is totally a reason to delay or repeal the availability of health insurance.  That’s also sarcasm.

These problems are called growing pains! Are they annoying? Absolutely.  But they happen- there is no need to make a mountain out of a molehill.  Especially when you consider what Americans stand to gain from the Affordable Care Act.  With health insurance, more people can visit their primary care physicians for routine physicals and for small aches and pains.  It’s often small aches that turn into large medical problems.  Large medical problems lead to large medical bills.  Similarly, there are catastrophic events.  Nobody plans to get hit by a bus on their way to work.  Nobody plans to be in a car accident.  These catastrophes happen, and health insurance provides a buffer of security the necessity of which is not always readily apparent.  When you’re in the thick of medical debt, though, you wind up kicking yourself for not taking advantage of small monthly insurance payments.  The utility of medical insurance, and the costs of that insurance, can be exponentially less than the cost of catastrophic care.  Emergency room visits by the uninsured, for example, have frequently been cited as one of the primary reasons for high costs of healthcare.

This all seems unnecessary considering the fact that we’re in the world’s super power, and that there are concrete examples of how a government-mandated expansion of healthcare can thrive (take France or Sweden, for example).

Do you guys know what this is called?  It’s called a stall tactic.  It’s also called a diversion.  This “controversial” roll out of the website is meant to distract you from what’s really going on.

“Well, what’s really going on?”

Oh nothing, just thousands of people being presented with an opportunity to have a primary care physician for the first time.

Just decisions about your health being ripped from the sole decision of a private insurance company that is more concerned with their bottom line than a rash on your arm.

At the end of the day, the website problems are frustrating, but they are not insurmountable.  The failure of a website to run as efficiently as we would prefer is certainly not a reason to engage in protracted political debates, especially after being so closely linked to a sixteen day protracted political debate that left hundreds of thousands of people out of work.  Health care, for now is debatable (it shouldn’t be, but it is).  Two things that are not debatable are the necessity for protections against the unpredictable occurrences in life and the inconvenience of a website that will eventually help thousands of people.

[New York Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Borman via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

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

The post Everyone, Let’s Lay Off the Obamacare Online Marketplace? appeared first on Law Street.