Over the weekend, there was yet another clash between protesters over a Confederate monument. This time, the monument in question was an equestrian statue of General Robert E. Lee, located in Charlottesville, Virginia. On June 5, the Charlottesville City Council voted to change the name of the park where the statue is located from Lee Park to Emancipation Park, following up on its February decision to remove the statue. It was one block away from this location that two separate protest groups squared off: the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan versus a crowd of counter-protesters calling for the statue’s removal. The clash resulted in 22 arrests, according to the Washington Post.

The controversy over the Lee statue in Charlottesville is only the latest in a string of decisions and incidents relating to the removal of Confederate monuments. Read on to learn which statues have been removed so far and what both sides of the debate are saying.

Charleston Shooting Spurs Confederate Flag Debate

The catalyst for this debate was the 2015 Charleston church shooting, in which 21-year-old Dylann Roof killed nine parishioners of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. Upon his arrest, Roof admitted to police that the shooting was meant to start a race war. Roof’s manifesto website and Facebook page were also discovered to contain photos of himself posing with several racist symbols, the most prominent being the Confederate flag.

Following the shooting, protesters took to the South Carolina State House in Columbia to demand the removal of the Confederate flag, which had flown on the state house’s grounds since 1961. Several South Carolina legislators supported the flag’s removal, but the cause only received national attention after police arrested 30-year-old Bree Newsome for climbing the flagpole and removing the flag on June 27, 2015. Two weeks later, the legislation passed and the flag was lowered for the final time.

Thousands gathered to watch the flag-lowering ceremony, but not everyone was celebrating. War reenactor Kenneth Robinson and his fellow “soldiers” held a vigil at the state house to “remember the 650,000 casualties of the Civil War,” he told WRAL. “Nine lives matter,” Robinson said referring to the church shooting victims. “All deaths matter, period.”

Cindy Lampley, another reenactor and a descendant of Confederate soldiers, worried that the flag removal would dishonor her relatives. “I think it’s important that we remember them,” she said. “It’s a sad day for me that my ancestors will no longer see their flag flying next to their memorial.”

Which Monuments Have Been Removed So Far?

The debate over the removal of the state house’s Confederate flag has since branched out to include all monuments and memorials to the Confederacy. As opposition grew, state and local lawmakers began to remove several of the Confederate symbols. Here are some recent examples:

New Orleans

Shortly after the Charleston church shooting, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu called for the removal of four Confederate era monuments. The monuments consisted of three statues of Confederate leaders–Lee, General P.G.T. Beauregard, and President Jefferson Davis–as well as a memorial to the Battle of Liberty Place, an 1874 insurrection by the Crescent City White League.

The New Orleans City Council voted to remove all four monuments in 2014, but it wasn’t until April 2017 that the first of them–the battle memorial–was finally removed. The rest of the statues quickly followed suit, and the final Confederate statue of Lee was removed in May. The city replaced the statues of Lee and Davis with public art and a flag, respectively, but has not disclosed plans for the relocation of the actual monuments.

“These monuments celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy; ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, ignoring the terror that it actually stood for,” Landrieu said as Lee’s statue was hauled away by crane.

Charlottesville

Aside from voting to change the name of Lee Park and remove its statue, the city council also voted 3-2 last February to change the name of Jackson Park (after General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson) to Justice Park. However, the city is running into unexpected legal trouble.

The Monument Fund, the Virginia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans, and other groups filed a lawsuit against the city in June, claiming that renaming the parks would be illegal. Attorneys also claim that the deed in which the park land was granted to the city specifically states that the park cannot be renamed. The court has not filed an injunction preventing the city from renaming the parks, but the Lee statue will remain in place until a hearing begins next month.

Richmond

Mayor Levar Stoney announced on June 25 that he had charged a 10-member commission with finding ways to contextualize the city’s Confederate monuments. The Monument Avenue Commission has set up a website seeking public input to “make recommendations to the mayor’s office on how to best tell the real story of [the] monuments.” There are no concrete plans currently in place.

Stoney went on to say that he does not support the outright removal of the monuments. “I wish these monuments had never been built, but like it or not they are part of our history in this city, and removal will never wash away that stain.”

Baltimore

Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, the former mayor of Baltimore, ordered the city to put up interpretive signs beside the city’s four Confederate monuments. The decision came with less than three months left in Rawlings-Blake’s term. She admitted that it was a “short-term solution.” The city council had previously recommended that the city remove tributes to Lee and Jackson, along with a statue of Roger B. Taney.

The current mayor, Catherine Pugh, told the Baltimore Sun in May that she is exploring the possibility of removing the monuments altogether.

Mississippi

The Mississippi flag incorporates the Confederate flag in its top left corner. Carlos Moore, a black Mississippi resident, says the flag constitutes “state-sanctioned hate speech,” and has taken his grievance all the way to the Supreme Court. Moore intends to argue that the flag is a symbol of racism and violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection for all citizens. In October, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to take the case.

In addition, the city of McComb and all eight of Mississippi’s public universities have stopped flying the flag. The University of Mississippi announced last week that it will post signs on campus denoting which buildings were built with slave labor.

Washington, D.C.

While the nation’s capital has not removed any Confederate monuments as of yet, Georgetown University renamed two of its campus buildings in April. The move was meant to atone for the university’s ties to slavery. The original names honored two school presidents who oversaw an 1838 sale of 272 slaves to fund the school. The buildings’ new names honor Isaac Hawkins, the slave whose name appeared first in the bill of sale, and Anne Marie Becraft, a 19th-century black educator. The university is also giving admissions preference to descendants of the 272 slaves. Mary Williams-Wagner, one of Hawkins’ descendants, said that the university needed to take further steps, such as identifying all descendants of the slaves sold by Georgetown.

Other colleges, such as Harvard, Duke, Yale, Princeton, and Brown, have also addressed their links to slavery and racism. Last February, Yale changed the name of one of its residential colleges from Calhoun College to Grace Hopper College, honoring a distinguished alumna and a “trailblazing computer scientist.”

Arguments For and Against Confederate Monuments

Opposers

So why remove the monuments? The clearest answer is that they are offensive. The statues honor men who fought for the institution of slavery. Those in favor of removing them argue that the current U.S. government should not condone such motivations, even passively. Confederate symbols also played a role in the Charleston church shooting, proving that they can still be seen as symbols of black oppression and white supremacy. Many people are wary that they will inspire another massacre. A good portion of the country would be much happier if the statues were placed in museums and battlefield parks, away from public property.

Supporters

The other side of the debate is a little more complicated. There are those, like Robinson and Lampley, who believe that removing the monuments would dishonor the memory of the Confederate soldiers who fought and died for what they believed in. There are others who see the Confederacy as Southern heritage, and believe that removing its symbols would be akin to removing it from history itself. Others are wary of a slippery slope, pointing out that Washington and Jefferson, along with 10 other presidents, owned slaves themselves. What would stop the country from removing the statues of its founding fathers?

Conclusion

Racial tensions in this country are running high these days, and the debate over Confederate monuments fits in to that conversation. The statues represent a different era, with different ideals and different ways of life. While the modern world has made tremendous strides toward diversity and inclusion, some of these ideologies still persist. The two schools of thought will inevitably clash, and as long as the monuments stand, the protests and counter-protests will continue.

As for the subjects of the monuments, one in particular had some relevant remarks on the subject while alive. In an 1869 letter declining an invitation to a public meeting concerning the war, Lee wrote:

I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Heritage or Hatred?: The Removal of Confederate Monuments appeared first on Law Street.

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

NSA Contractor Charged with Leaking Classified Info on Russian Hacking

Yesterday, more information came to light about a top-secret NSA report regarding the Russian involvement in the presidential election last year. The document stated that Russian hackers did attack at least one company providing voting software, just days before the election. It also states that Russian military intelligence was responsible for the cyber attack.

.@theintercept blew its source’s cover by giving the NSA a copy of the leaked document, according to @nytimes https://t.co/PG73Pqe4ZX

— Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) June 6, 2017

Barely an hour after the article was published online by the Intercept, the Justice Department charged the suspected leaker with sharing classified material with a news organization. The suspect is Reality Winner, a 25-year-old federal contractor at the NSA. According to the government, there is evidence that Winner printed the documents and was in touch with the Intercept. She is the first alleged leaker arrested under President Donald Trump, who has said he wants to crack down on leaks. Now a lot of people are applauding Winner for sharing the information, and for having a pretty cool name.

Daily Recap: Woman named Reality Winner leaked info showing Russia tried to hack elections that gave us a POTUS many think is Surreal Loser.

— Ana Navarro (@ananavarro) June 6, 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: June 6, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

When NFL player Joe McKnight was shot to death in an apparent case of road rage last Thursday, the suspect was not charged immediately, despite reportedly telling the police officers that he was the shooter. The incident caused an uproar; many drew parallels between McKnight’s shooter–a white man–and the numerous instances of white police officers or individuals killing black people. On Tuesday, almost a week later, Sheriff Newell Normand announced that he had charged Ronald Gasser with with manslaughter. He also defended the delayed arrest, explaining that the police wanted to wait until they found reliable witnesses before moving forward.

Sheriff Normand held a news conference on Tuesday in Louisiana to explain the circumstances of Gasser’s arrest. Gasser is a 54-year-old white man who had an altercation with McKnight on a bridge while they were both driving. The two men kept racing each other and shouting, driving into a New Orleans suburb, until they both came to a stop. McKnight allegedly exited his car and walked up to Gasser, who took out his gun and shot the 28-year-old football player three times. He confessed immediately when police arrived at the scene, but initially told officers that he feared for his life and that the shooting was an act of self defense. Gasser was taken into custody but released after hours of questioning.

the craziest thing about the mcknight case is it’s being treated as if the outcome should be in any sort of doubt.

— El Flaco (@bomani_jones) December 6, 2016

When he announced the arrest at the news conference on Tuesday, Sheriff Normand seemed agitated and defensive, slamming his fists on the podium repeatedly and emphasizing that the department had done nothing wrong. “This isn’t about race. Not a single witness has said… a single racial slur was uttered,” he said. Despite the lack of racial slurs, the incident could have easily been about race. But at this point, the evidence does point to a case of plain road rage.

Says they didn’t charge Gasser Thursday night bc not enough evidence & he was cooperating without atty. Got consent to search Gasser’s home.

— T.J. Quinn (@TJQuinnESPN) December 6, 2016

The sheriff read aloud some of the racist and foul-mouthed verbal attacks that he, other officers, and lawmakers have received on social media and via email for not dealing with the case fast enough. He read a few out loud that were offensive enough that MSNBC cut away from the live broadcast and apologized for the language. The sheriff said that had they made an arrest right away, witnesses might have been hesitant to come forward. They’ve now found 250 possible witnesses based on license plates placed in the surrounding area.

Gasser’s temperament is certainly at issue–he had a similar fight with another man ten years ago at the exact same intersection. In 2006, he was driving a truck, when a fellow motorist called a number printed on the side of the truck to say that the driver was driving erratically. The number actually went to Gasser’s phone. The two men got into a fight over the phone and Gasser followed the man to a gas station where he confronted him and beat him up. The only consequence for Gasser was a misdemeanor summons that was later dismissed.

McKnight played three seasons for the New York Jets and one for the Kansas City Chiefs. The Jets held a moment of silence in his honor on Monday night before playing a game in New York.

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 Man Who Allegedly Killed NFL Player Joe McKnight Charged with Manslaughter appeared first on Law Street.

Former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard and well-known white supremacist David Duke started robocalling people urging them to vote for both him and Donald Trump in November, an effort to tie himself to Trump’s appeal. Duke is currently running for a Senate position in Louisiana.

Prior to his endorsement in February, Duke was reluctant to support Trump because he is too friendly with “the Jews” and might not do anything about the “Jewish elite” that he claims is running the United States. In August 2015 he said, “Trump has made it very clear that he’s 1,000 percent dedicated to Israel, so how much is left over for America?”

But in February Duke set aside his reservations and formally endorsed Trump. He told NBC News that he had to make a political decision and that he agrees with Trump on “a lot of other issues.”

Duke has since supported the idea of a Trump presidency, encouraging listeners of his radio show and visitors of his website—where he goes by Dr. Duke—to vote for Trump in November. Despite his initial hesitance, Trump formally denounced Duke’s endorsement and continues to denounce it.

In the robocall, Duke even takes a shot at Beyoncé:

Unless massive immigration is stopped now, we’ll be out numbered and outvoted in our own nation. It’s happening. We’re losing our gun rights, our free speech. We’re taxed to death. We’re losing our jobs and businesses to unfair trade. We’re losing our country. Look at the Super Bowl salute to the Black Panther cop killers.

You can listen to the full robocall here.

Hillary Clinton took the opportunity to highlight the fact that a prominent KKK figure is endorsing Trump.

Longtime Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke supports Donald Trump because they share so many of the same values. pic.twitter.com/XuXznBEslA

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 25, 2016

Duke told NBC in February that he is still an important political player and has hundreds of thousands of followers online who will all vote for Trump. But Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center points out that Duke’s claim is not quite accurate. “David Duke still portrays himself as a white nationalist hero, but the fact is he hasn’t done anything political in years,” Potok said. “Duke’s having a moment in the news now, and he needs this. In the white supremacist world, he’s seen as an opportunist, someone who is living off the movement.”

David Duke’s history in politics ranges from founding the White Youth Alliance at the Louisiana State University in 1970 to becoming a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, which he made an effort to bring into the mainstream. He won a seat in the Louisiana State Senate in 1989 but later failed when running for governor, Senate, and even the White House. He also formed an organization called National Association for the Advancement of White People to further his mission and spread white supremacy.

In 2002, he was convicted of filing a false tax return–he used donated money privately and for gambling–and lost a lot of public support. He is now running for Senate in Louisiana and even though the Republican Party there does not support him, it claims that it would be too costly to formally ban him from running on the Republican ticket.

After the recent robocall made the news, Trump’s campaign sent a statement to politico reiterating his disavowal of Duke’s support. The statement said:

Mr. Trump has continued to denounce David Duke and any group or individual associated with a message of hate. There is no place for this in the Republican Party or our country. We have no knowledge of these calls or any related activities, but strongly condemn and disavow.

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 David Duke Robocalls Voters Asking them to Vote for Him and Trump appeared first on Law Street.

It happened again–a cellphone video circulating on social media shows police shooting a black man at close range, only hours after Independence Day celebrations ebbed. Early Tuesday morning Alton Sterling, 37, was shot and killed when pinned to the ground by two police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

According to reports from Louisiana police an anonymous person called 911 and said that a man selling CDs outside the grocery store had threatened him with a gun. Police arrived at the scene, tasered Sterling and wrestled him to the ground.

The cellphone video shows how seconds later someone says, “He’s got a gun.” This led the officers to shoot Sterling even though he was already lying on the ground. It was later confirmed he was shot multiple times in the chest and the back, sparking outrage on social media and protests in Baton Rouge.

This is the video.

Executed in cold blood https://t.co/BWJVRQr1qU #AltonSterling

— Anonymous (@YourAnonNews) July 6, 2016

A Man, a Father, a Husband, a Black Man, an American, shot while laying on his back. Tell me why Again? Heaven Help us All #AltonSterling

— LeVelle Moton (@LeVelleMoton) July 6, 2016

According to local media, residents who took to the streets accepted the fact that the same civil unrest and race-focused protests that have grown in other cities have now arrived in Baton Rouge. In Baton Rouge the African-American population is divided from the white, in many cases living in separate neighborhoods and under the poverty line.

Even though protesters stopped traffic and no police officers were in sight, the protests were largely non-violent and controlled.

The #AltonSterling aftermath pic.twitter.com/PPvSuiEtaz

— Avi (@RecklessAvi_) July 6, 2016

Alton Sterling was a father of three and sold his CDs in front of the convenience store. The owner Abdullah Muflahi told CNN that they had known each other for six years and that he never saw any argument between Sterling and someone else. He also never saw the gun-waving incident that allegedly was called in to 911.

“Pretty much everybody who knows him knows he’s a sweet person,” Sterling’s sister, Mignon Chambers, said to WVLA-TV.

Sterling’s family spoke at a press conference about the shooting:

This must stop. Enough!RT @CNN: "I want my daddy": #AltonSterling’s 15-year-old son in tears https://t.co/6PcxaxmfXC https://t.co/pP1CgsU3Mq

— Kristin Diable (@kristindiable) July 6, 2016

The shooting comes a little more than a week after the actor Jesse Williams gave a speech at the BET Awards on racism, and urged listeners to not accept police brutality. According to CNN, the police officers involved in Sterling’s death are now on administrative leave.

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 Police Shooting of Alton Sterling Sparks Protests in Baton Rouge appeared first on Law Street.

The state of Louisiana wants to ensure that Blue Lives Matter. Recently, Governor John Bel Edwards expanded Louisiana’s Hate Crime Law to encompass protections for police officers. The new law, House Bill 953, also known as the Blue Lives Matter Bill, passed the Republican-controlled House and Senate with 92 to 0 and 33 to 3 votes, respectively. Now in the state of Louisiana, it’s unlawful to target people based on their perceived race, age, gender,  religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry of a person, or because of actual or perceived membership with, service in, or employment with law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency medical services personnel. While the Governor and State Representatives may have created the law under the pretense of protecting the people who protect us, in actuality it debases the previously established protected classes under the hate crime law, and fails to address issues of racism connected with police criticism.

All the other protected classes of hate crimes in Louisiana have one thing in common: immutable characteristics. People cannot remove themselves from the identity of their race, age, gender, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry; nor should they be harassed or vilified for these characteristics. It is for this reason that these groups benefit from special protection under the law. Adding a vocation to the same category as these groups stretches the bounds and limits of who or what qualifies as a protected class.

One of the organizations in opposition to the Louisiana law because of its categorization of emergency personal as a protected class is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). According to the South Central Regional office’s website, the league is committed to combating anti-Semitism, hatred, and bigotry by investigating and exposing extremism while advocating for civil rights, religious freedom, and diversity. In a press release, ADL states its concerns,

Expanding the characteristics included in bias crime laws may open the door to a myriad of other categories to be added and simultaneously dilute current hate crimes legislation.  This bill confuses the purpose of the Hate Crimes Act and weakens its impact by adding more categories of people, who are better protected under other laws.

Essentially, House Bill 953 weakens the established law at an unnecessary expense since law enforcement groups can be protected by other laws.

State Representative Lance Harris wrote the bill after the murder of white Texas Deputy Daren H. Goforth by an African American man named Shannon J. Miles. The Blue Lives Matter organization itself began as a campaign to rally behind police officers after the targeted murders of Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu during the heat of criticism against police brutality in New York.

But there are misperceptions on both sides. What the assailants of Deputy Goforth, Officer Ramos, and Officer Liu failed to understand when they attacked the officers is that the system under which police officers work is racist and unjust, but not necessarily every police officer carries those qualities. What Louisiana’s new law misunderstands is the climate in which police officers are serving. People in uniform are not under attack, however their trusted relationships with their communities continue to crumble under the deeply entrenched racism in this country.

Quite bluntly, House Bill 953 distracts from the issues of racism felt by many communities when it comes to police injustice. Before Blue Lives Mattered, Black Lives Mattered. Despite the fact that real issues of racism and injustice continue to rise within multiple police precincts across the U.S., Louisiana chose to focus on the protection of a group of people with contested vulnerability and established protection. As state representatives lose sight of the real issues, we as a nation cannot.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Louisiana Bill Making Police a Protected Class Weakens Hate Crime Law appeared first on Law Street.

After a long battle, the Louisiana governor’s race has been decided. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, defeated Republican David Vitter. The runoff election was held yesterday, and ended with Edwards winning 56 percent of the vote. It was a big surprise, given a consistent trend over the last few election cycles that have shown Democrats not faring well in state-wide or local elections. So what exactly happened in Louisiana?

The answer to that question isn’t simple, but there are certainly some clear things that the Vitter campaign did poorly, and some things the Edwards campaign did very well.

Let’s start with the current political environment in Louisiana, for example. Current Governor Bobby Jindal isn’t particularly well liked there–a recent poll found that he only had a roughly 20 percent approval rating overall, and even worse, 55 percent of Republicans in the state don’t approve of his job performance. So, painting Vitter as a successor to Jindal was a good move for the Edwards campaign–failing to distance himself from Jindal was something that Vitter did poorly.

The recent debate over the Syrian refugee crisis also didn’t play well for Vitter and and gave Edwards an advantage, as Edwards was able to attack Vitter on the fact that he had missed key hearings on the situation in Syria as a senator. While Vitter tried to spread fear about Syrian refugees in Louisiana, that tactic didn’t fare so well as the example he used of a Syrian refugee fleeing the state was quickly debunked.

Finally, there were the candidates themselves. Before running, Edwards was relatively unknown, but compared to scandal-plagued Vitter, that was a good thing. But what was known about Edwards played well in Louisiana–according to the New York Times he’s:

A Catholic social conservative from a family of rural law enforcement officers who graduated from West Point and served eight years of active duty in the Army.

In contrast, Vitter was still fighting to bury a prostitution scandal from 2007, when his name was included on a list of clients of the infamous “D.C. Madam.”

So, is the race in Louisiana a lesson for Democrats who are struggling to win statewide offices? Maybe–Edwards’ campaign certainly was a success. But whether or not it was a replicable success is difficult to ascertain. Many of the factors that helped Edwards be successful–Jindal’s notable unpopularity, the current Syrian refugee controversy, and the two candidates’ relative backgrounds–uniquely fit together to spell success for Edwards. So, while this is great news for the Democrats in Louisiana, statewide races are still going to be tough for the left to win.

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 Democrat John Bel Edwards Wins Louisiana Governor’s Race, Beats David Vitter appeared first on Law Street.

You’ve probably heard the name Schumer before–but the question is whether politics and taxes on private equity managers or jokes about women’s sexuality and vaginas come to mind. Now, the two Schumers will be increasingly associated. Comedian, writer, and actress Amy Schumer and her cousin, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, publicly announced on Monday that they are teaming up to fight gun violence. The announcement comes just two weeks after a fatal shooting in Lafayette, Louisiana, when a gunman opened fire at a screening of Amy Schumer’s new movie “Trainwreck,” killing two women and injuring nine others before committing suicide.

My heart is broken and all my thoughts and prayers are with everyone in Louisiana.

— Amy Schumer (@amyschumer) July 24, 2015

The comedian has called this shooting “extremely personal” and stated that she thinks of the two women who were killed during the showing of her movie every day. “This should not have happened,” she said at a news conference alongside her Senator cousin on Monday. “It’s a tragic, senseless and horrifying action from this man who should not have been able to put his hands on a gun in the first place.” The Lafayette shooter bought his gun in Alabama last year after a background check failed to reveal his history of psychiatric problems and that he had been the subject of domestic violence complaints. Senator Schumer, sponsor of the “Brady Act” that was passed 20 years ago and requires background checks for gun buyers, stated, “We should do everything possible to tighten up loop holes,” and that “we can’t sit back and let mass shooting become commonplace.”

Senator Schumer proposed new gun control measures that are meant to prevent violent criminals, abusers, and those with mental illnesses from obtaining guns. The legislation would improve the currently flawed background check system by creating monetary incentives for states that submit thorough reports to the federal database used to block gun sales to people with criminal records or a history of serious mental illness. The bill would also create penalties for states that fail to submit these records to the database. The Senator emphasized that this new plan is about improving the present background check system, not putting new restrictions on buyers.

74% of Americans want stronger background checks. Joining @amyschumer to call on my colleagues in Congress to finally listen. More at 11.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) August 3, 2015

On Saturday, Amy Schumer tweeted in response to an open letter addressed to her from a Georgetown University student who called on Schumer to speak out against gun violence and advocate for stricter gun laws. “Your movie — which was so well-received, so brilliant, so you — will now forever have this shooting attached to it,” the letter begins. The letter, which went viral on social media, raised many points about women’s victimization from gun violence, stating that every day in the United States, five women are murdered with a gun, making American women 11 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than women in other high-income countries. The letter continues with more chilling statistics about gun violence against women, stating:

And from 2001 through 2012, 6,410 women were murdered in the United States by an intimate partner using a gun — more than the total number of U.S. troops killed in action during the entirety of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

The author of the letter, Sarah Clements, says that she knows the “guilt, the sadness, the hole in your heart” that Schumer must have experienced upon hearing the news of the shooting. Clements writes that her mother was a survivor of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, and she has since dedicated her life’s work to gun violence prevention. After Schumer read the letter, she tweeted in response, saying not to worry because she is “on it.”

@cdickason11 @sfclem Her name was Mayci, not Marci and I think about her and Jillian everyday. Don't worry I'm on it. You'll see.

— Amy Schumer (@amyschumer) August 1, 2015

And she was on it. Just two days after the tweet, Schumer followed her cousin’s presentation on his plans for gun violence prevention with an emotional speech at the New York press conference. “Unless something is done and done soon, dangerous people will continue to get their hands on guns,” she said. “We never know why people choose to do these things,” Amy Schumer stated, “but sadly we always find out how, how the shooter got their gun.” She said that her cousin’s three-step plan “deserves unanimous support” because it seeks to address the flaws in the “how.”

Amy Schumer fights gun violence: 'Shootings have got to stop' http://t.co/t29GcKiWY3 pic.twitter.com/MH2Uj68iIt

— TODAY (@TODAYshow) August 4, 2015

Mass killings in the United States have occurred with increasing frequency in recent years. From 2000 to 2007, an average of 6.4 active shootings occurred per year; from 2007 to 2013, that number jumped to 16.4 incidents per year. These mass killings will continue to gain momentum unless we pass legislation that creates serious incentives for states to obey the gun restriction laws that are already in place. Not only do we need to buckle down on the current system of gun control that is not being followed, but we also need to eventually introduce new restrictions. In a majority of mass shootings, killers obtained their weapons legally. This fact warrants significant pause; our laws are not protecting us from danger and are allowing individuals to commit mass murders. All in all, serious improvements to America’s gun laws are needed.

Senator Chuck Schumer and Amy Schumer are using their public platforms to advocate for necessary change that will hopefully spark a more robust conversation on gun control that has been fleeting and unfinished in the past. Amy Schumer’s last line during Monday’s press conference has left everyone wondering what is next for the Schumer pair when she stated: “These are my first public comments on the issue of gun violence, but I can promise you they will not be my last.”

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Schumers are On It: Gun Violence Prevention Has a Few New Faces appeared first on Law Street.

As we continue our research into the dumbest laws of the United States, let’s have a look now at Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and Kentucky.

I’ve heard of the cliché of throwing tomatoes at comedians who are bombing to the worst degree on stage, but never of throwing eggs at public speakers–an act that is strictly prohibited in Kentucky and punishable by a year in prison. Kentucky seems to have a thing for eggs and birds as the state has also banned dying a duckling blue and offering it for sale unless more than six are for sale at the same time. Really makes you wonder how that law came to fruition…

In Tennessee, you can’t mooch off of your parents’ Netflix account or any one else’s for that matter because it is illegal to share your password. And with regard to technology, you cannot post images online that cause “emotional distress” without “legitimate purpose.”

Tennessee also has a number of strict laws pertaining to minors. For example, students cannot hold hands in school. From what I’ve seen of the public displays put on by students today, hand holding should really be the least concern. It is also illegal to dare a minor to purchase beer, and a misdemeanor to tattoo a minor. So if you have a hankering to open a tattoo parlor in Tennessee, be sure to check ID!

Moving on to Louisiana. For starters, don’t even try to steal an alligator, because if you succeed you can land in jail for ten years. Not worth it if you ask me! Stealing crawfish is also a crime in the state.

A ten-year prison sentence looks like nothing when you compare it to the punishment for urinating in the city’s water supply. Doing so could put you behind bars for 20 years. Speaking of bodily fluids, “rituals that involve the ingestion of blood, urine, or fecal matter” are also illegal. The aforementioned are just a couple of the crimes that result in prison time in Louisiana. A false promise can lead to a year, and every time a prisoner tries to hurt him or herself he or she could serve an additional two years.

Boxing and wresting are taken very seriously in Louisiana. There, fake wrestling matches are prohibited and it is illegal for spectators to mock one of the contestants participating in a boxing match.

“AR-kan-sas?” “Ar-KAN-sas?” You better know how to pronounce the name of this state before heading there, as it is illegal to pronounce it incorrectly. In Little Rock, sandwich shops specifically like their peace and quiet. It is illegal to honk one’s horn at one after nine at night. Also in Little Rock, you cannot suddenly stop your car at a McDonald’s fast food joint.

Some dumb Arkansas laws that appeared on the Internet but could not be validated include that dogs cannot bark after six in the evening, and that it is unlawful to walk one’s cow down Main Street in Little Rock after 1:00 PM on Sundays.

Oh, the fun just doesn’t stop with these laws! Keep your eyes open for the next installment!

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 Dumbest Laws of the United States: AR, LA, TN, and KY appeared first on Law Street.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) just announced that they’re not playing nice with climate change-deniers anymore. FEMA has officially proclaimed that unless states create plans that consider how to combat climate change, they may not be eligible for disaster preparedness funds from the agency.

The new FEMA guidelines acknowledge the problems that have come or may develop from climate changes, including things like more intense storms, heat waves, drought, and flooding. Given that all of those are situations in which states often turn to FEMA for funding and assistance, the agency is asking that when making their disaster preparedness plans, states “assess vulnerability, identify a strategy to guide decisions and investments, and implement actions that will reduce risk, including impacts from a changing climate.”

It’s important to note that this change won’t affect how much aid FEMA will give to states affected by natural disasters such as earthquakes, storms, and hurricanes. That’s called disaster relief, and it’s not part of this change. Rather, if states don’t provide adequate hazard-mitigation plans that acknowledge climate change and its effects, it will withhold the funds for that disaster preparedness. These funds are used for things like training and purchasing equipment. Overall, FEMA gives out grants of this sort that total about $1 billion each year.

This creates a big political problem for some of America’s most visible and prominent Republican governors, many of whom have long either advocated that climate change is not a product of human activity, or that it’s simply not happening. Deniers who are now on the chopping block include Governors Rick Scott (Florida), Bobby Jindal (Louisiana), Chris Christie (New Jersey), Greg Abbott (Texas), and Pat McCrory (North Carolina).

Jindal and Christie have, at the very least, been floated in talks about possible 2016 Republican contenders. Ironically, Louisiana gets the most disaster preparedness money and New Jersey comes in at number three, so Jindal and Christie, as well as the other Republican governors who deny climate change, are faced with an interesting catch-22. They can either sign off on plans that comply with FEMA regulations and lose some political clout among the conservatives they may have to woo in a presidential primary, or refuse to acknowledge climate change and lose funding that their states probably need.

This policy shift comes amid many debates happening around the country over how states should individually handle climate change. There are allegations that in Florida, for example, there’s an “unofficial policy” to not use the words climate change, even when discussing the phenomenon and its effects.

No matter what, this is certainly a bold move on FEMA’s part, and shows that politics can’t always take the front seat when it comes to safety. FEMA is making a move that it thinks will help mitigate the results of climate change–if it ruffles a few political feathers in the meantime, so be it.

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 FEMA to States: Recognize Climate Change or Lose Funding appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Gonk via WikiMedia Commons]

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 10 Law Schools for Environmental and Energy Law: #7 Tulane University Law School appeared first on Law Street.