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:

Celebrities Protest at Trump Tower After Outrageous Press Conference

Last night, Michael Moore invited the audience that attended his Broadway play “The Terms of My Surrender,” featuring Mark Ruffalo, to join them at a protest outside the Trump Tower in New York. He then bussed 200 people in double-decker buses over to the tower and encouraged the rest of the audience to walk over. The protest was also a vigil in honor of counter-protester Heather Heyer. Ruffalo opened with a speech urging people to say her name. Actors Olivia Wilde and Tom Sturridge joined the protest right after they finished their Broadway show, “1984,” and led some chants.

.@MMFlint and @MarkRuffalo are leading a Trump Tower protest with #1984Play‘s Olivia Wilde and Tom Sturridge in tow https://t.co/PFfJ08I54a pic.twitter.com/rqf62i5qwS

— Ashley Lee (@cashleelee) August 16, 2017

The outrage aimed at President Donald Trump increased yesterday, after he defended his initial remarks regarding Charlottesville, when he said that “many sides” were responsible for the violence. Yesterday, he repeated that claim, and said the “alt-left” groups that attended the rally were “very, very violent” and that the blame is on “both sides.” People were shocked by the callous comments, and former KKK leader David Duke thanked the president on Twitter.

No words. https://t.co/pCSYUE5iZN

— Mark Warner (@MarkWarner) August 15, 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: August 16, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers are moving forward with plans to repeal the Clean Water Rule, an Obama-era water pollution regulation that’s long been on the Trump Administration’s chopping block.

The Obama Administration signed the Clean Water Rule in 2015, extending existing pollution protections of larger bodies of water under the Clean Water Act of 1972 to include all “navigable waters,” including smaller bodies such as rivers, streams, and wetlands. Opponents of the rule included farmers who claimed it infringed on their property rights. President Donald Trump signed an executive order in February to review that rule.

“It is in the national interest to ensure that that the Nation’s navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing, regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution,” the order read.

The Clean Water Rule provides for the protection of about 60 percent of the nation’s bodies of water. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said by rescinding the rule, the government will restore power to states, farmers, and businesses.

“We are taking significant action to return power to the states and provide regulatory certainty to our nation’s farmers and businesses,” Pruitt said in the EPA’s announcement. “This is the first step in the two-step process to redefine ‘waters of the U.S.’ and we are committed to moving through this re-evaluation to quickly provide regulatory certainty, in a way that is thoughtful, transparent and collaborative with other agencies and the public.”

Pruitt released a proposal Tuesday that would rescind the Clean Water Rule and revert regulations to the language in the Clean Water Act prior to the 2015 definition of “waters of the United States” or WOTUS.

Environmentalists opposed the Trump Administration’s rescission of the rule. Without regulations, they said, the nation’s water would be threatened by pollution. John Rumpler, senior attorney and clean water program director at Environment America, spoke out against the EPA proposal.

“Repealing the Clean Water Rule turns the mission of the EPA on its head: Instead of safeguarding our drinking water, Scott Pruitt is proposing to stop protecting drinking water sources for 1 in 3 Americans,” Rumpler said. “It defies common sense, sound science, and the will of the American people.”

Clean Water Action President and CEO Bob Wendelgass also released a statement, saying that the only people who stand to gain from the Clean Water Rule repeal are special interest groups.

“The Clean Water Rule is essential to public health,” Wendelgass said. “It is vital to communities that rely on healthy wetlands and streams to power small businesses and provide drinking water. We’re not going to protect clean water by ignoring science and common sense. Americans understand that–yet President Trump and Scott Pruitt don’t seem to.”

Marcus Dieterle

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

The post EPA Moves To Repeal Obama Administration’s Clean Water Rule appeared first on Law Street.

Former NBA star Dennis Rodman’s lifetime of strange behavior continues with yet another trip to the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea this week–his fifth trip to the isolated nation.

Rodman has built a close relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in recent years, becoming a pseudo-ambassador for the United States. America has no ambassador or diplomatic relations with North Korea; instead, it relies on the Swedish embassy as a mediator, according to its website.

“My mission is to break the ice between hostile countries,” Rodman told Sports Illustrated in 2013. “Why it’s been left to me to smooth things over, I don’t know. Dennis Rodman, of all people. Keeping us safe is really not my job; it’s the black guy’s [Obama’s] job. But I’ll tell you this: If I don’t finish in the top three for the next Nobel Peace Prize, something’s seriously wrong.”

Rodman’s current trip is being sponsored by Potcoin.com, a cryptocurrency business that does banking for legal marijuana companies. While there is little known about cultural life in North Korea, some defectors have said that marijuana is obtainable and common in North Korea.

I’m back! Thanks to my sponsor https://t.co/zBtIFz1QBr. #NorthKorea #PeaceAndLove https://t.co/G7t6PX3WV9

— Dennis Rodman (@dennisrodman) June 13, 2017

Another one of Rodman’s previous trips was sponsored by Paddy Power, an Irish gambling company.

The fact that Rodman, an eccentric NBA star who has headbutted a referee, kicked a cameraman, once married former “Baywatch” star Carmen Electra for less than six months, and then donned a wedding dress and wig to marry himself, is the main liaison between the two nations is pretty strange. But his rapport with the supreme leader is even more bizarre.

Dennis Rodman gives copy of ‘The Art of the Deal’ to North Korean official https://t.co/QKyhrMvigp via @RyanGaydos pic.twitter.com/FQYXQyGnm6

— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 15, 2017

In the past Rodman has discussed politics with North Korean leaders, in addition to having fun as a private citizen. Prior to his fifth trip, he told to reporters he is “trying to open a door” for better relations between the two nations, according to Chicago Tribune.

In 2014, Kenneth Bae, a South Korean-born American citizen, publicly thanked Rodman following his release from the country after being imprisoned and sentenced the prior year to serve 15 years of hard labor in the country. Bae called Rodman the “catalyst” for his release.

Coincidentally, University of Virginia student Otto Warmbier was released back to the United States within hours of Rodman’s arrival in North Korea Tuesday. It remains murky as to whether or not Rodman had something to do with Warmbier’s return, but Michael Anton, a US national security spokesman, told CNN he didn’t believe Rodman played a role.

Rodman endorsed President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign after twice participating as a contestant in Trump’s reality show “Celebrity Apprentice.” Since his inauguration, Trump has repeatedly criticized and threatened both Kim and North Korea.

North Korea is behaving very badly. They have been “playing” the United States for years. China has done little to help!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 17, 2017

Despite Trump’s public criticisms, Rodman still believes the president would approve of him befriending Kim. When asked by reporters in Beijing if Trump was aware of the trip, Rodman replied, “Well, I’m pretty sure he’s pretty much happy with the fact that I’m over here trying to accomplish something that we both need.”

Multiple sources involved in unofficial talks with North Korea, according to the Washington Post, claim the Trump Administration is using Rodman as a back channel to North Korea, rather than the usual lineup of experts and policy makers. But it remains to be seen whether or not basketball can actually bridge the seemingly impassable divide between the two countries.

Josh Schmidt

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

The post Dennis Rodman Heads to Favorite Vacation Spot, Again: North Korea appeared first on Law Street.

After Republicans’ first attempt to swiftly repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act failed, President Donald Trump finds himself in a difficult position: he has to administer a law that he has frequently called a “disaster.” The question now becomes: will President Trump and Tom Price, his Secretary of Health and Human Services, try as hard as possible to support the law that’s already on the books or will they take steps to undermine it?

As Republicans continue to try to broker a compromise between their more moderate and conservative wings–and there’s at least some evidence they are making progress–questions about the existing law may need to be answered before any new legislation makes its way to the president’s desk. While many of these pending decisions are somewhat small or would require a long time before taking effect, there’s one relatively arcane component of the Affordable Care Act–cost-sharing subsidy payments–that could swiftly pull the rug out from under the health insurance exchanges that about 12 million people rely on for health insurance. Read on for an overview of the Affordable Care Act exchanges and to see how a pending lawsuit gives President Trump unique control over the fate of a major part of his predecessor’s landmark accomplishment.

An Overview of the Health Insurance Exchanges

The Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, is an extraordinarily long piece of legislation that touched almost every part of the U.S. health care system–an industry that accounts for nearly one-fifth of the entire economy. One of the law’s primary goals was to lower the number of people without health insurance coverage. To do this, the law dramatically increased the number of people on Medicaid–the government-run health insurance program for low-income Americans–by expanding outreach and eligibility to a larger number of Americans. It also created federal and state-run health insurance exchanges on which people who do not get health insurance through their employer and also don’t qualify for Medicare or Medicaid can buy health insurance. While most of the coverage gains came from expanding Medicaid, creating regulated exchanges and offering subsidies made health insurance available to groups who previously did not have access to it on the individual market, notably those with preexisting conditions.

Individuals could buy health insurance before the Affordable Care Act’s passage, but insurers could charge people with chronic health conditions a lot more for insurance and could even deny coverage outright. The ACA introduced significant marketplace reforms to ensure that all insurance plans offered on the exchanges cover a minimum set of services, known as the 10 essential benefits, and prevented companies from denying anyone coverage because of a preexisting condition. The law also included provisions that prohibited charging people higher premiums based on certain characteristics like gender or health status. For other characteristics, the law set specific ranges at which companies can use to price premiums. For example, companies can charge no more than three times as much for their elderly customers as they can for their youngest customers.

The law had a number of provisions to try to make the marketplaces stable for insurers and consumers. One of the most discussed (and controversial) market stabilization components of the law is the individual mandate–the requirement that everyone get health insurance or pay a tax penalty. To help make insurance affordable for consumers, the ACA provided premium subsidies to people making less than 400 percent of the federal poverty line. The premium credits are tied to a benchmark plan to ensure that an individual or a family’s healthcare spending is capped at a certain percentage of their income. This means that if insurance premiums change dramatically from one year to the next then the subsidy will also adjust for those who are eligible. Finally, the law also had several stabilization programs that sought to reduce the risk that insurers would face when beginning to sell plans on the new exchanges.

Cost-Sharing Reductions

One of the many ways the law sought to make care affordable for low-income Americans is the cost-sharing reduction requirements. The cost-sharing reduction provision is relatively small in the overall scope of the law, but remains an important component because it addressed costs that people face when going to get care. In addition to premiums, health insurance plans typically include several forms of cost-sharing, which involve out-of-pocket costs when someone visits the doctor or fills a prescription. The Affordable Care Act sought to reduce these costs for people with incomes up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level. People who are eligible for cost-sharing reductions must enroll in silver insurance plans, the middle tier plans, on the insurance exchanges. Based on an eligible consumer’s income, insurers adjust the value of the plan to ensure that they cover a certain percentage of all costs. The government then provides a subsidy to insurers so they recoup those costs. A typical silver plan has an actuarial value of 70 percent, meaning that the insurance company will, on average, pay 70 percent of the cost for covered services–the other 30 percent typically comes through different cost-sharing. In plans eligible for cost-sharing reductions, the actuarial value of a silver plan increases based how close a person or family is to the federal poverty level. For the lowest income Americans who buy insurance on the exchanges, the actuarial value goes as high as 94 percent.

This year there are 7.1 million Americans who have plans with cost-sharing reductions, accounting for 58 percent of all plans on the exchanges. The total cost of the subsidies provided by the government is about $7 billion each year. This process–in which insurers are required to reduce cost-sharing for certain low-income customers and then the government subsidizes the insurers–is key to understanding the current challenge, which we’ll get to in the next section.

It’s worth noting that the law was not implemented exactly as it was designed, as legal and legislative obstacles played a significant role in the way the law took effect. Additionally, while the law has many provisions to reduce the burden on insurers and consumers, there are a number of local marketplaces that are particularly fragile at the moment. Several insurers have pulled out of the exchanges and there are several counties where people buying insurance on the health exchanges have only one insurance plan to pick from. At the same time, there are several places where the exchanges have been particularly successful–where strong competition between insurers has created a stable market for consumers. Debating the overall success of the Affordable Care Act and what should be done going forward is clearly important, but that is beyond the scope of this piece. What is clear is that the law led to a significant legal and political backlash, which brings us to the next part of the story.

The Lawsuit

The passage of the Affordable Care Act sparked a number of legal challenges, several of which have made their way to the Supreme Court. But the lawsuit that is the most important right now is the one challenging the cost-sharing subsidies. Interestingly, this lawsuit didn’t come from private citizens, small businesses, or religious institutions, but from another branch of the government.

In November 2014, Republicans in the House of Representatives filed a lawsuit against the executive branch to challenge two aspects of the ACA’s implementation. The lawsuit first argued that President Obama overstepped his constitutional authority by delaying the implementation of the employer mandate–a requirement that companies of a certain size must provide health insurance for their employees or pay a fine. Second, it claimed that the Obama Administration’s payments to insurers for the cost-sharing subsidies were illegal because the money had not been properly appropriated. A federal judge dismissed the first claim but allowed the second to proceed.

The Arguments

Both sides of the lawsuit agree that money cannot be spent unless it is properly appropriated, but the dispute focuses on the question of whether or not the current law amounts to an appropriation. House Republicans argue that although the ACA created the subsidy, the payments are not linked to a specific appropriation. Although the law calls for the payments to be paid, it doesn’t specify a source for the payments. This is not the case for the law’s premium subsidies, which are paid out in the form of refundable tax credits and are appropriated by the statute that allows the IRS to make refund payments. When the issue first emerged, President Obama asked Congress for a specific appropriation but Congress declined. After the lawsuit began, the Obama Administration argued that the same appropriation that is used for the premium subsidies can be used to make the subsidy payments to insurers.

Nicholas Bagly, a law professor and health care expert at the University of Michigan, has studied the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and argues that the Republicans’ lawsuit has a point. The justification used by the Obama Administration doesn’t quite make sense because tax credits are not the same thing as direct payments to insurance companies. As Bagley puts it, “It’s an enormous stretch to read an appropriation that governs refunds for individual taxpayers as also covering payments to insurers.” However, he also argues that the Republican lawsuit should have been thrown out by the courts in the first place. The White House and Congress are two coequal branches of government and they have the authority to resolve the dispute between themselves. If Congress has a problem with something the president is doing, it can pass a law that stops him from doing it. Congress could also pass a law appropriating the funding for the cost-sharing payments and the problem would be resolved. Allowing one branch to take an issue with another branch to the courts could set a problematic precedent as political disputes should ideally be resolved by elected officials.

What’s Next and Why It’s Important

After the district judge’s initial ruling–which allowed the cost-sharing subsidy claim to continue but dismissed the employer mandate claim–a separate ruling in 2016 ordered President Obama to stop making the payments. Obama immediately appealed the decision and the judge stayed her ruling so the White House could appeal. This means that right now, if President Trump decided to stop reimbursing insurers for cost-sharing reductions, he could drop the appeal and the judge’s injunction blocking the payments would stand. Doing so would have massive consequences for the fate of the health insurance exchanges. This is also something that the president has publicly considered, but the fate of these payments remains unclear.

On April 10, the Department of Health and Human Services told the New York Times that it planned to continue making the cost-sharing payments to insurers while the lawsuit was being litigated. But a few days later, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump said that he would consider withholding the payments as a way to force Democrats to negotiate on health care legislation. This was, in effect, a threat to undermine the insurance markets as a way to force a deal. Democrats have also reportedly considered demanding a specific appropriation for the payments for their support in a funding bill that will be needed before the end of April to avoid a government shutdown. While the politics of the issue remain unclear, the ultimate effects that ending the payments would have are fairly clear.

Consequences for Health Insurance Markets

Ending the cost-sharing subsidy payments would have dramatic consequences for the individual health insurance market. Ending the payments would not change the fact that insurers who sell plans on the exchanges would still need to provide cost-sharing reductions for customers who qualify–whether they get reimbursed by the government or not. The Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-partisan organization that analyzes health care policy, estimated that average premiums would need to increase by 19 percent to offset the lack of government funding. These estimates varied by location, ranging from a projected 9 percent increase in North Dakota to a 27 percent in Mississippi. Alternatively, insurers may simply leave the exchanges altogether.

After several insurance companies had difficulty turning a profit in the early years of the ACA’s implementation, several companies decided to stop selling plans in many markets. The current uncertainty surrounding the cost-sharing payments and health care policy more generally, could lead many companies to pull out from the exchanges. Trade groups have already started to warn lawmakers that blocking the payments may cause insurers to drop out of the markets. By June 21, all health insurers will need to decide whether or not they plan to sell insurance on the ACA exchanges next year. This year there are more than 960 counties in the country with just one insurer offering to sell plans on the exchanges, and if companies decide to pull out, several markets could collapse altogether.

Conclusion

As Republicans continue their efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, President Trump may need to make decisions about the current law before he has an opportunity to sign a new law overhauling it. Arguably the most pressing of these challenges is what to do about the lawsuit challenging the cost-sharing subsidy payments. Trump could decide to stop the pending lawsuit and block the payments almost immediately, throwing exchanges that provide insurance to 12 million Americans into chaos. He could continue the current policy–allowing the appeal to move forward and payments to be made to insurers–or he could ask Congress to appropriate the required funding and resolve the issue once and for all.

In the meantime, the subsidy payments will continue to play an important role in legislative negotiations, particularly the funding bill needed to keep the government open past April 28. Meanwhile, insurers must deal with uncertainty as they decide if they want to continue to sell plans on the state and federal exchanges. While much remains in question, the end result will largely be the product of Congressional politics. Both parties seem to think they have the upper hand–assuming the other will be blamed if subsidy payments are blocked and insurers hike premium prices or leave the markets altogether.

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 Behind the Lawsuit that Could Upend the Affordable Care Act Exchanges appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, reports came in that Susan Rice, the national security adviser from 2013 to early 2017, requested the identities of some of President Donald Trump’s associates be “unmasked” in intelligence reports. Rice is no stranger to political scandals: in 2013, she was grilled for her handling of the bombing at the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. But what exactly did Rice uncover when combing over the reports, and were her actions that unusual, or illegal? Let’s take a deeper look.

What Did Rice Do?

U.S. intelligence services routinely surveil communications of foreign actors. Sometimes, American citizens are at the other end of these communications. A handful of Trump’s campaign associates are suspected of communicating with Russian government officials or businessmen, and therefore, were anonymously “swept up” in intelligence reports on the Russian actors. Usually, the identities of U.S. citizens who are included in foreign surveillance reports are kept hidden, or masked.

Rice, as first reported in Bloomberg View on Monday, repeatedly sought to “unmask” the identities of Trump’s associates who were caught up in the intelligence reports during the campaign. In an interview on MSNBC on Tuesday, Rice explained her thought process:

There were occasions when I would receive a report in which a U.S. person was referred to–name not provided, just a U.S. person–and sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report, and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out, or request the information as to who the U.S. official was.

She did not, however, agree with her critics that her unmasking requests were for political gain. “The allegation is that somehow the Obama Administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes,” she said. “That’s absolutely false.”

Is What She Did Illegal?

No, it’s not. Federal law does indeed allow the national security adviser, which Rice was at the time, to request the identities of U.S. persons in intelligence reports for “context.” And there is no evidence she acted to benefit the Obama Administration, or Trump’s opponent at the time, Hillary Clinton. That’s not stopping Trump, who first claimed Obama wiretapped Trump Tower in a now-infamous tweet in early March, from reaching that conclusion.

“It’s such an important story for our country and the world,” he said in an interview Wednesday with the New York Times. “It is one of the big stories of our time.” He did not elaborate, nor did he provide any fresh evidence to vindicate his earlier claims about Obama wiretapping him, or that Rice’s actions were politically motivated or criminal.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), a leading member of the House committee that is probing Trump’s and his associates’ ties to Russia, suggested on Wednesday that Rice could be subpoenaed to testify in front of the committee. “Whether she has pertinent testimony or not, I can’t say. If she does, we’d be happy to have her come in,” he said. He categorically rejected people who try to “besmirch the reputation” of Rice.

“I don’t know what it is about Susan Rice that has always drawn the conspiracy theories of that Breitbart crowd,” he said. “But they’re at it again and it is a disservice to someone who is a public servant.” Some Republicans are looking at the new reports as potential evidence that Rice was politically motivated in her handling of the intelligence reports.

“Every presidential administration from FDR through Nixon, the administration in power used intelligence agencies to engage in political espionage,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) said in an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Wednesday. “Human behavior hasn’t changed. Technology has changed and made a lot of this simpler. We have to be on the lookout for it.” While Lee did not conclude Rice’s actions amount to a political or criminal act, he did say it is “not absurd to suggest something like this could have happened.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post What You Need to Know About Susan Rice’s “Unmasking” of Trump Associates appeared first on Law Street.

Many of us miss President Barack Obama in the White House, so much so that when he was recently spotted out and about spectators erupted in roaring applause. At the end of February, the former president had dinner at Emilio’s Ballato in Soho with his daughter Malia, who has an internship in New York. They later took pictures with the staff of the restaurant.

Barack Obama & Malia Obama out & about in NYC. The father-daughter dinner date is really cute. pic.twitter.com/AVnaENi1W2

— nañi (@pettyblackgirI) February 24, 2017

The next day, Obama was seen getting coffee at a Starbucks in downtown New York City. The word spread fast and when he exited a building on Fifth Avenue people on the streets behaved like it was Beatles in the 1960s.

Obama just left a meeting off 5th Ave. Hundred outside cheering. pic.twitter.com/6oPC3yCEEX

— Alex Heath (@alexeheath) February 24, 2017

Some commented on his post-White House glow, which probably comes from his vacation in the Caribbean with Michelle and their friend Richard Branson, who taught Obama to kitesurf.

He’s rested & has a glow about him. The man is back. pic.twitter.com/EGyrjSn8EY

— deray mckesson (@deray) February 24, 2017

Later that evening, Obama went to Broadway to see Arthur Miller’s “The Price.” Classy as he is, he didn’t make a big fuss about it, but snuck in with Malia and his former adviser Valerie Jarrett after the lights went out. Apparently someone used a flashlight to show the trio to their seats, which even annoyed some visitors. “Who is so rude to come in after the show starts with the flashlights and everything?” Theater visitor Laralyn Mowers recalls thinking. But when her friend told her who it was, Mowers said that her day, which up until then had been really bad, definitely changed for the better.

Okay, so it’s intermission. Obama and Malia came in and left when the lights were down. The crowd didn’t notice. Nice job, Secret Service.

— Sopan Deb (@SopanDeb) February 25, 2017

The Obamas left right after the show ended–but not before giving the cast a standing ovation–and went backstage to snap some pictures with the actors Danny DeVito, Mark Ruffalo, Jessica Hecht, and Tony Shalhoub.

Barack Obama has a sweet father-daughter date night with Malia at Broadway’s #ThePrice. https://t.co/b49OsTatAr pic.twitter.com/iPumQ8OF5L

— EntertainmentTonight (@etnow) February 25, 2017

Obama exited the theater quietly, but his fans still found him and cheered him on, with an applause. As always, he took some time to give a little wave.

Former President Obama, daughter Malia leave theater after watching “The Price” on Broadway https://t.co/tzKPwwakn3 pic.twitter.com/rhZOVzLpKn

— NBC New York (@NBCNewYork) February 25, 2017

On Monday, Obama and Michelle popped into the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C. and as they left the building, a crowd of people once again applauded and cheered the former presidential couple. NBC reporter Benjy Sarlin happened to be there and speculated that breaking out in applause when spotting Obama now seems to be the new norm.

Crowd as President Obama leaves the National Gallery pic.twitter.com/lqPSSNrKg9

— Benjy Sarlin (@BenjySarlin) March 5, 2017

This was the first time the Obamas were seen publicly since Donald Trump made his claims that he believes Obama wiretapped his phones in Trump Tower before the election. Trump has not offered any evidence for his controversial claims, and Obama’s spokesperson has denied that any such thing happened. Luckily it seems like the Obamas didn’t take the accusations too hard, and they got to enjoy an afternoon at the museum.

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 People Keep Bursting into Applause When they See Obama on the Street 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:

Trump Claims Obama Wiretapped His Phone

On Saturday, Donald Trump claimed, without stating any evidence, that former President Barack Obama wiretapped his phones at Trump Tower throughout the month before the election. On Twitter, Trump called Obama a “Bad (or sick) guy!” He didn’t say where he got the information, but similar allegations circulated on a conservative radio show and Breitbart the day before. A spokesperson for Obama said the allegation was “simply false.” Then yesterday, the White House demanded a congressional inquiry into the matter. A statement from Sean Spicer called “reports” about it “very troubling,” but he said that the White House would make no further comment until after an investigation is concluded.

There are no credible public sources for this, only Trump’s assertions. And he seems not to have checked w 17 Intel agencies-just Breitbart https://t.co/XnP3NGNZpw

— Trip Gabriel (@tripgabriel) March 5, 2017

These are pretty serious allegations, and it’s important to note that a president doesn’t have the power to just order a wiretapping by himself–requests would normally have to go through the FBI and be approved by a judge. Later on Sunday, FBI Director James Comey asked the Justice Department to publicly reject Trump’s claims, as he is implying that the FBI and Obama potentially broke the law. But the DOJ has been silent and now people are wondering if this is all just a way to divert our attention away from something else.

On @ThisWeekABC, Sen. Al Franken calls Pres. Trump’s wiretap assertion “a distraction.” https://t.co/I4naMV1Nfj pic.twitter.com/NaIRVI6Mew

— ABC News (@ABC) March 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: March 6, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The current political climate has resulted in reminders of celebrities that none of us have thought about in a while. First, there was Scott Baio. Then, there was Aaron Carter. Next, it was Three Doors Down.

The latest celebrity who, through the power of conservative politics, has come out of the woodwork is none other than Robert Ritchie, also known as Kid Rock. You know, the guy who sings “All Summer Long.”

According to a report from Roll Call, Kid Rock’s name was brought up at a Michigan Republican Party convention as a potential candidate to run for Debbie Stabenow’s Senate seat. Stabenow, a Democrat, has served in the Senate since 2000. She is one of 25 Democratic senators on the ballot in 2018.

While Kid Rock has not commented on the possibility nor has he been officially asked, a Michigan GOP spokesperson told Fox News that she “wouldn’t be surprised if there was a movement for him to run.”

If Kid Rock does decide to run, he might face some competition from none other than Ted Nugent, the hardcore conservative rock musician who was an outspoken Trump supporter during the campaign and appeared at a couple of his Michigan rallies. One such appearance resulted in Nugent grabbing his crotch on stage while he said, “I’ve got your blue state right here. Black and blue. Each and every one of you have only 24 hours to convince the numb nuts that you know, that you can’t vote for criminals, you can’t vote for liars, you can’t vote for scam artists.” Note that this is also nowhere near the most vulgar thing Nugent has done or said.

Speaking to The Daily Caller about a possible Senate run, Nugent said that he “is always interested in making [his] country and the great state of Michigan great again” and that “there is nothing I wouldn’t do to help in any way I possibly can.”

Kid Rock has proven to be less conservative than Nugent, once telling Rolling Stone in 2013 that he considers himself, politically, to be a “lone wolf” and “more Libertarian,” although he tends to vote Republican. In a 2015 interview with Rolling Stone, Kid Rock spoke about his belief in gun ownership as a “sacred right.”

This past election, Kid Rock supported Trump, telling Rolling Stone that he would like to see America run like a business because: “it’s not really working too well running it not like a business.” Early in the 2016 campaign, he spoke of his interest in Dr. Ben Carson as a candidate. Kid Rock’s website also began selling pro-Trump merchandise during the election. A sample of this merch: a shirt with America’s electoral map on the chest, with the states in blue labeled “Dumbf*ckistan.” The shirt sold for $24.99 plus shipping costs.

Kid Rock has been touting his political beliefs for years. During the 2000s, Kid Rock would perform with a Confederate flag behind him, which came back to haunt him in 2011 when he accepted an award from the NAACP’s Detroit branch. He was also an outspoken supporter of Mitt Romney during the 2012 election. Romney called his song “Be Free” his campaign theme song and Kid Rock performed it for him at a campaign event. He also appeared at multiple Romney rallies throughout the country.

While he has been an outspoken conservative, Kid Rock did perform at an Obama inauguration event in 2009, telling The Guardian that, despite not voting for Obama, “there was an exciting sense of change in the air.” However, Kid Rock has said that Obama helped to create a country that was “more divided than ever.” He was, of course, referring to the tension that is rising among people living in red states and those living in “Dumbf*ckistan.”

If this past year has taught us anything, it’s that we should never say never. This 2018 senatorial race could be one to pay attention to.

VOTE KID ROCK pic.twitter.com/SwTMgckKbd

— Kid Rock (@KidRock) November 8, 2016

Austin Elias-De Jesus

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

The post Is Kid Rock Michigan’s Next Senate Candidate? appeared first on Law Street.

With tensions rising in America, shade levels have been rising in direct proportion. A tiny bit of this shade and subtly savagery is coming from former official Obama White House photographer Pete Souza’s Instagram account.

Souza, who was also the official White House photographer for the Reagan White House, has been taking to his new Instagram account (the account he used during the Obama administration is now archived) to post photos from his time with the Obama White House, while also throwing some shade at President Donald Trump.

Many people and outlets have pointed out Souza’s shade, from people on Twitter to CNN and Teen Vogue.

Omg you need to follow @PeteSouza on Instagram. The subtle trump shade…these captions are SAVAGE. #ObamaLegacy #whitehouse44 pic.twitter.com/xxLOEQv8qH

— Vallari Ajgaonkar (@VallAjgaonkar) February 2, 2017

Ain’t no shade like Pete Souza shade cus Pete Souza shade has amazing composition and lighting. https://t.co/QuBl7er9AT

— The Happy Feminist (@HappyFeminist) February 2, 2017

I am living for @PeteSouza‘s instagram trolling

— Megan Hess (@mhess4) February 3, 2017

Let’s take a little dive into this man’s glorious new Instagram feed, and rank his pointed posts by shade and savagery.

#5: Immigration Ban Posts

Many people criticized President Trump’s immigration ban last weekend that incited protests in different airports across the country. This criticism has been direct and heated. But Souza is far too shady to directly address the situation. Instead, Souza just posted two pictures relating to the refugee situation to respond. The first: a picture of Obama with a young refugee. The second: a picture of a six-year-old boy, Alex, who was so concerned about the well-being of a Syrian refugee that he wanted him to be his brother.

Why do these posts take last place on the list? Well, that’s because, while they’re perfectly shady, they’re a little too heart-tugging and emotional to be petty enough to be characterized as “savage.” Hundreds of stories have been written about the immigration ban and its effects on not only refugees but on American citizens, and these posts from Souza point to the perceived human costs associated with Trump’s executive order. These posts are a perfect introduction to the shade that Souza is throwing on Instagram, but they aren’t totally indicative of how subtly biting Souza’s posts can get.

Talking with a young refugee at a Dignity for Children Foundation classroom in 2015.

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Jan 29, 2017 at 5:16am PST

Remember Alex, the six-year-old boy who wrote President Obama a letter about the Syrian boy photographed in the ambulance. Alex visited the Oval Office with his family the day after the election. "Dear President Obama, Remember the boy who was picked up by the ambulance in Syria? Can you please go get him and bring him to [my home]? Park in the driveway or on the street and we will be waiting for you guys with flags, flowers, and balloons. We will give him a family and he will be our brother. Catherine, my little sister, will be collecting butterflies and fireflies for him. In my school, I have a friend from Syria, Omar, and I will introduce him to Omar. We can all play together. We can invite him to birthday parties and he will teach us another language. We can teach him English too, just like my friend Aoto from Japan. Please tell him that his brother will be Alex who is a very kind boy, just like him. Since he won't bring toys and doesn't have toys Catherine will share her big blue stripy white bunny. And I will share my bike and I will teach him how to ride it. I will teach him additions and subtractions in math. And he [can] smell Catherine's lip gloss penguin which is green. She doesn't let anyone touch it. Thank you very much! I can't wait for you to come! Alex 6 years old "

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Jan 30, 2017 at 2:37pm PST

#4: Australia 

Now we’re getting into slightly more savage territory.

This Souza post shows Obama sharing a hearty and chummy laugh with the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia at the ASEAN gala dinner last September.

Talking with then Prime Minister John Key of New Zealand, left, and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia last September at the ASEAN gala dinner.

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Feb 2, 2017 at 2:21pm PST

Did Souza post this just because he thought the lighting was particularly good in this shot? Absolutely not. This was posted in the midst of the new Trump-Australia feud and after The Washington Post reported that the phone call between Trump and Turnbull was somewhat contentious.

Per The Washington Post:

. . . President Trump blasted Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over a refu­gee agreement and boasted about the magnitude of his electoral college win, according to senior U.S. officials briefed on the Saturday exchange. Then, 25 minutes into what was expected to be an hour-long call, Trump abruptly ended it.

At one point, Trump informed Turnbull that he had spoken with four other world leaders that day — including Russian President Vladi­mir Putin — and that “this was the worst call by far.”

The beauty of this post lies in how subliminal it is. This is a technique that we will see Souza employ for numbers 3 and 2 of our ranking.

#3/#2 (Tie): Mexico and Merrick Garland

We have a tie. We have this tie because these two posts are uniquely shady in their own ways, thus making it impossible to choose which one is superior to the other.

Let’s begin with the Merrick Garland post.

Merrick Garland. Just saying.

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Jan 31, 2017 at 5:28pm PST

For context, Merrick Garland is, of course, the Obama Supreme Court nominee who never received a Senate confirmation hearing. Many people have cried foul over this because Garland was respected by politicians on both sides of the aisle. And last week Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.

What makes this post so great is the fact that Souza posted this picture of Obama and Vice President Joe Biden with Garland a couple of hours before Trump announced his pick for SCOTUS nominee. The other thing that makes this post great is the simplicity of the caption, especially the second part. “Just saying.”

Just saying. 

This caption is also 100 times better if you read Just saying the same way André 3000 says “Just playin'” after he describes his very specific (read: petty) hope that a pretty but stuck up young woman (Caroline) will speed in her car on the way to the club trying to hurry up to “get some” baller or singer (or somebody like that) and while driving try to put on her makeup in the mirror but because of her inability to multitask she will crash, crash, crash into a ditch.

We then move on to the picture that Souza posted of Obama drinking tequila with Mexico’s president Enrique Peña Nieto.

This one is for Grover. President Obama sampling some tequila with President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico in 2013. @heygrover

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Jan 31, 2017 at 6:18pm PST

This one is pretty self-explanatory. It’s no secret that Trump has a dicey relationship with Nieto (see: border wall). Things seemed to have reached a kind of boiling point the other day when The Washington Post reported that Trump had a heated phone call with Nieto, who canceled a planned meeting with Trump. Then, The Associated Press reported that Trump told Nieto that “he was ready to send U.S. troops to stop “bad hombres down there” unless the Mexican military does more to control them.”

The whole situation with the relationship between Trump and Nieto would make this post go pretty high on the list, but what truly makes it so perfectly shady is what is maybe an unintended feature of the picture. If you will notice, Obama bears a striking resemblance to an insanely popular meme/gif. Click this link to see if you can make the rainbow connection.

#1: Then It Was on Day One…

Congratulations, you’ve made it to the end.

The absolute shadiest/pettiest/subtly savage post Souza has made came on the very first day of Trump’s presidency when Souza took a moment to comment on some of the aesthetic changes to the Oval Office.

I like these drapes better than the new ones. Don't you think?

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Jan 21, 2017 at 7:36pm PST

The drapes that hang behind the Resolute desk are now gold, which isn’t much of a surprise because, if you didn’t know, our president is Donald Trump.

Captured this last night as @POTUS @realDonaldTrump sits at his desk in the Oval Office for the first time in the @WhiteHouse. #POTUS45 pic.twitter.com/BObUKXwIir

— Dan Scavino Jr. (@DanScavino) January 21, 2017

Why does this post take the number one spot? Because the whole thing is about drapes. That’s it–drapes. How petty do you have to be to go after a man’s choice of drapes? And imagine how shady you have to be to go after the drapes of the man who replaced your former boss.

Also, this was posted on Day 1 of Trump’s presidency. Day. 1.  This is a day after anarchists took to the streets to set a limo ablaze and bust the window of a Starbucks and the same day millions of women around the globe marched in protest of the new president and his problematic views and behavior, and this man was ruthless enough to take to his Instagram account to go in on the new president’s new drapes. Souza is audacious. This is like if “I don’t know her” were an Instagram post. This is why this post is and will always be the most petty/shady/savage post Souza will ever make on Instagram.

There are no signs that Souza will stop posting his shadiness on Instagram any time soon. Not only does he post pictures with captions that comment on our current political situation, but he also posts a ton of pictures that are objectively beautiful that were taken throughout his career as a photographer.

It’s just too bad that Souza is no longer around the Obamas to take a better-framed and less-grainy photo of this iconic moment in the life of the former president of these United States:

Obama’s on vacation with the hat backwards. He’s never coming back. pic.twitter.com/RUakcwwgtT

— Philip Lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) February 1, 2017

You can follow Pete Souza on Instagram @petesouza.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

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

The post A Profile in Shade: A Ranking of Pete Souza’s Instagram Posts appeared first on Law Street.

Inauguration Day 2009: President Barack Obama is sworn in as the first black leader of a country yearning for change. Inauguration Day 2017: President Donald Trump is sworn in as the first leader with zero government–or military–experience of a country yearning for change. Aside from the passionate, divisive, and largely unprecedented calls for change, January 20, 2009, and January 21, 2017 had little in common. But what about the subsequent two weeks? Do Obama and Trump have more in common than meets the eye? Let’s take a look.

Executive Actions

In their first week in office, Obama and Trump signed 15 and 14 executive actions respectively. As of Friday, the two-week anniversary of his presidency, Trump has signed 20 total executive actions: eight executive orders, and 12 memoranda. By the end of week two, Obama had signed 20 executive actions as well: 10 executive orders, and 10 memoranda. While both used the power of the presidential pen significantly more than Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the executive actions issued at the beginning of 2009 and 2017 are vastly different.

Obama ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility on his second day in office. He directed the interrogations of detained suspects to follow the Army Field Manual, which effectively made torture illegal. Obama called for more funds to help aid refugees from the Gaza Strip. These were largely benign moves that may have ruffled a few feathers, but did not ignite protests around the world.

Trump’s executive actions during his first two weeks irked allies and enemies alike, and galvanized thousands of people to protest in airports and city streets around the country. On day one, Trump ordered Republicans to repeal Obamacare. It had little concrete effect, but it certainly set the tone. Next, Trump ordered “the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border” with Mexico. He called for a crackdown on illegal immigrants. He placed a freeze on federal hiring, and he withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation free trade deal involving Australia, Canada, and Japan.

And capping off his first week in the Oval Office, Trump froze the U.S. refugee program for at least 120 days, banned citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from coming to the U.S. for at least 90 days, and barred Syrians–refugees and immigrants–from coming to the U.S. indefinitely. With the scribble of his signature, Trump revoked 60,000 to 100,000 visas, and kept an estimated 20,000 desperate people from finding refuge in the U.S.

Foreign Policy

When Obama first moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, domestic issues–the recession and the collapse of the automobile industry, for starters–demanded most of his attention. But the world around him still had plenty of issues to address. U.S. troops in Afghanistan were in need of a boost, and Obama tried to give them just that by promising to ship an additional 30,000 troops to the battlefield. Pakistan, Afghanistan’s neighbor, was harboring jihadist militants, and Obama briefly flirted with sending troops there as well.

But he did not alienate allies. He did not blow Twitter kisses to traditional adversaries; nor did he inflame tensions with them. The world was a different place: the European Union was intact and still viewed as an inevitable and vital organ for peace in the region; populism and nationalism did not threaten the decades-long international order; refugees were not gushing out of Syria, desperately seeking refuge and drowning in the Mediterranean Sea.

Trump has inherited a vastly different international reality, and has responded to that reality in ways quite foreign to allies and enemies alike. His first order of business: ordering the building of a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, and insisting Mexico pay for it. The move infuriated Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto so much that he canceled his planned meeting with Trump.

A few days later, Trump held a baffling telephone conversation with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Upon learning the U.S. agreed to take in over 1,000 refugees from Australia, Trump reportedly hung up the phone. Turnbull has since disputed that report, and said the call ended “courteously.” On Friday, two days after National Security Advisor Michael Flynn put Iran “on notice” for its missile test. Trump warned Iran with a Twitter missile of his own:

Iran is playing with fire – they don’t appreciate how “kind” President Obama was to them. Not me!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2017

Domestic Deeds

Perhaps the most important item on Obama’s to-do list during his first few weeks as president was to resuscitate America’s economy. His nearly $800 billion stimulus plan aimed to do just that, and Obama, attempting to avoid a partisan feud, met with Republicans on the Hill to work out the details. Partisanship won the day however (but did not crush the law), as the stimulus bill ultimately passed with zero Republican votes in the House, and only three in the Senate.

Obama’s opening approval rating, an imperfect if increasingly irrelevant metric, was at 67 percent. After a few days, only 45 percent of Americans approved of the job Trump was doing, the lowest approval rating in the modern polling era. And though Trump has not had to deal with a sinking economy in his first few weeks, his domestic agenda is plenty full.

As Trump begins to steer the U.S. into uncharted waters, bi-partisanship is largely a fable of the past. Hyper-partisanship might have started the day Obama took office, and the years of Republican obstruction that followed, but the country is currently at a boiling point for polarized politics. Trump has taken aim at the “failing” media and at “weak” Democrats, but also at some “lyin'” and “little” members of his own party.

Between Republican infighting, an emboldened far-left, a nascent Tea Party-like progressive movement, and a weakened establishment on both sides, Trump is the king of a castle that is undergoing an intense and disruptive restructuring. Within that context, Trump has moved quick and early in implementing his domestic agenda.

He has taken aim at Obama-era regulations, pledging to erase two for each new rule Trump enacts. On Friday, Trump targeted the Dodd-Frank law which, among other things, created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And on Tuesday evening, Trump ended a bitter year-long dispute over the vacant Supreme Court seat by nominating Neil Gorsuch to the position.

Like never before, America seems broken in two. Trump has followed through on a number of campaign promises in the early going, satisfying his base, and enraging opponents who were hopeful he would back away from some of his most divisive plans. His opponents are not only taking to the streets, but to the courtroom as well: as of Thursday, Trump faces over 50 lawsuits, more than triple the amount Clinton, Bush, and Obama faced in their first two weeks–combined.

Alec Siegel

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

The post A Tale of Two White Houses: Comparing the Early Days of Obama and Trump appeared first on Law Street.

There’s no doubt that there are a lot of celebrities who are missing President Barack Obama: his effortless cool drew big names to the White House during his 8-year tenure. Now Chance the Rapper, the 23-year old hip-hop star, has taken his Obama appreciation to the next level, modeling for a new fashion line  named “Thank You Obama.”

I’m a model now. #ThankUObama droppin in like 15 minutes. ThankUObama.us pic.twitter.com/Y7jOHKzRam

— Lil Chano From 79th (@chancetherapper) February 2, 2017

The line, from Chicago designer Joe Freshgoods, includes hoodies and tees showing appreciation for the Obama family. In addition to “Thank You Obama” and “Thank You Michelle” clothing, the line also includes a “Malia” t-shirt that includes the message “We all smoke, it’s OK” (a reference to a video of the Obama daughter that sparked some controversy).

Freshgoods wrote about his motivation to start the line on the site:

With this project I wanted to timestamp a period in my life where I felt like I can do whatever I wanted to do and be whatever I wanted to be. The night Obama won his first term gave me so much hope, especially & most importantly as a black man. I decided to make a collection saying “thank you” and give me something to smile at every now and then when I look in the closet.

The ties between Chance and the former president run pretty deep: Chance’s father, Ken Williams-Bennett, served as Obama’s state director when he was a senator. And it appears Obama is a fan, as he cited Chance as one of the “top rappers in the game” in an interview last October. The fellow Chicago native was also tapped to perform at the White House Tree Lighting Ceremony this past December, and was an attendee at Obama’s goodbye party.

Look up Kensli, say cheese!

A photo posted by Chance The Rapper (@chancetherapper) on Dec 31, 2016 at 4:11pm PST

If you’re looking for a fashionable way to show off your gratitude to the former First Family, you can check out the line at thankuobama.us.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Chance the Rapper Models a New Line of Obama Appreciation Gear appeared first on Law Street.

While President Barack Obama’s time in office has now come to a close, his environmental legacy has the potential to last far beyond his eight years as president. The Obama Administration has worked tirelessly to protect and defend the environment, championing several initiatives. Some key accomplishments, however, include the establishment of more national monuments than any other president, signing the historic Paris Climate Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, banning drilling in parts of the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean, and unveiling the Clean Power Plan. Additionally, Obama raised fuel-efficiency standards, invested in green energy, and created the Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators. Whether these policies stand the test of time, however, may depend heavily on the actions of future administrations.

National Monuments

While Obama’s time in office was winding down, he was still designating sites as national monuments. On January 12, 2017, Obama named five new national monuments. That brought his total number during his presidency to 34—more than any other president. Moreover, in December 2016, he created two national monument sites in Utah and Nevada. The Bears Ears National Monument, which protects 1.35 million acres of land in southwest Utah and two geological formations, was particularly controversial; five Native nations had petitioned Obama to grant federal monument protections to the area.

“Bears Ears” Courtesy of Bureau of Land Management : License: (CC BY 2.0)

Over the course of his time in office, Obama utilized the Antiquities Act–a law signed by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906–multiple times to create the monuments. The Act gives the President of the United States the authority to set aside land to protect important historic, cultural, and ecological sites without approval from Congress. In total, Obama protected more than 550 million acres. That is more than double the amount that Roosevelt, a well-known conservationist, conserved himself.

A large portion of the land Obama protected is covered by water. He created and expanded several large national marine monuments. One notable monument is the Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Monument, a large collection of coral reefs, underwater preserves, and tiny islands roughly 1,000 miles off the coast of Hawaii. Bush had originally established the monument in 2009 at 55.6 million acres; Obama then expanded it by 261.3 million acres in 2014. Obama also quadrupled the size of Hawaii’s Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, which is home to more than 7,000 species of wildlife, many of which are endangered.

Ban on Arctic and Atlantic Drilling

In addition to the significant acreage of water Obama protected as national monuments, his administration also banned arctic drilling. Using the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Obama withdrew hundreds of millions of acres of federally-owned land in the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean from new offshore and gas drilling in December 2016. The Act allowed for Obama to act unilaterally, but no president has ever utilized the law to permanently protect land. In particular, large portions of the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic and canyons in the Atlantic from Massachusetts to Virginia are now off-limits to oil exploration.

“Sea Ice in the Chukchi Sea” Courtesy of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center : License: (CC BY 2.0)

The Atlantic Ocean already had a five-year moratorium in place, and the protection of the canyons means that most of the eastern seaboard will not be drilled for oil. The seas in the Arctic are a habitat for several endangered species, including species that are candidates for an endangered species listing, and the canyons protected are largely recognized as biodiversity hotspots. If the ban is upheld by the courts, about 98 percent of the waters in the Arctic would be protected from oil exploration and drilling. In a presidential memorandum, Obama stated that these areas are extremely vulnerable to oil spills and have irreplaceable value for marine animals, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and scientific research–making the Arctic Waters a prime area for protection

Paris Climate Agreement

The Paris Climate Agreement was the first of its kind–a global consensus to combat the effects of climate change. Its central aim is to strengthen the response to threats of climate change and keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius. The agreement also aims to cut global greenhouse gas emissions by limiting the burning of fossil fuels and assist in preventing further floods, droughts, catastrophic storms, and rising sea levels.

In a rare moment of consensus, both the U.S. and China ratified the agreement, formally committing the world’s two biggest economies to curb climate change. The terms allow countries to determine independently which strategies will be most successful in attaining climate goals. While some of the aspects are binding and some are not, Obama’s ratification of the deal demonstrated a bold move by his administration to make protecting the planet a priority in years to come.

Clean Power Plan

President Obama’s most historic environmental initiative, perhaps, is the Clean Power Plan, which is designed to aggressively shrink America’s carbon footprint. The plan outlined the first national standards to specifically address pollution from power plants. In particular, the plan cuts significant amounts of carbon pollution and other pollutants from power plants that are responsible for soot and smog that have an adverse effect on human health. The plan is long-term, allowing companies to remain in business while making the changes needed to comply with the new standards.

The Supreme Court issued a “stay” in February 2016,  temporarily halting the plan from moving forward. However, it is set to be fully in place by 2030, with carbon pollution 32 percent below 2005 levels, sulfur dioxide pollution 90 percent lower, and nitrogen oxides 72 percent lower. This reduction in greenhouse gases is specifically aimed at combating the dangerous effects of such pollution on the climate. Additionally, the entire plan itself is expected to contribute a variety of positive economic effects–climate benefits of roughly $20 billion, health benefits in the $14-$34 billion range, and total net benefits of approximately $26-$45 billion.

“Power plant” Courtesy of Spiros Vathis : License: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

What’s Next?

Despite the great measures Obama undertook to protect the environment, it is quite possible that some of his environmental policies will be overturned by a new administration. The ban on drilling may or may not be able to be overturned by President Trump, but a Republican-controlled Congress could move to rescind the withdrawal of federal lands from oil and gas exploration. However, such a move might not be successful, given a close reading of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

National monuments have never been removed by a subsequent president, but President Trump has reportedly stated that he is open to the idea of doing so. As for the Paris Climate Agreement, Trump has made it clear that he wants to withdraw America’s participation in the historic deal. Arguments that the agreement will be disastrous for the economy and American industry are at the forefront of opponents’ minds. While Trump considers withdrawing the U.S. from the agreement, China, India, Germany, the EU, and the UK have all reaffirmed their commitments to curb emissions. China’s President, Xi Jinping, even stated that removing the U.S. from the agreement will endanger future generations. Furthermore, if other countries continue to invest heavily in clean energy, then money, jobs, and technology are sure to stream into those industries, perhaps leaving the U.S. behind.

The fate of the Clean Power Plan also hangs in the balance under the new administration. Many opposed to the plan have already urged President Trump to sign an executive order that rescinds the rule and tell the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) not to enforce it. However, attorneys general from a variety of states have noted that “history and legal precedent strongly suggest that such an action would not stand up in court.” The plan is also vulnerable to the Congressional Review Act, which would allow Congress to nullify the regulations. For now, the Clean Power Plan remains in limbo.

Overall, most of Obama’s environmental legacy will be decided by the courts, not by a particular administration. With more than 100 judicial vacancies across the country as Trump takes office, along with a vacant Supreme Court seat, the courtroom is going to be the arena in which environmental policies could be dismantled. In particular circuits with more than one vacant seat, specific areas of environmental regulation may be rolled back immensely; for example, the Second Circuit has become a critical arena for determining water regulation under the Clean Water Act and the Ninth Circuit has a profound impact on endangered specifies. Environmental groups are already preparing to take any anti-climate policies or actions to court, along with attorneys general from multiple states.

Conclusion

Obama’s presidency was clearly focused on environmental protection and combating catastrophic effects of climate change in the coming years. As commander-in-chief, Obama did an extensive amount of work to ensure the environment is viable and sustainable far into the future. Whether his efforts will be unraveled in the new Trump Administration and Republican-controlled legislative branch, however, is yet to be seen. Overall, Obama’s actions certainly elevated the environment and climate change to a much higher level of importance, and his environmental legacy may have him remembered as one of the top environmental presidents in history.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Look Back at the Obama Administration’s Environmental Legacy appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s decree on Friday, barring refugees and immigrants from seven largely Muslim countries from entering the U.S., ignited protests across the country on Saturday and Sunday. Now, members of the State Department are joining the dissent: over 100 officials have signed a memorandum that warns that the executive order could in fact deepen the terrorist threat that Trump is seeking to contain.

A draft of the State Department memo said the order runs the risk of increasing “anti-American sentiment” and implies “that we consider all nationals of these countries to be an unacceptable security risk.” The executive order suspends the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days; Syrian refugees and immigrants are blocked indefinitely. Visitors and immigrants from the other six countries–Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, and Sudan–cannot come to the U.S. for 90 days.

This was hardly the first time the State Department has utilized its “dissent channel,” which was created after the Vietnam War, but this number of signatories is unprecedented. In June 2016, 51 State Department officials signed a dissent memo that criticized President Barack Obama’s policy in Syria. The number of signatories to that memo was considered unusual at the time. The latest memo has attracted nearly double the number of dissenting officials.

State Department Spokesman Mark Toner said the department’s “dissent channel” is an “important process.” He added: “It allows State employees to express divergent policy views candidly and privately to senior leadership.” Traditionally, dissent memos are given to the secretary of state, who has the power to act on the memo. Trump’s choice, Rex Tillerson, is not expected to be confirmed until Wednesday.

The White House, which has vehemently defended its actions after a torrent of criticism from religious leaders, Democrats, private citizens, business leaders, and many Republican congressmen, did not seem to react well to the dissent memo. In a press conference on Monday afternoon, Press Secretary Sean Spicer said if somebody “has a problem” with Trump’s agenda, then that can “call into question whether or not they should continue in that post or not.” Spicer added: “They should get with the program or they should go.”

Trump’s divisive order led to protests across the country, as people rushed to show support for the Muslim community and for refugees around the globe who will be denied entry into the U.S. for at least four months. In his first statement since leaving office, Obama expressed support for the protests, and criticized his successor’s order.

“Citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake,” the statement from Obama’s office said, adding that the former president “fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post Over 100 State Department Officials Sign Memo Condemning Trump’s Refugee Ban appeared first on Law Street.

It’s an unwritten but profusely underlined rule in Washington that you don’t make fun of the president’s children, but after Donald Trump’s inauguration this weekend, some users on Twitter didn’t seem to get the memo.

In the midst of the inauguration festivities this past weekend, a number of Twitter users made Barron Trump, the president’s youngest son, the butt of a whole host of jokes.

Is it just me or does Barron Trump look like King Joffrey? pic.twitter.com/lJKVyfqgDw

— Game of Thrones Meme (@Thrones_Memes) January 21, 2017

Until @katiemaryrich either profusely apologizes to #BarronTrump or is fired, I will join the many who #BoycottSNL. Loyal viewer since 1975. pic.twitter.com/haQ6PRcHWn

— (((ProperGander))) (@BamaStephen) January 21, 2017

In response to these jokes, a lot of people called foul, reiterating a point that many have preached for decades: the first children are off limits. Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton took to social media on Sunday to express her feelings about the Barron situation:

Barron Trump deserves the chance every child does-to be a kid. Standing up for every kid also means opposing @POTUS policies that hurt kids.

— Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) January 22, 2017

Clinton’s support for Barron comes two weeks after former first daughters Jenna Bush-Hager and Barbara Bush penned a letter in TIME in support of Malia and Sasha Obama, praising them for their grace while their parents served as president and first lady and wishing them well on the lives they will embark on after their parents’ time in the White House.

On Monday, NBC suspended “Saturday Night Live” writer Katie Rich for her tweet about Barron Trump, which she has since apologized for. While some have seen NBC’s action as justified, others have come to the defense of Rich, highlighting that crude comments from President Trump and other politicians have not been met with the same kind of swift reprimand.

That Katie Rich joke was just “writers room talk.”

— Moshe Kasher (@moshekasher) January 24, 2017

Katie Rich should have never tweeted that joke. She should have said it on an Access Hollywood bus. Then no one would care.

— Dan Wilbur (@DanWilbur) January 23, 2017

It’s interesting that a writer on SNL is held to a higher standard of language than the man we elected @POTUS @katiemaryrich #stupid

— Chelsea Handler (@chelseahandler) January 24, 2017

Katie Rich suspended from job for joke. Bill Kintner still at work. Once again proving NBC has stricter policies than our Govt. https://t.co/GsUBIB6wfJ

— Paul Scheer (@paulscheer) January 24, 2017

For their part, the White House issued a statement on Tuesday that called for privacy for Barron. “It is a longstanding tradition that the children of Presidents are afforded the opportunity to grow up outside of the political spotlight,” the statement reads. “The White House fully expects this tradition to continue. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

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

The post Former First Daughter Chelsea Clinton Comes to the Defense of Barron Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Gray wolves, and sage grouse, and prairie chickens–oh my! A new GOP aim may reduce protections for a handful of endangered species.

According to the Associated Press, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) said that he “would love to invalidate” the Endangered Species Act (ESA)–although it’s unclear exactly how–and he may now have the support he needs with an incoming Republican president and Republican-dominated Congress.

Republican lawmakers have previously tried to limit the number of species included on the endangered species list, complaining that protecting these animals may restrict drilling, logging, mining, and hunting. Bishop said he believed that the act had been “hijacked” and “used for control of the land.” He claims that the ESA does not actually serve the purpose of restoring endangered species.

The act was passed in 1973 to prevent the extinction of the bald eagle, which was later taken off the endangered species list. The act outlines the requirements for listing a species as endangered and allows the federal government to undertake measures to recover those species. Once recovered, a species may be delisted and no longer subject to government protection as long as its population remains stable.

In the most recent effort to limit the scope of the act, Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) introduced a bill on January 10, backed by 11 Republicans and three Democrats, to delist the gray wolf in the Great Lakes region and Wyoming. The wolf, which often preys on game animals and livestock, was already delisted in Montana and Idaho in 2011, but two of its sub-species are close to extinction, according to Newsweek.

Though President-elect Donald Trump has not expressed a position on the Endangered Species Act, he has discussed plans to better utilize federal lands for drilling and mining.

Throughout President Barack Obama’s tenure, efforts to curb the act–by dropping restrictions for certain species, for example–have been blocked by Democratic lawmakers. According to The Hill, Republican leaders behind the measures have felt that the ESA is ineffective and imposes unnecessary restrictions on landowners.

Meanwhile, the list of endangered animals continues to grow. Recently, a type of bumblebee became the first bee–and one of 300 species added by the Obama administration–to make the list.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Lawmakers Look to Curb Endangered Species Act Under Trump Administration appeared first on Law Street.

It’s the day before New Year’s Eve, and 2016 is about to be officially over. If you’re happy to see it go, check out this parody horror movie trailer someone made about the past year. This is the last RantCrush of 2016 but we’ll see you again on January 3, 2017. Happy New Year! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

The U.S.-Russia Relationship Status: It’s Complicated

President Barack Obama was not happy when it became clear that Russia had in fact tampered with the U.S. election. Yesterday afternoon, he ordered 35 Russian diplomats, residing in Washington and San Francisco, to leave the country. He also imposed sanctions on Russia and closed two Russian compounds in New York and Maryland. These actions were reportedly part of a series of consequences for the Russian election hacking and interference. But U.S. officials also blamed Russian harassment of American diplomats and officials in Moscow.

“The actions would amount to the strongest American response ever taken to a state-sponsored cyberattack.” https://t.co/TI9P1G7quj

— Teddy Schleifer (@teddyschleifer) December 29, 2016

Then came reports that Russia would reciprocate by expelling the same number of American diplomats. But only hours after that proclamation, President Vladimir Putin said that he wouldn’t expel any American diplomats, which was a surprising announcement considering the diplomatic tradition of reciprocal punishment. He said that he wants to restore the Russian-American relationship once President-elect Donald Trump takes power. It remains to be seen what he actually means by that.

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: December 30, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Hey everyone! If you feel a little down because of all the celebrity deaths at the end of 2016, take a much-needed break and enjoy today’s RantCrush. Read through our rants of the day and end on a funny note with a fantastic parody video featuring a singing Barack Obama. 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:

Police Officers Believe Alexa Could Solve This Murder Case

A November 2015 case that involved a dead man found floating in a hot tub could possibly be resolved with the help of Amazon’s Alexa. At least that’s what the police in Bentonville, Arkansas believe.

Victor Collins was found dead in James Bates’ backyard hot tub–the two worked together. Broken bottles, a black eye, and bloodstains around the tub made it seem like a clear murder case, but there was no hard evidence. But Bates had an Amazon Echo, an electronic device that reacts to the activation word “Alexa,” like Apple’s Siri. When you activate it, it starts recording and streams what you say to an online server. Police seized the device and asked Amazon to hand them the recorded information from its server. But Amazon said “no way.”

Police want to interrogate Amazon Alexa re: murder suspect. Someone..thing..is always listening now.https://t.co/9zDrx6Z56n

— Ira Flatow (@iraflatow) December 28, 2016

“Amazon will not release customer information without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on us,” a company spokeswoman said to the LA Times. The Echo only starts recording if someone says the activation word, so the chances that it would contain something of value in a murder investigation are very slim. But hey, who knows? Maybe it’s worth a try.

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: December 29, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met with President Barack Obama on Tuesday at Pearl Harbor, 75 years after Japanese airstrikes killed thousands of American sailors and marines. The two laid down wreaths and peace flowers, and spoke of the horrors of war on a memorial atop the USS Arizona, the battleship that was blown to bits on December 7, 1941. The attack catalyzed the U.S. entrance into World War II.

“I offer my sincere and everlasting condolences to the souls of those who lost their lives here, as well as to the spirits of all the brave men and women whose lives were taken by a war that commenced in this very place, and also to the souls of the countless innocent people who became victims of the war,” said Abe, who did not apologize for the episode, but added: “We must never repeat the horrors of war again.”

When Abe announced his visit to Pearl Harbor earlier this month, Japan’s foreign ministry labeled it as an unprecedented trip by a Japanese leader. Soon after, reports came in that Abe was not actually the first Japanese prime minister to visit Pearl Harbor, but potentially the fourth. On Monday, Japanese officials clarified that Abe would be “the first to express remorse” at the memorial, as the other visits were quiet, low-profile affairs.

The bombing of Pearl Harbor, a preemptive strike in what the Japanese saw as an inevitable conflict, precipitated the U.S. entry into the war and, nearly five years later, the atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Abe’s visit comes about six months after Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to visit the Hiroshima memorial, though like Abe on Tuesday, he did not apologize for his country’s actions.

In his speech on Tuesday, Obama seemed to nod at the populist tides that are rising in the U.S. and elsewhere. “Even when hatred burns hottest and the tug of tribalism is at the most primal, we must resist the urge to turn in,” he said. “We must resist the urge to demonize those who are different. The sacrifice made here, the angst of war, reminds us to seek the divine spark that is common to all humanity.”

Obama’s successor, President-elect Donald Trump, has said Japan and South Korea should think about expanding their nuclear capacities in the face of growing threats from China and North Korea. Trump, who met with Abe soon after winning the election in November, has also suggested the U.S. pays too much to defend Japan. During Obama’s tenure, Abe has managed to forge close diplomatic and economic ties with the U.S., and after his meeting with Trump, he expressed confidence that the relationship would continue.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Shinzo Abe Offers Condolences to “Victims of the War” During Pearl Harbor Visit appeared first on Law Street.

It’s one of those weird days in between Christmas and New Year’s when you don’t really know what you’re supposed to be doing. Work or chill? Whatever your choice is, take a few minutes and enjoy our rants of the day! 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:

Turkey’s President Claims to Have Evidence That the U.S. Backed ISIS

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan claimed yesterday to have evidence that U.S. coalition forces have helped terrorists in Syria—including ISIS. “They were accusing us of supporting Daesh [Islamic State]. Now they give support to terrorist groups including Daesh, YPG, PYD. It’s very clear. We have confirmed evidence, with pictures, photos and videos,” Erdogan said at a news conference. He also urged Saudi Arabia and Qatar to join Turkey’s meeting with Russia and Iran to talk about peace efforts in Syria.

For years, anyone saying US UK had backed IS terror was branded a ‘conspiracy theorist’. Now, Erdogan says it’s truehttps://t.co/qE9SFBkPoQ

— Charles Shoebridge (@ShoebridgeC) December 27, 2016

American troops have fought alongside Syrian rebels against President Bashar al-Assad’s forces but have tried to avoid indirectly helping radical Islamist groups. No hard proof of Erdogan’s claims has been made public yet and the U.S. State Department denied everything Erdogan said, calling it “ludicrous.” Spokesman Mark Toner said there was no basis for the accusation.

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: December 28, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Hey everyone, happy winter solstice! Today marks the beginning of winter and the shortest day of the year for those of us in the Northern Hemisphere. But…that also means it’s only going to get better (and lighter) moving forward! So lean back and enjoy today’s RantCrush. 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:

ISIS Claims Responsibility for the Berlin attack

Yesterday, German officials released the suspect in the truck attack at a Christmas market in Berlin, as there was no hard evidence linking him to the attack. Also yesterday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, saying that a lone “soldier” acted on the group’s behalf. The statement didn’t specify if the man was simply inspired by the group, or if he was directly affiliated with it. Either way, this means that the perpetrator is still at large, and German police launched a countrywide search. However, late last night, a warrant was issued for a 24-year-old Tunisian-born man whose residence permit was found in the truck used in the attack.

#BREAKING German officials confirm to @ABC that manhunt for perpetrator of #Christmas Market attack is 24 y/o Tunisian man pic.twitter.com/ZRFnoND23s

— Matt Gutman (@mattgutmanABC) December 21, 2016

At the same time, the far right in Germany blamed Chancellor Angela Merkel for the attack, claiming that her generous immigration policies are the problem.

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: December 21, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

Researchers have recently seen a sharp increase in babies–particularly babies born in rural areas–with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS). This means that the babies are essentially born addicted to the drugs that their mothers used when pregnant. This phenomenon is just yet another depressing side effect of the sharp increase in the number of people addicted to opioids in the United States.

According to the study, which was published online earlier this week in JAMA Pediatrics, the increase of babies born with NAS in rural areas rose dramatically between 2004 and 2013. During that time period in rural areas, the incidences of NAS increased from 1.2 cases per 1,000 hospital births to 7.5 cases per 1,000 hospital births. It’s important to note that cases in cities rose as well, just not as sharply. In cities, there were 1.4 cases per 1,000 hospital births in 2004, and 4.8 cases per 1,000 hospital births in 2013. There was also some variability from state to state. Hawaii saw the lowest rate, at .7 cases per 1,000 births. West Virginia saw the highest, with 33.4 cases per 1,000 births. The researchers did acknowledge that the increase in cases could also come from the fact that there’s increased recognition of the symptoms, and better reporting metrics than there used to be.

But these numbers aren’t that surprising if you’ve paid attention to the nationwide opioid crisis. Rural areas have been particularly hard hit. Dr. Joshua Brown, a researcher at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy in Gainesville, told Business Insider:

Substance abuse is generally higher in rural communities, where an inability to afford or access care as well as the stigma associated with addiction may mean fewer mothers get the help they need to stop using heroin or abusing prescription painkillers during pregnancy.

President Barack Obama has recently taken some action to try to ameliorate the opioid crisis. The 21st Century Cures Act was recently passed by Congress and signed by Obama, and designates a significant amount of money specifically to fighting the opioid epidemic. This could be a boon for rural communities struggling with addiction, but as shown by recent evidence, there’s still a lot of work to be done.

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 America’s Drug War: Sharp Increase in Babies Born Addicted to Opioids appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI–check out Law Street’s best of the week. Our top stories include Texas A&M’s use of technology in legal education, President Obama’s historic sexual assault bill, and the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration mistake.

1. 7 Ways Texas A&M is Using the Digital Era to Change Legal Education

Chocolate and sea salt, Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, legal education and technology…these are all pairings that at first glance don’t seem like they mix together too well, but truly are the perfect combinations. And while legal education has traditionally been a field that hasn’t necessarily embraced the latest offerings in technology, one school in particular has broken away from the pack, and has begun offering innovative programs to students that embrace the power of technology. Texas A&M University School of Law has designed four programs–an LL.M. in Risk Management, an M.Jur in Risk Management, an LL.M in Wealth Management, and an M.Jur in Wealth Management–that use technology to bring innovative legal education to both lawyers and non-lawyers looking to expand their educations and skill sets. Read the full article here.

2. President Obama Signs Historic Sexual Assault Bill into Law

On Friday October 7 President Obama signed the Sexual Assault Survivors’ Bill of Rights; the most comprehensive sexual assault legislation to date. The new bill is a combination of existing laws from different states and will help make sure that rape survivors always know where their evidence is located, whether it has been tested, and the results. Previously, the legislation around rape and the handling of rape kits–the kit with materials and instructions for gathering evidence following a rape–has been unclear and repeatedly criticized. Read the full article here.

3. How Did the DHS Mistakenly Grant Citizenship to 858 Immigrants?

An Associated Press report released in September revealed that the Department of Homeland Security had “erroneously” granted at least 858 immigrants American citizenship. Typically, in any presidential election season, political parties would seize on a report like this, and would try to spin it to win the election. An issue concerning immigration is a political match to be lit, and the reactions could be explosive. Considering immigration reform has been one of the top priorities for legislators, the report may be especially relevant. Read the full article 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.

President Obama likes space. In fact, he likes it so much that he wants people to go there–and not just to visit. In an op-ed published by CNN on Tuesday, he wrote that his goal is to have people get to Mars by 2030.

“We have set a clear goal vital to the next chapter of America’s story in space: sending humans to Mars by the 2030s and returning them safely to Earth, with the ultimate ambition to one day remain there for an extended time,” he wrote.

Obama says will reach red planet by 2030. #Mars pic.twitter.com/7otf3aMhgW

— michael allison (@mike9wood) October 11, 2016

And it’s not only empty talk. He is already working with commercial companies on how to execute the mission. Obama said:

The next step is to reach beyond the bounds of Earth’s orbit. I’m excited to announce that we are working with our commercial partners to build new habitats that can sustain and transport astronauts on long-duration missions in deep space. These missions will teach us how humans can live far from Earth–something we’ll need for the long journey to Mars.

In fact, Obama has talked about space in several speeches over the years–in his very first address to the people after becoming President he promised to focus on science and space research. In the op-ed he pointed out how last year alone NASA discovered water on Mars, ice on one of Jupiter’s moons, and mapped Pluto.

And Obama doesn’t appear to have lost hope, even though a 2014 report from the Committee on Human Spaceflight concluded that there is not enough federal funding for space programs for humans. According to the committee’s numbers, the interest for commercial investment in that kind of stuff has surprisingly decreased since the 1960s when we first walked on the moon.

It sounds like the move to Mars could be an option either for sending unwanted criminals far, far away, or to go there to get away from the disastrous Earth. Either way, Twitter users knew which option they wanted.

There are some people I’d really like to send to mars whether we figure out the whole human habitat thing or not lmk

— peteachu (@petewentz) October 4, 2016

Barack Obama: Wants to send first humans to Mars https://t.co/u0XIAUeyvM Could he send the entire Trump clan first? Asking for a friend.

— Jennifer Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) October 11, 2016

The president concluded with the words:

Someday, I hope to hoist my own grandchildren onto my shoulders. We’ll still look to the stars in wonder, as humans have since the beginning of time. But instead of eagerly awaiting the return of our intrepid explorers, we’ll know that because of the choices we make now, they’ve gone to space not just to visit, but to stay–and in doing so, to make our lives better here on Earth.

In the age of global warming, terrorism, and various catastrophes, it’s nice to think we have that option.

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 President Obama Wants People To Move To Mars by 2030 appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday President Obama signed the Sexual Assault Survivors’ Bill of Rights; the most comprehensive sexual assault legislation to date. The new bill is a combination of existing laws from different states and will help make sure that rape survivors always know where their evidence is located, whether it has been tested, and the results. Previously, the legislation around rape and the handling of rape kits–the kit with materials and instructions for gathering evidence following a rape–has been unclear and repeatedly criticized.

Rape victims are sometimes even charged for their exam following a sexual assault, which is not supposed to happen. According to federal law, rape victims should not be billed for a forensic exam and necessary medical care. However, sometimes the medical guidelines go beyond what the law covers, and who pays for that part varies between different states. This will be resolved by the new law.

Thank you @glamourmag for reporting this historic day!https://t.co/vSsZpraYcF

— Amanda (@nguyen_amanda) October 7, 2016

.@POTUS just signed the sexual assault survivor bill of rights. Congrats @risenowus & all who work to end sexual assault every day! #ItsOnUs

— Valerie Jarrett (@vj44) October 7, 2016

The driving force behind the new law was 24-year-old Amanda Nguyen, who is a rape survivor herself and took action after her own rape kit was about to be destroyed. After being raped in 2013, she submitted a rape kit to the state of Massachusetts. According to the law she had 15 years to decide whether she wanted to pursue legal action, but the state threatened to destroy her evidence after only six months unless she filed a request for an extension. To ask this of a rape victim so that existing evidence is not destroyed sounds pretty bizarre.

“A global movement is happening & our most powerful tool is our voice.” Amanda Nguyen on Sexual Assault Survivor’s Bill of Rights #2030NOW

— FAWCO (@FAWCO) September 19, 2016

“The system essentially makes me live my life by date of rape,” Nguyen said to the Guardian. It was also impossible to get a straight answer when she tried to find out where her evidence was located. On top of it all, she had to physically return to Massachusetts every six months to make sure the kit wasn’t destroyed.

In a press release on the bill, Nguyen said:

We want to thank President Obama for signing the Sexual Assault Survivors’ Bill of Rights into law today. This historic piece of legislation codifies the federal rights of the 25 million rape survivors in America and serves as a model for Statehouses to adopt.

Here are some of the rights that victims will be guaranteed under the new law:

• The right to have a sexual assault evidence collection kit preserved for duration of the statute of limitations;
• The right to be notified in writing 60 days before the destruction of a sexual assault evidence collection kit;
• The right to request further preservation of a sexual assault evidence collection kit;
• The right to be informed of important results of a sexual assault forensic examination;
• A grant for attorneys general to provide survivors with written notice of what rights and policies they have in that state.

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 President Obama Signs Historic Sexual Assault Bill into Law appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday afternoon, certain states began to feel the impact of the storm that has already claimed 108 lives in Haiti. President Obama declared a state of emergency in Florida as Hurricane Matthew started approaching the coast. This measure allows the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to start working on coordinating disaster relief and releases federal funding for that purpose.

BREAKING: President Barack Obama declares state of emergency in Florida as potentially catastrophic Hurricane Matthew approaches.

— The Associated Press (@AP) October 6, 2016

As some people planned on keeping their businesses open or even having a “hurricane party,” Florida Governor Rick Scott ordered 1.5 million residents to seek safety. With the chilling words “You need to leave. Evacuate, evacuate, evacuate […] this storm will kill you,” he made sure people know this is no laughing matter.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott: “Do not surf. Do not go on the beach. This will kill you.” https://t.co/5kRoLafLlr pic.twitter.com/sc1fj1WGdL

— Yahoo News (@YahooNews) October 6, 2016

One man told NPR he was going to wait out the hurricane in his RV less than a mile from the beach. “The hype is going to be worse than the actual storm. I feel I can do quite well,” he said.

But that doesn’t sound like a very good idea. According to the National Hurricane Center the storm is increasing in strength as it moves toward the U.S. It is now a Category 4 storm. By Thursday morning, 3,000 people were already in shelters in Florida. Disney World will close by 5PM on Thursday and stay closed on Friday.

Wind speeds reached 140 mph as Hurricane #Matthew battered the Bahamas https://t.co/UMxnwOqZ1O pic.twitter.com/Qiu3Asx7xH

— CNN International (@cnni) October 6, 2016

At the same time in Georgia, Governor Nathan Deal ordered the first evacuation in 17 years, which will affect 500,000 people. The Georgia coast has not been hit with a major hurricane since 1898, which is why extra safety measures may be a good idea. The lanes of some interstates are being reversed so that traffic can only move west. South Carolina has also ordered around 1.1 million people to leave. As natural disasters can create panic and confusion, a fight about evacuation routes in South Carolina resulted in gunfire between police and a driver on Wednesday night, leaving the driver injured.

Haiti was dramatically hit by the hurricane, leaving 108 dead and 300,000 people in shelters across the country. This is the worst crisis for the country since it experienced a massive earthquake six years ago.

100+ have lost their lives. 15k ppl evacuated. Help us rebuild Haiti after #HurricaneMatthew. Donate now: https://t.co/VqEulpDwPM pic.twitter.com/Kc6ckNK0mq

— UN Development (@UNDP) October 6, 2016

No one knows how hard the hurricane is going to hit the U.S. coast or if it will even move in over land at all. But it could potentially get really bad. Researcher Brian McNoldy told the AP:

In some ways, the worst-case scenario would be if the storm’s eye stays just offshore, enabling it to feed over water and avoid weakening while its strongest hurricane winds keep smacking the beaches.

Hopefully people will listen to the evacuation orders and stay out of the way of the worst of the storm.

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 Florida Governor Orders Evacuation: “This Storm Will Kill You” appeared first on Law Street.

He called the most powerful leader in the world, Barack Obama, a “son of a bitch.” He is accused of running death squads that targeted drug addicts when he was mayor. And on Friday, President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines compared himself to Adolf Hitler: “Hitler massacred 3 million Jews … there’s 3 million drug addicts. There are. I’d be happy to slaughter them,” he said in his hometown of Davao, where he also served as mayor for two decades.

Running on the promise of being tough on crime, Duterte won the presidency in June. His crusade against drug users and criminals has resulted in scores of extrajudicial killings: hundreds of people have been murdered, either by the police force or vigilante groups, since Duterte took power. Thousands have been arrested.

“At least if Germany had Hitler, the Philippines would have (me). You know my victims, I would like (them) to be all criminals, to finish the problem of my country and save the next generation from perdition,” Duterte said.

His personal barbs and harsh governing style have landed him in hot water, both domestically and abroad. The Philippine Senate’s human rights committee is currently investigating Duterte’s role in the Davao death squad, as well as his culpability in the hundreds of drug-related killings that have occurred since he took office in June.

Unpredictable and prone to attention-grabbing rhetoric, Duterte is worrying a historical ally of the Philippines: the U.S. While delivering a speech to the Filipino community in Hanoi, Vietnam, Duterte signaled a potential alliance shift.

“I will visit China. I will open the door for everyone. I will go to Russia,” he said. “I’m serving notice now to the U.S.: I will maintain the alliance, but I will establish new alliances.” He promised that the joint military exercises between the U.S. and the Philippines in October will be the last while he is president.

Duterte’s comments came as U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced a renewed U.S. military commitment in Asia, as China continues to build up its presence in the region, and North Korea tests ballistic missiles and, most recently, a nuclear weapon.

But given the Mutual Defense Treaty, signed in 1951, and decades-long partnership with the Southeast Asian island-nation, Carter is undeterred by Duterte’s comments. The U.S.-Philippines alliance is “ironclad,” he said.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Philippine President Likens Pursuit of Drug Addicts to the Holocaust appeared first on Law Street.

Is Hillary Okay?!?

It was an eerie sight to see Hillary Clinton, whose historical nomination inspired the world, nearly collapse to the ground Sunday morning during a 9/11 memorial service.

No matter how people feel about Clinton as a candidate, many were worried about her health and well-being. Others continued the rumors that Clinton was seriously ill with a more serious disease and questioned her overall fitness for the White House. But her doctors have diagnosed her with ‘walking pneumonia’ and suspect she will recover soon.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 12, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

At the few remaining hospitals in Aleppo, Syria on Tuesday, men in pink gowns and nearly naked children gasped into oxygen masks, their lungs desperate for air, eyes wide with confusion. This ghastly scene followed what aid groups and witnesses say was a chemical attack by the Syrian government in the rebel-held eastern half of the city.

While reports of the attack could not be independently verified by media outlets, a handful of aid groups and hospital workers in Aleppo said helicopters flew over Sukkari, an eastern suburb, and dropped barrels of chlorine. Upwards of 100 people–including dozens of children–were hospitalized for treatment. There have been two reported deaths, and though most of the victims were discharged after a few hours, at least ten remain in intensive care.

This represents the third instance in which Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has dropped chlorine gas bombs on his own people. The previous two came in 2014 and 2015, a recent UN investigation concluded. All three incidents occurred after a U.S.-led 2013 deal that supposedly stripped the Syrian regime of its chemical arsenal. Chlorine was not included in the deal, however, because it is considered a dual-use chemical, as it has applications other than chemical weaponry.

The attack came while leaders of the various Syrian opposition groups met in London to discuss a political end to the five-year civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions. The UN report, published in late August, also concluded that the Islamic State used chemical weapons–sulphur mustard gas–in Syria.

More than 120 people, including 10 women and 37 children, were sickened in a chlorine gas attack in Aleppo, Syria. pic.twitter.com/qgFaOBD1fl

— New York Times Video (@nytvideo) September 7, 2016

“There are more actors today in Syria with the availability of the substances and the ability to mix them and use them, if they so choose, as chemical weapons; and this is something very worrying,” said Virginia Gamba, head of the three-member UN Joint Investigative Mechanism that confirmed chemical weapons use in Syria.

First used on battlefields during World War I, chlorine can lead to shortness of breath, chest tightness, coughing, skin, and eye irritation. In extremely high doses, chlorine can be fatal. The site of Assad’s latest chemical airdrop, Aleppo, has been torn apart in recent months, its citizens trapped between rebel and government-held areas. International aid groups are calling for humanitarian corridors for people to flee the city safely.

Meanwhile, while meeting in Hangzhou, China for the G-20 summit, President Obama and Vladimir Putin of Russia–a key ally of Assad–failed to reach a cease-fire agreement.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Syrian Regime Hits Aleppo with Chlorine Bombs; Dozens Hospitalized appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

Donald Trump is now trying to take back his repeated claims that President Obama “founded ISIS” by calling it sarcasm, which only proves he doesn’t even know what sarcasm means. On Friday he tweeted:

Ratings challenged @CNN reports so seriously that I call President Obama (and Clinton) “the founder” of ISIS, & MVP. THEY DON’T GET SARCASM?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 12, 2016

This comes after his statement at a rally on Wednesday saying Obama was the founder of ISIS. On Thursday, radio show host Hugh Hewitt tried to clarify what Trump meant by asking if he simply meant that the Obama administration created the vacuum where ISIS could thrive. But he doubled down on his conclusion that Obama founded ISIS.

When Hewitt kept questioning him, saying that Obama is actually fighting ISIS, Trump’s clever answer was “I don’t care. He was the founder.”

The journalist Christopher Hayes joked on Twitter about Trump’s insistence.

INTERVIEWER: You mean, metaphoric–
TRUMP: No literally
INTERVIEWER: But, he didn’t *actually*–
TRUMP: No, actually. Obama is Baghdadi

— Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) August 11, 2016

Trump went on to say that Hillary Clinton also was an important player in the creation of ISIS, which caused her to react on Twitter, saying:

It can be difficult to muster outrage as frequently as Donald Trump should cause it, but his smear against President Obama requires it.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 11, 2016

She also tweeted, “Anyone willing to sink so low, so often, should never be allowed to serve as our Commander-in-Chief.”

But what Trump is now criticizing Obama for is actually what he himself wanted. He claimed Obama caused ISIS to flourish by withdrawing American troops from Iraq in 2011. But he didn’t mention that he also wanted to get out of Iraq as early as in 2007.

In an interview with CNN that year he said, “There’s nothing that we’re going to be able to do with a civil war. They are in a major civil war.” Trump has actually expressed this view several times on the record, statements he seems to have forgotten about.

Buzzfeed’s Andrew Kaczynski captured it like this:

Trump Iraq timeline:
2002: Supports the war
2004: Against the war
2008: Withdraw the troops
2016: Obama founded ISIS when he withdrew troops

— andrew kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) August 11, 2016

Trump’s latest utterance caused a lot of reactions on social media, particularly as this mini-scandal follows a remarkably familiar pattern.

THE WEEK IN TRUMP

Tues: Kill Hillary, please.
Wed: LOL, JK
Thurs: Obama founded an anti-American terrorist group, literally.
Fri: LOL, JK

— Heather Hogan (@hhoagie) August 12, 2016

A lot of people are saying Trump literally doesn’t know what day it is. A lot of people are saying. I don’t know. You tell me.

— Ana Marie Cox (@anamariecox) August 11, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post Trump Claims Calling Obama the Founder of ISIS was Sarcasm appeared first on Law Street.

The Islamic State is ”inevitably going to be defeated,” said President Obama at a press conference on Thursday. The President met with reporters after a briefing at the Pentagon from his national security team on the fight against ISIS.

He said that even though ISIS will certainly be defeated, the networks from the terrorist group will probably keep trying to commit acts of terrorism:

As we’ve seen, it is still very difficult to detect and prevent lone actors or small cells of terrorists who are determined to kill the innocent and are willing to die. And that’s why… we’re going to keep going after ISIL aggressively across every front of this campaign.

Although the press was supposed to focus on the war against terrorism, a lot of the questions ended up being about the Trump situation. But after a few, the President had had enough.

I would ask all of you to just make your own judgment. I’ve made this point already multiple times. Just listen to what Mr. Trump has to say and make your own judgment with respect to how confident you feel about his ability to manage things like our nuclear triad.

See Obama’s speech here.

Today @POTUS convened his @NSC44 at the Pentagon for a regular meeting on efforts to degrade & destroy ISIL.https://t.co/XhNlSMdNfj

— WH National Security (@NSC44) August 4, 2016

Also on Thursday, the Egyptian army confirmed that it killed an important ISIS-allied leader, Abu Duaa al-Ansari. In total 45 terrorists were killed and weapon and ammunition supplies destroyed in the airstrikes by the army in the Sinai Peninsula.

Al-Ansari was the head of the group Ansar Bait al-Maqdis, which prospered in the chaos after the Government of Egyptian President Mubarak was overthrown in 2011. The group entered an alliance with ISIS in 2014 and was responsible for bombing a gas pipeline between Egypt, Israel, and Jordan, as well as the crash of Russian flight 9268 in 2015.

Russia got a reprimand from Obama for its continued support of the Syrian government and attacks on opposing forces. But the U.S. will continue to attempt to cooperate with the nation to jointly bring down ISIS.

However, as Obama pointed out at the press conference, independents inspired by the Islamic State may very well keep attacking people in public spaces such as subways or parades to spread fear, which is why the U.S. must keep up the work of fighting against the terrorist group.

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 Obama: Islamic State Will Be Defeated, But Independent Attacks Still a Threat appeared first on Law Street.

Dear Members of the Bernie or Bust Movement,

We’ve seen you in full force at the Democratic National Convention this week. Whether you were sobbing as the live camera coverage panned over your section of the crowd, silently sitting with duct tape over your mouth, or booing every time anyone at the DNC said something positive about Hillary Clinton, this letter is for you. Listen up, because before the November elections you all have a choice to make, and it’s an important one. Who are you going to vote for? Because, as I’m sure you all know somewhere deep down inside, doing nothing is not going to cut it.

It’s time to take a look at some of this week’s most savage Bernie or Bust attacks and hash out exactly why you all need to grow up and get on board with someone (hopefully Hillary) this election cycle.

The first big blow to Bernie babies was Sarah Silverman’s shoutout earlier this week.

In direct response to the nonsensical “Bernie!” chants that have been disrupting the convention all week, Silverman politely says what we’ve all been thinking: “to the Bernie or bust people you’re being ridiculous.” While it may sound harsh, it’s the truth. On the unity themed night of the DNC none of this Bernie nonsense should have been happening, period. If the Democratic Party wants any chance at defeating Trump, togetherness is going to be the only way to accomplish it–and that does not allow for any of your disruptive Bernie ridiculousness. Judging by the eruption of cheers after Silverman squashed the Bernie chants, I would say a lot of convention-goers agree with her.

If you want a more scripted take on why you’re being ridiculous, check out Seth Meyers’ new segment “Hey!,” which explains exactly why we need you on board with Hillary this fall.

Meyers quickly points out exactly why we need you on our side, Bernie Bros. We do not have time to fight over who should be the one to stop “racist demagogue” Donald Trump from taking office–we just need someone to do it. And, newsflash, that someone is not going to be Bernie Sanders.

Look, I know you’re Bernie or bust but the results are in. Bust won. We don’t have time for this. Donald Trump is ahead in the polls. The house is on fire; stop crying because we’re not putting it out with your hose.

Meyers also points out that you all have done a great job! Part of the reason Sanders stayed in the race as long as he did was to weave his goals for the Democratic Party into Hillary’s platform and he did just that. We now have what is perhaps the most progressive party platform the nation has ever seen. Take pride in that fact and get behind the platform, no matter who the figurehead of it happens to be.

Finally, we heard from the big man himself–President Obama. While his statements may not have been directly in response to the Bernie or Bust movement, they apply to you all oh so well. Stop booing. Stop it.

If you are out there booing, put your voice to better use! We get it. You’ve poured your heart and soul into what Sanders supported and continues to support. You’ve been with him from the beginning and it feels impossible to let go. But, quite honestly, it’s time to get over yourselves. It’s time to take off the robin hood hats, put down the nasty signs, rip off that duct tape over your mouths and let your voices be heard! Donald Trump can NOT be our next president.

If you want an even more progressive platform, fight for it. If you want Sanders’ ideas to be more prevalent in our government, fight for them. Just like Obama said in his speech at the DNC, it’s time for everyone to be as vocal, organized and persistent as you all, Bernie supporters, have been. If there’s one thing you can be certain of this election season, it’s that there is no way in hell a Donald Trump presidency is going to bring you closer to the progressive goals you so fervently seek to promote.

So, with all the love in the world (from a former Bernie lover and a hesitant Hillary supporter), it’s time to cut it out, Bernie-or-Busties. Get with the program and pick a side to be on rather than causing a ruckus. Even though you won’t have a President Sanders come November, you will have a president. Take a stand and have a voice in who that person will be and think about who is most likely to bring Americans a living wage, racial justice, and some political reform in the next few years. My bet is you may not settle on Trump.

Best of luck, both to you and, quite frankly, all of us.

Alexandra Simone

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

The post An Open Letter to Members of the Bernie or Bust Movement appeared first on Law Street.

As the Republican National Convention–which will be held in Cleveland, Ohio–approaches, the GOP is drafting its platform. A party’s platform doesn’t set any requirements or binding language, but it does provide guidance for the party’s direction in coming years. It can be an opportunity for a party to show that it’s made progress on issues, or that it’s ready to move in an optimistic direction. Unfortunately, this year it seems that the GOP is once again taking an archaic view on social issues. Here’s a look at some of the crazy things that have come up in platform talks:

Pornography

The GOP may be taking a stand against porn, deeming it a “public health crisis.” The draft party platform currently includes an amendment written by Mary Frances Forrester, a delegate from North Carolina, that states:

The internet must not become a safe haven for predators. Pornography, with its harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the life of millions. We encourage states to continue to fight this public menace and pledge our commitment to children’s safety and well-being. We applaud the social networking sites that bar sex offenders from participation. We urge energetic prosecution of child pornography which closely linked to human trafficking.

While fighting human trafficking is certainly laudable, the rest of the amendment is a bit overdramatic, and there’s no real evidence to suggest that porn has destroyed the lives of millions.

Gay Marriage

After  gay marriage’s big SCOTUS win last summer and the fact that almost 60 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, you would think that the GOP would cool it on insisting that marriage can only be between one man and one woman. You’d be wrong.

Some on the platform committee–including Rachel Hoff, the first gay individual to sit on that committee–wanted to soften the GOP’s language on gay marriage. But they were overwhelmingly voted down. For now, it appears that opposition to same sex marriage will stay in the platform.

Bathroom Mania

There was the HB 2 craziness in North Carolina earlier this year. Now, multiple states are suing the Obama Administration over a directive that requires public schools to allow students to use the bathroom that conforms with their gender identity. So, it follows that there would be language about bathrooms in this year’s GOP platform draft. Here’s a draft of that language:

This is the draft language opposing Obama admin’s guidance to schools re: trans kids and bathrooms/locker rooms pic.twitter.com/OyWfVaxbB5

— Liz Goodwin (@lizcgoodwin) July 11, 2016

Log Cabin Republicans President Gregory Angelo talked to the Daily Signal, and made a good point about how ridiculous this addition seems:

This is a foolish issue to nationalize and talk about within the Republican Party platform. It literally drags the platform into the gutter when so many people who are on this committee seem hell-bent with some obsession with bathroom use.

Conversion Therapy

Another socially conservative issue that became a topic of discussion was gay conversion therapy. Delegate Tony Perkins, who heads up the Family Research Council introduced conversion therapy language into an amendment and the subcommittee voted to approve it. Gay conversion therapy (sometimes called reparative therapy) is a discredited practice that attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation, and has been banned by multiple states. Perkins stated:

It’s what it says, it’s whatever therapy that a parent wants to get for a minor child. There’s states that are trying to restrict what parents can do for loving their children. Parents have a better idea I think than legislators or government bureaucrats.

via GIPHY

What’s Next?

And there you have it, all the crazy stuff that could be included in the GOP platform. Nothing is set in stone yet, but the fact that some of these topics were even up for discussion isn’t a great sign when it comes to social progress in the U.S.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Will the GOP Platform Stay Stuck in the Past? appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

Wake up silent majority. Stand w our Cops.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

BLM should be categorized as a hate group.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

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

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

It's way past time.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

10 Cops shot.

You did this Obama.

You did this liberals.

You did this #BLM.

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

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

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

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

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

— John Legend (@johnlegend) July 8, 2016

A Racist History?

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) June 19, 2014

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

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) June 19, 2014

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

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. The shooting of 12 police officers in Dallas, Texas during a protest has left many concerned and downright furious about the future of gun violence in America. See what the nation’s top leaders had to say:

The Presidential Candidates React to #Dallas

Last night Dallas law enforcement officers were shot during a protest. The protests were in response to Alton Sterling and Philando Castile’s recent deaths. The assassinations of these five police officers has left many with a sour taste in their mouth and presidential candidates Trump, Clinton, and Sanders have each offered their words of condolence and solidarity.

Hillary Clinton:

I mourn for the officers shot while doing their sacred duty to protect peaceful protesters, for their families & all who serve with them. -H

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) July 8, 2016

Donald Trump:

Prayers and condolences to all of the families who are so thoroughly devastated by the horrors we are all watching take place in our country

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 8, 2016

Bernie Sanders:

The attack on police officers in Dallas last night is horrifying and despicable. We must as a nation stand against violence of all kinds.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) July 8, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 8, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

Last Minute Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

This post is part of Law Street’s continuing analysis of the recent Supreme Court rulings. To read the rest of the coverage click here.

Immigration: United States v. Texas

The decision: With the court in a 4-4 split, the decision of the Fifth Circuit is upheld, blocking president Obama’s executive action on immigration, namely DAPA and the expansion of DACA.

So what are DACA/DAPA?

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) is an initiative launched in 2012 as an act of prosecutorial discretion by president Obama. The order allows undocumented immigrants who move to the United States before the age of 16 to seek temporary relief from deportation given they meet criteria for age, arrival time, criminal record, and schooling.

The expansion of DACA (or DACA+) was authorized by President Obama in 2014 that eliminates certain arrival timeline requirements, the age ceiling, and extends relief period from two years to three years.

DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) is also an initiative launched in 2014 that would allow parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents to seek temporary relief from deportation and apply for work permits.

These executive actions were intended to allow deportation officials to focus on illegal immigrants who engage in criminal behavior and thus threaten public safety, while allowing other immigrants who do not have legal status but have vested interests in the United States (for example, if they spent their childhood here or  have a child who is a citizen) to stay for a temporary period.

How did the lawsuit begin?

The lawsuit came to fruition when 26 states sued the federal government claiming that DAPA/DACA+ violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not allowing a notice-and-comment period during rulemaking.

When the states took the case to district court in February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction, prohibiting further action on DAPA/DACA+ indefinitely. In November 2015, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s order to grant a preliminary injunction. The federal government filed a petition for certiorari later that month and the Supreme Court decided to take up the case in January. The Supreme Court also decided to consider whether DAPA/DACA+ violated the “Take Care Clause” of the Constitution.

Check out this article to read more about the case’s background.

What does today’s tie mean?

The deadlocked ruling in United States v. Texas affirms Fifth Circuit Court’s decision to block the president’s executive actions. Today’s ruling amounted to just one sentence: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.” As a result, as many as five million undocumented immigrants will no longer be protected from deportation

Because the court did not actually decide on the case but rather affirmed the affirmation of an indefinite suspension of a program, the future of DAPA/DACA+ is obviously ambiguous. Immigration advocates find it unfair that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit would be able to determine immigration policy for the whole country. Some also speculate that another group of states will sue in favor of the actions, which could create a split between appellate courts while the Supreme Court remains deadlocked in a tie.

If the decision remains through the 2016 election, the future of DAPA/DACA+ and immigration policy will be decided by the next president or it may require a ninth Supreme Court justice to break the tie.

You can read the (very brief) opinion here.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Split Blocks Obama’s Immigration Actions appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inez Nicholson

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

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

Since Hillary Clinton mathematically claimed the Democratic presidential nomination this past week, all eyes have been on Democratic party leaders to see how quickly and strongly they will back her. Luckily for Clinton, she has received a few new endorsements from important political figures this week, including President Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren. These endorsements were likely made with the hopes of Democratic unification surrounding Hillary come fall so that she will have the resources and support she needs to defeat the Republican nominee.

First, Obama announced his endorsement yesterday with a video, saying that he knows how hard the job can be which is exactly why he knows that Hillary will be so good at it.

A few hours later, Elizabeth Warren jumped on board, saying,

I’m ready to jump in this fight and make sure that Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States and be sure that Donald Trump gets nowhere near the White House.

This endorsement particularly packs a punch, as Warren and Clinton have not always seen eye to eye on political matters and Warren was the only Democratic female Senator who hadn’t endorsed Clinton up to this point. It also has stirred up a lot of buzz about a potential Clinton-Warren ticket this fall, which could help to reinforce Clinton’s progressive image and even lead to the implementation of some of Sanders’ more liberal plans.

As expected, these endorsements have come with their fair share of Twitter support and backlash. Elizabeth Warren has been slammed for what a lot of Sanders supporters see as a weakening of her liberal views.

If y’all want to give me a great birthday present, go to @elizabethforma and @SenWarren and UNFOLLOW.

— I Know Nothing (@jvgraz) June 10, 2016

Warren is Trying to Unite the Democratic Party, But All She’s Doing is Betraying Progressives https://t.co/g1V99UiD9G

— kateloving (@kateloving) June 10, 2016

One of the best responses to Obama’s endorsement of Clinton came from Donald Trump himself and spurred quite the Twitter war.

Obama just endorsed Crooked Hillary. He wants four more years of Obama—but nobody else does!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 9, 2016

But, no one puts Hillary in a corner! Her social media team quickly responded with perhaps the funniest tweet in the history of Twitter and the most savage thing we’ve seen all week.

Delete your account. https://t.co/Oa92sncRQY

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 9, 2016

With all of the endorsements and Bernie Sanders’ promise to work with Democratic party to support her, Clinton is sitting pretty as the presumptive Democratic nominee. Now all that’s between her and the presidency is Sanders’ inevitable drop and some long hard months of campaigning against the Republican nominee. With the backing of Democratic leaders and the looming presence of a potential Trump presidency, Clinton seems as desirable as ever.

Alexandra Simone

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

The post Endorsements For Hillary Begin Rolling In appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Is John Oliver a Debt-Buying Copycat?

John Oliver is being accused of stealing his debt-buying idea from a debtor advocacy organization. The Debt Collective, which raised $700,000 to erase nearly $1 billion in medical and tuition debt, is saying that John Oliver’s researchers contacted them asking about their incredible feat. The Debt Collective spent hours giving “Last Week Tonight” detail after detail on how they organized the work and then “at the last minute” “LWT” did not want to be associated with the Collective’s Occupy Wall Street roots. Now the so-called Oprah of late night TV is facing a scandal and people haven’t been too keen on coming to his defense.

John Oliver not crediting The Debt Collective with the Rolling Jubilee idea is exactly what’s wrong with tv comedy news

— Kaitlin Marone 2016 (@immerspaetlin) June 9, 2016

DEBT COLLECTIVE, 2011: we’re gonna buy debt & forgive it
JOHN OLIVER, 2016: actually thats my idea
MEDIAITE: yes the british man did it 1st

— jm (@jaubert_moniker) June 7, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrushTop 5: June 9, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In their seventh meeting and second visit in as many years, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Barack Obama met at the White House on Tuesday, strengthening bonds between the U.S. and India on a number of issues. Most notable was a verbal agreement for India to join the climate change accord that was drawn up in Paris last December. But two outside factors hovered over the meeting and the flurry of activity it produced: China and Donald Trump.

China dominates the Asia-Pacific region both economically and militarily, with both the largest economy and the strongest military. Increasingly, China has shown signs of aggression as it takes steps to secure a chain of disputed island chains in the South China Sea and continues to ensure trade deals are implemented on its terms. In remarks following the meeting, neither Obama nor Modi directly mentioned China, but several moves seemed to be fueled by the potential for further Chinese aggression.

For one, the two all but finalized a deal that would include India in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a international body committed to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The two leaders also announced plans for India to purchase six nuclear reactors from a U.S. based firm by June 2017.

And while his threat to India might not be quite as immediate or forthcoming as China’s, Donald Trump also proved to be a catalytic force in Tuesday’s talks. His fiery rhetoric and divisive tone have alarmed Indian officials. Analysts view New Delhi’s recent warming to Washington as a way to accomplish as much as possible in the event that Trump is Obama’s successor.

“Modi wants to get as much as he can out of Obama’s last months in office,” Ashley J. Tellis, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told The New York Times.

India’s backing of the Paris climate change agreement will bolster the likelihood that it will go into effect before Obama leaves office. Once the 55 countries that emit 55 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas sign the pact, it will become binding. India is the world’s highest carbon polluter behind China and the U.S. When the pact becomes binding, a government cannot withdraw its commitment for at least four years.

“If the Paris agreement achieves ratification before Inauguration Day, it would be impossible for the Trump administration to renegotiate or even drop out during the first presidential term,” Robert N. Stavins, the director of the environmental economics program at Harvard told the New York Times.

In a statement, India said it will look to officially join the agreement by the end of the year. Modi will continue his diplomatic tour of the Capital on Wednesday, when he will address both houses of Congress.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Preparing for a Potential President Trump, India and U.S. Make Agreements appeared first on Law Street.

In President Barack Obama’s 2013 Executive Order “Combating Wildlife Trafficking,” he called on the United States government and international partners to enact legislation to counter the “international crisis” of trading the “derivative parts and products” of endangered animals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) took aggressive steps to address that directive on Thursday, issuing stricter regulations on imports, exports, and interstate movements of elephant ivory. The new rules, which were first proposed in 2015, received overwhelming support during a public comment period.

Under the tighter rules, interstate ivory sales are restricted to antiques (must be 100 years or older, among other standards) and items with no more than 200 grams of ivory worked into them. Sport-hunted trophies cannot be moved across state lines (though two per year are allowed to be imported, whereas before there was no limit), and neither can ivory that is part of a family inheritance.

Imports and exports of ivory that has been carved or worked into musical instruments, figurines or other items are more tightly controlled. Raw ivory–whether imported or exported–remains prohibited.

A majority of African elephants roam the grassy savannas of southern Africa, in Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia and other areas near the Zambezi River. Estimates put elephant deaths at 96 each day, the equivalent of eight percent of the entire population each year. If that rate continues, the species could be wiped out in 10 years. Elephants are targeted by poachers for their milky white tusks, which are often exported raw and then processed into a variety of forms: intricate artwork, piano keys, and jewelry. China is the world’s largest ivory consumer, followed by the U.S. Japan, Vietnam and Thailand are also large ivory markets. 

“These new regulations are designed to, first of all, close down and stop loopholes, make them water tight, and to provide motivation and an example to other countries,” said Patrick Bergin, CEO of the African Wildlife Foundation, in an interview with Law Street. “It’s about more than the message.”

Bergin was one of eight experts on a council that advised the USFWS in shaping the new rules. He said the update will help clarify ambiguous language. Previously, ivory antiques were difficult to identify and police, and the line between illegal and legal sales were easily blurred. These new regulations, Bergin said, are meant to bolster the ability to enforce illicit ivory trade while allowing not harmful items that have little or no impact on elephant deaths to continue to be bought and sold.

There have been conflicts with musicians whose instruments contain traces of ivory. Some violin bows, for example, contain the substance. A past decree by the USFWS required permits for musicians with instruments containing ivory to travel internationally for performances. Those permits were difficult to procure, and the new rules confirm that such instruments have little effect on elephant poaching.

“The goal here really is to shut down the trade in ivory and the possession of ivory without causing any undo nuisance to people,” Bergin said.

In a statement, USFWS Director Dan Ashe said: “Our actions close a major avenue to wildlife traffickers by removing the cover that legal ivory trade provides to the illegal trade. We still have much to do to save this species, but today is a good day for the African elephant.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post U.S. Imposes New Rules on Ivory Trade appeared first on Law Street.

In the same city where 20,000 tons of explosives rained down from American planes during Christmas 1972–killing more than 1,000 civilians–President Barack Obama stood in front of giant American and Vietnamese flags on Monday to announce the severing of a Cold War-era arms embargo between the U.S. and Vietnam. This is Obama’s first visit to the country, and the first leg of a trip in the Pacific.

At a news conference in Hanoi–the communist country’s northern capital on the banks of the Red River–Obama continued his pattern of deepening ties with longstanding U.S. adversaries, and of thawing relations with largely isolated communist regimes such as Cuba and Myanmar.

“The United States is fully lifting the ban on the sale of military equipment to Vietnam that has been in place for some 50 years,” Obama said to a gaggle of Vietnamese and foreign press as he insisted the ban had nothing to do with China. “It was based on our desire to complete what has been a lengthy process of moving toward normalization with Vietnam.”

Critics of the announcement however, namely human rights organizations that view Vietnam as a brutal regime with a horrendous human rights record, contend the move will cede leverage in negotiating with the Vietnamese to reel back their abuses: including jailing journalists, beating dissidents, and maintaining over 100 known political prisoners (Human Rights Watch counts 104, though it acknowledges there are most likely many more).

“The only people who would be happy [with the lifting of the ban] is the Vietnamese government, because [Obama] didn’t address human rights except in a boiler plate paragraph with no names, places or dates, no people, no sense of urgency,” said Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch (HRW) in an interview with Law Street.

According to Adams, the speech occurred on a day that served as a microcosm of Vietnam’s concerning behavior: parliamentary elections (“a rubber stamp affair,” Adams called them) were held as dissidents were rounded up. Obama did not address either in his announcement.

The full lifting of the embargo–which was partially lifted in 2014–is the final step in normalizing relations with the Southeast Asian nation, and in removing a “lingering vestige of the Cold War,” said Obama. Earlier in the trip, Obama made other moves to strengthen ties between his government and that of Tran Dai Quang, Vietnam’s president. Visa restrictions for travelers to either country will be eased, the Peace Corps will station volunteers in the country to teach English, and both Obama and Quang reiterated their commitment to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, or TPP, which is currently stalled in Congress and has failed to obtain the concrete support of any of the three remaining presidential nominees.

Obama’s stated goal in easing arms sales to Vietnam is to allow the country to defend itself amid increasingly volatile times in the region. Its powerful neighbor to the north–China–has shown signs of aggression in a territorial dispute in the South China Sea, where Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines jostle over who has the right to the Spratly Islands. In recent months, China has intensified its naval force in the region and has been hard at work in building an island in the hopes of legitimizing its claim.

Disputes over territory in the South China Sea has led to increased tension between China and much of Southeast Asia. Image courtesy of [deedavee easyflow via Flickr]

Though China is publicly supportive of the dissolution of the half century old embargo (officials reportedly hope it will lead to “normal and friendly” relations), a commentary published in the state-run Xinhua News Agency on Sunday hinted at what is perhaps its unofficial, internal view of U.S.-Vietnam relations.

“As a habitual wave-maker in the Asia-Pacific, the United States has shown no restraint in meddling in regional situation, which is evidenced by its relentless moves to disturb peace in the South China Sea,” wrote Xinhua contributor Sun Ding. On the potential embargo lift, which at the time of publishing had not been announced: “The calculating move will serve only Washington’s own strategic purposes as the United States seeks a rebalance in the Asia-Pacific.”

The White House and Vietnam’s government released a joint statement Monday afternoon in regards to the partnership between the two countries, with a section highlighting “promoting human rights and legal reform”:

The United States welcomed Vietnam’s ongoing efforts in improving its legal system and undertaking legal reform in order to better guarantee the human rights and fundamental freedoms for everyone in accordance with the 2013 Constitution.

But Adams isn’t convinced that Vietnam is doing anything concrete in regards to safeguarding human rights. Even if the Vietnamese government enacts law changes, it does so to benefit those in power, he said, not for the good of the people. He’s seen mixed reactions from the blogosphere in Vietnam–human rights organizations’ window into the country because they are not allowed on the ground–in regards to Obama’s speech.

Nationalist fervor is gripping Vietnam at the moment, Adams said, and so the people who are focused on the alleged threat from China are happy the embargo was lifted, and progressive liberals in the country are happy with the move as well. Others, he said, think it should have been lifted but with concessions. And while he noted this episode as being entirely about the perceived threat from China, Adams was disappointed in what he saw as a blown opportunity.

“When you have leverage, to just throw it away is unacceptable,” he said.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Despite Human Rights Disagreements, Obama Lifts Arms Embargo with Vietnam appeared first on Law Street.

Taliban leader Mullah Mansour has been killed in a U.S. air strike; officials in Afghanistan confirmed the news on Sunday. The Taliban, which has a longstanding tradition of denying deaths of prominent leaders, has not yet commented on the event.

On Monday morning President Obama, who currently is in Vietnam, confirmed the death in a statement and called it an “important milestone” in the longstanding effort to bring peace to Afghanistan, saying:

With the death of Taliban leader Akhtar Mohammad Mansur, we have removed the leader of an organization that has continued to plot against and unleash attacks on American and Coalition forces, to wage war against the Afghan people, and align itself with extremist groups like al Qa’ida.

Mansour has been rejecting initiatives by the Afghan government to participate in peace talks, and this could be the time for the Taliban to seize an opportunity for reconciliation with the government, according to the statement from the White House.

Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour was killed in an airstrike Saturday https://t.co/y0glNYzZiL https://t.co/o6pQQLOAXL

— Carol Costello (@CarolCNN) May 23, 2016

The strike that killed Mullah Mansour was conducted on Saturday by the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, as multiple U.S. drones struck the car he was traveling in, killing both Mansour and another Taliban fighter.

Mansour’s death does not mean an automatic change in the U.S. strategy when it comes to fighting in Afghanistan–the mission is still to train the Afghan forces to help themselves, not to do it for them, said Obama at a press conference in Vietnam. About 3,000 troops are in Afghanistan helping to combat groups like the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and ISIS.

Mullah Mansour had only been the Taliban leader since July of last year, a position he earned when his predecessor Mullah Omar–the infamous one-eyed leader who banned dancing and TV–was confirmed dead. Mansour repeatedly turned down peace talks and negotiations by the government, and was the commander in the seizing of Kunduz in September of last year. It is unclear who will succeed Mansour.

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 Taliban Leader Mullah Mansour Killed: Obama Deems it “Milestone” appeared first on Law Street.

In his State of the Union address last year, President Barack Obama acknowledged the need for an update to the nation’s overtime pay rules: “We still need to make sure employees get the overtime they’ve earned,” he said. To the delight of Obama and perhaps millions of workers nationwide, but the chagrin of employer groups and some Republican lawmakers, this need has been addressed.

The Department of Labor (DOL) announced a severe adjustment to overtime pay rules on Wednesday, raising the salary threshold for those eligible for overtime pay from $23,660 per year to $47,476. The rule update–which goes into effect December 1–is designed to give 4.2 million Americans who previously did not qualify for overtime pay the money they earned from working hours beyond 40 per week. The DOL expects the new rules to generate $12 billion in wages over 10 years. The rules will be updated to reflect inflation every three years, starting in 2020.

“Increasing overtime protections is another step in the President’s effort to grow and strengthen the middle class by raising Americans’ wages. This extra income will not only mean a better life for American families impacted by overtime protections, but will boost our economy across the board as these families spend their hard-earned wages,” read the official statement from the White House released on Tuesday, a day before the new rules were announced.

In 2014, Obama issued a directive to the Secretary of Labor to “update and modernize” overtime pay regulations, suggesting a $50,440 threshold, which is slightly higher than the figure that was announced on Wednesday.

Critics of the newly designated threshold, which is nearly double the previous one, fear that it could lead to less jobs and less opportunity for upward mobility within a career. Citing an Oxford Economics study, the National Retail Federation (NRF), an advocate of the retail industry that opposes the new rules, sees a handful of hidden costs in raising the overtime pay threshold. While overtime pay would increase, they agree, base pay and hours worked would drop, leading to an overall decrease in take home pay. The study estimates a $745 million cost for retail and restaurant businesses.

“We would hope it would be a reasonable and responsible update and this final rule is not even close to that,” Lizzy Simmons, Senior Director of Government Relations at NRF said in an interview with Law Street. “[The new threshold] doesn’t reflect reality, the math is bad.”

She added that employers–in retail and other fields–will not have sufficient time to deal with the threshold increase (they have six months to adjust, Simmons said 12-18 months would be more realistic), and would have liked to see a less “reckless” increase in the new threshold.

And although both Democrats and Republicans see a need to overhaul overtime pay rules, Republicans in the House and Senate announced legislation–the Protecting Workplace Advancement and Opportunity Act–in an effort to preempt the DOL’s ruling. 

“The Obama administration’s decision to drastically redefine overtime will hurt our workforce and our employers. It will lead to reduced hours, confusion for job creators, and will limit growth opportunities for employees,” said Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), a member of the Senate Labor Committee, one of the sponsors of the bill.

As the fight over the minimum wage rages on, the other issue middle class Americans hope will provide a boon to their bank account–overtime pay–has been settled for now. Exactly what that means for employees and employers remains to be seen.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Department of Labor Doubles Threshold for Overtime Pay appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

US Government Issues Guidance on Transgender Access to Public School Bathrooms

Because we all need a little hand-holding on how not to be jerks, the Obama administration is releasing guidelines on how to deal with transgender bathroom use. The letter tells public schools how to make sure none of their students are discriminated against. Any state or school that does not abide by the administration’s “interpretation of the law” could face major consequences, like loss of federal aid, as seen in the current battle with North Carolina.

The federal policy on use of bathrooms by transgender students triggered a swift reaction https://t.co/NV7ldBZS0I pic.twitter.com/8hJLjecQd4

— The New York Times (@nytimes) May 13, 2016

Flint Lets It Rain for the Month of Pay To Clear Out Pipes

The State of Michigan is encouraging Flint residents to use up all the water their hearts desire this month because it will be footing the bill. As with most things that are free, the scenario will play out as a win-win–Flint residents get 100 percent free water and the city’s pipes will be flushed out after remaining sedentary for months. And who knows, maybe Flint will get to clear its name as well? 

President Obama drinks filtered city water in Flint, Michigan, to show it’s safe https://t.co/s3RKh6Savu pic.twitter.com/1avslXmJgR

— The Boston Globe (@BostonGlobe) May 4, 2016

Twitter Suspends Azealia Banks’ Account After Her Rampage on Zayn Malik

The 23-year-old rapper has seen better days. We all fondly remember the inappropriate but fun “212,” right? But today Banks seems to have lost her damn mind. Her recent kerfuffle with singer Zayn Malik comes as no surprise as she’s been involved in several Twitter feuds, like a bizarre one with Sarah Palin. Azealia Banks’ hate finally caught the attention of Twitter admins for ‘abusive tweets and behavior” and she has since been suspended.

The World’s Oldest Person Died Today

At 116 years old, Susannah Mushatt Jones passed away. Born in 1899, the Alabama native had seen a whole century pass and then some. The internet is in awe of what this woman must have seen and endured in her great lifetime. Another centenarian,  Emma Morano-Martinuzzi is now the world’s oldest person, also 116 years old. So what IS the secret to a long life?

A Story of three smugglers and their $3M drug stash

This week three women touched down in O’Hare International Airport from a trip Japan. No one would ever guess they were carrying a buttload of opium and heroin worth over $3 million dollars in street prices. These cute little old ladies almost got away with it too, if it weren’t for those darned customs agents. They are each being held on $50,000 bond.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 13, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

As the war over North Carolina’s restrictive HB 2 wages on, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Governor Pat McCrory go head to head, the Obama Administration is officially weighing in. The administration issued a guidance to public schools today, stating that schools must allow transgender students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.

The letter, sent by the DOJ and the Department of Education, is intended as “significant guidance.” That means that it doesn’t create any new laws, but “provides information and examples to inform recipients about how the Departments evaluate whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations.” The letter defines often mis-used terms such as transgender, gender identity, and transition. The letter clearly states its expectations for the nations’ public schools when it comes to dealing with students who are transgender:

The Departments treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations. This means that a school must not treat a transgender student differently from the way it treats other students of the same gender identity.

As it pertains particularly to restrooms and other facilities like locker rooms, the letter states:

A school may provide separate facilities on the basis of sex, but must allow transgender students access to such facilities consistent with their gender identity.14 A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so. A school may, however, make individual-user options available to all students who voluntarily seek additional privacy.

However, unsurprisingly, some states are viewing the letter as fighting words. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has said that he will be working with North Carolina to fight the directive, and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick stated:

This is truly a modern-day Come and Take It moment. Texans will not stand for this…This will create chaos in America and in its schools, and it’s now going to be one of the key issues in the presidential election. Because she supports this policy, this may have cost Hillary Clinton the election.

It’s clear that the fight over bathroom use isn’t going to go away any time soon, and that transgender students in many states will continue to struggle with discrimination, hate, and fear. As we hurtle toward the 2016 election, we should expect to hear a lot more about the use of public bathrooms.

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 Administration Issues Guidance on Transgender Treatment in Schools appeared first on Law Street.

Seventy-one years after the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima, Japan, leveling most of the city, killing 80,000 civilians and effectively winning the Pacific War, a sitting U.S. president will visit the city to commemorate the victims and highlight a future free from nuclear weapons.

After weeks of speculation, the White House released a statement yesterday detailing President Barack Obama’s May 21-28 trip to Vietnam and Japan, during which he will make his landmark visit to Hiroshima’s Peace Memorial Park. He will be accompanied by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Secretary of State John Kerry visited the same site last month, along with U.S. Ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy, in a trip that many assumed was a precursor to Obama’s visit. Some commentators criticized Kerry’s trip as an “apology tour,” and though today’s announcement was expected, similar denouncements aimed at the president are likely to be made in the coming days.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest defended the trip, which will also include the annual G-7 Summit, assuring doubters that it will not include an apology from Obama, though he did acknowledge the call for a “legitimate line of inquiry.”

But during an era of increased Japanese nationalism, as some experts claim Japan has been experiencing under the leadership of Abe, the visit could be perceived differently from the other side of the Pacific, at least by the Abe government.

In a written post on Medium on Tuesday, White House Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes sought to assuage doubters and clarify the motivation behind Obama’s visit. “He will not revisit the decision to use the atomic bomb at the end of World War II. Instead, he will offer a forward-looking vision focused on our shared future,” he wrote, adding that the visit will “symbolize how far the United States and Japan have come in building a deep and abiding alliance based on mutual interests, shared values, and an enduring spirit of friendship between our peoples.”

But it’s also important to note the trip holds different significance for other American politicians. For Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, a nuclear Japan might be necessary to combat a threat from North Korea. So as Obama looks to shine a light on the atrocities caused by nuclear weapons and look toward a world free of their destructive power, his potential successor could be in favor of proliferation.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Nearly Seven Decades Later, A U.S. President to Visit Hiroshima appeared first on Law Street.

The last time a cruise ship set sail from the United States to Cuba, there were nearly fifty percent less people in the world–4.4 billion–than today. The Bee Gees dominated the Billboard charts. A dozen eggs cost 48 cents.

That all changed at 10:24 AM Monday morning, when the first U.S. to Cuba cruise ship since 1978 docked in Havana, the island’s capital city. The 600 passengers of the Fathom Adonia–which left Miami Sunday afternoon–were welcomed by whistling and waving Cubans ashore and a Cuban band onboard.

“It’s exciting to be part of this historic voyage,” Shirley Thurman, a retiree from St. Augustine and Adonia passenger told the Miami Herald. “I am so glad we are normalizing relations with Cuba. I think the common people in Cuba have been the ones who have suffered over the years.”

Thurman was joined by hundreds of fellow Americans, as well as 10-25 native-born Cubans, according to cruise officials. As President Barack Obama prepared to make history of his own in March by being the first U.S. president in 88 years to set foot on Cuban soil, his administration made a move to ease travel restrictions, allowing travel to Cuba under “people to people” terms. Museum visits, musical performances, craft workshops, and other cultural activities would all be allowed as long as each individual kept a journal detailing their “educational visit.”

And that’s exactly what the Adonia passengers will be required to do over the next week, as they sail from Havana to Cienfuegos to Santiago de Cuba, visiting historical monuments and museums; talking to artists and engaging in community projects, all in an effort to meet the “people to people” requirements.

But the historical sea voyage wasn’t all smooth sailing. A lawsuit was filed when tickets for the trip went on sale by Francisco Marty and Amparo Sanchez, both Cuban born and so denied purchase from Carnival Corp., the ship’s operating company. At the time of the lawsuit, Raul Castro’s Communist Party restricted Cuban-born individuals seeking to re-enter their homeland via boat. Carnival was abiding by the decades old Cuban ordinance in refusing to sell Marty and Sanchez tickets, but the two pursued a lawsuit against the company anyway. According to a post on its state-run newspaper Granma on April 22, days after the lawsuit, the Castro government dropped the restrictions.

“They knew in order to accommodate normalization of relations and accommodate our bringing guests to Cuba, it would be necessary to change,” Arnold Donald, CEO of Carnival Corp. told the Miami Herald. Marty and Sanchez responded by dropping the suit, but still refusing to support what they see as Cuba’s discrimination against Cuban-born Americans.

Yet Cuba has been swamped with American tourists since the Cold War-era freeze was abated by the Obama administration in late 2014. Tourism is Cuba’s largest industry, accounting for 10 percent of its total GDP, as 3.52 million people visited the island last year. Now that a new cruise precedent has been set, that number is sure to increase in the coming years.

Alec Siegel

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

The post First U.S.-Launched Cruise Ship in Almost 40 Years Docks in Cuba 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.

Twenty-one young people are suing the federal government over climate change–and according to a recent ruling from a federal judge, they’re allowed to continue with the suit.

The 21 plaintiffs range in age from 8-19 from across the United States, and the lawsuit is being supported by an advocacy group called “Our Children’s Trust,” based in Oregon. The ideal endgame of the kids’ lawsuit would be for the federal government to come up with a concrete plan to fight climate change. They’ve filed petitions in every state, but it was the one in Oregon that a federal judge is allowing to move forward. Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, wrote:

The nascent nature of these proceedings dictate further development of the record before the court can adjudicate whether any claims or parties should not survive for trial. Accordingly, the court should deny the motions to dismiss.

Cotton also called the lawsuit unprecedented and wrote:

If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health.

The next step for the lawsuit is for another judge to review it, but Our Children’s Trust appears to be optimistic that it will be able to move forward.

The plaintiffs rely heavily on the concept of the public trust doctrine in their lawsuit. Essentially, the public trust doctrine is what allows the government to own certain resources for public use–for example the Great Lakes. The plaintiffs are arguing that the climate and atmosphere should be treated the same way. Additionally, the plaintiffs argued that their constitutional rights were being infringed upon. A press release from Our Children’s Trust reads:

These plaintiffs sued the federal government for violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property, and their right to essential public trust resources, by permitting, encouraging, and otherwise enabling continued exploitation, production, and combustion of fossil fuels.

So while there’s no guarantee this lawsuit will move forward, it will be one to watch.

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 Young People Are Suing the Federal Government Over Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

We get it, life can be hectic. Between work, family, and Netflix binging it can be hard to find enough time to devote to staying up on the news. To make things easier we’ve compiled a digest of some of the top stories from last week–so you don’t have to.  ICYMI keep reading to learn more about Law Street’s best of the week.

1. We Have Obama to Blame for Cat Videos & Drake v. Meek Mill, Says Twitter

Being the president of the United States comes with quite a few perks. For example, exclusive access to Air Force One, 24-7 cooking staff, and the ability to meet with Beyoncé and Jay Z at the drop of a hat.

However, with great power also comes great responsibility–and the major downside that everyone can now blame you for just about anything. Read the full article here.

2. 10 Reasons Law School Students Should Consider a Summer in Boston

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.

Yesterday, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Since Scalia’s death, Senate Republicans have been vowing that they will not hold hearings on whoever Obama nominates, because he’s in the last year of his office. But with Garland as his choice, Obama is essentially calling their bluff–Garland is by most accounts a moderate, and has received Republican support in the past. So, will the Senate Republicans continue to block Garland? Or will they “do their job?”

The news that Obama had chosen Garland as his nominee led to predictably mixed reactions around Washington. As expected, Republican leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley, who chairs the Senate judiciary committee, both stuck to their lines that a new justice shouldn’t be chosen until the next President is in office.

A few Senate Republicans did acknowledge that the Senators should at least meet with Garland and vet him–Senator Susan Collins of Maine said:

I believe that we should follow the regular order in considering this nominee. The Constitution’s very clear that the president has every right to make this nomination, and then the Senate can either consent or withhold its consent.

A few other Republicans, including Senator Jeff Flake, admitted that they would consider nominating Garland in a lame duck session if Hillary Clinton (or another Democrat) is elected in November.

As expected, most Democrats responded to the Republican blockade with frustration. The senior-most Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy stated:

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 Americans Tell the Senate: #DoYourJob appeared first on Law Street.

After the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia last month, all eyes are on President Barack Obama as he seeks to nominate a SCOTUS replacement. A few names have been floating around for a while–all top judges and advocates in the U.S., but now a source from the White House has reported that Obama has narrowed the search down to three potential options:

Sri Srinivasan

Image courtesy of United States Department of Justice via Wikimedia

Sri Srinivasan is only 49, and would be the first Asian-American and Hindu Supreme Court justice. He was born in India and then emigrated to Kansas with his family. He went to Stanford University for both his undergraduate degree as well as law school. He clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and worked in the Solicitor General’s office under both President George W. Bush and Obama. Srinivasan currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. When he was nominated to that position by Obama back in 2013, he was approved unanimously. 

Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSBlog conducted a seemingly exhaustive review of Srinivasan’s decisions while on the bench and came to the conclusion that he “seems to be as moderate a judge as Republicans could expect a Democratic president to nominate. His views seem to be solidly in the center of American legal thought.” Goldstein puts Srinivasan’s ideology on par with current Justice Elena Kagan.

Merrick Garland

SC Nom -Merrick Garland, chief judge US Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit,https://t.co/k94iam2oISpic.twitter.com/dE4SkpINkN

— Blanche V. Mercaldi (@tammytabby) March 15, 2016

Merrick Garland also sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. He’s 63, and a graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law School. He clerked on the Supreme Court when he was younger, for Justice William Brennan, and worked for some time in the private sector. He was nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton. He’s also not clearly partisan; Vox’s Dylan Matthews cites the fact that he’s very pro-law enforcement as something that will be attractive to Republicans. He was considered as a replacement for retired Justice John Paul Stevens as well, so it makes sense he’s on the list again.

Paul Watford

Southern California’s Paul J. Watford is among Obama’s top choices for Supreme Court … https://t.co/yE2wKTwBmUpic.twitter.com/6LSKqtWSyq

— hypervocal (@hypervocal) March 14, 2016

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Paul J. Watford is 48. A Southern Californian, Watford went to Berkeley, and then UCLA Law. Like the other two contenders on the list, he clerked for a Supreme Court Justice–Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Then he worked in the U.S. Attorney’s office and in the private sector before he was nominated to the bench by President Obama in 2011. However, he was only confirmed by a 61-34 vote, and was vehemently opposed by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Pushback from the Republicans

The Republicans in the Senate have vowed not to hold hearings for any nominee that Obama proposes. The RNC is going so far as to launch a task force that will support those Senate Republicans with ads, petitions, and media campaigns. While the three choices that appear to be on the table are rather moderate, it doesn’t seem like the Republicans will really be playing ball. As White House spokesperson Josh Earnest quite bluntly put it:

It’s clear what Republicans are planning to do. They are planning to tear down the president’s nominee, without regard to who that person is.

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 Who is on Obama’s SCOTUS Nominee Short List? appeared first on Law Street.

As primary season heats up, the candidates still remaining in the presidential race have begun fine-tuning their higher education plans. Candidates from both sides of the aisle have spoken about how they would change, revamp, and, in some cases, fix higher education. But aside from Marco Rubio, only those from the Democratic party had rolled out specific plans to address rising tuition costs and astronomical student debt prior to the first primary contest in Iowa.

While we evaluate who’s still left in the race, let’s begin to look at the remaining candidates’ positions on higher education. Keep reading to learn more.

Bernie Sanders

As previously noted, Bernie Sanders’ education plan aims to make postsecondary education free at both community colleges and public four-year universities.

Historically Black College and Universities

In an appeal to lure African American voters and young people, Sanders asserted that tuition-free education would not force private historically black college and universities (HBCUs) to close down.

Representing the 6^th District of South Carolina and an influential power broker in presidential primary races, Congressman James Clyburn expressed his concerns over the prospect of free public education and the impact on black colleges.

“You’ve got to think about the consequences of things. If you start handing out two years of free college at public institutions are you ready for all the black, private HBCUs to close down? That’s what’s going to happen,” Clyburn said.

In a recent interview with MSNBC’s Tamron Hall confirming his endorsement of Hillary Clinton, Clyburn also said of the Sanders tuition-free education plan and the America’s College Promise plan proposed by the current administration, “there are no free lunches so there will be no free education.”

Student Loans and Interest Rates

Part of the Sanders education plan also includes lowering the interest rates on student loans. Sanders hopes to reduce loan interest rates to what they were 10 years ago. In 2006, undergraduate student loans hovered around 2.37 percent, which would cut the current rate of 4.39 percent nearly in half.

Sanders believes students should be able to refinance their loans in a similar fashion as auto loans. According to Sanders, if a loan for a car can be obtained at a 2.5 percent interest rate, why are students forced to pay between 5-7 percent for multiple decades? From the beginning, Sanders has vowed to prevent the federal government from making money on student loans but it remains to be seen just how he’d stop the profiting.

Hillary Clinton

There are commonalites between Democratic candidates Sanders and Clinton surrounding student debt and tuition-free community college. While Sanders believes there is a way to make both two-year and four-year public colleges tuition-free, Clinton’s New College Compact plan stipulates that students should never need to borrow to pay for tuition, books, and fees to attend a public in-state university. The Clinton education plan also calls for the ability for Pell Grants to be used for living expenses.

Historically Black College and Universities

As part of her plan to attract minority voters and young people, part of Clinton’s education plan includes a $25 billion investment in HBCUs, hispanic serving institutions (HSI), and other minority serving institutions (MSI) serving a high percentage of Pell Grant recipients in an effort to lower cost and increase student outcomes. This fund would also help low to moderately endowed nonprofit private institutions within the HBCU system. Contrary to Sanders, Clinton plans to invest in private postsecondary education, acknowledging that private colleges also help under-served students graduate.

Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio’s higher education plan, which emphasizes access and affordability, includes cheaper options for online education. Rubio also calls for students to treat themselves as commodities when applying to college, and asks students to embrace what he refers to as “human capital contracts” by selling themselves to private investors.

He asserts that students should know how much they could expect to earn before taking out a loan to pay for their education. Rubio maintains that the current higher education system in this country is outdated, broken, and “needs a disruption,” citing that college is too expensive, time consuming, and inflexible. Rubio uses partisan language to explain that the Democrats’ approach to fixing higher education is the same one attempted in Washington for decades by pouring money into an outdated system and raising taxes.

Income-Based Loan Repayment

There are some facets of Rubio’s education plan that are consistent with Clinton and Sanders. They are in agreement on investing in student success and wanting to simplify the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). However, Rubio wants to implement an automatic income-based student loan repayment plan in order to ease student loan debt. The current administration has already enacted repayment plans that are income-based as an option, but Rubio believes this should be the sole universal method for federal student loans.

Ties to Corinthian Colleges

In an effort to move higher education into the 21^st century, Rubio wants to ease access to state colleges and online education opportunities, and reshape accrediting entities to accommodate non-traditional education. This may raise concern with voters based on his ties to the for-profit Corinthian Colleges, which have contributed to his Reclaim America Pac.

Last spring, Corinthian Colleges filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and shut their doors for good, which adversely impacted over 16,000 students. In December of 2015, the Obama administration began the process to forgive nearly $28 million in federal student loans for over 1,300 students that said the now-defunct Corinthian Colleges violated their rights on grounds that they used deceptive tactics to convince students to take out loans. Now up to 350,000 students could be forgiven for taking out loans to pay tuition.

John Kasich

GOP Candidate Governor John Kasich of Ohio plans to keep college affordable by focusing on the 100 percent performance-based funding formula that emphasizes completion and graduation rates. The formula that has kept Ohio a leader in the nation with regard to freezing tuition rates for the next couple of years, Kasich plans to expand what has worked in Ohio to a federal level. The remaining focuses of Kasich’s education plan are centered heavily on K-12 education.

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz

Neither Donald Trump nor Texas Senator Ted Cruz have released their plans for higher education. However, in recent weeks Trump has been accused of scamming students with his for-profit Trump University, which began operating in 2005. Rubio attacked Trump, calling the university a “fake school,” and claiming the university has been defrauding students out of thousand of dollars after reports were revealed that students are currently suing Trump for restitution.

Conclusion

As the field narrows, voters are going to need to decide who their next president will be based on issues extending far beyond higher education. That said, the candidates left standing need to be clear about all of their plans. That includes laying out specifics on how to implement each education plan, including how they will be paid for, and who in the new president’s cabinet will oversee these implementations.

Some of these higher education plans are more radical than others, but hopefully as the election season gathers steam, voters will finally be privy to what higher education will look like for incoming students, new graduates paying back student loans, and mid-career professionals who may seeking relief from drowning in student loan debt.

Resources

Real Clear Politics: 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination

Buzzfeed: Clyburn: Sanders’ Education Plan is a Disaster for Private Black Colleges

Center for Responsive Politics: Corinthian Colleges 2014

New York Times: Ben Carson Seeing No Path Forward, Signals End of Candidacy

New York Times: Super Tuesday Results

Washington Post: Students of Defunct For-Profit Colleges to Receive $28 Million in Loan Forgiveness

Think Progress: Rubio Attacked Trump for Running a ‘Fake School.’ But There’s Just One Problem

Jamal Evan Mazyck

Jamal Mazyck is currently pursuing an Ed.D. in educational leadership and is a graduate research assistant at San Diego State University. When he is not writing, researching or tweeting about the ins and outs of higher education, he can be found on the tennis court and running half-marathons. Contact Jamal at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What are the Candidates’ Higher Education Plans Post-Obama? appeared first on Law Street.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was welcomed to the United States today by President Barack Obama. Trudeau’s trip is the first time a Canadian Prime Minister has made an official visit to the U.S. in 19 years–it’s also the first time in about as many years that the U.S. and Canada have both been controlled by liberal heads of state.

The mood between Obama and Trudeau seemed friendly, as the two leaders began the visit with a joint statement on climate change. They also delved into some remarks about Canada’s efforts to aid the Syrian refugees, and spoke about how the two countries will work together to combat the new threat of the Zika virus.

Obama and Trudeau–both relatively young progressives–paint a striking picture side by side. Some news outlets have already released coverage of the two premiers’ “bromance”–see this homage to their chemistry courtesy of the Washington Post, for example. Here are a few more instances of the two being pals, both during this visit and in the past:

Here are some Internet-friendly photos of Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau being best bros https://t.co/0YMgB3V8sD pic.twitter.com/WFIOvRRoyA

— GQ Magazine (@GQMagazine) March 10, 2016

Twitter hails #Obama / Trudeau ‘bromance’ https://t.co/EQFIkyOoxP pic.twitter.com/Vad65d9PWf

— Live News Cloud ⭐️ (@livenewscloud) March 10, 2016

Trudeau and Obama start a heavy bromance at the APEC summit : https://t.co/SuV5UQIXllpic.twitter.com/v3XdTsswmt

— VICE Canada (@vicecanada) November 19, 2015

The friendly rapport extended to their conversations–Obama even mocked Trudeau about the fact that the Stanley Cup currently resides with an American team, the Chicago Blackhawks. It’s certainly a different relationship than the slightly frigid one between Obama and former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. A particular sticking point between Obama and Harper was their disagreement over the Keystone XL Pipeline. 

Obama and Trudeau seem intent on putting any animosity (although even with Obama and Haper’s relationship, there was little) behind them. Obama stated today about Trudeau: “I am grateful that I have him as a partner … When it comes to the central challenges that we face, our two nations are more closely aligned than ever.”

Trudeau’s comments were along the same vein; during their join statement he said: 

We’ve faced many challenges over the course of our shared history, and while we have agreed on many things and disagreed on a few others, we remain united in a common purpose. [..] Whether we’re charting a course for environmental protection, making key investments to grow our middle class or defending the rights of oppressed peoples abroad, Canada and the United States will always collaborate in partnership and good faith.

However, despite the relationship between Trudeau and Obama now, it’s entirely possible that we could have a conservative in the White House in a little under a year. If that’s the case, this harmonious relationship may not last too long, given Trudeau’s stated progressive agenda. 

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 Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Visits Washington appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama signed a bill this week that closes a nearly 85-year-old trade loophole allowing the import of slave-produced goods into the United States. The new regulations, which will affect a long list of goods known to be created by child or forced labor, will go into effect in about two weeks.

The loophole allowing goods made by child or forced labor into the United States is found in the Tariff Act of 1930. While these types of goods are traditionally prohibited under U.S. law, there’s an exception in the tariff–“consumptive demand.” Essentially what that means is that if it’s impossible to supply the domestic demand without importing products made via child or forced labor, those products are allowed to be imported.

The list of products that these new regulations will affect most heavily are cotton, sugarcane, tobacco, coffee, cattle, and fish. The Department of Labor’s list of goods produced by child labor or forced labor also includes things like gold, diamonds, electronics, and pornography–depending of course on the producing country.

There’s been a particular focus on the use of forced labor in the Thai fishing industry, after a number of exposes written over the last year have exposed the use of trafficked Rohingya migrants as slave workers on Thai fishing boats. According to the Guardian:

Hundreds of people are thought to have been traded as slaves to support Thailand’s $7.3bn seafood industry. Costco and CP Foods are facing a lawsuit, filed in California, to prevent the sale of Thai prawns/shrimp tainted by slavery. In January, European Union investigators visited Thailand to see whether it had made enough progress on the issue of slavery to avoid an EU-wide ban on seafood imports from the country.

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) proposed the amendment that closed the loophole, and now his office is asking the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency to begin enforcing the new roles as soon as they go into effect in 15 days. Brown stated:

It’s embarrassing that for 85 years, the United States let products made with forced labor into this country, and closing this loophole gives the U.S. an important tool to fight global slavery.

Brown is right–while this may mean less choices for consumers in the U.S., it will be a comfort to know that we no longer lend such support to forced labor.

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 President Obama Bans Import of Slave-Produced Goods appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Monday, everyone. While you wait for that coffee to kick in, check out Law Street’s best stories of the week. ICYMI, here they are.

1. The Personal Care Products Safety Act: Modernizing Outdated Regulations

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

2. Fitbit Lawsuit Claims HR Monitors are “Dangerously Inaccurate”

 If you were thinking about shelling out hundreds on a new Fitbit to help jump start your New Year’s fitness resolution, you may want to think again. The popular fitness tracking company is under scrutiny after being sued in a class action lawsuit from users alleging that the heart rate monitors in the trackers are “dangerously ineffective.” Read the full story here.

3.  Conservatives Don’t Like Gun Control, So They Mock Obama’s Tears

“It is always encouraging to see American citizens focusing on the really important parts of big political events,” she says with heavy sarcasm. During his speech yesterday morning announcing new executive actions on gun control, President Obama outlined several facets of his new initiative to make guns safer and harder to obtain. He also teared up when referencing the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Guess which part conservatives are choosing to focus on.

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

President Obama has officially announced that he will not be endorsing a candidate in the increasingly contentious Democratic primary between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders. This comes after some speculation that a recent op-ed written by Obama about gun control was essentially criticism of Bernie Sanders, but this morning on “Meet the Press,” Obama’s White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough made it clear that no endorsement was intended, and Obama does not plan on endorsing a candidate in the primary.

McDonough referenced the fact that Obama’s actions come with plenty of precedent, stating: “We’ll do exactly what has been done in the past.” He also added that no matter who the nominee ends up being, he will be “out there” campaigning. According to Fox News this is pretty traditional behavior:

George W. Bush didn’t endorse his party’s nominee in 2008 until March 5, by which point Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., had just about locked up the bid. Ronald Reagan didn’t endorse his sitting Vice President, George H. W. Bush, as the Republican nominee until May 1988. Reagan said he wanted to wait until the outcome of the nomination race was clear.

McDonough’s statement came after Obama published an op-ed in the New York Times late last week where he stated: “I will not campaign for, vote for or support any candidate, even in my own party, who does not support common-sense gun reform.”

Some viewed this as an attack on Bernie Sanders, who hasn’t taken as hardline a stance on gun control as Hillary Clinton throughout his career in the Senate. A point of particular contention has been that he supported a 2005 law that would give gun manufacturers legal immunity in instances where their guns are used to commit crimes.

However, Obama’s press secretary, Josh Earnest, indicated that the quote in Obama’s op-ed wasn’t any sort of reference to Sanders, saying:

The President was quite intentional about raising this issue as it relates to gun manufacturers, but that was not any sort of secret or subtle signal to demonstrate a preference in the presidential primary.

Earnest also pointed out that Obama wasn’t “intimately familiar” with Sanders’ voting record. So, while it isn’t surprising that Obama isn’t endorsing any candidate until the primaries are over, in this case it appeared that a repeat was necessary.

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 Hillary vs. Bernie: Obama Isn’t Getting Involved appeared first on Law Street.

In light of the recent tragedy in Paris, the fight against ISIS is likely to retake the spotlight. In a press conference on Monday, President Obama was forced to defend his current strategy for the Middle East, as his opponents argue that the United States needs to take a stronger approach to prevent future terrorist attacks on the western world.

Currently, the United States is leading an international coalition of airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. In addition to airstrikes, a force of over 3,000 U.S. advisors is on the ground in Iraq to train the local military. The focus of the campaign is to build up ground forces in the region, notably the Iraqi army and moderate Syrian rebels, while supporting established groups as they fight ISIS. So far, the goal has been to contain ISIS, prevent it from taking additional land, and slowly take back territory without the direct use of American soldiers on the ground.

At the end of October, the president announced that he was sending up to 50 special operations troops in Syria to coordinate ground forces there. While the addition of American ground forces in Syria marks a possible departure from Obama’s promise not to use ground forces in Syria, he emphasized that the general strategy remains unchanged. We also know that prior to that announcement, U.S. special forces have been embarking on covert raids against ISIS. One such raid led to the first American combat fatality in Iraq since 2011, while U.S. forces rescued 70 hostages facing what anonymous sources told CNN was “imminent mass execution.”

The Obama administration argues that training local forces, rather than using U.S. troops, is crucial for stability in the long term, but doing so also requires a lot of time. One aspect of the U.S. strategy that has generally failed is the effort to train and build up a force in Syria. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter recently told Congress that the army has only managed to train about 60 Syrian fighters to take on ISIS. As a result, the Defense Department shifted its plan in Syria to support existing forces rather than build new ones.

President Obama’s strategy has been relatively successful in terms of containing and pushing back ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but in light of the recent attacks in Paris many argue the current response is not strong enough. While criticism of the current strategy in the Middle East is easy to find, an alternative strategy is more elusive. Most, like Republican candidates, argue that the United States needs to take a stronger tone in the region, but few have said how they would actually do so. John Kasich argues that boots on the ground are necessary to defeat ISIS, but he has not yet said how many would be required. Lindsey Graham is so far the only candidate who has given a specific policy plan for the region, calling on the United States to deploy 20,000 troops to Iraq and Syria to defeat ISIS.

Donald Trump has said that he would “bomb the shit” out of ISIS, but he has been generally vague on details beyond that–though if you ask him, vagueness is actually his intention. Jeb Bush has said that the United States needs to declare war on ISIS, which would include the imposition of a no-fly zone. He has also called on Obama to consult with military leaders to figure out how to defeat ISIS and then enact that strategy, but he has not directly offered a plan beyond the need for U.S. leadership in the region. Marco Rubio has criticized the current strategy while coincidentally offering a plan that looks very similar to the current strategy. However, he argues that only Sunni forces will be able to defeat ISIS, who claim to be Sunni Muslims themselves.

In a press conference at the G20 Summitt on Monday, President Obama addressed his critics while stating that the current strategy in the Middle East will remain in place. He reiterated his view that using local forces to fight ISIS is the most effective way to build stability and prevent a resurgence. When asked about the use of U.S. troops, he highlighted the threat that ISIS poses beyond its territory in Iraq and Syria:

And let’s assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into Syria. What happens when there’s a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we then send more troops into there? Or Libya, perhaps? Or if there’s a terrorist network that’s operating anywhere else — in North Africa, or in Southeast Asia?

The nature of the threat posed by ISIS is becoming increasingly more complicated as the group begins to act outside of its territory in Iraq and Syria. Critics argue that the United States needs to take a much stronger stance in Iraq and Syria, but few have proposed a vision of what that would look like.

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 What is the U.S. Strategy to Fight ISIS? appeared first on Law Street.

In July, President Obama became the first sitting president to visit a federal prison when he traveled to the El Reno Correctional Facility in Oklahoma. While there, he addressed the inmates, discussing the importance of rehabilitation and job-training to ensure their success after serving time behind bars. Now, the President is taking action to help former prisoners reenter society, a key part in his push to “overhaul the criminal justice system.”

Yesterday, President Obama laid out initiatives to help ex-inmates get jobs, housing and education, while also providing $8 million in federal education grants to fund communities establishing reentry programs. The President also has plans to visit Integrity House, a substance abuse treatment center in Washington, D.C., to meet with convicted drug offenders and discuss ways to get their lives back on track. According to an official statement from the White House:

President Obama will continue to promote these goals by highlighting the reentry process of formerly-incarcerated individuals and announce new actions aimed at helping Americans who’ve paid their debt to society rehabilitate and reintegrate back into their communities.

The difficulties that ex-inmates face reintegrating into society are so often overlooked for a variety of reasons. While in prison, inmates are ripped away from society, which not only impacts their own self-perception and worth, but the rest of society’s perception of them. They become a separate entity; an enigmatic group of deplorable beings who are so different from “us.” This mentality leads to indifference toward the fundamental human rights and needs that ex-inmates need just like everyone else: protection, security, stability, and other basic elements of human life.

President Obama is paving the way for us to change the way we view ex-inmates, and truly give them a chance to rehabilitate and move on with their lives. Countless studies and articles have been published around the world on this issue, arguing that stronger programs and systems of reintegration and rehabilitation will lessen recidivism rates in crime. The execution of President Obama’s plan to better help ex-inmates reintegrate into society may be the beginning of a change in crime culture in the United States, and in the world.

Kui Mwai

Kui Mwai is a junior at American University, studying Law and Literature. She is from Nairobi, Kenya. Contact Kui at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Obama Unveils Plan to Help Prisoners Reintegrate into Society appeared first on Law Street.

Back in August Kanye West shocked the world during the MTV Video Music Awards when he announced a potential 2020 presidential run–admittedly after having “rolled up a little something” before coming onstage. It didn’t take long before “Kanye 4 Prez” merch was being sold on Etsy and Twitter was buzzing with excitement over a possible “Keeping up with the Kardashians” White House edition.

But if Kanye is in fact serious about a potential presidential bid, who better to give him advice than President Obama himself? During a speech at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in San Francisco on Saturday Obama did just that, saying, “I do have advice for him. Just some stuff I picked up along the way.”

Watch Obama’s Advice For Kanye Below:

Here are the highlights:

Tip #1: You must deal with “strange characters”

“First of all, you’ve got to spend a lot of time dealing with some strange characters who behave like they’re on a reality TV show. So you’ve just to be cool with that,” said Obama clearly poking fun at the Kardashians.

Tip #2: Don’t go “off message”

“Saying you have a beautiful dark twisted fantasy–that’s what’s known as an ‘off message’ in politics,” said Obama in reference to Kanye’s fifth Studio album. He added, “You can’t say something like that. There are a lot of people who have lost their congressional seats saying things like that.”

Tip #3: Let’s be real

Obama finished with a little self-deprecating humor for his fellow Chicago native saying, “Do you really think that this country is going to elect a black guy from the south side of Chicago with a funny name to be president of the United States? That is crazy. That’s cray!”

It’s nice to see Obama lightening up a bit during his final year in office. If his speech writers keep this comedy up, fingers crossed for a post-presidency stand up tour.

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 Obama Gives Kanye West Some Tips For His 2020 Presidential Run appeared first on Law Street.

In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.

— Dan Hodges (@DPJHodges) June 19, 2015

Every single time I see news of another mass shooting, an experience that has come pretty damn close to being an everyday occurrence, I think of the people who pointed out that if America’s gun control laws don’t change after Sandy Hook, they never will. Twenty children and six teachers were slaughtered, and nothing has changed. Since Sandy Hook, there has been roughly one school shooting per week. Since November 2012, this is the 994th mass shooting–by the time we hit the three year anniversary of Sandy Hook, we’ll probably be at 1000. Yesterday, 10 people were killed and seven more were wounded at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. This is an epidemic, and it shows no signs of stopping.

Mass shootings are no longer shocking–instead they’ve become routine occurrences. The cycle we’ll go through after this shooting: anger, arguments about the applicability of mental illness vs. gun laws, an analysis of the murderer’s background, then an unsteady return to normalcy, has become mundane. This weariness was echoed by President Obama at a press conference last night, where the president sounded embattled and exhausted. He talked about how the United States stands alone with this problem; how other developed countries don’t have to mourn their young people to a school shooter on an alarmingly regular basis, stating:

We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.

He also pointed out the cyclical nature of our response as well, stating:

And what’s become routine, of course, is the response of those who oppose any kind of common-sense gun legislation. Right now, I can imagine the press releases being cranked out: We need more guns, they’ll argue. Fewer gun safety laws.

Does anybody really believe that? There are scores of responsible gun owners in this country –they know that’s not true. We know because of the polling that says the majority of Americans understand we should be changing these laws — including the majority of responsible, law-abiding gun owners.

So will anything change? I doubt it. To harken back to the quote I opened this article with, it does truly feel like the gun debate in the United States is over.

As a writer tasked with covering the law and policy news of the day, our response to mass shootings has started to feel overwhelming formulaic. At the risk of being crass, the hundreds and thousands of think pieces and op-eds that have been written and will be written about the tragedy in Oregon will follow the same rubric, and they’ll be no different than those that are written after the next shooting. Here’s the formula:

On ______ there was a mass shooting in _____. __ were killed, and the shooter was eventually killed by police. Victims include (insert here the names of the often young people whose lives were taken by senseless gun violence). President Obama and (politicians from the state that was affected) held press conferences to address the tragedy.

Insert impassioned anger, rhetoric, and arguments about why the gun laws should be changed or stay the same. Mention mental illness, maybe. Include a call to action.

The end.

There’s nothing new to say anymore and nothing new to write anymore, because no one is listening. Because there’s nothing new about these mass shootings. I mourn the victims in Oregon, but I truly have no idea what to say at this point. Because is there really anything else left to say?

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post The Depressing Routine of Mass Shootings in the United States appeared first on Law Street.

After police in Irving, Texas arrested 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamad Monday for bringing what they thought was a bomb, but was actually just a clock, to school, internet outrage ensued (justifiably so). Now, I am not generally the biggest fan of widespread social media reactions to very specific events, but this time around there was a genuinely encouraging response–ranging from celebrities to President Obama.

Shortly after the news of Ahmed Mohamad’s arrest, #IStandWithAhmed began trending on Twitter:

370K Tweets have expressed #IStandWithAhmed & currently rising at approx 2K Tweets per minute http://t.co/XTyvFnJlqrpic.twitter.com/r4Tq8z2jAS

— Twitter Data (@TwitterData) September 16, 2015

At its peak, there were around 2,000 tweets per minute supporting Ahmed. And eventually, he got some pretty high-profile attention.

One of the first politicians to address what happened to Ahmed was Hillary Clinton, who encouraged him to follow his passion and warned against prejudiced assumptions.

Assumptions and fear don’t keep us safe—they hold us back. Ahmed, stay curious and keep building. https://t.co/ywrlHUw3g1

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 16, 2015

Arguably the most popular tweet came from none other than President Obama himself, in which he invited Ahmed to the White House and encouraged him to keep following his passion.

Cool clock, Ahmed. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It’s what makes America great. — President Obama (@POTUS) September 16, 2015

Meanwhile, Ahmed Mohamad’s arrest was also trending on Facebook–so much so that the company’s founder made a show of support for the 14-year-old. Mark Zuckerberg criticized the arrest and extended another invitation to Ahmed, this time to Facebook’s headquarters. His post said:

You’ve probably seen the story about Ahmed, the 14 year old student in Texas who built a clock and was arrested when he took it to school.

Having the skill and ambition to build something cool should lead to applause, not arrest. The future belongs to people like Ahmed.

Ahmed, if you ever want to come by Facebook, I’d love to meet you. Keep building.

Twitter later got into the mix, offering Ahmed an internship:

Hi @IStandWithAhmed, we building things at @twitter too. Would you consider interning with us? We’d love it — DM us! #IStandWithAhmed

— Twitter (@twitter) September 16, 2015

Ahmed, who was wearing a NASA shirt on the day he was arrested, got an outpouring of support from several NASA workers.

Bob Ferdowski, a popular NASA engineer, tweeted:

Hey Ahmed, give me a call in a couple years. We could always use smart, curious & creative people. https://t.co/02a4feMrk5 — Bobak Ferdowsi (@tweetsoutloud) September 16, 2015

Mike Seibert, the Flight Director for the Mars Rover, said:

Ahmed, I’d be happy to show you how we drive the Opportunity rover. Come visit us at JPL any time. #IStandWithAhmedhttps://t.co/VtesUugxj3

— Mike Seibert (@mikeseibert) September 16, 2015

Dr. Fred Calef III, the “keeper of the maps” at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) said:

Anytime you wanna see Mars rovers Ahmed, let me know. #IStandWithAhmed

— Imperator MARSiosa (@cirquelar) September 16, 2015

He later tweeted:

It’s not about the shirt, it’s the dreams that shirt represents, the crushing of innocence and intelligence by fear, ignorance & hatred.

— Imperator MARSiosa (@cirquelar) September 16, 2015

When the day was over, Ahmed had received an outpouring of support from all over the internet, but the most sincere seemed to come from the group of NASA engineers at the Jet Propulsion Lab. From Mike Seibert’s series of tweets, to Dr. Calif’s impassioned defense of Ahmed, you can tell their support is truly genuine.

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 The Internet Stands with Ahmed appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despite the drilling controversy, Alaska is experiencing significant climate change effects and Obama’s trip intends to highlight that. Temperatures in Alaska have risen more than in the rest of the United States, and climate change is beginning to affect the lives of the state’s residents. According to a recent National Climate Assessment:

Over the past 60 years, Alaska has warmed more than twice as rapidly as the rest of the U.S., with average annual air temperature increasing by 3°F and average winter temperature by 6°F, with substantial year-to-year and regional variability.

A possible consequence for the increase in temperature is a rise in the number and severity of wildfires, which are a big problem for Alaska. According to recent research, the Alaskan wildfire season has increased by more than 40 percent since 1950, and was particularly bad this summer. Melting glaciers, thawing permafrost, and reduced snow cover are quickly affecting the Alaskan landscape. A recent Atlantic article highlighted the effects of climate change on the people in Newtok, Alaska–who actually voted to relocate their town before it was destroyed by rising water levels.

For years, Obama has lamented the lack of action and pushback from Congress, but now he is taking a much more aggressive approach. In his speech on Tuesday, he attacked those who refuse to acknowledge the issue, saying, “The time to plead ignorance is surely past.  Those who want to ignore the science, they are increasingly alone.  They’re on their own shrinking island,” in a speech to the GLACIER conference. His remarks also emphasized that time to address climate change is running out, painting a grave picture of what could happen if emissions are not significantly reduced, saying:

If we were to abandon our course of action, if we stop trying to build a clean-energy economy and reduce carbon pollution, if we do nothing to keep the glaciers from melting faster, and oceans from rising faster, and forests from burning faster, and storms from growing stronger, we will condemn our children to a planet beyond their capacity to repair

It’s difficult to tell whether the President’s new approach to trumpeting climate change will shift public opinion, but climate change will likely get more attention moving forward. With the Paris climate conference in December, the Democratic presidential candidates continuing to raise the issue, and impending legal challenges to new EPA regulations, climate change will be the topic of much discussion. Although most Americans acknowledge the fact that the climate is changing, they still rate it low on their list of priorities. While the future remains difficult to predict, the conversation has certainly been started.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Obama Doubles Down on Climate Change In Alaska appeared first on Law Street.

What’s for dinner tonight? Perhaps steamed corn, infused with some delicious dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Or maybe, if you’re feeling bold, you’ll eat some tofu bites containing glyphosate, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified in March as “probably carcinogenic in humans.” Corn, soy, sugar, papayas, milk, zucchini—the list goes on; the number of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is multiplying. The U.S. House of Representative’s decision on Thursday to pass a law that would block states from mandating GMO labels only contributes to the danger that these GMO or genetically engineered (GE) foods inflict on farmers, on the environment, and on consumers.

So what are GMOs exactly, and why are they causing such a scene on Capitol Hill? Genetically modified organisms are plants or animals that are genetically altered to exhibit traits that are not natural, primarily a resistance to pesticides and herbicides. It may sound brilliant to have developed crops that can withstand the chemicals necessary to cultivate large amounts, but GMOs are often untested, require dangerous chemicals in their farming, and may be a threat to organic foods and to the environment. In the United States, GMO foods require no pre-market testing. Unlike with drug production, where there is mandatory testing on animals, mandatory human clinical trials, mandatory tests of carcinogenicity, fetal impact, neurological impact, and at least some limited allergy testing, none of those steps are required for these crops.

The American Medical Association has stated that mandatory testing should be required before GE foods and ingredients are introduced on the market, but lawmakers continue to ignore medical research centers, farmers, and constituents who oppose or at least want labels on GMOs. Maine, Connecticut, and Vermont have all passed laws mandating the labeling of genetically modified foods for consumers but unfortunately these three states are the exception, not the rule. Last week, a majority of Representatives voted in favor of a law that prevents states from mandating GMO labels, stating that labeling GMO foods is “misleading.” Supporters of the bill said that labeling foods that contain GMOs sends a message to consumers that the products are risky, and that according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), GMOs are not dangerous. However, that information is based on testing by scientists who are funded and influenced by the companies who own GMOs. Opponents of the bill called banning the labeling of GMOs “an infringement of the public’s right to know what’s in their food.”

Currently, 64 countries worldwide require the labeling of GMOs, including all 28 nations of the European Union, Russia, and China. Our lack of GMO labels is not only causing us to fall behind most other developed countries, but is also failing the satisfy a vast majority of Americans who support GMO labeling. A total of 92 percent of Americans want GMO foods to be labeled and in the past two years, more than 70 labeling bills or ballot initiatives were introduced across 30 states.

In 2012, some of America’s most profitable chemical companies teamed up with large food companies to defeat California’s Proposition 37, an initiative that would have required labeling of genetically engineered foods. Monsanto, PepsiCo, CocaCola, Nestle, and several other companies spent over 45 million dollars to block the legislation. Why? Because keeping consumers in the dark about the dangers of GMOs can be profitable, and requiring labels would allow consumers to question what they’re consuming before they buy. The companies that own GMO seeds, which are patented, sell their seeds to farmers who then buy herbicides from the same companies who also own the chemicals. This brilliant business model is racking up millions for these corporations, but is causing people to consume more and more dangerous herbicides.

Another concerning symptom is that weeds are becoming resistant to the hazardous chemicals. Genetically engineered crops are designed to survive weed killers. Corporations like Monsanto that create these herbicides and pesticides claim that herbicide use has decreased since the introduction of GE crops; however, before GE crops were cultivated, weeds resistant to Roundup did not exist. There are now 14 known species of Roundup-resistant weeds in the U.S. alone, known as “super weeds.” Super weeds have been reported on half of all U.S. farms and cost farmers millions of dollars a year to control. With more weeds becoming resistant to Roundup, farmers now have to spray larger quantities of even more toxic herbicides on their crops to kill weeds, like 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-d), a component of the poisonous Agent Orange used during the Vietnam War. GMOs intensify the problem of herbicide use and create more super weeds that are immune to harsh chemicals, disrupt the environment, and contaminate water systems.

In 2010 the President’s Cancer Panel reported that 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. The panel pointed to chemicals, primarily herbicides in our air, water, soil, and food as the primary cause of this increased cancer rate. Later that same summer, the journal Pediatrics reported in a peer-reviewed study that there is a direct correlation between pesticide exposure and increased ADHD diagnoses. In 2011 a study revealed that the insecticide in GMO corn was detected in the umbilical cord blood of pregnant women. With 90 percent of soy and 85 percent of corn now genetically engineered, and super weeds on the rise leading to harsher chemicals being used on our food, GMO consumers are being exposed to more and more dangerous chemicals. And without GMO labels, shoppers have no idea if the foods they are eating are a part of that group.

Congress’s decision last week to block any mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically engineered crops proves that corporate influence in Washington is taking away our right to choose what we consume. Genetically modified foods can and should be labeled, and Congress has an obligation to listen to the 92 percent of Americans who support the right to know what they are consuming via GMO labels. The FDA’s Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act states that the consumer has a right to know when something is added to food that changes it in ways a consumer would likely not recognize, and that indicates labeling should be required. Just like juice from concentrate, wild versus farmed, country of origin, and many other mandatory labels we see on our foods, GMOs should also be visible, since the chemicals that come with them are not. We have a right to know and a right to choose. It’s time to question whether the FDA and Congress are here to protect us, the people, or to protect a handful of chemical companies that want to keep us in the dark.

Emily Dalgo

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

The post GMO Labeling: The American People Have A Right To Know appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s top stories included a particularly sassy President Obama, the top law schools for criminal law, and a continued controversy involving Planned Parenthood. ICYMI, check out Law Street’s top stories below:

#1 Top 10 Condescending Quotes From Obama’s Iran Deal Press Conference

On Wednesday afternoon, Obama held a press conference in the White House East Room where he welcomed critics and reporters to ask questions of him regarding the newly struck nuclear deal. The conference lasted more than an hour, and drew out several candid responses from an increasingly condescending President Obama along with a slew of entertaining commentary by the president toward critics of the nuclear deal. Read full article here.

#2 Top 10 Law Schools for Criminal Law 2015

The legal industry is changing and law schools are no exception. Applications and enrollment are both down, and the value of the traditional legal education with its current price tag is the subject of continual debate. Law Street Specialty Rankings are a detailed resource for prospective law students as they consider the many law schools across the country. Law Street Specialty Rankings blend the quantitative and qualitative in a way that accurately highlights the top law schools based on specialty programs. This set of rankings deals with the best law schools for criminal law. See the full rankings here.

#3 Planned Parenthood Video: The Controversy Continues

Planned Parenthood is an organization with a mission to promote a healthy sexual lifestyle and family planning. But recent news of a few controversial videos surfacing may be changing some people’s opinions toward the organization. In the more widely viewed video, Center for Medical Progress–an advocacy group that claims to report on medical ethics–had two undercover actors pose as representatives of a human biologics company and went to lunch with Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services. Nucatola was secretly recorded and what she said during the video has led to serious arguments about both the video’s validity and Planned Parenthood’s actions. Read full article here.

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

How do Millennials help America build a better future? With over 1,200 business-casual-clad young activists and leaders packed into a chilly ballroom washed with blue stage lights, Generation Progress rallied Millennials in Washington, D.C. at its national summit on Thursday in an attempt to find out.

Now in its tenth year, Generation Progress’s “Make Progress” National Summit offers young people a day packed with well known speakers, inspiring dialogues, and stimulating buzzwords. With keynote speakers on the main stage and breakout sessions on topics ranging from diversity in public office to sexual assault prevention and student debt, attendees throughout the day were empowered through education on critical issues. Through communal support and prodigious encouragement from American leaders, the mood was alive with the goal of the day: creating progress.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren opened up the summit with an invigorating speech that earned dozens of standing ovations. Reverberating energy, Senator Warren spoke about college affordability, diversity, and social change inspired by activism. During one pause, an audience member yelled out “Run for president!” to which the Senator responded with a big grin and a chuckle, while everyone else jumped to their feet and erupted in approving cheers and applause. Her most applauded statement was that the progressive Supreme Court decisions over the past weeks were the direct result of young activists who dedicate their lives to fighting for social justice, stating, “We get what we fight for. Are you ready to get out there and fight?”

This morning I told young people at #MakeProgress: You get what you fight for. pic.twitter.com/JhwTtTzGBa

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) July 16, 2015

Michele Jawando, Vice President for Legal Progress at the Center for American Progress, later took the stage for a sobering panel on reforming the criminal justice system. She expressed her belief that young people putting pressure on their elected officials and demanding change is critical, and commended the Millennial generation for its high level of engagement with issues of importance, simultaneously striking down the notion that our generation is unengaged or uninformed.

After asking the audience to “stand up if you have participated in a march, a protest, or an online day of action in the past six months,” more than half of the room was standing. Jawando stated, “the only time Congress pays attention is when there is enough action that forces them to pay attention.” She praised those who partake in activist movements, particularly the sit-ins that forced members of Congress to face the consequences of adverse decisions, and encouraged all to become involved. The discussion then led to a breakdown of the 1994 crime bill that increased mandatory minimums for those sentenced to prison, created the “tough on crime” rhetoric that is only recently beginning to be critically questioned, and created a definition of criminals as young people of color. Jawando said that many current members of Congress were members in 1994 when this draconian bill was passed and that “some of those members don’t really want to concede, they don’t want to admit they were wrong.” She then expressed that while discussing reform is important, action needs to be immediate. “Yeah we are tweeting about it, we’re writing about it, we’re marching in the streets…But we still have to pass a bill y’all.”

Jawando made a few key remarks that resonated deeply with the young, social justice-minded audience; first, that there is a strong connection between the people who are elected and the changes we see in society. Second, that humanizing issues and telling personal stories of injustice is the most powerful way to inspire change. And third, that there is a dangerous misconception that people who are in prison always deserve to be there; Jawando stated that this mindset of “otherization,” or the “us versus them” mentality, will continue to act as a barrier to change until these divisions are broken.

.@MicheleJawando shares her personal experience on discrimination & the criminal justice system #MakeProgress pic.twitter.com/43TsktDXrl

— LCLAA (@LCLAA) July 16, 2015

My favorite breakout panel occurred in the afternoon: “It’s On US: Advocates Creating Cultural Change” featuring keynote speaker Tina Tchen. Tchen, Assistant to President Obama, Chief of Staff to Michelle Obama, and Executive Director of the White House Council on Women and Girls, gave an inspiring and informative speech on Generation Progress’s national campaign to prevent sexual assault. One in five women on college campuses will be sexually assaulted or experience some form of sexual violence by the time they graduate college. “We know, and you know, that this is a crisis on campuses,” Tchen said. The It’s On US movement on college campuses aims to fundamentally change the environment of rape culture and shift the conversation to be empowering for survivors and encouraging for those who have the ability to intervene in situations that could end in assault. “We are fundamentally on our way to a society that recognizes and supports survivors,” Tchen said over snaps and applause. Panelists encouraged students to join or start It’s On US on their respective college campuses, and to take the pledge to end sexual assault.

"It's not just about stopping sexual assault on campus. That is just the start."-Tina Tchen at #MakeProgress @ItsOnUs pic.twitter.com/apyLvEcAlR

— Chante Harris (@chante__harris) July 16, 2015

The final speaker of the day, and the most anticipated, was Vice President Joe Biden. All smartphones were whipped out to welcome the Vice President and most summit-goers found themselves on tiptoe in their chairs to catch a better glimpse of the esteemed guest. Mr. Biden gave a powerful, insightful, but occasionally lighthearted speech, that felt much more like sitting down for an after-dinner conversation with an affectionate grandfather than an address by the Vice President. The VP touched on a range of topics, from the need to create affordable education, to climate change, to closing the expanding wage gap in the country. He even called on politicians to resist donations from millionaires and billionaires to fund their primary election campaigns, potentially an allusion to Senator Bernie Sanders who also cares deeply and advocates against the privatization of political donations.

"If you could do only 1 thing to increase equality what would it be?" @VP asks the #MakeProgress crowd. "Get private money out of politics"

— Generation Progress (@genprogress) July 16, 2015

The Vice President expressed his sincere appreciation and confidence in the Millennial generation, stating “There’s more reason today than ever before to be idealistic, optimistic, tenacious, passionate, and principled.” The most prominent message Mr. Biden delivered during his time on stage was that passion, just like the passion in the room before him, is what generates social change and makes progress.

"I applaud your passion. Never apologize for it. Never explain it away." @JoeBiden at @genprogress #MakeProgress pic.twitter.com/T5cowdiCLT

— Emily Dalgo (@DalgoEmily) July 16, 2015

Generation Progress’s Make Progress National Summit concluded with a slew of selfies with Joe Biden and a ballroom full of young activists stepping back into the D.C. sun with newfound inspiration and admiration for the causes they believe in. The summit, though only one day long, has the power and the potential to ignite young minds for years to come. Make Progress is proof that Millennials do care about the issues. They are engaged, they’re active, and they’re ready to fight. Outside, the only audible sound was of heels clicking and dress shoes clacking on the sidewalks as the attendees trickled out of the summit. But one sound still echoed in everyone minds: applause and cheers for change, for action, and for progress.

Emily Dalgo

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

The post Generation Progress Encourages Millennials to “Make Progress” appeared first on Law Street.

A historic breakthrough for international diplomacy was reached Tuesday when President Obama announced the conclusion of the Iran nuclear deal negotiations after 20 months of discussions and international debate. The deal ensures that Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful and provides security measures that should instill trust in the Iranian nuclear program. Iran has agreed to dramatically decrease its nuclear infrastructure in exchange for relief from international sanctions that have suffocated Iran’s economy for years. A few fundamental points of the deal include Iran’s agreement to keep its uranium enrichment levels at or below 3.67 percent, a dramatic decrease. The deal reduces Iran’s nuclear stockpile by about 98 percent, allowing the state to maintain a uranium reserve under 300 kilograms, which is down from its current 10,000-kilogram stock. Iran has also agreed to ship spent fuel outside its borders, diminishing the likelihood of uranium enrichment intended to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran will be bound to extremely intrusive inspections by the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and will face the looming possibility of harsh sanction reimposition if it is found to be evading its commitments or in noncompliance with the deal.

On Wednesday afternoon, Obama held a press conference in the White House East Room where he welcomed critics and reporters to ask questions of him regarding the newly struck nuclear deal. The conference lasted more than an hour, and drew out several candid responses from an increasingly condescending President Obama along with a slew of entertaining commentary by the president toward critics of the nuclear deal. Frustrated, annoyed, or patronizing–whatever the president’s mood was, it was rightfully earned; the criticisms of the Iran nuclear deal thus far and during the press conference are almost disappointingly invalid or inadequate. It’s easy to see how it becomes aggravating to explain the details of a decision that has been 20 months in the making to politicians who had prearranged to lobby against the deal before it even existed. It’s also easy to see how he became flippant toward reporters who are asking questions about Bill Cosby in the middle of the press conference that is supposed to address one of the most critical, comprehensive, and complex diplomatic agreements in history. So with that in mind, here are the best and sassiest quotes from Wednesday’s press conference:

1. “Major, that’s nonsense. And you should know better.”

After CBS News reporter Major Garrett asked the President why he is “content” with the fanfare around the Iran deal when there are four American political prisoners currently in Iran, Obama was not happy. His response was that the United States should not act on this deal based on the detainees’ status because Iran would take advantage of the American prisoners and try to gain additional concessions by continuing to hold them captive. He stated that deal or no deal, we are still working hard to get these four Americans out.

2. “My hope is — is that everyone in Congress also evaluates this agreement based on the facts… But, we live in Washington.”

Well, let’s be honest, those of us who actually live in Washington would prefer that Congress not be lumped in with the rest of us during this debate. Can they debate somewhere else?

3. “You know, the facts are the facts, and I’m not concerned about what others say about it.”

Sticks and stones, Barack, sticks and stones.

4. “The argument that I’ve been already hearing… that because this deal does not solve all those other problems, that’s an argument for rejecting this deal, defies logic: it makes no sense.”

Here, Obama made a direct jab at Republicans in Congress who are trying to justify their opposition to the nuclear deal by saying that Iran is not moderate and won’t change because of this deal. The President said that the deal was never designed to solve every problem in Iran. Obama says this rhetoric, besides being plain wrong and nonsensical, loses sight of the number one priority–making sure Iran does not develop a bomb.

5. “I’m hearing a lot of talking points being repeated about “This is a bad deal. This is a historically bad deal. This will threaten Israel and threaten the world and threaten the United States.” I mean, there’s been a lot of that.”

Condescending Obama strikes again, and reminded us that this deal won’t, in fact, make the world implode. Pro tip: read the quote within the quote in a nasally, Obama-making-fun-of-Congress voice.

6. “This is not something you hide in a closet. This is not something you put on a dolly and wheel off somewhere.”

Obama said that under the new safeguards and the international community’s watchful eye, the Iranian government simply won’t be able to hide any uranium or plutonium that they might be (but probably aren’t) covertly enriching. Because under the bed and in the closet is definitely the first place the United Nations will check, duh.

7. “Now, you’ll hear some critics say, “well, we could have negotiated a better deal.” OK. What does that mean?”

The Republicans are right. We could have also found a unicorn and put sprinkles on top.

8. “So to go back to Congress, I challenge those who are objecting to this agreement…to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they’re right and people like Ernie Moniz, who is an MIT nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues is wrong.”

Mic drop.

9. “It’s not the job of the president of the United States to solve every problem in the Middle East.”

Well that didn’t stop anyone with the last name “Bush” from trying.

10. “I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal.”

While this wasn’t from the press conference, it was too good not to include. Obama faces a hard sell to Congress and is determined to push the deal through. He stated that if the nuclear deal fails in Congress, it won’t just be a slap in the face to the American officials who negotiated this deal, but to the international community and the other five countries who spent years negotiating.

The president left the press conference promising to address the deal again, stating, “I suspect this is not the last that we’ve heard of this debate.”

Emily Dalgo

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

The post Top 10 Condescending Quotes From Obama’s Iran Deal Press Conference appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama granted clemency to 46 federal prisoners convicted of nonviolent drug offenses on Monday, 14 of whom faced life sentences. This move comes amid a broader push for prison reform, in an attempt to fix issues like overcrowding and disparate minority prison populations–especially for nonviolent drug offenses. In a political atmosphere that is too often hyper-ideological and unproductive, criminal justice reform appears to be one arena where real change is happening.

President Obama has granted clemency to prisoners in the past, especially for drug-related offenses, and has made prison reform a sticking point of his presidency. Last year, the Department of Justice announced a new initiative that allows drug offenders to petition for a sentence reduction or clemency–an attempt to reflect modern sentencing practices. With the latest 46, Obama raises the total number of commutations during his presidency to 89. While some criticize Obama for not acting strongly enough on this issue, he has now granted the most commutations in the modern era. The inmates, who will be released by mid-November, are among more than 30,000 who have applied for clemency since the new initiative. Although very few of these cases will reach the President’s desk, the recent commutations mark an important step symbolically. As he approaches the last year of his presidency, President Obama’s executive actions have the power to shape the future of these issues.

There are a number of problems with the justice system that activists and politicians are currently working to address. The United States has an incarceration rate of  700 per 100,000 citizens, the highest of any nation including authoritarian countries like Russia and Cuba. Among the federal prison population, over half are serving for drug-related offenses and nearly three-fourths are nonviolent offenders with no history of violence. There is also a large racial disparity, with Blacks and Hispanics disproportionately represented in American prisons. A 2005 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found some troubling trends in recidivism. About two-thirds of released prisoners were arrested again within three years and three-quarters were arrested within five years.

President Obama is not the only one addressing criminal justice reform, as it is an issue that has generated strong bipartisan support. In 2014, the Justice Department reported the first decline in the federal prison population in 34 years. Former Attorney General Eric Holder attributed this change to new initiatives intended to improve sentencing fairness. Last year, the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted to reduce the penalties for most drug crimes and later made that change apply retroactively. High profile cases also highlight the need for reform, including that of Kalief Browder, a man who committed suicide after being wrongfully imprisoned for six years at Riker’s Island. As this issue rises into the public light, more and more people are calling for substantive reform.

In a political climate that is increasingly partisan, it often feels like there is no common ground that would allow for significant change. Prison reform is one issue with which Republicans and Democrats can cooperate and help people get their lives back, help prevent people from throwing their lives away, and save money that shouldn’t be spent on nonviolent criminals in the first place. In granting these prisoners clemency, President Obama sends a powerful message about his willingness to lead on this issue.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s Clemencies Mark Symbolic Push for Prison Reform appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama announced on Wednesday the development of a pilot program to expand broadband access for people who live in public housing. This is the latest effort to bridge the “digital divide” between the rich and the poor.

The plan, called ConnectHome, will launch in 27 cities nationwide. With assistance from mayors, internet service providers, and other companies and nonprofits, the Department of Housing and Urban Development will make it cheaper and easier for more than 275,000 low-income households with almost 200,000 children to get internet at home, the White House said in a statement Wednesday.

The plan is consistent with a broader White House goal to upgrade the nation’s technology infrastructure, bringing high speed internet to every corner of the country.

There are already a few internet service providers that have committed to ConnectHome. Google in Atlanta, Durham, Kansas City, and Nashville will provide free internet internet connections in some public housing. Sprint Corp will offer free wireless broadband access to families with kids in public housing. In Seattle, CenturyLink will provide broadband service for pubic housing residents for $9.95 a month for the first year. Cox Communications is offering home internet for $9.95 a month to families with children in school in four cities in Georgia, Louisiana, and Connecticut. President Obama spoke about the program in Durant, Oklahoma where the Choctaw Tribal Nation is working with four local providers to bring internet to 425 homes.

The program is an extension of the president’s ConnectED initiative, which was announced in 2013 and aims to link 99 percent of students from kindergarten through 12th grade to high-speed internet in classrooms and libraries over the next five years. 

The announcement was timed to coincide with the release of a report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers, which highlights how low-income families in America do not benefit from high-speed broadband, despite the recent increase in internet usage in the past few years. Nearly two-thirds of the lowest income households own a computer, but less than half have a home internet connection. A news release about the report said:

While many middle-class U.S. students go home to Internet access, allowing them to do research, write papers and communicate digitally with their teachers and other students, too many lower-income children go unplugged every afternoon when school ends. This ‘homework gap’ runs the risk of widening the achievement gap, denying hardworking students the benefit of a technology-enriched education.

At the peak of the digital age, those who cannot access the internet are unintentionally falling behind. They are falling victim to the “digital divide” that occurs when lower income families aren’t able to utilize the same resources as families in higher income brackets. The internet is used for everything these days–it is used to stay in contact with family and friends, complete homework assignments, play games, go shopping, apply for jobs, read books, play music, and expand our worlds. Low income families who don’t have access to these tools will hopefully soon be able to close that gap as a result of ConnectHome and similar programs.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Internet Access in Public Housing Bridge the Digital Divide? appeared first on Law Street.

This Thursday, President Obama will become the first sitting president to visit a federal prison. He is scheduled to visit with inmates and officials at the El Reno Federal Correction Institute near Oklahoma City. This is just the latest of many steps taken by the Obama administration in an attempt to reform the American prison system.

At the prison, Obama will also conduct an interview with VICE that will be a part of a documentary airing this fall on HBO focusing on America’s broken criminal justice system. The Federal Bureau of Prisons website confirms that El Reno is a medium security federal correctional institution, housing more than 1,000 inmates. Another 248 inmates reside at an adjacent minimum-security camp.

The visit is a part of a week focusing on criminal justice reform, beginning with a speech on Tuesday for the NAACP’s annual convention in Philadelphia. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that Obama will:

Outline the unfairness in much of our criminal justice system, highlight bipartisan ideas for reform, and lay out his own ideas to make our justice system fairer, smarter, and more cost-effective while keeping the American people safe and secure.

Obama has a long history of speaking out about prison system reform. The White House has posted a video of conversation between the president and David Simon, writer of the HBO television show, “The Wire,” in which Obama discusses the massive trend toward incarceration, for even nonviolent drug offenders, which began in the 1990s. He said:

Folks go in at great expense to the state, many times trained to become more hardened criminals while in prison, [and] come out and are basically unemployable.

In Obama’s State of the Union Speech in January, he highlighted criminal justice reform, connecting it to high profile clashes between law enforcement and minority communities.

While there have been years of discussion on the issue, we are just now really starting to see a change With 2.3 million Americans behind bars, the United States has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Despite containing less than five percent of the world’s population, the United States incarcerates nearly a quarter of the world’s prisoners. With a criminal justice system that is marred by racial and class based disparities, these instances of inequality are visible at every step of the criminal process. They often lead to wrongful convictions and inconsistent sentencing that disproportionately affect people of color and low-income individuals. There are also many allegations of racial profiling, which specifically targets minority individuals of color. Finally, the criminal justice system has massive hidden economic and societal costs that reverberate throughout society, affecting us all.

The Executive isn’t the only branch getting in on criminal justice reform. The House has also introduced a new bipartisan bill–the SAFE Justice Act–proposing to reduce the United States prison population, while also cutting crime and saving money. The bill proposes a broad set of reforms to the U.S. justice system, including increasing the use of sentencing alternatives such as probation of certain non-violent offenders; encouraging judicial districts to operate mental health, veteran and other problem-solving courts; and prioritizing prison space for violent and “career” criminals by expanding the release of geriatric and terminally ill offenders. It would also expand earned-time policies to inmates who participate in programs to reduce their recidivism rates, introduce mental health and de-escalation training programs for prison staff, and require performance-based contracting for halfway houses, among other reforms.

The SAFE Justice Act has a lot of potential, as does Obama’s push for reform. But there’s so much more to be done, including a need to change the way we perceive felons. They are so quickly written off as criminals, murderers, or drains on society. They are separated from the rest of society as soon as they are released. So many are falsely convicted or just wait in prisons for months or years before they can even receive a trial. Changes to the system don’t just involve policies–they involve redefining how we treat prisoners as well. So while Obama is taking steps in the right direction by visiting prisons and speaking out about equality, there remains a long road ahead.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Continues to Push for Criminal Justice Reform appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emily Dalgo

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

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

Tower Hamlets Mulberry School for Girls in London received a visit from two very special guests on Tuesday. Hundreds of students welcomed former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and First Lady Michelle Obama, while cheering and waving American and British flags. Obama has been very active in charity work, setting an example for many people with her programs such as Let’s Move!, aimed at raising a healthier generation of kids, and her Reach Higher initiative which pushes young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to go beyond high school and enter college or undertake professional training. The First Lady has now launched a $200 million program to help girls with their education. Gillard and Obama joined forces this week to talk about Obama’s Let Girls Learn program, aimed at helping adolescent girls around the world finish school. Michelle’s goal is to “build a healthier family, a stronger community, and a brighter future.”

“We can pay forward all of the love and support that our families have poured into us.” Michelle Obama… http://t.co/0cOEuQvdJK

— Bisila Bokoko (@BisilaBokoko) June 17, 2015

Obama announced this collaboration between the U.S. and the U.K., sharing her plans to advance education, particularly in countries experiencing crisis and conflict. She has hopes that the $200 million dollar effort will remove hindrances such as school fees, transportation issues, early marriage, pregnancy, and family obligations–all things that prevent 62 million girls around the world from going to school. Gillard, who is now the chair of the Global Partnership For Education, plans to assist this initiative. Gillard stated, “Why would we not want to have the best of the world’s talent available to participate in building the world’s future.” Michelle told the young girls in the audience:

I see a roomful of business leaders and surgeons and barristers. I see women who are going to win elections, and science competitions, and arts awards. I see leaders who will inspire folks not just here in Tower Hamlets, but all across the country and all around the world.

She informed the crowd about current trends that show it will take 100 years before all girls in South Sudan will have the ability to complete a lower secondary school-level education and explained that this is simply not good enough. Her ability to make change happen rather than wait for things to change eventually is certainly admirable. She passionately spoke to the girls, telling them about her upbringing as an African-American girl who worked hard to receive an education with her working class family on the south side of Chicago. When a student asked Obama what inspired her campaign, her response was touching:

Oh, it’s you. Didn’t you notice how I almost cried? I couldn’t get through my speech. It’s you. It’s your soul, it’s your passion. And there are — I can’t tell you how many times I interact with young girls like you in every part of the world. And I am always in awe of what you’re able to do, what you’re able to push through, and how hungry you are for your education; that when given the tools and the opportunity, you run with it.

People are risking their lives in other countries for the sake of education. Yet many of us see education as something that is automatically given to us because we have been in school all our lives. We take it for granted and forget that everyone does not have such amazing opportunities. With an education, people can be unstoppable; there are no limits to the things that can be done. To see someone such as Michelle Obama have passion and truly want to help others is refreshing. The First Lady made sure these girls know to always go after their dreams, despite the circumstances they may be in.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michelle Obama Takes Education Efforts Global appeared first on Law Street.

Update: 10:30am June 25, 2015

Two high-profile decisions will impact millions of lives this month, including millions of millennials, as the U.S. Supreme Court issues its opinions on ObamaCare and same-sex marriage. These cases face what many regard as the most conservative court in decades, but center on two of the most prominent and progressive social justice movements in decades. At a recent Center for American Progress (CAP) event focused on the important cases of this term, I was able to hear the implications of these cases, and they’re definitely worth our attention. In the justices’ hands rests the future and stability of the American health care system and legality of marriage equality for all. The stakes couldn’t be higher this month, and that’s exactly why you should be informed of what’s going on. Here’s a breakdown—in plain English—of what you need to know:

King v. Burwell: Battle Over ObamaCare

Just because you’re young and healthy doesn’t mean you don’t need health insurance, and this particular court case will definitely impact young people. A little background is important to grasp how, though. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law in March 2010. It established health insurance exchanges–marketplaces that facilitate the purchase of health insurance in each state. Exchanges provide a set of government-regulated, standardized health care plans from which individuals may purchase health insurance policies. If the individual has a limited income, the exchange allows that person to obtain premium assistance (AKA: premium subsidies) to lower the monthly cost of the health care plan, making the plan affordable.

The ACA provides states three options for the establishment of exchanges: state run exchanges, a partnership with the federal government, or complete federal control of the exchange within the state. In 2014, appellants in Virginia, D.C., Oklahoma, and Indiana argued that premium subsidies are only available under a state-run exchange, citing one clause that says that premium subsidies are available “through an Exchange established by the state.” Using this phrase, litigants argue that the ACA provides premium assistance exclusively to individuals purchasing health care on state-run exchanges.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument, saying that the context of the phrase reveals that Congress obviously intended for the subsidies to apply in all exchanges. But in July 2014 David King, a Virginia resident, and his co-plaintiffs  petitioned the Supreme Court and in November, the court agreed to accept the case. Oral arguments were in March 2015 and in June the outcome will be released, which has the potential to strike a detrimental blow to the Affordable Care Act. Since the ACA was signed into law, thirty-four states chose not to set up their own exchange marketplace and instead allow the federal government to operate the exchange, accounting for 75 percent of the people nationwide who qualify for premium subsidies. If the Supreme Court reverses the previous decisions and rules that only state-run exchanges qualify for premium assistance, that 75 percent will no longer be considered eligible for assistance. If the Court rules against the Obama Administration this month, about 6.4 million Americans could lose their health care premiums.

"Nearly 1 in 3 uninsured Americans have already been covered—more than 16 million people" —@POTUS #ACAWorks pic.twitter.com/rXVNHrkiW1

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 9, 2015

But there’s no certainty which way this will go. At the panel discussion on Monday at CAP, Elizabeth G. Taylor, Executive Director at the National Health Law Program expressed her skepticism of the Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case. “What I fear is that not only do we not have an activist court, but that it is standing in the way of efforts by publicly-elected officials to name and address social problems.” Ian Millhiser, Senior Fellow at CAP, argued that the King v. Burwell case is the “weakest argument that I have ever heard reach the Supreme Court.”

It’s especially important to keep in mind that young people will be disproportionately impacted by a SCOTUS ruling against Obamacare; over 2.2 million enrollees are between the ages of 18-34, making millennials the largest group insured under the ACA. For example, a decision against the ACA could cause young people under the age of 26 (who are automatically covered under their parents’ plans, thanks to ObamaCare) to lose their health care plans if their parents can no longer afford health insurance without federal subsidies. Whether or not SCOTUS protects those Americans remains to be seen.

Obergefell v. Hodges: Marriage Equality’s Latest Frontier

Obergefell v. Hodges will decide whether or not states are required to license a marriage between same-sex couples, as well as if states are required to recognize a lawfully licensed, out-of-state marriage between two people of the same sex.

Obergefell v. Hodges – the case #SCOTUS is considering, whether #LGBT couples have a constitutional right to marry http://t.co/FCJ6yo0ZGD

— V R Gaitonde (@weareji) June 9, 2015

Again, this decision will be important for young people, particularly because of the part we’ve played in the debate. Of Americans under age 50, 73 percent believe in marriage equality. Roberta A. Kaplan, Partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, stated at the CAP event Monday that the arguments in favor of marriage equality have remained the same over the years, but what has changed is the ability of judges to hear those arguments. “There’s no doubt that what made this change is the American public,” she said. While the Supreme Court does not exist to respond to the public, it certainly appears to be aware of the momentum behind the marriage equality movement. Just weeks after Ireland became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage on a national level by popular vote, SCOTUS will issue an opinion that could put the U.S. in the same progressive bracket as 18 other countries, allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide.

Regardless of the decision though, the fight for equality won’t be over. Let’s say the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality both ways. States will be required to marry same-sex couples and recognize marriages performed out of state. But the next concern for these couples is the potential for more subtle discrimination. “Same sex couples will be allowed to marry but states will be able to discriminate in other ways,” warned Millhiser. Losing jobs, healthcare, or being denied housing and loans without explicitly stated homophobic motivations are classic examples of discrimination that could very well be implemented on the state level by authorities who are adamantly against same-sex marriage. If the ruling does come out in favor of gay couples, increasing skepticism is a must to keep unlawful, prejudiced actions in check.

Both of these cases have a lot on the line, although obviously for very different reasons. Michele L. Jawando, Vice President of Legal Progress at CAP said, “I would like to believe that the court is paying attention, and I do believe that the American people have a role to play when it comes to these decisions.” This is where you come in. Speaking loudly and acting louder can truly change the course of history. Lobbying Congress, rallying for your cause, educating yourself and speaking out to educate the public on the importance of these issues are crucial methods of putting public and political pressure on the justices. I’d like to believe that the American Constitution is a living and breathing document that transforms throughout history, expanding to encompass progressive views and constantly redefining what it means to be an American; let’s hope I feel the same way at the end of June.

Update: 10:30am June 25, 2015: 

Emily Dalgo

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

The post The Two Supreme Court Cases We Should All Be Watching appeared first on Law Street.

The White House Correspondents’ Association hosted its 101st annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner Saturday in a star-studded D.C. event. At the dinner, journalists and politicians alike got conservatively glammed up to rub elbows with celebrities like Jane Fonda and Laverne Cox for a night of entertainment. The association gives out scholarships too–but lets be real, it’s all about the celebs and the comedy.

The event is usually hosted by a comedian to liven things up a bit, and this year was no exception, as SNL funny woman Cecily Strong took center stage. But this year president Obama had something else pretty funny in store for his attendees–his new “anger translator” Luther.

Luther is one of the many characters played by “Key & Peele” comedian Keegan-Michael Key. In Luther sketches, Key usually stars opposite his co-star Jordan Peele’s mild mannered Obama impersonation. Luther is supposed to be the embodiment of everything the president wishes he could say. This time Key traded Peele in for the real life POTUS in a self-deprecating yet pointed exchange that mocked Ted Cruz’s campaign and compared Hillary Clinton to “Game of Thrones” character Daenerys Targaryen.

But it was the moment when Obama started to get a little heated himself, requiring his anger translator to intervene, that stole the show. After interrupting the president Luther emphatically stated: “You don’t need an anger translator, you need counseling!”

Key made sure to thank his absent co-star for creating a sketch that could so seamlessly incorporate the real POTUS, to which Peele responded:

.@KeeganMKey I knew it was only a matter of time before I was replaced by someone with a better impression.

— Jordan Peele (@JordanPeele) April 26, 2015

Key also tweeted his excitement over the event:

It seems POTUS and I both have bucket lists. But mine is finished. #thankyouwhitehouse

— Keegan-Michael Key (@KeeganMKey) April 27, 2015

If you missed the hilarious exchange, watch Key’s stint as an anger translator for Obama below.

I don’t think I’m alone in hoping that Luther can make a surprise appearance at all Presidential speeches from now on.

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 Obama Upstaged by Anger Translator Keegan-Michael Key at the WHCD appeared first on Law Street.

One of the most hazardous locations for one’s lungs is Texas. A site of many refineries and factories, the state already presents itself as a major emitter; but its activity exceeds the second ranking states by a wide margin. For example, nitrogen oxide emissions from smoke stacks and vents surpass number two ranking Pennsylvania by more than 60 percent, and tonnage of volatile organic compounds eclipse number two Colorado by more than 44 percent. If this is not enough, many state officials are siding with the industries themselves in an attempt to combat the implementation of tighter emissions regulations. Their testimonies argue that toughening up the standards will be too expensive and not necessarily beneficial to public health.

This conflict extends far beyond the Lone Star State. The Supreme Court itself is locked in a debate as to what measures are necessary and how much they will cost. Dissenters argue that the Obama Administration’s latest initiatives via the Environmental Protection Agency do not contain a cost-benefit analysis. The argument leans on wording in the Clean Air Act, which stipulates that regulations be “appropriate and necessary.” But who has the right to unilaterally determine what is appropriate and necessary? A rough estimate at a “quantifiable” benefit estimates that 11,000 unnecessary deaths can be prevented each year. Calculations diverge as to the monetary expenses and savings; one concludes that $9.6 billion in expenses will result in $6 billion in savings, while another maintains that those same costs can result in up to $30-90 billion in savings. These numbers should not be the focus of the decision, though. If thousands of people might live on who would otherwise die, this should be justification enough to implement the necessary measures.

Henan Province, China. Courtesy of V.T. Polywoda via Flickr.

Ozone and air contamination are a widely pervasive problem; the lives that potentially could be saved are not just in urban areas. Gases and ozone emissions are not stagnant; many studies and measurements have found excessively high air contaminants in rural and wide-open areas such as the Colorado mountains and the Native American reservations in Utah. In addition to the problem of poor restrictions on emission, the standards as to what technically constitutes contamination or poor air quality are too lax. For this reason, non-emitting areas are facing health risks that are not legally deemed as such.

Air pollution is a perfectly remediable problem. In the early 1900s, the great steel city of Pittsburgh rivaled Victorian London for poor air quality. But a series of laws and regulations and more efficient use of fuel led the city to be declared one of the most livable by the 1980s; the characteristic smoke and pollution cleared away almost entirely. A more poignant example is Japan. A system of local governments responding to local concerns but acting seamlessly with national and international-level reform efforts enabled the country to curb pollution without derailing economic growth. In fact, considering the incentives to invest in research and new technologies, the formulation of new overseeing agencies and subsequent job creation, by 1980 air pollution control became a profitable industry itself!

This is perhaps one of the most frustrating aspects of the debates in the Supreme Court right now; all the concerns about cost effectiveness and damage to industry and the economy are based on perceptions of the status quo. People seem to be under the impression that the objective is simply to cap emissions while maintaining all the other aspects of day-to-day life and commercial activity. Rather, as demonstrated by the multi-layered action of Japan, it is a complicated process that requires commitment by many parties, but ultimately a worthwhile one because it is clearly doable and benefits not just the health of the people but can be financially desirable, as well.

This past November, an interesting thing occurred in Beijing. In anticipation of the arrival of many world leaders for an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting, the government mandated a six-day vacation for urban residents, which included traffic restrictions and the closure of factories in an attempt to clear the smog. It was a monumental success; in less than a week, what came to be labeled as “APEC Blue” dominated the skies. The striking effects of this action has galvanized progressive voices and demonstrated to the nation and world that there is a plethora of options from which we can draw that quite effectively address the problem.

Courtesy of Nicolo Lazzati via Flickr.

Air pollution is one of the most visible and widespread consequences of industrialization, rampant consumption, and natural resource use. It may not have as immediate or drastic consequences as some other environmentally related challenges, but it certainly is dangerous. Most importantly, there are so many things that we can do to address it, which may be surprisingly effective and rapid in doing so, while at the same time improving our own habits and ways of life.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beijing Knows How to Curb Its Air Pollution, So Why Doesn’t Texas? appeared first on Law Street.

In discussions of international politics, we hear a lot of talk about nuclear weapons, but another deadly type of weapon often goes overlooked. Chemical weapons have both proven their deadliness on the battlefield and have been deployed with greater frequency in contemporary times. Nevertheless, just two-and-a-half years since President Obama made his infamous “Red Line” speech against the use of chemical weapons in Syria, this issue has drifted from the public consciousness. While interest has waned publicly, these weapons are still being used on battlefields across the globe, even as legislation and efforts are being made to eliminate them for good. Read on to learn about chemical warfare, the legal framework for using chemical weapons, and how successful efforts to eliminate them have been.

History of Chemical Warfare

While chemical weapons in rudimentary forms have been in use for millennia, it was only relatively recently that they were harnessed in a modern sense. Chemical weapons made their debut on the stage of WWI. During that war, toxic gases such as chlorine and mustard gas were released from canisters on the battlefield. The results were devastating for two reasons. Not only were chemical weapons responsible for over a million causalities on the battlefield, but they also left a strong impression on the public’s consciousness. The video below explains the use of chemical warfare, particularly in WWI.

Nevertheless the use of the weapons continued through the inter-war years, particularly in places such as Russia and Africa. Usage was ramped up again in WWII. In the Far East, the Japanese used a variety of chemical agents in their attempted conquest of China. Meanwhile, in the Atlantic theater, chemical weapons were used by a number of parties, most notoriously by the Nazis in their death camps.

Even after WWII chemical weapons continued to be used. In one of the most glaring instances, the United States used instruments such as Agent Orange in Vietnam. The Americans were not alone, as the Soviets later employed chemical weapons in Afghanistan. Iraq utilized the deadly agents in its war against Iran as well as against its own Kurdish citizens.

Additionally, the usage of chemical weapons by individuals and terrorist groups has become a concern too. The most prominent example came in Japan in 1995, when the Aum Shinrikyo cult used nerve agent Sarin in a Tokyo subway. Chemical weapons were also used by terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan during the American occupation. Even ISIS has deployed chemical weapons in its battles against Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers.

The most recent high profile and controversial use occurred in Syria in 2013. In late March it was reported that the use of chemical weapons had been detected. While both the Syrian military and the rebels denied using the weapons, each blaming the other side, the usage of chemicals had crossed what President Obama called a “red line.”

While the episode in Syria was just one in a long line of chemical weapons attacks, it aroused concern over whether the existing framework to prevent the creation and use of chemical weapons was adequate. So, what is that framework?

Legality of Chemical Weapons

The horror of chemical weapon usage in WWI left a lasting image in the minds of many people. Thus in 1925, the first legislation aimed at prohibiting the dissemination of chemical weapons was passed. This was known as the Geneva Protocol and it prohibited the use of chemical weapons in warfare. However, the treaty proved inadequate in several ways as it allowed for the continued production of chemical weapons. Additionally, it also gave countries the right to use chemical weapons against non-signatories and in retaliation if weapons were used against them.

The Chemical Weapons Convention

Although seemingly inadequate, the Protocol nonetheless proved to be the only protection against chemical weapons for the next 65 years. Finally in 1992 however, the Chemical Weapons Convention was adopted. It was subsequently opened for signature beginning in 1993 and put into force in 1997. Unlike the Geneva Protocol, the CWC has a much clearer and all-encompassing goal: eliminate an entire category of weapons of mass destruction.

Namely what the treaty calls for is the prohibition of the “development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons by states parties.” The chemicals themselves are divided into three different schedules, which may sound similar to those familiar with the U.S. drug classification regime. In addition, the signatories are responsible for enforcing these protocols within their own countries. Along with stopping the production of chemical weapons, states are required to destroy existing stockpiles and production facilities. Lastly, states are obligated to create a verification system for chemicals and must open themselves to snap inspections by other members. The video below details which chemicals are banned and what the CWC requires of its members.

Chemical Weapons Prohibition Regime: Success or Failure?

So is the current chemical weapons convention (CWC) a success or failure? Different metrics tell different stories.

Arguments for Success 

Membership in the treaty certainly casts a positive glow. As of 1997 when the treaty took effect, 190 countries had joined with only five–Israel, Egypt, North Korea, Angola, and South Sudan–not yet ratifying the treaty. Furthermore, real progress has been made in implementing a number of the treaty’s goals. As of 2007, 100 percent of chemical weapons sites had been “deactivated,” 90 percent of which had either been destroyed or switched to peaceful use. Additionally, over 25 to 30 percent of stockpiles had been destroyed and 2,800 inspections had been carried out. The map below indicates countries’ signing status: light green indicates that the country signed and ratified the CWC, dark green indicates that the CWC is acceded or succeeded, yellow countries have signed but not ratified the CWC, and red countries are not signatories.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia

Arguments For Failure

Conversely, while those metrics point to success, there a number that tell the opposite story. The world has failed to meet the 2012 deadline originally set by the treaty for completely disarming all chemical weapons globally. The two main culprits were also two of the main catalysts behind the treaty in the first place: Russia and the United States. These two countries possess the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons, so their compliance with the treaty carries significant weight. The video below shows the failures of the U.S., Russia, and other nations to uphold the treaty’s protocols.

Along with failure to disarm is the question of favoritism. While the U.S. has been critical of other countries’ efforts to disarm, it has not pressured its close ally Israel to ratify the treaty, let alone destroy its acknowledged stockpile.

Other issues also exist. Several countries, despite having ratified the treaty, have not set up the international policing mechanisms necessary and required by the treaty to give it any actual power. Additionally, the inspection process itself has been described as unfair and inadequate. Because labs are transitioning from large factories to smaller compounds, it’s difficult to inspect and punish individual labs for producing illegal compounds. Furthermore, there are a number of non-lethal compounds used by the police–such as tear gas–that are not covered by the CWC and can be harmful. Lastly, while the treaty covers states, it does nothing to prevent groups such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda from using the harmful weapons.

Conclusion

As of June 2014, Syria completed the process of either giving up or destroying all of its declared weapons. This was seen as a major coup as most expected Syria to sandbag, especially after it missed prior several deadlines. Although Syria declared its chemical weapons, it is still suspected that other secret caches remain. Additionally, after the first acknowledged use–the event that overstepped the Red Line and led to the agreement between Russia, the U.S., and Syria–there were several more speculated incidents of chemical weapons use in Syria.

This points to the problem with the Chemical Weapons Convention. Like the Non-Proliferation Treaty for nuclear weapons, there is no governing body that can punish a country for violating it. This is because joining the treaty is voluntary and there is no punishment for not joining or even for joining then quitting. Moreover, most of the countries that did join never had chemical weapons to begin with, thus signing a treaty prohibiting them made no difference. The bottom line then is that when it comes to chemical weapons, much like nuclear or biological weapons, the onus is on the individual country to comply.

Resources

Primary

United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs: Chemical Weapons Convention

Additional 

Fact Check.org: Obama’s Blurry Red Line

OPCW: Brief History of Chemical Weapons Use

Johnston Archive: Summary of Historical Attacks Using Chemical or Biological Weapons

American Society of International Law: The Chemical Weapons Convention After 10 Years

Arms Control Association: Chemical Weapons Convention Signatories and States-Parties

Washington Times: U.S. and Russia are Slow to Destroy Their Own Chemical Weapons Amid Syria Smackdown

Think Progress: Nobody Thought Syria Would Give Up Its Chemical Weapons. It Just Did

Military.com: U.S. to Destroy Its Largest Remaining Chemical Weapons Cache

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Forgotten WMDs: Chemical Weapons appeared first on Law Street.

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) and the Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) are staples of American society that have each been around for more than 100 years. Although they are separate organizations, as each has its own congressional charter and upholds its own membership rules, they both promote leadership and civic duty. It is inarguable that the two organizations instill many important values in their young troops; however, they have had radically different approaches to modernization, particularly when it comes to LGBT acceptance. While the Girl Scouts accept girls and women of all different backgrounds, the Boy Scouts still discriminate against gay adult leadership. Read on to learn how and why the BSA and GSUSA have gone down such divergent paths.

 Who are the Boy Scouts of America?

The BSA was established in 1910 and it has four fundamental groups: Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Varsity Scouting, and Venturing. There are more than 2.6 million youth members and over one million volunteers involved in BSA. Boy Scouts aim to earn merit badges, awards given by demonstrating mastery of a skill or field of study, including camping, citizenship in the community, and first aid.

• Mission Statement: “The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law.”
• Scout Oath: “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”
• Scout Law: “A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”

BSA Stance on Homosexuality

The BSA affirmed its position against admitting gay scouts and leadership in 1991. The release included the following statement:

We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirements in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts. Because of these beliefs, the Boy Scouts of America does.

In 2007, the BSA confirmed, “we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals,” although the organization claimed to not actively seek out a person’s sexual orientation.

Opposition to Those Policies

In 2012, Merck & Co pulled funding because of the BSA discrimination policy. The prior year, Merck had donated $30,000 to BSA. Other companies that followed suit included Intel, UPS, Ernst & Young, IBM, Levi Strauss & Co., J.P. Morgan, American Airlines, Medtronic, Portland General Gas and Electric, Hewlett Packard, Textron, Fleet Bank, CVS/Pharmacy Stores, and Carrier Corp.

Even President Obama advocated for the BSA to lift the ban.

In house, the BSA sent a survey to one million of its members regarding their position on gay members. The results said “overwhelming majorities of parents, teens and members of the Scouting community felt it would be unacceptable to deny an openly gay Scout an Eagle Scout Award solely because of his sexual orientation.”

Policy Change

At a meeting in Grapevine, Texas in 2013, the BSA voted 61-38 to overturn the standing rule regarding BSA youth. The ruling officially came into effect January 1, 2014 stating “no youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.” However, the ban was not lifted for scout volunteers and leaders over the age of 18. Lifting the ban for leadership was never under consideration.

Backlash From Both Sides

The ban lift resulted in a wave of criticism from both ends of the spectrum. In an interview with ABC, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention executive committee, Frank Page, stated, “I think I can say with pretty strong accuracy that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are very disappointed in the latest change in policy…deeply disappointed.”

The Southeast Christian Church, located in Louisville, Kentucky, publicized a move to sever ties with the Boy Scouts, forcing the BSA to lose approximately 300 families. The Assemblies of God, the world’s largest Pentecostal group, also withdrew support.

On the other hand, according to Rich Ferraro, a spokesman for the gay-rights watchdog group GLAAD, “Until every parent and young person have the same opportunity to serve, the Boy Scouts will continue to see a decline in both membership and donations.”

In accordance, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called the rule “incoherent,” claiming, “The proposal says, in essence, that homosexuality is morally acceptable until a boy turns 18 – then, when he comes of age, he’s removed from the Scouts.” He claims that it sends a message that gay adults are somehow inadequate to lead and mentor troops.

Disney also announced it would pull all funding from the BSA starting in 2015 because of the ban on gay leadership.

How is BSA not breaking anti-discrimination laws?

As a private, religious organization, the BSA is shielded from federal and state discrimination laws based on the freedoms of speech and association. They can legally exclude atheists, agnostics, and people in the LGBT community.

The American Civil Liberties Union is one organization that has ceaselessly attacked the BSA for this policy. For example, it was present in the 2000 Supreme Court case of The Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale. Dale, a former Assistant Scout Master, was kicked out of the BSA for his sexuality. In New Jersey, there is a law preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in Dale’s favor, but the opinion was overturned a year later by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated in the majority opinion:

The Boy Scouts’ right to express their views against lesbians and gay men would be hampered if the organization was forced to admit openly gay people as leaders…lesbians and gay people, if they are honest about their sexual orientation, make a statement in their very existence, and groups like the Boy Scouts therefore have a right to exclude them.”

The ACLU called it a “damaging but limited” defeat as the “ruling is limited to groups that exist for the purpose of expressing views and ideas.” So, any nondiscriminatory progress the BSA has made or will make in the future will be made from within. Legally, its hand cannot be forced.

Leaders Kicked Out

Jennifer Tyrrell was a former den mother of her son’s Cub Scout chapter. In April 2012, she was told she could no longer hold her position due to sexual orientation. She had served in the position for over a year. When she was kicked out, she started her advocacy against the BSA to end its discrimination of the LGBT community and launched a petition, stating, “the Boy Scouts are once again forcing me to look my children in the eyes and tell them that our family isn’t good enough.”

In the following video, Tyrell talks about the BSA’s policy change and her petition.

Geoff McGrath, a former Scout leader from Seattle, Washington, is often considered one of the first leaders removed after the policy change. BSA stated they did not know about his sexual orientation when his chapter was approved, although McGrath reported that he never hid his gay identity or support of gay rights. In an interview with NBC News he stated, “They are complaining that the problem is a distraction to Scouting and they don’t seem to understand that the distraction is self-inflicted.” McGrath’s brother and nephew rode their bikes from the Northwest to Boy Scout headquarters in Texas in order to raise awareness of the policy.

Who are The Girl Scouts of the USA?

Juliette Gordon Low founded the Girl Scouts in Savannah, Georgia in March 1912. Currently, there are approximately 2.8 million Girl Scouts and volunteers affiliated with the organization. GSUSA aims to encourage healthy living opportunities, promote economic opportunities, foster global citizenship and a global voice, and support a strong nonprofit community and girl scout experience for girls. A core value and key component in GSUSA is diversity. It strives to reach girls from all different backgrounds.

GSUSA’s Position on Sexual Orientation

A GSUA document entitled Girl Scouts Beyond Bars, explains its policy.

Regarding sexual orientation, Girl Scouts of the USA holds fast to a commitment to embrace diversity and has in place a policy that prohibits discriminatory treatment of any kind, including on the basis of sexual orientation. This policy which applied to interactions with girls and adults, must be honored by every person working in the Girl Scout movement. Keep in mind that it is not appropriate to ask or assume what a girl’s sexual orientation is.

How has GSUSA supported the LGBT community?

GSUSA’s inclusion policy allows transgender children to be Girl Scouts. Girl Scouts of Colorado stated, “We accept all girls in kindergarten through 12th grade as members. If a child identifies as a girl and the child’s family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout.”

In 2007, GSUSA honored 18-year-old Girl Scout Madeline as a National Young Woman of Distinction for her project promoting awareness to the intolerance shown to the LGBT community. This is the highest award given by GSUSA.

GSUSA has featured additional resources on its website for Girl Scouts to research, such as the Global Fund for Women and Tolerance.org. Each of these sites provides information and supports LGBT initiatives.

At a 2011 Convention, GSUSA held a seminar called “Moving Beyond Diversity to Inclusion,” which discussed some LGBT issues. At this same convention, GSUSA honored Annise Parker, Houston’s first openly gay mayor, as a guest speaker.

LGBT Activists/Leaders of GSUSA

Unlike the BSA, GSUSA welcomes leaders who are members of the LGBT community. Debra Nakatomi, GSUSA Board Member, is an LGBT activist who provides training in advancing LGBT rights. Lynn Cothren, former GSUSA Director of Administration from 2005-12, is a gay-rights advocate, speaker, and former board member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Timothy Higdon, former GSUSA Chief of External Affairs from 2010-12, is an LGBT activist, employee of Amnesty International, and a leader in the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Conclusion

Whether the BSA’s lifted ban on gay membership will ultimately extend to adults is up in the air. Hopefully, its first step toward tolerance will not be its last as there are more hurdles to overcome. There are ramifications for the BSA only lifting its ban on youth members, as many worry that the message sent is that gay leaders are somehow inadequate. The policy also tells Scout youth that being an openly gay adult is unacceptable. Critics of the policy are concerned that a gay scout who has upheld the Boy Scout code during his entire career is stripped of his titles when he reaches 18, and condemn the policy as unfair. However, many see  the Girl Scouts of the USA as trailblazers who exemplify the civil freedoms America represents. Two similar organizations have ended up on significantly different paths–while modernization is always a slow process, it seems as though GSUSA will end up on the right side of history.

Resources

Primary

Boy Scouts of America: About the BSA

Boy Scouts of America: Current Policy

Girl Scouts: Who We Are

Girl Scouts: America’s Top Girl Scouts Named 2007 National Young Women of Distinction

Additional

100 Question for Girl Scouts: The Girl Scouts and the LGBT Agenda

ABCNews: Some Churches Say They’ll Cut Ties to Boy Scouts Following Its Lifting Ban on Gay Scouts

ACLU: U.S. Supreme Court Ruling That Boy Scouts Can Discriminate is Damaging but Limited

CNN: Disney to Pull Boy Scouts Funding by 2015 Over Policy Banning Gay Leaders

DiversityInc: Merck Condemns Boy Scout Gay Ban, Halts Funding

FoxNews: Transgender Girl Scout Controversy Sheds Light on Organization’s ‘Inclusive’ Policies

GLAAD: Boy Scouts of America: Reinstate Cub Scout Leader Who Was Removed For Being Gay

Huffington Post: Geoff McGrath, Gay Boy Scout Troop Leader, Allegedly Kicked Out of Organization

Scout and Pride: BSA and Homosexuality

WNDMoney: Look Which Companies Dumping Boy Scouts

Jessica McLaughlin

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

The post Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts Take Different Paths to LGBT Inclusion appeared first on Law Street.

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

Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S.

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

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

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

What is Obama’s Earned Citizenship Proposal?

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

Provisional Legal Status

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

DREAMers and AgJOBS

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

Combatting Fraud

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

2013 Immigration Reform Bill

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

Border Security

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

Immigrant Visas

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

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

Interior Enforcement

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

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

Stopped in the House

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

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

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

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

Obama’s Immigration Accountability Executive Actions

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

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

 Are the Executive Actions legal?

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

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

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

 Conclusion

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

Resources

Primary

White House: Earned Citizenship

White House: Immigration

Additional

Immigration Policy Center: A Guide to S.744

Immigration Policy Center: The Dream Act

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

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

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

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

Jessica McLaughlin

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

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

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.

Picture your Netflix homescreen. Besides some errant selections courtesy of your (ahem, tasteless) roommate, it’s pretty much a haven of your unique preferences. Like a doting butler, it recommends you watch “Breaking Bad” since you enthusiastically plowed through every episode of “Orange is the New Black.” Netflix knows you. Or think about Amazon. It’s your data-powered best friend. It recalls your purchase history and movie preferences better than you do. So what if this data-powered framework for knowing you is applied to healthcare? What if your doctor knows you as well as Netflix?

That’s what the Precision Medicine Initiative aims to do–unleash the full power of science and data to make our healthcare system better, more effective, and more specific to individuals and conditions. The new model proposes a system of health care that treats you like the complex human being you are. Just as Amazon cares deeply about your past purchase behavior, the new healthcare system would care about the science-based reasons you’re you: your genes, your lifestyle, and your environment. Instead of pushing purchases, it would use what it knows about you to determine what treatments and preventions work best for your health.

President Barack Obama announced the Precision Medicine Initiative during his 2015 State of the Union Address and since then people have been discussing the pros, cons, and implications. Here’s an overview of precision medicine and what it means for you.

What is precision medicine?

Take a look at the video below for a summary of precision medicine from Jo Handelsman, Associate Director for Science at the White House.

Precision medicine revolves around you. It uses your genes, environment, and lifestyle to determine what treatments keep you healthy.

The Precision Medicine Initiative may be new, but precision medicine has some history. Doctors already use it to treat conditions like cancer and Cystic Fibrosis. Examples of precision medicine in action include processes like blood typing and medications like Imatinib (Gleevec), a drug for Leukemia that inhibits an enzyme produced by certain genes. The new initiative plans to expand the reach of precision medicine to to tackle other diseases.

The plan stems from a  2011 report from the National Academy of Sciences. The report called out a major healthcare weakness: data suggests possible causes of deadly diseases, yet we don’t treat people until telltale signs and symptoms surface. You don’t wait until your friend’s liver is wrecked to stage an alcoholism intervention. Why wait for symptoms of a deadly disease when early risk factors might be available?

Great idea in theory, right? Of course, the execution promises far more complexity. Experts hope that precision medicine is within our grasp now because of recent scientific advances that make it easier to collect and analyze patient data.

Advances That Make Precision Medicine Possible

Advancement 1: New Methods of Uncovering Biological Data

It’s easier to understand patients and tumors on a cellular and genetic level more than ever before because of things like:

• The Human Genome Project, an initiative that aims to map the DNA sequence of the human genome to determine a sort of biological instruction manual for how humans function. The study of the genome is called genomics.
• Proteomics, a discipline that involves studying proteomes, the entire system of proteins in an organism. The goal is understanding changes, variations, and modifications in proteins over time to determine biomarkers for human diseases, especially cancer.
• Metabolomics, a field that leverages analytical tools to discover and quantify metabolites, which are substances produced by metabolism. Studying them provides experts with a glimpse of an organism’s physiological functioning as metabolism is a huge factor in overall health.

Advancement 2: New Tools For Biomedical Analysis

New analytic tools make it possible to decipher the intricate medical data collected by the disciplines above. Computers and programs help to collect, store, and study biological and medical information. Overall, the discipline is called bioinformatics.

Advancement 3: New Digital Health Tools That Make Large Datasets Manageable

I said large data sets. Sound familiar? Yes, we’re talking Big Data. You’ve probably heard enough about it, but it’s actually an amazing thing, especially when applied to healthcare. Take a look at the video below for more information.

From collecting to analyzing, sophisticated data management tools make the Precision Medicine Initiative possible.

Collectively, these advances create the right environment for the unified national effort that the Precision Medicine Initiative proposes.

How will it work?

The President’s 2016 Budget provides $215 million for the program. Four key agencies slated to do a bulk of the work each get a chunk of the budget.

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Project Budget: $130 million.

Task: Recruit a volunteer research cohort and leverage existing data.

The National Institutes of Health must find 1 million American volunteers willing to provide medical records, gene profiles, lifestyle data, and more. While data drives the initiative, you need people to get the data. In addition to this, the NIH will find existing studies and research to build a foundation for the initiative. It’ll collaborate with stakeholders to determine approaches for collecting patient information.

National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Budget: $70 million.

Task: Find better cancer treatments.

The National Cancer Institute will explore precision treatments for cancer by increasing genetically based cancer trials, researching cancer biology, and establishing a “cancer knowledge network” to inform treatment decisions.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Budget: $10 million.

Task: Develop safe, new DNA tests.

The Food and Drug Administration will seek technologies that rapidly sequence DNA and the human genome. Tests should make genetic data collection easier and more standardized.

Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC)

Budget: $5 million.

Task: Manage the data.

The ONC has a tough job. It needs to figure out how to store, use, access, and exchange all of this medical data without any privacy concerns.

What Precision Medicine Could Mean For You

Here’s Notre Dame’s video on precision medicine in action:

Precision medicine could mean treatments more specific to you. For example, about 55-65 percent of women with mutations in the BRCA1 gene get Breast Cancer; only 12 percent of those without the gene get it. If the gene mutation is discovered, doctors can recommend enhanced prevention measures like increased cancer screenings or prophylactic surgery to remove at-risk tissue.

We hope more precise treatments lead to better outcomes. Using precision medicine, we hope to answer many questions, including:

• How can we treat this better?
• Is there a cure?
• Why does this disease happen in the first place?

The Downsides to Precision Medicine

Of course, the Precision Medicine Initiative has some drawbacks. The sheer amount of time it will take to collect and analyze all of this patient data leads the charge of negative comments. Below are some other downsides.

Interpretability

This article from the New Yorker calls out the problem of interpretability. To quote the author,l Cynthia Graber,

Many doctors are simply not qualified to make sense of genetic tests, or to communicate the results accurately to their patients.

Since doctors will be the sole executors of the initiative, more need to become fluent in the human genetic code. Programs like MedSeq have recognized this need and are already working to make genetic information translatable for practitioners.

The Budget Just Isn’t Enough

Experts say that even the $215 million proposed isn’t enough to meet the initiative’s lofty goals, like recruiting one million patient volunteers. One upside? Money can be saved by incorporating existing data, which the initiative plans to do.

Collecting the Data is Going to be Hard (This is an Understatement) 

If they do save money by integrating data from different studies, keeping the data clean will be hard considering the different time frames, constructs, and controls of various studies.

And as a practicing doctor writing for a New York Times blog points out, the lifestyle factors will be especially hard to study because of some uncooperative and intensely complex patients.

Insurance Companies May Not Pay For It

Precise matching of individuals to disease treatments sounds great, and extremely expensive, especially in the early days. Patients will need even more help determining what treatments suit them.

Hope For the Future

Sorry to bring up Netflix up again, but let’s face it, it’s very good at leveraging data to give you what you want. Consider any of its popular original series. Do you think Netflix just guessed what 50 million subscribers would like? Probably not. It used its massive stores of data to make informed decisions.

Early doctors and researchers puzzled over the symptoms of just a few patients, trying to find patterns, causes, and cures. While they did a fair job with the resources they had, trial and error medicine should be relegated to the less fortunate past. Today we have the power and knowledge to access data that helps doctors make more informed decisions on healthcare treatments.

Precision medicine will be complicated, difficult, time consuming, and who knows what else. But imagine what we can learn. We should be cautious, but we can also dare to hope.

Resources

Primary

White House: Infographic: The Precision Medicine Initiative

White House: FACT SHEET: President Obama’s Precision Medicine Initiative

White House: Precision Medicine is Already Working to Cure Americans: These Are Their Stories

National Cancer Institute: BRCA1 and BRCA2: Cancer Risk and Genetic Testing

National Institutes of Health: Precision Medicine Initiative

National Cancer Institute: What is Cancer Proteomics?

Additional

Nature: Obama to Seek $215 Million for Precision-Medicine Plan

New England Journal of Medicine: A New Initiative on Precision Medicine

National Academies: Toward Precision Medicine

National Institutes of Health: Precision Medicine Initiative

Nature: U.S. Precision-Medicine Proposal Sparks Questions

Brookings Institution: The Significance of President Obama’s Precision Medicine Initiative

New Yorker: The Problem With Precision Medicine

The New York Times: A Path For Precision Medicine

National Human Genome Research Institute: What is the Human Genome Project?

BioTechniques: What is Metabolomics All About?

Bioplanet: What is Bioinformatics?

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Precision Medicine: The Future of Health Care? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I’ve talked about immigration a lot in the past, it’s a pretty big issue here in Texas. On Monday, Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Brownsville prohibited the Obama Administration from carrying out immigration programs announced in November 2014. These programs would allow protection from deportation and give work permits to nearly five million undocumented immigrants. One of those many programs was supposed to start today, but that’s not happening now.

Hanen found that the state of Texas, as well as the 25 other states that had filed against this initiative, had satisfied the minimum legal requirement to bring the lawsuit, stating that the Obama Administration failed to comply with the basic procedures required in order to put the program into effect.

Of course, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest stated that the administration was “within the bounds of the law” and implied that it would be appealing the decision. Any appeal in this case filed by President Obama would be handled by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott stated that “Judge Hanen’s decision rightly stops the President’s overreach in its tracks.”

All of the states that oppose this measure argue that President Obama has very clearly violated the “Take Care Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, which limits the scope of presidential power. Only time will tell what will happen next, though one thing’s for sure: it will be a long, drawn-out process but it’ll be fun to see how things turn out.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Federal Judge Halts Obama’s Immigration Plans appeared first on Law Street.

The National Prayer Breakfast is an annual event that occurs every February in Washington D.C. As part of the event, speakers are invited to share encouraging words of faith. The National Prayer Breakfast was especially visible in the news recently as a result of controversy over a recent speech by President Obama. Read on to learn about the history, inception, and purpose of the event.

What is the National Prayer Breakfast?

The National Prayer Breakfast is an annual event held in Washington, D.C. on the first Thursday of February. This year the event celebrated its sixty-second anniversary. Among the 3,200 people in attendance, guests from all fifty states and 140 countries were represented. One of the most high-profile attendees is the president of the United States who gives a speech, as well as a designated keynote speaker whose identity is kept confidential until that morning. The event has had many notable speakers including Mother Teresa, Bono, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and NASCAR legend Darrell Waltrip. Some have garnered national attention for speeches that they have made at the Breakfast, including Doctor Ben Carson, whose speech is in the video below.

Who is invited to attend the National Prayer Breakfast?

People from all walks of life are invited. This list includes the President and First Lady, members of Congress, visiting heads of state, and a myriad of ambassadors representing scores of countries, many of them adherents of other religions or non-theist.

What is the purpose of the National Prayer Breakfast?

The purpose of the National Prayer Breakfast is two-fold, but the main intention is quite simple: to come together in prayer and thanksgiving. Non-Christians attend the breakfast, but the event is designed to make sure that everyone is respectful whenever possible. The second purpose is to hear from the prominent speakers who offer words of encouragement and/or challenge the audience to live their lives in fuller service to Christ’s teachings.

History of the National Prayer Breakfast

The first National Prayer Breakfast took place in 1953 when the houses in the United States Congress joined together to establish it during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower. Since then not only has the National Prayer Breakfast become a yearly tradition, there are also smaller versions that occur in cities and states across the country and around the world.

The concept of the event actually began in the 1930s when a young man named Abraham Vereide began to meet  with the leaders in his home area of Seattle and counseled them to study Jesus and his teachings, especially with regard to the poor and disenfranchised. As the 1940s progressed, Vereide began to meet with members of Congress for the exact same reason. The results of these meetings moved Congress to start the breakfast and invite the president to partake in the event, as well.

Is the National Prayer Breakfast a partisan or denominational event?

All members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, are invited to put aside their jobs as politicians and for that brief time come together as one. This is regardless of denomination as well as religion. One will see Lutherans sitting next to Evangelicals and those who are not Christian at all. The Dali Llama was also present at this year’s National Prayer Breakfast as a guest of President Obama.

Who organizes the National Prayer Breakfast?

There are many religious groups that help to put on the event, whether it is getting the venue set up, arranging for the speakers, or providing other forms of support; however, the organization that takes the leading role is a group called Fellowship Foundation. This group, which started in 1929, is framed as a network of friends from all walks of life joined together by an interest in the power of Jesus.

How is the National Prayer Breakfast similar to and different from other national religious events?

The National Prayer Breakfast is similar to other events such as the National Day of Prayer, in that both are a nationwide call for Prayer; however, these events differ because the breakfast is not mandated by law, but rather is sustained by private individuals. They also differ in their focus, as the National Day of Prayer is designed to be a call for Americans to humbly come before God, seeking his guidance and grace and the National Prayer Breakfast is designed as an event  to hear words of wisdom, inspiring testimony, or to give those who attend and those read about it on social media afterward something to think about in order to help to bring their own lives closer to Christ.

What topics are covered in the speeches given at the National Prayer Breakfast?

The topics have been as varied as the speakers. When Mother Teresa spoke, her topic was abortion. She condemned the procedure, stating that “any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.” When Doctor Carson was the speaker in 2013 he spoke about fixing America using principles from the Bible itself. Eric Metaxas, who spoke in 2012, discussed the topic of dead religion. Finally Darrell Waltrip spoke this year on his own conversion, stating that:

Good guys go to hell. If you don’t know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, if you don’t have a relationship, if He’s not the master of your life, if you’ve never gotten on your knees and asked Him to forgive you of your sins, you’re just a pretty good guy or a pretty good gal, you’re gonna to go to hell.

Watch the video below for more on Waltrip’s speech.

Is there opposition to the National Prayer Breakfast?

Most of the dislike for the event comes from secularists and more liberal forces. Groups such as Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have opposed it on a number of grounds, ranging from their opposition to the group that sponsors it–the Fellowship Foundation–which is a fundamentalist group, to wishing that those who attended the event better understood the need for separation between church and state.

Some have even gone so far as to suggest that the National Prayer Breakfast shouldn’t exist, at least not in its present form. In addition to the critiques that the it receives from the non-religious community, it is also no stranger to political controversy. One such controversy occurred in 2012, when the National Prayer Breakfast had additional competition from the Occupy Faith DC protest, which was set up to proptest the breakfast as an event for the rich and famous only. Other controversies included when Mother Teresa called out then-President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary on their stances on abortion; and  most recently critiques point to President Obama’s remarks at this year’s event. He was accused of comparing historical Christianity and modern extremist Islam.

Resources

Primary

National the Day of Prayer

Additional

Priests For Life: Mother Teresa’s Speech

Huffington Post: Occupy National Prayer Breakfast

American’s United Blog: Breakfast Club: Obama Endorses Seperation at Evangelical Event

America Blog: The National Prayer Breakfast Shouldn’t Exist

Americans United Blog: Doubting Thomas: Prayer Breakfast Theocrats Try to Baptize Jefferson

Doctor Ben Carson: National Prayer Breakfast Speech Transcript

Fellowship Foundation: History

Faith and Action: Salvation and Damnation in DC

Freedom Outpost: The Message You Didn’t Hear About at the National Prayer Breakfast: Without Christ, You Will Go to Hell

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The National Prayer Breakfast: History and Controversies 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.

President Obama gave his second-to-last State of the Union address last night, and it’s being lauded as a great one. He laid out a long to-do list, including addressing net neutrality, his education plan, a minimum wage hike, a tax code overhaul, and a fight against ISIS, despite the fact that he enters this year having to stand against a Republican-controlled Congress. In fact, much of the speech seemed like a challenge to a Congress made up of the very people who have consistently tried to stall Obama’s polices for the last seven years. Whether or not they decide to play nice will be up to the Republicans.

The Republican response to the speech, of course, was rather negative. The main criticism seemed to be that Obama didn’t focus enough on the middle class. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), who actually gave the Republican response to last year’s SOTU, commented:

You know, I was disappointed. I was disappointed that I didn’t hear more from the president as far as how we were going to help those middle-class families. I thought he painted a little rosy picture of how things are, at a time when people continue to see their wages actually shrink, take-home pay shrinking. Job opportunities are not enough.

That quote from McMorris Rodgers is pretty consistent with a lot of GOP responses to Obama’s SOTU speech last night–that he doesn’t understand the middle class and do enough to help the citizens who fall into that bracket. Most Democrats are insisting that the plans that Obama laid out–particularly those to give middle class families a tax break, as well as help ease the burden of college payments, are going to be great for these segment of the country.

As I sat here trying to work my way through all of the plans, all of the political rhetoric, all of the buzzwords that got thrown around last night, I had a realization. It’s not just that Democrats and Republicans can’t seem to agree on how to help the middle class. It might be that we can’t agree on what the “middle class” is. 

It sounds silly–we all know what the middle class is, right? It must be that chunk of the population between those in poverty, and those who live in mansions. Is it blue-collar workers, or white-collar workers, or a little bit of both? Or is it more of a heritage–are we middle class because of the values that are instilled in us? I honestly don’t know anymore.

What I do know is that pretty much everyone thinks they’re middle class. In a 2012 Gallup Poll, 42 percent of respondents said they were middle class. Another 13 percent said they were upper-middle class. Then another 31 percent said they were “working class,” which makes this entire thing even less clear, given that working class is sometimes viewed as middle class. Most importantly, there were a plurality of people in every income bracket from $30,000-$100,000 who defined themselves as “middle class.”

The concept of the middle class has long been hailed as a bedrock of American society, and I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. But I think it does make it incredibly difficult to design policies for the “middle class” because when you’re talking about well over half the population, one size doesn’t even fit most. What I, as a 20-something living in Washington D.C., need, is significantly different than what a family in Iowa needs, which is different than someone about to retire in California needs, even if we all make about the same amount and identify as “middle class.”

To bring this back to last night’s speech, it’s that very definition problem that makes it easy for both the Democrats and the Republicans to point to their plans and say “look, it’s for the middle class.” For example, Obama’s statement last night:

That’s why this Congress still needs to pass a law that makes sure a woman is paid the same as a man for doing the same work. Really. It’s 2015. It’s time.

To me, that sounds like a tangible thing that would help the middle class. Given that it’s now pretty close to the norm for both men and women, even those married and/or with families, to work, ensuring that they both get fair pay seems like it would help the middle class to me. But then the Republicans see that Obama is also proposing a tax hike on the richest Americans, and will argue that that’s going to slow job growth, so paying men and women equally isn’t helpful if neither of them can find a job. It’s a messy, cyclical argument that’s more about politics than actually trying to help the middle class, no matter who we may be. And that’s a shame.

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 SOTU All About the Middle Class, But Who Exactly is That? appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Joni Ernst may be a newcomer to Washington D.C., but she’s already making a big splash. She was just selected by the Republican Party to give its response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. That’s a pretty good thing for which to be chosen–the last few years the spot of responder has included Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Paul Ryan. Ryan, of course, ran for Vice President last year, and Rubio’s name keeps popping up on the list for possible 2016 contenders.

But what does this choice actually mean? When I said that Ernst is a newcomer, I really meant newcomer–before running for Iowa’s Senate seat, she was in the Iowa State Senate. So, she’ll only have been in Washington for about a month before speaking for the entire GOP in response to the President. She in some ways ran her campaign on the fact that she was a Beltway outsider–her most talked-about ad of the 2016 elections involved her discussing castrating pigs as a child.

Honestly, it’s probably that outsider status that inspired the GOP to pick her as the responder. President Barack Obama and, by extension, the Democrats have run the Executive Branch since 2008. The GOP is probably going to paint them as tired, crony-filled, and too nationally focused to look out for the average American. On the other hand, Ernst is pretty much the definition of a fresh face. She’s also a woman, which given the gender gap that has made or broke some recent national elections, probably appeals to the Republican Party. For those reasons, this is a pretty good strategic choice on the GOP’s part.

On the other hand, she’s also a risky choice. She’s untested on the national stage, and she’s said some weird things in the past. For example, she subscribes to the conspiracy theory that Agenda 21, a sustainable environmental plan created by the United Nations, is a secret drive to force Americans off their land. Last November, she stated:

All of us agreed that Agenda 21 is a horrible idea. One of those implications to Americans, again, going back to what did it does do to the individual family here in the state of Iowa, and what I’ve seen, the implications that it has here is moving people off of their agricultural land and consolidating them into city centers, and then telling them that you don’t have property rights anymore. These are all things that the UN is behind, and it’s bad for the United States and bad for families here in the state of Iowa.

It’s a relatively popular Tea Party idea–but coming out against the U.N. is…extreme, to say the least.

It’s definitely a good position to be in for your first few months in Washington, but whether or not Ernst will be able to rise to the occasion will have to be determined. No matter what, one thing is certain: it will be an interesting speech to watch.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Senator Joni Ernst Chosen to Give GOP Response to State of the Union appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that college costs have gone up. Way up. Bloomberg estimated that the cost of college had gone up 1,120 percent since 1978. While inflation over time is obviously normal, that’s a huge jump. Compare it to the fact that over the same time period, the price of food has only risen 244 percent. Going to college now requires that many students take out loans, and then struggle to pay those loans off for years to come. President Obama and other politicians have been saying that something needs to be done for a while, and he recently floated a plan to help ease college costs for some students: two years of free community college for students who are willing to work for it.

Obama gave a speech at Pellissippi State Community College in Tennessee about his new plan. At its core, it’s a simple enough idea. Students who maintain a GPA over 2.5, attend at least half time, and make steady progress toward completing their degree will be eligible for the tuition elimination. The schools are going to be held to high standards as well:

Community colleges will be expected to offer programs that either (1) are academic programs that fully transfer to local public four-year colleges and universities, giving students a chance to earn half of the credit they need for a four-year degree, or (2) are occupational training programs with high graduation rates and that lead to degrees and certificates that are in demand among employers.

The reasoning behind providing those first two years free is to train students for more high-skilled jobs. While our unemployment numbers are looking better than they have in years–under six percent as of December 2014–there are still plenty of Americans who are unemployed and underemployed. Despite this nearly five million jobs remain unfilled in areas that require specialized training, such as healthcare work or technology. This plan will attempt to fill that gap by providing workers with skills that can be used in those jobs. As jobs that require a college degree increase–by 2020 it’s estimated that 33 percent of all job openings will require post-high school education–it makes sense to make it as easy as possible for people to get those degrees.

It’s estimated that this will cost about $3,800 per student, and that nine million students will take advantage of the program. That all adds up to a pretty hefty price tag, roughly $60 billion over ten years, which begs the question: how is the Federal government going to pay for this all? The details don’t appear to be fully formed yet, but advocates argue that it’s an investment in the economy. Until our work force is at its most productive, we’re not going to be able to get much done.

Despite the fact that this plan is more bipartisan than most undertaken by the government these days–Republican Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker attended the speech in Tennessee–there are plenty of lawmakers who disagree with the plan. Detractors point to the high price tag as an unnecessary expense. There are also concerns that community colleges aren’t necessarily that successful–only 30 percent of students entering community college graduate within three years.

While there are both positives and negatives to the plan, it’s an early step of what needs to be a much larger solution to the huge problem of college costs and student debt as a whole.

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 College Tuition Elimination Plan Aims to Fill Skilled Jobs Mismatch appeared first on Law Street.

UPDATE: Press Secretary Admits that Administration should have sent higher ranking official to rally.

Less than a week after the attack at magazine Charlie Hebdo, France is still dealing with the aftermath, but Paris has showed that its people are nothing if not resilient. As an act of memorial for the slain Charlie Hebdo staff, as well as the hostages killed at a Kosher market in Paris on Friday, there was a gigantic march in the city yesterday. The rally also served as a show of unity against terrorism. It was a huge, notable world event with a ton of support from around the world. But where was the United States?

Chanting & applause in Paris as huge crowds begin unity march against terror attacks http://t.co/VeXcJu1QK6pic.twitter.com/gC9Ca8HGR0

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) January 11, 2015

It’s estimated that about 1.6 million people took part. To us Americans, that doesn’t sound like that much, but you have to remember that France is roughly one-fifth of the size of the United States. So, comparably, that would mean around 8 million people marching here. That’s massive, and incredibly moving.

It wasn’t just Paris either. Marches took place around the world. In the French city of Lyon, roughly one-fourth of the population marched.

Of course, not everyone involved in the march was French either. Other word leaders, including British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Malian President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, EU President Donald Tusk, and Jordan’s King Abdullah II, came as well.

Photo shows a very different perspective on world leaders at the #ParisMarchhttp://t.co/pxZoV21ZKCpic.twitter.com/VyJk1iOrxN

— The Independent (@Independent) January 12, 2015

But there was one thing notably missing from the rally: the presence of a high profile official from the United States.

There was no President Barack Obama. No Vice President Joe Biden. No Secretary of State John Kerry. The U.S. was represented by Jane Hartley, the American Ambassador to France, and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. No offense to Ambassador Hartley or Assistant Secretary of State Nuland, but they’re both a noticeable pay grade below the 40-plus heads of state who attended. Merkel and Cameron are two of the most prominent figures in the Western world. For god’s sake, the respective leaders of Israel and Palestine both showed up in a mini-act of solidarity in their own right, despite reports that they were asked not to. But the United States sent mostly unrecognizable figures, one of whom who was probably there anyway.

If you’re looking for a truly insipid study into the way that conspiracy theorists’ minds work, a look at the hashtag #ReasonsObamaMissedFranceRally might be in order. Theories range from Obama secretly being racist to Obama being Muslim (seriously, we’re still on that?). These are stupid theories.

But the hashtag does get one teeny, tiny thing right. The absence was not only noticeable, it was incredibly embarrassing. The White House is scrambling to come up with reasons why Obama didn’t attend, including citing his participation in a few interviews yesterday, and mentioning concerns that the security at the event would be difficult to manage. Obama has put out statements showing his support for France, but his absence from the event still looks pretty bad. Now there’s news that Secretary of State Kerry will be visiting France this week, possibly in an attempt to placate critics.

Honestly, I highly doubt there was some weird alternative motive here, but mostly just an incredibly bad PR move. Maybe the White House thought that Americans are self-absorbed enough to not really care what was happening in Paris. Or maybe Obama didn’t want to take such an overtly political stance. Or maybe Obama didn’t attend out of fear of drawing attention from ISIS, which still holds some Western hostages like John Cantlie, after all.

I honestly don’t know what it was that motivated not only President Obama to skip the rally, but also not to send a high profile emissary in his place. Sure, he’s made some heartening statements in support of France in the last few days, but he should know by now that actions speak louder than words. His actions yesterday signaled a massive underestimation of the power of solidarity, and a complete lack of foresight.

UPDATE: Press Secretary Admits that Administration should have sent higher ranking official to rally.: The White House clarified Obama’s absence from the rally on Sunday during a press conference this afternoon. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest admitted, “I think it’s fair to say that we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there.” He also cited security concerns as the reason that Obama himself didn’t attend.

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’s Absence From France Unity Rally Was a Massive PR Failure appeared first on Law Street.

On December 17, 2014 following a prisoner exchange, President Obama outlined efforts being made to normalize relations with Cuba. The announcement was monumental as it signaled a major change in a policy dating back to the Cold War. It was also vague. What exactly did this mean and how will the Cuban American community take this? To answer these questions it is necessary to go back in time and look at the relationship between the United States and Cuba from the beginning, from before the embargo to present day.

History

It’s easy to imagine that the relationship between Cuba and the United States only began when Fidel Castro became the ruling dictator; however, the two nations shared a bond that is much older than that era. It can be argued that it goes all the way back to the 1860s when, after seceding from the Union, the Confederacy believed it would eventually conquer the small island of Cuba and incorporate it as one of its states. A more concrete beginning to the relationship, however, lies in the events following the American victory in the Spanish-American War.

After the end of that war, Spain ended its claim to Cuba. The United States granted Cuba its independence, but this came with two conditions: first, that the United States had the right to intervene in Cuban affairs; and second, that the U.S. would be granted a continuous lease for a naval base, which would become the infamous Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

While the United States has clearly exercised the second right, it also made use of the first. The U.S. intervened in Cuban affairs by frequently helping to crush rebellions in the first half of the twentieth century, despite brutal crackdowns on dissent, which was one of the reasons it allegedly wanted to fight Spain for Cuba’s independence in the first place. Aside from American government overtures, American businesses also invested heavily in Havana, turning it into a popular vacation getaway. Even the Mafia became involved in Cuba, using it as a conference center and investing there heavily themselves.

The Cuban revolution occurred in 1959, and Fidel Castro overthrew the U.S.-supported Batista regime. The immediate aftermath did not foreshadow what was to come. In fact, in one of history’s odd turns of events, the United States quickly recognized Castro’s regime, and Castro himself came to visit Washington, D.C. just weeks after the successful coup.

The honeymoon phase, of course, did not last long. Along with Castro’s increasingly clear Communist leaning, he made efforts to nationalize private companies, including American ones, and impose heavy taxes on American goods, which served to sour the relationship. In response to heavy taxes on American goods, President Eisenhower in turn enacted trade restrictions allowing for only food and medical supplies to be shipped to the island. Outraged at what they deemed to be American imperialism, Cuban officials then increased trade with the Soviet Union. This proved to be the nail in the coffin; the United States severed all diplomatic ties and the permanent and infamous embargo was put into place in early 1962.

Sanctions & Embargo

The embargo itself both leveled economic sanctions on Cuba and restricted travel and commerce with the country for all people and companies under United States authority. The embargo was strengthened in 1963 with the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, which prohibited financial transactions with Cuba and outlawed the importation of Cuban-made goods. The embargo was further strengthened by two additional acts passed in the 1990s.  According to these acts, the embargo could only be lifted if Cuba would:

Legalize all political activity, release all political prisoners, commit to free and fair elections in the transition to representative democracy, grant freedom to the press, respect internationally recognized human rights, and allow labor unions.

Since Cuba has not met these conditions yet the embargo has endured.

Diplomacy Under the Embargo

Since the enactment of the embargo, the two countries have been at strife, communicating only through Switzerland when necessary. Nevertheless, while the two nations were not talking they were still crossing each other’s paths. The action was greatest immediately following the embargo with the Bay of Pigs disaster and the Cuban Missile crisis, which nearly led to nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.  

In the Bay of Pigs operation, 1,400 Cuban exiles who had been trained in Guatemala were to land at night and begin guerilla operations against the Castro regime with the additional aid of U.S. airstrikes. The invasion faltered immediately when the airstrikes missed their target and the invading force met much stiffer resistance than expected. In the end, downed U.S. pilots were taken hostage and nearly the entire invading group was  forced to either fall back, surrender, or was killed.

That operation led directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis. In that situation, Cuba asked for and was to receive Soviet nuclear weapons as a deterrent against future American attacks. The United States learned of the planned installation of nuclear weapons and a standoff briefly ensued when Cuba was quarantined by American naval ships. Eventually the Soviets agreed publicly to remove the weapons if the United States promised not to invade Cuba; privately the U.S. also removed nuclear weapons it had in Turkey.

Since the 1960s, the relationship can best be characterized as a standoff with each side occasionally making an effort to proverbially poke its rival. On Cuba’s part this includes releasing thousands of criminals and mentally ill and sending them to the beaches of Florida as exiles. For the United States, this has meant continuing to turn the screws and ratcheting up the intensity of sanctions, even while Cuba suffers from hunger and a grossly underdeveloped infrastructure.

The video below outlines Cuba and U.S. relations since Castro’s takeover.

The Winds of Change

Despite nearly 60 years of animosity, the relationship between the two nations began to change again following the election of President Barack Obama in 2008. As part of his original campaign platform, Obama had vowed to reduce restrictions on Cuban-Americans who want to visit relatives. Obama’s actions were two-fold: first, they allowed Cuban-Americans with family in Cuba to travel there freely, and they eliminated the cap on the amount of remittances people could send back. Secondly, people without family members in Cuba were also allowed to send capped remittances to the island, and could travel there with a license for educational or religious reasons. This also opened Cuba to companies that wished to provide cellular, television, and telephone services to the island.

Recent Developments

The last domino fell the day before the president made his speech on the path to normalization between Cuba and the United States when Alan Gross, an imprisoned USAID worker, was finally released and brought home to America in a prisoner exchange. The exchange was in part made possible through a dialogue brokered by Pope Francis who had invited the two sides to resolve their differences. Also, part of the agreement were pledges by both countries to open embassies in each other’s capitals. Additionally, the United States promised to further relax business and commercial travel restrictions with the island nation. Lastly, the U.S. has guaranteed to go even further by unfreezing bank accounts and agreeing to review Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terror.

The video below explains what exactly the president plans to do.

Obstacles

There are still several potential obstacles to the establishment of full relations. First is the large Cuban-American voting bloc in Florida, a traditionally pivotal swing state. Many Cuban-Americans want to see the entire Castro family regime removed before relations are normalized; however, that may be changing–while a 1991 FIU poll reported that 87 percent of Cuban-Americans supported the embargo, by the time Obama was elected in 2008 the majority had moved the other way. Although this reversed course yet again, by 2014 the majority of Cuban-Americans polled were once more in favor of lifting the embargo. Support was especially strong among young people, with 90 percent in favor of reestablishing diplomatic ties with Cuba. So, it’s difficult to tell conclusively what percentage of the Cuban-American population will be in favor of these more normalized relations.

Another obstacle is Cuba’s extremely poor human rights record. As mentioned earlier, one of the conditions for removing the embargo by the United States was that Cuba respect internationally recognized human rights. Cuba’s human rights record has remained dismal. In 2014, Human Rights Watch listed Cuba as “not free.” More specifically, in three indicators–freedom rating, civil liberties, and political rights–Cuba received scores of six and a half, six, and seven, respectively.  The scale goes from one to seven, with seven being the worst. Clearly, if Cuba wants to lift the embargo and normalize relations with the U.S., improving its regard for human rights is something that needs a lot of work.

Most challenging for President Obama, however, is Congress. While the president can make some tweaks to the relationship himself, he needs Congress in order to abolish the embargo as it is codified into law. This will most likely prove especially difficult for a president who was not having much success dealing with Congress before Republicans won a majority in both the House and Senate in 2014; however, the political loyalties of Cuban-Americans themselves may alter the status quo.

Traditionally, Cuban-Americans have favored the Republican party; in 2002 according to a Pew poll, 64 percent favored Republicans. However, by 2014 only 47 percent favored Republicans and 44 percent now favored Democrats. This is partly a result of this demographic skewing younger, and the younger generation being overall more open to reconciliation. Whatever the reason may be, both parties now will likely work to secure this group’s loyalty. Thus, while the Republican Congress may be recalcitrant on many issues supported by the president, if it believes Cuban-Americans desire an end to the embargo and normalized Cuban relations with the United States, the prospect of that happening is much more likely. Congress may be especially eager to act if it means maintaining historical support from a key swing state supporter. 

Potential Outcomes

While the Cato Institute estimates that the U.S. could gain as much as $1.2 billion annually from lifting the embargo on Cuba, the economic worth pales in comparison to other considerations. By finally lifting the embargo the United States could signal a major policy change from the Cold War tactics of years past and even the “democracy by force” doctrine that many people associate with the war in Iraq.

Furthermore, it could also signal to some of the United States’ other antagonists, namely Iran and North Korea, that there is another way dialogue can be established. It may even serve as a way to save face as the sanctions on both of those countries are also seemingly ineffective. Additionally, it may further add some lost luster to the United States’ image of being an international good guy and not a traditional Western imperialist. Specifically, for other developed critics of the United States such as Russia and China, this might remove some of their argument that the United States is hypocritical and has different policies for different countries based on its interests.

On a more personal level for President Obama, this could signal a foreign policy coup that seems needed after the debacle with the Syrian Red Line and ISIS. If the president is successful in this endeavor it might also secure an important voting bloc in a swing state for Democrats down the road. Of course it may also come back to bite the United States if Cuba doesn’t make any changes. It might make people worry yet again that the United States is weak and has no stomach for drawn out conflicts anymore, which could actually further embolden adversaries such as Iran and North Korea even more. Still, the potential to garner goodwill, end fruitless policies, and reassert the image of the United States as a haven for freedom seem to outweigh the bad and are also the most likely outcomes.

Conclusion

While many critics of normalizing relations with Cuba say that the president is essentially rewarding the country and prolonging the regime, their facts do not add up. Although Cuba certainly should be required to improve its human rights laws as part of any normalization, sanctions seemed to be ineffective. In today’s globalized world, countries cannot be shunned simply because their policies are not what we want them to be. This is especially relevant for nations such as Iran and North Korea that also draw Washington’s ire and are sanctioned accordingly for it. Rapprochement with Cuba therefore appears to have raised more questions than answers, but perhaps these questions are the key to an overall more successful foreign policy.

Resources

Primary

Council on Foreign Relations: US-Cuba Relations

Additional 

Time: US Cuba Relations

ProCon: Cuba Embargo

NPR: Polls Show Cuban American Views

Cato Institute: Time to End Cuban Embargo

History Net: Confederacy

History: Spanish American War

JFK Library and Museum: Bay of Pigs

Freedom House: Cuba

Harvard Political Review: Reexamining the Cuban Embargo

Washington Post: US-Cuba Relations

NPR: Obama Eases Limits on Cuba Travel, Remittances

US Department of State: Cuban Missile Crisis

Pew Research Center: After Decades of GOP Support

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The U.S. and Cuba: The Path to Normalized Relations appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, in Kabul, Afghanistan, there was a quiet ceremony to declare the war in Afghanistan finished. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military operation, is officially done after over 13 years. But what exactly does that mean? Will we no longer see American troops sent to Afghanistan? Not exactly–while the war may be officially over, there’s still a lot of work to be done, and we should expect to see continued involvement from the U.S. and some of its allies.

In response to the horrifying terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, the United States and its allies invaded Afghanistan. The official name for the international forces deployed in Afghanistan was the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), authorized by the United Nations Security Council in 2001.That mission has lasted almost exactly 13 years, and approximately 3,500 international soldiers have been killed in the war. The United States makes up a big part of that death toll, with over 2200 American soldiers killed. Obviously, however, the highest cost has been to Afghanistan’s people–over 4,000 Afghan soldiers and police officers were killed this year alone. It has cost–and will continue to cost–American taxpayers an estimated $1 trillion dollars.

In those 13 years, we’ve seen the Taliban fall, but remain present. A government has been built, and restructured. Osama Bin Ladin was captured and killed. There have been resurgences, different attacks, and a seemingly constant conversation about what exactly the United States is doing in Afghanistan.

ISAF will now be replaced by a new mission: Resolute Support. Still NATO-led, and still U.S. dominated, Resolute Support will attempt to train and build up the military forces in Afghanistan. That new mission will begin its work in January, 2015. That force will be made up of approximately 13,500 international troops; Americans will count for around 11,000 of those.

President Obama wasn’t present at the ceremony in Kabul, but released a statement on the “official” end of the war in Afghanistan. As Obama explained the continued involvement in his written statement:

Afghanistan remains a dangerous place, and the Afghan people and their security forces continue to make tremendous sacrifices in defense of their country. At the invitation of the Afghan government, and to preserve the gains we have made together, the United States — along with our allies and partners — will maintain a limited military presence in Afghanistan to train, advise and assist Afghan forces and to conduct counter-terrorism operations against the remnants of al Qaeda.

Obama also called Sunday’s cessation of ISAF a “responsible conclusion.” That seems a possibly apt, although exceedingly careful, description. It may not even be a conclusion, at least not in a classic sense. After all, the United States will continue to be involved in Afghanistan, in many of the same ways that it was involved prior to Sunday’s ceremony. Afghanistan isn’t really in great shape, and there are concerns that it will collapse. Afghanistan’s military and police forces will still be fighting a war, and our American soldiers stationed there will probably be involved–regardless of what we want to call it. Honestly, measuring whether or not the entire war was a success or a failure really isn’t even possible right now–it’s essential to see what will happen in Afghanistan in the years moving forward to make any judgments of that magnitude.

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 United States Officially Ends War in Afghanistan appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been almost 25 years since the end of the Cold War, but still some vestiges remain. One of the most apparent is the relationship between the United States and Cuba. We haven’t had diplomatic relations with Cuba, located not even 100 miles off the coast of Florida, since 1961. That’s a long time–in the name of interesting context, for the entire duration of President Barack Obama’s life, we have not had normalized relations with Cuba. But that began to change yesterday. Those frozen relations are beginning to thaw. Diplomatic relations are being opened back up, prisoners are being released, and both travel and trade will be expanded, among other steps.

The conversation between Washington and Havana took 18 months, and eventually included both President Barack Obama, and President Raul Castro. Castro has officially been President of Cuba since 2008, although his brother, former President Fidel Castro basically handed over power in 2006. There was also a third major player–Pope Francis.

The Pope’s role does make sense. After all, he’s the first pope to hail from Latin America, and Cuba is heavily Catholic. Although exact statistics are difficult to obtain, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops estimates that a little over 50 percent of Cubans are Catholic. Since President Raul Castro took power, he’s been more flexible about allowing the Catholic Church to operate in Cuba than his brother. Pope Francis’s motives seem clear–he believed that improving relations between the United States and Cuba would help both Catholics and non-Catholics alike in the two nations.

There’s a fourth player to consider though, although maybe calling him a non-player would be more accurate. This whole conversation sends an interesting message to Russian President Vladmir Putin, who most definitely wasn’t invited to the party. During the Cold War, Cuba was one of Russia’s bargaining chips. That’s pretty much what the entire Cuban Missile Crisis was about. Since the Cold War ended, Russia and Cuba have remained pretty close.

However, Russia isn’t nearly as good of a benefactor or friend as they used to be. They’ve had a rough time of it lately. Russia received quite a bit of international ire for its meddling in Ukraine; the U.S. Congress just passed new sanctions against Russia in response to the Ukraine situation. In addition, the Russian economy is very much struggling. The Russian unit of currency–the ruble–has fallen to a historic low. Putin has attempted to comfort his people, basically claiming that the Russian economy will bounce back within two years, which seems more like a bandaid than a promise. Putin also partly blamed the rough economic conditions in Russia on Western interference. Put simply, Putin is both in trouble, and pretty annoyed with the U.S. right now.

So, it becomes clear that the move to improve relations with Cuba can be seen as a diplomatic victory for the U.S.. Our relationship with Cuba will probably undermine Russia’s, and will be a symbol of Russia’s seemingly wavering international influence. Given that Russia and the U.S. haven’t been particularly friendly lately–the whole Ukraine debacle is a major reason why–it makes sense why the U.S. might want to take away some of Russia’s friends. It’s not going to majorly affect the Russian economy, or anything of the sort, but it looks really bad. It may take a lot of straws to break a camel’s back, but there’s no reason not to add straws when you can.

There were many reasons that the U.S. and Cuba took such a historic step this week–moral, diplomatic, and economic, just to name a few. Whatever reasons ended up being the most convincing, one thing is certain. It’s definitely a new era in American and Cuban relations.

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 Russia Left Out: United States and Cuba Thaw Relations appeared first on Law Street.

Thursday night, President Obama announced an executive action that will protect millions of undocumented immigrants and restructure the United States’ priorities when it comes to immigration enforcement. And he used some fighting words. Obama stated:

The actions I’m taking are not only lawful, they’re the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican president and every Democratic president for the past half century. And to those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.

Obama’s speech–just weeks after the Democrats basically got trounced in the midterms–was powerful, and regardless of how both his political allies and opponents are acting on the Hill, will make a real difference in the lives of millions of people who call America home.

But if you were interested in watching this speech, you may have had a hard time finding it. The big TV networks–ABC, NBC, FOX, and CBS–chose not to air the speech. Instead, CBS presented an episode of The Big Bang Theory; Fox network viewers saw Bones; and viewers tuning to NBC were able to enjoy The Biggest Loser: Glory Days.

While cable stations like Fox News, CNN, and Univision carried it, the big four networks chose not to and opted for their regular programming instead. That was their choice. When the President is giving an important speech, the White House can put in an official request that the speech be carried. In this case, the White House did not, apparently after hearing from networks that they weren’t too enthusiastic to postpone their normal programming. At one point, a supposed network insider called the speech too “overtly political.”

Obviously, this choice on the networks’ part wasn’t just about politics–it was about money. In today’s epoch of pretty predictable political apathy, you get more viewers when you show beloved shows like Shonda Rhimes’ Grey’s Anatomy than when you show the same President Obama speech on immigration that every other network has access to. And when you get more viewers your advertisers are happy. And then you make more money. It’s a pretty simple equation.

The story gets more complicated than that though. You see, stations like FOX, NBC, ABC, and CBS are national, but each place has their local affiliate that actually controls what that locale sees. That’s why I, living in D.C., can watch NBC but see a different morning news team than my parents living in Connecticut. There is some flexibility, apparently, because a few local affiliates gave a big middle finger up to their national stations, and showed the speech anyway. POLITICO found that:

A quick look at some major media markets found that the NBC affiliates in New York, Washington, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas and Phoenix; the ABC affiliates in Washington, Chicago, Boston and Kansas City; the Fox affiliates in Boston, Chicago, Dallas and Miami all aired the speech live. CBS affiliates were less likely to air the speech when it fell during the hit show “The Big Bang Theory,” though several of their affiliates outside the East Coast did air it live.

There seems to be fodder for an interesting internal struggle here–networks balked at the idea of showing Obama’s speech for presumably centrally financial reasons. But not everyone was willing to play ball, and the places where the speech ended up being shown are certainly illuminating. With a few exceptions, it seems like channels that showed the speech were in either more liberal areas, or areas like Dallas and Miami, known for larger immigrant populations. As strategic as the call was to not show the speech by big networks, the local stations took their own strategies into account.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Where Could You Watch Obama’s Speech? Depends Where you Live appeared first on Law Street.

Net Neutrality has been the center of an important political and technological debate for a while now. Law Street has covered the different developments extensively. This week, President Obama released a statement affirming the need for net neutrality, and it was a strong one.

If you don’t want to watch the entire statement, here are the sparknotes. Obama affirmed the concept of net neutrality and stated his plan moving forward: he wants the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) to reclassify the internet and protect net neutrality. As he put it in his statement:

To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies.

Essentially, Obama wants to prevent Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from changing or altering the speeds at which they provide service to various sites or users. He wants to prevent what’s called “internet fast lanes,” because they mean that ISPs would have control over how fast particular sites load. Fast lanes stifle creativity, equality, and would give a ton of power and money to ISPs such as the much-maligned Comcast.

Of course, Obama can’t support anything without there being a very good chance that the other side of the aisle will get up in arms about it, and that’s exactly what happened here. Rising Republican star Ted Cruz tweeted the following:

"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.

— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) November 10, 2014

There are so many things wrong with this statement, I’m not even entirely sure where to start. It’s almost like Cruz created this tweet during a game of petty political Mad Libs–the prompt would have been “fill in a controversial program that will make people angry with the President without explaining the context, giving a comparison, or even trying to justify it.”

First of all, this shows that Cruz fundamentally does not understand what net neutrality is. Luckily, the very denizens of the internet whom net neutrality would hurt had a nice response for Ted Cruz–my favorite was the one by the Oatmeal, a humorous web comic. In addition to being a great take down of Cruz, it is also a pretty good explanation of net neutrality for the uninitiated. Take a look:

Dear @SenTedCruz, I’m going to explain to you how Net Neutrality ACTUALLY works http://t.co/rQWMlmJTmY pic.twitter.com/dvxQGDZMBF

— Matthew Inman (@Oatmeal) November 10, 2014

The Oatmeal’s point is simple–Cruz takes money from the very same ISPs that want to be able to charge people more for their services. And then he turns around and posts something on Twitter that’s not just horribly inaccurate but clearly inflammatory. Because he most likely does not understand net neutrality.

But Cruz and the people who work for him know how to score political points. And comparing anything to Obamacare is going to be a winning metaphor among those who have decided that Obamacare is the devil incarnate.

The fact that Cruz is against net neutrality is a bit upsetting though. It stands directly in contrast to the principles he purports to support. Cruz’s website focuses heavily on the idea of small business success, and working hard to achieve your goals.

Those principles–economic success through small business growth, pulling oneself up by the bootstraps–of Republican theory have been made so much easier by the advent of the internet. Now an entrepreneur can start a small business and use the resources provided by global connectivity to reach customers all over the world. A student who doesn’t have access to very good educational resources can use the internet to learn, for free.

But Ted Cruz would rather compare the internet to Obamacare because it’s easy.

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 Ted Cruz Doesn’t Know or Care What Net Neutrality Is appeared first on Law Street.

I walked off the Woodley Metro yesterday at 5:30 pm and was kind of surprised to see Connecticut Avenue completely deserted at the height of rush hour.  All cars had been cleared from the street. No traffic. No parked cars. Completely quiet.

What in the world was happening?

Word soon was out: President Obama would be passing through.

Last summer, President Obama exulted in his ideal-for-the-evening-newscasts forays beyond the White House. Ice cream. Starbucks. “The Bear is loose!” But things are different now. Fence jumpers. Ottawa shootings. This is what it looks like when The Bear is loose today. Clear the streets. Eerie quiet at the height of rush hour. Nobody moves.

The President drove up and back yesterday afternoon to a private $32,400-a-seat fundraiser at the estate of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and his wife, Sharon. The Rockefeller estate is a little bit north of Woodley, at 2121 Park Road adjacent to Rock Creek Park. Press was excluded from this event, and no info was listed on the official White House daily schedule.

I decided to stay put and wait to see how the Presidential motorcade was rolling now, a day after the killings in Ottawa and the ongoing White House fence jumpings.

The answer: These days the Bear rolls very quietly, in a traffic-free bubble.

I took this cell-phone video:

Here is the order of the motorcade:
9 DC cops on motorcycles.  Followed by…
1 DC cop car.  Followed by…
1 Secret Service SUV…
The Presidential limo, aka “Cadillac One”…
1 back-up limo traveling alongside Cadillac One…
3 more Secret Service SUVs…
The Secret Service “War Wagon” housing a counter-assault SWAT team…
2 more Secret Service Vans…
Another Secret Service SUV
1 DC Fire Department ambulance (only Obama gets this; not Biden)…
And finally…
2 more DC cop cars.