Reversing what President Barack Obama did to protect federal waters only four months ago, President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order to expand offshore drilling in the Arctic and the Atlantic Oceans. The order also looks into the possibility of drilling in current marine sanctuaries in the Pacific and Atlantic, and halts the creation of any new sanctuaries.

While signing the order, “America-First Offshore Energy Strategy,” Trump emphasized that it would boost the economy and the job market. “We’re unleashing American energy and clearing the way for thousands and thousands of high-paying American energy jobs,” he said.

Trump claimed that this order will help America on its way toward becoming energy independent. Increasing the use of domestic energy was one of his campaign promises. He said energy independence would create job opportunities.

Trump’s new offshore drilling order is even worse than environmentalists expectedhttps://t.co/9mIiV4UUMl

— ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress) April 28, 2017

However, while Trump’s order is meant to increase the use of fossil fuel and get coal jobs back, China is further developing its use of renewable energy sources. A new research report published this week shows that wind and solar power in China could attract as much as $782 billion in investments between 2016 and 2030.

The BP oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 is often recognized as the worst oil spill in U.S. history; it claimed 11 human lives. The environmental fine BP had to pay, $18.7 billion, could not undo the impact it had on the environment and wildlife. But in his new order, Trump asks Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to repeal some of the safety rules that were implemented after the disaster, as he believes they are “burdensome regulations that slow job creation.”

At the very end of his presidency, Obama used a little known law from 1953 to block further drilling for fossil fuel in the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans. He ordered a freeze of fossil fuel exploration in 98 percent of federal waters, or 115 million acres, off the coast of Alaska, and restricted drilling in 3.8 million additional acres. Environmentalists cheered the decision.

I joined 27 Senators to call on Trump to protect our coastlines from #OffshoreDrilling & today I’m taking this fight to the #Senate floor pic.twitter.com/owZczcTMj2

— Sen. Maria Cantwell (@SenatorCantwell) April 28, 2017

Environmental groups called Trump’s recent order reckless and maybe even illegal, and several Democratic Senators have said they will fight his attempt to expand offshore drilling. Interim executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League, Kristen Miller, said:

In no point in history has a president challenged another administration’s permanent withdrawals. Trump’s action could set a dangerous precedent, which will only undermine the powers of the office of the president.

Trump signed the order on his 99^th day in office. He has signed more executive orders during his first 100 days than any other president.

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 Signs Order to Reverse Obama’s Ban on Offshore Drilling appeared first on Law Street.

A chemical attack in Syria on Tuesday, thought to be carried out by government forces, killed as many as 100 people and wounded hundreds more, according to some witnesses. Hours after the attack, at a press conference at the White House, Press Secretary Sean Spicer blamed the Obama Administration’s “weakness and irresolution” for the gruesome attack, the deadliest chemical attack in Syria since August 2013.

“Today’s chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world,” Spicer said. “These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration’s weakness and irresolution.” He added: “The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this intolerable act.”

According to monitoring groups, medics, and rescue workers, chemical weapons were dropped from jet planes in Idlib, a rebel-held area in the north. Witnesses described victims choking, with some foaming at the mouth, telltale signs of a chemical attack. A government source told Reuters sarin gas was likely used in the attack, which was “almost certainly” carried out by President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

These children can’t breathe. This is the aftermath of a suspectedchemical attack in Syria. pic.twitter.com/6CHTocDaeV

— Alberto Hugo Rojas (@albertohrojas) April 4, 2017

In a statement soon after the attack, the Syrian army denied responsibility: “We deny completely the use of any chemical or toxic material in Khan Sheikhoun town today and the army has not used nor will use in any place or time neither in past or in future,” the statement said, referring to the town in Idlib province where the attack took place. The United Nations Security Council called an emergency meeting for Wednesday to discuss the attack.

The White House response echoed a familiar sentiment that critics often repeat about the Obama Administration’s policy in Syria. President Barack Obama’s inaction, critics say, has allowed the Syrian government, along with its allies Russia and Iran, to continue committing grievous acts against its citizens. Many Republicans, along with some Democrats, thought Obama did not do enough to help the rebel forces, a fractured and largely undefined amalgamation with some extremist elements.

In 2012, in a briefing at the White House, Obama said: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” In August 2013, the Syrian government killed scores of citizens in a sarin gas attack near Damascus. Despite crossing Obama’s stated “red line,” the administration took no military action.

It did, however, reach an agreement with the Syrian government to dispose of its chemical weapons stockpile. Assisted by the Russians, the effort was thought to be successful. But soon after, despite its claims and promises, the Assad regime launched chlorine gas attacks. And although the White House pointed fingers at Obama for Tuesday’s attack, President Donald Trump’s past statements seemed to be against military action as well. In September 2013, he tweeted:

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA – IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2013

It is unclear how, if at all, Trump will change the current strategy in Syria as a result of the attack. While he will be sending up to 1,000 more ground troops to bolster the fight against Islamic State, which holds splotches of territory in the north of Syria, Trump’s strategy has not strayed much from the Obama Administration’s. And while Obama’s strategy in Syria focused on defeating ISIS, rather than unseating Assad, he still hoped Assad would be toppled. That is something that the new administration has signaled is not a top priority.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently said the “longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people.” And Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, suggested ousting Assad is not a primary focus of the Syrian strategy. “Do we think he’s a hindrance? Yes,” she said. “Are we going to sit there and focus on getting him out? No.”

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 White House: Chemical Attack in Syria is Obama’s Fault 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.

Cuban migrants landing on American soil without visas will no longer be afforded special treatment over migrants from other countries, President Barack Obama announced on Thursday. In eliminating the 22-year-old “wet foot, dry foot” policy, Obama made what will likely be his final move in his quest to normalize relations with the Cuban government, which has wanted the U.S. to do away with the policy for years.

The “wet foot, dry foot” policy, a 1995 revision to the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, essentially allowed Cuban migrants who reached U.S. soil to stay, with or without a visa; the migrants could also apply for permanent residency. The policy favored Cuban migrants over those who fled other countries. Throughout the past few decades, tens of thousands of Cubans have taken advantage of the favorable treatment.

“By taking this step, we are treating Cuban migrants the same way we treat migrants from other countries,” Obama said in a statement. “With this change we will continue to welcome Cubans as we welcome immigrants from other nations, consistent with our laws.” Obama said the change is effective immediately, and that the Cuban government has agreed “to accept the return of Cuban nationals who have been ordered removed, just as it has been accepting the return of migrants interdicted at sea.”

At the moment, the Cuban government does not permit migrants who have been away from the country for four years or more to return. Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, said Cuban officials have already agreed to repeal that law, and will allow nearly 3,000 Cubans who fled to the U.S. as part of the Mariel boat-lift of 1980 to re-enter Cuba.

Not everybody was thrilled with Obama’s decision. Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) said dropping the “wet foot, dry foot” policy will “tighten the noose the Castro regime continues to have around the neck of its own people.” Menendez, who is a also a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, added: “The fact is the recent ill-conceived changes in American policy towards Cuba have rewarded the regime with an economic lifeline while leaving every day Cubans less hopeful about their futures under a brutal totalitarian dictatorship.”

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 Obama Ends Special Asylum Rule for Cuban Migrants appeared first on Law Street.

Whistleblower Chelsea Manning is reportedly on President Barack Obama’s shortlist for a possible commutation, according to a source from the Justice Department. Manning, formerly known as Bradley, is serving a 35-year sentence at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas for leaking almost a million classified documents while working as an intelligence analyst. More than 100,000 people signed an online petition campaigning for a commutation last month, exceeding the number of signatures needed for the White House to act within 60 days.

Manning has been imprisoned since 2010. She tried to commit suicide twice while in jail and also went on a hunger strike in an attempt to receive gender reassignment surgery. This request was eventually granted. Her critics have called her a traitor and many in the military view her with disdain for exposing secret U.S. military information. But still, her supporters say that what Manning revealed didn’t cause any harm to U.S. interests, only embarrassment. She also made a sincere apology before the sentencing. But the judge sentenced her to 35 years in prison—ten times longer than sentences some other whistleblowers have received.

Chelsea Manning has been put on President Obama’s short list for possible commutation https://t.co/aWgoJn6YKt. pic.twitter.com/dgp34Joao9

— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) January 11, 2017

“After this case, I had to tell Chelsea–‘I’ve represented murderers. I’ve represented rapists. I’ve represented child molesters. And none of them received 35 years,'” said defense lawyer David Coombs. Manning was also placed in solitary confinement for almost a year before the trial. In a letter accompanying the petition that was sent to President Obama, she describes a complicated family background; she was struggling with gender identity and trying to fit in while growing up, and was kicked out from her home by her father’s new wife. After being homeless for several months, her paternal aunt Deborah Manning got in touch and took her in.

Manning’s case broke almost concurrently with Edward Snowden’s–and Snowden had leaked significantly more damaging information. Four Army intelligence officers that spoke to NBC said that what Manning leaked was nothing compared to what Snowden revealed. They believe that the sentence seems exaggerated. And her aunt agrees. “I really believe the judge felt she needed to send some sort of message,” Deborah Manning said. “I think in a way she was a scapegoat for Edward Snowden.” And Snowden showed his support in a tweet.

Mr. President, if you grant only one act of clemency as you exit the White House, please: free Chelsea Manning. You alone can save her life.

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) January 11, 2017

Her aunt and Manning’s legal team have also cited the urgent need for better care, as she is suffering from gender dysphoria related anxiety, distress, and depression. Manning’s aunt said, “I would say this is someone who’s never had a chance in life, who is extremely bright, who became extremely emotionally distressed as some point, who made a bad decision, who paid for that bad decision.”

Manning spoke to VICE News through a liaison and said: “I’m staying optimistic. Regardless of the outcome, I am eternally grateful I have so much love and support out there.”

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 Will Obama Commute Chelsea Manning’s Sentence? appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama’s time in the White House is coming to an end, but he’s staying busy. He has made an effort to get as much done as possible before leaving; such as announcing the biggest protected marine monument in the world, signing the Sexual Assault Survivors’ Bill of Rights, and commuting the sentences of 944 inmates. Now, John Legend has another suggestion.

The Grammy Award winning musician wrote an open letter to Obama, published in Rolling Stone, asking him to pardon federal inmates who are jailed for non-violent drug offenses before January. In the letter, Legend praises the Obama administration for doing so much to end juvenile solitary confinement and to reduce the use of private prisons. As it is unclear what will happen when Donald Trump takes office, he urged the president to “bring justice to the thousands of families of non-violent drug offenders who have waited far too long for Congress to act.” He wrote:

In 2014, you set out to reinvigorate our country’s approach to clemency. Your actions to commute the sentences of 944 individuals, including 324 life sentences, is unprecedented in the modern era. Nonetheless, more action is needed to dismantle the unjust policies of the past 40 years.

He also said that approximately 36,000 non-violent drug offenders currently behind bars have asked Obama for pardon under his clemency initiative, and it’s unclear how many will be reviewed in time. That’s why he is suggesting categorical commutations, to end the injustices.

I wrote a letter to the President: https://t.co/gIIFVSp8CA

— John Legend (@johnlegend) December 9, 2016

Legend points out that drug addiction is not a moral failing, but a chronic health issue. There is also a big discrepancy in how slight variations in drugs are treated differently before the law. Crimes involving crack cocaine, which is more commonly used by black users and sold on the streets, are punished more severely than those involving powder cocaine, which is more expensive and more likely to be used by white people.

And for Legend, it’s also a personal issue. His mother struggled with depression and drug abuse, and ended up in prison when he was a teenager. Earlier this year he started the initiative Free America, with Assistant District Attorney Adam Foss of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, in an effort to change criminal justice policies and keep teens out of prison. He told the Guardian in July:

You begin to realize how much trauma and pain and abuse [the inmates] have been victims of themselves before they got to prison, and since they’ve been in prison. And you realize that it’s just a cycle that keeps repeating,

Hopefully, Legend’s efforts will not be for nothing when the next administration takes office.

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 John Legend Urges Obama to Pardon Non-Violent Offenders appeared first on Law Street.

A coalition of environmental groups from around the world sent a letter on Monday to banks that have loaned, collectively, $2.5 billion to help finance the polarizing Dakota Access pipeline. Johan Frijns, Director of the Netherlands-based group BankTrack, wrote the letter, which was signed by 25 other organizations spanning all corners of the globe, from China to Australia, and the U.S. to Germany.

“The world is closely watching how all actors involved will deal with the situation, including the banks that provide financial support to the project,” Frijns wrote. The letter was addressed to Nigel Beck, Chair of the Equator Principles Association, a consortium of investors that includes some of the biggest financiers of the pipeline: Citigroup, Wells Fargo, TD Bank, and Mizuho.

Included in the letter are requests for the banks to chew on during their annual meeting in London on Monday and Tuesday. “All further loan disbursements to the project are put on hold,” the letter says, adding the groups expect an “immediate halt to the construction of the pipeline and all associated structures, until all outstanding issues are resolved to the full satisfaction of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.”

The letter is the latest protest against the pipeline, which has been a lightning rod for activists and members of Native American communities (and social media) since August. If completed, the pipeline would run from the northwest tip of North Dakota to Illinois, sending nearly half a million barrels of crude oil every day through its 1,172-mile route. It snakes through sacred Sioux lands, and some argue it threatens local water sources and can pollute the air. Supporters of the pipeline say it will bring thousands of local jobs, and is a cleaner way of transporting petroleum than any alternatives.

Over 100 people have been arrested–including journalists–as police and state troopers from around the country have struggled to combat vast crowds, sometimes resorting to rubber bullets and pepper spray to kick people off the land, which is owned by Energy Transfer Partners, the beneficiary of the banks addressed in the environmental group’s letter.

Environmental groups have had some successes in past battles with banks. Over the last two years, several international banks–Barclays, Deutsche Bank, and ING–have pulled out of projects involving mountaintop removal mining, a practice that is potentially damaging to the environment, after facing pressure from environmental groups. Last week, amid the growing national and international outcry, President Obama said the Army Corps of Engineers, the federal body that approved the project, is considering an alternative route.

“We are going to let it play out for several more weeks and determine whether or not this can be resolved in a way that I think is properly attentive to the traditions of the first Americans,” Obama 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 Global Environmental Groups Band Together to Oppose Dakota Access Pipeline 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:

You Guys Ok?: Republicans Are Flipping Out

With one week to go until the election, team Trump is finding new ways to provoke people. On Monday night the hashtag #HillaryForPrision trended among people who want to see Hillary locked up. The word “prison” was misspelled to avoid detection by Twitter’s “censors”–the users employing the hashtag claim Twitter is trying to silence their opinions. Smart move, Republicans?

#HillaryForPrison Has been blocked by Twitter, so use the hashtag #HillaryForPrision!

— Democrats for Trump (@YoungDems4Trump) October 31, 2016

Please tell me again HOW she’s still allowed to run for President? 2 FBI criminal investigations? Seriously? #HillaryForPrision

— Heather Ross (@RealHeatherRoss) October 31, 2016

Also, during a rally in Las Vegas on Sunday, Trump supporter Wayne Allyn Root basically wished for the deaths of Clinton and Huma Abedin by comparing them with the movie characters Thelma and Louise. Hint: the movie ends with them driving their car off a cliff.

via GIPHY

And lastly, someone dumped a huge truckload of cow poop outside the Democratic Party headquarters in Lebanon, Ohio on Saturday. Can this election get any crappier?

Pile of manure dumped in front of Warren County Democratic Party HQ early today https://t.co/3QOOjyrfpV pic.twitter.com/MvwZwZwpzK

— Ohio_Politics (@Ohio_Politics) October 29, 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: November 1, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

This is NOT Spinal Tap

Harry Shearer, along with three others, created “This is Spinal Tap”, a 1984 rock mockumentary that will go down in movie history as one of the best comedies to do laundry to on a Sunday. Harry Shearer on the other hand, got swindled. Big time. He claims that since the movie’s release, he and the other creators have not received a dime in royalties.

via GIPHY

He is suing Vivendi, the company that owns the copyright, for $125 million dollars.

Shearer and the gang co-created the music, the script, and played the lead roles in the film.

@theharryshearer i’m asking respectfully, is this due to “creative accounting” on Vivendi’s part, or did you sign a bad contract?

— do I care? (@BKeachDay) October 18, 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: October 19, 2016 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.

Families of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks will officially be able to take legal action against a long-rumored enabler in the attacks: Saudi Arabia. Both the House and Senate voted to override President Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) on Wednesday, by votes of 348-77-1, and 97-1 respectively.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act is broad in its language, with a stated purpose to allow litigants to sue actors “that have provided material support, directly or indirectly, to foreign organizations or persons that engage in terrorist activities against the United States.” It is understood by lawmakers and families of 9/11 victims, however, that this bill will, at least in the immediate future, be directed at Saudi Arabia, which some suspect aided the hijackers that took nearly 3,000 American lives in New York City, Washington, and Pennsylvania. Fifteen of the hijackers were Saudi nationals.

Obama explained his decision to veto the bill, which initially passed the Senate and House unanimously, in a memo on the White House website: “This legislation would permit litigation against countries that have neither been designated by the executive branch as state sponsors of terrorism nor taken direct actions in the United States to carry out an attack here.”

The President is not the only opponent of the bill. Last week, at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said, “were another country to behave reciprocally, this could be a problem for our service members, and this is something that, at the Department of Defense, we are concerned about.” He added that he is “not an expert” on the bill.

But as lawmakers in both chambers will be hitting the campaign trail in the coming weeks, overriding Obama’s veto was a top priority, as the bill is broadly popular with the public. Now that the bill has passed through both chambers for the second time, it will be signed into law. This is the first override of an Obama veto in his nearly eight years in office. He has issued 12 vetoes.

In his veto message for JASTA, Obama notes his “deep sympathy for the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001” but added this act would “neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks.”

Both sides of the aisle lauded the bipartisan override vote on Wednesday. “We cannot in good conscience close the courthouse door to those families who have suffered unimaginable losses,” said Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD). His Republican colleague, John Cornyn (R-TX) echoed that sentiment: “In our polarized politics of today, this is pretty much close to a miraculous occurrence,” 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 Congress Votes to Override Veto of ‘Sponsors of Terrorism’ Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Rising seas and warming temperatures. A nuclear-ambitious Iran. An erratic and dangerous North Korea. The unmooring and uneven tides of international trade. A global terrorism menace in the Islamic State; a global tragedy in the refugee crisis borne out of a warring Syria. These are some of the global challenges President Obama has faced during his tenure in the White House.

On Tuesday, in front of representatives from nearly every country on the planet, Obama delivered a speech defending his (at times controversial) diplomatic approach to foreign policy, and highlighting the global challenges that will transcend his years in office. Here are the highlights of Obama’s eighth and final speech at the U.N. General Assembly headquarters in New York:

Global Integration

In countries around the world, movements are bubbling that, along with other sentiments, center around the uncomfortable effects of globalization: Trump and Bernie Sanders, a one-time Democratic presidential hopeful, have earned scores of followers for ripping trade deals. Britain elected to leave the world’s largest trade market in the European Union with Brexit.

In his speech on Tuesday, Obama reflected on the genuinely disruptive and for the least advantaged, disturbing, trends of globalization, but also commented on why embracing its flow is vital for a prosperous future.

“The answer cannot be a simple rejection of global integration,” he said. “We should work together to make sure the benefits of global integration are broadly shared.” Obama, who delivered his remarks later than scheduled, said the world needs a “course-correction” in its trend toward greater integration. “Too often those trumpeting globalization have ignored inequality,” he said.

As he prepares to leave office in January, Obama continues to push his signature global trade deal–the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP–through Congress. It’s unlikely the 12-nation deal will pass Congress before year’s end.

Global Security

One day after a man was arrested for dropping bombs in New Jersey and Manhattan, Obama addressed the world’s prime exporter of terrorism: the Islamic State. Calling the group, commonly referred to as ISIS, a “mindless medieval menace,” Obama defended his diplomacy-heavy approach to confronting the group’s presence in Syria, a country whose five-year civil war has killed nearly 500,000 and displaced millions more.

“There is a military component” to fighting ISIS, he said, but “in a place like Syria, there is no ultimate military victory to be won.”

Obama’s speech came a day after an aid convoy headed toward Aleppo–Syria’s second largest and hardest hit city–was attacked by government-launched airstrikes. He largely restrained from addressing the crumbling cease-fire agreement in Syria, but did call on all nations to do more to accommodate the refugees that continue to spill out of that war-torn country.

“We have to follow through even when the politics are hard,” he said, adding the world must “do more to open our hearts to help refugees who are desperate for a home.” He implored his globe-spanning audience to “imagine what it would be like for our family, for our children, if the unspeakable happened to us.”

Global Warming

And of course Obama spent considerable time speaking on a key concern of his administration, and one of its proudest achievements: climate change, and the Paris climate accord.

Before Obama spoke, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who also will be finished with his term in January, took the lectern and voiced the threats all countries must contend with: “The Earth assails us with rising seas, record heat and extreme storms. And danger defines the days of many,” he said.

A touchstone accomplishment of the Obama administration, the Paris climate accord calls on nearly every country–developed and developing alike–to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in the decades to come. Combating climate change, Obama said on Tuesday, is “not only the right thing to do, it’s the smart thing to do.” He also warned of potential conflicts if climate change continues down its current path.

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 did Obama Talk about at his Final U.N. General Assembly Address? appeared first on Law Street.

A recently discovered parasite that lives in turtles’ blood has been named after our president–as an honor. Baracktrema obamai is the official name of this thin two-inch parasitic flatworm that was discovered and named by biology professor Thomas Platt. And his explanation as to why he picked the name is the best part of the whole story: “It’s long. It’s thin. And it’s cool as hell.”

Platt, who is actually a fifth cousin of Obama, just retired from Saint Mary’s College in Indiana so this is his last scientific achievement. He has previously found more than 30 species, and named most of them after people he respects and wants to honor.

Obama is now officially a parasite (it’s an honor) as biologists name worm after POTUS: https://t.co/E2U4NjurIF pic.twitter.com/IseWTD74gw

— AP Politics (@AP_Politics) September 8, 2016

Platt says Baracktrema obamai “are phenomenally incredibly resilient organisms. I hold them in awe and with phenomenal respect.”

The little creature is 30 to 50 times longer than it is wide and has “post-cecal terminal genitalia.” The turtles that host it live in Southeast Asia, where Obama wrapped up a visit on Thursday.

Obama also has a hairworm, a spider, a lichen, a fish, and an extinct lizard named after him.

Biologist Michael Sukhedo, editor of the journal where Platt’s study appears, told the AP: “Parasites are cool, crucial to life and all around us.” Although most of them are named as an honor to someone, sometimes they’ve been named for revenge. Sukhedo said that one biologist named a whole category of parasites after her ex-husband: microphallus.

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 Newly Discovered Parasite Named After Obama, Since It’s “Cool As Hell” appeared first on Law Street.

While delivering a speech on Tuesday highlighting America’s progress in Asia, President Obama pledged $90 million over the next three years to help clear Laos–the Southeast Asian nation where the speech took place–of the millions of bombs that remain hidden and undetonated in its fields and forests.

“The spirit of reconciliation is what brings me here today,” said Obama to a crowd of 1,000 plus people, including Buddhist monks, in the country’s capital of Vientiane. “Given our history here, the U.S. has a moral obligation to help Laos heal.”

Looming in the shadow of the Vietnam War, America’s conflict with Laos was largely an extension of its fight against communism. Landlocked Laos was a key supply route for Vietcong forces. For nine years, U.S. airplanes dropped over 270 million bombs on Laos, more than it unleashed on Germany and Japan combined during World War II. That bombing campaign–essentially conducted in secret–still haunts the Laotian countryside, parts of which are still cratered by decades-old explosives.

An estimated 80 million bombs remain, live and ready to kill or maim an unsuspecting farmer or child. Only one percent of the remaining bombs have been cleared since the bombing ended in 1973, with over 20,000 people killed or injured by the baseball-sized bombs.

“It was a secret war, and for years, the American people did not know.” —@POTUS on our history in Laos: https://t.co/6BT5t84abZ

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) September 6, 2016

The $90 million Obama pledged on Tuesday, double the U.S.’s current support, would assist aid groups in finding and destroying the remaining bombs. The lingering effects of the Vietnam War, Obama said, makes it America’s duty to help Laos. “That conflict was another reminder that, whatever the cause, whatever our intentions, war inflicts a wrenching toll, especially on innocent men, women and children,” Obama said.

With his visit on Tuesday–he landed late Monday night following the G-20 summit in Hangzhou, China–Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to visit Laos. During his remarks, which also highlighted U.S. accomplishments in the region like its cooperation with South Korea and expanded marine presence in Australia, Obama paralleled his visit to his earlier diplomatic thaws with Cuba and Myanmar. Both of those countries lacked any diplomatic relationship with the U.S. for decades before Obama warmed to them. Critics contend that both countries are fraught with issues, including human rights abuses, and as such the U.S. should not extend a handshake to them.

Obama’s visit to Laos might be his last in Asia during his tenure as president. He has made the region a priority during his eight years, often terming his focus there a “pivot.” He reiterated that on Tuesday, saying the U.S. will remain a potent force in the region for years to come.

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 Obama Pledges $90 Million to Clear Laos of Undetonated Bombs appeared first on Law Street.

Building on his legacy as Protector in Chief, President Obama will be expanding Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument–a pre-existing protected body of water, shoals, and atolls near Hawaii–by hundreds of thousands of miles. Friday’s Presidential Proclamation said the motivation behind expanding the monument is “to protect and preserve the marine area of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and the historic and scientific objects therein.”

Twice the size of Texas, at 582,578 total square miles, the expanded monument is now the largest marine protected area on the planet. Originally granted monument status under President George W. Bush in 2006, Obama’s executive order effectively quadruples the size of the protected waters. The move was heralded by Native Hawaiians–who use those waters for ancient cultural traditions and consider them as sacred in creation stories and myths–and conservationists. And while recreational fishing is allowed (with a permit), the longline, commercial fishing industry will take a hit. The Hawaii Longline Association said they haul two million pounds of fish from the designated area annually, the equivalent of $100 million.

What does the expanded @HawaiiReef look like? Check it out in our video: https://t.co/T6iI181j9v #EarthIsBlue

— Sanctuaries (NOAA) (@sanctuaries) August 26, 2016

“We’re obviously going up against environmental organizations that have billions of dollars,” said Sean Martin, the president of the Hawaii Longline Association. “For somebody to feel good, we’re going to force U.S. fishermen out of waters.”

While it seems the people who use the sea for its bounty of resources might take a hit from Obama’s expansion, the Native Hawaiian community and the species who call the area their home will certainly benefit. According to his Proclamation, the area “supports a dynamic reef ecosystem with more than 7,000 marine species, of which approximately one quarter are unique to the Hawaiian Islands.” In addition, it “has great cultural significance to the Native Hawaiian community and a connection to early Polynesian culture worthy of protection and understanding.”

Obama to quadruple size of Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument against wishes of Hawaii’s fishing industryhttps://t.co/ZWPQIaAvEn

— Pacific Biz News (@pacificbiznews) August 26, 2016

The following is a partial list of what is allowed and what is notallowed  within the new protected zone:

• Commercial fishing is not allowed.
• It is illegal to mine for oil, gas, and minerals in the protected area.
• With a permit, recreational fishing is allowed.
• Scientific research is allowed.
• Native Hawaiians are allowed to remove fish for use in cultural practices.

Even before Friday’s announcement, Obama cemented his legacy as the U.S. president who has designated the most land as government protected areas. He has created 26 national monuments covering about 548 million acres of land (or sea), twice as much as any of his predecessors. U.S. presidents were granted the executive authority to designation land as protected regions under the 1906 Antiques Act, which states: “the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest.”

Obama’s decision to expand the protected area of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument followed a proposal by Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Native Hawaiian leaders. On Thursday, Obama will travel to the Midway Atoll–a sandy dot within the new protected area, and an important military staging ground in World War II–to give the official announcement regarding the expanded monument.

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 Obama Announces the Largest Protected Marine Monument on Earth appeared first on Law Street.

Under a President Trump, American foreign policy would look something like this: Guantanamo Bay would remain open. Drone strikes would continue. Nation building and regime change would cease. And–in what Trump referred to as “extreme vetting” in his foreign policy speech Monday afternoon–immigrants from regions of the world that have a “history of exporting terrorism” will be subject to screening tests.

At Youngstown State University in Youngstown, Ohio, Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, highlighted America’s threats–and criticized the architects of its current foreign policy–before revealing the tenets of his foreign policy plan. With broad strokes, he painted a bleak portrait of an America under siege from “radical Islamic terrorism,” a phrase he used often and pointedly in his speech. He derided President Obama’s and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s approach to the Middle East as a failure. “The rise of ISIS is the direct result of policy decisions made by President Obama and Secretary Clinton,” Trump said, pointing to decisions made in Libya, Syria, and Iraq that led to the region’s current instability, allowing ISIS to prosper.

That speech was a reminder that Prompter Trump will always be just as dishonest and incompetent as Twitter Trump.

— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) August 15, 2016

The Cold War was a consistent reference point throughout his speech, as Trump sought to parallel the idealogical threat of radical Islam with that of communism. “Our victory in the Cold War relied on a bipartisan and international consensus,” Trump said. “That is what we must have to defeat Radical Islamic terrorism.” And in a surprising backtracking of his previous remarks that called into question NATO’s effectiveness, Trump said under his administration, America will “work closely with NATO.” He added that “we could find common ground with Russia in the fight against ISIS.”

And in a move he has alluded to in past interviews, Trump called for an “ideological screening test” that would root out “all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups.” In addition, such a test would screen out those who “believe that Sharia law should supplant American law;” “Those who do not believe in our Constitution;” and those who “support bigotry and hatred.” Specifically what such a test would look like, to whom it would be distributed, and how it would be administered was not expounded upon.

Trump ends his hateful, bigoted, fear-mongering speech promising…to reject bigotry & hatred. No self-awareness or sense of irony. Amazing.

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) August 15, 2016

Trump’s speech–which was precluded by remarks from former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani and Trump’s running mate Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN)–focused exclusively on the threat of “radical Islamic terrorism.” He did not mention China, North Korea, or Russia, three nations that many foreign policy analysts see as some of America’s gravest threats apart from ISIS and other terrorist groups.

Though his speech mirrored the apocalyptic tone of the speech he delivered a few weeks ago at the Republican National Convention, he sought to end it on a cheery, unifying note: “I will fight to ensure that every American is treated equally, protected equally, and respected equally,” he said. “Only this way will we make America great again and safe again for everyone.”

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 Trump Vows to ‘Destroy’ ISIS, Use ‘Extreme Vetting’ on Immigrants 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.

A new detail has been drudged up regarding the January prisoner swap between the United States and Iran: as the U.S. hostages boarded their planes, $400 million dollars–divvied into euros, Swiss francs and other foreign currencies–was passed to the Iranians. The cash drop, reported on Wednesday by The Wall Street Journal, drew ire from Republicans opposed to the Iran deal–in which the U.S. lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for reduced nuclear capacity and increased tolerance for outside inspectors–and used it as evidence of why President Obama’s diplomatic handshake with Iran is ill-advised.

“This report makes plain what the administration can no longer deny: this was a ransom payment to Iran for U.S. hostages,” said Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) cautioned those who were gnashing their teeth at the report–which he said was still unconfirmed–but said if true, amounted to “another chapter in the ongoing saga of misleading the American people to sell this dangerous nuclear deal.”

Obama administration sent plan load of cash to #Iran as ransom as part of deal on hostages. Just unreal. https://t.co/UHfdK4BEyN

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) August 3, 2016

The $400 million cash delivery also reportedly included $1.3 billion in accrued interest. The money dates back to the 1970s, according to U.S. officials involved in the transfer. They said it was a belated return of funds Iran paid for U.S. weapons before the 1979 revolution. At some point during the seventies, Iran paid $400 million for a cache of weapons, but the Iranian government was overthrown by revolutionaries in 1979, and American hostages were taken at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The weapons deal never went through. But the U.S.–until January 2016–had yet to return the $400 million to Iran. Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday defended the cash drop, saying it “saved the American taxpayers potentially billions of dollars.” He added: “There was no benefit to the United States of America to drag this out.”

January’s exchange was primarily a prisoner swap. Iran held five hostages–including a Washington Post journalist, a marine veteran and a Christian pastor–and the U.S. held seven Iranians, six of whom have dual U.S. citizenship. All of those men were held, some already convicted, others awaiting trial, on charges of exporting activities that violated sanctions in place on Iran. All were released in exchange for the U.S. prisoners.

But the timing of the cash drop, which happened at the same time as the prisoner exchange, and as the Iran nuclear deal was being finalized, was enough to prompt outrage from congressional Republicans and a fresh round of tweets from Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, who implicated Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent:

Our incompetent Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was the one who started talks to give 400 million dollars, in cash, to Iran. Scandal!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 3, 2016

The White House refuted the ransom claims, and portrayed the Republican backlash as no more than an attempt to justify their position against the Iran nuclear deal. John Earnest, White House press secretary, said the Republican response was “an indication of just how badly opponents of the Iran deal are struggling to justify their opposition to a successful deal.” He also reiterated the U.S. policy to not engage in ransom exchanges, adding: “Let me be clear, the United States does not pay ransom for hostages.”

But, what is the official policy regarding securing U.S. hostages?

In June 2015, President Obama announced an executive order that clarified the language on assisting families in negotiating with terrorists who might harbor their loved one. Obama’s order created a new team based at FBI headquarters called the Hostage Response Team, but said the U.S. “will not make concessions, such as paying ransom, to terrorist groups holding American hostages.” Instead, the new team would be “responsible for ensuring that our hostage policies are consistent and coordinated and implemented rapidly and effectively.”

The executive order was designed to shape the rules regarding negotiating with terrorist groups. And while Iran is known to fund terrorist groups, it is a functioning government state. It’s unclear whether the Obama administration’s stance extends to governments, but on Thursday Kerry seemed to insinuate the policy applies to every hostage-taking body: “The United States does not pay ransom and does not negotiate ransoms,” 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 U.S. Pays Iran $400 Million: Ransom or Routine? 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:

President Obama Schools Us On The Term “Populism”

At a press conference last night involving Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, President Enrique Pena Nieto, and our president, Obama went on quite the tangent. He was barely able to contain his frustration with the common perception that Trump is a populist.

Get ready to get schooled with a little lesson in populism, courtesy of Obama:

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 30, 2016 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.

A piece of legislation introduced in Congress could allow families of the victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia for its potential involvement in the 2011 attacks.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), was passed unanimously by the Senate last year but was not voted on by the House; it was reintroduced into Congress this past September. Suing foreign governments is currently against the law, but this bill would allow for certain provisions to be weakened so that countries could be held responsible for their involvement in terrorist activities. This month, the bill came back into the spotlight after a “60 Minutes” investigation into the classified “28 pages” from the 9/11 Commission Report, which reportedly shed light on official Saudi support for the hijackers responsible for the attacks. The segment featured interviews of Former Senator Bob Graham and various other officials who reiterated support that these documents be declassified.

In an interview with Charlie Rose that aired this week, President Obama stated his opposition to the 9/11 bill, saying that it was against U.S. policy to allow such lawsuits against countries:

This is not just a bi-lateral U.S.-Saudi issue. This is a matter of how generally the United States approaches our interactions with other countries. If we open up the possibility that individuals in the United States can routinely start suing other governments, then we are also opening up the United States to being continually sued by individuals in other countries, and that would be a bad precedent…

The bill also has national security and defense officials concerned that it would open up a can of worms for the prosecution of U.S. officials and diplomats, as well as place blame on the wrong parties for the 9/11 attacks.

Support or opposition for the bill has not fallen along partisan lines: contrary to Obama’s criticism of the bill, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders voiced their support of the bill while campaigning in New York earlier this week. GOP leaders such as Senator Lindsey Graham and Speaker Paul Ryan have been in actual agreement with the President for once, working with the White House to kill the bill.

.@HillaryClinton defends her support of @SenSchumer 9/11 bill “I stand with Senator Schumer on this” pic.twitter.com/NA6AX5nFlj

— Tamara Gitt (@tamaragitt) April 18, 2016

.@SenSchumer bill to let 9/11 families sue Saudi if tied to attacks becoming political football-@BernieSanders take: pic.twitter.com/Zgab4dABlW

— Molly O’Toole (@mollymotoole) April 17, 2016

Meanwhile, the timing of these developments has made for a pretty awkward presidential visit to Saudi Arabia for Obama this week. The Guardian reports that the trip was “noticeably low-key” and hinted at a “mutual distrust” between the two allies. It also appears that the bill remained an elephant in the room during his visit: the White House told the press on Thursday that it never even came up in Obama’s meetings with the Saudi king.

The relationship between the two countries has already been on the tense side lately, but Saudi Arabia hasn’t exactly responded well to the latest round of threats against it. The country’s foreign minister allegedly threatened to sell up to $750 billion in American assets, which would have strong economic repercussions for both states. These current developments will prove to be yet another test for a tumultuous and controversial alliance.

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 Obama Doesn’t Want Families To Sue Saudi Arabia Over 9/11 appeared first on Law Street.

In light of the prescription drug abuse epidemic, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is cracking down on the labeling of opioid painkillers. According to the FDA, immediate-release opioid painkillers will now carry what is called a “black box” warning, which will warn about the “risk of abuse, addiction, overdose and death.”

The new labeling will also state that prescribing immediate-release opioid painkillers “should be reserved for pain severe enough to require opioid treatment and for which alternative treatment options are inadequate or not tolerated.” There will also be clearer instructions for dosage and dosage changes throughout treatment.

Immediate-release opioid painkillers include almost 175 different brands and generics, including Vicodin and Percocet. According to the Chicago Tribune:

Those medications, which often combine oxycodone with lower-grade medications, are among the most commonly used drugs in the U.S. and account for 90 percent of all opioid painkillers prescribed.

The extensions of these warnings apply particularly to the immediate-release painkillers; the FDA already upped labeling restrictions for extended-release painkillers in 2013. Extended-release painkillers were thought to be a bigger risk for addiction, but after the labeling changes in 2013, increased cases of overdoses, addiction, and death continued. In 2014, there was a high of 19,000 deaths related to the misuse of opioid painkillers, according to the CDC.

There’s also a worrisome connection between opioid painkillers and heroin use–given that some individuals who have become addicted to painkillers eventually turn to heroin once they are no longer able to access painkillers, or because heroin is often cheaper. If you combine deaths from opioid painkillers and heroin, the number of fatalities in 2014 jumps to almost 29,000.

Despite the fact that this labeling comes with a very good intention–cutting down on the abuse of opioids and resulting tragic deaths. However, some experts say that the FDA isn’t going quite far enough. Dr. Andrew Kolodny, the executive director of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing, pointed out that the new labeling still does not recommend maximum amounts. According to the New York Times Dr. Kolodny stated:

Without an upper dose or maximum duration of use on the label, I don’t think the change will have much of an impact.

As heroin and prescription drug abuse remain huge issues in the U.S., it’s laudable that the FDA is trying common-sense approaches to address them. The Obama administration is pushing for action by federal agencies and governors, so we should probably expect to see more efforts to combat drug addiction in the coming months.

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 FDA Cracks Down on Painkiller Labeling appeared first on Law Street.

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.

President Obama is so often scapegoated that he became the focus of inspiration for Tuesday’s trending hashtag #LetsBlamePOTUSForThisToo.

While some social media users have used the hashtag seriously to air their grievances with POTUS, the overwhelming majority of people have used it as an opportunity to poke fun at all of the president’s wrongdoings.

So without further adieu, here are some of the things Obama is to blame for, according to Twitter.

Matt Damon was stuck on Mars for OVER a year, and Obama did nothing. Not a thing. #LetsBlamePOTUSForThisToo

— Jeff Holth (@RaceReadyJ) March 15, 2016

Every coupon you find expired two weeks ago #LetsBlamePOTUSForThisToo

— Eternal Fat Kid (@EternalFatKid) March 15, 2016

#LetsBlamePOTUSForThisToo
My cookie doesn’t fit into my glass of milk. pic.twitter.com/cQ7H1AM9Ee

— Carlos Marquez (@Dr_C_LOS) March 15, 2016

#LetsBlamePOTUSForThisToo my car crash, because it has nothing to do with tweeting while driving. pic.twitter.com/CwpnPIDFgg

— Regina Spacola (@gigirules7) March 15, 2016

For not being able to keep my eyes open while sneezing #LetsBlamePOTUSForThisToo

— Digital Jørdøn (@BadJordon) March 15, 2016

#LetsBlamePOTUSForThisToo so many cat videos online. Before his presidency I never saw a cat video. pic.twitter.com/RNNGIkCyG4

— Regina Spacola (@gigirules7) March 15, 2016

Obama said “YES WE CAN!”; yet I can’t touch my right elbow with my right hand. He’s a liar!…
LIES LIES LIES #LetsBlamePOTUSForThisToo

— Mr. Brightside (@Will3K85) March 15, 2016

People who microwave fish in the office #LetsBlamePOTUSForThisToo

— Belinda Klein (@BeLiNdAoOx) March 15, 2016

#LetsBlamePOTUSForThisToo
Obama went out for ice cream without @JoeBiden and he was like pic.twitter.com/CBD372Yx5S

— WesleyZ3 (@50th_President) March 15, 2016

Rap game SO DIVISIVE
#LetsBlamePOTUSForThisToo pic.twitter.com/VX3upQGqEC

— Kabir Iyengar (@kabiriyengar) March 15, 2016

WHERE TF IS WALDO #LetsBlamePOTUSForThisToo pic.twitter.com/TDsVvzJdTy

— Kabir Iyengar (@kabiriyengar) March 15, 2016

I haven’t gotten laid in over a year. #LetsBlamePOTUSForThisToo

— Brandon Cloud (@theclobra) March 15, 2016

Unfortunately, it will be released exclusively on Tidal #LetsBlamePOTUSForThisToo pic.twitter.com/kunXW0dzH7

— Kabir Iyengar (@kabiriyengar) March 15, 2016

Future Tattoo Regret Syndrome.#LetsBlamePOTUSForThisToo#p2 pic.twitter.com/doOcdIX0IW

— Eric Wolfson (@EricWolfson) March 15, 2016

But let’s also remember:

#LetsBlamePOTUSForThisToo Low unemployment. Low gas prices. Health care for all Americans. Ended Iraq & Afghan wars. Marriage equality.

— Lisa Bee (@lisabenjamin) March 15, 2016

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

After the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, President Obama announced that he would nominate an “indisputably qualified” candidate to take Scalia’s place. Apparently to many House republicans, “indisputable” is indeed, disputable. And while it’s all well and good to take your time evaluating the credentials of a person who could feasibly be making important decisions for the country for the next forty-plus years, refusing outright to look at any nominees is obstructionist nonsense. As with most political nonsense, members of Congress are finding excuses for their actions. Here are a few of their “reasons” behind that un-constitutional garbage, each dumber than the last:

1. The Thurmond Rule

Several GOP candidates have cited “The Thurmond Rule” as a reason to avoid appointing a new justice in an election year. For the unfamiliar, here’s a recap on the person behind The Thurmond rule:

Strom Thurmond, a South Carolina senator, was one of the most aggressive segregationists in modern American history. This is a man who never fully renounced his belief in segregation all the way to his death in 2003. That’s right, iPods existed, and this influential man still didn’t dial back his position that black people and white people should use separate bathrooms. This is a man who impregnated his family’s sixteen year-old black maid, fathered an illegitimate mixed-race daughter, and secretly paid for her schooling while railing against her right to share a bus seat with a white person.  This is a man who makes George Wallace look like Beyoncé Knowles.

So now that we’ve gotten a quick re-cap on the historically heinous opinions of Mr. Thurmond, we can understand just how much weight we should give his opinion on Supreme Court Nominations. And while people refer to Thurmond’s argument as a “rule,” it’s really just one guy’s suggestion. That suggestion is that the Senate should not nominate a Supreme Court justice. And even if we were to take this rule of thumb as the letter of the law, we’d need to look at Thurmond’s exact quote. In a moment where he wasn’t disparaging ethnic minorities, he said: “No lifetime judicial appointments should move in the last six months or so of a lame-duck presidency.”

Barack Obama has over eleven months left in his presidency, and nine months until the presidential election. By any measure, that’s more than six months, and this rule of thumb shouldn’t apply.

2. “Conflict of Interest”

In a cart-before-the-horse argument, Rand Paul said that Obama should not be allowed to appoint a justice, because potential nominees would support the Presidents’ own issues facing the Supreme Court, such as his executive actions concerning immigration, and his climate change regulations.

There will always be a potential for a president to choose a nominee who supports the same interpretation of the law as they do. In fact, the court’s more conservatives justices; Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and formerly Scalia, were all appointed by Republican presidents. The more liberal justices, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer were all appointed by Democratic presidents. That’s kind of just how it works. Obviously it works in the President’s own favor to elect a similarly-minded justice. That’s why we democratically elect a president whose political ideologies align best with the majority of Americans–so that his political decisions won’t be subject to an arbitrary whim.

Here’s the thing: if Obama picks a strongly biased or crony nominee, that person won’t make it through the Senate’s approval. That’s the check on Obama’s power that already exists, and which should be used regardless of political affiliation to make sure that the person nominated is qualified, and not unduly biased.

Thankfully, Paul qualified his argument to be less resolute “It’s going to be very, very, very difficult to get me to vote for a presidential nomination from this president,” he said. “I will look at it if it comes down, but my threshold for voting for somebody is going to be very, very high.” I’d hope that his threshold would he high regardless, and not exceptionally high simply because a Democrat is in office. We’ll have to see how he ends up voting.

3. We Owe It To Scalia / There’s No Precedent

We’ve heard a lot from GOP presidential candidates about honoring Justice Scalia’s legacy, How do you best honor the passing of a strict originalist? By ignoring the text of the constitution, of course.

Senate Majority Leader and alleged turtle Mitch McConnell responded to Scalia’s death by saying “This vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” But Scalia was known for his very literal reading of the constitution.

If Scalia had been asked about the nomination for his successor, he’d pull out his pocket-sized (but never abridged) copy of the Constitution, and zero-in on article II, Section 2. That section says “[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint … judges of the Supreme Court.” Then Justice Scalia could slap Mitch McConnell across the face with that Constitution for misrepresenting the founders’ original intent.

Unfortunately in his absence, we have candidates decrying that there’s no precedent for a Supreme Court appointment in an election year, and that there’s no time for a candidate to be vetted. The only trouble with those arguments are that they are just not true. For one, there have indeed been Supreme Court appointments during an election year, as NPR explains brilliantly in its rundown of SCOTUS history.

And the notion that there’s no time is also unfounded. The longest Supreme Court Justice nomination took 125 days, after Louis D. Brandeis was confirmed in 1916. Actually, if the Senate waited until our 45th president nominated a Supreme Court Justice, the country would endure the longest vacancy on the court in the last thirty years: well above the earlier record of 237 days.

No matter how you slice it, President Obama is well within his constitutional rights to appoint a Supreme Court Justice of his choosing, so long as the Senate fulfills its constitutional obligation to fairly assess and vet the nominee. All of the reasons presented by these legislators are simply excuses for being deliberately obstructive to the legal procedure mandated by the Constitution.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The 3 Dumbest Reasons To Block Obama’s SCOTUS Pick appeared first on Law Street.

The world was rocked by the death of 79-year-old Justice Antonin Scalia on Saturday, February 13, 2016. Scalia, the longest-serving justice on the current bench, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan on June 17, 1986 following the resignation of Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. His three decades on the Court have proven to be legendary and exceptionally influential in the interpretation of law and the Constitution. Even his passing has, fittingly, sparked a constitutionally-based showdown of governmental powers and the appointment of a new justice. Read on to learn more about Justice Scalia’s influential and legendary service to the Court and the politically fused debate regarding the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice.

Who Was Antonin Scalia?

Justice Antonin Scalia was a conservative originalist powerhouse within the Supreme Court who unapologetically defended the Founding Fathers’ intent and precise wording of the Constitution to his last day. His interpretation was fully vested in originalism, an ideology that deems the Constitution a dead document–one inflexible and unchanging to the environment and developments of the world in which it was created.

Scalia was a master in crafting polarizing opinions which were widely criticized by many and revered by others. His stances on women, abortion, and minorities made him an unfavorable justice among Democrats particularly. His protection for privacy highlighted his commitment to the Constitution. Yet, his ability to artfully and logically decipher complex analyses in a nuanced manner was an undeniable talent; Chief Justice John Roberts dubbed Scalia a “leader of the conservative intellectual renaissance.“

Noteworthy Cases: A Legacy Through Opinion and Text

Here is just a sampling of the many noteworthy cases that define Scalia’s time on the court:

The Second Amendment

Justice Scalia delivered the majority opinion for District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 in a step-by-step breakdown of the operative clause in the Second Amendment, concluding the right to bear arms extended to the people of the United States beyond the context of “militia” as cited in the Second Amendment. Scalia’s opinion further developed the limitations of the right to bear arms, drawing from a historical context and English implementation. He stated,

[T]here seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms…we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

Privacy

Scalia led a crusade for the protection of privacy. Justice Scalia’s 2001 opinion in Kyllo v. United States set a clear limitation on police intrusion. In a 5-4 ruling, police were barred from utilizing thermal-imaging devices to explore the insides of a private home otherwise unknown without physical intrusion as a protection of the Fourth Amendment and unreasonable searches without the requisite warrant. The use of thermal-imaging was deemed to be an “intrusion into a constitutionally protected area.”

The Fourth Amendment

Scalia’s conclusion in Florida v. Jardines further cemented the Fourth Amendment definition of a search by finding that the use of a drug-sniffing dog on private property was considered a search and therefore, required a warrant. In 2013, when the Maryland v. King decision granted police the ability to collect and analyze DNA samples from individuals arrested for but not yet convicted of crimes, Justice Scalia delivered a fierce dissent. He stated:

[N]o matter the degree of invasiveness, suspicionless searches are never allowed if their principal end is ordinary crime-solving. A search incident to arrest either serves other ends (such as officer safety, in a search for weapons) or is not suspicionless (as when there is reason to believe the arrestee possesses evidence relevant to the crime of arrest).

He was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan in his dissent. Most recently, Justice Scalia supported the decision in Rodriguez v. United States, which extended Fourth Amendment protections for motorists detained for an extended period of time to allow police to conduct a dog-sniff without reasonable suspicion. Such police conduct was found to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Gay Marriage and Rights

Justice Scalia was widely criticized for his conservative  stance on a variety of large-scale issues facing a more progressive America. His dissents regarding LGBTQ rights were particularly controversial. These range from his dissent in United States v. Windsor to his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas in which he stated that the Court had “largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct” when the majority invalidated Texas’ same-sex sodomy ban. In his vehement opposition, Justice Scalia compared homosexuals to drug dealers, prostitutes, and animal abusers, garnering him significant criticism.

Abortion

Justice Scalia continuously criticized the bench on abortion jurisprudence, and stated, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, “I continue to dissent from this enterprise of devising an Abortion Code, and from the illusion that we have authority to do so.”

In 1992, his partial dissent in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey reinforced his stance:

That is, quite simply, the issue in this case: not whether the power of a woman to abort her unborn child is a ‘liberty’ in the absolute sense; or even whether it is a liberty of great importance to many women. Of course it is both. The issue is whether it is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure it is not. I reach that conclusion not because of anything so exalted as my views concerning the ‘concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.’ Rather, I reach it for the same reason I reach the conclusion that bigamy is not constitutionally protected–because of two simple facts: (1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribe.

After three decades of service, one thing remains starkly clear–Justice Scalia remained dedicated to and bound by the words of the Constitution and what he viewed as the intent of its writers. His stances, often argumentative and unforgiving, remained unwaivering.

Has Justice Scalia’s Passing Caused a Constitution Crisis?

Before Justice Scalia’s passing could properly be mourned, the American public was reminded of the extremely high stakes in the 2016 election as Republicans took to the streets in an effort to prevent President Obama from nominating a justice to fill the current vacancy on the bench. Just thirty minutes after the news of Scalia’s death broke, Ted Cruz took to his Twitter and posted to say: “Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement.”

A variety of reasons have been stated for the opposition to nominate Justice Scalia’s replacement. Senator Rand Paul weighed in, finding that a conflict of interest would exist if President Obama made a nomination as he has too many of his own policies before the Court. Conn Caroll, communications director for Utah Republican Mike Lee stated, “What is less than zero? The chances of Obama successfully appointing a Supreme Court Justice to replace Scalia?” Donald Trump called for the Senate to “delay, delay, delay” and Ted Cruz stated, “the Senate needs to stand strong.” Ohio Governor John Kasich reminded the world, “I just wish we hadn’t run so fast into politics.”

However, Democrats fired back by pointing out that it is written in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”

Hillary Clinton commented: “It is outrageous that Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail have already pledged to block any replacement that President Obama nominates.” Further reminding the public that President Obama remains in office until January 20, 2017 and has a duty to continue filling his obligations as Commander in Chief. Senator Elizabeth Warren demolished naysayers with the following statement that went viral:

The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States. Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes. Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can’t find a clause that says “…except when there’s a year left in the term of a Democratic President.” Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.

President Obama has already pledged that he will fulfill his duty to nominate an individual to fill Justice Scalia’s vacancy and the list of potential nominees includes many extremely qualified individuals. The list includes, but is not limited to: Sri Srinivasan of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, Patricia Ann Millett of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Paul Watford of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Merrick Garland, the Chief Justice of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Jane Kelly of the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Jacqueline Nguyen of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

While it is unclear how the battle between President Obama and the Senate will play out, it is important to note the Senate has never taken more than 125 days to confirm a Presidential Supreme Court nominee. At the time of Justice Scalia’s passing, President Obama still had 342 days left in his term. Since 1900, eight individuals were nominated during election year, six were confirmed. With that said, there is still plenty of time for President Obama to nominate a Supreme Court Justice and for the Senate to confirm–we will just have to wait and see how this constitutional showdown plays out.

Resources

Primary

Cornell Legal Information Institute: District of Columbia v. Heller

 Cornell Legal Information Institute: Texas v. Johnson

Cornell Legal Information Institute: Kyllo v. United States

Oyez: Florida v. Jardines

Cornell Legal Information Institute: Rodriguez v. United States

Cornell Legal Information Institute: United States v. Windsor

 Cornell Legal Information Institute: Lawrence v. Texas

JUSTIA: Hodgson v. Minnesota

Cornell Legal Information Institute: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey

Secondary

Slate: Antonin Scalia Will Be Remembered As One of the Greats

Yahoo! News: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Found Dead in Texas

Grassfire: Remembering a Titan: The Legacy of Justice Antonin Scalia

 Cornell Legal Information Institute: Bush v. Gore

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Antonin Scalia: 5 of His Most Famous Decisions

Cornell Legal Information Institute: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey

 Twitter: Ted Cruz

Charters of Freedom: The United States Constitution

Think Progress: It’s a “Conflict of Interest” for Obama to Nominate a Supreme Court Justice

Slate: Could Justice Antonin Scalia’s Death Lead to a Constitutional Crisis?

NDTV: Trump Calls for ‘Delay, Delay, Delay’ on Scalia Successor”

The New York Times: Hillary Clinton Calls Mitch McConnell’s Stance on Supreme Court Nomination ‘Disappointing’

Slate: Obama’s Supreme Court Shortlist

The New York Times: Supreme Court Nominees Considered in Election Year are Usually Confirmed

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does Antonin Scalia’s Death Mean for the Supreme Court? appeared first on Law Street.

President Barack Obama made an appearance at an American mosque on Wednesday for the first time in his presidency, a symbolic act during a time when anti-Islamic rhetoric is growing. The mosque, at the Islamic Society of Baltimore, was at one time just a small gathering place but has now grown into one of the largest Islamic communities in the Mid-Atlantic.

“If we’re serious about freedom of religion—and I’m talking to my fellow Christians who are the majority in this country—we have to understand that an attack on one faith is an attack on all faiths,” Obama said to the crowd gathered at the mosque.

Obama stressed the importance of unity among all Americans, especially amongst different faith communities. Obama also praised the Muslim community for its contribution and role in America’s history. The United States is home to 1.8 million Muslim adults and 2.75 million Muslims of all ages, according to the Pew Research Center.

“Muslim Americans keep us safe,” said Obama. “They are our police. They are our firefighters. They’re in [the Department of] Homeland Security.”

This is not the first time a president has visited a mosque. George W. Bush visited one shortly after the 9/11 attacks, whereas Obama has only been to mosques outside of the country.

During his presidency, Obama has been asked by many different Muslim groups to visit mosques as well as to publicly denounce the comments made by 2016 presidential candidates and the growing Islamophobia in general. However, it was not until Wednesday–seven years into his presidency–that President Obama first stepped foot inside an American mosque.

This trip is a bit more complicated for Obama than it was for George W. Bush. The President has been constantly criticized for being a “closeted Muslim,” making his visit in light of those conspiracy theorists a tricky thing to work around. A CNN/ORC poll done in September found that 29 percent of Americans said that they believe that Obama is a Muslim; among Republicans, it was 43 percent.

Rush Limbaugh, conservative radio host, often refers to Obama as “Imam Barack Hussein Obama,” putting more of the emphasis on the words “Imam” and “Hussein.” He has also asked, “…why can’t we call Imam Obama America’s first Muslim president?”

Timing is a key factor for his recent visit. This election cycle has brought out increased Islamophobia among Americans and shown how polarized the issue of terrorism really is.

During this election cycle more than one Republican presidential candidate has spoken out against Islam altogether:

“Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.” – Donald Trump, Nov. 2015

“It’s not about closing down mosques. It’s about closing down any place — whether it’s a cafe, a diner, an internet site — any place where radicals are being inspired.” – Marco Rubio, Nov. 2015

“[There is] a fundamental foundational problem in Islam of embracing issues of freedom of conscience and religious persecution.” – Rick Santorum, Sept. 2015

“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.” – Ben Carson, Sept. 2015

In reference to the alleged Muslim “no-go zones” in Europe, former candidate Bobby Jindal said, “If we’re not careful the same no-go zones you’re seeing now in Europe will come to America.”

The refugee issue has also caused candidates Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz to propose that preference should be given to Christian refugees, claiming that Christians are at no risk of committing violent crimes.

In contrast, here is what the Democratic candidates have been saying:

“I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists…you can talk about Islamists who also are clearly jihadists.” – Hillary Clinton, Nov. 2015

“It’s always playing one group against another. That’s how the rich got richer while everybody else was fighting each other. Our job is to build a nation in which we all stand together.” [in response to islamophobic rhetoric] – Bernie Sanders, Oct. 2015

During a time when the anti-Muslim rhetoric is growing, not only among presidential candidates but also in the general public, the President’s visit was crucial in his effort to combat the nonacceptance and fear felt by many Muslim-Americans.

Here is the full video of President Obama’s speech:

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Obama Visits an American Mosque For the First Time appeared first on Law Street.

Facebook is implementing new polices to prevent person-to-person gun sales via both the Facebook and Instagram sites. Traditionally, individuals making private gun sales have been able to arrange them using the social networks, but under Facebook’s new policies, that will no longer be allowed.

Firearms are joining the long list of things that people cannot use Facebook (or Instagram) to sell, including illegal drugs and pharmaceuticals. While Facebook’s old policies didn’t allow individuals to sell guns via Facebook ads, individuals could create posts for the private sale of firearms. However, Facebook did take actions in 2014 to restrict those kinds of sales to minors. According to NPR’s Laura Sydell: “Facebook has never been directly involved in gun selling, but it has been a place where buyers and sellers have negotiated sales.” However, these new policies won’t affect already-licensed sellers or stores from creating ads on the site.

Facebook’s head of Global Policy Management, Monika Bickert, stated:

Over the last two years, more and more people have been using Facebook to discover products and to buy and sell things to one another. We are continuing to develop, test, and launch new products to make this experience even better for people and are updating our regulated goods policies to reflect this evolution.

Under these new polices, Facebook will rely on users to report violations, and if certain individuals become repeat offenders, they may be banned from the social media sites. Facebook officials stated:

We will remove reported posts that explicitly indicate a specific attempt to evade or help others evade the law. For example, we will remove reported posts where the potential buyer or seller indicates they will not conduct a background check or are willing to sell across state lines without a licensed firearms dealer.

The move isn’t really much of a surprise–these changes to Facebook’s policies come roughly a month after President Barack Obama’s executive actions on guns were announced, which create stricter provisions for private, even individual, gun sales. The fact that Facebook is making an attempt to comply with its new provisions makes sense–hopefully it’ll help to cut down on unlicensed gun sales via two of the top social media sites 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 Facebook Cracks Down on Gun Sales Through the Site appeared first on Law Street.

President Barack Obama is set to face the gauntlet as the Supreme Court gears up to hear a case that challenges the President’s use of executive power, has the potential to wreck havoc on the 2016 Presidential election, and may go beyond judicial power by granting states more rights and control than the national government on a notoriously federally controlled area of law and politics–immigration. Twenty-six states are challenging the President’s executive actions relating to immigration implementations made in 2014 as an abuse of power and an attempt to circumvent Capitol Hill on policy making.

To date, the case is scheduled to be resolved by the court in June 2016 as the Supreme Court issued that it would review the case, thereby granting the President the authority to execute the programs prior to leaving office, should he be victorious. Read on to learn more about the executive actions in question, the procedural posture and legal history of the case, and what it all could mean for U.S. citizens and aliens in the future.

DAPA and DACA: The Troublesome Two

On November 20, 2014, an executive order was issued expanding the rights of individuals within the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and introduced the creation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA).

DACA, a program created in 2012, allows undocumented young people who came to the U.S. as children relief from deportation so long as specific criteria are met. These criteria include: 1) must be under 31 years of age as of June 15, 2012; 2) must have entered the U.S. under the age of 16; 3) must show continuous residence in the U.S. from June 15, 2007 until the present; 4) entered the U.S. without inspection (EWI) or fell out of a lawful visa status before June 15, 2012; 5) were physically present in the U.S. when applying for consideration of deferred action; 6) are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a GED, or have been honorably discharged from the Coast Guard or armed forces; 7) have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor, or more than three misdemeanors; and 8) do not pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Initially, DACA was available for a period of two years at a time–meaning that individuals were only granted temporary relief for two years before they had to re-apply and be approved by the government again. DACA also included a work authorization for those approved, but the executive action of 2014 made it and the work authorization renewable in three-year increments. Additionally, the requirement that the individual be under 31 years old as of June 15, 2012 or now no longer applies. The new DACA provisions do not discriminate against those currently over 31 years old. Further, the eligibility cut-off date was moved from June 15, 2007 to January 1, 2010. Anyone applying must show physical presence in the U.S. prior to January 1, 2010 and during the time of application.

DAPA, unlike DACA, did not have a predecessor. Under DAPA, individuals that have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (LPRs) may obtain relief from removal should they meet the following criteria: 1) as of November 20, 2014, have a son or daughter who is a citizen or LPR; 2) have continuously resided in the U.S. since or before January 1, 2010; 3) are physically present in the U.S. as of November 20, 2014 and during their application for consideration; 4) have no lawful status as of November 20, 2014; 5) are not an enforcement priority; and 5) present no additional factors that would deem the granting of their application inappropriate.

Deferred action is an administrative mechanism used by the U.S. government to de-prioritize individual cases for removal for “humanitarian reasons, administrative convenience, or in the interest of the Department’s overall enforcement mission.” It is a way for the government to categorize the urgency with which individuals be removed from the country. Generally speaking, deferred action carries great discretion. It can be terminated at any point should the U.S. Department of Homeland Security deem termination appropriate and necessary. Furthermore, receiving DACA or DAPA does not provide legal status, a pathway to citizenship, or a pathway to obtain a green card, but rather permits for an individual to be legally present within the U.S. for a specified period of time. In order to be a valid permission, deferred action applications must be considered on a case-by-case basis and do not apply as all-inclusive or sweeping legal policies. An application process is required and permission must be granted for an individual to continue to stay within the U.S.

Substantive rights, immigration status, and pathways to citizenship are under the control of Congress. Only Congress can confer such rights and policies upon individuals within the confines of the U.S. However, the Executive Branch has the authority to set forth policies under prosecutorial discretion and deferred action so long as they fall within the framework of existing law.

The 26 states named in the lawsuit are greatly dissatisfied by the way that President Obama has taken to resolving the many pitfalls of current immigration policy and justice. A major point of contention for the states is that the President allegedly worked to circumvent Congressional authority and undermined the importance of the notice-and-comment process pursuant to administrative law. Notice-and-comment is an informal rule-making process, codified in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under § 553. It requires the agency proposing the rule to publish its proposal in the Federal Register and grant opponents or supporters of the proposed rule to comment, amend, present data and evidence for or against, and generally speaking, participate in the development of a newly proposed rule.

Additionally, while immigration is an issue controlled by federal law, the states fear that the changes made to federal immigration laws will place a great burden on the states to change their laws and be forced to provide services they are unable or unwilling to provide to individuals lacking legal status. Specifically, some states worry that the quasi-legal status and work authorizations will require the states to provide “state-subsidized driver’s licenses and unemployment insurance.”

Image Courtesy Of [Nevele Otseog via Flickr]

History of Legal Action: The Procedural Posture

Shortly after President Obama’s executive action on November 20, 2014, the highly publicized Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, challenged the action on behalf of Arizona in a case called Arpaio v. Obama. Arpaio’s lawsuit was dismissed by the Washington, D.C. federal court and upheld unanimously by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on August 14, 2015. That decision has not been appealed to the Supreme Court.

Following in Sheriff Arpaio’s footsteps, 17 states filed a lawsuit, with 9 states joining thereafter, challenging President Obama in Texas v. United States. The President held the support of 15 states and D.C., who filed “friend of the court” briefs on his behalf. Ultimately, the Texas federal court blocked President Obama’s initiatives on a procedural basis on February 16, 2015. U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen found that Texas had standing, or legal capacity and authority, to sue and that the President did not comply with the requirements of the APA, particularly the requisite need for notice-and-comment. It rationalized that the changes enacted by President Obama were substantive rules rather than simple alterations to existing and general policy, which required a specific procedural process.

The Department of Justice subsequently appealed the lower court’s decision and argued the case in front of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 10, 2015. In a split decision, the Fifth Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling, 2-1. The majority decision, authored by Judge Jerry E. Smith, found that Texas did, in fact, have standing to sue and that the changes to policy would greatly increase state costs and burden the states with additional processes and services as required by the national law. While it recognized that judicial review was unavailable under the APA in matters pertaining to agency discretion, it noted that the changes made to DACA and DAPA required notice-and-comment rule-making, and therefore, were non-discretionary. Further, the court ruled on an issue unaddressed by the district court and found that the President’s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was misguided and inaccurate because it vested great authority to the Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This indirectly re-classified the specified classifications of immigrants codified in the INA and those petitioning to enter, all in violation of the Act itself.

Judge Carolyn King of the Fifth Circuit delivered a blunt dissent, ultimately stating, “I have a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made.” Further, Judge King argued that the case should have been dismissed as it follows prosecutorial discretion and therefore, not subject to review by federal courts. In criticism of her colleagues, she penned that allowing states to dictate national policy, particularly in areas solely within federal control, would be a great intrusion to the long-standing separations between government and state. Judge King added that the President’s executive actions were matters of general policy not subject to notice-and-comment procedure and that the interpretation of law under the INA actually sought to further the Department of Homeland Security’s mission in “[e]stablishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities.”

Critics of the decision, including Judge King herself, highlighted the fact that the expedited appeal was anything but, as the Fifth Circuit took a very long time to render an opinion, likely in an effort to place the case under review by the Supreme Court after the conclusion of President Obama’s term in office.

The Petition Filed by the Department of Justice

In a writ of certiorari petition filed on November 20, 2015, exactly one year from the President’s executive actions, the Department of Justice sought review of U.S. v. Texas by the Supreme Court. While the Court has yet to make a decision as to whether it will review the case or not, the petition outlined key elements of President Obama’s argument demanding for review of this extremely crucial issue.

The DOJ Claims Valid Authority for Action Over States

The Department of Justice highlighted that the authority to make any and all immigration laws and policies is vested in the federal government, particularly under the control of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who hold authority to establish regulations pertaining to removal and admissibility rules. The Department has broad discretion over enforcement of immigration laws and the ability to prioritize which offenses or conduct deems immediate removal and which groups are not the top priority of government funds allocated for removal and enforcement. While 11 million removable aliens are estimated to live in the United States, the Department can only remove approximately 4 percent of those individuals within a given year. Congress has granted the Department $1.6 billion to remove those convicted of deportable crimes, thereby committing to the Secretary’s discretion in handling these cases in the most efficient manner possible. Therefore, prioritizing is of utmost importance to best allocate funding.

Additionally, the Department emphasized that continued presence through deferred action does not violate any criminal laws, as removal and inadmissibility under immigration laws is civil in nature. Deferred action has been an “exercise in administrative discretion,” that can be revoked at any point in time. It does not offer any legal status to those that fall within its classification. What is offered under deferred action, however, is work authorization protecting such individuals from exploitation under U.S. labor laws, subjecting them to taxation, Social Security, and welfare payments, and providing them with a way to make ends meet so they do not become a burden on U.S. citizens and society. Only “qualified” aliens are entitled to public benefits provided by the state in which they reside, and individuals lawfully allowed to stay within the U.S. under deferred action status are not deemed “qualified,” therefore, they are not entitled to public benefits unless their state specifically provides those under its own laws.

The Sticking Points: Substantive Arguments Against the States

Deferred action has been utilized in a variety of ways to grant individuals lawful presence in the U.S. Examples include individuals who petitioned under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and individuals whose lawful family members were killed on September 11, 2001 or in combat were granted temporary relief from deportation under deferred action. Decisions made based on deferred action have legally and historically been barred from judicial review.

Key elements of the petition included the Secretary’s discretion in enforcing immigration laws under resource constraints, the historical utilization of deferred action and its revocability, the security and economic interests in paying fees and applying for work authorization, and the effect that the divided Court of Appeals decision could have on the States’ ability to “frustrate the federal government’s enforcement of the Nation’s immigration laws.”

The petition discussed the lack of standing or authority by the states to bring the lawsuit, stating that private parties lack any “judicially cognizable interest” in the enforcement of immigration laws that are not threatened by prosecution, nor do collateral consequences of federal immigration policy grant a state standing to bring suit. Further, the Department of Justice noted that even if the states were able to show standing to sue, they would have to identify injury resulting from the specified policy that affects it in an “individual way.” Such an expansive reading of state standing would open a door for many more federal-state disputes in the long run and give states far-reaching and independent authority to challenge federal laws with more regularity.

The government further argued that the states lack a valid claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, as the Act does not allow suit by every individual “suffering an injury in fact,” and strictly limits the scope of judicial review to those who are “adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action.” Additionally, the government noted that the agency’s discretion in deferred action is not reviewable by the courts as there is “no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.”

An entire section of the petition offered examples of the Secretary’s authority to implement deferred action without challenge due to the long-standing history and nation of this power. Ultimately, the Department of Justice pointed to the authority vested in the Secretary to implement the executive actions as lawful within the scope of his power. Finally, the petition outlines the reasoning for why the deferred action is not subject to notice-and-comment rule-making as required by the APA because the actions were “general statements of policy” exempt from such procedural requirements.

What Could It All Mean?

Should the Supreme Court uphold the Fifth Circuit’s decision, great authority would be vested onto the states over a historically federal issue, making it inexplicably difficult to pass any immigration laws on a national level. It would force millions of people, subject to removal but not removal priorities, to continue living in the U.S., working off the books or not working at all, potentially creating a burden on society in the long run. Further, it could ultimately punish the individuals that gained temporary lawful relief under the 2012 DACA provisions that have never been challenged by any of the 26 states in question. The decisions spanning over the last year could potentially invalidate the 2012 DACA actions as well.

While the importance of review is undoubtedly clear, from an administrative law aspect, a constitutional law aspect, as well as a separation of powers aspect, it is unclear exactly what the fruit of review will be. If history were any indication, President Obama would be victorious in his challenge. However, the lower courts have addressed key issues that fall squarely within the context of interpretation and interestingly added some of their own issues, which remain undecided by the district court. How the Supreme Court reads and interprets the statutes in question, as well as its analysis of the interworkings of several federal laws will be determinative for its decision. This may ultimately be a case about procedure and the process of implementation rather than power and constitutionality of law.

Resources

Primary

United States of America v. Texas: Writ of Certiorari

 U.S. Department of Homeland Security: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion With Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and With Respect to Certain Individuals Who are Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents

Additional

Politico: Obama Administration Takes Immigration Battle to Supreme Court

Politico: SCOTUS Keeps Obama Immigration Case on Track For Ruling by Summer

Cornell University Law School – Legal Information Institute: 5 U.S. Code § 553 – Rule Making

Immigration Equality: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

 The Atlantic: A Ruling Against the Obama Administration on Immigration

 The New York Times: Appeals Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Immigration Plans

American Immigration Council: Understanding the Legal Challenges to Executive Action

 National Public Radio (NPR): Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case on Obama’s Immigration Actions

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Federal Government’s Immigration Showdown: SCOTUS Will Decide appeared first on Law Street.

Do you guys remember Kim Davis? You know, the t-shirt layering Kentucky clerk who kicked off the Supreme Court’s landmark marriage equality ruling by illegally denying gay couples marriage licenses under “God’s authority?”

Well if you thought her 15 minutes of fame were up, you’re wrong. Davis has reportedly been invited by a secret lawmaking admirer to attend President Obama’s final State of the Union tonight–and people are not happy about it.

Davis’s attendance openly contrasts that of Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the landmark marriage equality case, who has also been invited along with Army Ranger Lisa Jaster and engineer (and immigrant) Oscar Vazquez to attend Obama’s speech. They, along with other guests, will help to commemorate Obama’s accomplishments over the past year, while he lays out his plans for his final year in office.

The identity of Davis’ mystery date is still unknown, but whoever they are is clearly making one big passive-aggressive gesture for GOP optics.  After the controversial clerk’s presence was confirmed, social media users began voicing their distaste for Davis online:

Kim Davis is attending Obama’s final State of the Union address. No word yet on if Mel Gibson’s invite got lost in the mail #SOTU @absrdNEWS

— Michael Blackman (@ParaComedian09) January 12, 2016

I hope they sit #KimDavis next to, in back of and in front of gay married couples at #SOTU. — Ripley in CT (@RipleyInCT) January 12, 2016

Kim Davis will be at the SOTU, because Republicans needed someone more unconstitutional than they are to balance out the crowd.

— Sarah Wood (@SarahWoodwriter) January 11, 2016

While we’re not quite sure how all of this will play out, it is likely to be some kind of spectacle. But hey, if Davis is looking for a post-speech night cap to calm the nerves she’s already got an invite to DC’s famed gay sports bar Nellie’s. I wonder if she’ll take him up on the offer: 

I’m taking Kim Davis to Nellie’s after the SOTU – anyone want to join???? — Andy Cohen (@Andy) January 12, 2016

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 Anti-Gay Clerk Kim Davis to Attend President Obama’s Final SOTU 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.

“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.

In case you’ve forgotten, the Sandy Hook shooting, which took place in 2012, ended with 20 elementary students and six staff members dead. Today, President Obama was introduced at the podium by Mark Barden, the father of one of those victims.

But apparently, crying while remembering the elementary school students who were slaughtered at Sandy Hook is a sign of weakness, psychopathy, and fake sadness.

He never once cried over death of vets, babies murdered abortion Obama cries announcing gun control | Daily Mail https://t.co/8mwsmrkWaj

— dawn goodfallow (@dawngpsalm63) January 6, 2016

When Obama cries, he can’t even do that right. pic.twitter.com/6GzZv62ezs — Bart Bartlett (@BartBuzz) January 6, 2016

BREAKING: Obama talks about gun control. pic.twitter.com/UTey5uiRgo

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) January 5, 2016

Near Obama right now… pic.twitter.com/AUKrSx7S7d — jimgeraghty (@jimgeraghty) January 5, 2016

There is just one word to describe this reaction from gun enthusiasts: childish. The speech Obama gave was over 30 minutes long, and trolls like those above and even people in the public eye like Fox News host Andrea Tantaros are focusing on about five seconds, using those seconds to call into question the President’s sincerity and his ability to “contain his emotions.”

Why is showing emotion on the same plane as showing weakness? And why wouldn’t he get choked up at the thought of those children? Would these people complaining about his tears rather have a callous, robotic president who showed no care for anyone? Apparently.

The problem here is that there is nothing in his initiative that violates the Second Amendment. There is nothing that says he’s taking guns away from everyone, and that’s what right wing gun enthusiasts expected. Without that fodder for their Twitter feeds and Facebook timelines, what are they left to complain about? What could they possibly find wrong with the steps outlined in these executive orders? Nothing.

“I believe in the Second Amendment… it guarantees a right to bear arms,” Obama said in his speech. “No matter how many times people try to twist my words around, I taught constitutional law… I get it. But I also believe we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.”

So, naturally, in the absence of solid, substantial complaints, Obama haters have reverted to childish bullying. Unfortunately, as all bullies must learn, making fun of people does not get you what you want.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Conservatives Don’t Like Gun Control, So They Mock Obama’s Tears appeared first on Law Street.

Throughout his presidency, President Obama has given several speeches to the American public on gun control. But each speech seemingly echoes the former–another senseless tragedy occurred and we as a nation need to do something about it.

Therefore without immediate action, his calls for stricter background checks and support from Congress often fall on deaf ears, making the need for a new strategy extremely evident. That’s why on Tuesday Obama revealed a new plan to combat continued gun deaths–one that sidesteps Congress by leveraging his executive authority.

In the East Room of the White House and surrounded by gun control advocates and gun violence survivors, Obama unveiled a new list of measures intended to progress his gun safety agenda. Here are the eight thing you need to know:

1.) Gun sellers must have a license

One of the biggest things to come out of Obama’s speech is that any individual in the business of selling guns must register as a licensed gun dealer. This requirement would effectively help close a current “gun show loophole,” which allows private sellers who consider themselves to be “hobbyists” to operate off the books. So regardless of whether you sell one gun, or 100 guns, you will have to register.

2.) Expanded background checks

A big concern for most gun safety advocates is the outdated guidelines for background checks used on prospective gun owners. Obama attempted to rectify this with with his expansion of the “gun dealer” definition. Background checks are already required by federal law for firearm purchases, but by making all gun sellers register as gun dealers, those who avoided previous checks under the loophole will no longer be exempt.

3.) He wants to beef up enforcements

If you were wondering how POTUS plans to compel people to register, the answer is in the form of a couple hundred reinforcements. Obama is asking Congress for funding to hire 200 new investigators and agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to help carry out new and existing gun laws.

4.) $500 million for Health Care

The president is also proposing a $500 million investment to increase access to mental health care and mental health information for overseeing background checks. He plans to work with the Department of Health and Human Services to make it easier to convey to states the people prohibited from possessing a gun for specific mental health reasons. There will also be new guidelines added to the background checks that should catch individuals who have disqualifying mental health issues.

5.) Researching Smarter Gun Technology

During his speech, Obama asked the crowd why is it that we can use fingerprints to unlock our phones, but the same technology isn’t used for guns. With accidental firearm injuries and deaths in the “tens of thousands,” developing better gun technology a priority for the administration. Therefore the president is asking for an increase in research and development efforts into “ideas for improving gun safety and the tracing of lost or stolen guns.”

6.) Call for bipartisan support

As always, the president called for support from both Democrats and Republicans, especially those in Congress, to help reevaluate the nation’s gun laws. Unfortunately Republicans are already threatening a budget showdown over the actions, so bipartisanship doesn’t seem likely.

7.) Hillary and Bernie are in

Both Democratic presidential hopefuls took to Twitter to commend Obama on his actions and lend their support. Hillary even vowed to continue to carry the torch if elected and pursue more gun control initiatives.

Thank you, @POTUS, for taking a crucial step forward on gun violence. Our next president has to build on that progress—not rip it away. -H

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 5, 2016

.@POTUS is right: We can protect the Second Amendment while protecting our families and communities from gun violence. And we have to.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 5, 2016

Republicans are clearly more loyal to gun lobbyists than our children. I support @POTUS‘s executive actions to make our communities safer.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 5, 2016

8.) Obama got emotional

Probably the most impactful part of the speech was a new level of emotion seen from the president as he visibly teared up when talking about the young children shot to death in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

Some Fox News analysts are already calling the tears staged, but for those of us with a heart, the tears certainly signify a turning point for the president.

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 8 Things You Need to Know About POTUS’ Gun Control Executive Actions appeared first on Law Street.

Feminism fights for political, social and economic equality for every gender, and this year we saw several amazing examples of that fight. It was a year of struggle, but if feminists in 2015 have proven anything, it’s that we will always push back against anything–or anyone–who tries to bar any group of people from their basic human rights. Here are just a few of my favorite feminist moments from 2015.

1. Celebrities stand up for equal pay.

Image courtesy of [Disney/ABC Television Group/Craig Sjodin via Flickr]

Back in February, the Oscar winner for Best Supporting Actress, Patricia Arquette, took her opportunity on stage to deliver a powerful message about the wage gap:

To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation we have fought for everybody’s equal rights. It is our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.

While her comments after she left the stage have been called into question, her main point is clear: the wage gap exists and it’s time we acknowledge and fix it.

Then, in October, Jennifer Lawrence called Hollywood out on the fact that she earned less than her male co-stars, and realized her own insecurity with asking for what she deserved:

I didn’t want to seem ‘difficult’ or ‘spoiled.’ At the time, that seemed like a fine idea, until I saw the payroll on the Internet and realized every man I was working with definitely didn’t worry about being ‘difficult’ or ‘spoiled.’

Her fear of being judged for her confidence is something many women struggle with. It is high time we stop apologizing for demanding equality.

2. Feminist Democrats announce their candidacies for President.

It came as no surprise when Hillary Clinton submitted her name for the presidential ballot. Needless to say, America’s first female president would have the potential to move the country rapidly towards true gender equality. If fellow female candidate, Republican Carly Fiorina, had proven herself to be a champion for equal rights, I’d be cheering her on, too. Unfortunately, she has demonstrated that not every woman believes in feminist ideals.

And let’s not forget that men can be feminists as well. Martin O’Malley, the Democratic Governor of Maryland, has fought for not only women’s rights, but equal rights for people of all genders and sexual orientation.

Welcome to MD @MittRomney. FYI, in our State we don’t try to take away women’s health services. We work to expand them.

— Martin O’Malley (@MartinOMalley) March 21, 2012

Hillary’s main competition for the Democratic bid, Senator Bernie Sanders, was asked by the Washington Post if he is a feminist, to which he replied, “Yes.” His long political career certainly shows that:

In terms of women’s rights, you’re looking at somebody who, to the best of my knowledge, has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record. You’re looking at somebody who’s made a cornerstone, a key part of my campaign, the need for at least three months of family and medical leave; somebody who is fighting to raise the minimum wage over a two year period to $15 an hour, which will benefit everybody, but women actually more than men; somebody who regards it as enormously important that we fight for pay equity for women…So I think if people look at my record, I think they will see somebody who has had a lifelong record of support for the women’s movement and women’s rights.

So whoever becomes the Democratic candidate for POTUS, equal rights will certainly be at the forefront of their platform, and that is truly exciting.

3. “‘Playing like a girl’ means you’re a badass.”

The women of the United States national soccer team took on the Japanese in July for the final game of the FIFA World Cup–and they won. It was the most-watched, televised soccer game ever, male or female, in the history of the U.S.

While honoring the team a few months later, President Obama sang their praises, saying, “This team taught all of America’s children that ‘playing like a girl’ means you’re a badass.”

And of course, he’s right. Now, if only those female athletes would get the same pay as their male counterparts.

4. Same-sex marriage is legalized in all 50 states.

June was a historic month for marriage equality, when the Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. Despite push back from people like the county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, justice prevailed and now people of any gender can marry whoever they want to.

5. “I stand with Planned Parenthood.”

Image courtesy of Charlotte Cooper via Flickr

The battle to keep federal funding for Planned Parenthood has been raging for months, with men and women alike fighting tooth and nail to prove that the medical institution is more than just abortions. Thanks to a slanderous smear campaign of doctored videos earlier in the year, Planned Parenthood’s use of funding and ethical practices were called into question. That campaign was later proved to be based on false claims, and Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards valiantly took on the opposition in a brilliant testimony, but the damage had already been done. House Republicans have attempted numerous times to strip Planned Parenthood of its federal support, which would surely cripple the organization that has helped millions of men and women with reproductive and basic health services. Planned Parenthood supporters took to the streets and to social media to show their support, with rallies, parades and campaigns like #ShoutYourAbortion. The outpouring of people standing behind Planned Parenthood proves that the Republican-controlled Congress does not have the interests of most Americans at heart, and brings the issue of reproductive rights to the forefront.

6. Study proves men and women are wired the same. 

In a study published in November in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), researchers have proven that there is no difference between the brains of men and women:

Our study demonstrates that, although there are sex/gender differences in the brain, human brains do not belong to one of two distinct categories: male brain/female brain.

They found that, while some characteristics are more common in one gender over the other, those characteristics are not exclusive to one gender, and the brain is made up of complex “mosaics.” Despite an age-old belief, the human brain cannot be classified based on gender. Men and women have the same brains.

7. The U.S. Military opens all combat roles to women.

In August, women everywhere cheered on the success of the first two female soldiers to complete the Army’s elite ranger school. They proved that, at least some women, can handle the same physical and mental challenges that men have been dealing with as rangers for decades. However, unlike the male graduates, the female soldiers could not apply for combat roles in the 75th Ranger Regiment.

That changed in early December, when Defense Secretary Carter made the historic announcement that all roles in all military branches will now be open to women.

The announcement was not met with support across the board, by some in both the civilian population and by some already in the armed forces. Many called into question the physical abilities of females, pointing out that women are held to a lower physical fitness standard, and even going so far as to allege that females in certain combat positions would serve as distractions to their male colleagues.

These arguments are absolutely reflective of the inherent misogyny in American society and the gender stereotypes to which many still cling to. Of course, standards should not be lowered to let women into special forces. Let all the men and women going for those roles succeed or fail based on skill. If men cannot control themselves around female counterparts, that is their fault, not the fault of women.

The pushback is unfortunate, but the opposition will not change the course of the announcement. Despite requests for some positions in the Navy and Marines to still remain closed to females, if women meet the standards set to obtain those roles, they will be able to serve in them. It will not be easy, but women have proven time and again that we can overcome adversity and oppression.

Whether it’s fighting for your country, serving as a politician, acting in Hollywood, playing on professional sports teams, or even raising a family, 2015 has proven that anyone of any gender can do anything.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 2015’s Best Feminist Moments appeared first on Law Street.

This holiday season is bringing much more than gifts and cheer for children as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), a graduated, more sophisticated, and polished version of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), was passed by the House of Representatives. The much-needed update was passed by a 359-64 majority in the House and will be voted on by the Senate in the coming week. The overwhelming bipartisan support for the bill reinforces the likelihood that it will ultimately be signed into law by President Barack Obama.

The overhaul and revision of NCLB, which resulted in the creation of ESSA, comes as a welcomed and advocated-for change to remove the federal grip over the requirements and implementation of public education and move it toward a state-based ideology that narrows the focus and tailors implementation to resources and needs within a specified state. Additionally, ESSA seeks to evolve past the sole focus on standardized testing and opens up consideration for other factors such as student/teacher engagements, success in advanced coursework, and career readiness. The main goal is a holistic approach to standardize primary education through a variety of measurable and functional factors through a more tailored, state-focused lens.  Read on to learn more about the evolution of measurable standards within primary education, what ESSA holds for future generations, and the potential impact of the pending legislation.

The Evolution of Standardized Primary Education

Education is a cornerstone in a progressive, self-sustaining society. It provides for the social and economic advancement, as well as the stability of people that allows for growth, development, creativity, and forward movement and innovation. Education is the bedrock of a society and its importance has been highlighted throughout the history of the United States in a variety of ways as evidenced by its evolution in law and implementation.

In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson sought to mend the “achievement gap” in the United States by implementing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). ESEA allocated a substantial amount of federal funding into bridging the gap in the educational disparity based on race and poverty–a disparity highlighting that minorities, low-income students, immigrant students, and those from rural/neglected areas were not receiving the same level of quality education and therefore were not achieving at the same levels or percentage rates as students outside of those statistical and categorical confines. While ESEA shifted focus onto a federally controlled education policy and allowed the government involvement in implementation through funding, it also provided “Title I” designation to schools with over 40 percent of students designated low-income through federal standards. Such a designation provided schools, mainly elementary schools, with federal-based funding to make education more accessible to low-income families and to increase resources available to schools. The Act gave young students a pathway out of institutionalized poverty through encouraged and standardized academic advancement, which was monitored through testing benchmarks and requirements.

ESEA underwent several reauthorizations, none more prominent and controversial than the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2002. NCLB was authored and instituted out of concern that the United States was losing academic advantage on an international scale and applied testing standards and progress tracking to all students, not just the low-income students identified by ESEA. While NCLB sought to bring academic progress and responsibility as applied to all students, it carved out specific standards and a focus on students with special needs, those learning English as a second language, and those below the poverty line, as well as minorities, as these groups of children in primary schools tended to test lower than their classmates. The law provided required benchmarks for academic achievement, testing students from the third grade through high school. It also marked the 2013-2014 school year as the goal year to have all schools testing at a “proficient level,” marked by results and scores defined by each individual state. It is important to note that by the end of the 2015 school year, no school had gotten all 100 percent of its students above the required proficient level. Additionally, teachers were required to have certain qualifications and schools were required to reach specific testing goals and provide yearly progress reports that would subject them to serious sanctions if the goals set were not met.

While NCLB was a positive step and evolution from the outdated versions of ESEA, it was laced with great controversy and consequently, great criticism. One of the major criticisms of NCLB was the heavy focus on standardized testing in math and reading, which ultimately resulted in less investment on subjects such as social studies that were not empirically tested and measured, as well as an increase in cheating in order to meet required results. The desire to increase educational standards ironically did the opposite in order to meet them. The focus on test scores also created an “educational marketplace” out of federal funding, forcing schools to compete in a survival-of-the-fittest atmosphere, rather than a collegiate and collective one. Another criticism of the law was that remedies for the low performing students–free tutoring and the opportunity to transfer to a better performing school–were completely underutilized by the students and facilities they were available to. When given the free choice and the transportation to get a better education, families opted to keep their children in what was familiar, even if what was familiar was not performing at an acceptable level. Finally, NCLB was criticized as being underfunded. Although annual funding for Title I was supposed to rise to $25 billion, it had only reached $14.5 billion by 2015 highlighting the fact that federal funding never reached the lofty goals it had set for the law as well.

In 2011, in recognizing the failure of NCLB, President Obama instituted waivers that allowed states struggling to meet the standards outlined by the law to set their own standards in an effort to adequately prepare students for higher education and the workforce. The need for reform in education policy was crystal clear. It was up to Congress to take action.

Every Student Succeeds Act: What is in Store

Last week, the House of Representatives got the ball rolling in Congress on education policy and the support for the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was overwhelming. While the Senate will be voting on the bill within the week, the support strongly suggests that it will be signed into law following the vote.

ESSA aims to address the concerns, criticisms, failures, and restrictions highlighted by NCLB by primarily honing in on a state-centered emphasis, which would allow for more flexibility in the implementation and assessment of academic achievement. Rather than just analyzing test scores and graduation rates, ESSA will take a more holistic approach to assess educational success by looking at additional factors such as “student and teacher engagements, success in advanced coursework, and school climate and safety,” as well as performance on college prep and Advanced Placement (AP) courses, career readiness, and specialized certificates.

However, the shift back to a more state-based system of control and implementation will not be without federal regulation. States will still have to test students and report findings in order to be held accountable for the way the programs are being instituted, absorbed, and utilized, still tracking positive academic achievement benchmarks. ESSA still provides safeguards by integrating the availability of waivers for schools performing below desired levels and grant programs that will offer schools more resources to meet goals if they qualify. The bill initiates additional programs that focus on over-testing research, the importance of effective and quality early childhood education practices, and the equal distribution of funding within districts.

While ESSA is certainly a more polished and advanced version of its predecessor, it is subject to its own criticisms. The main critique this early in its life is the fact that it is silent in terms of upgrading, updating, and elevating the status quo for the profession of teaching. Although authors of the bill did not utilize this opportunity to address the modernization of teaching, qualification requirements, and experience of the individuals working within its confines–teachers, the bill successfully sets out to update a largely outdated system that has failed the children and teachers in the United States.

Conclusion: A Welcomed Change That’s Long Overdue

No Child Left Behind had officially expired in 2007. It is now December 2015. Surprisingly, despite its eight-year expiration, NCLB had maintained its grip on implementation control as no alternative methods and bills had been proposed and implemented with success in Congress. In an effort to circumvent the failing aspects of NCLB and loosen the regulatory grip over state implementation, most states were working under waivers granted by President Obama, providing them with the necessary flexibility to implement more successful educational policy options for their specific circumstances. States have had temporary and remote control over educational policy following NCLB’s expiration.

And while critics are emphatic that ESSA’s authors dropped the ball in addressing a refocused lens on increasing and updating teaching standards as well as standardized education, the bill did take big steps in initiating additional programs to reform education policy, elevated expectations and implementation of a revitalized policy, and works to ensure fair and equally distributed system of federal funding. Additionally, the bill provides the opportunity for volunteer partnerships, but prohibits any state to be influenced, provided incentives, or coerced into accepting and adopting Common Core principles. While criticisms will exist on both political sides, particularly within the idea that the federal government is simply punting the education problem to the states to fix, the overwhelming bipartisan support for the Every Student Succeeds Act shows the importance of quality education in this country for all students alike.

The steps taken to eliminate NCLB and reinvent the bill in a new form is a commendable and welcomed progression in education policy.

Resources

Primary

House of Representatives: Every Student Succeeds Act

107th Congress: No Child Left Behind

Additional

 U.S. News: Leaving Behind No Child Left Behind

LAWS: Elementary and Secondary Education Act

 Education Week: No Child Left Behind: An Overview

National Public Radio (NPR): Former ‘No Child Left Behind’ Advocate Turns Critic

 CBS DFW: A Major Overhaul of No Child Left Behind is in the Works

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Graduating From “No Child Left Behind” appeared first on Law Street.

If there’s one person who is sure to always hit us where it’s relevant, it’s Shonda Rhimes. On the mid-season finale of “Scandal” (spoilers ahead, for those who aren’t caught up), Mellie filibusters in front of the Senate for nearly a full day in order to ensure that Planned Parenthood’s funding isn’t considered discretionary, and Olivia aborts Fitz’s child. Even with the trigger warning at the beginning of the episode, viewers were surprised with where the plot took them.

All of this aired just eight days before a gunman attacked a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs, Colorado. It occurred in the midst of a lawsuit against the state of Texas for trying to remove Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funding. And it tackled a real-life issue that has been discussed with increasing fervor since the fall—defunding Planned Parenthood altogether. Planned Parenthood remains front-page news, which is rare for an organization that has been around for nearly one hundred years. Yet it stays relevant, and will continue to stay relevant in mainstream media as long as the country is polarized by the subject of abortion. So, here’s a breakdown of all the latest Planned Parenthood stories, and what they mean for the future of the organization and healthcare.

Is Planned Parenthood going to be defunded?

In short, as of right now, it’s hard to say whether Planned Parenthood will still be funded next year.

There are two ways that Republicans could go about trying to defund Planned Parenthood. There is a bill that just passed the Senate that would both remove federal funding from Planned Parenthood for one year and repeal part of the Affordable Care Act. This bill had already passed in the House of Representatives. However, given that it’s part of a bill to repeal Obamacare, President Obama is expected to veto it.

So, if that doesn’t work, it is possible that the defunding would be tacked onto the spending bill that has to pass by December 11 in order for the government to continue functioning.

Why defund Planned Parenthood?

The woman’s health organization has been under fire since several videos were released in July 2015 that imply that baby parts are sold by the organization. Since then, it has been proven that these videos were manipulated by an anti-abortion organization, but the damage had already been done. The president of Planned Parenthood has since had to testify before a congressional hearing, and the threat to defund the organization has become very real.

What would happen if Planned Parenthood is defunded?

If Planned Parenthood is defunded, the results could be disastrous. While it is anyone’s right to decide what side they fall on in the ongoing and ever-relevant debate about abortion, that is only a fraction of the work that Planned Parenthood clinics do across the country. According to its own statistics, 80 percent of its work is focused on preventing unintended pregnancies. Aside from that, it also provides 4.5 million STI tests and treatments each year, including nearly a quarter of a million HIV tests. When Planned Parenthood was defunded in rural Indiana, there was an explosion of HIV in the county. For many women, Planned Parenthood is the only source of STI testing, birth control, and other women’s health services available to them. Defunding Planned Parenthood would take those services away from the five million people who visit clinic locations each year.

Arguments for Defunding Planned Parenthood

On the flip side, the government funds that are funneled into Planned Parenthood each year have many other worthy recipients. Jeff Duncan, a Representative from South Carolina, said that the Boys and Girls Club, for example, only gets a fraction of the funds that Planned Parenthood gets each year. There is also the argument that there should be fewer government-sponsored programs all together, and Planned Parenthood is just another program that should be funded in another way.

However, no matter how it’s stated, it comes down to this—pro-lifers, and even some pro-choicers, don’t think that the government should fund any organization that has anything to do with abortions, even if it is illegal for federal funds to pay for abortions themselves. In this belief system, Planned Parenthood shouldn’t be a government-funded agency, and therefore defunding the organization would free up tax dollars for other uses.

What’s going on with Planned Parenthood in Texas?

Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, announced in October that the state was going to remove Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funds. In return, Planned Parenthood and ten patients are suing the state of Texas in the hopes of stopping officials from cutting off the Medicaid funds that allowed the patients to be treated at Planned Parenthood locations. Texas is the fourth state, following Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana, to be involved in such a lawsuit this year.

Abbott made his announcement after the uproar that the July 2015 videos caused. The videos depicted supposed Planned Parenthood officials discussing selling aborted fetal parts for research, including staff members at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, which is located in Houston, Texas.

Does Planned Parenthood stand a chance of winning the lawsuit?

This lawsuit could go either way.

In Louisiana, Alabama, and Arkansas, the state had to stop proceedings to remove Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funds until officials looked into the matter more closely. This means that there is a chance that the removal is unconstitutional, or breaks some kind of law for restricting federal funds. Federal health officials did warn the Texas Health and Human Services Commission in October that removing Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funding could be a violation of United States law.

This is also not the first time that Planned Parenthood has sued the state of Texas. In 2012, Texas Republicans removed Planned Parenthood from the Texas Medicaid Women’s Health Program. The state of Texas argued that the federal government gave individual states the right to decide how to allocate federal Medicaid funds, and Planned Parenthood eventually lost the lawsuit.

As of November 23, 2015, the state of Texas had not yet received legal papers in the lawsuit. Once papers are received, the case will likely end up in front of a federal judge.

What about the shooting in Colorado Springs?

On Friday November 27, 2015–Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving best known for shopping deals—there was a fatal shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Three were left dead and nine injured in the shooting, and one of the deceased was a police officer. After a five-hour standoff with police, the shooter was taken into custody.

As of right now, the exact motive for the shooting is unknown. Robert L. Dear was arrested and appeared at a hearing on Monday November 30 wearing a security smocked designed to prevent suicides. Allegedly, when Dear was arrested, he uttered “no more baby parts,” but police have not been forthcoming with any other information.

How does this affect where Planned Parenthood stands?

The spotlight right now is on the potential Presidential candidates. None of the Republican candidates specifically addressed the attack until Saturday, a full day after the events took place, and then, it was on Twitter, and the statements were vague. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders released supports of sympathy. President Obama, meanwhile, stated his continued frustration with gun violence in the U.S.

The Senate voted this week on the bill that will defund Planned Parenthood, and while it was successful, it goes before President Obama now. Additionally, Kevin McCarthy, the House majority leader, has stated that Republicans are no longer planning to force a government shutdown over the defunding of Planned Parenthood, something they had been threatening to do in early November. However, the status of Planned Parenthood’s funding remains to be seen.

How is all of this related to a prime-time television show?

Shonda Rhimes is not a woman who shies away from controversial issues, as the midseason finale of “Scandal” clearly showed us. It is Rhimes’ relevancy that strikes a nerve with viewers. She was able to show a scenario playing out in the Senate–which is exactly where the bill that may defund Planned Parenthood for a year sat at the time–when a Republican junior Senator from Virginia filibusters so that funding for Planned Parenthood is not downgraded to discretionary. Not only that, but we see Olivia Pope–a strong woman, a character with gumption–in the most vulnerable position a woman can find herself in: on a bed with her feet in stirrups and a doctor between her legs. Put the two women together in a single episode, and you leave your audience with a powerful image.

After the episode aired, Planned Parenthood released this statement:

Tonight, the millions of people who tune into Scandal every Thursday night learned that our rights to reproductive health care are under attack. Never one to shy away from critical issues, Shonda Rhimes used her platform to tell the world that if Planned Parenthood lost funding for contraception counseling, STI testing, cancer screenings, and safe, legal abortion—millions of people would suffer. And this episode wasn’t the first time one of Rhimes’ characters had an abortion, yet tonight we saw one of our favorite characters make the deeply personal decision that one in three women have made in their lifetime. We applaud Shonda Rhimes tonight—and every Thursday night—for proving that when women are telling our stories, the world will pause and watch. We just hope those in Congress—and throughout the nation—who are steadfast on rolling the clock back on reproductive health care access are taking note.

But, further proving the contentious nature of this issue, the conservative Media Research Counsel released their own statement the day after the episode aired:

Hollywood’s liberal values permeate movies and television. Last night’s episode of ABC’s Scandal was pretty much an hour-long advertisement for Planned Parenthood. In the most disturbing scene, the main character has an abortion to ‘Silent Night’ (a hymn celebrating the birth of Jesus) playing in the background. This is Hollywood’s moral depravity on full display.

This particular episode was an interesting juxtaposition when considered side-by-side with what is currently happening in Texas and Colorado Springs. Rhimes showed women making powerful statements about the importance and commonplaceness of women’s health organizations like Planned Parenthood. In the current contentious political climate, “Scandal’s” arc showed a fictional look at some very real issues.

Conclusion

Planned Parenthood will likely always be in the news; such is the case when something as polarizing as abortion is involved. Religious and moral beliefs will cause the country to be split in two on the issue, as has been the case since Planned Parenthood opened its doors one hundred years ago. As long as the issue is relevant, we will continue to see media portray the issue in different lights, both in fiction and in mainstream media. And it is likely that Planned Parenthood and the news surrounding it will stay relevant for a while.

Resources

Primary

Planned Parenthood: Planned Parenthood at a Glance

Additional

Texas Tribune: Planned Parenthood Sues Texas Over Medicaid Removal

Los Angeles Times: Planned Parenthood Sues Texas Over Medicaid Funding

The New York Times: What Defunding Planned Parenthood Would Really Mean

Denver Post: What We Know about the Planned Parenthood Shooting in Colorado Springs

Refinery 29: Scandal Season 5, Episode 9 Recap: The Women Take a Stand

Entertainment Weekly: Scandal Abortion Shock: ABC Hit Slams Planned Parenthood Defunding

NPR: After Planned Parenthood Shooting, Obama Again Calls for Action on Guns

The New Yorker: The Planned Parenthood Shooting and the Republican Candidates’ Responses

The New York Times: For Robert Dear, Religion and Rage Before Planned Parenthood Attack

The New York Times: No Shutdown Expected on Planned Parenthood

The New York Times: Planned Parenthood Sues Texas in Dispute of Funding for Clinics

Huffington Post: Indiana Shut Down Its Rural Planned Parenthood Clinics and Got an HIV Outbreak

Slate: The GOP Argument for Defunding Planned Parenthood is Incoherent

The Wall Street Journal: Republicans Look for Votes to Defund Planned Parenthood, Repeal Parts of Health Law

The Atlantic: ‘Scandal’ Gracefully Tackled Abortion in Its Midseason Finale

Refinery 29: Planned Parenthood “Applauds Shonda Rhimes” for Last Night’s Episode of Scandal

Daily Signal: Why Haven’t GOP-Led States Defunded Planned Parenthood?

Amanda Gernentz Hanson

Amanda Gernentz Hanson is a Minnesota native living in Austin, Texas. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from Hope College and a Master’s degree in Technical Communication from Minnesota State University, where her final project discussed intellectual property issues in freelancing and blogging. Amanda is an instructional designer full time, a freelance writer part time, and a nerd always. Contact Amanda at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Planned Parenthood’s Continued Relevancy appeared first on Law Street.

The fallout from the Paris attacks is continuing to stir up some pretty strong opinions from both liberals and conservatives over the Syrian migrant crisis as it relates to U.S. borders. Even as President Obama has already committed to take in 10,000 refugees, more than half of state governors are reportedly opposed to allowing Syrian refugees to enter their states.

There’s only one problem–it’s not up to them.

The U.S stance on immigration ultimately falls to the federal government to regulate, therefore regardless of whether or not your state’s governor opposes it, they have no say over allowing or barring them. They can, however, make the process more difficult.

As a result President Obama launched into a long-winded Twitter rant Wednesday afternoon to remind the American public (and maybe a few elected officials) why the U.S. has morally decided to provide refuge to Syrian evacuees.

Protecting the American people is my top priority. With our 65 global partners, we’re leading the campaign to degrade and destroy ISIL.

— President Obama (@POTUS) November 18, 2015

We also win this fight with our values. America can ensure our own security while welcoming refugees desperately seeking safety from ISIL. — President Obama (@POTUS) November 18, 2015

We will provide refuge to at least 10,000 refugees fleeing violence in Syria over the next year after they pass the highest security checks.

— President Obama (@POTUS) November 18, 2015

We also win this fight with our values. America can ensure our own security while welcoming refugees desperately seeking safety from ISIL. — President Obama (@POTUS) November 18, 2015

Here, our focus is giving safe haven to the most vulnerable Syrians – women, children, and survivors of torture.

— President Obama (@POTUS) November 18, 2015

Welcoming the world’s vulnerable who seek the safety of America is not new to us. We’ve safely welcomed 3 million refugees since 1975. — President Obama (@POTUS) November 18, 2015

Slamming the door in the face of refugees would betray our deepest values. That’s not who we are. And it’s not what we’re going to do.

— President Obama (@POTUS) November 18, 2015

And he’s not the only one arguing today in support of the Syrian Refugees. Google used a clever fortunetelling search engine to draw attention to the issue, by forcing users to “take a moment to think of [the refugees’] future.”

What’s the #FutureofPolitics? We asked @Google Fortune Telling. Check it out: https://t.co/nBd1QhnHtP pic.twitter.com/4y7jI7iZVg — InstituteOfPolitics (@HarvardIOP) November 18, 2015

While the current administration has made its stance on immigration pretty clear, the polarizing topic will most likely continue to dominant the rhetoric of current candidates seeking the prestigious office.

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 President Obama Launches Into Twitter Rant Over Syrian Refugees appeared first on Law Street.

Over half of the nation’s governors have said that they will not accept Syrian refugees if they are brought into the United States. The 27 different governors have mostly cited security concerns as the primary reason for being opposed to refugees being brought into their states. A state by state map of where governors stand on accepting Syrian refugees is below:

These proclamations about resettling Syrian refugees in the U.S. come as a reaction to a few different issues. The horrific terrorist attacks in Paris were allegedly propagated by at least one man who came into Europe by pretending to be a Syrian refugee. He entered Greece using a fake passport that identified him as Syrian. Additionally, President Obama recently stated that his plan still calls for the United States to absorb 10,000 Syrian refugees. It’s a combination of these two factors that seem to be motivating the backlash from governors.

How governors have been making their refusal known varies. Some, like Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia have issued executive orders to that effect. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, on the other hand, sent a letter to President Obama outlining his intention to turn away Syrian refugees. Regardless of what state governors say, however, it’s not technically within their purview whether or not the U.S. should accept refugees–it’s a federal responsibility. However, states can keep their resources from being used by the federal government, which seems like it would be the most likely way that refugees are hampered from being resettled into various states.

The controversy over whether or not to accept Syrian refugees hasn’t just been limited to state governors. It’s been commented upon by the many, many presidential contenders as well, and unsurprisingly is split across party lines. Democrats, for the most part, have supported allowing refugees in. For example Senator Bernie Sanders urged that the U.S. not turn its back on refugees fleeing oppression and civil war in Syria. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted her support for taking in refugees as well during last Saturday’s Democratic debate, the night after the attacks in Paris.

In contrast, many of the Republican contenders have spoken out against taking in any of the refugees. Dr. Ben Carson has not only said that the U.S. shouldn’t take in Syrian refugees, but also urged Congress to “extinguish” resettlement programs altogether. Another Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has questioned whether the refugees will be a “Trojan horse” in America, and has suggested buying land in Syria for them to go to. How they would be protected in that “swatch of land” is unclear. Senator Ted Cruz has said that we should accept only Christian refugees. Governor Jeb Bush broke from the rest of his Republican counterparts, saying that we should let in refugees but screen them intensely.

This problem isn’t going away anytime soon–the situation is worsening in Syria. Whether or not the U.S. decides to accept Syrian refugees looks to be a point of significant argument moving forward in the national conversation, as well as in the primary elections.

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 More than Half of U.S. Governors Want to Turn Away Syrian Refugees appeared first on Law Street.

ISIS has officially taken responsibility for the horrific attacks in Paris on Friday that killed a confirmed 129 people, and left hundreds injured. Now, the Islamic extremist group reportedly points to DC as its next target in at least one of its newly released propaganda videos

Reuters obtained and translated a clip of the ISIS video where jihadists warn of a Paris-like attack on American soil saying,

We say to the states that take part in the crusader campaign that, by God, you will have a day, God willing, like France’s and by God, as we struck France in the center of its abode in Paris, then we swear that we will strike America at its center in Washington.

I say to the European countries that we are coming, coming with booby traps and explosives, coming with explosive belts and (gun) silencers and you will be unable to stop us because today we are much stronger than before.

The video has not been authenticated as an imminent threat by U.S. officials, however, its timing and reference to Paris’ highly-orchestrated massacres led many to believe its legitimacy. Some people even offered safe wishes for DC natives via social media.

If you’re in the DC area please be careful and keep yourself updated on everything, ISIS released a video with a direct threat on DC.

— cat mom (@emilyxsnapp) November 16, 2015

Why did Isis have to release that stupid video I’m already always on high alert everywhere I go in DC — high end hetero (@Marximillion_) November 16, 2015

The thought of DC being attacked by ISIS… Smh no words

— ｃｉａｒａ (@bbyxCC) November 16, 2015

Meanwhile, the French President Francois Hollande has declared that his country is at war. Hollande told a joint session of parliament,

We’re not engaged in a war of civilizations, because these assassins do not represent any. We are in a war against jihadist terrorism which is threatening the whole world.

Hollande has also pledged that not only will France not end its U.S.-backed air strikes in Iraq and Syria, but it will intensify them, hoping to lean on the U.S. for support.

During a G20 summit Monday in Antalya, Turkey, President Obama echoed his support for the airstrikes saying that they have been “effective in taking out key members of the terror group’s leadership and that a large presence of ground troops in Syria would be a mistake.” The comments come as some members of the GOP have criticized the president for not implementing a more aggressive U.S. military effort against ISIS. Regardless, the U.S. demonstrating its solidarity with France is crucial in helping the country bounce back from these attacks and hopefully prevent a future one.

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 ISIS Reportedly Releases Video Threatening Paris-Like Attack on DC appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, news of a horrific series of terror attacks in Paris, France, shook the world. The final death toll is unknown, but as of now, it is at 127, with over 300 injured. According to French authorities, there were eight attackers, all of whom are now dead. The attacks occurred at places of joy and celebration: like a soccer stadium, a concert hall, and restaurants. ISIL has taken responsibility for the acts of terror, although that claim has yet to be verified. However, the Islamic State claims that the attacks were in retribution for France’s involvement in Syria.

President Francois Hollande called the attacks by ISIL an “act of war.” He stated that they were:

Committed by a terrorist army, the Islamic State group, a jihadist army, against France, against the values that we defend everywhere in the world, against what we are: A free country that means something to the whole planet.

Shock, awe, compassion, and sadness still dominate the international conversation. Prominent world leaders have made statements in support of France, devoting aid and support in these horrible circumstances.

President Obama gave a brief statement in the White House briefing room on Friday night. He stated:

This is an attack not just on Paris, it’s an attack not just on the people France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share. We stand prepared and ready to provide whatever assistance that the government and the people of France need to respond.

British Prime Minister David Cameron echoed the same sentiments, pledging British support for France:

Shocked, but resolute. In sorrow, but unbowed. My message to the French people is simple: Nous sommes solidaires avec vous. Nous sommes tous ensemble. We stand with you. United.

Others who spoke against the attack included Pope Francis, who called the attacks a piece of the “piecemeal World War Three.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged solidarity, and Russian President Vladimir Putin wrote to Hollande that the acts of terror were “proof of the barbarian nature of terrorism, which challenges the human civilization.”

The world also took to social media to show its support for the people of France–Facebook users are adorning their photos with a blue, white, and red filter, the colors of the French flag. Others took the time to share their thoughts on Twitter:

“When Paris turned off its lights, the rest of the world turned them on.” pic.twitter.com/Ed7uHzQtHq

— chilly (@billyganbold_) November 14, 2015

Don’t allow this horrific act allow you to be drawn into the loss of your humanity or tolerance. That is the intended outcome. #ParisAttacks — Mark Ruffalo (@MarkRuffalo) November 14, 2015

Powerful Image: The U.S. stands with France after the #ParisAttacks by cartoonist Steve Benson. pic.twitter.com/xngRW9XHTx

— Luis (@LuisANavia) November 14, 2015

Details are still coming out about the specifics of the attacks, as well as the ultimate response. For now, thoughts are with the people of Paris, as they struggle to get through this troubling time.

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 Terror Attacks in France: The World Reacts appeared first on Law Street.

A new report entitled “Ending Conversion Therapy: Supporting and Affirming LGBTQ Youth” was just released by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) today, calling for an end to the use of conversion therapy on LGBTQ+ youth. While the Obama Administration has been calling for an end to this type of therapy since last year, and legislation against it has made it through a few state legislatures, this report is another major step toward ensuring that young people are no longer subjected to the harmful and inappropriate practice.

Conversion therapy, sometimes referred to a reparative or sexual reorientation therapy, is a widely discredited practice that attempts to “change” an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. It is derived from the incredibly inaccurate, but once widely believed, premise that LGBTQ individuals are suffering from disorders and need to be “cured.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, it can include practices such as “violent role play, reenactment of past abuses, and exercises involving nudity and intimate touching.” It can lead to increased anxiety, depression, and in some cases, be a catalyst for suicidal tendencies.

It has been condemned by major health and psychological organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. However, it has only expressly been made illegal by four states–California, New Jersey, Illinois, and Oregon–as well Washington D.C. Legislation to end this practice has been introduced in 21 states. The hope appears to be that this report will spark even more action.

SAMHSA Special Expert on LGBT Affairs Elliot Kennedy explained the major takeaway of the report saying:

Conversion therapies or other efforts to change sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression are not effective, reinforce harmful gender stereotypes and are not appropriate mental health treatments.

Kennedy also told Reuters Health that “variations in sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression are normal.”

The recent, highly-publicized death of Leelah Alcorn, a 17-year-old transgender woman who committed suicide after her parents forced her to attend conversion therapy, particularly incited calls for change. The Obama administration responded with a statement that supported ending the use of this therapy for minors. This SAMHSA report is another step toward ending the clearly harmful practice, but it’s also still not enough. Until no more young people are objected to the kind of abuse and unethical practices that Alcorn was, there is still more work to do.

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 Federal Report Calls for an End to LGBTQ Conversion Therapy 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.

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.

Monday, President Obama announced what he has noted as the “biggest, most important step we’ve ever taken” in the fight against climate change. He introduced America’s Clean Power Plan, aimed toward a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the nation’s coal-burning power plants.

Obama said Monday from the White House:

Today after working with states and cities and power companies, the EPA is setting the first ever nationwide standards to end the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from power plants…Washington is starting to catch up with the vision of the rest of the country. 

Essentially, America’s Clean Power Plan is a set of environmental rules and regulations that will focus on pollution from the nation’s power plants, setting limits on power-plant carbon emissions for the first time. The goal of the revised Clean Power Plan is to cut greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. power stations by nearly a third within 15 years. The measures will place significant emphasis on wind and solar power with other renewable energy sources, transforming America’s electricity industry. Obama said on Monday: “we’re the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it.”

The most aggressive of the regulations require existing power plants to cut emissions 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, an increase from the 30 percent target proposed in the draft regulation. The new rule also demands that power plants use more renewable sources of energy like wind and solar power. Under the plan, the administration will require states to meet specific carbon emission reduction standards, based on their individual energy consumption. The plan also includes an incentive program for states to get a head start on meeting standards with early deployment of renewable energy and low-income energy efficiency. Obama said in the video:

Power plants are the single biggest source of harmful carbon pollution that contributes to climate change. Until now, there have been no federal limits to the amount of carbon pollution plants dump in the air.

President Obama also claims that the plans will lead to lower energy bills in the future for Americans, create jobs in the renewable energy sector, and ensure more reliable energy services.  Power plants account for roughly 40 percent of U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide–the most common greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. Regardless of these benefits, there are still many critics that are opposed to this new plan. 

Many Republican opponents dispute the existence of global warming, questioning whether or not humans are to blame for the issue. Critics also claim that the plan will bring an unwelcome increase in electricity prices. Opponents in the energy industry believe that president Obama has declared a “war on coal.” Power plants powered by coal provide more than one third of the U.S. electricity supply. Many states plan to fight the new regulations, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urging states not to comply with the plan in a letter to all fifty governors. Vice President of  Communications for the National Mining Association Luke Popovich stated: 

This plan is all pain and no gain. That’s why state leaders across the country are coming to the same conclusion — that we should not sacrifice our power system to an unworkable plan built on a faulty interpretation of the law.

However those that are arguing against the new plan appear to be overlooking the benefits it can bring. According to the World Health Organization, research in Italy suggests that 4.7 percent total of mortality, or 3,500 deaths annually in a population of 11 million, are caused through cancer and respiratory and cardiovascular diseases attributed to air pollution. Many argue that reducing green house gas emissions doesn’t hurt the economy, but can in fact benefit the economy by saving businesses and consumers money, as well as improving public health.

It is unclear how this new plan will develop during President Obama’s remaining time in office, as well as the presence it may or may not have as campaigns begin to really take off. But, it’s certainly a big move in the right direction.

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 President Obama Makes Historic Move to Combat Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

For a while, it seemed like for-profit colleges were the newest, hottest frontier in higher education. But with current student debt problems, and many revelations about some of the predatory practices of for-profit colleges, the trend appears to have officially passed. Arguably the most well-known for-profit institution of higher learning–The University of Phoenix–may be the latest to find itself in hot water.

Late last week the parent company of the University of Phoenix, Apollo Education Group, released information that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was investigating the company. The investigation is attempting to determine if the University of Phoenix ran deceptive or unfair business practices. The investigation is particularly focused on its recruitment of veterans. The accusations claim that the company has left veterans with high levels of debt after collecting hundreds of millions in GI Bill money. It’s not just the GI Bill money that the University of Phoenix has collected, however, according to financial records the company has collected over $488 million in fees and tuition from veterans’ own money for its online programs, and additional sums at various physical locations.

The University of Phoenix has been declining slowly for a little while now. Five years ago, the school reported almost half a million students. That number has been essentially halved since then. In 2012, the University of Phoenix was forced to close 115 of its campuses. In addition, revenue has been declining, and there have been many accusations levied against the company in regards to the way that it treats its students and potential recruits.

The controversy over the University of Phoenix is borne out of concerns that the school required participants to take out expensive loans, which could have been fine had those participants had the ability to pay back those loans after they graduated. However, the education provided at the University of Phoenix doesn’t necessarily lead to employment, the credits usually don’t transfer to other schools, and the degrees aren’t always recognized by employers.

In order to cooperate with the investigation, as Apollo Education Group promised in its statement, the company will have to provide the federal investigators with documents such as financial information, marketing, billing, debt collection, accreditation, and military recruitment practices.

This investigation into the University of Phoenix is consistent with a theme of increased scrutiny on for-profit schools, many of which are struggling in the now seemingly turbulent educational environment. Last month, the Obama Administration began cracking down on for-profit schools. A new rule that took effect in July from the Department of Education is the “gainful employment rule” which “requires colleges to track their graduates’ performance in the workforce and eventually will cut off funding for career training programs that fall short.”

Equal opportunities for education are essential, but not if they hurt students more than they help. There’s now significant suspicion that many for-profit institutions fall into the latter camp–University of Phoenix may just be the latest to get in trouble as a result.

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 University of Phoenix Under FTC Investigation appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama recently acknowledged that his failure to pass common sense gun control laws in the U.S. has been his greatest frustration in his presidency. In a Thursday interview with BBC, President Obama claimed that it was distressing not to have made progress on the issue, even in the face of repeated mass killings.

His comments came hours before another mass shooting took place in Lafayette, Louisiana Thursday night. John Houser killed two people and wounded nine others at the Lafayette multiplex Thursday night before he turned his gun on himself and took his own life, police said.

However Obama signaled that he would continue to work on gun laws during his remaining time in the White House. He stated: 

It is the fact that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense, gun-safety laws. Even in the face of repeated mass killings.

If you look at the number of Americans killed since 9/11 by terrorism, it’s less than 100. If you look at the number been killed by gun violence, it’s in the tens of thousands. And for us not to be able to resolve that issue has been something that is distressing. But it is not something that I intend to stop working on in the remaining 18 months.

Nationally, guns kill 33,000 Americans and injure 80,000 a year. The total cost of gun violence is $229 billion a year, almost as much as we spend on Medicaid. The Harvard Injury Control Research Center recently found that there’s a substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. But despite the high levels of gun violence, Congress has no plans to investigate a solution.

In regard to gun control laws in the United States, Louisiana has some of the weakest gun laws in the nation. It does not require gun dealers to obtain a state license. The state also has no laws that restrict assault weapons or .50 caliber rifles.

One week after the shooting at Charleston’s Emmanuel AME Church, the House Appropriations Committee voted 32-19 against an amendment that would reverse a 19-year-old ban on funding for the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to research the causes of gun violence in public health. Their reasoning is that gun violence is not a disease, and therefore does not fall under the CDC’s research domain.

The CDC had been conducting research into gun violence as a “public health phenomenon” and began publishing studies that indicated a strong correlation between the presence of guns and firearm-related deaths. Prior this, the CDC’s budget was cut in 1996 by $2.6 million, the exact amount they had spent on researching gun facilities in 1995. As a result of that cut, many scientists stopped doing gun research, and the number of publications on firearm violence decreased dramatically. Reuters has reported that government research into gun mortality has shrunk by 96 percent since the NRA’s campaign in the 1990s.

Although Obama has claimed that he will work to address gun violence in the United States during his remaining time as president, it is unclear how he will go about endorsing these big changes without the support of Congress. That being said, last week’s events show that some sort of common sense change is clearly necessary.

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 Rallies Against Lack of Common Sense in American Gun Control Laws appeared first on Law Street.

The White House is the center of power and the home of the president. But what’s going on outside the hallowed halls? We sent Law Streeter Symon Rowlands to go check out “Who’s at the White House.” Check out the results below:

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’s at the White House 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.

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.

Starting in late April 2015, the Taliban launched its annual Spring offensive in Afghanistan. Since that time, the government has fought back and launched its own counteroffensive, which has continued throughout the month of May and into June. After more than a decade and major American military intervention, the Taliban remains active and strong within Afghanistan and neighboring regions. Read on to learn about the group’s origins, the impact of the American war, and the Taliban’s role in Afghanistan’s future.

The Origins of the Taliban

As the oft-told story goes, the Taliban emerged as one of the many competing groups among the Mujahideen fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the late 1970s through 1980s. The group and many others that would make up the Mujahideen were supplied, equipped, and financed in part by large contributions from the United States and Pakistan, which shares a close tribal relation to the Taliban.

The group came to prominence beginning in 1994, succeeding the ouster of Soviet forces. Following the scramble for control, the Taliban, a predominantly Pashtun group, began taking over large swaths of territory. The motivation behind the group centered on a strict interpretation of Sharia law and Sunni Islam. In 1995 they captured their first province, Herat, bordering Iran. By 1998 they had conquered 90 percent of the entire country and were effectively in charge.  The video below details the origins of the Taliban.

Help From Abroad

While the Taliban enjoyed a seemingly meteoric rise from obscure Mujahideen group to the rulers of an entire country, it was not without substantial help–inadvertent or overt–from outside sources. This assistance begins with the United States.

As touched on briefly, the U.S. initially started supporting the Taliban and similar groups in the 1980s in an effort to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. This assistance was far from benign, in fact several Mujahideen members actually visited the White House and met with then-President Ronald Reagan. The relationship continued openly until as late as 1997, when members of the Taliban came to Texas to discuss building an oil pipeline in Afghanistan with an American oil company. This even while the Taliban had been suspected of hiding Osama Bin Laden as early as 1996.

Even after the war in Afghanistan started and dragged on, the U.S. was still allegedly funding the Taliban inadvertently. Up to a billion dollars a year in funding ear-marked for the Afghan government, was believed to be funneled directly to the Taliban.

While the United States has directly and indirectly funded the Taliban, Saudi Arabia has been more direct. The Taliban themselves are widely suspected of emerging from holy seminaries paid for by the Saudis, which cultivated the ideals of strict Sunni Islam. However, their support has not stopped there.

Along with other gulf countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, Saudi Arabia remains the largest funder of terrorist groups, including the Taliban. These funds are not usually given out directly. Instead, they are channeled through a false corporation that may request support to build more schools, for example. The Taliban and other groups can also raise money from these countries through kidnappings and extortion.

However, the Taliban’s strongest supporter is likely Pakistan, which shares the closest kinship bonds with members of the Taliban. The Pashtun is a tribe whose members live in an area that straddles the northern borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Many of the early members were also educated in Pakistani schools known as Madrassas.

Pakistan’s relationship with the Taliban did not end there. Like the U.S., Pakistan funded the Taliban in their efforts against the Soviets in the 1980s; however, the Pakistanis’ efforts continued after the Americans left, as Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence agency (ISI) continued to train members of the Taliban throughout the 1990s up until the American invasion in 2001.

In 2007, after being driven out of Afghanistan, the Taliban set up an organization in Waziristan, Pakistan and proclaimed itself an Islamic state. From this base the Taliban, which is still being supported by aspects of Pakistan’s ISI, has launched numerous attacks, assassinations, and kidnappings into Afghanistan.

The U.S. War in Afghanistan

Despite the Taliban coming to power essentially as a result of fighting one superpower, this did not prevent the other from going after them either. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, then-President George W. Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum to either hand over Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden or be attacked. The Taliban refused and U.S. forces were in the country in less than a month. Less than two months after that, the Taliban was defeated and pushed out of Afghanistan. Despite this victory, both Bin Laden and the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, were able to escape to Pakistan.

Following the overthrow of the Taliban, the focus of the U.S. and its allies shifted to nationbuilding and keeping the remnants of the Taliban at bay. The Taliban however, would not be so quickly dismissed and began a resurgence starting in 2005. The Taliban traded in their old tactics of facing the U.S. in conventional battles for guerilla tactics–particularly suicide bombs–which had been effective in Iraq. The group also resorted to the opium trade for funding. Afghanistan would eventually reach a point where it was supplying 90 percent of the world’s opium.

The renewed and increased violence led to another major policy shift: the surge. The surge was a large additional deployment of U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Newly appointed general Stanley McChrystal requested the troop increase out of fear that at current levels the war may be lost outright. Following this in 2010, Afghan President Hamid Karzai began to publicly float the idea of meeting with Taliban leaders for the first time. While the U.S. initially condemned his actions, by the following year and in the aftermath of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, the Obama Administration announced it was open to talks.

Along with attempts at negotiating with the Taliban, the U.S. and its allies also began shifting greater responsibility and power to their Afghan counterparts. The U.S. and NATO also planned to pull out all troops by the end of 2014. However, following continued violence, uncertain safety situations, and attacks on NATO troops by allied Afghan soldiers, NATO agreed to keep as many as 13,000 soldiers in the country as part of a new bilateral security agreement signed by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. The war officially concluded in 2014, making it the longest war in American history.  The video below details the latest war in Afghanistan.

The Future of the Taliban in Afghanistan

So what is the Taliban’s position today? While as of 2014 they maintained direct control of only four of the 373 districts in the country, their reach is much greater. For example, in a 2013 assessment by Afghan security forces, 40 percent of the country was considered to be at a raised or high danger level. Furthermore, while Pakistan has paid lip service, the Taliban still have a strong base in the neighboring country. The group has also benefited from record poppy harvests and other illegal financing operations such as mining.

Partners in power?

Negotiations of varying degrees have been attempted beginning as early as 2010. President Ashraf Ghani seems especially eager to bring the Taliban to the table, as his first two official visits were to Pakistan where the Taliban is strong and China, who has sponsored such talks. The two sides finally met in May and while nothing was agreed upon, just meeting was a step in a positive direction. However, for more meaningful action to be taken it may require removing all foreign fighters from Afghanistan as the Taliban has articulated.  The video below presents a desire by the Afghan president to talk with the Taliban.

The question now is how likely the Taliban is to actually come to the negotiating table in a meaningful way? The Taliban currently have an entrenched position and are reaping the windfall from record opium sales. It is very possible that the group will simply wait out the withdrawal of all foreign combat troops and then reignite the conflict with a government that has been repeatedly unable to answer to the task.

Conclusion

You reap what you sow. This is an old saying that essentially means your actions will have consequences, whether good or bad. For the United States, it used the Mujahideen in its fight against the Soviets in the 1980s then left them to themselves for much of the next two decades; however, 9/11 revealed what can happen as a result of benign neglect.

While the attacks were not orchestrated by Afghanistan, they were planned by the insidious leader of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, who was allowed to live in Afghanistan by the Taliban and who helped them gain more territory in the country.

Since that fateful day the U.S., its allies, and many average Afghanis have fought with the consequences of earlier decisions. This process has now seemingly come full circle, as the U.S. and its regional partners are advocating for talks with the Taliban and suggesting a role for them in the government. The Taliban, for their part, seemed hesitant to commit and more likely to wait out the complete withdrawal of foreign forces before striking again at what is viewed as a weak government.

Resources

BBC: Who Are the Taliban?

Nazareth College: The History of the Taliban

Global Research: Grisly Peshawar Slaughter-Who Created the Taliban? Who Still Funds Them?

Guardian: WikiLeaks Cables Portray Saudi Arabia as a Cash Machine for Terrorists

Shave Magazine: Pakistan and Taliban: It’s Complicated

Council on Foreign Relations: U.S. War in Afghanistan

Brookings Institution: Blood and Hope in Afghanistan

Council on Foreign Relations: The Taliban in Afghanistan

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 A Resurgent Taliban Complicates Life in Afghanistan appeared first on Law Street.

The millions of undocumented people living in the United States waiting for the “green light” to apply for the deportation protection program presented by President Obama may never get their chance, thanks to a Federal Appeals court decision Tuesday.

The appeals court for the Fifth Circuit opted to deny the Obama Administration’s request to lift a hold on the president’s executive actions on immigration. This court’s decision is a Republican victory for Texas and the 25 other states who collectively filed the lawsuit to prevent the president’s proposed path to citizenship from reaching fruition.

In November, President Obama first announced the executive orders to implement the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Personal Residents (DAPA). The program was designed to be a kind of “legal reprieve” by granting citizenship to undocumented parents of children born in the U.S. and illegal immigrants who have lived in the country permanently for at least five years.

The president also announced expansion plans for the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program that permits teenagers and young adults who were born outside of the United States, but raised in the country, to apply for protection from deportation and for employment authorizations. However, both orders were immediately met with Republican resistance questioning the legality of such an action.

In a statement issued by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and quoted by CNN, Paxton praised the ruling calling it a “victory for those committed to preserving the rule of law in America.” Paxton said,

Telling illegal aliens that they are now lawfully present in this country, and awarding them valuable government benefits, is a drastic change in immigration policy. The President’s attempt to do this by himself, without a law passed by Congress and without any input from the states, is a remarkable violation of the U.S Constitution and laws.

The White House issued its own response to these allegations via spokesperson Brandi Hoffine who called the decision a “misrepresentation of the facts and the law.” Hoffine as quoted by USA Today said,

As the powerful dissent from Judge [Stephen] Higginson recognizes, President Obama’s immigration executive actions are fully consistent with the law. The president’s actions were designed to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the economy, and keep our communities safe.

…

Fifteen states and the District of Columbia, business leaders, local law enforcement and elected officials, educators, faith leaders, legal scholars, and others have all asked the courts to allow these actions to move forward, given the important economic and public safety benefits.

With bids for the 2016 presidential election already well under way, these programs were meant to be a lasting part of Obama’s presidential legacy, but it’s unclear where their fate may now lay. The White House and Justice Department lawyers are reportedly evaluating the court’s ruling while considering possible next steps. Regardless of which side of the immigration aisle you lean, it’s obvious that this decision does little to fix the nation’s broken system.

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’s Immigration Plan: Does it Have Any Hope of Moving Forward? appeared first on Law Street.

Muammar Qaddafi, longtime leader of Libya, was the first leader to be killed in the Arab Spring–the wave of uprisings that swept the Middle East demanding the end of autocratic ruling. The United States and NATO military forces executed a military intervention in Libya to remove Qaddafi as leader. After its immediate action, the event became the primary example for what a successful intervention looks like. But now, four years have passed, and there’s an essential question often posed: did the intervention really make things better?

While it’s difficult to answer that question, Libya’s path post-intervention demonstrates that just because you give people the opportunity for change, does not mean they have the tools or infrastructure to do so. In many ways, the situation in Libya has gone from bad to worse, and continues to raise concerns about the efficacy of the intervention.

 Who was Muammar Qaddafi?

Just two days after the overthrow of President Ben Ali in Tunisia, Libyan demonstrators were throwing stones at a government building and set fire to its offices. The protesters were demanding “decent housing and dignified life.” Libyan opposition websites flourished, and social media was optimized to revolt against Qaddafi. But who exactly was the maligned leader?

Muammar Qaddafi governed Libya as its primary leader for 42 years, from 1969 to 2011. Through his tenure, he was known for supporting public works projects, such as the Great Man-Made River project, which brought water to the arid north of Libya. He was known to redistribute wealth, and provided loans at a zero percent interest rate.

He was also branded an abuser of human rights. He was accused of administering the murder of more than 1,000 prisoners–mainly political opponents–at the Abu Salim prison. Qaddafi was also linked to both the bombing of Pan-Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 that resulted in the loss of 270 lives, and the murder of police officer Yvonne Fletcher in central London in 1984.

Qaddafi did fit the bill as an authoritarian ruler. As a result, the possibility of toppling the government, just as Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Tunisia’s Ali had been toppled, was too strong for the Libyan population to resist.

United Nations Involvement

Libya was in uproar during the Arab Spring. Opposition rebel forces were mobilizing quickly, and the Qaddafi regime fought back. Among the international community, the question was raised–should someone intervene?

Following the tragedies in Rwanda and the Balkans in the 1990s, the international community debated how to effectively react when a nation systemically violates its citizens’ human rights. Essentially, do states have unconditional sovereignty over their own affairs–no matter how inhumanely events may occur–or can the international community legally intervene for humanitarian purposes?

In 2001, the expression “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) was first presented in response to this debate over the ethics of international intervention. The R2P report outlines that the state is responsible first for the protection of its own citizens within its borders; if the state fails, either through lack of ability or a lack of willingness, the responsibility to protect will shift to the international community through humanitarian intervention or effort.

The United Nations Security Council, a group of 15 countries including five permanent members–the United Kingdom, United States, France, China, and Russia–demanded an immediate ceasefire in Libya. This included an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity.”

The Security Council authorized U.N. member states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country.

NATO-U.S. Actions

Two days after the UN authorization under R2P, NATO-U.S. forces imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace, a no-fly zone. Sanctions were tightened on the Qaddafi regime, and the bombing on Qaddafi forces began. Seven months later, in October 2011, after an extended military campaign with sustained Western support, Libyan Opposition forces conquered the country.

Qaddafi was trying to flee the city in a convoy of cars when he came under attack from NATO jets. A mob captured him on the ground, led him through the streets and shot him twice. The French claimed responsibility for the airstrike.

Afterwards, the United States continued bombing Libyan tanks and personnel, allowing rebels to re-establish control in Benghazi.

Why did NATO-U.S. Forces Intervene?

There were three fundamental choices. The first was to do nothing and witness a possible humanitarian nightmare. The second was to intervene with a limited approach–essentially assist in the takedown of current government, but not the building of a new government. The third option was to intervene with a complete approach, including staying to help stabilize and build the new government.

The United Nations Security Council decided the U.S. should not allow a humanitarian nightmare to happen if it could be prevented with a relatively simple military intervention. Any presence on the ground to stabilize the conflict probably would not have been welcomed, and it may not have worked any better than it did it in places such as Iraq or Afghanistan. So, the second option was chosen–remove Qaddafi as leader in order to allow the Libyan people time to bring in a new authority.

Additionally, it was a multilateral effort. NATO forces actually led the attacks, not the United States. Additionally, Libyan rebel forces were well organized and located near port cities, which made communication and importing goods easier.

Why was it deemed successful?

There were three targets outlined as a part of the NATO-U.S. strategy: ensure there was an arms embargo enforced on Qaddafi; protect the people being attacked by Qaddafi’s forces; and buy some time and space for Libyan people to decide their own future. These goals were fulfilled in a timely manner, with no American lives lost. Automatically, NATO-U.S. forces declared success.

How is Libya Now?

Unfortunately, by many measures, Libya is now in worse shape. There’s activity from militias affiliated with terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.

The U.S. may have mitigated the event of a mass killing, but now the region is destabilized–affecting education and literacy, employment, gender equality, and the possibility of institution building, among other things. The following video outlines the difficulties that the Libyan people are facing currently.

So why didn’t we stay in Libya?

Given the political environment in 2011, animosity toward American foreign forces were a concern. This fear led American and European leaders to set a limit the extent of intervention. In addition, the U.S. could have been accused of forcing Western and democratic ideals in a vulnerable country. Security and foreign policy decision makers are constantly riddled with what to do. There is a huge dilemma when it comes to legal and moral humanitarian intervention. In 20/20 hindsight, any decision can be found faulty.

Conclusion

Libya’s case is far from perfect, but not necessarily wrong. It’s very easy to criticize the actions taken, because, yes, Libya may very well be worse off. On a global level, there are steps that could be taken to prevail the challenges to humanitarian intervention. The Security Council permanent members are faced with a difficult conundrum. It becomes increasingly difficulty to determine how to intervene–in what capacity does the international community take over another nation? It’s a question that had to be considered in Libya’s case, and will continue to come up time and time again.

Resources

Primary

United Nations: Background on Responsibility to Protect

United Nations: Security Council Approves No-Fly Zone

Additional

Council on Foreign Relations: The Challenge Of Humanitarian Intervention Since Rwanda

Council on Foreign Relations: Libya and the Responsibility to Protect

Huffington Post: Was the 2011 Libya Intervention a Mistake?

First Look: Hailed as a Model For Successful Intervention, Libya Proves to Be the Exact Opposite

The New York Times: President Obama on Libya

Guardian: Muammar Gaddafi, the ‘King Of Kings,’ Dies in His Hometown

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Looking Back: Lessons From the Intervention in Libya 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.

Out of context, the words “climate change” don’t sound very scary at all. Here’s the context that makes it scary.

The earth’s climate has been in flux since it burst into existence some 4.5 billion years ago. It’s been hot and cold and everywhere in between. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere danced between 200-300 parts per million (ppm) during the earth’s long lifespan. But starting in the 1900s, carbon dioxide  pushed past the 300 ppm marker and kept climbing. Today, carbon dioxide levels “weigh in” at about 400 ppm. So what? Well, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases trap heat and send average temperatures climbing. Even worse, experts believe human activities like burning fossil fuels and deforestation increased carbon dioxide and caused climate change.

We’ve only been on the earth for a fraction of its lifetime. We’ve evolved based on certain conditions, and now those conditions are changing. In other words, we’re not well adapted for the world we’re creating. The changing climate is a crucible of possible human health complications.

Here’s what the future of health looks like if we don’t combat and adapt to climate change.

 Climate Change: What’s Happening?

Before I run away with how climate change will kill us all (just kidding!), let’s do a quick overview.

Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide hang out in our atmosphere and absorb heat from the sun. Since these gases don’t occur naturally, the extra heat they absorb causes temperatures to increase above normal levels. As of 1900, carbon dioxide emissions from human activities have billowed up by 40 percent and global temperatures keep creeping upward too.

In our interconnected world, increased temperatures have implications beyond needing more A/C. Increased heat warms our oceans, melts polar and alpine ice, and drives up the sea level, which in turn facilitates stronger and more devastating storms.

Why is climate change bad for our health?

Ripples from climate change impact things directly related to your health, like the water and food supply. The World Health Organization predicts that climate change will cause 250,000 additional deaths a year between 2030 and 2050 because of heat stress, malnutrition, malaria, and diarrhoeal disease. Areas with fewer resources to adapt will suffer the most.

Here are some startling health scenarios of the future, and how climate change might cause them.

Diseases Will Become More Virulent

Climate change will make it easier for existing diseases to infect more people by altering their geographic range and lengthening the infection season. For example, ticks carrying Lyme Disease will cover more ground as more regions warm to temperatures where they can survive. Mosquitoes, which carry many diseases like Malaria and Dengue, will also flourish in warmer temperatures. High temperatures increase their reproduction rate, grow their breeding season, and enable them to bite more people. In general, all bacteria multiply faster in warmer temperatures, so many pathogens will find our warming climate suitable for proliferation.

Climate change might also encourage emerging and shifting diseases. Experts at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln say climate change makes it easier for diseases to switch to new hosts. Many assume that the co-evolution of pathogens and specific hosts will make it harder for pathogens to shift and infect a new host with different biological makeup. Alarming evidence has shown that pathogens can shift to new hosts rather quickly when necessary. The researchers offer Costa Rica as an example, where humans decimated the population of capuchin and spider monkeys. A parasite once exclusive to these monkeys was unphased and latched on to howler monkeys, a different genus of monkey. If pathogens need to make rapid shifts, humans might find themselves facing several for which they have no immunity. Climate change threatens to uproot habitats and living patterns, bringing humans, animals, and insects into closer contact with each other–and their unfamiliar pathogens.

More Will Die From Extreme Heat

Heat stroke and heat-associated dehydration are the most common causes of weather-related deaths. People with existing cardiovascular issues are especially vulnerable to extreme heat. Furthermore, heat complications have a cumulative effect; your vulnerability to heat stroke increases after one episode. Cities have been heating up at a higher rate than rural areas in recent years. This leaves some of the world’s most populated areas in danger.

Basic Hygiene Won’t Be Guaranteed

As rainfall becomes less predictable, it will compromise our safe water supply. With less safe water, it won’t be nearly as easy to do simple things that prevent disease, like washing hands. People take hand-washing for granted, but it reduces risk of diarrhoeal disease by 20 percent, which actually kills 760,000 children five and under annually.

Too much water, brought from the climate change risks of severe flooding, also wreaks havoc on sanitation. Floods contaminate freshwater, spread waterborne disease, and create ideal living conditions for mosquitoes–one of the most prolific disease carriers.

Breathing Won’t Be as Easy

Warmer temperatures bring more ground-level ozone, a miasma of pollutants like carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. Ground-level ozone is also called smog, a term you’re probably more familiar with. It’s been known to damage lung tissue and aggravate respiratory systems. Increased smog will make breathing an excruciating task for people with existing lung diseases and Asthma. It might even encourage the development of Asthma in otherwise healthy people.

People with allergies should also be very afraid of climate change. The spring allergy season has already grown in the United States and it threatens to continue expansion. Ragweed allergies? Tests show that more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures increases the yield of ragweed pollen.

More People Will Go Hungry

Climbing temperatures, patchy rainfall, droughts, and floods will devastate staple crop yields in the world’s poorest regions. Malnutrition and undernutrition will burgeon as a result. By as early as 2020, crop yields in some African countries could be halved.

Increasingly severe weather already destroys crops. Pollinators disappear while pathogens and pests flourish to chomp through human crops. For example, soybean rust, a fungal infection caused by the pathogen P. pachyrhizi, spreads easily in warm, moist environments. Soybean rust has been a scourge in Asia and Africa for years and was introduced to the United States by a hurricane. Winds carry the spores for miles, leaving behind crop devastation. Similar diseases will most likely plague crops in new climates.

911 Might Not Be Working

Scientists believe climate change will lead to much stronger storms. The World Health Organization says that natural disasters reported globally have tripled since 1960, resulting in over 60,000 deaths.

Strong storms and natural disasters destroy medical facilities, cut the electricity that powers medical equipment, interferes with emergency communications tools like 911, and hinders transportation. Many injuries will happen in times when disaster strikes, even though our responsive capabilities will be restricted.

We Gotta Do Something

It’s pretty clear that we have to do something before things get out of hand. Do something…but what?

We’re flooded by climate change recommendations, but here are some key points from the 2014 National Climate Assessment. The assessment distills climate change responses into two main categories:

• Adaptation: Reducing negative impacts of climate change through infrastructure and preparedness planning. An adaptation example is the creation of the State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience that aims to prepare communities for the challenges of changing weather.
• Mitigation: Attempting to reduce the climate change itself through updated policies and practices. A mitigation example is the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, which pushes for energy efficiency.

While these two categories encompass different approaches, we need both to achieve the greatest effect. If you’re interested in reading about more climate change adaptation and mitigation initiatives, check out this fact sheet on President Obama’s Climate Change Action Plan. In terms of public health, however, we’ll stick to a few health-related initiatives, most of which fall under the adaptation category.

The Sustainable and Climate-Resilient Healthcare Facilities Initiative

As the name suggests, this plan aims to prepare healthcare facilities for climate change and related complications. The Department of Health and Human Services released an intensive guide with a framework designed to help healthcare facilities revamp their infrastructure and technology. The initiative includes an online planning toolkit that serves as an interactive guide to walk professionals through these steps of resilience:

1. Identify the problem.
2. Determine vulnerabilities.
3. Investigate options.
4. Evaluate risks and costs.
5. Take action.

So far, healthcare industry leaders like Kaiser Permanente have committed to use the guides to help in their resilience planning.

The BRACE (Building Resilience Against Climate Effects) Framework

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed a framework of preparedness geared more toward public health professionals working locally. Their framework involves projecting the impacts of climate change and assessing effectiveness of interventions. The evidence of effectiveness will be especially useful for people planning future interventions. Click here to see a chart made by the CDC to explain the BRACE framework.

NYC Cool Roofs

The NYC Cool Roofs initiative presents a perfect real-world example of an initiative already underway. Reflective surfaces are added to New York City roofs, which mitigate further climate change by reducing cooling energy needed, consequentially lowering greenhouse gas emissions. They’re also adaptive as they’ll help cool the city, and hopefully reduce heat-related deaths.

Controversy in Congress

Many look at the Keystone XL pipeline decision to judge the climate change temperature in Congress. To the dismay of environmentalists, the Senate rejected two amendments related to the Keystone XL pipeline bill that admitted the human role in climate change and called for more government interventions. The President just vetoed the bill and many believe Congress will not override it.

Still, many climate change advocates are alarmed that the bill went as far it did, saying it would contribute to climate change because of the sheer amount of extra energy it would require and carbon pollution it would make. According to this NRDC Issue Brief, building the pipeline would create the same carbon dioxide emissions as Americans driving 60 billion more miles this year.

Conclusion

If you’re frustrated with the accuracy of forecasts now, be prepared. While climate change poses a new challenge without guiding evidence or precedent, the health complications from climate change have already begun. We see more cases of Lyme disease. Allergies grow in severity. We’re not sure what will work, we’re not sure what the future will bring, but we’re sure we need to brace ourselves for coming changes and meet current changes head on. We all need to work together to make sure that we stay healthy in coming years.

Resources

Primary

World Health Organization: Climate Change and Health

Environmental Protection Agency: A Student’s Guide to Climate Change 

U.S. Global Change Research Program: National Climate Assessment 2014

White House: Strengthening the Climate Resilience of the Health Care Sector

City of New York: NYC Cool Roofs

World Health Organization: Diarrhoeal disease

Additional

Emergency Management: How a Warming Climate Impacts Public Health

Science Daily: More Infectious Diseases Emerging in Animals as Climate Changes

Nature: Climate Variation Explains a Third of Global Crop Yield Variability

Nature: Delays in Reducing Waterborne and Water-Related Infectious Diseases in China Under Climate Change

Science Daily: Heat Waves Becoming More Prominent in Urban Areas

Science Daily: Preparing for Hell and High Water: Research Advocate for Climate Adaption Science

New England Journal of Medicine: Climate Change and Human Health

American Meteorological Society: Climate Change Risk Management

American Phytopathological Society: Soybean Rust

The New York Times: Senate Rejects Human Role in Climate Change

Natural Resources Defense Council: Climate Impacts of the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline

BBC News: Obama Vetoes Keystone Oil Pipeline Bill

Politico: President Obama Vetoes Keystone Bill; GOP Plans Override Vote

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 Climate Change: How Will it Impact Our Health? 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.

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.

Since November 2014 when Republicans won control of the Senate and maintained control of the House, there have been promises that many hot topics will get attention. One of the first on the list was the issue of the Keystone XL Pipeline. While the political status of the bill is still up in the air, read on to learn about what the Keystone XL Pipeline is, and the political arguments for and against it.

What is the Keystone XL Pipeline?

The Keystone XL Pipeline is a pipeline transport that is to start in the town of Hardisty in Eastern Alberta, Canada and extend southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The goal of the pipeline is to help transport crude oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast in Texas, and to help move oil from the Bakkan region in North Dakota and Montana to places where it can be used.

The pipeline would actually be an extension to the current Keystone pipeline that already runs from Hardisty to the town of Patoka, Illinois. That’s the reason that it’s called “XL”–it’s an extension to the current operation. When running at full capacity, the Keystone XL will be able to handle up to 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day. The video below explains the purpose of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

In order for the Keystone XL Pipeline to become a reality, Trans Canada has to receive approval from the President due to the fact that the project crosses into the United States from Canada. But since the Constitution states that the President cannot make the laws, and that Congress has to create a law or bill for the pipeline to be built, the issue has been languishing in Congress.

What is the Keystone XL Pipeline’s current status?

The authority to build the Keystone XL pipeline is currently the focus of two versions of a bill in the House and the Senate. The two versions need to become one bill, which will force members from both houses of Congress to work together. The biggest difference between the two bills are the amendments that have been tacked on, particularly on the Senate side. For example, the Senate, which passed its version of the bill on January 29, 2015, added on amendments that protect landowners from the use of eminent demand. The House version of the bill passed on January 9, 2015.

What is the next step for the Keystone XL Pipeline bill?

The House has said it will pass the Senate version soon, so the bill will go to President Obama’s desk for his signature; however, the White House has stated that Obama will veto the Keystone XL Pipeline Bill if it comes to his desk. If this happens, the bill will go back to Congress where a two-thirds majority will be needed to override the president;s veto. If that majority is reached, the pipeline will become a reality. If majority is not reached, the bill will go back to Congress where they will have to hammer out something else.

What are the arguments in favor of passing the Keystone XL Pipeline?

The Economic Argument

Some proponents who would like to see the Keystone XL Pipeline become reality argue that it will create jobs for Americans. The American Petroleum Institute stated that 42,000 American jobs are at stake. While exactly how many jobs would be gained through the construction, maintenance, and operation of the pipelines is difficult to estimate, it’s certain that manpower would be needed for each of these steps. The United States Chamber of Commerce stated that on its Keystone XL Pipeline Lost Opportunity Tour it encountered numerous business owners, civic leaders, and citizens who will benefit from construction of the pipeline, as the jobs it creates will stimulate other parts of the economy.

The Safety Argument

Trans-Canada, the company that will be building the pipeline, emphasizes the safety benefits. It points to the existing Keystone Pipeline that has safely transported more than 700 million barrels of the same oil to U.S. refineries since 2010 as proof of its commitment to safety and the amount of oil that it has successfully moved already. It argues that a pipeline is the safest way to move oil and natural gas. According to a recent Frasier study, there are fewer accidents with pipeline transport than with trains or trucks. Furthermore it points out that five studies and 20,000 pages of scientific review have led the U.S. State Department to conclude that the project can be built and operated with minimal environmental impact.

Energy Independence

One political concern that has deepened in recent years is the worry that the United States relies too much on outside producers for oil, gas, and other forms of energy. While the amount of oil that we import from OPEC countries has gone down over the years, we still do import significant amounts of oil from the Middle East. While the new pipeline means that we will still be importing oil, it will be from Canada, our consistent ally. Those who emphasize the need for energy independence point out that this development would allow the U.S. to separate its economic relationships from its political relationships in world affairs.

Image courtesy of Tar Sands Blockade via Flickr

What are the arguments against the Keystone XL Pipeline passing?

The Environmental Argument

Those who oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline include environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and The National Resources Defense Council. In fact, the National Resources Defense council stated that “this pipeline will lock the United States into a dependence on hard-to-extract oil and generate a massive expansion of the destructive tar sands oil operations in Canada.” Environmentalists worry that “in addition to the damage that would be caused by the increased tar sands extraction, the pipeline threatens to pollute freshwater supplies in America’s agricultural heartland and increase emissions in already-polluted communities of the Gulf Coast.”

Further arguments against the pipeline come from a group of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates including former president Jimmy Carter and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who state that the tar sands are “among the world’s most polluting oil” and their growth in Northern Alberta has high costs for the climate. They also stress that the Keystone XL pipeline is the “linchpin for tar sands expansion and the increased pollution that will follow.” The result of the increase in pollution will trigger “more climate upheaval with impacts felt around the world.”

Former Vice President Al Gore stated in his blog that the tar sands are the “dirtiest source of liquid fuel on the planet” and this pipeline would be an “enormous mistake.” Those who agree with Gore believe that the “answer to our climate, energy, and economic challenges does not lie in burning more dirty fossil fuels” but in more “rapid development of renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies.”

The Dependency Argument

Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent Senator from Vermont, made the case back in 2014 that the Keystone XL Pipeline would move America in the wrong direction as instead of making us greener, it would make America more dependent on nonrenewable resources. Proponents of the dependency argument point out that even though we may become less dependent on foreign producers of oil, we would become more dependent on crude oil and natural gas as energy forms. Instead of exploring other energy options, such as solar or wind power, we would continue to rely on nonrenewable resources. Those who are worried about this dependency argue that we could create jobs and energy by focusing on these alternate types of energy.

The Health Argument

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) explained this school of thought well in a recent speech in the Senate. She reminded everyone that the oil being transported would be tar sand oil, not the conventional crude that we are used to hearing about on the news. Tar sand oil contains 11 times more sulfur and nickel, six times more nitrogen, and five times more lead. Sulfur dioxide can penetrate deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs and cause respiratory diseases such as Emphysema and Bronchitis, while an influx of nitrogen dioxide can increase symptoms in people with Asthma. According to this argument, these problems will increase in areas affected by the pipeline.

Conclusion

The Keystone XL Pipeline is a massive pipe that will run from Canada to Nebraska and link up with other pipelines to get oil down to refineries in Texas. Bills have passed the House and Senate; however, the bills will need to be made into one large bill that will pass Congress jointly in order to be sent to President Obama’s desk.This process has been made difficult by the storm of criticism that has come from both sides of the argument on whether or not a pipeline should cross the American heartland.

Resources

Primary

Senate: Keystone Pipeline XL Bill

House of Representatives: Keystone Pipeline XL Bill

Additional 

TransCanada: About the Project

American Petroleum Institute: API Applauds Swift Senate Action on Keystone XL

Institute for 21st Century Energy: U.S. Chamber Statement on Congressional Action to Approve Keystone XL Pipeline

John Hoeven: Statement on Keystone XL

Think Progress: Find Out How Your Senator Voted on the Keystone XL Pipeline 

John Manchin: Statement on Keystone XL

Al Gore: The Dirtiest Fuel on the Planet

Nobel Women’s Initiative: Nobel Laureates Urge Obama to Deny Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to credit certain information to Al Gore’s blog. 

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 Keystone XL Pipeline: Economic Breakthrough or Environmental Disaster? appeared first on Law Street.

Hacking attacks are estimated to cost the global economy a whopping $400 billion each year. With recent attacks on Sony and U.S. Central Command, it seems like nothing online is completely safe. The United States is scrambling to improve cybersecurity and prevent attacks that could otherwise have major impacts on national security, the economy, and personal safety. Here’s what you need to know about cybersecurity policy, government efforts, and what to expect in the future.

What is cybersecurity?

In the increasingly digital world with an ever-growing e-commerce sector, cybersecurity is of vital importance. Cybersecurity is a broad concept that resists a precise definition; it involves protecting computers, networks, programs, and data from cyber threats. Cybersecurity can help protect privacy and prevent unauthorized surveillance and use of electronic data. Examples of cyberattacks include worms, viruses, Trojan horses, phishing, stealing confidential information, and control system attacks. Because of it loose definition, it is hard for the government to regulate how businesses should protect their systems and information. A number of different measures are used to ensure at least a basic level of cybersecurity.

How does cybersecurity work?

Cybersecurity helps to prevent against the risks associated with any cyber attack, which depend on three factors:

1. Removing the threat source. Determining who is attacking can indicate what kind of information or advantage they are seeking to gain. Cyberattacks may be carried out by criminals, spies, hackers, or terrorists, all of whom may do it for different reasons.
2. Addressing vulnerabilities through improving software and employee training. How people are attacking is important in trying to set up the best cybersecurity possible. This can be likened to an arms race between the attackers and defenders. Both try to outsmart the other as the attackers probe for weaknesses in their target. Examples of vulnerabilities include intentional malicious acts by company insiders or supply chain vulnerabilities that can insert malicious software. Previously unknown, “zero day” vulnerabilities are particularly worrisome because they are unknown to the victim. Since they have no known fix and are exploited before the vendor even becomes aware of the problem, they can be very difficult to defend against.
3. Mitigating the damage of an attack. A successful attack may compromise confidentiality, integrity, and even the availability of a system. Cybertheft and cyberespionage might result in the loss of financial or personal information. Often the victims will not even be aware the attack has happened or that  their information has been compromised. Denial-of-service attacks can prevent legitimate users from accessing a server or network resource by interrupting the services. Other attacks such as those on industrial control systems can result in destruction of the equipment they control, such as pumps or generators.

Examples of common cybersecurity features include:

• Firewall: a network security system to control incoming and outgoing network traffic. It acts as a wall or barrier between trusted networks and other untrusted networks.
• Anti-virus software: used to detect and prevent computer threats from malicious software.
• Intrusion Prevention System: examines network traffic flows to prevent vulnerability exploits. It sits behind the firewall to provide a complementary layer of analysis.
• Encryption: involves coding information in such a way that only authorized viewers can read it. This involves encrypting a message using a somewhat random algorithm to generate text that can only be read if decrypted. Encryption is still seen as the best defense to protect data. Specifically, multi-factor authentication involving a two-step verification, used by Gmail and other services, is most secure. These measures (at least for the time being) are near impossible to crack, even for the NSA.

Watch the video for a basic overview of cybersecurity.

What is the role of the federal government in cybersecurity?

Most agree the federal role should include protecting federal cyber systems and assisting in protecting non-federal systems. Most civilians want to know online shopping and banking is secure, and the government has tried to help create a secure cyber environment. According to the Congressional Research Service, federal agencies on average spend more than 10 percent of their annual IT budget on cybersecurity measures.

There are more than 50 statutes that address various issues of cybersecurity. While much legislation has been debated in recent years, no bills have been enacted. The most recent and significant cybersecurity legislation came in 2002 with the passage of the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), which requires each federal agency to implement and report on cybersecurity policies.

Over the past several years, experts and policymakers have shown increasing concern over protecting systems from cyberattacks, which are expected to increase in both severity and frequency in the coming years. Most proposed legislation and executive branch action with regard to cybersecurity focus on immediate needs, such as preventing espionage and reducing the impact of successful attacks. Historically there has been an imbalance between the development of offensive versus defensive capabilities. Coupled with slow adoption of encryption technologies, many programs were vulnerable to attack. While the cybersecurity landscape has improved, needs still exist with regard to long-term challenges relating to design, incentives, and the environment. Overcoming these obstacles in cybersecurity remains a challenge.

Design

Developers of software or networks are typically more focused on features than the security of their product. Focusing primarily on the product’s features makes sense from an economic standpoint; however, shifting the focus away from security makes these products more vulnerable to cyberattacks.

Incentives

The distorted incentives of cybercrime make it hard to prevent. Cybercrime is typically cheap, profitable, and relatively safe for criminals. In contrast, cybersecurity is expensive, often imperfect, and companies can never be certain of the returns on the investments they make in cybersecurity.

Environment

Cybersecurity is a fast-growing technology. Constantly-emerging properties and new threats complicate the cybersecurity environment. It is very difficult for the government or private companies to keep up with the pace of changing technology used in cyberattacks. What laws and policies do exist are almost always out of date given the rapid pace of change in cybersecurity.

Watch the video below for an overview of the difficulties of cybersecurity policy.

Has President Obama taken any action on cybersecurity?

With recent attacks and data breaches at Sony, Target, Home Depot, and the Pentagon’s Central Command, the need for toughened cybersecurity laws has been highlighted. Cybersecurity is an issue where both sides of the political aisle see the need to work together. It is clear that a comprehensive policy playbook is needed to guide the government’s response to such serious cyberattacks.

On January 13, 2015, President Obama announced a new cybersecurity legislative proposal, which consists of three parts:

1. Enabling cybersecurity information sharing: The proposal enhances collaboration and cybersecurity information within the private sector and between the private sector and the government. The proposal calls for the private sector to share cyber threat information with the Department of Homeland Security’s National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC). Sharing information about cyber threats with the NCCIC would shield companies from liability. The bill would require the Department of Homeland Security to share threat information as quickly as possible with other agencies like the FBI or NSA. The proposal would also require private entities to comply with privacy restrictions like removing unnecessary personal information and taking measures to protect any personal information that must be shared.
2. Modernizing law enforcement authorities to fight cybercrime: This ensures that law enforcement has the proper tools to investigate and prosecute cybercrime. These provisions would criminalize the sale of stolen U.S. financial data, expand authority to deter selling of spyware, and shutdown programs engaged in denial-of-service attacks. Other components criminalize various cybercrimes.
3. National data breach reporting: Many state laws require businesses that have suffered from breaches of consumer information to notify consumers. The proposed legislation would simplify and standardize these existing state laws. The proposal would also put in place a timely notice requirement to ensure companies notify their customers about security breaches.

Watch the following video for an outline of President Obama’s plan.

On January 16, 2015, President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron promised to cooperate with regard to cybersecurity. Cameron expressed concerns about encryption technologies that might make it easier for would-be terrorists to avoid detection. Cameron hopes to outlaw certain forms of encryption. President Obama did not as easily dismiss privacy concerns, but did state that he believes the government can do a better job of balancing both privacy and security.

Why is it hard to implement effective cybersecurity policy?

Congress has tried for years to pass legislation encouraging companies to share information from cyberattacks with the government and with each other; however, liability issues and privacy concerns stopped such laws from passing. Many privacy advocates are speaking out against President Obama’s proposed legislation for the same reasons. They fear that such information-sharing legislation could further the government’s surveillance powers. Some groups caution that substantial National Security Agency reform should come before considering any information-sharing bill. Privacy concerns such as these have made it difficult to pass cybersecurity packages in Congress in the past; however, the recent Sony attack may prove to be a game changer in passing new cybersecurity bills.

Even if President Obama and Congress can implement the above changes, it will still be difficult for the government to enact more effective policy changes. Technology can easily mask the identity or location of those organizing cyberattacks. This can make identifying and prosecuting those responsible near impossible. Justifying an appropriate response to attacks is even harder.

Legislatures and citizens also tend to be kept in the dark due to extreme security regarding a country’s cyber capabilities. Edward Snowden’s revelations about the NSA sparked public interest in cybersecurity and in the extent of the government’s capabilities. But still, information regarding the U.S.’ cyber policies remains classified and not open to general discussion. Without transparency, it is hard to exercise oversight or explain to the public the government’s cybersecurity activities.

Critics also contend that President Obama’s proposal leaves large gaps in cybersecurity policy. The policy fails to establish ground rules for responding to cyber attacks once they have occurred and it remains unclear how the United States might respond to cyberattacks against government networks or even private sector entities like Sony. While attacks may be criminalized, prosecuting these cases with limited evidence is difficult.

A recently uncovered 2009 U.S. cybersecurity report warned that the government was being left vulnerable to online attacks because encryption technologies were not being implemented fast enough. While the country has come a long way since 2009 there is still much room for improvement. A 2015 review of the Department of Homeland Security stated that:

DHS spends more than $700 million annually to lead the federal government’s efforts on cybersecurity, but struggles to protect itself and cannot protect federal and civilian networks from the most serious cyber attacks.

Conclusion

More needs to be done in the realm of cybersecurity to prevent against cyberattacks. While less legislation may have worked in the past, the scale of recent cyberattacks shows the vast potential for damage to the government, companies, and individuals. President Obama’s recent proposal may be a good start, but more long-term policies are needed to protect citizens from serious cyberattacks. No cybersecurity solution is permanent, so public policy must constantly evolve to suit the needs of its citizens in the cyber realm.

Resources

Primary

Department of Homeland Security: Federal Information Security Management Act

White House: Securing Our Cyberspace: President Obama’s New Steps

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee: A Review of Missions and Performance

Additional

Congressional Research Service: Cybersecurity Issues and Challenges

National Journal: Obama’s New Cybersecurity Proposal Facing Skepticism

UMUC: Cybersecurity Primer

Forbes: Why a Global Security Playbook is Critical Post-Sony

Guardian: Secret U.S. Cybersecurity Report

Reuters: Obama Seeks Enhanced Cybersecurity Laws to Fight Hackers

NPR: Obama, Cameron Promise to Cooperate on Cybersecurity

Yahoo: Obama Says Hacks Show Need for Cybersecurity Law

Huffington Post: What’s Wrong with America’s Cybersecurity Policy?

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cybersecurity: Will We Ever Be Safe? 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.

For many people, Guantanamo Bay conjures horrific thoughts of terrorists, torture, and inhumane treatment. Many are surprised to hear that this dark stain in American history still exists and holds more than 100 detainees. While President Obama pledged to close Guantanamo Bay during his first campaign for the presidency, the process has been far from easy. Where can the United States send detainees to be released, and who will accept those deemed simply too dangerous to be set free?

What is Guantanamo Bay?

Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a U.S. military prison located at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Southeastern Cuba. Since 1903, the United States has been leasing the 45 square miles the base sits on from Cuba in an arrangement that can only be terminated by mutual agreement. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, existing detention facilities at the base were temporarily repurposed in order to hold detainees and prosecute them for war crimes in the “War on Terror.”

Since 2001, Guantanamo Bay has housed nearly 800 detainees. As of the beginning of 2015, there are 127 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. During President George W. Bush’s administration, the United States claimed that since the detainees were not on American soil they were thus not protected by the U.S. constitution. Their status as “enemy combatants” meant they could be denied U.S. legal protections and even protections from the Geneva Conventions. Many detainees endured cruel, inhumane treatment and various forms of torture while being held indefinitely without charges. The Supreme Court later ruled in various cases that procedures at Guantanamo Bay violated military law and the Geneva Conventions.

President Obama signed an executive order following his 2009 inauguration ordering the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay to be closed within a year. Despite this order, various obstacles have required that the facilities remain open.

Why haven’t the detention facilities closed?

The difficulty in closing the facilities at Guantanamo Bay comes in finding an appropriate place for the detainees to go. Many countries do not wish to take in detainees, and Congress objects to holding trials in the United States for any of the detainees who may have to serve longer sentences.

On December 19, 2014, President Obama signed the annual defense policy bill, titled the National Defense Authorization Act, into law. The Act prohibits him from closing Guantanamo Bay or transferring the detainees to U.S. soil. Negotiators even rejected a change that would have allowed detainees to come to the United States for emergency medical care rather than fly doctors and equipment to them. Despite signing, the frustrated President Obama hinted that he may claim constitutional powers to transfer some detainees against Congress’ wishes. According to the Washington Times, President Obama stated that since the law “violates constitutional separation of powers principles, (the) administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.” Watch the video below for more of President Obama’s sentiments.

At this point, the best way to whittle down the number of detainees at Guantanamo Bay is to transfer them elsewhere. Fifty-nine detainees have been approved for transfer but still remain at the facility. President Obama is allowed to transfer detainees to other countries willing to take them; however, the transfers can only take place after the Secretary of Defense certifies that they are not likely to join terrorist organizations. Frustrations linger between President Obama’s National Security staff and outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. While the staff has approved transfers, sign-off delays from Hagel and the Pentagon slow the process.

Has progress been made?

After a virtual halt in transfers between 2011 and 2013, a quickened pace for detainee releases was seen in 2014. Last year the Obama administration was able to transfer 28 detainees. Most recently they have been accepted by Kazakhstan, Uruguay, and Afghanistan, and they are not likely to face further detainment.

Transfers

Another 59 detainees have been approved for transfer but remain at Guantanamo Bay; 51 of those approved are from Yemen. The United States is not willing to send the detainees back to Yemen due to instability and prevalent militant activity. Concerns that the government there cannot ensure that the men will not join a terrorist organization rule out any chance they would be sent back to the country. The United States is instead looking to countries in Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East to take some of the detainees. Countries must assure the United States the detainees will not return to the battlefield and will be treated humanely.

Detainees in Limbo

If the United States can find places to send all of the 59 detainees approved for transfer, officials can begin the more difficult task of deciding what to do with the remaining prisoners. An additional 58 detainees are expected to remain in limbo. They are considered too difficult to try in court due to insufficient evidence, but they are still too dangerous to release. Ten detainees, including five alleged to have helped plot the 9/11 attacks, are in the military trial stage and have been for months. Administration officials say that the detention center cannot be closed without sending at least some of the remaining inmates to the United States to be held for longer sentences.

Cost Issue

The hope is to decrease the population down to the low 120s within the next month, making it half of what is was when President Obama took office in 2009; however, this still leaves President Obama far from his goal of closing the prison. The White House has continually argued that Guantanamo is a propaganda symbol used by terrorists to fuel anger at the United States and so it should be eliminated; however, the Obama administration has increasingly made the argument for Guantanamo Bay closure from a financial standpoint. According to the Wall Street Journal, the cost to operate the prison is between $400 and $500 million annually. The annual cost per inmate at Guantanamo Bay is well above $2 million, while officials say the cost to hold an inmate at a U.S. supermax prison would be only around $78,000. As more inmates are transferred from Guantanamo Bay, the cost per inmate continues to rise. The hope is to reduce political opposition to the ban on transferring detainees to the United States by shrinking the number held at Guantanamo until maintaining the separate facility seems far too expensive.

Watch the video below for more information on the difficulty of closing Guantanamo Bay.

Does releasing detainees pose security risks?

It depends on who you ask. A 2013 report from the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) stated that 17 percent of the more than 600 Guantanamo detainees released or transferred since 2002 returned to militant activity. An additional 12 percent were suspected of doing so. In order to cut down on this recidivism the DNI recommended avoiding transfers to countries enduring conflict, instability, or active recruitment by terrorist organizations. President Obama noted, however, that over 90 percent of Guantanamo Bay detainees transferred during his administration are not confirmed or suspected of having reengaged in terrorist activity. Still, many critics contend that the increased pace of prison transfers raises national security concerns.

The risk of future terrorism  is not limited to released Guantanamo Bay detainees. For instance, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, head of the Islamic State, was once a prisoner at a U.S. detention center in Iraq before being released. Others note that recidivism in the U.S. legal system is higher than 60 percent, which is much worse than recidivism rates from Guantanamo Bay. While there are risks in releasing detainees, there are similar risks in releasing any prisoner.

With the goal of shutting down Guantanamo Bay, there are few other options than releasing detainees to other countries. Americans remain fearful of detainees being held on U.S. soil. A Gallup poll released in June 2014 said 29 percent of Americans support closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and transferring detainees to U.S. prisons. Sixty-six percent oppose the idea. While Americans may agree in theory that the prison should close, they do not want the detainees to ever be held on U.S. soil.

Watch the video below for more of the potential risks of moving prisoners to the United States.

Conclusion

Guantanamo Bay will not be closing anytime in the immediate future. Ultimately President Obama may have to threaten executive action if he cannot overcome congressional opposition to moving the detainees more quickly and shutting down the facility. With no place to put many of the remaining prisoners who are stuck in limbo, it is likely some would have to be sent to the United States for the prison to close anytime soon. At this time, that seems unlikely to happen; however, given fewer detainees and extremely high costs of running the facility, the American public may eventually warm to the idea of housing certain prisoners in the United States.

Resources

Primary

White House: Executive Order: Closure of Guantanamo Bay

Director of National Intelligence: Summary of Reengagement of Detainees

Additional

Washington Post: U.S. Prepare to Accelerate Detainee Transfers

CNN: Guantanamo Bay Naval Station Fast Facts

Politifact: Obama: ‘We’re Spending Millions for Each Individual’

The New York Times: Four Afghans Released From Guantanamo Bay

Washington Times: Obama Signs Defense Bill That Keeps Gitmo Open

CNN: U.S. Hopes to Transfer Dozens From Gitmo

CNN: What Happens When Detainees Get Out?

USA Today: Obama Faces Challenges in Closing Gitmo

Fox News: U.S. Releases Fives More Guantanamo Bay Prisoners

Wall Street Journal: Obama Weighs Options to Close Guantanamo

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Will it Take to Finally Close Guantanamo Bay? appeared first on Law Street.

Happy New Year! Get ready for a full day of listening to your friends, family, and every D-lister on the morning shows drone on and on about their 2015 resolutions. Diets, new jobs, and all the usual suspects will make the rounds no matter who you talk to, but here are some resolutions celebrities and politicians should be making if they were really being honest with themselves.

Rep. Michael Grimm

Start paying taxes; stop threatening to throw reporters off balconies.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Sony Co-Chair Amy Pascal

Leave racially insensitive comments to unfiltered grandparents during the holidays and not in emails to colleagues.

Latest Sony email hack shows Scott Rudin and Amy Pascal making racist jokes about Obama http://t.co/RrNLdhplvR

— NY Daily News Gossip (@NYDNgossip) December 11, 2014

Justin Bieber

Start the Justin Bieber “Center for Kids Who Can’t Give Depositions Good and Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too.” Also, avoid Interpol.  

President Obama

Figure out a way to differentiate the Baltimore Ravens roster from the Freaks and Geeks cast.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Kim Kardashian

Learn how the internet works; determine whether or not it’s actually “breakable.”

The 10 most popular stories of the year on http://t.co/M1Ru3U4Ixe http://t.co/SQUr0yv8JQ pic.twitter.com/OwzDevBv0Y — PAPER Magazine (@papermagazine) December 31, 2014

Zooey Deschanel

Don’t break any more horses.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Sen. Ted Cruz

Stop practicing puppy dog face in mirror. Face is beginning to get stuck that way.

Courtesy of Twitchy.com.

Taylor Swift

Bring back surprised face–people seem to miss it.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Shonda Rhimes

Take over ABC, rename Shondaland. Make sure all programming includes strong female lead with some flaws, an emotional kiss scene, and an improbable natural catasrophe.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Charlie Crist

Track down promised campaign donation from the United Fan Makers of America.

Hon. John Dingell

Keep being awesome.

Proud Michigan resident & dear friend @grahamdavis got a bulldog today and named it Dingell. I see no similarities. pic.twitter.com/aqKwGwMM9Y

— Rep. John Dingell (@john_dingell) October 19, 2014

Mama June Shannon

Take a break from dating.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Former Rep. Trey Radel

Stop throwing stones from glass house.

Ya give him a breathalyzer test every-time he votes…duh http://t.co/lX5ojfqnqu — starchy (@me_starchy) December 31, 2014

What other resolutions do you think they should make? Let us know in the comments.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Year’s Resolutions Celebs & Politicians Should Make for 2015 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.

A little while back, fellow Law Streeter Marisa Mostek wrote an excellent, handy-dandy guide entitled “How to Sue Your President: Obama Edition.” The inspiration for the guide was born out of the claim from Speaker of the House John Boehner that he was going to sue President Obama. The suit was intended to address what Speaker Boehner and House Republicans saw as failures to legally implement parts of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Boehner announced his plan in a letter to members of the House of Representatives that also read:

On matters ranging from health care and energy to foreign policy and education, President Obama has repeatedly run an end-around on the American people and their elected legislators, straining the boundaries of the solemn oath he took on Inauguration Day. Everywhere I go in America outside of Washington, D.C., I’m asked: when will the House stand up on behalf of the people to stop the encroachment of executive power under President Obama? We elected a president, Americans note; we didn’t elect a monarch or king.

The guide that Marisa wrote was incredibly helpful. Speaker Boehner really should have checked it out, because as it turns out, the lawsuit hasn’t really gone anywhere. In fact, it’s been dropped twice by law firms who were working on the case for House Republicans. Interestingly enough, the House Republicans are blaming the fact that no one seems to be able to stay on their case on Democrats. A spokesperson for Speaker Boeher, Kevin Smith, stated:

The litigation remains on track, but we are examining the possibility of forgoing outside counsel and handling the litigation directly through the House, rather than through law firms that are susceptible to political pressure from wealthy, Democratic-leaning clients.

The idea of the House Republicans moving the suit in the actual House could be a smart one, given that currently, taxpayer money would be going to fund the payment of outside counsel. That being said, it doesn’t really look like there’s much action being taken.

In Marisa’s original “how to” piece she posed the question of whether or not this was a legitimate attempt by Speaker Boehner and House Republicans to bring a suit against the President, or whether it was all just a publicity stunt.

Right now, if the lawsuit can’t get off the ground, it seems like the latter may end up being true.

In the meantime, Speaker Boehner, and pretty much everyone else should check out “How to Sue Your President.” With the way that Speaker Boehner’s lawsuit is going, it couldn’t possibly hurt to get some guidance.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post How Not to Sue the President: No Progress for Speaker Boehner appeared first on Law Street.

In Ferguson, Missouri, protests over police aggression continue two-and-a-half months after unarmed teenager Michael  Brown was shot and killed by police officer Darren Wilson. On Monday, October 13, Dr. Cornel West and other spiritual leaders were arrested. This came as no surprise to West; earlier during the protests he claimed “I came here to go to jail.” While this feels like a 1960s documentary on Martin Luther King, Jr., that spirit is exactly what is needed now. We should all take a page from West’s book and really see the police militarization and violence for what it is: a civil rights issue. Addressing it with a religious community the way leaders did a half century ago could help.

As a PBS special notes, West “is a highly regarded scholar of religion, philosophy, and African-American studies” and “an an intellectual provocateur outside of the academic world.” His combination of academia and activism, of scholarship and celebrity, profoundly impacts the different causes he joins or criticizes. As a renowned Black figure in America, West’s disappointment in President Obama has been especially jarring. Slate reported this summer that West said that Obama “posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit. We ended up with a Wall Street presidency, a drone presidency, a national security presidency.” Such harsh criticism reveals the complex matrix of Obama’s approval in the Black community. That the criticism is newsworthy reveals the significance of West’s opinion in America.

The Guardian reports that the recent rally in Ferguson was meant to harken back to the Civil Rights movement, and West’s intent to be arrested solidifies that. Leaders of the Black Freedom movement frequently organized to fill the jails of segregationist towns and cities across the South. Faith played an important role. Religious networks enabled civil rights leaders to encourage and mobilize people in the fight against oppression. But in Ferguson it seems like fewer people are looking for religious guidance from faith authorities. According to the Guardian, St. Louis rapper and activist Tef Poe “took the microphone and noted that the Christian, Jewish and Muslim preachers on the stage were not the people on the street trying to protect people from the police.” The article suggests that the nonviolence espoused in the 50s and 60s may not carry as much weight as it used to.

I have already written on how an emphasis on community is significant for civil rights. It may be a loss, then, if Ferguson protesters reject any religion’s power to engage and empower a community. This isn’t to say that secularism should be removed from protest, but secular people should not dismiss religion’s ability to organize. How can religion, grounded in old beliefs and traditions, aid a progressive movement toward greater justice? West, part theologian and part activist, has an approach that helps bridge the gap that many may see between religion and social justice.

His conception of democracy includes “the prophetic commitment to justice, which is at the foundation of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, means we must fight the reasons for unjustified suffering and social misery,” as a biography on West notes. Bringing religiosity into the activist fold is important for the pressing civil rights problems of our time. As the Guardian article notes, many see this as a generational problem in which elders are being held back from action. Speaking as a young person who is largely not religious, young people who are seeking change need to respect the authority of American religiosity; we should note where democratic principles of social justice meet those of religion.

Jake Ephros

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

The post Dr. Cornel West’s Religious Activism is Exactly What We Need in Ferguson appeared first on Law Street.

Here’s my Public Service Announcement of the day, and it’s going out to our politicians: everyone hates you. Seriously. President Obama, you have an approval rating around 40 percent. Governors, some of you are doing OK, but some of you really suck. Congress — you people are currently clocking in at roughly 14 percent. Really, you are all screwed, Americans really, really hate you. The question is, do you even know that?

In light of what happened last night, I’ve got to imagine that at least a few of you haven’t gotten the memo, particularly those of you running for Governor in Florida. For those of you that haven’t seen Fangate, a.k.a. Governor Rick Scott’s really weird mental breakdown a.k.a a trio of debate moderators wishing they were anywhere else, here it is.

Politicians. This, this right here is why people hate you so much.

Let’s break this down. First of all, Charlie Crist, stop being so into your fan. I get that it’s Florida, which is basically a giant swamp. I get that feeling warm while public speaking is pretty much the worst thing ever. I too easily get overheated, and it’s gross. But never in my life have I looked so proud of a fan. And that’s exactly how Crist looks — really proud of himself and this weird fan attachment he has. He’s obviously loving this. Scott is being a whiny little baby, and he gets to call him out on it, but he still comes across as creepy and really into a fan that’s aimed at…his knees? New campaign slogan: Charlie Crist, vote for me, my knees are nice and cool.

And then there’s Rick Scott who is throwing a temper tantrum worthy of a four year old. I get that they decided the rules of the debate beforehand, and Crist broke one. But is that a real reason to not walk out on stage for a debate? The fan literally has no effect on you Rick Scott, this isn’t a political version of “The Butterfly Effect.”

So back to why people hate you two, and politicians in general. You are running for office to be the Governor of our fourth most populous state. You would be directly in charge of policies that affect just shy of 20 million people. Florida has serious problems when it comes to crime, education, health care, and immigration. Then there are all the issues that a Florida governor would have to deal with that are not necessarily currently affecting Florida, but in a fully globalized world are still relevant: the spread of Ebola, sending troops to war, natural disasters, trade. And here, the two top contenders for this job are fighting like children over a fan.

This is why so many of us hate politicians. How can you relate to a single mom who goes to a minimum wage job with a fever because she needs to provide for her kid when you can’t deal with having your fan off for a few hours? How can you relate to a young man who is shot for holding an ice tea and a bag of skittles when your privilege allows you to prolong walking out on stage as long as you want because your opponent brought an accessory you don’t approve of? How can you talk about personal responsibility when you can’t even compromise with your opponent about something as innocuous as a fan?

Politicians, this is why everyone hates you. Because you’re out of touch asshats.

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 Politicians: We All Hate You appeared first on Law Street.

From the faux outrage over President Obama’s “latte salute,” to every worker’s fantasy coming true in Germany with a possible ban on after-hours work emails, to people getting arrested for buying cold meds — for an actual cold — there was a ton of interesting news last week. ICYMI, here are Law Street’s top three stories from last week.

#1 The “Latte Salute” is a Latte of Crap

Earlier this week President of the United States Barack Obama made a fatal error. He drank a cup of coffee and saluted our troops…with the same hand. This incited media coverage somewhere on par with a natural disaster, or maybe an assassination attempt. In fact, some members of the media covered what has now been dubbed the “latte salute” scandal as though it actually was an assassination — namely the assassination of American patriotism. (Read full article here.)

#2 Germany Considers Bans on After Hours Work Emails

I’m sort of a walking stereotype. I have my phone in my hand at all times, I sleep with it in my bed even though I know that’s bad, and I’m constantly checking my texts, social media, and email. And that’s never really bothered me — it seems normal to me. I am used to being accessible essentially 24/7. I think that’s a norm that a lot of us Americans have gotten used to, and I doubt that that’s going to change, but apparently some of our European friends have started rejecting the concept of 24/7 connectivity. (Read full article here.)

#3 Careful When Buying Water and Cold Meds, You Might Just Get Arrested

Every time I see a law enforcement officer in public — mall cop, fashion police, regular 5-0 — I have the irrational fear that they are out to get me. (This is especially true of the fashion police, but my fear of them might not be that irrational as anyone who has seen my clothing choices could attest.) I’m never doing anything I’m not supposed to be doing (or at the very least, I’m never doing anything I’m going to admit to you), but that doesn’t matter: I am sure I am about to be thrown in handcuffs and taken downtown. Little did I know, instead of fearing this, I should have been hoping for it. Just ask Elizabeth Daly or Mickey Lynn Goodson. (Read full article here.)

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

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

Hey y’all!

Yesterday I was watching The Five on Fox News and one of the topics was this new ad campaign that some former Mitt Romney “ad guru” came up with that has me feeling all kinds of different things. Another one of the writers here at Law Street got her fingers working on the same topic and I will address a little of what Anneliese had to say about the “Republicans Are People Too” campaign.

I get the message they’re trying to get across here, but I think it was done wrong. We all have a misconception of people we do not know or do not associate with, and this often goes along party lines. There have always been certain stereotypes attached to each party. Republicans and conservatives are typically viewed as heartless, racist, homophobic, gun-toting, war-loving, wife-beating, feminist-hating, uncaring-about-the-poor, mean-spirited, greedy, selfish, intolerant, drunk, one-percenters. Democrats and liberals are often viewed as tree-hugging, abortion-loving, gun-hating, politically correct, unpatriotic, lazy, looking-for-a-handout, entitled, big government-loving people who like to stick racism or sexism into every conversation.

These stereotypes are not true of everyone and that was what Vinny Minchillo was trying to put out there for the world in this ad. But I don’t think he did it the right way. And if he spent $60,000 to create that ad then he needs to get his money back because the supposed use of stock photos is just embarrassing. Not to mention the stuff he points out is just petty and shallow.

The one thing I do love about the ad is the moment when it states “Republicans like dogs and cats, but probably dogs a little more than cats.” It was the playful humor of this moment that made me like the ad. But to feel like you need to tell the world that even people with tattoos are Republicans drives me insane. I have 14 tattoos, I don’t drive a Prius, I do love dogs, and I’m a conservative, too!

Greg Gutfeld had an interesting point on The Five: “This commercial is not the answer. You shouldn’t be saying ‘we’re just like them.’ You should be saying why you’re better than them. You need to focus on why you’re right.” I like the point he makes but maybe not so much about being better than anyone else but simply saying why we think that our opinions and views are just as important and should be just as respected as those of another party.

Which brings me to the petty comment that President Obama made the other day in a speech:

While good, affordable health care might seem like a fanged threat to the freedom of the American people on Fox News, it’s working pretty well in the real world.

Delusions of grandeur come to mind.

Why on EARTH, Mr. President, do you feel like you need to take jabs at Fox News? Are you threatened by the idea that you have not been such a great president and things are not actually working out the way you said they would!? Someone actually took the time to include this little jab in his speech. President Obama didn’t just go off the cuff and use his own wit to make this comment, but a speech writer actually wrote it in for him. When you are on your second term and this is what you and your speech writing team are talking about it is time to hang up your hat! Take a page from the fictional President Josiah “Jed” Bartlet of the West Wing and respect the other party, maybe even include them.

Yes, Anneliese, real Republicans actually use Macs. In fact, I am using one to write this right now! I love all things Apple; the iPhone 6, iPad mini, Apple TV and I even have two Mac laptops and a 27″ iMac. But now I have to wonder if me listing all of the Apple products that I own makes you think I am, yet again, your typical elitist Republican because Apple products are not cheap! I appreciate that you appreciate the fact that Republicans are just kind of tired of having a bad rap.

Now, I agree with Anneliese on the other ads she talks about — they are just horrible! But you can’t fault the party for trying. What’s even better is that the more you talk about these ads the longer they stick around and the more people they reach! So even if it is a ridiculous ad, you have given it the momentum to influence someone it may not have reached before. Or at least get someone thinking.

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 Republicans Really Are People Too appeared first on Law Street.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has been an outspoken opponent of marriage equality for years. She’s campaigned on traditional marriage and supported it at both the state and federal levels. In an interview after yesterday’s Values Voter Summit however, Bachmann responded to a question about gay marriage by calling it “boring” and “not an issue.” Oh really? That’s interesting news considering the source. Just for giggles (or let’s be honest, groans), let’s take a look at some of Bachmann’s greatest hits on gay marriage and what she so sweetly terms the “gay lifestyle” and cross our fingers that she’s actually going to give this topic a rest during future diatribes to her hometown paper after leaving congress this year.

1. In response to the Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling:

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to join the trend, despite the clear will of the people’s representatives through DOMA. What the court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States.

This, of course, is the statement that garnered the very best Nancy Pelosi response of all time: “Who cares?”

2. In response to Arizona’s vetoed ‘Right to Discriminate’ bill:

The thing that I think is getting a little tiresome is the gay community have so bullied the American people and they have so intimidated politicians that politicians fear them and they think they get to dictate the agenda everywhere.

3. In response to Minnesota legalizing gay marriage:

I’m proud to have introduced the original traditional marriage amendment, and I thank all Minnesotans who have worked so hard on this issue.

4. In response to the question, ‘Why can’t same-sex couples get married?:

They can get married, but they abide by the same law as everyone else. They can marry a man if they’re a woman. Or they can marry a woman if they’re a man.

5. Ahead of Minnesota’s legalization of gay marriage:

The Bible is very clear on this issue. Homosexuality is a sin, and God will punish communities that support it. Sodom and Gomorrah thought they could defy the will of God, and we all know what happened to them. If the governor signs this legislation into law the Minneapolis-St. Paul region will be next…These are very scary times. I don’t want my family to be the last ones out.

6. On the ‘deviancy’ of the gay community:

(The gay community will) abolish age of consent laws, which means we will do away with statutory rape laws so that adults will be able to freely prey on little children sexually. That’s the deviance that we’re seeing embraced in our culture today.

7. On the possibility of gay marriage in Minnesota:

We will have the immediate loss of civil liberties for five million Minnesotans. In our public schools, whether they want to or not, they’ll be forced to start teaching that same-sex marriage is equal, that it is normal and that children should try it.

8. In response to President Obama’s support of same-sex marriage:

The President’s announcement today shows how out of touch he is with the values of American families…Americans know better and support traditional marriage…I will do everything in my power to support and preserve traditional marriage and to protect American families…despite our president’s decision to thumb his nose at the traditional institution of marriage.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michele Bachmann Calls Gay Marriage Boring, But Her History Says Otherwise appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday in a dramatic escalation of the many-sided conflict in Syria, the United States, along with a coalition of Middle Eastern states, showered ISIS strongholds with airstrikes and Tomahawk cruise missiles. Lawmakers, public officials, and pundits have traded arguments over whether the United States has any interest in intervening, whether ISIS poses any threat to United States, and whether the United States has any justification in getting involved in Syria’s three and half year long civil war. In support of the strikes that started on Tuesday, President Obama has invoked several international and domestic legal justifications. Like any justifications for war, however, they aren’t completely solid.

On Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power answered the international justification question in a letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, saying that the United States has the right to carry out self-defense on behalf of Iraq.

Generally, a country can only use force in the territory of another sovereign country if it is authorized to do so by the U.N. Syria is a sovereign country, and Power’s letter to Secretary General Ban only informs him of the attacks, it doesn’t ask for his permission. However, force can be used against a sovereign country without permission if it’s for the sake of self-defense. The United States is arguing that, although Syria is a sovereign state, it isn’t doing anything to stop or weaken ISIS within its own borders, justifying the United States’ defense-based intervention.

President Obama also has to cover his bases for legal justification domestically. To that end, he told Congress on September 9th that he doesn’t need Congressional permission and that he has the authority to take action. This justification can be found in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). That resolution gave the President authority to:

Use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.

The law is vague and has a wide enough breadth that it has been successfully used by the United States for continued military actions across the world.

The organizations targeted in the wording of the AUMF have generally been Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. While ISIS has its origins in Al-Qaeda and claimed to still be affiliated, Al-Qaeda officially cut ties with ISIS in February, prompting controversy over whether the president actually has the legal authority to target them without Congressional approval. But this week’s strikes didn’t target ISIS alone. The Pentagon announced that the attacks also targeted the Khorasan, a little-known terrorist group that does have connections with Al-Qaeda via Jabhat al-Nusra, another Al-Qaeda offshoot in Syria.

Additionally, an incredibly interesting facet of this conflict is that, despite the fact that Obama has previously said that he wanted to eventually repeal the AUMF, he is using it to justify strikes against ISIS. The Obama Administration’s choice of justifications has prompted questions over the president’s apparent change of heart about practicing restraint in counterterrorism. Historically, however, the expanded offensive isn’t so strange, as Obama has bombed half a dozen other countries in the Middle East and North Africa during his presidency.

Remember that just over a year ago, the United States was having the same debate about getting involved in Syria, except that Obama was then insisting that it was necessary to bomb Syrian President Assad, after his regime killed upwards of 1,400 people in a sarin gas attack. That plan was ditched at the last second when Russia made a deal with Syria to dispose of the country’s chemical weapons. But historically speaking, what Obama’s administration did on Tuesday really isn’t a departure from his foreign policy strategies.

Some Obama critics say that if Obama had gone through with those threats against Assad last year, the United States may not be in this mess with ISIS today. A common theory about how ISIS grew to be so powerful is that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad strategically watched idly by as it clashed other rebel groups, who were trying to oust him and create a democratic government, and took over large swaths of land. He even bombed the rebels as they gained ground against ISIS. He did this, some say, in order to have a legitimate claim to having a terrorist threat in Syria and lure in Western powers to help him, and not the rebels. As it turns out, Assad didn’t need to convince the West to join his side. They are, however, giving him a courteous “heads-up” about bombing his enemies.

While his administration has done its homework and technically managed to justify these new attacks on ISIS, Obama’s words and actions surrounding them don’t scream consistency, either. His backing out of the plan last year to strike Assad in Syria suggests that he may have only been talking about strikes to save face. It suggests that only when words like “Islamist” and “terrorist” are being thrown around is it necessary to take action. And using the AUMF to take those actions suggests that it’s acceptable for the president to change his position on that justification whenever it’s convenient.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Strikes Against ISIS in Syria: Shaky Ground for Obama Administration appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Lately our lives have been beaten down by the constant news about terrorists. It seems like terrorism is everywhere we turn. What happened to the days when we all lived in the nice little American bubble where terrorism didn’t even seem to be a word we could rightly understand? Now it is a word that we use on a daily basis. 9/11 was the starting point of a scary reality for most of this generation and its connection to terrorism. Before that day we could get on a plane and not have to worry about if the person next to us had a bomb in their underwear or constantly wonder and worry about what might happen next. People are unpredictable and you never know what could happen. The security blanket of living in a nation considered a Super Power is no longer there; we walk around with a target on our backs.

Finally our government is getting it together and figuring out what to do to make our world a little bit safer. Even amid all things ISIS at least the government is finally trying to do something. Kudos to President Obama on the airstrikes the other night!

In an effort to deter people from becoming homegrown jihadists, our government has started a pilot program in three cities: Los Angeles, Boston, and Minneapolis. The administration is looking for new ways to intervene in the lives of people who may want to launch an attack on us, even American citizens. The ideas they have put together seem a bit strange and big brother-esque to me, but a necessary evil in terms of protecting the many from the few.

My biggest question though, is how do you know who to look for? How do you know who is thinking or planning anything?

I always think of the film Enemy of the State when it comes to trying to keep an eye on terrorism. What if some innocent person gets pulled into something they aren’t even aware of and the government ruins their entire lives? And once it figures out they aren’t “the guy” it just leaves them alone with a simple apology and they have to to pick the pieces of their life.

How much are we willing to give up to our government in order to be safe? This is something I struggle with all the time because I certainly do not believe in big government, but I do believe our citizens should be safe and protected from harm’s way. Unfortunately there is no right or wrong answer.

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 New Federal Pilot Program Aims to Deter Homegrown Jihadists appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

This is going to be a fun one!

Some of y’all know a while ago I was writing a personal blog, stumbled across Law Street, and was fired up by one of the contributors, Hannah Winsten. I wrote a rebuttal and the rest is history. I’ve been writing for Law Street for a few months now and have had the greatest pleasure in doing so, the team rocks! But in the back of my mind I always wondered when I would be able to have another encounter with Hannah. I like to think of her as the antithesis of me, she stands for everything that I don’t believe in, but in a good way!

The day has finally come. Ladies and gentlemen, Hannah is back and she has fired me up!

Hannah wrote a piece this week entitled, “LADIES: Vote Republican and You’ll Get the D” and I thought this will be a fun one. Boy was I right! I love how she starts right off with a sarcastic tone, throwing in those traditional pop culture references before pulling out the big words like ‘racist,’ ‘sexist,’ ‘homophobic’ and ‘Republican.’

First, she certainly did get it right that President Obama is getting close to being a lame duck, actually at this point he’s checked out and moved on to retirement on the golf course while still in the White House. Things haven’t gone the way he planned and homeboy has chunked deuce on the country, as pointed out by fellow Law Street writer Katherine Fabian here.

Who isn’t ready for the 2016 elections? I know I am!

Here we go again with Hannah only selecting bits and pieces of a report, only outlining what is beneficial and relevant to how she thinks and not the whole story. Yes, Politico reported a survey that states 49 percent of single women hold a negative view of the Republican Party, but it also says that 39 percent view Democrats unfavorably. If you go deeper into the article you also see that 48 percent of married women prefer a Republican to a Democrat. It isn’t a very positive article for Republicans but at least it is the truth and they are trying to do something about it.

Yes, the Republican Party has been perceived as the “good ole boys” party and women were neglected in some respects. But there are still plenty of Republican women in the country and I’m sorry but the idea that Republicans support rape and domestic violence is just vile. Does Hannah see all Republicans as toothless, alcoholic, wife-beating-if-they-step-out-of-the-kitchen inbreds? Referring to conservatives as ‘conserva-turds’ is almost as ridiculous as your girl, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, making the comment that “What Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back.” Maybe you and Debbie get together in the last few days and brainstormed creative ways of calling the Republican Party abusive? Even people in the Democratic Party are distancing themselves from that foolish woman and her hideous remarks.

Nowhere in any Republican initiative or in that specific poll does it say that Republicans are planning to tell anyone that they are wrong. Nowhere. The report says that it is a “lack of understanding” between women and Republicans that “closes many minds to Republican policy solutions.” But let’s be honest, we don’t need a poll to tell us that there is a lack of understanding between the American people and politics. Not many in my generation or in younger generations take the time to understand politics, they just go with what they hear on television and we both know that is not an accurate depiction of politics at its core.

Hannah claims that Republicans will basically shake their fingers at all women, tell them they are wrong, and expect them to go out and vote for the GOP. What exactly are you reading that says any of that? Oh right, it is all based on opinion, not fact. Let’s go back to the Politico article where it states that the group that took the poll suggests “Republicans deal honestly with any disagreement on abortion, and then move to other issues.” Again, the report suggests this for Republicans. On the upside, there have been several Republicans who have come out in support of over-the-counter birth control, and many conservatives in general are Pro-Choice. Yes, Republicans should deal with the abortion topic with real facts, solutions, ideas, and then move on. Unlike Democrats who are still ignoring the facts of the IRS scandal, the Benghazi issue, ISIS, and most importantly Obamacare.

R.R. Reno made valid points in his opinion piece on the dilemma facing social conservatives, but my dear Hannah took what she wanted and neglected the rest. She assumes that this piece is to attack single women, assuming that they live with 12 cats and are terrified that they will end up alone so they recognize the strengths of getting a hand out when they are older and thus support the Democratic Party. What Reno was doing was quoting a statistic about marriage and vulnerability and then putting his two cents in on why McKinsey, a fictional character, may feel judged when someone “opposes gay marriage, because she intuitively senses that being pro-traditional marriage involves asserting male-female marriage as the norm — and therefore that her life isn’t on the right path.”

That is a valid argument and a valid way of thinking. I know that I was raised to believe that the order of life is to graduate high school, go to college, get a job, get married and have kids all under the age of 30. Guess what? I’m 29, I have two degrees (working on a third), and two jobs, but I am not married or have kids and it is a scary idea sometimes. Our parents’ traditional ways were engraved in our minds as young children, but the path our parents and older generations took is not what our generation wants to take. It will take time, but not everyone feels supported in their ventures because we aren’t doing what we were “supposed” to do. I’m glad I messed up and took a different path. I’m a better person for it. Reno was simply putting those ideals in a simple statement and showing that McKinsey chose to reject the norm so that she could feel accepted in her choices, and nothing is wrong with that.

I hate to break it to you, Hannah, but if you think women are voting Democrat because they “want to have control over their own bodies, their own reproductive systems, and their own lives. They want to be able to support ourselves. They want to lead lives that aren’t wracked with violence,” then you should probably vote for the unrepresented party. Democrats are taking away more of your rights than Republicans. Remember that tiny thing called Obamacare? Yeah, do some research and you will find there are more restrictions than advantages. You want to live your own life without someone dictating what you can and can’t do? Should probably take another look at the Democratic Party and its belief in big government, controlling every aspect of our lives and making people believe that they are entitled to handouts instead of working hard for what they have in life. Democrats would rather rich people do the work and hand the benefits to the less fortunate and lazy. Democrats believe in helping everyone but also in accruing more debt — that doesn’t help the economy, it hurts it.

At least Republicans are trying to fix their issues, listen to the people, and change (slowly) with the times more so than Democrats. Not to mention they are taking responsibility for their errors.

If you think Hillary is going to be in the White House in 2016 you’ve got another thing coming. The same “what difference does it make?” Hillary who was so flustered and frustrated about being questioned on the topic of Benghazi that she lost her cool? The same Hillary Clinton who admitted to leaving the White House with her husband President Bill Clinton, personally $10 million in debt? I’m not sure that is someone I would want in the oval office. Let’s be truly honest. We all know that while President Clinton was busy getting blow jobs in the Oval Office Hillary was really running the country. So she’s been president, just behind the scenes, and we don’t need her again.

I’ve said this before, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but the moment that opinion turns into something disrespectful I have an issue with it. The holier than thou, self-righteous, talking down to anyone who doesn’t agree with you tone is not cool. I enjoy Hannah’s quick wit and sarcasm but sometimes she crosses the line. Republicans are people too and in most cases highly educated people who just don’t share your views. Ease up on the conservative detest because you are simply putting yourself in the category of abuse that you talk so much about hating.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Joe Wolf via Flickr]

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 Response: Let’s Stop with the Republican Bashing appeared first on Law Street.

By now you’ve probably heard about the unusual-colored suit President Obama wore to a press conference last week. Everyone seemed to have something to say about it. But as unflattering as the suit appeared, I think people are failing to see the real issue at hand, which the suit even helped to illustrate: our president has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to the current issues at hand in foreign policy.

By wearing this particular tan suit, the president basically let the country know that he has simply given up. The suit washed out his complexion just like Russia and ISIS have washed him out, so to speak. When asked about his plans for Iraq, he merely replied, “We don’t have a strategy yet.”

Throughout his statement, despite being asked directly what his plans are, Obama seems to beat the bush giving vague answers about a plan that he has to make in the future. While it’s understandable that he doesn’t want to give out any information that’s not yet necessarily set in stone, foreign conflicts such as the ones at hand require crucial timing. If he waits too long to make a plan it may be too late, potentially costing a significant number of lives.

This is hardly the first time that the president has caused controversy with his sartorial choices. From his very first days in office, the public was up in arms over his decision to bare his shirt sleeves in the oval office. While he may have wanted to be the cool and casual president at the beginning of his presidency, the tan suit seemed to have gone a little too far. They say clothes make the man, and in this case the clothes made the man look defeated.

Granted, I would love to give the president props for straying away from the standard black suits politicians typically wear, after all it is the year 2014. However, there is a time and place for everything. A conference regarding the current state of war in Iraq and serious foreign threats our country faces from Russia is hardly the time to take a new fashion risk. Perhaps the president should’ve saved the khaki suit for a stroll in the Hamptons over the holiday weekend.

In the grand scope of things, it really doesn’t matter what the president is wearing, but rather the message he has to deliver to our country. The media’s reaction to his suit was certainly blown out of proportion, but I still think it is interesting how the suit’s color seemed to coincide with the overall tone of the president’s statement. There’s certainly no law dictating that the president must exclusively wear black suits, but if there were would the message have been received by the public in the same way? Obama has made several poor decisions throughout his presidency and that morning, his poor sense of judgement seemed to carry through to his wardrobe choices, as well.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s Tan Suit Proves He Has Given Up appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Speaker John Boehner via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

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

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

President Obama stirred up an old debate recently by becoming the first sitting president to endorse statehood for the District of Columbia. Obama expressed his full support: “I’m in DC, so I’m for it…Folks in DC pay taxes like everybody else. They contribute to the overall well being of the country like everybody else. There has been a long movement to get DC statehood, and I’ve been for it for quite some time.”

Here’s what you need to know about Washington DC’s contentious battle for statehood, what it would mean for District residents, and what impact it would have on the country.

Why was the District of Columbia created?

To understand the arguments for statehood, you have to understand the history of Washington, DC. The District of Columbia was specifically created to house the federal government. The authors of the Constitution wanted to house the federal government in its own jurisdiction after witnessing the problems of having the nation’s temporary capital in Philadelphia. The decision was made in 1787 following an incident in which the governor of Pennsylvania refused to disperse rioters threatening Congress in Philadelphia. The framers did not want the federal government to be subject to any decisions of a specific state or governor. So, the delegates wrote Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution to outline Congress’ control over the district:

“[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.”

Congress moved to a new federal capital in 1800, and the District still stands today on land ceded by Maryland. Residents of the District face a number of unique circumstances because it is not a state.

Originally, DC residents were barred from voting for president. It was not until 1961 that the passage of the 23rd Amendment finally secured three electoral votes for the District. DC residents also elect one non-voting member to the House of Representatives.

The District of Columbia has operated under a system of Home Rule since 1973 as a way to better govern local affairs. Home rule means that DC is allowed a local government, including a directly elected mayor and city council. Still, Congress has the ultimate authority and the power to overturn any laws passed by the local government.

Why do people push for DC statehood?

Right to Vote

Residents of DC express outrage that they pay federal and local taxes, are subject to the same laws as everyone else, fight in wars, and serve on juries, yet they lack the same Congressional representation. The argument is also made that this disenfranchisement comes from a legacy of racism aimed at the District’s majority African-American population. Those in favor of statehood want the full rights of being an American citizen, which includes full representation in Congress as well as full control over local affairs. In addition to lacking voting power, DC’s representative in Congress is denied a federal salary and an office. License plates in DC decry residents’ lack of status with the slogan “Taxation without Representation.” Watch President Obama’s remarks on DC statehood below:

Local Control

Many citizens are fed up with the limitations of DC’s Home Rule. Since Congress can overturn any law, it has exerted its power on a number of issues passed by DC residents. Congress has intervened to restrict abortions, to prevent restrictions on firearm ownership, and even to control marijuana issues. Congress has also barred DC from using local tax dollars on specific things, such as statehood advocacy and needle exchange programs.

Taxes

Citizens claim they do not have enough financial resources to pay for high-quality public services. Although DC is not a state, it has all the financial burdens of one. It provides local services, like public schools and a police force, but it also provides services typically dealt with at the state level, like mental health and Medicaid. DC has limited taxing powers. The District cannot tax income earned within its borders by non-residents, even though all other states have that power. Two-thirds of income in the District is made by people who do not live in the District, yet they pay no income tax.  Additionally, the federal government, embassies, and non-profits that occupy most of DC pay no property, sales, or income taxes. The small size of the city and disproportionate number of low-income workers with higher needs for public services strain the District financially. Still, DC residents pay the highest federal taxes per capita.

Growing Population

Washington DC’s fast-growing population of approximately 650,000 — larger than Wyoming or Vermont — is large enough to make it a state. According to the Washington Peace Center, DC as a state could bring in more than $2 billion a year in additional revenue. This would allow the local government to cut taxes and better fund schools and services. Freeing itself from Congressional oversight would also make the district more efficient. Watch more about the DC statehood movement below.

Shutdowns

The 16-day federal government shutdown during Fall 2013 illustrated issues with DC dependency on federal funds and approval. DC Mayor Grey did not shut down local services but suspended some payments so the city could remain operational. Mayor Grey warned that vital city services were dangerously close to ending as the city’s emergency funds were depleted. Allowing DC the autonomy of statehood would prevent these issues in the event of a federal government shutdown.

Legally, how would statehood be achieved?

Despite President Obama’s supportive statement, making DC a state is unfortunately not within his power. There are a couple of avenues that the District of Columbia could take to obtain statehood.

Constitutional Amendment

There is some debate as to whether an amendment could make DC an official state, but it could definitely give DC’s residents much greater rights and further define the area of the federal district. Two-thirds of Congress would have to approve a matching constitutional amendment. Alternately, two-thirds of state legislatures could call a Constitutional Convention. The amendment would then be sent to the states for ratification by three-fourths. Naturally this process would be very difficult. A proposed amendment in 1985 to give DC more voting power was only ratified by 16 states in the allotted seven-year span. Further, critics point out that any constitutional amendment could later be repealed.

Law

Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution outlines the creation of new states.

“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

Under this section, an act of Congress could make DC its own state with a simple majority vote and signature from the President. This was the same process followed by Hawaii and Alaska as recently as 1959. There is some question as to whether Maryland would need to approve statehood, since DC was formed on land from Maryland. Still, bills are introduced to Congress nearly every year, but none has been brought to a vote since 1993. Most Congressional leaders like the idea of admitting states as pairs, so there is a good chance any vote to make DC a state would also include a bid of statehood for Puerto Rico.

Proposals for giving DC Congressional representation are much more common than bills for complete statehood. These bills have not been met with success. Some contend that giving District residents the right to vote may not even be within Congress’ power.

What are the current proposals?

Previous campaigns for statehood have referred to the new state as “New Columbia,” and the name is still associated with the movement today. The New Columbia Admissions Act was introduced in 2013 before failing to make it out of committee. The Act closely follows the proposed constitution ratified by DC voters in 1982. The plan would create a new state while still keeping a much smaller area of DC a federal district. The area of the federal district would shrink substantially, but would include all important federal buildings like the Capitol, White House, and Supreme Court. The Constitution sets an upper limit on the size of the District at 10 square miles, but no lower limit is set. All of the other residential land currently in DC would then become the 51st state. New Columbia would be granted the same rights as any other state in the Union.

To advance its agenda, the District of Columbia still selects members to a shadow congressional delegation that lobbies Congress to grant statehood and voting rights. The positions were authorized by a “state” constitution in 1982 authorized by voters, but this delegation is still not recognized by Congress. Numerous groups in DC continue to lobby for statehood. Watch DC Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton speak on statehood below.

What are the arguments against statehood?

In Federalist No. 43, James Madison argued that the District of Columbia needed to be independent for maintenance and safety concerns. Madison wrote,

“A dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy.”

Arguments against statehood today follow similar lines. Americans are concerned that the federal government would be dependent on a single state to cover its security and general operations. With such great power, a state could restrict the federal government in ways that would not be beneficial to the rest of the nation. However, the plan to keep important governmental buildings as a federal district largely mitigates these concerns.

The uniqueness of the DC area makes statehood very difficult politically. Some of the arguments opponents have:

• Similar to all states with relatively small populations, DC’s small size and population would give it an unfair influence in politics.
• The liberal area would be a stronghold for Democrats, and DC would always send Democrats to Congress.
• The interests of the District would be dominated by the federal government, since it would be the state’s largest employer by far.
• The state would be the only one without rural residents. This means the representatives would share none of the interests held by non-urban areas.
• A state could enact a commuter tax on non-residents who come to the state to work. Such a tax is currently banned under Home Rule.
• The constitutional question of whether the state of Maryland would have to consent to the new state, since the district was formed on land granted by Maryland.
• Some people flat out do not want to witness a strange-looking flag with 51 stars. But not to worry, numerous 51-star flags have already been designed, and they don’t look too bad.

Courtesy of jacobolus via Wikipedia

Are there any other alternatives to statehood?

Most citizens in favor of DC statehood oppose settling for anything less. Some propose bills to grant voting representation to members of DC, such as simply allowing DC’s representative in the House of Representatives the power to vote. Others worry these laws could be undone by the next Congress — and Congress may not even have the authority to make such a law.

Others propose some sort of tie with Maryland. This could mean parts of DC being given back to Maryland. However, neither Maryland nor DC really want to merge. A less drastic solution is Congress restoring the voting rights of District residents by allowing them to vote as a part of Maryland while maintaining the integrity of the District. Still, residents want voting as well as increased autonomy over local affairs.

Issues over DC statehood will not soon be resolved unless residents can be better provided some method of true representation. Most recently in the never-ending saga of DC residents, issues arose with DC driver’s licenses not being considered a valid form of ID by uninformed TSA agents. The good news is DC statehood would likely make the lives of TSA agents much easier.

Resources

Primary

Senate: New Columbia Admission Act

The District of Columbia: Statehood

Additional

Week: Obama Endorses Statehood for Washington, DC

Daily Caller: Obama Endorses DC Statehood

Huffington Post: Let’s Settle This Once and for All: DC Statehood is Constitutional

New Columbia: Vision

Brookings: If the District of Columbia Becomes a State: Fiscal Implications

Neighbors United for DC Statehood: FAQs

Mother Jones: DC: The 51st State?

Washington Post: Budget Deal Reminds DC That Congress is Still in Charge

Washington Peace Center: DC Statehood: A Primer

Brookings: A Sound Fiscal Footing for the Nation’s Capital

Hill: Denying DC Statehood Continues Federal Overreach

Smithsonian Magazine: Designing a 51-State Flag

Hill: DC Delegate to Meet with TSA

Leadership Coalition: Why DC Voting Rights Matter

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The 51st State: What DC Statehood Would Mean for the Country appeared first on Law Street.

“Don’t call me illegal, because I am not, illegal are your laws, and that’s why I’m not leaving.” A group of thirty undocumented youth chanted this rallying cry in the city of McAllen, Texas, while wondering if they had left behind their families and traveled hundreds of miles for just a fleeting glance of America. Jose Antonio Vargas is a reporter who traveled to McAllen to cover this vigil, and for him, it’s personal. He has had much more than a glance of life in America, calling himself the “most privileged” undocumented immigrant in the country. He has written for the New York Times Magazine and TIME Magazine about his experiences, and directed a recent documentary on the immigration issues facing this nation. He has traveled around the country for over three years, with his seemingly American identity and the media recognition he draws keeping him safe from deportation. But now, in McAllen, he may be no different than the undocumented children whose stories he is reporting.

Vargas went to McAllen to cover the vigil for the undocumented children, and to report on shelters set up by citizens of the town. Shortly after his arrival, he began receiving emails from friends asking him how he planned to get out, considering the checkpoints that were set up outside of the town and the airport. Vargas usually flies on his Filipino passport, but these checkpoints require proof of citizenship to pass. Vargas has now been arrested, and like those undocumented children, what will happen to him remains to be seen.

The crisis in McAllen

There are currently waves of undocumented immigrants flooding into Texas, mainly composed of children. McAllen, one of the cities most hard hit, has responded to this crisis in a way that should make Americans proud. Long before the federal government stepped in to help aid the massive influx of immigrants, the people of McAllen answered the call. Local residents began giving out supplies and aid to immigrants at the local bus station, where the children would often be stranded for hours or even days. Makeshift shelters began operating out of the trunks of cars and the basements of churches. The Rio Grande valley, where McAllen is located, has seen a 178 percent increase in the number of migrant workers the past few months. The federal government was not prepared for this and still is not–shelters remain a poorly met necessity in McAllen. But McAllen has answered the call, with volunteers exceeding the number needed on some days.

But the great work the people of McAllen are doing is not without protest. Outside the shelters housing these children are signs declaring that they should be sent home. It is currently legal for the government to send children to live with relatives, family friends, or a foster family until the children face a deportation hearing, which can sometimes take years. At these hearings the judges will have the authority to allow the children to stay or send them home. But many are saying that Obama has the authority to send these children home and should do so. This crisis has quickly become a frantic flashpoint in American politics, with politicians, pundits, and the media all chiming in.

One politician arguing for deportation is Texas Governor Rick Perry. He says, “allowing them to remain here will only encourage the next group of individuals to undertake this dangerous and life-threatening journey here.” Others have said the children should be allowed to stay, especially considering the dangers they face back home. In a surprise move, conservative pundit Glenn Beck has been a huge advocate for allowing the children to stay. In perhaps the one of the wisest statements Beck has ever made, he said, “I’ve never taken a position more deadly to my career than this — and I have never, ever taken a position that is more right than this.”

A change does need to be made because the current system is far to slow to deal with the influx of child immigrants, but that does not mean the solution is to send them back. These children have left places that are ravished by poverty and gang violence. Sending them back could be akin to authoring their death sentences. It’s clear that the people of McAllen have put politics aside to help these children. It would be nice if politicians would do the same.

Jose Vargas: the “most privileged” undocumented immigrant 

So back to Jose Vargas, the celebrity journalist whose story is now inextricably linked with the children who have arrived at our borders. Jose Vargas is now being detained in the McAllen Border Control Headquarters. He was arrested trying to fly out of a local airport. Vargas, almost better than anyone, knew the risk he was taking, as the Border Control was publicly checking IDs at the airport. He tweeted the incident as seen below:

About to go thru security at McAllen Airport. I don’t know what’s going to happen. For updates follow @DefineAmerican & @MAC_UTPA

— Jose Antonio Vargas (@joseiswriting) July 15, 2014

The only IDs I have for security: Philippine passport and my pocketbook US Constitution @DefineAmerican & @MAC_UTPA pic.twitter.com/IFH0Vb4oX7

— Jose Antonio Vargas (@joseiswriting) July 15, 2014

Here's a photo of @joseiswriting in handcuffs, because the Border Patrol has nothing more pressing to do apparently pic.twitter.com/dN8KewqeZr

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) July 15, 2014

Considering what Vargas knew, combined with the way he tweeted before going through security, it seems as if he expected to get arrested. It seems that he is trying to prove a point, or perhaps is just trying to draw attention to the situation. If that is the case, he has succeeded–social media and news networks have been all over his arrest. And if he were to be deported, that would be a even bigger story and rallying cry for his supporters.

If this was done on purpose, Vargas has positioned himself to have a huge political impact on the current humanitarian crisis. He may be able to be the voice that these children don’t have. He is showing the world that undocumented immigrants don’t all look the same. It’s an issue that affects all of us. Hopefully his actions have a real world impact–because something needs to be done in Texas.

Update: Jose Antonio Vargas has been released by the Texas Border Control, with an order to appear in front of an immigration judge. There has been no notable progress on the statuses of the thousands of children in McAllen.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Otzberg via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

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

The post Stuck in McAllen: Jose Vargas and the Texas Immigration Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

As part of the ongoing debate about the value of law school in the current market, Brittany Alzfan tells you why now is the time to go. For the flip side, check out Matt DeWilde’s take on why you shouldn’t send in that application just yet.

Now is a good time to go to law school, because things are looking up for future lawyers. Now I know most of you are skeptical, especially given the latest job statistics for the class of 2013, but just hear me out here. While the numbers put out by the National Association for Law Placement revealed a lower employment rate for the sixth year running, there was some good news: law school graduates in 2013 found more jobs overall than in 2012. That means that students who enter law school now will probably have more potential jobs at their disposal.

The huge drop in students enrolling in law schools over the past several years leaves graduates looking at a surprisingly strong job market. Let’s use the class of 2016 as an example here–39,700 students enrolled in the fall of 2013. If we take into account that about ten percent of each law school class generally drops out, then we are looking at no more than 36,000 J.D. graduates in 2016.

Compare that number to the 46,776 graduates in 2013, and we see a drop of 23 percent. With significantly less competition amongst the graduating class, graduates are far more likely to secure a decent job.

Does this mean that I’m saying that every law graduate will go on to work in the legal field right out of graduation? No, of course not. Like in every other field, some complete their degrees and pursue other things anyways. Many J.D. graduates end up pursuing careers in finance or business.

But the numbers can’t be ignored here. According to statistics put out by the American Bar Association, 32,755 graduates from last year’s class found full-time, long-term work lasting more than a year. Of those, 26,337 jobs required passing the bar, meaning that they were typical legal jobs that required a law degree. Another 4,714 students secured jobs in fields that did not require a law degree, but preferred to hire J.D.s, such as NGO organizers or congressional staffers. Lastly, 1,724 graduates ended up in jobs that were completely unrelated to the legal field.

If these numbers remain relatively steady, then we can expect that about 91 percent of the class of 2016 will find long-term, full-time employment. This is significantly higher than the 72 percent of graduates that found full-time employment last year. If we break this down further, about 73 percent of graduates will be in full-time legal positions, compared to only 58 percent last year.

This debate is pretty entrenched–some experts agree with me, others say the risk is still not worth the expensive price of a legal education. Kyle McEntee, the founder of the nonprofit Law School Transparency, said, “I do expect that the employment rates are going to improve greatly.” The issue is whether or not these job opportunities are worth the three years, and over $100,000 that it takes to graduate from law school.

Even when they do find jobs, law school graduates have to face the unfortunate fact that while starting salaries have fallen, debt is way up. Median pay right out of law school has dropped to around $62,000 a year from $72,000 in 2008. When you take inflation into account, starting salaries are actually lower than they were in 2000. On top of this, the New America Foundation estimates that the median student who borrows for law school–and most of them do borrow–finishes school with $128,000 in loans to pay back.

Yet, despite the cost of tuition and resulting debt, there is evidence that law school may be a smart financial decision in the long run. Michael Simkovic, a Seton Hall law professor, published a paper last year that showed that even for graduates at the 25th percentile of pay–such as those in jobs at small law firms or as public servants–law school was still a profitable investment, even if they spent $60,000 a year on tuition. In addition, President Obama has just announced a plan designed to alleviate student loan debt. His “Loan Forgiveness” plan is set up so that students with loans who meet certain income eligibility standards will only need to pay back 10 percent of their discretionary income for a maximum of 20 years. In some instances, if you work in public service, such as in a public defender’s job, you only need to pay back loans for 10 years. After that, the rest is forgiven. So if debt is what’s holding you back from law school, loan forgiveness might be an excellent option for you.

Now, of course, law school is not for everyone. It shouldn’t be a fallback if you don’t know what to do with the rest of your life, nor is it something that should be chosen on a whim. It’s hard work, and without passion, you probably won’t succeed. Additionally, some programs are not worth the cost. Most graduates from bottom-tier law schools will continue to have little success in the job market, just like they always have. Employers are more likely to hire a past graduate that has struggled to find a job than hire someone from a failing institution. It is important to do your research when applying, and ultimately deciding whether or not to attend, law school.

However, if you have thought it through and have decided that law school is for you, then your future is looking bright.

—

Brittany Alzfan (@BrittanyAlzfan) is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Penn State via Flickr]

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post If You Want to Go to Law School, Now’s the Time to Apply appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

I feel like we forget about that sometimes.

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

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

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

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

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

Okay maybe not that drastic.

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

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [Wikipedia]

Jake Ephros

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

The post Founding Fathers Obsession appeared first on Law Street.

Julian Castro has long been promoted as one of the rising celebrities of the Democratic party. Formerly the Mayor of San Antonio, now the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, his name has definitely been floated by those who are familiar with the who’s who of the Democratic party, but hasn’t quite hit the national stage yet. It leads to a lot of questions: who is Julian Castro? How did he end up leading the Department of Housing and Urban Development? And what is that department doing under his leadership?

How did Castro become HUD secretary?

On Friday May 23, 2014, President Obama nominated Mayor of San Antonio Julián Castro to replace Shaun Donovan as secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Donovan, who had held the post since January 2009, became Secretary of the Office of Management and Budget, as Sylvia Matthew Burnwell moved on to head the Department of Health and Human Services, a position from which Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had recently resigned following the botched roll-out of HealthCare.gov. Julián Castro, 39, who had served three terms as Mayor of San Antonio,  faced the daunting Senate confirmation process and passed. Castro is the second former Mayor of San Antonio to direct HUD, after Henry Cisneros who was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993.

Catro’s Qualifications

Since declining President Obama’s offer to lead the Department of Transportation in 2012, the top HUD job became a prime opportunity for Castro to gain national-policy experience. And as a Latino on the national stage, Castro could potentially appeal to a growing Hispanic voting base, shoring up the Latino vote for Democrats in future elections. “Having his understanding of the needs of the Hispanic community—having a cultural affinity about that—will lend quite a bit of depth to his policy and understanding of the role,” said Javier Palomarez, CEO of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

Indeed HUD plays an increasingly vital role for underrepresented populations, as Latinos and the black community continue to bear the brunt of inequitable urban ‘revitalization’ across America. “We are in a century of cities,” Mayor Castro explained on Friday May 23, following the announcement of his nomination. “America’s cities are growing again and housing is at the top of the agenda.” He vowed to “do housing right,” implying a change from previous HUD policies, which primarily entailed large grants to cities spawning private investment and exorbitant costs of living without protections for the poor.

Castro’s track record is good, but not without blemishes. One instance of ‘revitalization’ in San Antonio under the Castro administration took place in the city’s historically impoverished Eastside neighborhood, once the heart of the city’s black community. In 2012 Castro successfully wrangled a $30 million HUD grant with which he demolished the Wheatly Courts Public Housing Project, and redeveloped the area for moderate-income families and market-rate households. With renovation costs exceeding $1 million, the program didn’t adhere to the affordability requirements. In January 2014, President Obama subsequently selected San Antonio’s Eastside as one of his first five anti-poverty “Promise Zones.”

Similarly, through city fee wavers and tax abatements, Castro revitalized San Antonio’s downtown district, drawing 11.5 million visitors and generating $3.1 billion annually. Since 2010, developers have completed or are building 2,700 housing units within five square miles in the downtown area, though few low-income families could afford such prime real estate and have been subsequently pushed to periphery of the city center. Indeed, San Antonio ranks forty-second in City Lab’s report of the most gentrified cities in America, and seven percent of San Antonio’s low-price tracts have been gentrified over the last year.

What were the concerns over Castro’s nomination?

Aside from Castro’s history of questionable urban policy, he lacked actual executive leadership experience. Unlike the strong-mayor governments of Chicago or New York, San Antonio’s is a council-manager system: a council is elected to serve as legislative branch and it appoints a manager to serve as the executive who has the authority to execute laws and the administration of the city government. The Mayoralty is merely a ceremonial post, a figurehead, and has no real power over the council. Castro was elected to city council in 2001 at the age of 26–the youngest in history–serving two consecutive terms. During his tenure on the city council, he successfully curbed urban sprawl by defeating plans for a PGA-approved golf coarse and suburban development outside the city in 2005; he has no executive experience in the city government, though, which could be problematic.

Castro did a “fantastic job” revitalizing San Antonio by “planning thousands of housing units downtown, attracting hundreds of millions of dollars of investment,” President Obama reasoned during his announcement of Castro’s appointment. In reality, though, Castro’s mayoral tenure was less than laudable, specifically pertaining to the urban minorities whom he supposedly seeks to help. In 2008, congress approved an $8.6 million HUD grant to San Antonio as part of the National Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) as a means to ameliorate the escalating rate of foreclosures at the height of the 2008 financial crisis. With the grant, the program stipulated, cities must buy, refurbish, and resell homes left vacant after eviction; a 2012 HUD Inspector General report concluded, however, that between 2009 and 2011, $1.1 million was allocated to houses that were then sold at market-rate and not reserved for low-income families as the HUD program demanded. It is fair to say that the HUD grant package was awarded before Castro came to office, but the infections to the program nonetheless took place under his leadership.

So, how has the HUD fared under Castro?

So far, so good, but given that Castro has only been in the job a few months, there’s still a lot that needs to happen before anything resembling a final judgment can be made. However, Castro and his administration have absolutely had notable success–for example, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) is no longer in debt after the severe problems it experienced during the 2008 financial crisis. Although that won’t automatically lower loans for people seeking them from the FHA, it’s certainly a step in the right direction. Overhauling struggling institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have also taken top priority for Castro. Overall, it seems like he’s finding his place at HUD.

Conclusion

Calling Castro a rising Democratic star probably isn’t too far from the truth, but it’s still tough to predict who will fight their way onto the political landscape in years to come. After all, President Obama’s rise was almost meteoric–most people did not know who he was just a few years before he accepted the nomination for President from the Democratic Party. Whether or not Castro will end up living up to his potential can only be told by time.

Resources

Primary 

Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland: Gentrification and Financial Health Report 2013

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Office of Inspector General, Memorandum NO: 2012-FW1804

White House: President Obama Nominates Julián Castro as Next HUD Secretary, and Shaun Donovan as OMB Director

Additional

Latin Post: Julián Castro HUD Secretary Nomination Endorsed by National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals

Inman: National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals backs Julián Castro to lead HUD

Bloomberg: Castro Move to HUD Sets Up Possible VP Selection in 2016

Politico: For Julián Castro, Plenty of Challenges at HUD

Texas Monthly: Alamo Heights

Politico: Julián Castro’s San Antonio Misused HUD money

Washington Post: Julián Castro Nominated as HUD secretary

Monitor: Commentary: Should Julián Castro Go to DC to Head HUD?

New Republic: Why Would Obama Put a Rising Democratic Star Into a Cabinet Backwater?

CityLab: Why Julián Castro’s Record as a Mayor of San Antonio Doesn’t Necessarily Tell Us Much About Hist Future at HUD 

NPR: Obama Taps San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro For HUD Secretary

LA Times: Obama Picks San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro to be Housing Secretary

Washington Examiner: Barack Obama Names Julián Castro for HUD, Shaun Donovan for OMB

Washington Examiner: If Chosen For HUD, Julian Castro’s Work, Big Payday Could Face Scrutiny

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Julian Castro’s National Democratic Star Still on the Rise? appeared first on Law Street.

Statements by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) this week may reignite a debate over a law called the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).

Three days after the horrifying terror attacks of September 11, 2001, AUMF was passed by Congress. It was signed just four days later, on September 18, by President Bush. The law itself was simple enough in concept and was actually only 60-words long–an impressive feat in an era of long and frequently amended legislation. It states: “that the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future act of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.” Essentially, it allowed the President the ability to use whatever force necessary against those believed to be terrorists, harbored terrorists, or involved with terrorism in anyway. It sounds broad, but it was an understandably reactionary law to the shocking atrocities the nation had just witnessed.

That law has remained in place since then, and has been used as legal justification for a number of broad actions in the “War Against Terror.” For example, AUMF has been used as the reasoning behind expansive drone strikes and raids like the one used to capture Osama Bin Ladin in 2011.

But in the almost thirteen years since AUMF has passed, both the views of our nation, as well as our technical abilities have changed drastically. When AUMF was passed barely a week after 9/11, the concept of the “War on Terror” had just been barely introduced. And in the coming months, it of course received high support–a Gallup poll in November of 2001 put approval of sending troops to Afghanistan, partly under AUMF’s guises, at 89 percent. The same question today garners just 49 percent approval.

Other recent events, including realizations about drone capabilities and the extent of NSA spying have lessened Americans’ support for the kind of broad and vague actions that AUMF allows.

Discontent with AUMF has been simmering for a while. Various special interest lobby groups have been calling for repeal for years, and Senators and other lawmakers have at various points called for a repeal. Obama has supported, and even pushed for an end to the law and by extension, a sort of de facto end to the official “War on Terror.” Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) has been one of the leading voices in calling for AUMF changes. Last Wednesday he said, “we are still operating in a war declared on Sept. 14, 2001. And both the Bush and Obama administrations have determined that that war can be carried out against members of al-Qaeda, against anyone who associates with affiliates or associates of al-Qaeda, no matter when those associates pop up … so long as the al-Qaeda or affiliated organizations have violent intentions against the U.S. or coalition partners. That’s sort of a vague phrase.”

And most recently, one of the nation’s top lawmakers has stated that he also thinks that changes are warranted to AUMF. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is supporting changes to AUMF.

In the interview with Buzzfeed earlier this week, he stated in regards to AUMF, “I definitely think its something we should definitely take a look at. I think 9/11 [was] a long time ago, and it’s something that needs to be looked at again. I have no problem with that.”

However, Reid didn’t go into details about what changes exactly he thinks are warranted to AUMF but just that they need to be considered. From the language he used, it seems as though he’s relatively confident that a change needs to be made to limit the power of AUMF.

With Reid weighing in, public opinion turning, and other politicians getting involved in the it certainly seems like the issue of changes to AUMF will be firmly on the national stage in the upcoming 2014 midterm elections.

[The Huffington Post]

—

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

Feature image courtesy of [Debra Sweet via Flickr]

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 Reexamination of AUMF: Potential End to the War on Terror appeared first on Law Street.

The President’s State of the Union address sounded similar to some of his previous addresses, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, who can disagree with a statement like this:

“Opportunity is who we are.  And the defining project of our generation is to restore that promise. We know where to start: the best measure of opportunity is access to a good job.”  -President Obama

Yes! Access to a good job is a great measure of opportunity, but if people are unaware of the opportunities, it’s hard to believe that they exist. There are thousands of openings in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields with some of the largest growth found in information & technology. As of 2011, STEM jobs accounted for 20 percent of all U.S. jobs and this number is predicted to increase. Some advantages of STEM jobs are that they have median pay higher than the national average, unemployment rates lower than national average, and half the jobs in these fields do not require a four-year degree.

According to a Brookings Institute report, half of all STEM jobs are in manufacturing, health care, or construction industries, with installation, maintenance, and repair occupations constituting 12 percent of all STEM jobs. These jobs are given to workers with qualified certificates or associate’s degrees, workforce training, vocational training, or community college education. These particular STEM areas are a great place to start for people who are unemployed and unable to commit to completing a four-year degree. Yes, obtaining a STEM job requires additional training and/or education, but that is the direction in which the job market has moved for nearly every field. Our options are to accept this fact, or stick our heads in the sand and see what comes of it.

“We know that the nation that goes all in on innovation today will own the global economy tomorrow. This is an edge America cannot surrender.”  – President Obama

For high school and college students, I want to tell you that technology is your friend. I’m sure you’re probably tweeting the link to my post and talking about it over Snapchat, but seriously, if you’re not considering a professional career in IT, you should really think about it. Comparatively, the unemployment rate for tech professionals in 2013 averaged 3.5 percent while the national unemployment rate was more than double that, at 7.4 percent.

According to eWeek, 54,300 new jobs were created in 2013 in the tech consulting field. These jobs include software developers, web developers, database administrators, programmers, and more.   Also, according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, since July 2013, 474,800 employees voluntarily left their jobs each month. Yes you read that correctly, they voluntarily left their jobs. Some may have retired, others moved to new positions, and some could have left to start their own tech businesses. Whatever the case, they left voluntarily, and with each person that leaves, a new person has to fill that position. Between higher job turnover, and reports that companies plan to create new jobs by significant numbers,  high school and college students should investigate these upcoming opportunities. You can start by looking here at the Bureau of Labor and Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook for Computer and IT Occupations.

“Teachers and principals in schools from Tennessee to Washington, D.C. are making big strides in preparing students with skills for the new economy – problem solving, critical thinking, science, technology, engineering, and math.” – President Obama

We can’t retreat from the notion that this new economy is managed by technology and requires a more skilled and sophisticated labor force. Technology has advanced so quickly that many adults feel ill prepared for the current job market. With that said, it would be unwise to risk the future of America’s children by continuing with the same education practices that have been unsuccessful in preparing a technology-based labor force. A first step could be the passage of the STEM Gateways Act. This Act would increase funding to schools through grants for the purpose of encouraging interest and motivating engagement in STEM fields, supporting workforce training and career preparation in STEM fields, and supporting classroom success in STEM disciplines at the elementary or secondary school levels. These are the kinds of policies the President was encouraging in his State of the Union Address and STEM Gateways is the kind of policy I would like to see.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy.  Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community.  In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football!

Featured image courtesy of [Pete Souza via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SOTU: Sizeable Opportunities in Technology Unfilled appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, I counted down the Most Influential News Events of 2013. Those were all great moments, but in 2013 we also had our share of not-so-great moments. So as a counterpoint to my earlier list, I think we should count down the most embarrassing, awkward, and dumbest moments in law and politics in 2013.

10. Marco Rubio and His Water

Marco Rubio is, without a doubt, one of the rising stars of the Republican Party. In fact, he was chosen to give the right’s response to President Obama’s State of the Union address. I would expect this to be a rather nerve-racking moment of public speaking. And Senator Rubio’s mouth, understandably, got dry. So he reached for his water. And it was very, very awkward.

Here’s the thing, I understand that Rubio was nervous. People need a quick sip of water while speaking all the time. So, usually, they place the water in a convenient location in a small glass, so they can take a sip at an opportune time. They do not lurch off-screen in the middle of a point to awkwardly grab a tiny water bottle and then make really direct eye contact with the camera. It was awkward, it distracted from his message, and it was rather embarrassing.

9. Suing Over Sandwiches 

Moving over to the world of law, there were a few weird lawsuits in 2013. One of my favorites was against everyone’s favorite fast-food sandwich shop, Subway. Two New Jersey men are suing the company because their advertised “foot-longs” only measured 11 inches.

The case is allegedly about “holding companies to deliver what they’ve promised.” Guys, these sandwiches are five dollars. They’re a good deal, but they’re five dollars. If you want a sandwich for five dollars, please don’t expect it to be perfect.

8. Biden’s Bad Photo

Biden, as lovable as he is, has had some rough political gaffes over the years. One of my favorites from this year was when he accidentally displayed a classified document in a press photo.

When you’re Vice President of the United States, one would think that you are pretty used to getting your picture taken. So why would you hold up a classified document when you know members of the press corps are around? Joe was just lucky that you couldn’t really tell anything about the document from the cover.

7. Rob Ford

Rob Ford is the mayor of Toronto, despite a really embarrassing year. His banner moment was when he admitted to smoking crack, but only because he was in a drunken stupor! Ford is now a household name because of his many gaffes.

Yet Ford still has a 42 percent approval rating, as of late November. Toronto, you are so much nicer to your politicians than us Americans.

6. What Rhymes with Allison Lundergan Grimes

Sen. Mitch McConnell is already in a decently contentious reelection campaign. So his staff got together and made a video using the most cutting-edge technology available to them. Really, this video is brilliant. It deserves an Academy Award.

Just kidding, it’s awful. It looks like a project I made in 5th grade computer class. I don’t know what’s worse, the awkward video splicing, the god-awful auto tuning, or the really low quality neon text that hovers around the screen. The video actually went viral, and the tune was kind of catchy. But I’m going to bet that half the reason it went viral was because it was so embarrassingly bad.

5. Sen. Rand Paul’s Plagiarism Problem 

This year, Rand Paul was accused of summarizing the plot to the movie Gattica with words straight from its Wikipedia page. After that, more incidences came out of Paul lifting paragraphs straight from other sources.

That box may be full of Wiki printouts.

As a student, I am constantly warned about the dangers of plagiarism. For multiple classes, I have had to upload papers through a software that checks my work for any plagiarism. Maybe we need to institute that in the Senate as well.

4. Apple Porn Lawsuit

A man named Chris Sever is suing Apple for his porn addiction. He’s claiming that because his Apple product did not come with a pre-installed block of inappropriate content, he was exposed to porn and then became addicted. He also is claiming that Apple has harmed adult stores’ profits.

In my book, it’s your own fault if you develop a porn addiction. Blaming a computer for your addiction is the same as blaming your cup for your alcoholism.

3. Rep. Don Young Uses Racial Slur

Rep. Don Young of Alaska called Latinos by the racial slur, “Wetbacks.” He attempted to explain, stating that he “meant no disrespect” and it was “a term that was commonly used during my days growing up on a farm in central California.”

Rep. Young, just because you were racist when you were a kid doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to be racist now. And to say you meant no disrespect is ridiculous. This isn’t an obscure term, it’s a pretty well known racial slur. Regardless of how you meant it, it’s NEVER appropriate to use.

2. Nelson Mandela Funeral Translator

The Nelson Mandela funeral was attended by a whole host of world leaders. Somehow, despite the plethora of PR teams and political strategists, no one thought to vet the sign language translator.

Real translator on right, fake on left.

This isn’t the first time this fake translator showed up — he may have signed for President Jacob Zuma back in 2010, but this was the most high profile appearance he’s made. This is embarrassing for South Africa, for President Obama, and a sad day for the global deaf community.

1. Nevada Assemblyman Jim Wheeler Says He’d Vote for Slavery

“If that’s what they wanted, I’d have to hold my nose … they’d probably have to hold a gun to my head, but yeah.”

Wheeler was ostensibly attempting to say that if his constituents wanted something, he would be bound to their wishes. He is saying that he would vote to enslave other human beings, if that’s what the people who voted for him wanted. 

First of all, to make that point, he could have used anything. He could have used any vaguely unpopular policy to prove his point. He did not need to be that horrible, and because of that, Wheeler should be very, very embarrassed.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Princess Theater via Flickr]

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 Ten Silliest Political Moments in 2013 appeared first on Law Street.

One of the promises that Obama made on the campaign trail during his first election in 2008 was to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Some steps have been taken to do so, but for most part, it has been stagnant partly due to disagreements in Congress. But yesterday, Obama signed a bill into law that might move the closure within reach.

In order to even think about closing Guantanamo, something has to be done with the remaining 158 prisoners who are kept in custody there. Obama has long rallied against the restrictions that make it difficult to transfer prisoners in Guantanamo to the custody of foreign nations, usually a prisoner’s home nation.

In addition to clearing out Guantanamo so it can be closed down, the ability to transfer prisoners to other countries allows them to be tried for their crimes by their own country rather than just languishing in prison on foreign soil. The bill, however, did not go so far as to allow transfer of the prisoners to the United States, where they could be tried for their crimes against this nation.

During the signing, President Obama reaffirmed his devotion to making sure that Guantanamo Bay is closed down. He stated, “the continued operation of the facility weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and partners and emboldening violent extremists”.

The bill that contained the Guantanamo Bay provisions is called the National Defense Authorization Act. The National Defense Authorization Act is passed each year. It specifies what the budget and expenditures will be for the Department of Defense in the coming fiscal year.

In addition to this change for Guantanamo, there were some other noteworthy provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014. One of those is a 1% pay increase for all service members. There are also clauses that mandate changes in the way in which sexual assault incidents in the military are reported and dealt with by the Pentagon.

These changes aren’t as dramatic as advocates have called for, but they do take strong steps towards preventing rape in the military, and punishing the offenders when an assault does occur. The bill removes the statue of limitations on reporting rape; bar military commanders from overturning jury convictions in sexual assault and rape cases; criminalize retaliations against people who report such crimes; mandate the dishonorable discharge or dismissal of anyone convicted of such crimes; and give civilian defense officials more control over prosecutions. These are all steps in the right direction, despite the fact that advocates, such as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) say they don’t go quite far enough.

Both of these provisions within the National Defense Authorization Act –the Guantanamo Bay changes and the changes to the Pentagon sexual assault policy–are small victories for the Obama Administration. Our President has had a very tough year–between the NSA spying scandal to the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act–it has been a bit of a mess. Although these accomplishments are small, the steps to close Guantanamo Bay fulfills a promise 5 years overdue. And the changes to the sexual assault policy in the Pentagon cements Obama’s status with women, a group that was crucial to his 2012 victory. Hopefully it is a sign of good things to come in 2014.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Rhodes via Flickr]

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 Big Changes to Guantanamo Bay appeared first on Law Street.

The fight over how websites respond to the “do-not-track” signal continues as the Tracking Protection Working Group rejected the most recent proposal made by the ad industry on July 15.  The end-of-July deadline for President Obama’s goal to create a self-regulating system is approaching and little progress has been made.  The main purpose of such a system is to determine how to deal with web users’ requests to stop companies from tracking their online activity.

There is no established standard for how websites respond to such requests, which has caused many sites to simply ignore the signal altogether.  Many people argue against the self-regulation because they believe the only way to ensure compliance is for congress to legislate specific standards.  However, such laws seem to be far away, and with a recent surge in “do-not-track” requests, something needs to be done.

Online advertising is a very large business with revenue estimates around $37 billion last year alone, marking a 15 percent increase. This issue is particularly important to the industry as some estimates claim that online growth could slow down by as much as 15 percent in the next five years.  The debate between advertising companies and web browser makers continues, but a standard seems far away.

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10) is editor of Crime in America. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University senior was a founding member of Law Street. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [FutUndBeidl via Flickr]

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 “Do-Not-Track” Battle Rages On appeared first on Law Street.