Today, President Donald Trump’s oldest son, Donald Trump Jr., appeared to enjoy a nice, relaxing day by the pool. The weather was beautiful outside, so Trump Jr.’s choice of venue makes sense. But his attire grabbed Twitter’s attention. Trump Jr. tweeted out a picture of himself wearing a t-shirt that poked a bit of fun at the “mainstream media”:

I’m going to have to buy 5-10,000 of these to pass around to our buddies in the #MSM. In the meantime I’ll model it for them. #yourewelcome pic.twitter.com/Hnn3Z5Pspm

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) April 15, 2017

And Twitter had quite a laugh editing and responding to the shirt. Check out some of the best responses in the slideshow below:

@rolandscahill @DonaldJTrumpJr Donald Jr describing himself as a model is very fake news.

— Mike P Williams (@Mike_P_Williams) April 15, 2017

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 Donald Trump Jr. Gets Mocked on Twitter for “Fake News” Shirt appeared first on Law Street.

Today, Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th president of the United States. Trump’s bruising, baffling, and bludgeoning journey to this moment left many with a sour taste in their mouths. He had an unprecedented journey–a billionaire with no political experience securing the highest office in the land. Along the way, Trump torched a litany of people, from his admonishing of Mexicans as “rapists” to his dismissal of the country’s intelligence organizations in their conclusion that Russia propped him up.

And so, as thousands hit the National Mall to cheer “Trump!” thousands more have stormed the nation’s capital to proclaim “not my president!” Law enforcement officials said they expect 63 protests around the city on Friday, with more to come, including the Woman’s March, on Saturday. Protesters camped out at checkpoints around the city on Friday morning. Some danced. Some walked arm in arm. And some smashed windows. But all had something to say.

Before the ceremony began, protesters with #DisruptJ20 streamed past police officers, some of whom tried to disperse the crowd with tear gas:

#BREAKING: Tear gas deployed towards anti-Trump protesters in Washington D.C #DisruptJ20 #TrumpProtest #Inauguration pic.twitter.com/EsphpsCoSl

— Kris Cruz (@rc_kris) January 20, 2017

Other protesters expressed their disapproval of Trump in a more aggressive manner. In the downtown sections of the city, some protesters, calling themselves “anti-fascist, anti-capitalist,” chucked bricks at windows–including this limousine:

Peaceful Protest #DisruptJ20 pic.twitter.com/WppLa815kv

— imwithMAGA (@imwithMAGA) January 20, 2017

Chaos ensued in other parts of the city, far away from the peaceful transfer of power on the steps of the U.S. Capitol:

BREAKING NEWS: Protests have turned violent, Riot police respond. #Inauguration pic.twitter.com/gTQLbDozhN

— TheAnonMessage (@TheAnonnMessage) January 20, 2017

One group of protesters even included a certain arctic-dwelling bear:

One of many roving protests at #TrumpInauguration outside checkpoint at US District Courthouse. #McPherson #DisruptJ20 pic.twitter.com/yoeHISzQOM

— DCMediaGroup (@DCMediaGroup) January 20, 2017

President Barack Obama, for one, added his voice to the of millions of others who wish to be heard today and tomorrow:

I won’t stop; I’ll be right there with you as a citizen, inspired by your voices of truth and justice, good humor, and love.

— President Obama (@POTUS44) January 20, 2017

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 Inauguration Day Protests Erupt Throughout Washington D.C. appeared first on Law Street.

Donald J. Trump previously confessed that he tries to “pay as little as possible” when it comes to taxes. Therefore, it came as no surprise when a partial report of the Republican presidential nominee’s 1995 tax records confirmed his financial outlook.

The New York Times published Trump’s 1995 income tax returns on Saturday, which explain how the former reality TV show host and real-estate mogul could have avoided taxes for nearly two decades. That year Trump declared a $916 million loss, a loss that could have allowed him to legally avoid paying federal income taxes for up to 18 years.

Trump was recently criticized by Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton during the first presidential debate for not being forthcoming about his tax returns. Clinton suspected that the businessman didn’t pay his federal income taxes–a claim Trump said made him “smart.”

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani agreed with Trump’s statement and called him a genius after the tax records were released.

“The reality is, this is part of our tax code. The man’s a genius. He knows how to operate the tax code to the benefit of the people he’s serving,” Giuliani told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”

Legal, yes. Genius, not so much.

The Washington Post’s Allan Sloan, a seven-time winner of the Loeb Award (business journalism’s highest honor), didn’t offer the same sentiments as Giuliani. Sloan’s op-ed said:

Sure, the $900 million-plus of losses reported by the New York Times–losses that could be used to offset income for a total of 18 years–are totally shocking. Legal, yes. But shocking.

But there’s something I consider even more shocking–although it involves a much smaller number.

By my read of the Trump tax return published by the New York Times, he would have been tax-free because of a $15,818,562 loss reported on Line 11 of the return under “Rental real estate, royalties, partnerships, S corporations, trusts, etc.” It looks to me that this loss reflects the outrageous, special tax break that real estate developers that people like Trump can get, but that the rest of us can’t.

In the current election cycle Trump has refused to release his returns, unlike every other presidential candidate in modern history. As the candidates begin to bridge the gap between voters, it is imperative they remain honest and forthcoming–a common complaint for both of their campaigns.

Trump declined to comment on the documents. Instead, he tweeted a personal attack at the Times.

I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them. #failing@nytimes

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 2, 2016

The Trump campaign released a statement that neither challenged nor confirmed the $916 million loss.

“Mr. Trump is a highly-skilled businessman who has a fiduciary responsibility to his business, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required,” the statement said. “That being said, Mr. Trump has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes, along with very substantial charitable contributions.”

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Taxes: “Trumped Up, Trickle Down” Economics or Genius? appeared first on Law Street.

Brazil’s Senate voted on Wednesday to remove President Dilma Rousseff from office–an expected but nonetheless historic result, given that Rousseff was Brazil’s first female president.

Rousseff is accused of corruption and breaking fiscal laws, which her critics say aggravated the already bad economic situation in Brazil. Rousseff has pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing ever since she was suspended from office in May this year. In the Senate, 61 voted for her impeachment on Wednesday, and 20 against. Upon hearing the result, she said, “Today is the day that 61 men, many of them charged and corrupt, threw 54 million Brazilian votes in the garbage.”

During the hearing she also said:

I’m here to look in your eyes and say with the serenity of someone who has nothing to hide that I haven’t committed any crimes of responsibility. I have not committed the crimes of which I have been unjustly and arbitrarily accused.

Dilma Rousseff, Brazil’s 1st woman president, permanently removed after impeachment: https://t.co/8SwnwTvxn0 pic.twitter.com/iqL5fiUd2r

— Women in the World (@WomenintheWorld) August 31, 2016

This means the end of a 13 year-long rule of the left-wing Worker’s Party, and the end for the country’s first female President. Rousseff, 68, used to be a guerilla fighter during the dictatorship in the 1970s. She was elected in 2011, and then reelected in 2014. At the time, the country’s economy was in  really bad shape, and she did not manage to fix it. Even though she stands accused of further ruining the economy and corruption, she has never been formally charged with a crime.

Rousseff claims she has been ousted because she allowed a corruption investigation to go on, which lead to several politicians being charged. So the question is whether she is actually guilty of a crime, or if the opposition just wanted to get rid of a leader who drained the country’s economy.

In a second vote on Wednesday, the Senate decided whether or not to ban Rousseff from public office for the next eight years. This time the majority voted no, with 42 votes against and 36 for, meaning she could technically return to politics whenever she wants.

Acting President Michel Temer will take Rousseff’s place until the next election in 2018.

Rousseff’s parting words to her supporters were, “Right now, I will not say goodbye to you. I am certain I can say: ‘See you soon.’”

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 Brazil Senate Votes to Oust President Dilma Rousseff From Office appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton announced her running mate on Friday, going with a safe candidate who is seasoned with experience in almost every level of government and thankfully lacks a scandalous background. Despite the fact that Tim Kaine is a white, Catholic male and an insider to politics, he can do a few things that the average politician cannot: he officiates weddings, plays the harmonica, and speaks fluent Spanish.

Kaine started his political career as a city councilman in Richmond, Virginia, where he later served as mayor. He was elected Governor of Virginia in 2006, and became a senator in 2012. He also served as chairman of the Democratic National Convention during the first years of the Obama administration. He currently serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Armed Services Committee.

Kaine has been in politics for 22 years and knows a thing or two about elections, except for one thing: losing. Kaine has never lost an election during his tenure in government. Another fun fact about the next possible vice president? He is the first senator to give an entire speech on the Senate floor in a language other than English (he recited a speech entirely in Spanish in 2013).

Critics have called Kaine boring, but maybe that’s what Clinton needs to get her the presidency in November. On the big issues dominating this election, where does he stand?

Gun Control

Kaine has a personal connection with the push for stricter gun laws— he was the governor of Virginia when the Virginia Tech shooting happened, and at the time, it was the most deadly mass shooting in history. He described it as the worst day of his life:

That was the worst day of my life, and it will always be the worst day of my life — comforting the families of the victims, talking to the first responders who went into a classroom where bodies littered the floor and who heard in the pockets of deceased students and professors cell phones ringing as parents who had seen it on the news were calling their kids, just knowing they were at Virginia Tech to ask them if they were all right — calls that would never be answered.

Although a proponent of the second amendment and a gun owner himself, Kaine said he “supports common sense legislation,” and would like to see expanded background checks, restrictions on assault-style weapons, and expansion for mental health services, according to a statement on his website.

“Hillary and I will not rest…until we get universal background checks and close loopholes.” —@TimKaine on preventing gun violence

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) July 23, 2016

Women’s Reproductive Rights

Kaine is a pretty fervent Catholic, but when it comes to abortion rights, he believes it’s a personal matter, not a political one. He has an impressive 100 percent pro-choice voting record on abortion issues in the Senate, which garners respect from groups like Planned Parenthood and National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws.

Although Kaine does not personally agree with abortions, he said, “I deeply believe, and not just as a matter of politics, but even as a matter of morality, that matters about reproduction and intimacy and relationships and contraception are in the personal realm. They’re moral decisions for individuals to make for themselves. And the last thing we need is government intruding into those personal decisions.”

In August 2015 he voted against defunding Planned Parenthood, saying that for many women, “Planned Parenthood health centers are their only source of high quality health care.”

Planned Parenthood provides many critical, preventative services. Here’s just some #StandWithPP pic.twitter.com/TmPRd7GJ1X

— Senator Tim Kaine (@timkaine) December 2, 2015

Education 

Kaine was critical of No Child Left Behind from the get-go. When he was governor of Virginia in 2006, he said the education act was “wreaking havoc on local school districts.” He has scathed NCLB for putting so much pressure and focus on standardized testing.

The new act that replaced NCLB in December 2015, Every Child Succeeds, has parts that Kaine wrote that focused on promoting career and technical education.

Authorization of Military Force

Kaine is the father of a Marine, so creating policy that recognizes that soldiers put their lives at risk in order to protect national security is important to him. That’s why he has pushed for the Obama administration to get re-authorization from Congress in order to fight terrorist groups like ISIS. In September 2014, Kaine called on President Obama to seek authorization on the Senate floor:

During a time of war, we ask our troops to give their best even to the point of sacrificing their own lives. When compared against that, how much of a sacrifice is it for a President to engage in a possibly contentious debate with Congress about whether military action is a good idea? How much of a sacrifice is it for a member of Congress to debate and vote about whether military action is a good idea? While Congressional members face the political costs of debate on military action, our service members bear the human costs of those decisions. And if we choose to avoid debate, avoid accountability, avoid a hard decision how can we demand that our military willingly sacrifice their very lives?

Inez Nicholson

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

The post Where Does Tim Kaine Stand on the Issues? appeared first on Law Street.

Vice President Joe Biden shocked many, and validated the predictions of many others, when he announced he will not be seeking the Democratic nomination for President. Regardless of the emotion you’re experiencing–sadness, joy, or somewhere in between–Biden has officially answered a question that dragged on for a very long time. Check out some of the best and most entertaining Twitter reactions to Biden’s announcement in the slideshow below:

Remember the Hologram of will.i.am?

CNN now beta-testing a hologram of Biden to use in debates

— daveweigel (@daveweigel) October 21, 2015

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Top Twitter Reactions to Joe Biden’s Announcement He Won’t Be Running for President appeared first on Law Street.

Joe Biden announced in a press conference in the White House’s Rose Garden today that he won’t seek the presidency. Flanked by President Obama and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, he announced that the door has closed for him to mount a successful campaign for President.

He pointed out that he won’t just be a quiet spectator however–he plans on weighing in on various national conversations as they unfold in the Democratic primary and general election.

“Unfortunately, I believe we’re out of time.” @VP Joe Biden won’t run for president https://t.co/Z8PnoAJ2Hn pic.twitter.com/rXnNv8eOYS

— The Boston Globe (@BostonGlobe) October 21, 2015

In his announcement, Biden spoke strongly about Obama’s legacy, of which he said he was proud to be a part, but also emphasized that he didn’t want anyone to back away from that legacy–clearly a shot at any Democrats who seek to distinguish themselves from Obama in a negative way.

Biden also highlighted many issues that the Democrats need to focus on moving forward. The bevy of issues he chose to highlight included a need to focus on helping the middle class, combatting the influx of money in politics, the need for affordable college education, upping the childcare tax credit, raising taxes on the very rich, accepting that we can’t be the world’s police, compromising with the Republican party, and seeking equality for different communities such as immigrants, women, minorities, and those who identify as LGBTQ. He also spoke about an issue incredibly close to his heart–increasing funding for cancer and other medical research–a very understandable sentiment given the recent death of his son, Beau Biden, due to brain cancer.

Overall, the announcement focused more on Biden’s hopes and attempts to provide inspiration, rather than his choice not to join the race. He spoke of the central American belief of “possibilities,” and reaffirmed his focuses for the next 15 months he will remain in office.

This announcement comes as a huge surprise after political gossip earlier this week indicated that Biden was going to throw his hat into the ring. Top political reporters and news outlets, including Fox News’ Ed Henry who broke that story, reported that he’d be announcing his candidacy in the next couple days. Others, including freshman Congressman Brendan Boyle, echoed that sentiment. However, Biden’s decision not to run appears to be absolute.

The Democratic field will remain decidedly un-crowded, with the race appearing to boil down to frontrunner Hillary Clinton and her top challenger Bernie Sanders. While Biden may have a voice moving forward, he has spoken, and that word is final: he will not be running for President of the United States.

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 This Just In: Joe Biden Won’t Be Joining the Presidential Race 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.

Although the Republican field for 2016 presidential nominees is quickly becoming as crowded as a particularly small clown car, the Democratic field is starting to get some new contenders as well. As of today, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has just joined the crowd.

O’Malley went back to his roots for the announcement, to the city of Baltimore where he was once mayor. He in some ways embraced the controversy and violence that the city has been experiencing after the recent death of Freddie Gray, pointing out that it is a symptom of larger American problems. He stated:

What took place here was not only about race, not only about policing in America. It was about everything it is supposed to mean to be an American.

While that’s a compelling talking point, O’Malley’s strongest point to his campaign appeared to be his determination to set himself apart from the current Democratic frontrunner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. O’Malley appears to be positioning himself as left of Clinton (although of course not as far left as fellow candidate Senator Bernie Sanders) and a new voice in comparison to the Bush and Clinton families. One of the lines in his announcement took a shot at both Clinton and presumed Republican contender Jeb Bush. O’Malley stated:

Recently, the CEO of Goldman Sachs let his employees know that he’d be just fine with either Bush or Clinton. Well, I’ve got news for the bullies of Wall Street—the presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth by you between two royal families.

Yet O’Malley has an uphill battle–exactly because of that moderate, outsider status he purports to represent. Clinton has long been viewed as a strong leader who is inevitably going to win the Democratic nomination–according to Real Clear Politics she’s polling at an average of 63.6 percent. Based on the same polls at a distant second (12.5 percent) is Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has said multiple times that she’s not running. Vice President Joe Biden–also not declared–is polling at 10 percent. Sanders is just behind him at almost 9 percent. Next, former Virginia Senator Jim Webb and Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chaffee have 2.6 and 1.8 percent respectively. O’Malley finally clocks in at just under one percent.

Those aren’t particularly good odds–and that’s probably because there’s been nothing particularly exciting about O’Malley yet. While he may be running as a more liberal counterpoint to Clinton, he’s not as liberal as Sanders. To position yourself between two more dynamic and beloved candidates isn’t really a winning strategy.

Whether or not O’Malley actually has a shot will probably depend on Clinton herself. At this point, the Democratic nomination is pretty much hers to lose–a big scandal or health scare could do her in, but it seems like a pretty long shot. While O’Malley joining the race has made it a bit more crowded, she’s still standing on a very pretty pedestal.

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 Does Martin O’Malley Actually Stand a Chance? appeared first on Law Street.

In 1981 a 25-year-old John Hinckley Jr., armed with a .22 caliber revolver, attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan outside the Washington Hilton hotel in a deranged effort to impress actress Jodie Foster. Hinckley wounded four people, including Reagan. Now at age 59, the man responsible for almost killing Reagan could receive more freedom from the mental facility that has housed him for over 30 years.

Federal courts to decide whether Ronald Reagan shooter could be moved into his mom’s home http://t.co/cmIf7GFzfj pic.twitter.com/c3NST6IZBZ

— Daily Mail US (@DailyMail) April 19, 2015

At his trial in 1982 Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity and has been confined at Washington D.C.’s St. Elizabeths Hospital ever since. Since December 2013 Hinckley has been allowed leave from the hospital 17 days a month to stay with his mother in Williamsburg, Virginia. A federal judge is currently weighing recommendations from Hinckley’s doctors that he receive more freedom.  According to NBC Washington, this could mean he receives leave 24 days a month, which was previously requested, or full-time, year-round “convalescent leave” in town.

According to the Washington Post, mental health professionals have allowed Hinckley to take daily walks by himself and go on a number of unsupervised outings of up to four hours each month. He’s also allowed to drive to places where he is expected. But these outings aren’t without exceptions. Hinckley is required to carry a GPS-enabled cell phone during unsupervised activities and he and his mother must call the hospital at least once a day during each visit. His internet access has also been extremely limited and he is required to log all of his daily activities.

Critics of Hinckley’s potential release still see the man as a threat to society with a history of deceptive behavior including lying about his whereabouts, but his lawyer Barry Levin says that’s not the case. According to CBS News, Levine said that psychological testing designed to predict violence shows Hinckley’s risk of being dangerous is “decidedly low.”

In 2014 Reagan’s press secretary James Brady, who was shot in the head by Hinckley during the assassination attempt, had his death ruled a homicide as a result of complications from his injuries. The shooting left him with slurred speech and partial paralysis that required the full-time use of a wheelchair. Prosecutors decided not to charge Hinckley with Brady’s murder after reviewing the case.

Reagan’s daughter Patti Davis has been outspoken on the issue, saying she doesn’t want her father’s shooter to ever go free. In a post written by Davis which originally appeared on her website Books by Patti Davis. and was republished by the Daily Beast, Davis writes:

I will forever be haunted by a drizzly March afternoon when my father almost died, when Jim Brady lay in a pool of blood and two other men — Thomas Delahanty and Timothy McCarthy — were gravely wounded. If John Hinckley is haunted by anything, I think it’s that he didn’t succeed in his mission to assassinate the President.

The judge is poised to decide soon if Hinckley will be granted more freedom, but the government seems unlikely likely to grant the would-be assassin full time leave, despite his doctor’s claims that he is now mentally competent. Hinckley may have not been found guilty, but he will most likely still be somewhat confined for the rest of his life.

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 Freedom Possible for Attempted Reagan Assassin John Hinckley Jr. appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official–Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for president. For weeks, any other legitimate potential Democratic challengers have been backing away very quickly from a nomination consideration. Honestly, with the way this race is probably going to go we might as well just have the convention right now, because Hills is definitely sitting pretty.

So now we turn our eyes to the much more interesting and significantly less important race on the Democratic side–who will be Hillary Clinton’s Vice Presidential nominee?

Given that everyone is still freaking out over her announcement, it’s probably best to let the dust settle before coming up with any concrete answer. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have some fun speculating in the meantime.

Speculation about who Clinton may pick includes a lot of mid-to-high-level players in the Democratic Party. Both sitting Virginia senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, might be legitimate choices, as they are from a crucial swing state. Martin O’Malley, Governor of Maryland, and long considered a potential contender to fight Clinton for the nomination, could also make a strong partner.

Julian Castro, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary and former mayor of San Antonio, could also be a tempting second in command. While Texas isn’t purple yet, it may be relatively soon, and capitalizing on that in advance could be a smart overall strategy for the Democratic Party. Castro is Hispanic, a voting bloc that has become a priority to win for both the Democrat and Republican tickets. Furthermore, Castro is 40 years old–30 years Clinton’s junior. In addition to balancing out her perspective, Castro will look young and virile standing next to Clinton, and assuage those who have concerns about her health.

There are also questions over whether Clinton would only limit the search to men. There are a lot of female rising stars in the Democratic Party, including Elizabeth Warren, the popular senator from Massachusetts. She has said she’s not planning on running, despite the fact that she’d presumably have quite a bit of grassroots support if she chose to. More liberal than Clinton in many ways, including on financial issues and ties to Wall Street, she could energize young liberals who are still hurting from the 2008 recession.

Also from the ranks of Democratic women there’s been talk of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N). That one seems like a long shot though, despite the fact that Gillibrand took over Clinton’s seat when she vacated it to become Secretary of State. She’s gone after some big, important issues in her time in the Senate, such as sexual assault in the military; however, in addition to the fact that Clinton and Gillibrand are seen as somewhat similar, there are concerns over whether a ticket with two people from the same state could even work. The 12th Amendment effectively prohibits that both the President and Vice President be from the same state, but exactly what that means is somewhat difficult to parse out. Clinton and Gillibrand both served as Senators from New York, but does that make them “from” the same state? That would be an issue that would have to be decided, but the idea that she chooses Gillibrand is unlikely to begin with. It could however, impact any other possible VPs from New York, including Governor Andrew Cuomo.

There are plenty of other names for consideration on this list. There’s also Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota. She was an attorney with a strong record on crime and safety before being elected to the Senate. Senator Cory Booker is another rising star, particularly after his much-respected time as mayor of Newark, New Jersey. Former Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick has been brought up, and even though he says he’s not interested, that was over a year ago, and he may change his mind.

No matter who Clinton picks, she’s got a solid list from which to choose. As the Republican Party contenders spend the next few months tearing each other down, she’s got time to groom a running mate and solidify her base.

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’s In, But Who Will She Run With? appeared first on Law Street.

In 1858, then-Senator Abraham Lincoln made one of his most famous speeches. In this particular speech he referenced the bible in stating, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” At that time, of course, Lincoln was referring to the schism that divided the nation, namely should we be a free country or a slave-owning country? While the slavery question has been answered, the idea of a divided nation has continued and seemingly grown as time passed. The problem now is not over any singular issue, but the conduct of various branches of the government. In short, what effect does public disagreement over foreign policy issues have on the United States in presenting a unified front when trying to implement some type of cohesive strategy?

History of Disagreement

With the two most recent high-profile episodes of dissension in federal government–the Senate Republicans’ letter to Iran and the House Republicans’ invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress without executive consent–it may appear as though these events were particularly egregious; however, disagreement between members of the government is certainly not something new. For that matter, this level of disagreement is not even that extraordinary. In fact, at various times throughout the nation’s history members or former members of the government have engaged in literal duels where one of the parties was actually killed. Of course those are the extreem examples of disagreement, but they are part of our history nonetheless.

The 1980s seemed like an especially appropriate time to publicly undermine the president and his foreign policy, as evidenced by two specific events. In 1983, Senator Ted Kennedy allegedly secretly conspired with the then-premier of the USSR to help him defeat Ronald Reagan and win the presidency. Just a year later, in 1984, Democrats wrote a letter to the leader of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua that was critical of the president and forgave the rebel regime’s many atrocities.

Another episode occurred in 1990 when former president Jimmy Carter wrote to the members of the United Nations Security Council denouncing President Bush’s efforts to authorize the Gulf War. In 2002, several democratic senators went to Iraq on a trip financed by late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and actually actively campaigned for his government. This was also aimed at undermining support for the second president Bush’s Iraq War. And the most recent example came in 2007 when newly elected Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria and met with President Basher Assad. Even before he had launched a civil war on his own people, Assad had already made enemies of the Bush Administration by supporting insurgents in Iraq.

This is the context in which Congress’ most recent acts of defiance should be considered. When Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak to congress without the consent of the president, he knew perfectly well that Netanyahu would come to urge the use of force in preventing a nuclear armed Iran. This strategy is the complete opposite of the one pursued by the Obama Administration, which has centered on negotiation, give and take. The video below explains why this invitation was so controversial.

The second most recent act of dissent also comes in relation to a nuclear deal with Iran. In this case, 47 senators signed a letter to Iran stating that any agreement between President Obama and the Ayatollah will be considered as an executive agreement only and subject to being overturned when a new president is elected. The video below explores the ramifications of the letter.

Taken alone these efforts by Republicans appear outrageous and indeed even treasonous. But they are actually just two more in a series of moves from both parties to undermine the other. The main difference this time is that it was the Republicans doing the undermining of a Democratic President.

Roles in Foreign policy for Each Branch of the Government

The three branches of the government–the judicial, legislative, and executive branches–each play a role in determining foreign policy. While the courts are instrumental in determining the constitutionality, and therefore legality, of agreements, the legislative and executive branches are the real driving forces behind United States’ foreign policy. So what then are their roles?

Executive

As the saying goes, on paper the President’s foreign policy powers seem limited. According to the Constitution, he is limited to his role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and nominating and appointing officials. However, the president has several unofficial powers that are more encompassing. First is the executive agreement, which basically allows the president to make an accord without the consent of Congress. This is what Obama did, for example, in relation to immigration in Fall 2014, as well as the situation to which Republicans referred in their letter to Iran.

This power is perhaps the most important as the president is able to pursue his agenda without needing Congressional support, which is often hostile to his ambitions. Along this same track, the president has the ability to determine the foreign policy agenda, and by doing so making it the agenda for the entire nation.

The executive branch also controls the means to carry out foreign policy through its various agencies. Of particular importance are the Department of State, which handles foreign affairs, and the Department of Defense, which is in charge of military operations. The intelligence community is also a key cog in this branch of government.

Legislative

The role of this branch has traditionally been three-fold: advising the president, approving/disapproving the president’s foreign policy agreements, and confirming appointments to the State Department. Recently these powers have come under challenge as Obama himself has conducted military actions in Libya without getting war powers consent from Congress first.

Like everything else, the roles taken on by the particular branches with regard to foreign policy have expanded far beyond those originally outlined in the Constitution. Nevertheless, because the president, as mentioned previously, serves as both the face of policy and its catalyst, it is generally assumed that he will take the lead in those matters. However, a certain gray area still exists as to specifically who has the right to do what. This role was supposed to be more clearly defined through legislation, namely the Logan Act; however, perpetually changing circumstances, such as the role of the media, have continued to make the boundaries for conduct less clear.

What Happens Next

So what is to be done about these quarrelsome representatives and senators? When Pelosi made her infamous trip to visit Assad in 2007, the Bush Administration was extremely angry and reacted accordingly, deeming her actions as criminal and possibly treasonous. If this rhetoric sounds familiar that is because these are the same types of phrases being hurled at the Congresspeople who invited Netanyahu to speak and condemned Iran with their signatures.

The Logan Act

The real issue here is with who is conducting foreign policy as opposed to who is supposed to, according to the Logan Act. The act was passed in 1799 in response to its namesake’s efforts to single-handedly end the quasi-war with the French by engaging in a solo journey to the country. The basic outline of the act is that no unauthorized person is allowed to negotiate on behalf of the United States with a foreign government during a dispute. Thus, while in theory this was meant to resolve the issue as to who was qualified to represent U.S. foreign policy, the video below explains that is far from what actually occurred.

Along with the damning words being thrown about, critics of the Republican actions also call for their prosecution under this relatively obscure law; however, no such indictments are likely to take place as no one has even been charged under it, not even the man for whom it was named. In addition, the language itself is unclear. For example, wouldn’t congresspeople be considered authorized persons? These threats of prosecution, along with the strong language being thrown about hide another important factor in this whole mess: the role of the media.

Media’s Role

In the tumult following the Iranian letter, a somewhat important piece of evidence has been overlooked. While the senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, indeed signed a letter, the letter was not actually sent anywhere. In fact, after getting 46 other senators to sign the letter, Senator Cotton posted it to his own website and social media accounts. Similarly with the Netanyahu speech, while it is odd for a foreign leader to speak to Congress without approval of the president, the significance of the whole thing can be attributed as much to the stage it was broadcast on as its peculiarity.

There is a history of government officials undermining the White House’s foreign policy. However, in 2015 there are so many avenues to openly and very publicly express dissent that when it does occur it is a bigger deal now than ever. Information is so accessible now, thus when someone posts something to social media anyone all over the world can see it. This is different than if something were broadcast 20 years ago on network news.

Conclusion

In 1951, President Truman removed General MacArthur from command in the Korean War. While MacArthur was one of the most renowned war heroes of WWII, his threats to invade China and expand the war undermined Truman’s efforts to negotiate an end to the conflict. While Truman was able to dismiss MacArthur, this is not true for the current case of branches of government undermining others.Unlike MacArthur who was a general and beholden to the president, these representatives and senators are beholden to the people and cannot be as easily removed. Nor should they, not only because the precedent for this type of disagreement has been set, but also because the president should not have the ability to dismiss everyone who disagrees with him. People voicing their opinions after all, is the whole idea behind representative government.

While recent Republican actions can certainly be termed at least as ill-advised, the question of illegality is much less clear. The Iranians for their part took the letter as well as can be expected, acknowledging its obvious political nature.

Sources

Washington Examiner: 5 Times Democrats Undermined Republican Presidents With Foreign Governments

Foreign Policy Association: How Foreign Policy is Made.

Politico: John Boehner’s Bibi Invite Sets Up Showdown With White House

Intercept: The Parties Role Reversal on Interfering With the Commander-in-Chief’s Foreign Policy

Politico: Iran, Tom Cotton and the Bizarre History of the Logan Act

National Review: The Cotton Letter Was Not Sent Anywhere, Especially Not to Iran

LA Times: Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress Has Politics Written All Over it

The New York Times: Iranian Officials Ask Kerry about Republicans’ Letter

CNN: Did 47 Republican Senators Break the Law in Plain Sight?

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The U.S. Government: A House Divided on Foreign Policy appeared first on Law Street.

The idea of a “welfare queen” has been a political talking point for several decades. It began as a term used by President Reagan in a story he told while he was running for election in 1976:

‘In Chicago, they found a woman who holds the record…She used 80 names, 30 addresses, 15 telephone numbers to collect food stamps, Social Security, veterans’ benefits for four nonexistent deceased veteran husbands, as well as welfare. Her tax-free cash income alone has been running $150,000 a year.’

The idea of a welfare queen has evolved into being characterized as a woman who stays on welfare, receiving benefits, and continuing to have children so she can get even more money from the government to support those children. In the eyes of many, the stereotype is thoroughly racist–she’s an under-performing black woman, living off of taxpayers’ money. The term is seen by many as a dog whistle of sorts, a way to play on the public’s racial anxieties without actively saying so.

Read More: No Strings Attached: Replacing Welfare With a Guaranteed Income

Some claim that Reagan’s story was a complete lie, but, there is some proof that it was at least based on reality. It now appears that there wasn’t just one welfare queen, but the subject of Reagan’s story  was actually an amalgamation of three different women. Craig R. Smith, a former speechwriter for Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush said,

It hangs together as a good story because it’s consistent with people’s perception of the real world…Like in any good mythology, you need heroes and villains and in the Welfare Queen, you had a villain who was taking advantage of the system.

Regardless of the truth, this story changed the minds of many Americans about the state of the welfare system and the people who receive the benefits.

 What is the “Welfare Queen” law?

Nearly two decades ago, California  passed a law that many have come to call the “Welfare Queen” law. It states that a family that has any additional children while on the welfare system is barred from getting any increases in the grant it already receives from the state. There are exemptions made if the couple in question can prove that birth control measures such as sterilization, IUD, or Norplant failed. There are also concessions made if the case involves rape or incest. In cases like those, the mothers were more quickly offered medical, physical, and monetary help. California is not the only state to use a variation of this law. In fact, other states including Arizona, Mississippi, and Virginia have similar measures.

Senate Bill 23

California Democrats are fighting to repeal the measure, calling it “classism” and “prejudicial” to the citizens of the state. Holly Mitchell, a Senator from Los Angeles, is working for the third time to abolish the law. She introduced Senate Bill 23, which would repeal the “welfare queen” law.

Advocates for the poor are mounting their strongest efforts ever to repeal the “maximum family grant” ruling as the state is about to set its budget for the next year. These changes come after it was announced that California was named the state with the highest child poverty rate.

“It is a classist, sexist, anti-democratic, anti-child, anti-family policy whose premise did not come to fruition,” said Mitchell, the author of Senate Bill 23. “It did not accomplish what it set out to accomplish. So it’s appropriate to take it off the books.”

California is very split on this topic, ranging from those who would like to impose stronger rules against the so called “welfare queens” to those who want to completely annul the law.

Arguments to Eliminate the “Welfare Queen” Law

The average cost to raise a child in America, from birth to 18 years old, is $241,080, according to CNN Money. That breaks down to about $1,116 a month–something that many low-income families will not make. If a family has more than one child, many families will go without in order to provide for the children instead.

Advocates for repeal also argue that when it comes down to it, the law is aimed at controlling women. According to Sacramento Bee, Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) said reversing the policy is “critically important to families, telling a recent women’s policy summit in Sacramento that the criteria are “’invasive (and) insulting.’” Some have even compared the law to China’s One Child Policy. Women’s groups and Planned Parenthood find fault with this measure as well, citing that it is more controlling than necessary.

In addition, those who want to repeal it say that it unfairly punishes children for the actions of their parents. Newborns need care and support, and not allowing the parents of newborns to gain the necessary resources can endanger the health and wellbeing of those children.

In an unlikely collaboration, Linda Wanner, the associate director of government relations at the California Catholic Conference, said that her group favors annulment of the bill as well, but for other reasons: “We have the opportunity to remove burdensome county processes, reduce the number of children living in poverty, and, more importantly, eliminate the incentive to terminate a pregnancy,” she said.

Arguments to Keep the Law in Place

Those who oppose abolishing the law say that removing it to raise the amount of money that the family gets will not lift any family out of poverty. According to the Sacramento Bee, Mary L.G. Theroux, senior vice president of The Independent Institute, a nonprofit research organization based in Oakland, said she doesn’t disagree that the law did not prevent births. “The opportunity cost of them having another kid is not going to stop them from doing it,” she said. However, she continued to say that giving more money would not give the growing families the incentive to get help from charities, family members, or find higher paying jobs. She then continued, “What these programs are doing is completely handicapping people from learning how to take care of their families and how to help their children have a better life than they do.” In addition, many feel that these programs that provide complete care to parents and children actually hinder further development of the child and his or her autonomy.

There’s also a concern that repealing the law would be a huge economic strain on the state of California. The state’s economy has been struggling since the recession in 2008, and pouring more money into welfare could harm its rebound even further. One analyst claimed that repealing the law could cost up to $205 million a year, although that number is difficult to reliably quantify.

According to the Sacramento Bee, Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar) said that helping families in poverty is an important role for officials in the state government as well as people outside of the state, and is even a nationwide issue. The question is whether repealing the maximum grant is the best thing to do with the money. “Putting $200 million into an effective job training program or providing child care for working mothers would be a better use of resources,” Huff said. Huff “pointed to a long list of other needs for both the parents and children in the state, including services for the developmentally disabled and foster children.”

Conclusion

This is not the only time that discussions have been developed around the “welfare queen” law. In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed a welfare reform law, and then-Governor of California Pete Wilson and lawmakers compromised on a statewide program called CalWORKS in 1997. This bill stiffened the work requirements and set time limits, sanctions, grant levels, and eligibility requirements for California welfare recipients.

So how much fraud is there really in the welfare system? According to Eric Schnurer of the Atlantic it’s actually not so clear.

It’s not easy to get agreement on actual fraud levels in government programs. Unsurprisingly, liberals say they’re low, while conservatives insist they’re astronomically high. In truth, it varies from program to program. One government report says fraud accounts for less than 2 percent of unemployment insurance payments. It’s seemingly impossible to find statistics on ‘welfare’ (i.e., TANF) fraud, but the best guess is that it’s about the same. A bevy of inspector general reports found ‘improper payment’ levels of 20 to 40 percent in state TANF programs — but when you look at the reports, the payments appear all to be due to bureaucratic incompetence (categorized by the inspector general as either ‘eligibility and payment calculation errors’ or ‘documentation errors’), rather than intentional fraud by beneficiaries.

The number of people living in poverty in California, and nationwide, has continued to grow and grow. The face of welfare has changed since the 1980s, as has the amount of money that is needed to raise a child, especially in a state where the cost of living is high.

Resources

Primary

California Legislature: Senate Bill No. 23

Additional

Cal Coast News: California May Repeal “Welfare Queen” Law

CNN: Return of the ‘Welfare Queen’

NPR: The Truth Behind the Lies of the Original ‘Welfare Queen‘

New York Post: When Welfare Pays Better Than Work

CNN: Average Cost to Raise a Child

Huffington Post: California Poverty Rate

Slate: The Welfare Queen

Nieman Reports: The ‘Welfare Queen’ Experiment

SCPR: Lawmakers Debate Repeal of Welfare Queen Law in California

Jezebel: Reagan’s ‘Welfare Queen’ Was a Real Person and Her Story is Bananas

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to credit select information to the Sacramento Bee. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Battle Over the “Welfare Queen” Law in California appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 Midterms just wrapped up, so of course the 2016 presidential race contenders have not even crossed the starting line. Or, have they? In my oh-so-humble opinion, the race hasn’t just begun — it’s already over. The cheering fans watching the contestants have already gone home and are reminiscing about the day’s excitement over a nice dinner. And which runner dashed first through the tape held taut across the finish line? Hillary Clinton, of course. Her win seems already a guarantee. Why? For the following reasons, which all happen to conveniently start with the letter F. Just like on Sesame Street, today’s episode is brought to you by the letter F.

1. Feminism

This is the word of the moment, especially after Emma Watson gave her speech on the topic at a recent United Nations event causing people to swoon over her more than usual. We had our first African-American president, so now it’s time for a lady to step up to the plate. And in Hilary’s case, a pretty bad-ass lady.

2. Foreign Policy

Love him or hate him, it’s pretty undeniable that Obama’s foreign policy leaves much to be desired. That’s where Hilary steps in. She traveled to 112 countries while serving as Secretary of State – the most of anyone in that position throughout history. That kind of indicates she knows her shit.

3. Family Dynasties

The Bush family. The Kennedy family. The Clinton family. What do they have in common? Their members were and are political big wigs and small wigs (maybe a wig for a baby or a gnome?). It must be some sort of requirement that as they are raised, members are brainwashed to some extent to acquire and live out lofty political aspirations.

4. Facial Expressions

Okay, okay — perhaps facial expressions alone are not exactly a qualification for making someone a good president. But you have to admit that her facial expressions to suit varying social situations are pretty on the ball. She’s not afraid to let those emotions show, and we need some honest people in politics.

PHOTOS: @HillaryClinton‘s Best Facial Expressions http://t.co/FXcUqu7me8

— Mstars News (@MstarsNews) June 19, 2014

All you naysayers out there (and not just horses) are probably pointing out that after the scandal caused by Bill Clinton and a certain Ms. Lewinsky with whom he DID, indeed, have sexual relations, we don’t need another Clinton in the White house. But look at it this way: with all of that crap Hilary had to put up with from her husband, she deserves to get what she wants and be president. Furthermore, she has already lived in the White house and can therefore just pick up where she left off there and doesn’t need an adjustment period. So, get ready for Hillary to step up to the presidential podium: our first woman president. Brace yourself, nation!

Marisa Mostek

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

The post Just Get Ready For It: Another Clinton in the White House appeared first on Law Street.

We have different branches of our government for a reason. I remember learning about it as early as middle school — the legislature makes the laws, the executive branch enforces them, and the judicial branch interprets them. There are checks and balances, separation of powers, and all sorts of mechanisms to make sure that we have a functioning democracy. But then two separate polls caught my eye this week that make me curious about the mindset of the American people.

The first involved a poll in which half of the American public said that the Supreme Court should be elected rather than appointed. The poll was conducted online by Harris Polls.

The second poll was conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, and it discovered that 35 percent of Americans couldn’t name a single branch of the American government. In the release of the poll, Annenberg director Kathleen Hall Jamieson stated,

Although surveys reflect disapproval of the way Congress, the President and the Supreme Court are conducting their affairs, the Annenberg survey demonstrates that many know surprisingly little about these branches of government.

The two polls obviously, weren’t made to be related, but they do provide an interesting and weird insight into the minds of the American populace. It’s vaguely reminiscent of the time that Jimmy Fallon asked people whether they supported Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act.

Back to the topic at hand though — the idea of having our Supreme Court justices subject to elections is a troublesome one. There’s a reason that they’re not elected in the first place — so that they don’t have to pander to an electorate. An electorate who probably could not even name the branch of government for which they would be choosing justices.

The way that our government works now, our Congresspeople, Senators, Governors, President, and other elected officials are constantly running for office. They always have to look at the polls to see what everyone is thinking. They sometimes have to contend with voters turning on them because of the actions of others in their party. They constantly have to contend with the fact that if they make moves or pass laws that their constituents don’t like, they could be out of a job.

Then, those people who are constantly up for vote, write our laws. And the Supreme Court, who is appointed by the those elected people, has to interpret those laws. Their job depends on the fact that they aren’t held accountable.

Does that mean that they always make the right choices? No, definitely not. I certainly take issue with many SCOTUS decisions, but I get to elect the people who pass and sign the laws — it would be too much to also vote for the people who interpret the laws.

Our democracy isn’t always perfect, and it often fails, but it is a democracy with checks and balances for a reason.

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 Here’s Why We Shouldn’t Vote for Our Supreme Court Justices appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Thirteen years ago yesterday our country was shaken to the core. I was sixteen, skipping school and watching some awful show on television when the program was interrupted by the news reporting on the first airplane hitting the Twin Towers in New York City. Not even 20 minutes later, as the news anchors were still reporting on the crash, we all watched as another plane crashed into the second tower. It was live TV and there was no controlling what the viewers were going to see. The confusion and horror coming from the news anchors was something I could never forget. My brother and I sat in silence not knowing what to do, what to think, or what was going to happen next. Parents pulled their kids out of school and I remember this feeling of urgency in the air and the uneasiness of what could possibly happen next. Thousands of people had just lost their lives and the country witnessed it. There were no answers, only questions of why and what will happen next.

Every year we remember that horrendous day. It was a constant fear for the first year or two, but also a great feeling that our country had come together and we had heroes to thank daily. Budweiser aired a commercial during Superbowl XXXVI that really demonstrated the somber tone and respect the entire country had for the events of September 11, 2001. The ad was only shown once to ensure they did not profit from it in any way. Even today, 13 years later, it is the most moving dedication done in such a small amount of time.

Yesterday was a somber day for us all. Most news outlets covered the anniversary in addition to current events. While watching one of the programs I had to do a quick rewind to make sure I was hearing it correctly. Young America’s Foundation had gone to the George Washington University campus in Washington, DC last Friday, September 5, to interview students about the anniversary of September 11. YAF only had a few questions to ask these students:

1. Next week marks the anniversary of a major national event. Do you know what that is?
2. Do you know what ISIS is?
3. Did you know that ISIS is responsible for the beheading of two American journalists? If so, could you name one?
4. Are you aware of the celebrity “nude photo” hacking scandal? If so, could you name any of the celebrities involved?

The responses from these kids are just mind blowing…

So the total results:

• Six out of 30 students recognized that this week is the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
• Four out of 30 students were able to name one of the American journalists beheaded at the hands of ISIS.
• 29 out of 30 students were able to identify one or more celebrities involved in the nude photo hacking scandal.

The kid interviewed two minutes in genuinely reacts like he had no idea what had been going on and it clearly upset him, which is great but frustrating. Actually this whole situation is frustrating. How is it that college students in their late teens and early twenties know more about pop culture and the ridiculousness of a nude picture hacking scandal than they do about current events and the death of two Americans at the hands of terrorists? This is not only the responsibility of these young adults to know what’s going on but it is the responsibility of teachers, parents, and our society as a whole.

There are already so many issues with what kids are learning in the classroom today that this should not surprise me, but it honestly does. How is this possible? When I was growing up my parents and grandparents talked to me about Pearl Harbor and the significance of that date. We may have brushed through it in history class but it is a day that I remember because it was an important part of history. My grandparents even lost friends and family members during the attack on Pearl Harbor and World War II. The same could be said about 9/11 and the Iraq War that followed. Hell, there are even movies about the two events. While there have been about seven movies made about the Pearl Harbor attacks, nearly 20 have been produced about 9/11.

What has become of our younger generation? Things need to change or our society will become Idiocracy.

This video is a great representation of what is going on in our culture and it needs to stop. We need our children to be better and smarter and more informed. We are not only disappointing our parents and grandparents, but we are disappointing our country, our culture, the world, and our Founding Fathers! Flabbergasted.

I don’t want to end this post on a note of frustration for our society. Instead I want to share a moving video about the last surviving search and rescue dog who returned to Ground Zero yesterday, a place she had not been to since 2001.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Never Forget.

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 9/11 Never Forget? Not Exactly For These GW Students appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

As most of you know, I hail from the great state of Texas! I wasn’t born here but my parents made sure I got here as fast as possible. I’ve been here long enough to experience both governors George W. Bush and Rick Perry, two men I have a great amount of respect for.

I was flabbergasted the moment I read that Governor Rick Perry is being indicted for alleged abuse of power in a veto dispute. First, I must have been hiding under a rock for a few weeks because I had no idea that they were even considering indicting Governor Perry. But let’s be really honest, someone is always trying to sue or indict a lawmaker, even the President. We do live in a world of frivolous lawsuits so I really shouldn’t be surprised.

Let’s jump in to the most ridiculous of the ridiculous: The person who made the decision to convene a grand jury to indict Governor Perry is Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg. The same woman who was arrested for drunk driving. No one is above the law, but she clearly thought she was. The cops even had to put a spit guard on her and strap her to a chair. What does that say about her decisionmaking skills? I find her almost as laughable as the crack-smoking Toronto Mayor.

To make things even worse, after Lehmberg plead guilty to drunk driving, she refused to leave her position as District Attorney. How shocking, one poor choice on top of another. It puts the whole Perry indictment into question. Actually, for me it makes me question her whole career. Forget her political affiliation, consider the decisions she has made and think, how that one decision ruined her life, and think about how many other decisions that she has made that have had the same impact on others. You have to question her ability to reason — or at least I do.

An indictment would kill a presidential bid for most political careers of this magnitude, but it seems to be making Perry’s stronger. So many people have come out in support of him it is like a blessing of endorsements for the future run.

Part of what Perry is being indicted for is “misusing government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant’s custody or possession by virtue of the public servant’s office or employment.” Perry threatened to veto funding for the state’s public integrity unit last summer. This veto threat is more specifically about $7.5 million in funding for the state’s public integrity unit, the ethics watchdog unit housed under Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg’s office.

I think that this whole thing is a game of cat and mouse. It also seems to me that today’s government officials are more stubborn and selfish than ever. What about that is good for the people? Rosemary Lehmberg is a joke and has turned the Travis County District Office into a joke as well. Governor Perry may not be perfect but at least he knows how to conduct himself in a manner that doesn’t lead to a spit mask, being arrested, putting people’s lives at risk, and being strapped to a chair.

Fellow Law Streeter Anneliese Mahoney wrote a really great piece about the Rick Perry indictment with a bit different point of view that you should check out!

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Rick Perry Indictment is a Joke appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Last week I wrote about President Obama coming to visit Texas and the issues I have with him and Houston’s independent school district. I thought I would be able to say my peace and move on. Unfortunately that is not the case. As the week went on there was more and more talk about immigration and I feel like it is time for me to say a little bit more.

First of all, it was great to see that President Obama got off of his high horse for a little while to even speak with Governor Perry, but it did not seem like it was taken too seriously. I’m sure you’ve all seen the photo of Obama and Perry sitting at a table together: Obama is laughing away and in a jolly good mood whereas Perry has a sour look on his face. There have been jokes and comments made about Perry being too serious and Obama trying to defuse the situation. No one knows what was actually going on in that room when the picture was taken but I think that it is fair to say that the look on Perry’s face is one of frustration. In this state immigration is a real issue. It can be talked about over and over and over again in DC, but the realities don’t hit as hard as they do here.

I can appreciate that Obama agreed with some of the points that Perry made, but then he had to go and make a stupid comment. In a speech after the meeting he stated, “You know, they said we needed to triple the Border Patrol. Or now they’re going to say we need to quadruple the Border Patrol. Or they’ll want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. Maybe they want alligators in the moat. They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics.”

So where is the problem? The problem for me is this entire statement. He basically just laughed off the entire situation in a matter of seconds. Not to mention he made himself look like an idiot by stating we would want a moat. Dear Mr. President, please take out your third grade geography book and notice that there is a RIVER that separates a good portion of Texas from Mexico, that little thing called the Rio Grande. Details. Yes, I know he was making a joke and being overly dramatic but let’s get something straight: this is not a joking matter. For him to come out and make jokes about a serious issue in our country is disrespectful and shows how little he cares about the domestic issues.

In the last day or so there have been reports that 40 illegal immigrants were returned to their homes in Honduras, including adults and children. Forty immigrants, and government officials are claiming that is “a step in the right direction.” Excuse me? Forty immigrants is a step in the right direction? Among the estimated 82,000 who are still sitting in federal housing, they chose to send back 40. That is a laughable number. The average Boeing 747 airplane can seat 416 passengers.  That is 376 empty seats on a plane for those 40 people to stretch out across. I know that there is a method to what needs to be done before sending these people back to their countries but maybe processing more than 40 at a time would help the situation.

Immigration issues won’t be fixed overnight, I realize that. But having a president who blatantly and publicly makes fun of the issue is not a step in the right direction and is actually a huge step back. If the President of the United States doesn’t really care about the issue then why should anyone else care about it? His job is to not only lead us but to represent us in the global arena, and when he shows weakness and disdain for his own people that shows the world that they can have the same lack of respect for our country and our citizens.

Superpower, what superpower?

—

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 [U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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 Immigration Isn’t a Joke, Mr. President appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

How Can I Sue the President?

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

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

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

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

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

Will it Work?

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

Marisa Mostek

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

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

Until recently, everyone thought the Obama administration got away with targeting and killing an American citizen without any disclosure of the legal means that allowed this action to unfold. Now, a court ruling could change this, which draws attention to a very important question: How can we keep the President accountable?

In 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen declared a terrorist by US intelligence, was targeted and killed by a drone strike in Yemen. After committing this action, the government declined to reveal any documents detailing the decision and even their legal reasoning that explained why the President was able to authorize the killing of an American without a trial or due process of the law.

A suit was filed against the government by the ACLU and reporters from the New York Times. The case was brought to a US district court and was decided in January 2013. The decision came out in the government’s favor: the court ruled that the government did not have to release any of the requested information. District court judge Colleen McMahon, commenting on the court’s decision, stated that while she personally criticized Obama for failing to disclose the information, she felt that the court had no authority to force the administration to release any documents relevant to the situation.

However, the case was appealed, and on Monday April 21, 2014, the court of appeals for the 2nd circuit issued a ruling that overturned the lower court’s decision. The three judge panel on the bench of the court ruled that the government must release documents created by the Justice Deparment that describe the administration’s legal reasoning behind the authorization to commit the killing of al-Awlaki.

In the wake of the appeals’ court decision, two important question must be answered: How did the court justify this decision, and will this court ruling change the legal nature of presidential action?

The Court’s Reasoning

The appeals court’s main justification for its ruling was that since the Obama administration had publicly commented on the legal justification for killing al-Awlaki, the government can no longer refuse to disclose the official documents. Judge Jon Newman‘s opinion, joined by the other two appellate judges, explained that if the government makes public claims to convince the public that lawful actions were taken, the government has an obligation to prove those statements are true. The judge stated, “whatever protection the legal analysis might once have had has been lost by virtue of public statements of public officials at the highest levels and official disclosure of the DOJ White Paper.”

The decision also addressed the arguments against releasing the information. The government claimed that by being forced to reveal the documents and other information detailing the legal justification for al-Awlaki’s killing, other agencies will be more hesitant to seek the assistance of the Department of Justice, since they may fear the eventual release of private information used to consult with the DOJ. Refuting this argument, the court’s opinion highlighted the fact that smart officials representing agencies should be fully aware of publicly discussing the advice of the DOJ could result in the mandated disclosure of the legal information. Furthermore, as long as the agency makes no public statements about the assurance of the legality of actions taken with help from the DOJ’s legal advice, the information need not be revealed.

What implications will the ruling have on the operations of the President and the US government?

Keeping in mind the court’s rationale for ruling, the effect this decision could have on the future operations of the President and the government must be explored.

The good news is that the case showcases a way for the public to hold the President and the government accountable for his secret decisions. In a matter of killing an American citizen without due process of the law, the American people deserve to understand the reasoning behind the action. By declaring that the government loses its right to secrecy after publicly commenting on the supposed legality of its actions, the public has gained some recourse for finding transparency within government’s decisions.

But while the appellate court decision marks progress in keeping the President and government accountable, the ruling does not mean that the government must now release information on their reasoning behind every decision. It is important to remember that the court came to its decision after the President made public remarks on the legality of al-Awlaki’s killing. Therefore, while we can celebrate the appellate court’s decision, remember that this ruling is only a step in the right direction in providing more ways to keep the government accountable.

[The Atlantic] [POLITICO] [The Guardian]

—

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post A New Method to Keep the Government Accountable? appeared first on Law Street.

The Obama Administration once again announced an extension of an Affordable Care Act deadline this week. For anyone who’s counting, we’re up to at least 11. This time it’s late signups for people who have technical problems that prohibit them from signing up by the March 31 deadline. If that’s you, you can now apply for an extension to mid-April by checking a box on the application. The Administration is trusting that you’ll abide by the honor system and will really only ask for an extension if you need it.

The President has issued many delays since the healthcare law was implemented. Here’s a brief recap:

• Starting in November 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services delayed for a month the decision to set up a federal exchange.
• In July 2013, the employer mandate was delayed. The statute originally imposed fines on businesses with more than 50 employees that do not offer health insurance. Now, no fines will be enforced in 2014.
• November 2013 saw two different delays — one for open individual enrollment in 2015, and the other being open enrollment for small businesses. A month later, the deadline to apply on the individual exchange was delayed twice in a row — first on November 12, and then November 24.
• High-risk pools (groups of people with pre-existing conditions who were uninsured) were slated to end January 1, 2014, but they were extended to March. As soon as we reached that deadline, it was extended yet again.
• The deadline for employers with 50 to 100 employees to offer healthcare was again delayed in February 2014 — they are now allowed to wait until 2016 to offer health insurance.

There is predictably criticism from Republicans ranging from the need to fix key parts of the law to repealing it outright. One suggestion is to repeal the tax on medical devices, a main revenue source for the Affordable Care Act, while others have called for an investigation looking into the constitutionality of the delays. Michael McConnell, quoted in the Washington Post, has said that the continuing deadline delays are blatantly illegal. “Statute does provide broad discretion, but unless there’s some explicit statutory authorization they don’t have the right not to do it … That’s the difference. Suspending and dispensing with statutes are equally impermissible.”

When it comes to allowing the executive branch to implement delays in the law, the main concern is over Congress’ role. Congress, the main federal legislative body, is supposed to take up these delays. By allowing the President to give out executive orders delaying legal statues, legislative jurisdiction becomes confused. Who, in fact, has the right to make these delays?

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Wikimedia]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is it Legal for the President, and not Congress, to Implement ACA Delays? appeared first on Law Street.

Is the federal government ‘too big’ or ‘too small’? Americans have been debating the best size of the federal government since the birth of the Republic. From the Federalist Papers all the way to current court cases seeking to establish the superiority of states rights, the federal vs. state government fight is not a new one. To this day, intellectuals on both sides of the issue fight to prove the merits of their own views, as well as show which government philosophy would be better for taxpayers. Looking at the numbers might surprise you, though. The federal government probably doesn’t spend as much as you think.

The federal government’s budget is one of the most politically sensitive topics there is — entire movements were born from a perceived sense of increased governing spending (hello, Tea Party). While it may be the job of Congress and the President to compromise and agree on a budget, mudslinging and partisanship make its passage very difficult. The most recent budget proposal, presented by the President on April 10, requests nearly $3.8 trillion in expenditures and $3.03 trillion in revenue, putting the deficit at $744 billion, or 4.4 percent of gross domestic product. That’s a decrease in the deficit of nearly $229 billion.

Right now, federal legislative, judicial, and executive branch departments are under what is called ‘the sequester.’ As a result of the failure of Congress and the President to pass a federal budget by January 1, 2013, the Budget Control Act was set to automatically reduce spending in various departments throughout the federal system. Some have applauded the sequester’s sharp curtailing of government spending, while others point to the devastating economic ripple effects the law has had. According to the Government Accountability Office, “19 agencies reported curtailing hiring; 16 reported rescoping or delaying contracts or grants for core mission activities; 19 reported reducing employee training; 20 reported reducing employee travel; and seven reported furloughing more than 770,000 employees from one to seven days.” The Congressional Budget Office has pointed to a possible 0.6 percent contraction of the nation’s economy due to the austerity-minded law.

After the government shutdown in October 2013 due to partisan disagreement over the budget bill, Congressional approval ratings plummeted to 10 percent. Three months later, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act, which sought to increase spending caps enacted by the sequester in exchange for extending the duration of the cuts to 2023 -– lowering the national deficit by $23 billion. Advocates calling for lower government spending should be applauding.

As the nation continues to debate whether the sequester cuts have been beneficial or harmful to the nation, the next date to look forward to is in September when the government runs out of authority to spend taxpayer money. With the national debt at $17.5 trillion and counting, and the midterm elections coming this November, we’ll have to wait and see is Congress will work together to pass a compromise appropriations bill.

As time goes by, the federal budget inevitably increases in order to meet the country’s demands. As our infrastructure continues to crumble, more Americans retire, and workers demand a living wage, increased spending cannot be stopped in general, no matter the amount. It is up to our elected officials to take action and simplify the tax code, increase revenue, and close corporate loopholes and subsidies.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Ryan McFarland via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does the Government Really Spend Too Much? appeared first on Law Street.

In the 21st century, many people do not consider how vulnerable their high-tech gadgets are to outside hackers. Information can be stolen at the swipe of a password, and it will take some time before you notice anything is wrong. The same can be said for governments fighting to stay on top of the latest technologies — especially the type that can help defend them against various enemies. These enemies, however, are no longer those we traditionally think of (‘evil’ governments and terrorists), at least not for our elected officials. In fact, the challenge of our time according to many top feds and military officers, is defending against cybercrime.

Following the hacking onslaught against retail giant Target, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) warned that more attacks are on the way, considering the attraction for additional cyber criminals to score easy money off of unsuspecting businesses. According to a paper released by the Ponemon Institute in 2012, cybercrimes cost businesses at least $8.9 million annually , and if they do not modernize security practices soon, hackers may get away with a lot more than just someone’s credit card information.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a federal technology agency, released a 39-page report on Wednesday to set industry standards implementing adequate protections so that businesses do not continue to get hit with hacking attacks from all over the globe. The report itself focuses on three main points:

1. Framework Core: “A set of cybersecurity activities, desired outcomes, and applicable references that are common across critical infrastructure sectors…that allows for communication of cybersecurity activities and outcomes across the organization from the executive level to the implementation/operations level.”
2. Framework Implementation Tiers: “Provide context on how an organization views cybersecurity risk and the processes in place to manage that risk. Tiers describe the degree to which a organization’s cybersecurity risk management practices exhibit the characteristics defined in the framework.”
   
3. Framework Profile: “The alignment of standards, guidelines, and practices to the Framework Core in a particular implementation scenario. Profiles can be used to identify opportunities for improving cybersecurity.” 

Even though the goals are well-intentioned, the fact the report comes out of an executive order from the President could throw a wrench into the implementation within Congress, as the members are already at odds as to whether or not the President should have more freedom interpreting legislation. However, there may still be a shot at cooperation between the two branches on this front, as business executives continue to pressure lawmakers at cybercrime hearings.

And they may not have a choice but to work together, as Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey explained at a speech in June 2013 that “strengthening our cyber defenses on military systems is critically important, but it’s not enough in order to defend the nation.” Citing an investment of $23 billion into cyberdefense, four thousand new Cyber Command recruits, and three new teams focusing on defense of the nation, battlefield commands, and global military networks, Chairman Dempsey indicated that the United States is mounting intimidating offenses but that the country has a lot of catching up to do. In another hearing in February 2012, Senator Lindsey Graham inquired of Dempsey about cyberattack threats from China, often an alleged source of hacking. In response, the Joint Chiefs Chairman replied that China’s hacking seems to target intellectual property and trade secrets more than anything else, but if they were to attack the United States’ infrastructure, they should expect a similar response.

As major nations all around the globe come to grips over the rising tide of cybercrime, the United States is most certainly ramping up its defenses. While military leaders warn that what we have in store is not enough, federal officials continue to release new indicators that they’re serious about tackling the issue. Despite all of the rhetoric, business leaders in the nation continue to experience cyber crimes, having their secrets stolen and clientele information hacked. There is still a lot of work to be done if the United States is going to be ready for a future of relentless cybercrime.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [elhombredenegro via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is America Ready to Fight Cybercrime? appeared first on Law Street.

I really like horror movies. And FX’s American Horror Story is a weekly ritual for myself and my roommates. There’s something about being scared through the dim glow of a screen that’s refreshing: you get to be glad that you aren’t actually experiencing the horror. And so today I decided to experience a different kind of horror…I googled potential 2016 presidential nominees barely a year after our last, extremely exhausting election.

This was me.

Everyone knows who the frontrunners are–Hillary Clinton in blue, and Chris Christie in red. There’s a whole big cast of characters as potential backups–Vice President Biden, Martin O’Malley, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, the list goes on and on. But for the sake of fun, let’s take a look at some of the weird shout-outs I came across, on both sides, for potential 2016 nominees. Fair warning: this list will range from actual politicians who may have a shot, to bonafide crazy people.

Oh wait, isn’t that the same thing?

5. Delaware AG Beau Biden

Beau Biden, courtesy of studio08denver via Flickr.

I expected to see Joe’s name on pretty much any presidential nominee list. I was not expecting a second Biden–the 44 year old Attorney General of Delaware. Beau is young, attractive, has a military background, and is overall a very attractive candidate for national politics. If his father doesn’t run, he could be a contender. But is he ready? And do Democrats want to start yet another political dynasty, à la Clintons? After all, they’ve seen how well that’s worked for the Republican party–Republicans haven’t won a presidential election without a Bush on the ticket since 1981. Finally, and believe me, this is the most important question, is it possible for any Biden to be cooler than Joe?

 Perfection

  4. Rep Peter King (R-NY)

Peter King, courtesy of United States Congress via Wikipedia.

Pete King (R-NY) has actually already declared that he will be running for President in 2016. King has a pretty long history of crazy statements that render him a scary potential 2016 pick. Let’s start with his claim that he’s kind of a fan of torture, or at the very least, coercive interrogations (which a former Republican nominee, John McCain, has rallied against for years.) He also used to be a supporter of the Irish Republican Army, a known terrorist group. He  has an extraordinary history of making offensive comments towards Muslims. In 2007, he claimed that, “that 85% of all mosques in the U.S. are controlled by ‘extremist leadership.'” He has stated that Muslim-Americans aren’t actually American. Immediately after the Boston Marathon bombing, he made a statement to the effect that we need to watch and put surveillance on all American Muslim communities.

Oh, Pete King, could you be more offensive? Please don’t try.

Pete King actually routinely slams the tea party, but still gets on this list for being a weird, creepy, hypocrite who I would really not like to see given a national platform.

3. Mayor Michael Bloomberg

MIchael Bloomberg, courtesy of Be the Change, Inc via Flickr.

Bloomberg has just finished up his last term as New York City mayor. His history is interesting; at various points in his life he has been a Democrat, a Republican, and now an Independent. While looking up 2016 speculation, I found both Democratic and Republican speculation–and in such a hostile partisan climate, it is extremely difficult to imagine that overlap. There has been speculation that Bloomberg would run in 2008 and 2012. Bloomberg wouldn’t be so much a horrifying pick as much as he would be a fascinating one. Socially speaking, he’s liberal, but fiscally conservative. Running a city like New York is very different than running an entire country, and some of the policies that he has instituted have been dramatically unpopular–everyone remember the soda ban? Any run, for any party, would be very interesting.

Most New Yorkers’ reaction to the soda ban.

2. Former Rep. Allen West (R-FL)

Allen West, courtesy of Mark Taylor via Flickr.

Tea party darling and former Florida representative, Allen West, or as I like to call him, complete nut job. He is more likely to run for Rubio’s senate seat, whether Rubio is there or not, but according to speculators Presidential run isn’t completely out of the ballpark. I don’t have room on this list to enumerate all the ways in which Allen West is off his rocker, but here are a couple highlights:

• One time when he said Joseph Goebbels, one of Hitler’s right hand men, would be proud of Democrats.
• Anyone who supports Obama is a threat to the gene pool.
• Liberal women, “have been neutering American men and bringing us to the point of this incredible weakness —[we need] to let them know that we are not going to have our men become subservient.”
• He claimed well respected news outlet Al Jazeera tried to kidnap him.

Shall we all say it together?

1. Ted Nugent

Ted Nugent has said that people are asking him to run and that he’s considering it. In a Washington Post profile he said, “Things are just so wrong in the country now. And I know that my answers would make things wonderful, unless you just refuse to produce, and then I’d recommend that you move to Canada. Or Illinois.” Oh thanks, Ted, I forgot Illinois wasn’t a part of the US. I think we should have a new rule: if you have been investigated by the Secret Service for threatening a current President, you shouldn’t be able to run for that same office. Before the 2012 election, he claimed that “he would be dead or in jail” this time next week if Obama won reelection. Yet, people still want him to run for President–this “Ted Nugent for President” Facebook page has over 246,000 likes.

Ted Nugent? NO!

Well friends, no matter what, we’re in for an exciting ride in 2016. But, can we please not talk about it for real for at least another year?

—

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 [Theresa Thompson 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 5 Surprising, Unexpected, & Horrifying Presidential Picks for 2016 appeared first on Law Street.