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

The Senate is Voting on…Something?

Today, the Senate will vote on something to do with health care, but it’s not clear exactly what. The Senate has been working to pass, or at least debate, some sort of bill to repeal and replace Obamacare for weeks, but the most recent efforts were derailed when senators couldn’t agree on the “replace” portion. After that, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell started pushing for a “repeal now, replace later” approach.

One of the challenges for Senate Republican leadership is that no more than two Republican senators can defect. Senator Susan Collins of Maine has made it clear that she intends to vote “no.” While Senator John McCain, who was diagnosed with brain cancer last week, is reportedly returning to Capitol Hill to cast his vote, other defections could stop McConnell’s plan to move any sort of action forward. All eyes are now on two senators who seem likely to join Collins in dissension–Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Regardless of what happens today, the secretive nature of the procedures have frustrated many:

Health care vote today.

– No final text
– No final Byrd guidance
– No final CBO score
– No public hearingshttps://t.co/SCxwL0g5Ev

— Dylan Scott (@dylanlscott) July 25, 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 RantCrush Top 5: July 25, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

The Health Care Bill Goes from Dying to Dead

The outlook for the Senate Republican health care bill hasn’t been particularly rosy since its introduction. But things got even worse for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last night, when two more senators said they wouldn’t be voting for it. Senators Mike Lee of Utah and Jerry Moran of Kansas both said they oppose moving forward with the bill, joining Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky in their opposition.

After the news broke, McConnell said he would call for a vote to repeal Obamacare now, and come up with a replacement later. While that may appeal to far-right defectors like Paul, Lee, and Moran, it is sure to concern more moderate Republicans who want to ensure that things like Medicaid funding stay in place. For example, Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia–often cited as a potential to vote against the Senate health care bill in the first place–has already said she’s not in favor of that strategy. And President Donald Trump is blaming the Democrats for the bill’s failure…despite the fact that had all the Republicans in the Senate banded together, the bill could have passed.

We were let down by all of the Democrats and a few Republicans. Most Republicans were loyal, terrific & worked really hard. We will return!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 18, 2017

With only a very small majority, the Republicans in the House & Senate need more victories next year since Dems totally obstruct, no votes!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 18, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 18, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

Senate Health Care Bill Sparks Protests

After the new Senate health care bill was revealed yesterday, a lot of people took to the streets to protest. Some parked themselves outside of Mitch McConnell’s office and were physically removed–including disabled people in wheelchairs or with respirators. And a lot of people showed up at DCA–one of Washington D.C.’s major airports–to make sure lawmakers saw their signs before leaving town.

Don’t fly away, save the ACA! pic.twitter.com/PsaSqjpVEw

— Generation Progress (@genprogress) June 22, 2017

The new bill will, if it passes, trigger big tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and slash spending on Medicaid. The bill even drew remarks from President Barack Obama, who has largely remained silent in political debates since leaving office. “The Senate bill, unveiled today, is not a health care bill. It’s a massive transfer of wealth from middle-class and poor families to the richest people in America,” he wrote in a Facebook post. He also said the bill has a “fundamental meanness” and that it will harm anyone who might one day get sick, get old, or start a family.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 23, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

As Republican Senators prepared to release a version of their new health care legislation on Thursday, a group of protesters gathered outside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office. But many of them were eventually physically removed from the scene.

The rally was organized by ADAPT, a national disability rights organization, according to CNN. In their statement, the protesters said that they are “demanding [McConnell] bring an end to attacks on disabled people’s freedom which are expected in the bill.”

So, the majority of protesters were either advocates for those with disabilities or those directly impacted by a handicap, according to USA Today. Instead of calling their protest a “sit-in” they referred to it as a “die-in,” demonstrating their belief that the GOP health care bill would put many Americans in grave danger without dependable health care.

ADAPT’s statement also noted that the protest took place on the 18th anniversary of Olmstead v. L.C. – the Supreme Court decision that recognized disabled people’s right to live in communities rather than institutions.

After President Donald Trump took office and vowed to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act, the Republicans have been trying to craft their own version of the bill. They faced harsh criticism from both sides of the aisle for their secrecy regarding the bill’s contents before unveiling it on Thursday.

Citizens nationwide were offended by both the process surrounding the creation of the bill and the contents of the bill itself. So, the protesters felt it was incumbent to voice their concerns to one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress.

While the protests remained mostly peaceful, Capitol Police were called in at some point and began to forcefully remove protesters despite their constitutional right to protest the government.

Capitol Police are physically removing protesters who are staging a “die-in” in front of McConnell’s office pic.twitter.com/8BU0dW63VI

— Andrew Desiderio (@desiderioDC) June 22, 2017

The police force ultimately arrested around 20 people, many of whom were either on respirators or confined to wheelchairs, according to the Huffington Post. Custodians also had to be sent to the hallway in order to clean up blood, according to Daily Beast reporter Andrew Desiderio.

The group took particular exception to the proposed cuts to Medicaid. At one point the crowd began chanting: “No cuts to Medicaid, save our liberty!”

“No cuts to Medicaid, save our liberty.” Group chants in front of @SenateMajLdr‘s office. pic.twitter.com/fVJpufMDgC

— Jessica Smith (@JessicaASmith8) June 22, 2017

The health care bill has to be voted on by the Senate and go back to the House, so it will likely be modified. But the violence that these protesters faced at the hands of Capitol Police is upsetting. Instead of having their voices heard, they had their free speech stymied and were physically injured.

Josh Schmidt

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

The post Protesters Physically Removed from Outside Mitch McConnell’s Office appeared first on Law Street.

Senate Republicans released their version of a bill to overhaul the health care system on Thursday. In general, the Senate version looks a lot like the version passed by the House in May with some important tweaks–notably, it includes steeper cuts to the Medicaid program in the long-term and changes the tax credit system to be a less generous version of the one currently in place. While it’s easy to get stuck in the details of these tweaks, arguably the best way to evaluate the bill is to look at its effects on taxing and spending. It may be most prudent to ask one question: should we offset tax cuts for the rich and businesses by cutting spending on the poor and working class?

The tax cuts in the American Health Care Act, or AHCA, amount to about $660 billion over 10 years and would be paid for, and then some, largely by slashing more than $800 billion in spending on Medicaid–the insurance program that provides health care to America’s most vulnerable, including children, the elderly, people with disabilities, pregnant women, and the poor. Although it would direct several billions of dollars to funds that help stabilize the individual insurance markets, that funding will end in 2026 while the changes the Medicaid will be permanent.

To understand current Republican proposals, it’s worth taking a minute to look at the law they seek to “repeal and replace.” The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, included a number of new taxes designed to help pay for new tax credits and a large expansion of the Medicaid program. The tax credits subsidized the cost of premiums for working class people who can’t get health insurance from their employer and the Medicaid expansion gave states funding to cover people living near the poverty line.

While the Affordable Care Act sought to raise taxes in order to increase insurance coverage, the American Health Care Act seeks to cut taxes, leading to a large reduction in the number of people with health insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan agency tasked with analyzing the effects of new legislation, the bill that passed the House would have increased the number of people without health insurance by 23 million by 2026. Although we will not have the updated projections for the Senate version until next week, that number is not expected to change very much.

The Senate version of the AHCA would undo the Medicaid expansion, phasing out the additional federal funding, and would reduce the value of the tax credits for most Americans who are currently eligible for them. In addition to ending the Medicaid expansion, the Republican bill would fundamentally restructure the Medicaid program by instituting a cap on the amount of funding per person enrolled. This new system would shift the burden of cost increases from the federal government–which currently covers a fixed percentage of all costs–to states and would amount to a significant reduction in the projected spending on the program in the long term. Medicaid is the country’s largest health insurance program, covering 20 percent of all Americans, including 30 percent of adults with disabilities, 60 percent of children with disabilities, 49 percent of births, 64 percent of all nursing home residents, and 76 percent of poor children.

For a more in-depth look at what the bill that passed the House would do to Medicaid, check out this article.

So who would benefit from the bill’s tax cuts? The AHCA would get rid of about 14 different taxes that target a broad range of groups, from high earners to indoor tanning companies. It would also slash some of the taxes put in place by the Affordable Care Act to target industries that stood to benefit from the coverage expansion, like medical device manufacturers and prescription drug makers. One of the most notable taxes was the one on investment income for individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and couples earning $250,000 and up per year. All of these taxes would be repealed, leading to a significant windfall for the wealthiest Americans. The Tax Policy Center estimated the net effects of the House bill and found that people with incomes greater than $200,000 would see their tax burden decrease by $5,640 on average, while the spending cuts would mean that the lowest income Americans would be hurt the most.

New TaxVox post explains how low income families would lose an average of $1,600 under proposed #AHCA https://t.co/F5IyOwub0e pic.twitter.com/Jn2KgfERT5

— Tax Policy Center (@TaxPolicyCenter) March 22, 2017

It’s also worth noting that the bill would repeal what’s known as the individual and employer mandates. The individual mandate requires people to maintain health insurance or pay a penalty at tax time. The employer mandate imposes a similar penalty on companies with a minimum number of full-time workers but do not offer health insurance to employees. Republicans have strongly criticized these penalties, which have been one of the driving forces behind the effort to scrap the Affordable Care Act.

There are a number of important differences between the House version and the Senate version of the Republican health care bill, which we will undoubtedly hear about during the coming debate. It also seems likely that changes will be made in the short period before Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rushes the bill to the Senate floor for a vote. While it’s important to understand how these changes will affect people, taking a broader look at a very complicated bill might be the easiest way to make an assessment of it. If you think that taxes on businesses and the wealthy are too high and you don’t mind seeing an increase in the number of people without health insurance, then you’ll most likely support this bill. But if not, you may want to call your senator.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post One Question That Will Help You Understand the Republican Health Care Bill appeared first on Law Street.

While testifying before the Senate on Thursday, Former FBI Director James Comey faced questions seeking to determine whether or not President Donald Trump’s actions amount to obstruction of justice.

The debate first began on Wednesday when Comey’s prepared opening statement was released to the public. The statement recounts conversations with the president in which he pressed for Comey’s loyalty, distanced himself from an unconfirmed dossier, and assured the director that former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was a “good guy” that “has been through a lot.”

But the standout moment came later on in a conversation between Comey and President Trump. Comey noted in his statement:

[Trump] then said, ‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.’ I replied only that ‘he is a good guy.’ I did not say I would ‘let this go.’

While many speculated on the subject, the Senate Intelligence Committee decided it would be best to ask Comey himself. Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) was the first to ask if the president obstructed justice, but the former FBI director would not weigh in on the subject, only noting that he found Trump’s comments to be “disturbing.”

“There was an open FBI criminal investigation of his statements in connection with the Russian contacts and the contacts themselves,” Comey said. “And so that was my assessment at the time. I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct.”

Senator James Risch (R-ID) expanded on the chairman’s questions and asked whether Trump had explicitly “ordered” or “directed” Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. Comey responded that he understood the president’s statement to be an order, but that Trump had used the words, “I hope.”

The senator continued to probe about the semantics.

“He said, ‘I hope.’ You don’t know of anyone who’s ever been charged [with obstruction of justice] for hoping something. Is that a fair statement?” asked Risch. “I don’t as I sit here,” replied Comey with a shrug.

Sen. James Risch asks Comey about obstruction of justice

Watch live here: https://t.co/THlNhXekzk pic.twitter.com/REs7GfdKNY

— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 8, 2017

Senator Risch is a strong supporter of the Trump Administration. He is on the record saying that the president was right, and even entitled, to share classified information with Russian officials in the Oval Office. He also agrees with the president that the ongoing leaks to the news media are a cause for concern. It’s likely that he saw Comey’s responses to his line of questioning as a victory and proof that Trump did not obstruct justice.

However, Senator Risch’s questioning implies that an obstruction of justice charge requires an explicit order from the accused, which may not be the case given the fairly broad federal statutes in place. There are several relevant statutes to this situation, which may implicate anyone who “corruptly […] endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law.” So asking Comey to drop part of an investigation, and later firing him, could meet these requirements, particularly when you consider the power dynamic between an FBI director and president.

Samuel Buell, a criminal law professor at Duke University and former federal prosecutor who led the Justice Department’s Enron task force, told the New York Times that the case against Trump has only grown over time.

“The evidence of improper purpose has gotten much stronger since the day of Comey’s firing,” Buell said. “Trump has made admissions about that. And we now have evidence that he may have indicated an improper purpose previously in his communications with Comey about the Russia investigation.”

Of course, Trump did have the legal authority to fire Comey. In fact, the former director even noted in his testimony that he was aware that he could be fired at any moment for any reason at all when he first took the job. But courts have ruled that acts generally considered lawful can be illegal if they are meant to obstruct justice.

Even so, this testimony might not mean much for the immediate future. The process of impeachment is hardly swift and involves both quasi-judicial and quasi-political proceedings. Not only does the president have to have committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” but a majority in the House and two-thirds of the Senate need to agree in order to impeach and remove a president from office. Also, the events surrounding this testimony, and subsequent accusations, are largely unprecedented, creating more than its fair share of uncertainty.

It should be noted, however, that two most recent American presidents subjected to impeachment proceedings–Bill Clinton in 1998, and Richard Nixon in 1974, although he resigned before the House could vote–were accused of obstruction of justice.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Comey Hearing Recap: Defining Obstruction of Justice appeared first on Law Street.

As former FBI Director James Comey prepares to speak on Thursday before a Senate committee on recent events surrounding Russia, President Donald Trump, and the 2016 election, many are preparing their watch parties.

First off, not only will C-SPAN and PBS be broadcasting the feed but ABC, NBC, and CBS all plan to replace their normally scheduled daytime programing with a live feed of his testimony, according to CNN.

And some bars in the nation’s capital are changing things up to show the testimony on their flat-screen televisions.

Shaw’s Tavern plans to open at 9:30 a.m. Thursday morning in preparation for Comey’s 10 a.m. testimony, according to The Washington Post. The bar is calling its viewing party a “Comey Hearing Covfefe,” nicknamed after Trump’s mysterious tweet last week.

They will be offering $5 vodka drinks along with $10 “FBI” sandwiches, according to CNN.

A bar fittingly named The Partisan will also be opening at 10 a.m. to offer food and beverages.

Other bars are running with the “covfefe” theme. Duffy’s Irish Pub, normally a Washington Nationals bar, will tune into the testimony instead of baseball. The pub is offering a “Covfefe Cocktail,” an orange drink with unknown ingredients.

Duffy’s getting in on the Comey watch party action pic.twitter.com/HvDT35YMHR

— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) June 6, 2017

“…It is like drinking Kool Aid but only a small group of people know what’s in it,” the advertisement says.

“Covfefe” is quite clearly another joke on the administration. In the aftermath of Trump’s strange tweet, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer explained that “the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant,” according to CNN.

Comey’s testimony on Thursday has the potential to be an interesting morning in Washington so television networks and bars are looking to capitalize. Cheers to what may be a momentous day in American history.

Josh Schmidt

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

The post Television Stations (and Bars) Prep for the Comey Hearing appeared first on Law Street.

Following their failed effort to pass health care legislation in March, House Republicans are set to vote on a bill Thursday that would repeal and replace large chunks of the Affordable Care Act. According to House Majority Leader, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the bill has secured enough votes to pass. “We have enough votes,” he said on Wednesday night. “It’ll pass.”

The renewed push for a Republican health care overhaul began in mid-April when Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) introduced an amendment aimed at attracting the more conservative congressmen who balked at the initial bill. The so-called MacArthur amendment needed a boost, however, and Rep. Fred Upton, a Republican from Michigan, recently introduced another addition to the law: an $8 billion infusion for insurers to cover patients with pre-existing conditions.

“It’s our understanding that the $8 billion over the five years will more than cover those that might be impacted and, as a consequence, keeps our pledge for those that, in fact, would be otherwise denied [coverage] because of pre-existing illnesses,” Upton said at the White House on Wednesday.

Even if the bill passes the House, Republicans in the Senate could gum it up and give it a major facelift to attract Democratic support and make it more palatable to members of their own party. With a 52-48 majority in the Senate, Republicans have a much narrower margin of error. In order for the bill to pass the Senate, it would need 60 votes–eight Democrats would need to support it.

Republican Senators in states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare–like Ohio and West Virginia–would likely take issue with the Republican bill’s squeeze on Medicaid payments. And hard-line conservatives like Mike Lee (UT) and Ted Cruz (TX), could nudge the bill more to the right. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told reporters passing the bill will “be a real big challenge on the Senate side as well.”

Meanwhile, the top ranking Democrats in the House and Senate, Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Chuck Schumer (NY) respectively, strongly rejected the new Republican bill. Schumer tweeted that Upton’s amendment is “like trying to cure stage 4 cancer with cough medicine.” Pelosi, in public remarks on Thursday morning from Capitol Hill, said “Republicans are in a lose-lose situation.” She added that for Republicans supporting the Obamacare replacement bill, “This is a scar that they will carry.”

A number of health industry organizations, including the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, and AARP, have expressed their opposition to the bill. Andrew Gurman, president of the American Medical Association, said Upton’s amendment and other changes “tinker at the edges without remedying the fundamental failing of the bill–that millions of Americans will lose their health insurance as a direct result of this proposal.”

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 If the Health Care Bill Passes the House, Will it Pass the Senate? appeared first on Law Street.

Federal workers can breathe a sigh of relief (at least for one week): the Senate and the House both passed a short-term spending bill on Friday to fund the government at its current levels until next Friday. This averted a government shutdown that would have occurred if a deal had not been reached by midnight.

Some of the most contentious issues preventing a longer-term spending bill from being passed were funding for the border wall and an Affordable Care Act subsidy for low-income individuals, among others.

Even the one-week funding bill had a bumpy road to its passage, as many Democrats threatened to oppose its approval as long as Republicans planned to vote on repealing and replacing the ACA this week (within the President’s first 100 days). In the end, the health care vote was not scheduled for Friday.

President Donald Trump did not seem too concerned with the possibility of a shutdown, telling Reuters on Thursday, “we’ll see what happens. If there’s a shutdown, there’s a shutdown.” He also harshly criticized the Democratic Party in a series of Tweets on Thursday, accusing them of putting roadblocks in place and being responsible for a potential shutdown.

The Democrats want to shut government if we don’t bail out Puerto Rico and give billions to their insurance companies for OCare failure. NO!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

I promise to rebuild our military and secure our border. Democrats want to shut down the government. Politics!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

As families prepare for summer vacations in our National Parks – Democrats threaten to close them and shut down the government. Terrible!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

The one-week spending bill buys Congress more time to smooth out conflicts and draft up a longer-term spending bill for the rest of the year.

The environment for government workers has been tenser than usual, to say the least. In addition to the possibility of a shutdown, federal workers have recently had to endure the possibility of job cuts, as Trump’s budget proposals have called to reduce the federal workforce by as many as 200,000 jobs. Also on Friday, officials announced that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson proposed to cut 2,300 jobs in the State Department.

Meanwhile, a large number of federal appointments still have yet to be selected by Trump. Politico reported that 470 out of 556 positions requiring Senate confirmation do not have nominees yet. It remains to be seen if the remaining issues in the long-term spending bill will be ironed out before this temporary measure expires on May 5.

Mariam Jaffery

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

The post Crisis Averted: Congress Approves Funding to Avoid Government Shutdown appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a classic concern in Washington, a seemingly annual potential: a government shutdown. Now, talk of a government shutdown looms over the Trump Administration and the 115th U.S. Congress. This week, Congressional leaders are scheduled to send President Donald Trump a spending bill, but one that notably lacks many of his most inflammatory campaign promises. It doesn’t contain any money for Trump’s border wall and it doesn’t defund Planned Parenthood, among other unfulfilled promises. So, if Trump vetoes the bill, the federal government won’t have the money to function and it will trigger a government shutdown. But what actually is a government shutdown? What does it mean? How often does it happen? Read on to find out.

What is a “Government Shutdown?”

Essentially a “government shutdown” happens when, for whatever reason, a spending bill is not passed. There are multiple ways this could happen. For example, the Republicans and Democrats in Congress may not be able to agree on what measures should be included. Or, the president could veto the bill. But either way, it means that federal agencies don’t have the ability to spend money–meaning they can’t pay their employees or carry out a large chunk of their tasks. That’s deemed a “shutdown.”

Is there anything Congress can do to avoid a shutdown? 

Well, obviously passing a spending bill (which is really a collection of appropriations bills in an omnibus) is the optimal course of action. But that’s not the only option, because of course, various factions in the government disagree far more often than the government actually shuts down. That’s because Congress has the ability to pass something called a “continuing resolution”–a quick stopgap measure that gives them more time to figure out the spending bill. A continuing resolution is intended to fund the government at current levels until a permanent solution is figured out.

There’s also a combined continuing resolution/omnibus solution, which would fund certain, mostly uncontroversial agencies, while also temporarily funding the controversial issues. This measure, which is called a “CRomnibus,” would allow Congress to further debate on the controversial issues, but not wrap up the rest of the agencies’ and government’s funding as well.

When has the government shut down in the past?

It actually happens relatively frequently. Since 1976, which was the first year that the budgeting system as it now stands was implemented, the government has shut down–partially or fully–18 times. Many of those shutdowns were incredibly quick and didn’t really affect anything, others were longer and more complicated. Note that many of these cases include multiple moving parts, but here are the basic gists of what stopped at least some of the cogs in the federal government from working:

• There was a shutdown for 10 days in 1976 during President Gerald Ford’s presidency. He vetoed a spending bill passed by a Democratic Congress, claiming that the spending for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare wasn’t reigned in enough.
• The government shut down three times during President Jimmy Carter’s presidency over the abortion debate alone. The shutdowns, which all occurred in 1977, were 12 days, eight days, and eight days respectively. The House wanted to continue to prohibit Medicaid funding from going to abortions; the Senate wanted to loosen the restrictions to include more exceptions.
• In 1978, also during Carter’s presidency, there was an 18-day shutdown when Carter vetoed part of a defense bill, claiming that funding for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier was wasteful, among other issues.
• There was another shutdown during the Carter presidency in 1979, for 11 days, again related to abortion. The Senate refused to let the House give itself a pay increase without making federal abortion funding restrictions looser.
• In 1981, during President Ronald Reagan’s time in office, Reagan vetoed the spending bill after it fell $2 billion short of the cuts he wanted to make, sparking a two-day shutdown.
• The next year, still during Reagan’s presidency, there was a one-day shutdown, largely just because the House and Senate didn’t pass a spending bill in time.
• Again in 1982, Reagan threatened to veto a spending bill that set aside money for job creation, while neglecting to fund a defense program his administration saw as a priority. This led to a three-day shutdown.
• In 1983, the House passed a bill that gave more money to education, but cut foreign affairs spending and defense spending. Reagan didn’t like any of that. The resulting debate led to another three-day shutdown.
• In 1984, there was another short shutdown of two days, again because Congress wanted to fund (and to not fund) certain provisions against Reagan’s wishes, including a water projects package and civil rights measure. That led to another one-day shutdown when Congress and the White House failed to get everything together after a three-day extension.
• In 1986, there was a one-day shutdown when, once again, the Democrat-controlled House and Republican President Reagan disagreed over provisions in a funding bill.
• The last shutdown of Reagan’s presidency occurred for a day in 1987 when the president and the Democrats in Congress couldn’t agree on whether or not to fund the Nicaraguan “Contra” militants.
• There was a three-day shutdown in 1990 under President George H.W. Bush. Bush vetoed a measure that didn’t contain a deficit reduction plan.
• In 1995 there was a five-day shutdown, when President Bill Clinton vetoed a continuing resolution by the Republicans, who controlled Congress at the time. It had plenty of things he didn’t want in it, including raising Medicare premiums.
• From December 1995 to January 1996, there was a 21-day shutdown that again pitted Clinton against the then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Much of this shutdown involved semantics–Clinton was using Office of Management and Budget numbers to balance his budget, while Congress insisted he use the Congressional Budget Office’s numbers.
• The most recent government shutdown, in 2013, under President Barack Obama, lasted 16 days. Obamacare was the crux of the issue–the Republican-controlled House didn’t want to fund the bill, the Democrat-controlled Senate did.

What Actually Happens During a Shutdown?

Much of what happens during a government shutdown is dictated by the Antideficiency Act, a law originally enacted in 1884 and amended in 1950. According to Andrew Cohen of the Atlantic it is:

a collection of statutory and administrative provisions, really–that forbid federal officials from entering into financial obligations for which they do not have funding, like paying the salaries of their employees or buying the things they need to run the government. It’s also the law that wisely permits certain ‘essential’ government functions–like the military and the courts, for example–to keep operating even in the absence of authorized legislative funding.

So, one of the most notable effects of a government shutdown is on federal government employees. Essentially, government workers are split into a few different groups–those who are “essential” to keep daily life in the United States functioning, and those who aren’t. Those who aren’t include people who operate our national parks and large chunks of lower and mid-level staff at agencies and offices. They are furloughed, without pay, until whenever the government shutdown ends. Workers who stay on probably don’t get their pay on time. And a common point of contention is that members of Congress are still paid, even if there is a shutdown. It was estimated by Standard & Poor’s that the 2013 shutdown cost the economy approximately $24 billion.

Other effects of a shutdown can include delayed Social Security payments, no processing of travel documents like new passports, no processing of applications for things like Medicare, research for certain agencies like the CDC, and certain types of federal loans end up frozen. However, the TSA, Post Office, and active military are all certain to continue functioning.

Of course, some areas are more affected than others. Washington D.C., as a city that is in many ways controlled by the federal government, is pretty hard hit. Check out this video from the New York Times to learn more:

Conclusion

A “government shutdown” sounds quite a bit scarier than it actually is. It doesn’t signal anarchy, or the apocalypse, but rather a temporary (but certainly annoying) halt to some of our government’s day-to-day functions. That being said, it’s not great for those who are particularly affected–like the hundreds of thousands of workers who suddenly have to go for an indeterminate period without pay. It costs the economy quite a bit of money. And it disrupts an already tumultuous funding process for the federal government. It’s unclear when the next shutdown will be, but at this point it seems like it’s become a regular factor in Washington.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post What Does a “Government Shutdown” Entail? appeared first on Law Street.

Since almost the moment that President Donald Trump took office, there have been calls to impeach him. Cities have passed resolutions calling for Trump’s impeachment, some Democratic politicians have indicated that they believe he should be impeached, and a late-March survey by Public Policy Polling reports that 44 percent of Americans support impeaching the president. Regardless of many unprecedented actions on Trump’s part, this isn’t really anything new–comments about impeachment consistently dogged President Barack Obama’s presidency as well.

But an impeachment is much easier said than done. Over the course of American history, only two presidents have ever been impeached–President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton, but neither president was removed from office as a result. Impeachment proceedings against a third president, Richard Nixon, began, but he resigned before much progress was made. Read on to learn about the impeachment process and the history of impeachments in the United States.

How Does Impeachment Work?

The U.S. Constitution lays out a procedure for impeaching the president (and vice president, and other officials).

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 makes it clear that the House of Representatives has the ability to “impeach” a president, essentially meaning that the House is in charge of bringing impeachment charges. Although there are a few different things that can lead to a House impeachment, usually it begins with some sort of allegations being made against an official. The House Judiciary Committee is then tasked with investigating those allegations. If so, the entire House then votes on whether or not to impeach the official–majority rules–by adopting articles of impeachment. Although not a perfect metaphor, it might be helpful to think of an impeachment like an indictment.

As Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 state, the Senate actually tries an official. Members of the House of Representatives are appointed to act as sort-of prosecutors of the official who is being tried. While usually the senators themselves serve as both judge and jury, in the case of a presidential impeachment, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. Two-thirds of Senators are required to convict, and as a penalty for being convicted, the official must be removed from office. There is no way to appeal.

Impeachments Throughout History

The two most notorious impeachments are obviously President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton. But impeachment isn’t just reserved for presidents. The House of Representatives has actually initiated impeachment proceedings for over 60 individuals since America’s independence. The House issued articles of impeachment for 15 other individuals. Of those 15, eight were found guilty by the Senate. The majority were judges. Here are the American officials who have been impeached:

• In 1797, Senator William Blount was impeached on charges that he tried to help England seize Spanish-controlled territory in North America. He was expelled from the Senate before he was actually tried.
• In 1803, Judge John Pickering of New Hampshire was impeached for being drunk on the bench and acting inappropriately. He was found guilty and removed from office.
• In 1804, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached for “arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials.” He was acquitted.
• In 1830, James H. Peck, a judge from Tennessee, was accused of abuse of power. He was acquitted.
• In 1862, West H. Humphreys, also a Tennessee judge, was impeached on charges that he “refused to hold court” and was acting against the U.S. government. He was found guilty, removed from office, and prevented from holding office in the future.
• In 1873 a Kansas judge, Mark H. Delahay, was impeached for being intoxicated while on the bench. He resigned before a trial began.
• In 1876, William W. Belknap, the Secretary of War, was impeached on various corruption charges. He was acquitted by the Senate.
• In 1904, Charles Swayne, a Florida judge, was impeached on charges that he misused his office. He was acquitted.
• In 1912, Robert W. Archbald, an Associate Judge of the U.S. Commerce Court, was impeached based on allegations that he had inappropriate business relationships with some litigants. He was found guilty, lost his job, and prevented from holding office moving forward.
• In 1926, George W. English, a judge from Illinois, was accused of abusing his power. He resigned and the charges were dismissed.
• In 1933, Harold Louderback, a California judge, was accused of “favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers.” He was acquitted.
• In 1936, Halsted L. Ritter, a judge from Florida, was impeached on a few charges, including that he was practicing law as a sitting judge. He was found guilty and removed from office.
• In 1986, Harry E. Claiborne, a Nevada judge, was accused of tax evasion, and staying on the bench despite having been convicted of a crime. He was found guilty, and lost his position.
• In 1988 Alcee L. Hastings, a Florida judge, was impeached on charges that he perjured himself and conspired to solicit a bribe. He was found guilty and removed from office. (If the name sounds familiar, it’s because Hastings is now a congressman.)
• In 1989, Walter L. Nixon, a Mississippi judge, was impeached on various charges, including that he lied under oath. He was found guilty and removed from his post.
• In 2009, Samuel B. Kent, a Texas judge, was impeached on a number of charges, including sexual assault. He resigned before the proceedings were completed.
• In 2010, G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., a Louisiana judge, was impeached on charges that included perjury and accepting bribes. He was found guilty, lost his position, and cannot hold office in the future.

The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson

President Andrew Johnson assumed office after his predecessor, President Abraham Lincoln, was assassinated in April 1865. However, the Lincoln-Johnson ticket was unusual. While Lincoln was a Republican, Johnson was a Democrat from the South. He had remained in the Senate even after his home state of Tennessee seceded, which endeared him to the Republicans. In 1964, Lincoln chose Johnson for his ticket, which was under the “National Unity Party,” in an attempt to appeal to the entire country in the context of the Civil War.

But when Lincoln was assassinated, and Johnson was left in charge, he disagreed with the Republicans who held the majority in Congress. He famously declared: “This is a country for white men, and as long as I am president, it shall be a government for white men.” He stood against the enforcement of the Reconstruction Acts, passed by Congress. In 1867, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act, despite Johnson’s veto. This stopped the president from dismissing any government officials without the Senate’s approval.

Regardless of the bill, Johnson dismissed Edwin M. Stanton, his Secretary of War, who supported the Republicans in Congress. In response, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Johnson, 126-47. The charges were that he violated the Tenure of Office Act and brought “disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, and reproach” into Congress. As Johnson was being tried by the Senate, he took actions that were seen as concessions to the Republicans in Congress. He ended up being acquitted, by just one vote.

Richard Nixon’s Narrow Miss 

President Richard Nixon resigned after the fallout from the Watergate Scandal and his administration’s subsequent coverup. But had he not resigned, he certainly risked impeachment. On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee passed one article of impeachment–had Nixon not resigned, that vote would have made it to the full House of Representatives.

President Bill Clinton’s Impeachment 

While in office, President Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern. Ken Starr, an independent investigator who had been originally tasked with looking into the Whitewater scandal but ended up investigating a wider range of controversies, submitted a report to the House Judiciary Committee. The report alleged that Clinton lied about his affair with Lewinsky during various testimony, including some regarding a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a woman named Paula Jones. The Starr Report contained 11 possible grounds for Clinton’s impeachment.

While the report was controversial, and Starr was accused of attacking Clinton for political motives, on December 19, 1998, the House approved two articles of impeachment against the president–one for obstruction of justice with a vote of 221-212, and one for lying under oath to a grand jury by a vote of 228-206.

On February 12, 1998, the Senate acquitted Clinton on both charges. In order to convict Clinton, the Senate would have needed a two-thirds majority. The obstruction of justice charge only garnered 50 votes, and the perjury charge only had 45 votes.

However, the impeachment, and affair, marred Clinton’s legacy.

Conclusion

Despite calls to impeach President Donald Trump (and previously President Barack Obama), impeachment isn’t as simple as it sounds. It’s a long, controversial, and political process–one that has only ever been even partially started against three presidents. While other figures throughout history have been impeached, those three presidents–President Andrew Johnson, President Richard Nixon, and President Bill Clinton–offer the closest thing we have to a blueprint for how an impeachment of a president would look. Given today’s contentious political landscape, who knows when we’ll see that again.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post How to Impeach a President appeared first on Law Street.

The year-long scuffle over the Supreme Court’s ninth seat ended Friday morning, when the Senate confirmed Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last February. Voting largely along party lines–save for three Democrats–the 54-45 vote capped weeks of fierce debate, culminating in a historic rule change that could further deepen the partisan rancor in the Senate.

After failing to secure the 60 votes needed to break a Democratic filibuster, Senate Republicans on Thursday triggered the so-called “nuclear option,” effectively disposing of the filibuster option for Supreme Court nominees. As a result, the 60-vote threshold dropped to a simple majority which, with 52 members in the 100-member chamber, Republicans had no trouble reaching.

“[Gorsuch] has sterling credentials, an excellent record and an ideal judicial temperament,” Sen. Mitch McConnell said after the vote. “He has the independence of mind for fairness.” Throughout 20 hours of questioning from the Senate during his confirmation hearings last month, Gorsuch was predictably elusive, neglecting to say where he would stand on specific issues.

Democrats said his strict interpretation of the Constitution put him out of the “mainstream,” and argued he too often ruled in favor of big corporations. But from the beginning, the fight was a referendum on the man who nominated Gorsuch, President Donald Trump. It was also retribution for McConnell’s refusal to give Merrick Garland–who President Barack Obama nominated to the seat–a hearing. McConnell argued a sitting-duck president should not have the authority to nominate a judge to the Supreme Court.

But despite weeks of mostly uniform Democratic resistance to Gorsuch, three Democrats, all from states that Trump captured in the election, supported him: Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Joe Manchin III (WV), and Joe Donnelly (IN). Republican Johnny Isakson of Georgia did not cast a vote.

With an immovable Democratic resistance threatening to derail the nomination of a candidate who, by many metrics, was qualified, Republicans took the extreme step of pursuing the “nuclear option.” For legislative votes, however, the filibuster will remain in place. The move was not without precedent. In 2013, then-Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid dismantled the filibuster option for lower federal court picks and cabinet appointees.

After leading the resistance against Gorsuch, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the minority leader, said he hopes Gorsuch will not be beholden to the man who nominated him to the court. “I hope Judge Gorsuch has listened to our debate here in the Senate, particularly about our concerns about the Supreme Court increasingly drifting towards becoming a more pro-corporate court that favors employers, corporations and special interests over working Americans,” Schumer said, imploring Gorsuch to be “the independent and fair-minded justice that America badly needs.” Gorsuch will be sworn in on Monday.

Alec Siegel

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

The post A Day After the Rule Change, Senate Confirms Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

With a new story coming to light seemingly every single day, there’s no question that all the news about Russia and its interference in the 2016 election is confusing. So, it’s fair to assume that a lot of people were surprised on Wednesday when Senators Richard Burr, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Mark Warner, the Democratic Vice Chairman, held a joint news conference discussing the Senate’s Russia probe.

The biggest takeaway from the press conference was Warner’s comment on one part of Russia’s strategy to destabilize the election, which concerned the Kremlin hiring 1,000 paid trolls to generate fake anti-Clinton stories targeted at specific areas in the U.S. Warner did not elaborate on where those specific areas were, but he alluded to the committee investigating trolls targeting Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The significance of Russia targeting these three specific states is simple: they are all swing states that President Donald Trump narrowly won. They were also the three states included in the unsuccessful recounts prompted by Jill Stein.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

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

The post What You Need to Know About the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russia Probe appeared first on Law Street.

In a Senate vote on Thursday, Vice President Mike Pence stepped in and broke the 50-50 tie in favor of getting rid of an Obama-era rule that prohibits states from defunding health care providers for political reasons. Even after the Republicans managed to bring in Senator Johnny Isakson from Georgia, who is recovering from two back surgeries and had to use a walker and wheelchair, the vote ended in a 50-50 tie. Republicans Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, both known as moderates, joined the Senate Democrats and Independents in voting against the measure. Pence then cast the deciding vote.

Democrats criticized the GOP for the move, with Senator Patty Murray of Washington saying that the Democrats would spend Thursday afternoon speaking out against it. Doing this “would undo a valuable effort by the Obama Administration to ensure that health care providers are evaluated for federal funding based on their ability to provide the services in question, not on ideology,” she said.

Pres Trump is so focused on attacking women’s health, he sent women’s health advisor—@VP Pence—to break a tie vote on latest attack. #TitleX https://t.co/QOBHpY76Oz

— Senator Patty Murray (@PattyMurray) March 30, 2017

There was a procedural vote earlier in the day that also required Pence’s tie-breaking powers. The new measure will use the Congressional Review Act to repeal a rule that the Obama Administration introduced late last year that prohibits states from blocking Title X funding to healthcare providers that offer abortion services.

Title X is the only federal grant program where money goes exclusively to family planning and reproductive health services for low-income people and those without insurance. It dates back to the 1970s and President Richard Nixon. Title X money makes sure patients can go get tested for STDs or HIV, cancer screenings, treatments, and birth control. However, the Hyde Amendment prevents federal money from being used for abortions.

But, if the Republicans get their way, states will be able to withhold federal money from going to any family planning service that offers abortions at all, even if the money wouldn’t be used for abortion services. Republicans argued that Obama’s requirement that states distribute money to healthcare providers regardless of whether they also perform abortions hurt small, local communities. How and why is unclear. “It substituted Washington’s judgment for the needs of real people,” said Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday.

Obviously a lot of women and Democrats did not agree with this and spoke out forcefully on social media.

The VP was sent to break a tie vote on #TitleX.

Amazing what GOP leaders will do to make sure women’s health centers don’t get funded. https://t.co/SoHVxURl6H

— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) March 30, 2017

Title X is a bipartisan program to provide birth control, cancer screenings & HIV tests, & @VP Pence cast the tiebreaking vote attacking it

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) March 30, 2017

When politicians interfere in women’s personal health decisions, women get hurt. Call your senator: https://t.co/V1XhwtywtW #TitleX

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) March 30, 2017

Many women also took issue with the fact that Mike Pence received an award last week from the Independent Women’s Forum. That organization was formed after law professor Anita Hill accused Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment in the 1990s. But it’s important to note that IWF formed because they didn’t believe Hill, which makes it less surprising that the group would award Pence for his work on behalf of women.

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 Mike Pence Casts Tie-Breaking Vote Allowing States to Defund Family Planning Services appeared first on Law Street.

As the House juggled a doomed health care bill on Thursday, lawmakers in the Senate introduced a bipartisan effort to tighten restrictions on Iran–specifically its government and powerful military–through a new round of sanctions. Iran’s ballistic missile program, its material support for foreign terrorist groups, and human rights violations provide the bases for the sanctions, which the Senate has been seeking for over a year.

The last attempt at tightening sanctions on Iran came last July. That bid failed, largely because the Obama Administration was tied up in negotiations for what would become the Iran nuclear deal. Looming over the bill that was introduced Thursday is that Iran deal, which some worry could be violated by stronger sanctions. In contrast to last summer’s attempt however, both Republicans and Democrats that opposed the nuclear deal, and those that supported it, are behind the new effort.

“This legislation demonstrates the strong bipartisan support in Congress for a comprehensive approach to holding Iran accountable by targeting all aspects of the regime’s destabilizing actions,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement. “These steps will allow us to regain the initiative on Iran and push back forcefully against this threat to our security and that of our allies.”

More than a dozen Senators joined Corker in supporting the bill, including Marco Rubio (R-FL), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Bob Casey (D-PA), and Chris Coons (D-DE). The legislation will likely hit the Senate floor for a vote. 

Days after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, Iran tested a ballistic missile. His administration condemned the test, and said it might have violated the Iran deal, which Trump has promised to rip-up (he has since walked that promise back.) Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn put Iran “on notice” soon after its missile launch, and some worried the administration would take military action, or aggressive sanctions that could destabilize the nuclear agreement.

Those fears did not pan out: the nuclear deal remains in place and, so far, “on notice” has amounted to no more than lofty rhetoric. But the bill introduced on Thursday does represent a bipartisan push to punish Iran not only for its missile tests, but for its support of Hezbollah–a U.S.-designated terrorist group–and its abominable human rights record.

“The spirit of bipartisanship of this important legislation underscores our strong belief that the United States must speak with one voice on the issue of holding Iran accountable for its continued nefarious actions across the world as the leading state sponsor of terrorism,” Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), a supporter of the bill, said in a statement. “Iran’s leaders must understand once and for all, that unless they change course their situation will only get worse.”

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 Senators Introduce Bill to Slap Further Sanctions on Iran appeared first on Law Street.

Today is the best day of the year: #NationalPuppyDay. Puppies are great, because they a) aren’t trying to take health insurance away from 24 million people b) aren’t affiliated with Russia, and c) are much cuter than humans. In honor of #NationalPuppyDay, let’s take a quick look at the best political puppies so far in 2017.

Senator Thom Tillis Made a New Friend

Our official office mascot, Tilly, a 3lb Boston Terrier puppy.

A post shared by Senator Thom Tillis (@senthomtillis) on Jan 24, 2017 at 7:06am PST

Tilly, a Boston Terrier puppy, appears to belong to one of Tillis’s staffers. But she’s not the only dog in Tillis’s life. The senator’s love of dogs is well documented. During the 2016 election he released a video of his dog, Ike Tillis, whining about Hillary Clinton, Obamacare, ISIS, and the deficit. He also encouraged his dog to vote, which is definitely not legal, but Ike is too cute for us to care.

Biden, the Puppy Who Stole Our Hearts

This is a recent addition to best political puppies of 2017. Biden, a four-month-old golden retriever puppy, got to meet Joe Biden, a human and former VP, yesterday.

It seems like they got along well:

Joe Biden met a puppy named “Biden” and the internet lost its mind https://t.co/CW9LOeryq6 pic.twitter.com/dPDnAHcgI0

— Mic (@mic) March 23, 2017

Biden the puppy probably has a long political career ahead of him.

i have a dream

A post shared by biden (@bidenthegolden) on Feb 24, 2017 at 8:27am PST

Rep. Rick Crawford’s Office Has a Maltipoo

Representative Rick Crawford, a Republican representative from Arkansas, has a puppy named Brady who greets constituents who decide to stop by the D.C. office. News of Brady’s hiring broke in mid-January, and according to Crawford’s office, Brady “will be handling all of our canine related policies and will be my go to pup on the #woof caucus.” 

I’d like to introduce the newest member of my staff, Brady Handey. Brady will be handling all of our canine related policies and will be my go to pup on the #woof caucus. #capitolhilldogs #dogsofinsta

A post shared by Rep Rick Crawford (@reprickcrawford) on Jan 5, 2017 at 10:31am PST

Senator Deb Fischer Adopts Fred

Nebraska Republican Senator Deb Fischer has adopted a goldendoodle named Fred. Fischer is a big time dog lover and misses her dogs back home. So, she adopted a nine-week-old goldendoodle in February, who will live with her staff members on the weekends while she’s in Nebraska. Fred is all over the senator’s Instagram, and clearly a very hard worker:

Fred (and Nick) wishing all Nebraskans calling my office a Happy #ValentinesDay #HeartCity #valentinenebraska #hometown #FunWithFred

A post shared by Senator Fischer (@senatorfischer) on Feb 14, 2017 at 8:21am PST

He’s even at meetings on National Puppy Day! Good work Fred:

Fred at staff meeting. Happy #nationalpuppyday

A post shared by Senator Fischer (@senatorfischer) on Mar 23, 2017 at 11:30am PDT

All of the Puppies Visit the Hill

In February, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals brought a bunch of puppies to the hill, all adoptable. Some representatives jumped on the chance to hang out with them. Here’s Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard, a Democrat from California and her new friends:

Made some new animal friends here on the Hill thanks to the @ASPCA! I’m honored to fight in Congress for the well-being of animals. pic.twitter.com/EJjD6nB7wq

— Rep. Roybal-Allard (@RepRoybalAllard) February 15, 2017

Republican Congressman Tom Marino, from Pennsylvania, also stopped by:

Today, I stopped by the #PAWS4Love event hosted by the @ASPCA. pic.twitter.com/UoPSHbKR0C

— Rep. Tom Marino (@RepTomMarino) February 14, 2017

And Democratic Colorado Rep. Jared Polis had his dog selfies down:

Adopt a dog or cat today#paws4love @ASPCA pic.twitter.com/2idACR1OR0

— Jared Polis (@jaredpolis) February 14, 2017

The good news: nearly 20 animals (both dogs and cats) found homes during the event!

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post The Best Political Puppies of 2017 for National Puppy Day appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VOTE KID ROCK pic.twitter.com/SwTMgckKbd

— Kid Rock (@KidRock) November 8, 2016

Austin Elias-De Jesus

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

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

When Jeff Sessions was confirmed as the attorney general late Wednesday night, his Alabama Senate seat needed to be filled. Meet Luther Strange, the man who was tapped for the job. Nicknamed “Big Luther” (he is 6’9″) Strange is the attorney general of Alabama, and a former lawyer and lobbyist. Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley announced the appointment of Strange in a statement on Thursday.

“Alabama has surely been well represented by Senator Sessions, and I am confident Senator Strange will serve as a fine representative for our people,” Bentley said. “His leadership on a national level, service as a statewide elected official and long record of taking on tough federal issues are the very qualities that will make him a strong conservative Senator for Alabama.”

In December, a few weeks after President Donald Trump nominated Sessions as the attorney general, Strange said he would run for the vacant Senate slot in 2018. Strange, 63, will now hold Sessions’ seat until 2018, when a special election will be held; an election for a full six-year term will follow in 2020.

Congratulations to Alabama’s new Senator, Luther Strange. I’m confident you’ll serve the great people of Alabama with honor and distinction. pic.twitter.com/QTbIwGhwry

— Vice President Pence (@VP) February 9, 2017

For his part, Strange said he is “greatly honored and humbled” to succeed Sessions, who by a 52-47 vote was confirmed on Wednesday. “I pledge to the people of Alabama to continue the same level of leadership as Jeff Sessions in consistently fighting to protect and advance the conservative values we all care about,” Strange added.

Strange and Bentley, the governor who appointed him, share some unusual history together. Last spring, 23 members of Alabama’s House Judiciary Committee pursued impeachment proceedings against Bentley. They accused him of having an affair with a political aide, Rebekah Mason. In November, Strange wrote a letter to the committee requesting that they suspend their investigation “until I am able to report to you that the necessary related work of my office has been completed.”

It is unclear if Strange investigated the claims against Bentley–on Thursday he said his November letter “speaks for itself.” But it seems the impeachment proceedings have, at least for the time being, been put on pause. Bentley also has the power to choose Alabama’s next attorney general.

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 Meet the New Senator from Alabama: Luther Strange appeared first on Law Street.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is apparently fed up with the outspoken and plucky Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren. Tuesday evening, McConnell invoked an obscure, and rarely-used rule which effectively silenced Warren. Here’s what happened:

In a Senate debate about Wednesday’s confirmation vote for Attorney General Nominee Jeff Sessions, Warren began to read a letter written by Coretta Scott King in 1986. Warren quoted King, whose letter addressed Sessions’ record on civil rights as a U.S. attorney, saying that Sessions used “the awesome power of his office to chill the pre-exercise of the vote by black citizens.” King was writing to oppose Sessions’ nomination to a federal judgeship in Alabama, a position he was ultimately denied.

A US Senator isn’t allowed to read a letter by a civil rights icon but our President is allowed to attack one. #LetLizSpeak. #StopSessions pic.twitter.com/Up4H4NWDII

— Tracy Wehringer (@twehringer) February 8, 2017

McConnell, the Senate majority leader, responded to Warren’s letter reading by citing Rule 19, saying: “The senator has impugned the motives and conduct of our colleague from Alabama, as warned by the chair.” Voting along party lines, the Senate agreed with McConnell 49 to 43. So, what exactly is Rule 19, and where does it come from?

It’s an old one: in February 1902, a quarrel broke out between two Democratic Senators from Alabama, Benjamin Tillman and John McLaurin. Tillman was angry that McLaurin seemed to be swayed by the Republicans on certain issues, namely on the question of annexing the Philippines. Tillman accused McLaurin of treachery and corruption, and what happened next is what led directly to the creation of Rule 19.

“The 54-year-old Tillman jumped from his place and physically attacked McLaurin, who was 41, with a series of stinging blows,” according to Senate history. “Efforts to separate the two combatants resulted in misdirected punches landing on other members.” A few months later, the Senate enacted Rule 19, with the goal of tidying up decorum on the Senate floor.

Now, had Warren continued, it’s unlikely she and McConnell would have had a physical altercation. But Rule 19’s language is not just about deterring physical conflict. The rule states: “No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.” Basically, don’t undermine a fellow senator by questioning his or her ability to govern.

The last time the Senate even came close to using Rule 19 to silence a senator was in 1979, when a heated debate between Sen. Lowell Weicker (R-CT) and Sen. John Heinz (R-PA) became heated. Heinz reportedly showed Weicker Rule 19, the two shook hands, and the situation was resolved. Last year, McConnell might have had cause to invoke Rule 19 against a fellow Republican, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Cruz accused McConnell of lying “over and over and over again.”

According to McConnell, Warren has repeatedly brushed with breaking Rule 19. Reading a letter written by King, it seems, was the final straw. “Sen. Warren was giving a lengthy speech,” McConnell told reporters after the incident. “She had appeared to violate the rule. She was warned. She was given an explanation,” He added: “Nevertheless, she persisted.” Later Tuesday evening, Warren read the letter in full on Facebook. Two million people watched–and listened.

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 Mitch McConnell vs. Elizabeth Warren: What is Rule 19? appeared first on Law Street.

Hashtag of the day: #HalftimeShow. People are prepping for the Super Bowl on Sunday and Lady Gaga is the halftime performer. As Gaga has been very vocal in her critique of Donald Trump, many are expecting her to make a political statement. All she has said so far is, “I believe in the spirit of equality.” Let’s hope for a good show and read on for today’s rants:

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

Kellyanne Conway Just Gave Us More #AlternativeFacts

Ever since Kellyanne Conway coined the term “alternative facts,” she has been on a roll. In an interview with MSNBC last night she talked about the “Bowling Green Massacre” as justification for President Donald Trump’s travel ban. She claimed that President Obama banned Iraqi refugees in 2011 after two refugees carried out a massacre in Bowling Green, Kentucky.

.@KellyannePolls says that 2 Iraqi refugees “were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre.”
(There was no such massacre.) pic.twitter.com/sD3Nnb5xfE

— Joe Sonka (@joesonka) February 3, 2017

But, there was never such an attack. The Obama Administration did slow down the intake of refugees in 2011 after two Iraqi men tried to send money and weapons to al-Qaeda. But those men never planned a massacre and most certainly didn’t carry one out. And Obama’s “Iraqi refugee ban” is a significantly more complicated and nuanced issue than Conway made it out to be. People on social media immediately started having fun with the new “alternative facts,” but it’s no joke to many that some members of Trump’s team believe they can spout completely false information to justify their actions.

I was a student at BGSU when the Bowling Green Massacre didn’t happen. I’ll never be able to not forget what I didn’t see that day.

— Jim Osborne (@ozzy4873) February 3, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

It all began almost exactly one year ago: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead in his hunting lodge in Texas. We all know what happened next. President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill Scalia’s seat. Republicans, led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, refused to allow Garland a hearing. The stonewalling paid off when Donald Trump won the presidential election in November. On Tuesday, President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch, a federal appeals court judge in Denver, to fill the vacant post. But Gorsuch has a number of hurdles to clear before he can take a seat on the most coveted bench in the land.

First, he must complete a questionnaire that can run up to a few hundred pages long. Gorsuch will have to cite every opinion he has written. He will also have to divulge all of his sources of income–including speaking fees–and any essays and other documents he has written. The Senate will examine his answers, the FBI will conduct a background check, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee will conduct investigations of their own.

Next, after procedural obstacles are cleared, the long and arduous journey to the confirmation hearing will begin. Gorsuch will meet privately with Senators of both parties. Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans will hash out the details of the confirmation hearing, such as when it will be held, and how many witnesses will be allowed to participate. To prepare for the hearing, which can last three to four days, Gorsuch will undergo a mock hearing with his advisers, where they will try to foresee any questions that might be hurled his way.

The final step, a Senate vote, is where things can get really interesting. This is no ordinary vote. Many Democrats vividly remember how Republicans treated Garland; others seem ready to support Gorsuch. Confirmation, as the rules currently stand, requires 60 Senate votes. There are 52 Republican Senators and 46 Democrats (and two Independents). Therefore, if the GOP unanimously backs Gorsuch, they would need eight Democrats to push him through.

But the chorus of Democrats who wish to obstruct Trump’s nominee as the Republicans did Obama’s nominee is growing. As the rules stand, they do have that ability: Democrats could choose to filibuster and effectively refuse to give Gorsuch the 60 votes he needs to pass. There are signs, however, that McConnell is willing to change the rules to lower the threshold of votes needed to pass to 51, or a simple majority vote. If that happens, Gorsuch would sail through the confirmation vote.

In a meeting with McConnell and other Republicans, Trump seemed to support a rule change if it comes to that. “If we end up with that gridlock, I would say, ‘If you can, Mitch, go nuclear,'” he said. In 2013, Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate majority leader at the time who has since retired, provided a blueprint for a rule change. Responding to Republican opposition to Obama’s agenda, Reid slashed the filibuster option for cabinet positions and other presidential nominations, including judicial nominees. If McConnell embraces the same route, the rule change would affect Supreme Court nominations beyond Gorsuch, beyond Trump’s presidency, and beyond the current Republican hold on Congress.

Alec Siegel

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

The post What Happens Next for SCOTUS Nominee Neil Gorsuch? appeared first on Law Street.

Senate Finance Committee Republicans took matters into their own hands to confirm two of President Donald Trump’s nominees.

In an effort to advance Trump’s nominees for Treasury secretary and secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services–Steven Mnuchin and Congressman Tom Price–the Republicans on the panel of the Senate Finance Committee voted in a surprise meeting on Wednesday morning to change the procedural rules that outlined that Democrats must be in attendance to vote on the nominees.  With this rule change, Mnuchin and Price were approved by the committee in a 14-0 vote, allowing for the nominations to go to the full Senate for approval.

Where are @SenateFinance Dems this morning? Standing with the ppl of OH and others hurt by the abusive practices of Mnuchin’s bank. pic.twitter.com/AvLpnxyJko

— Sherrod Brown (@SenSherrodBrown) February 1, 2017

This move comes a day after Democrats on the panel of the Senate Finance Committee staged a boycott of Mnuchin and Price’s hearings, which presented an obstacle considering the standing rule was that at least one Democrat had to be present in order for any votes to take place. The boycott was led by Senators Sherrod Brown and Roy Wyden in an effort to push for more vetting of both Mnuchin and Price, both of whom the senators claim gave misleading testimonies and responses during the committee hearings about their investments and foreclosure practices, respectively.

.@sensherrodbrown on why Senate Dems boycotting Price and Mnuchin committee votes. https://t.co/qr5oT2gOHX

— Andrew Rafferty (@AndrewNBCNews) January 31, 2017

The Democratic senators outlined their concerns and request for further questioning in a letter sent to the committee’s chairman, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, this morning.

Here are the questions @SenateFinance Democrats want answers to from Price & Mnuchin pic.twitter.com/jo2NOyq484

— Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) February 1, 2017

Talking to reporters on Tuesday afternoon, Hatch relayed his annoyance with the boycotting senators. “I’m very disappointed in this kind of crap . . . This is the most pathetic thing I’ve seen in my whole time in the United States Senate,” Hatch said.

Even after the rule change and the approval of Trump’s two nominees, Hatch still took time to go after the committee’s Democrats for their boycott, telling reporters that the boycott was “unprecedented obstruction” and a “cheap political ploy.” However, the boycott might not be as unprecedented as Hatch claims it to be, considering, as many have pointed out, the Republicans boycotted in 2013 to block the confirmation of Gina McCarthy as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The rule change and verbal sparring in the media between Finance Committee members just adds to the rising tension between members of Congress. Yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer voted no on the confirmation of Elaine Chao as Transportation Secretary, who is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s wife. Earlier today, things got contentious between Democratic Senator Al Franken and GOP Senator John Cornyn during a Judiciary Committee meeting when Cornyn took exception to Franken calling out absent GOP Senator Ted Cruz. In addition, Democratic senators on the Environmental and Public Works Committee–taking a cue from their colleagues on the Finance Committee–have staged a boycott of the vote to confirm Scott Pruitt as the head of the EPA.

Al Franken calls out absent Ted Cruz & Cruz’s GOP colleague John Cornyn objects. Franken: “Well, he should be here.” pic.twitter.com/zjMBDhshnJ

— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) February 1, 2017

And this is only Day 12 of Trump’s presidency.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

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

The post Senate Republicans Change Finance Committee Rules to Push Through Nominees appeared first on Law Street.

This morning, Florida Senator Marco Rubio took to Facebook to announce that he will support Rex Tillerson’s nomination for Secretary of State, despite the tough questions that Rubio had for Tillerson during his confirmation hearing.

Rubio’s long statement praises Tillerson’s patriotism and “impressive record of leadership,” but also highlights a number of concerns that Rubio brought up during the confirmation hearing, like Tillerson’s refusal to call Vladimir Putin a war criminal. However, at the end of his statement, Rubio states his support of Tillerson despite these concerns, saying that he must “balance these concerns with his extensive experience and success in international commerce” and that “it would be against our national interests to have this confirmation unnecessarily delayed or embroiled in controversy.”

Rubio’s support comes a day after Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham released a joint statement in support of Tillerson. In addition to Rubio, Graham and McCain were the two primary hurdles in the way of Tillerson’s confirmation.

“We need a Secretary of State who recognizes that our nation cannot succeed in the world by itself,” the joint statement reads. “The views that Mr. Tillerson has expressed, both privately and publicly during the confirmation process, give us confidence that he will be a champion for a strong and engaged role for America in the world.”

The main criticism that senators on both sides of the aisle have of Tillerson is his connection to the Russian government when he served as CEO of Exxon Mobil, having received the Russian Order of Friendship from Vladimir Putin. Tillerson also lobbied the White House to lift the sanctions that were imposed on Russia after the invasion of Crimea.

Upon the release of his statement, Rubio has been met with criticism aimed at his lack of political courage.

Marco Rubio is the same man who called Obama “weak” on Russia. https://t.co/b48AfTgtKk

— Terrell J. Starr (@Russian_Starr) January 23, 2017

We knew how @marcorubio’s tough talk about Tillerson would turn out, because we all knew how how his tough talk about Trump would turn out.

— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) January 23, 2017

Marco Rubio just listed his spine for sale on Craigslist.

— Michael Blackman (@ParaComedian09) January 23, 2017

So Marco Rubio:

1) Grilled Rex Tillerson and tried to embarrass him about Putin

2) Is now voting to confirm Rex Tillerson

— Matt O’Brien (@ObsoleteDogma) January 23, 2017

Rubio garnered a wave of praise after his comments during Tillerson’s confirmation hearing, particularly for a line of questioning in which Rubio called for “moral clarity” and pushed Tillerson on his refusal to label foreign actors as sponsors of terrorism or in violation of international law.

“These were not obscure areas […] it should not be hard to say that Vladimir Putin’s military has conducted war crimes in Aleppo,” Rubio said. He added, “It is never acceptable, you would agree, for a military to specifically target civilians. I find it discouraging your inability to cite that, which is globally accepted.” The video below shows Rubio’s comments.

Rubio has a history of balking on his perceived strong stances, including his support of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee after calling him a “con man,” and running for Senate after repeatedly saying that he had no intention of running if he did not become president.

I have only said like 10000 times I will be a private citizen in January.

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 17, 2016

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is expected to vote on Tillerson’s nomination sometime on Monday.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

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

The post Marco Rubio Pledges his Support for Tillerson, Making Confirmation Likely appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and one of his colleagues from the House of Representatives, Representative Ron DeSantis (R-Florida) proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would create term limits for members of Congress. Senators, who serve six-year terms, would be limited to two terms, for a total of 12 years. Representatives, who serve two-year terms, would be limited to three terms, for a total of six years.

Today @RepDeSantis and I introduced a Constitutional amendment to impose #TermLimits on members of Congress. https://t.co/jVXIbq35iu pic.twitter.com/GBjSV64x6x

— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) January 3, 2017

Congressional #TermLimits are the first step towards reforming Washington and draining the swamp.

— Ron DeSantis (@RepDeSantis) January 3, 2017

Cruz and DeSantis had previously indicated that they were interested in this kind of amendment. The two penned a joint op-ed in the Washington Post, arguing in favor of term limits, in December. They pointed out that both President-elect Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan have shown their support for the idea. They wrote:

Without term limits, the incentive for a typical member is to stay as long as possible to accumulate seniority on the way to a leadership post or committee chair. Going along to get along is a much surer path for career advancement than is challenging the way Washington does business.

With term limits, we will have more frequent changes in leadership and within congressional committees, giving reformers a better chance at overcoming the Beltway inertia that resists attempts to reduce the power of Washington.

Many senators and congressmen have gone well past the 12 or six-year-limits proposed by Cruz and DeSantis. Currently over 25 senators have been in office for more than 12 years, including political heavyweights like Senator John McCain and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Dozens of congressmen have racked up more than six years–Democrat John Conyers from Michigan has spent 52 years in the House of Representatives. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has been there for 18 years. For the record, Cruz is only at four years, as is DeSantis.

Needless to say, if term limits end up being imposed, they’ll lead to big changes in Congress. But for now, it’s unclear where this amendment is going to go. An amendment has a long road ahead of it–it needs to pass Congress and then be ratified by at least 38 states. And realistically, there’s no certainty it will even get that far, as neither Ryan nor McConnell have indicated yet whether it will come up for a vote.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Senator Ted Cruz Proposes Congressional Term Limits Amendment appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, the swearing-in ceremony for the new Senate took place and Vice President Joe Biden had to call the group to order twice. After the official swearing-in was over with, Senators brought their family members up to meet the VP and pose for photos. It was the last ceremony for Biden as VP, so there were a lot of photos taken, and Biden was at his most Biden-like.

Happening now: @VP Biden swears-in new Senators for the last time (a must-see Congressional tradition):: pic.twitter.com/JkRXt4BRiG

— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) January 3, 2017

Biden was as funny as always and told the mother of Republican Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, “When I die, I want to be reborn in Charleston.” Another senator’s mother took the opportunity to give Biden a bear hug.

Everyone is @ChuckGrassley‘s mom today. We’ll miss you Joe. pic.twitter.com/z7xS7kXVoE

— ClotureClub.com (@ClotureClub) January 3, 2017

For some members, the photo session took longer than for others. Democratic Senator Kamala Harris from California brought 15 family members who had traveled all the way from India, as well as a best friend from childhood and her mother’s BFF. “Aren’t you glad there’s not 435 senators?” Biden joked with the journalists and photographers.

“At least I wasn’t in high heels—although things are changing, man,” Biden says of the 5,500 pics he took at VPOTUS holiday parties.

— Phil Elliott (@Philip_Elliott) January 3, 2017

He blew kisses to Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth’s two-year-old daughter and tried to charm another baby, who was not as impressed.

Also this baby totally snubbed Biden pic.twitter.com/4lzdw2AIaB

— Sarah Parnass (@WordsOfSarah) January 3, 2017

After taking some photos with Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, Biden asked to have a photo with just the kids.

@VP Joe Biden kicks @marcorubio out of a photo op so he can take a picture with the Florida senator’s kids pic.twitter.com/AiKVSw7FSU

— POLITICO (@politico) January 3, 2017

Joe Biden will leave office later in January and told reporters that he won’t miss all the hullabaloo around official events like this. He has said that he knows what he will do next and will announce his plans soon. Many of us will miss him, and many hoped he would run for president in 2016. But maybe he’ll star in his own show instead:

Guys we need a kickstarter for a Joe Biden reality show that is just him doing this https://t.co/SS5jNmONx0

— rcohen (@rcohen) January 3, 2017

But Uncle Joe will probably make whatever decision is the best for him and his family and hopefully do a lot of good in a new role. “I’m going to try to take the VP office out of the office and establish a domestic and foreign policy piece where I can still do a lot of the stuff I care a lot about,” he said.

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 Joe Biden Goes “Full Biden” at the Senate Swearing-In Ceremony appeared first on Law Street.

Senate Democrats chose their next leader on Wednesday: Chuck Schumer of New York. He will be succeeding Harry Reid (NV), who will be retiring after the current term. Republicans stuck with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Both struck a conciliatory tone, in regard to working with the opposing party and President-elect Donald Trump, in interviews with reporters after the closed-door vote.

“It’s time to accept the results of the election, to lower the tone and to see what we can do together to make progress for the country,” McConnell, 74, said. Schumer, when asked about collaborating with Trump said, “Where we can work together we will,” adding: “On issues where we disagree, you can expect a strong and tough fight.”

Honored & humbled by the support of my colleagues to be the next leader of our caucus & by the support from so many of you. Thank you.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) November 16, 2016

Schumer, 65, also announced a 10-member Senate leadership team, comprised of lawmakers that run the left-leaning ideological gamut, including progressives like Bernie Sanders (VT) and Elizabeth Warren (MA), and moderates like Joe Manchin (WV). Aides said that Schumer and the members of his leadership team were chosen unanimously.

Majority Leader McConnell is not exactly known for acquiescing to the opposing party. He spent much of the spring and summer refusing to allow Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, a confirmation vote from Senate Republicans. He has shown some signs of collaboration, however. In 2013, he worked with Vice President Joe Biden to raise taxes on the rich.

McConnell will have more leverage this time around, and Senate Democrats will likely be under pressure to cooperate with Republicans, as 23 of the 33 seats up in the 2018 midterms belong to incumbent Democrats. Schumer shares certain priorities with Trump, like investing in infrastructure projects, that could bode well for avoiding a gridlocked Senate, much like the Republicans have been under President Obama.

In his remarks after Wednesday’s vote, Schumer seemed ready to move on from last week’s surprising outcome. “We heard the American people loud and clear,” he said. “They felt that the government wasn’t working for them. They felt that the economy was rigged against them in many places and that the government was too beholden to big money and special interests.” He added that Democrats will pursue a “bigger, bolder, sharper-edged economic message” in the future.

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 Schumer and McConnell Named as Senate Leaders appeared first on Law Street.

Tuesday night’s presidential result shocked a whole lot of people in the U.S. and around the world; it stunned those that supported Donald Trump and especially those that supported Hillary Clinton. Shock and surprise, it seems, have also blotted out another equally important fact: Congress will remain red.

Republicans retaining their House majority hardly came as a surprise, but some pundits and polls (we know how accurate both can be) predicted control of the Senate to shift from Republicans to Democrats. That did not happen, and now the White House and Congress belong to the GOP, something that has not happened since 2007.

Heading into Tuesday, there were eight Senate races–out of 34 open seats–presumed to be tossups. From Nevada to Wisconsin, Illinois to North Carolina, Democrats and Republicans were expected to wage bruising battles that could flip either way. In the days preceding Election Day, polls in those eight states were split: Democrats were leading in four. Republicans were leading in four. However, by night’s end, seven of eight ended up in the Republican column, bringing their total number of seats to 51. Democrats control 47 seats. Races in New Hampshire and Louisiana are too close to call.

Democrats were hard pressed to find any good news Tuesday night, though there were some small victories: three states elected a woman of color to the Senate. Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat with Thai and Vietnamese ancestry beat Republican Mark Kirk in Illinois. Women of color, all Democrats, won in California and Nevada as well. Elsewhere in the Senate, Marco Rubio (R-FL) won a decisive re-election bid, which was an uphill battle considering his failed presidential run and his tenuous relationship with Trump.

Republicans will also retain control of the House, and not by a slim margin either: at least 239 seats will be red heading into next year, while 193 will be blue. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who in a speech on Wednesday said Trump now has a “mandate” to govern, held onto his district seat in Wisconsin. A few districts have yet to call a result. The 115th U.S. Congress will convene on January 3, roughly two weeks before Trump is set to take the oval office.

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 Election 2016: Republicans Retain Control of Congress appeared first on Law Street.

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

Fox News Settles With Other Ailes Accusers

When news broke Tuesday morning that former Fox host Gretchen Carlson would be receiving a settlement of $20 million, many knew that this was just the beginning of what could be dubbed an “Ailes Cleanup.” CNN revealed later that 21st Century Fox had doled out a handful of smaller settlements to other women who accused Roger Ailes of similar sexual harassment.

Meanwhile, looking the other way while Roger Ailes ran Fox like Jabba’s palace made News Corp billions. Huge settlements? Still worth it.

— Jon Lovett (@jonlovett) September 6, 2016

Even though Ailes resigned in July, some feel the details and extent of the claims against him are being downplayed.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 7, 2016 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.

For the first time in nearly two decades, the state of Alabama might implement a lottery system in order to pay for basic services that it currently cannot afford.

In a video released yesterday, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley announced, “the state of Alabama has not and cannot at this time pay for the most basic services that we must provide to our people.”

He continued, “the time has come for us to find a permanent solution. This solution will provide funding that we can count on year after year without ever having to raise your taxes or put one more Band-Aid on our state’s money problems.”

BREAKING:We need your help solving our funding crisis.I’m giving you the opportunity to vote on a Statewide Lottery. https://t.co/BLzE3bOXLP

— Gov. Robert Bentley (@GovernorBentley) July 27, 2016

The lottery could bring in $225 million annually, a steady revenue that would help alleviate the state’s reliance on borrowing money and using one-time money to fill the gap in Alabama’s dismal finances. Bentley said the revenue would be applied to General Fund programs like services for law enforcement, the mentally ill, children, and “those in the most need.”

State lawmakers have tried cutting “wasteful” spending, shifting the management of Medicaid to the private sector, and borrowing money, and a proposed, but rejected, tax plan–but those efforts have still not been enough to fix the financial problem.

Bentley said he wants the voters to decide whether or not a lottery should be implemented to fix Alabama’s financial situation, which means the issue would appear on the Nov. 8 ballot. However, in order for that to happen, the Legislature would have to approve the amendment by Aug. 24 with a three-fifths vote in both the House and Senate.

With less than a month until the date the amendment would have to be approved by, it doesn’t seem like the Alabama governor has made any plans to get the ball rolling. Though he just made the video announcement Wednesday, he has not provided any other details on a special session which would have to be called in order to create the amendment.

State representatives and senators from Alabama took to the proposal differently. Rep. John Knight (D-Montgomery) chairman of the Alabama House Black Caucus, said he was disturbed that Bentley had not talked about the lottery proposal with him or anyone in the Caucus.

“It seems like everything that is being done now is being done behind closed doors,” Knight said.

Acting House Speaker Victor Gaston (R-Mobile) shared those sentiments, saying in a statement, “the governor has not outlined his plan to legislators in any detail, nor, to my knowledge, has he even set a concrete start date for the special session, so it is difficult to comment with so little information at hand.” He continued, “I hope that the governor reaches out to lawmakers over the next several weeks in order to seek their input on any lottery proposal that comes forward and to do the prep work that is necessary for any special session to be successful.”

Others, like Rep. Craig Ford, (D-Gadsden), leader of the Democratic minority in the Alabama House of Representatives, do not believe Bentley’s plan will work.

“A lottery will do nothing for this year’s Medicaid shortfall, and at best will be nothing more than a band aid for the General Fund that will leave us right back where we are now in just a few years,” he said in a statement. “The lottery is a one-shot deal, and a lottery for the General Fund will become, as it has in other states, a victim to legislative shell games; it will become nothing more than a slush fund for legislators.”

.@RepCraigFord says his proposed lottery must fund scholarships, and will not save the state’s budgets: https://t.co/yxGV9vUygK #alpolitics

— AL Reporter (@ALReporter) July 27, 2016

Sen. Quinton Ross (D-Montgomery), minority leader in the Alabama Senate, agrees with Bentley’s lottery proposal.

“These gaming dollars can provide stability and long-term economic streams for many of our General Fund and Education Trust Fund needs.”

Until Bentley schedules a special session, it’s unclear whether or not the lottery will come to the Crimson Tide state.

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 Could a Lottery Save Alabama’s Lack of State Funding? 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.

While Zika virus threatens to become more widespread in the U.S. this summer, partisan bickering in Congress has left the country ill-equipped to handle the impending public health issue. According to the New York Times, Senate Democrats shot down a bill for emergency aid for Zika virus on Tuesday, claiming that Republicans added in “politically charged provisions.”

The bill would have allotted $1.1 billion to help fight the virus, but it included provisions that had little-to-no direct relation to Zika funding. The provisions included: a restriction of funding to family planning clinics, a reversal on the ban on confederate flags in federal cemeteries, and a loosening of EPA restrictions,  along with others. This forced Democrats to shut it down despite its urgency.

The heated exchange on the Senate floor, during which our country’s elected officials flung around insults like immature children (see: Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-NY) calling the Democrats “sore losers“), just reinforced the popular stereotype of an ineffective Congress plagued by partisan gridlock.

With the impending Fourth of July holiday and a seven-week recess scheduled to begin at the end of July, there’s a decent chance that there won’t be another vote until September.

Democrats criticized Republicans for the provisions, while Republicans claimed that Democrats would be responsible for a Zika outbreak.

I didn’t think the GOP could write 1 bill to hurt women, vets, Obamacare, PP, AND clean water all at once – but they did it. #Zika

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 28, 2016

Believe it or not, the GOP Zika bill reverses the ban on flying the confederate flag at military cemeteries. Really! Idiotic.

— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) June 28, 2016

Lara was born with microcephaly due to Zika virus. How many more will suffer before Senate Ds and WH allow funding? pic.twitter.com/jMSYEeIuZj

— JohnCornyn (@JohnCornyn) June 29, 2016

Senate Dems are making up excuses to justify voting against this bill, which provides $1.1 billion to fight #Zika. https://t.co/qwC88nqBsv

— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) June 30, 2016

While senators continue to play the blame game, the blocking of this funding could be potentially dire, as Zika virus threatens to become a public health emergency in the U.S. On Tuesday, the first baby with Zika-related microcephaly was born in Florida. So far, there have been 935 reported cases of Zika in the United States, according to the CDC. The virus, which is primarily transmitted through mosquitoes but can also be transmitted sexually, is expected to become more prevalent throughout the country this summer.

Hopefully the Senate can unite to take necessary action on Zika; meanwhile, instances such as this one just feed the anti-establishmentarian attitudes that are currently pervasive on both sides of the political spectrum.

Mariam Jaffery

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

The post The U.S. Senate Turns Zika Funding Bill Into a Partisan Battle appeared first on Law Street.

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

Kim Kardashian Speaks Out Against Senates Decision on Gun Control

Last night, the Senate voted in opposition to strengthening gun control, specifically four amendments that could potentially limit individuals purchasing guns. Like many others, reality TV personality Kim K. took to Twitter to voice her concerns:

So sad! The senate voted against background checks being needed to buy guns. So terrorists on fbi’s wanted lists can legally still buy guns

— Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) June 21, 2016

Oh & mentally ill people can buy guns without a background check too.

— Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) June 21, 2016

The fact that anyone can so easily access guns is so scary & after all of the devastating loss the Senate should have not failed us!!!

— Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) June 21, 2016

It is true the Senate failed to make a crucial decision on gun control, an issue that Americans are increasingly worried about. Perhaps we’ll have to wait until the next mass shooting…again. Until then…

@KimKardashian future First Lady

— . (@sIayallday) June 21, 2016

@KimKardashian Kim for senate 2017

— guylaine (@guylainecoco) June 21, 2016

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 21, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. tends to follow an apathetic cycle when it comes to gun control; a mass shooting occurs, Republican politicians blame it on terrorism or mental illness, or anything other than gun control, and Democrats blame it on weak gun control. Gun control legislation is brought up, not passed, and another mass shooting happens.

A week after the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, with 49 people murdered at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando and days after Senator Chris Murphy’s (D-Connecticut) 15 hour gun control filibuster, the Senate will vote tonight on four gun control proposals. 

The Murphy amendment, proposed by Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut)

The Murphy amendment features the largest expansion of present gun control rules by closing the “gun show loophole” and requiring private gun show sales to enforce background checks. The amendment also seeks to expand The National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS), the background check database used for gun sales.

The Grassley amendment, proposed by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

The Grassley amendment seeks to improve the NICS to notify law enforcement if somebody who has been investigated for terrorism by the FBI within the last five years attempts to buy a gun. The amendment also seeks to clarify language and documentation on mental health that would bar some from obtaining guns.

The Feinstein amendment, proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California)

Also known as the “no fly, no buy” amendment, Feinstein’s proposal would allow the attorney general to deny gun sales with “reasonable belief” that the buyer is connected to terrorism. This lower standard than “probable cause” extends beyond the “no-fly” watch list.

The Cornyn amendment, proposed by Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas)

The Cornyn amendment allows up to a 72-hour wait period for individuals on terrorism watch lists who attempt to buy guns. This amendment is supported by the NRA.

The Democratic priority at this point is to close background check loopholes included in sales at gun shows, online sales, and more, the Cornyn and Grassley amendments have been chastised as not doing nearly enough. Further, the focus on barring individuals suspected of terrorism from buying guns is important but, frankly, does not address the problem behind the remarkably high number of mass shootings in the U.S.

In fact, of the 18 largest mass shootings in U.S. history (each having 10 or more fatalities), only 3  had expected terrorist connections: the Pulse Nightclub shooting, the Fort Hood shooting, and the San Bernardino shooting. These shooters were all self-radicalized and the FBI couldn’t find any connection between them and international terrorist regimes. Further, most recent American mass shooters obtained their guns legally with passed background checks, despite half of them having criminal histories or turbulent mental health backgrounds.

So far we have yet to see legislation that proposes a solution to the “typical” mass shooter in the U.S.: a person working independently due to feelings of anger, vengefulness, and unstable emotions or mental health reform on a larger scale.

The Grassley and Feinstein amendments are more or less misled in their focus on the “terrorism gap,” which hasn’t proven to be prevalent in the U.S. and essentially panders to public fears. The Cornyn amendment offers essentially no solution—does a 72 hour waiting period really work? The Murphy amendment offers imperative safeguards against people who shouldn’t be able to obtain a gun, but, with the NRA and gun rights playing such a pervasive role in Republican politics, will the GOP vote in the public interest?

The Senate vote for these four amendments is scheduled for 5:30 P.M. on Monday.

Ashlee Smith

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

The post Will U.S. Gun Control Strife End with Monday’s Senate Vote? appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut), filibustered for over 14 hours last night, in an attempt to force the Senate to take action on gun control. Murphy’s filibuster, which was sparked by the recent mass shooting in Orlando, ended when the Senate leaders agreed to allow a vote on universal background checks and closing a recently-under-fire loophole that allows people on the terror watchlist to purchase guns.

I am prepared to stand on the Senate floor and talk about the need to prevent gun violence for as long as I can. I’ve had #Enough

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 15, 2016

Murphy’s monumental efforts–it was the 9th longest filibuster since 1900–were even joined by a few Republican Senators, specifically Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, along with 38 of Murphy’s fellow Democrats. Each of these senators asked Murphy “questions” to give him a break from talking, although he still wasn’t able to use the bathroom or sit down. Here’s the full list of senators who joined the cause:

*UPDATED*
List of Senators who joined @ChrisMurphyCT as of 01:00am ET#filibuster#holdthefloorpic.twitter.com/pbTqvs8EFI

— Kasia (@KasiaMikurda) June 16, 2016

Murphy and his colleagues stayed remarkably on message during the 14-hour filibuster, often telling the stories of victims of gun violence. Murphy repeatedly invoked the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook in his home state, Connecticut–he even ended his stand by telling the story of one of the little boys killed in shooting. Check out that powerful clip:

There are concerns from both sides over the ideas, proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), that Murphy was advocating for. Not allowing people who are on the no-fly list to purchase guns gives more credence to that list, despite the fact that there’s a lot of criticism about how inaccurate it is. After all, we’ve all heard stories about kids who end up on the no-fly list because they share a name with a terrorist. And while a four-year-old certainly has no need for a gun, overall due process concerns are fair.

History may look back on Murphy’s stand as more of a political victory than a policy one. He took a strong, visible stand to advocate for a much-needed change to this nation’s gun policies–and got people talking in the process.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Senator Chris Murphy’s Gun Control Filibuster Lasts for Over 14 Hours appeared first on Law Street.

The Senate passed a defense bill yesterday that will require women to sign up for Selective Service, and potentially be drafted in the future. The bill will place the existing requirements for young men on women as well, and the new rules will apply to any woman who turns 18 beginning in 2018.

Senator John McCain, who serves as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee stated:

The fact is every single leader in this country, both men and women, members of the military leadership, believe that it’s fair since we opened up all aspects of the military to women that they would also be registering for Selective Services.

The head of each military branch has also stated support for the inclusion of women in the draft.

The National Defense Authorization Act passed 85-13–some of the votes against it came from Republicans who oppose including women in the draft. Right now this provision is only in the Senate version of the bill–the House chose not to include it–so that will have to get ironed out before this even goes to President Obama for consideration. But it seems like a common-sense next step after the military has made moves to fully integrate women into combat. The debate over whether or not to include women in the draft really heated up this winter; check out our coverage back when the Senate Armed Services Committee heard testimony about the idea from top military officials.

But, the debate continues. Senator Ted Cruz, for example, spoke out against including women in the draft, saying:

It is a radical change that is attempting to be foisted on the American people. The idea that we should forcibly conscript young girls into combat, to my mind, makes little or no sense. It is at a minimum a radical proposition. I could not vote for a bill that did so, particularly that did so without public debate.

It’s important to remember that the draft hasn’t been used by the United States since the Vietnam War. But depending on the how the House responds, women may start having to sign up with Selective Service soon.

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 Senate Passes Defense Bill That Includes Women in the Draft appeared first on Law Street.

As it becomes almost inevitable that Donald Trump will be the GOP’s nominee (given that every other candidate in the running has dropped out), many people aren’t happy. The “Dump Trump” and “Never Trump” movements are still alive and well. Ben Sasse, a Republican Senator from Nebraska, recently went particularly on the offensive against Trump–and the apparent Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton–calling for a third party candidate in a Facebook open letter that has now gone viral.

Sasse’s letter, while long-winded and in places somewhat thin on real substance and a bit heavy on rhetoric, is unabashedly honest about what his frustrations are with the party system. Some highlights:

I’ve ignored my phone most of today, but the voicemail is overflowing with party bosses and politicos telling me that ‘although Trump is terrible,’ we ‘have to’ support him, ‘because the only choice is Trump or Hillary.’ This open letter aims simply to ask, ‘WHY is that the only choice?’

…

I signed up for the Party of Abraham Lincoln — and I will work to reform and restore the GOP — but let’s tell the plain truth that right now both parties lack vision.

…

In the history of polling, we’ve basically never had a candidate viewed negatively by half of the electorate. This year, we have two. In fact, we now have the two most unpopular candidates ever – Hillary by a little, and Trump by miles (including now 3 out of 4 women – who vote more and influence more votes than men). There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than these two ‘leaders.’

…

I think there is room – an appetite – for such a candidate.

Despite the fact that the open letter was very much a call for a third party candidate to run in 2016, Sasse implied that he would not be willing to be that candidate, stating: “Such a leader should be able to campaign 24/7 for the next six months. Therefore he/she likely can’t be an engaged parent with little kids.” That would, presumably, rule him out, given that he has three children.

Sasse has been very vocal about his opposition to Donald Trump, according to the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake: “Sasse is still the only sitting GOP senator to say he simply won’t vote for Trump under any circumstances.” Sasse also published a series of tweets about his open letter, mostly in the same vein.

Now that it looks like Trump is certain to be the  nominee, the rift in the Republican Party between the “never Trump” adherents and the “Trump, now, I guess” advocates threatens to widen. We’ll have to see if Sasse’s appeal attracts any viable third party candidates.

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 Ben Sasse: Nebraska Senator Calls for 3rd Party Candidate appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

In a rare show of bipartisanship, the Senate managed to pass a bill that would create new block grants for states and government agencies to fund prevention, education, and treatment for opioid addiction. These efforts come as drug overdose deaths reached the highest level in history in 2014, surpassing traffic and gun-related deaths. Opioid overdoses, which involve drugs like prescription painkillers and heroin, make up the majority of drug overdoses and were involved in 28,647 deaths in 2014 based on data from the CDC.

The increase in drug deaths has been driven by a rise in painkiller and heroin overdoses, which were the cause of six in 10 overdose deaths in 2014. Opioid-related deaths have been steadily increasing for over a decade, going up 200 percent since 2000. Heroin overdoses alone tripled between 2010 and 2014.

In light of the epidemic, Congress may now be taking important steps to prevent these deaths. The Comprehensive Addition Recovery Act (CARA) passed the Senate on Thursday with a 94-1 vote. The bill aims to help fund education, treatment, and prevention programs to combat overdose deaths. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Rob Portman have done much of the work to push the bill through the Senate and make drug addiction a national priority.

A central goal of CARA is to increase the availability of Naloxone, a life-saving medication that can counter the effects of an overdose. Expanding law enforcement and first responders’ access to Naloxone can have significant effects on efforts to combat overdoses. Based on the CDC’s analysis of Naloxone training programs, between 1996 and 2010 about 53,000 people were trained to use the drug, resulting in over 10,000 overdose reversals.

The bill also prioritizes aid to states with laws that reduce liability for people administering Naloxone, which may encourage states to adopt similar laws in order to encourage responders to use the drug without fear of a lawsuit in the event of complications.

Provisions in CARA also seek to reduce misuse and overprescription of painkillers, which is a large contributor to drug overdoses. The bill would create a task force to issue new standards for painkiller prescription as well as implement safeguards to ensure proper disposal of unused medications to prevent children from accessing them.

One of the most important aspects of the bill is its focus on treatment. Not only would it help increase funding for evidence-based treatment programs, it would also reinforce the idea that drug addiction should be viewed as a disease that should be treated rather than punished. By funding treatment alternatives to incarceration, the bill could help shift drug policy toward efforts that reduce dependency rather than merely penalizing it.

While CARA has broad-based bipartisan support, it still has some challenges. It initially faced difficulty in the Senate after New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen attempted to add a Democratic-backed amendment calling for $600 million in additional emergency funding. The Republican leadership in the Senate holds that sufficient funding already exists for the legislation. The bill will also need to pass the House, where an identical piece of legislation is currently in committee. Relative to most bills, CARA has a decent chance of passing as it has been well received by both parties and the White House, but election year politics could end up derailing these efforts.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Senate Passes Bill to Fight Opioid Addiction and Abuse appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

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

Personal Care Products Regulation in the U.S.

Personal care products were first brought under the umbrella of the FDA with the passage of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which provided for federal authority over such products. However, which products are defined as personal care products and which are defined as drugs is a nuanced question. According to the FDA, there’s no clear distinction under the law, but there are generalities that the agency uses to designate the category various products fall into. According to the FDA:

Under the law, some of the products commonly referred to as “personal care products” are cosmetics. These include, for example, skin moisturizers, perfumes, lipsticks, fingernail polishes, eye and facial makeup preparations, shampoos, permanent waves, hair colors, toothpastes, and deodorants. Some, however, are regulated as drugs. Among these are skin protectants (such as lip balms and diaper ointments), mouthwashes marketed with therapeutic claims, antiperspirants, and treatments for dandruff or acne.

Some personal care products can meet the definitions of both cosmetics and drugs when that product has two intended uses. For example, a shampoo is a cosmetic because its intended use is to cleanse the hair. An antidandruff treatment is a drug because its intended use is to treat dandruff. Consequently, an antidandruff shampoo is both a cosmetic and a drug, as it is intended to cleanse the hair and treat dandruff.

Regulations on drugs are obviously stricter than those on personal care products–understandably so– but there are some concerns over the ways that those personal care products are regulated.

What’s lacking from the FDA regulation of personal care products?

Guidelines that govern the FDA’s policies on personal care products haven’t been updated since the 1938 law that gave the Agency the authority to regulate these products. Yet, the science behind these products has evolved rapidly over the same time period. We now know more information about chemicals that could potentially be harmful. Additionally, many products contain new man-made chemicals, and the Agency should have policies in place that reflect the current state of the science governing these products.

Currently, the FDA cannot issue recalls of personal care products that it deems to be harmful. It can only recommend voluntary recalls, which critics are concerned aren’t strong enough to adequately remove dangerous products off the shelves in a timely fashion.

The lack of testing guidelines for personal care products are another area of concern for health advocates. Currently, the FDA doesn’t have the authority to mandate testing of ingredients before they go on the market, with one exception: color additives and no health studies or pre-market testing are required. Instead, the cosmetic industry is largely self-regulated through an organization known as the Cosmetics Ingredient Review (CIR). However, many advocacy organizations also question the efficacy of that group, particularly when it comes to CIR’s banning of substances. In the 36 years since its inception, the regulatory group has only 11 chemicals for use in personal care products, a stark contrast to the hundreds banned by European Union regulators.

Advocacy groups are also concerned over the labeling laws currently in place for personal care products. Currently, full ingredient disclosure isn’t required, which many criticize as a major loophole with regards to transparency and patient safety. There’s also no requirement for contact information, so people who may suffer from adverse reactions to products can’t always figure out how to get in touch with the manufacturer to report the problem.

Overall, the process for FDA approval of personal care products is significantly less strict than the process the Agency uses to approve drugs and medications.

What is the Personal Care Products Safety Act?

The Personal Care Products Safety Act would help remedy many of the regulatory loopholes cited above. and would give the FDA the regulatory authority it needs to issue recalls, improve testing guidelines, and require more stringent labeling.

Further, this legislation would mandate that the FDA take a proactive approach to ensuring that chemicals used in personal care products are safe by requiring that the FDA test and review at least five chemicals each year. The bill also lays out the first group of chemicals that would be reviewed, all of which have been subject to recent controversy. According to Senator Feinstein’s release on the act, that first group consists of:

Diazolidinyl urea, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including deodorant, shampoo, conditioner, bubble bath and lotions;

Lead acetate, which is used as a color additive in hair dyes;

Methylene glycol/formaldehyde, which is used in hair treatments;

Propyl paraben, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including shampoo, conditioner and lotion; and

Quaternium-15, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including shampoo, shaving cream, skin creams and cleansers

Additionally, the Personal Care Products Safety Act would require manufacturers of personal care products to register with the FDA. It would remove the protected status of “coal tar,” a carcinogen found in some hair dyes that currently is permitted as long as there are proper warning labels. It would also direct the FDA to come up with a list of “Good Manufacturing Practices” to guide producers.

The new programs and regulations instated by the bill would be funded by collecting user fees from personal care product manufacturers–this is a similar process FDA uses for the review and approval of prescription drugs.

Why is the Personal Care Products Safety Act particularly important for women?

While Americans use an average of roughly 10 personal care products each day, that number isn’t split up by sex. Women in particular use an average of 12 products, exposing themselves to 168 unique chemical ingredients each day. This puts women at a higher risk when it comes to being harmed by untested or unsafe chemicals. SWHR recognizes the impact that the Personal Care Product Safety Act, if it passes, will have on women’s lives and health. SWHR stated in support:

Women use these products daily, and safer, better-regulated personal care items means healthier women and families. SWHR commends this step towards advancing women’s health and the health of all Americans who use these products.

Where is the Personal Care Products Safety Act in the Legislative Process?

As of right now, the legislation has only been introduced into the Senate–it has a long way to go before it becomes a law. But there is some good news: the bill has bipartisan support, which in today’s political climate is certainly rare. Senators Feinstein and Collins are the original sponsors, but they’ve since been joined by four additional co-sponsors: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California), Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota), Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois), and Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii).

In addition to the SWHR, many other advocacy groups support the Personal Care Products Safety Act, including the Endocrine Society, the Environmental Working Group, and HealthyWomen.

Who Doesn’t Support the Personal Care Products Safety Act?

There are some who don’t agree with the tenants laid out in the Personal Care Products Safety Act. For example, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has brought forth concerns that a greater concentration on testing means that there will be more testing on animals.

Others that disagree with the push for new regulations include members of the personal care products industry, including the Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers and Distributors (ICMAD) which says that it “places too large a burden on small business, stifles innovation in the cosmetics and personal care industry, and does not provide appropriate and significant national uniformity.”

Conclusion

The Personal Care Products Safety Act has a very long way to go before it could be enacted. But it reflects common sense approaches to regulating the personal care industry that haven’t been updated in almost 75 years. In order to ensure the health of all, particularly those who use these products on a regular basis, we need to make sure that there’s accountability and transparency in what goes into our personal care products.

If you would like to support the legislation, click below.

Resources

Primary

Society for Women’s Health Research: SWHR Proudly Supports Personal Care Products Safety Act

U.S. Senate: Personal Care Products Safety Act

GovTrack: S. 1014: Personal Care Products Safety Act

FDA: The 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

FDA: Are All “Personal Care Products” Regulated as Cosmetics?

Dianne Feinstein: Senators Introduce Bill to Strengthen Personal Care Product Oversight

Additional 

Harvard School of Public Health: Harmful, Untested Chemicals Rife in Personal Care Products

Environmental Working Group: Why This Matters–Cosmetics and Your Health

FDA Law Blog: Proposed Personal Care Products Safety Act Would Significantly Expand FDA Authority over Cosmetics

Washington Monthly: Beauty Tips for the FDA 

Women’s Voices for the Earth: Will the New Personal Care Products Safety Act Make Cosmetic Ingredients Safe?

The Huffington Post: New Bill Would Require FDA To Regulate Ingredients In Cosmetics & Personal-Care Products

PETA: Proposed Law Likely to Mean Tests on Animals for Cosmetics Ingredients in U.S.!

Society for Women’s Health Research

The Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR®), is a national non-profit based in Washington D.C. that is widely recognized as the thought-leader in promoting research on biological differences in disease. SWHR is dedicated to transforming women’s health through science, advocacy, and education. Founded in 1990 by a group of physicians, medical researchers and health advocates, SWHR aims to bring attention to the variety of diseases and conditions that disproportionately or predominately affect women. For more information, please visit www.swhr.org. Follow us on Twitter at @SWHR. SWHR is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post The Personal Care Products Safety Act: Modernizing Outdated Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

Is Planned Parenthood going to be defunded?

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

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

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

Why defund Planned Parenthood?

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

What would happen if Planned Parenthood is defunded?

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

Arguments for Defunding Planned Parenthood

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

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

What’s going on with Planned Parenthood in Texas?

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

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

Does Planned Parenthood stand a chance of winning the lawsuit?

This lawsuit could go either way.

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

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

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

What about the shooting in Colorado Springs?

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

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

How does this affect where Planned Parenthood stands?

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

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

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

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

After the episode aired, Planned Parenthood released this statement:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Resources

Primary

Planned Parenthood: Planned Parenthood at a Glance

Additional

Texas Tribune: Planned Parenthood Sues Texas Over Medicaid Removal

Los Angeles Times: Planned Parenthood Sues Texas Over Medicaid Funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New York Times: No Shutdown Expected on Planned Parenthood

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

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

Slate: The GOP Argument for Defunding Planned Parenthood is Incoherent

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

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

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

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

Amanda Gernentz Hanson

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

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

Vermonters really like Bernie Sanders, and Kentuckians aren’t too fond of Mitch McConnell, according to a recent survey from the polling firm Morning Consultant.

According to the survey–which was conducted over a period of several months polling over 75,000 people in total–83 percent of Vermonters approved of Bernie Sanders’ job performance while only 38 percent of Mitch McConnell’s constituents approved of his performance. McConnell, the Senate Majority leader, was the only Senator whose disapproval rating is higher than his approval rating–38 percent and 52 percent, respectively. The poll’s full results are at the bottom of the article, click here to jump there now.

There are currently five senators running for president, and after Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz is the next most popular with an approval rating of 52 percent.

The poll’s findings suggest that Senators from small states tend to be more popular among their constituents. The five most popular senators come from Vermont (with two in the top five), Maine, Wyoming, and North Dakota, all of which are also among the states with the smallest populations. While an important part of Bernie Sanders’ popularity is likely his ongoing presidential campaign, the relative popularity of small-state senators indicate that his campaign is probably not the only factor at play. One possible explanation is that in states with the fewest people, it may be easier for senators to hold views that more closely align with their constituents.

It’s also interesting to look at the senators with the lowest approval ratings. At the bottom of the pack are Senators Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Gary Peters of Michigan, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Menendez is currently facing a federal indictment for corruption charges, Peters was very recently elected, and McConnell holds a particularly polarizing position as the Senate Majority leader and recently finished a very contentious reelection campaign. This also isn’t McConnell’s first time with a  low rating; a 2012 poll found similar results. And while Peters’ approval rating was just 37 percent, his disapproval rating was also low (27 percent), indicating that a large number of respondents didn’t have enough information to evaluate him.

While most Americans have a very negative view of Congress in general, opinions of individual senators are typically much higher. Overall, the average job approval among Democrats and Republicans are pretty close, as each sits just above 50 percent. According to the Morning Consultant data, Democratic senators average a job performance approval rating of 54 percent while Republicans have an approval rating of about 51 percent. The two independent Senators–Bernie Sanders and Angus King–have a considerably higher average approval rating, about 74 percent.

The table below provides the full data from the Morning Consultant poll. In total, the firm polled 76,569 Americans. The median sample size was 1,172 people, varying from 198 registered voters in Wyoming to 6,696 voters in California. When looking at the data it is important to take the margin of error into account, as states with a much smaller sample have a wider corresponding margin of error. For example, the margin of error in the Vermont poll was +/- 6.5 percent, which means that Bernie Sanders’ approval can be somewhere between 89.5 and 76.5.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Who are the Most Popular Senators? appeared first on Law Street.

A new report authored by Law School Transparency, a Georgia-based non-profit, is shedding light on the current failures of law schools, and U.S. senators are taking notice. In a unique show of bipartisanship, senators from both parties criticized American law schools last week for leaving law school graduates with significant debt but few job prospects.

The report attempted to determine if law schools are admitting students who are not prepared for bar passage or legal jobs. Law School Transparency explained the motivation for its study, stating:

We started with a basic observation. As long as the bar exam guards entrance to the legal profession, law schools should be held accountable for enrolling students who face significant risk of not passing that exam. Failing to earn a license does not eliminate all of the value law schools provide, but that failure significantly decreases the value of a law degree for a typical graduate. Fewer students would undertake three years of law school and significant debt without the prospect of practicing law.

The study came to the conclusion that there were 74 schools that in 2014 admitted at least 25 percent “at-risk” students, and 37 of those schools admitted at least 50 percent at-risk students. Given that there are only 206 ABA accredited law schools, 74 is a pretty hefty number. As defined by Law School Transparency, at-risk students are those who risk failing the bar upon graduation. Law School Transparency also came to the conclusion that for-profit law schools admit huge numbers of at-risk students, particularly the law schools operated by InfiLaw, a company that has consistently been accused of being predatory.

In reaction to this report, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote about the need to change the law school system. He stated: “We need to move away from a system that results in too many law school graduates twisting in the wind.” Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) spoke against for-profit law schools specifically, saying: “Now that we’ve taken the cap off what you can borrow for graduate courses, they have decided they are going to just charge to the heavens in terms of tuition for worthless, worthless law school degree.”

The backlash against law schools, particularly for-profit law schools, has been in the works for a while, but the attention from senators is a big new aspect. Maybe with this increased attention as a result of Law School Transparency’s report, we’ll finally see some changes.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post The Need for Law School Reform: Senators Join the Conversation appeared first on Law Street.

In today’s toxic political environment, it often truly seems like there are no issues that can spark action on both sides of the aisle. However, both Republicans and Democrats proved that wrong this week, as an effort for comprehensive prison reform moved forward and was introduced in the Senate.

The bipartisan bill is called the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act and will roll back many of the policies established in the tough-on-crime legislation of the late 20th century. While those measures were put in place in an attempt to combat rising crime rates, the policies have led to inconsistent and inappropriate punishments in many cases. These policies have also led to problems such as prison overcrowding.

The bill will end solitary confinement for juveniles, a problem that has gotten particularly focused attention in recent years. If it passes, the bill will also lessen mandatory minimum sentences. Under current federal law, the “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” law lands many who have been convicted of drug offenses to life in prison without parole. This reform would reduce that mandatory sentencing to 25 years.

Overall, the reform will also make other policies more flexible, including the ability of judges to forgo mandatory minimum requirements in some cases, and exceptions for first-time offenders without serious criminal histories. Overall, the bill encompasses a number of changes to policies that are seen as too rigid and punitive.

What’s perhaps most impressive about the bill, however, is its bipartisan nature in a time when bipartisan efforts have become increasingly rare. The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act includes heavyweight senators on both sides of the aisle, most notably Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Senator Cory Booker (D-New Jersey), said by some to be a rising Democratic star also was heavily involved, as well as Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah). Other senators involved in the legislation are Jon Cornyn (R-Texas), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) Chuck Schumer (D-New York), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Pat Leahy (D-Vermont). The bill also has some powerful organizations on both sides of the aisle supporting it as well, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Koch brothers. As the political field gets increasingly divisive in the run up to the 2016 election, this is an impressive show of collaboration.

The new legislation is far from perfect, of course, as it will only apply to federal prisons, and doesn’t eliminate many problematic aspects of our justice system. But it’s certainly a step in the right direction–now we’ll have to see whether or not it continues to progress in the Senate.

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 Senators Work Together on Bipartisan Sentencing Reform appeared first on Law Street.

News broke this morning that Speaker of the House John Boehner will be resigning from Congress at the end of October. While some are rejoicing that the congressman, perhaps best known for his slightly orange visage and very active tear ducts, is stepping down, it’s also indicative of the identity crisis that is threatening to consume the Republican Party.

Boehner has long clashed with the more conservative, tea party side of his party. Most recently, members of the Freedom Caucus, some of Boehner’s biggest antagonists, threatened to oust him from the leadership if he didn’t make defunding Planned Parenthood a priority in the ongoing budget fight. This isn’t the first time they’ve tried–this has been a long-waged battle. But if they were successful this time around, Boehner was most likely going to have to rely on liberal support to keep his seat, which would be both an unpredictable and embarrassing situation.

But, by stepping down, Boehner also gains some freedom. No longer held hostage by the fact that he may lose a seat he no longer wants, Boehner now has the ability to advocate for a bill that will avoid a government shutdown. A clean spending bill, without the Planned Parenthood provisions, seems likely to pass. A Boehner aide stated about his decision:

The Speaker believes putting members through prolonged leadership turmoil would do irreparable damage to the institution. He is proud of what this majority has accomplished, and his Speakership, but for the good of the Republican Conference and the institution, he will resign the Speakership and his seat in Congress, effective October 30.

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House before Boehner took the stage for a press conference around 10:45 this morning, pointing out that Boehner’s resignation is indicative of the struggles that the Republican Party is facing right now.

No one is entirely sure who is going to take over Boehner’s seat. Right now, the most likely candidate seems to be Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the highest ranking Republican in Congress after Boehner. But McCarthy falls more in line with Republican establishment than the more conservative members trying to oust Boehner. Whether or not there will be a challenge from the right will be interesting to watch–this battle could get incredibly divisive. Given the infighting currently taking place in the Republican Party over who will be the 2016 nominee, it will be interesting to see if the battle for the House leadership gets just as messy.

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 John Boehner Resigns: Another Establishment Republican Bites the Dust appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Barbra Mikulski of Maryland came out in favor of the Iran deal Wednesday morning, and with that the deal’s opponents will no longer be able to stop it from going forward. With Mikulski’s support, the deal to scale back the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for the removal of U.S. sanctions is essentially final.

First things first: the Iran deal was already going to happen. But what was at stake prior to Mikulski’s announcement was the deal’s opponents’ ability to pass a resolution disapproving it–which would prevent the president from lifting sanctions, but would still not stop the entire agreement. Because the negotiations involved several other countries, who have already promised to lift their sanctions, many aspects of the deal would have gone forward regardless of what Congress does.

Now that it is impossible for Congress to override an Obama veto, there is nothing stopping the deal. A veto override would require a two-thirds majority from both chambers of Congress–67 in the Senate and 290 in the House of Representatives. Senator Mikulski is now the 34th senator to support the deal, creating enough support to maintain a veto from the president. Traditionally, Congress would not have the power to stop an agreement like this, but it passed a bill in May that mandated a 60-day review period during which Congress could stop sanctions relief with a disapproval resolution.

Despite the clear path to the deal, there remains some politics to play. The fact that an Obama veto can no longer be overturned frees up several Congressional Democrats to oppose the deal for purely political reasons, as their opposition will not impact the deal. So far only two leading Democrats, Senators Schumer and Menendez, have come out against the deal. But now that the bulk of the pressure is off other Democrats to fall in line with the President, others may begin to oppose the deal.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans may still decide to hold a vote on a disapproval resolution, which while symbolic, would end up getting vetoed. While Obama can stop any action by Congress, having to use his veto would be slightly embarrassing and politically damaging. The Iran deal will likely remain fodder for Republicans in the upcoming election and as a counterpoint to the White House’s foreign policy agenda going forward.

The deal has already prompted a response from several presidential candidates:

Partisan minority should not block bipartisan effort to stop bad deal that will fund mullahs, destabilize region, & pave Iran’s path to bomb

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) September 2, 2015

When I’m President, we won’t just reverse President Obama’s dangerous Iran deal. We will increase sanctions on Iran.

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) September 2, 2015

Great news that the Iran Deal has enough votes; as POTUS, I would aggressively enforce it and counter Iran’s other malicious activities. -H

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 3, 2015

The Iran deal was already a hot topic in the upcoming election, but now that it is moving forward the debate will likely intensify. Beyond the election, the deal will be important for Americans politics–especially if Congressional Republicans go forward with their plan to pass a resolution of disapproval, which they have until September 17 to do. While action from Congress will likely not effect the future of the deal, it could cost the President some influence.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Whether You Like it or Not, the Iran Deal is Happening appeared first on Law Street.

Treating people when they’re already sick is like beating back invaders who have already breached your defenses. In either scenario, prevention through good defense saves money, time, and lives. But when it comes to boosting our nation’s wellness defenses through public health spending, America falls short.

When it comes to health, concerns abound that we’re wasting money, time, and lives by spending too much on treatment and recovery and not enough on prevention. Public health interventions like smoking cessation programs and disaster preparedness initiatives save lives. The more we learn about the power of these interventions, the more experts call to keep them afloat with better funding. Spending a few dollars to get a person to quit smoking makes more sense than spending thousands of dollars to try to treat their lung cancer several years down the road. Preparing for a natural disaster beforehand is preferable to picking up the pieces afterwards.

So what is public health? It’s something that aims to keep you alive as long as possible. From preventing diseases to preparing for disasters, public health programs keep a wary eye out for threats and then help populations avoid or mitigate them. For example, if data shows a high diabetes risk for a certain population, public health programs will target that population with preventative messages about diet and exercise. Public health departments might also help local school systems prepare for potential natural disasters, like Florida does with its Children’s Disaster Preparedness Program.

Read on to learn about public health spending in the United States, and where we might need to invest some more time and money.

Where’s the money?

In April, the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) released its report Investing in America’s Health: A State-by-State Look at Public Health Funding and Key Health Facts. The report highlights many ways America falls short on public health spending. They say America’s public health system “has been chronically underfunded for decades.” In Why We Don’t Spend Enough on Public Health, author David Hemenway says this is because the benefits of public health spending today aren’t seen until potentially far in the future. Governments and politicians want to see the benefits of their investments in the present day, so they favor spending on medical treatment and other immediately fulfilling initiatives.

Here are some of the key findings:

Public Health Spending is Actually Shrinking

According to TFAH, when you adjust for inflation, public health spending in 2013 has sunk 10 percent from 2009. Many simply don’t see the benefits of spending on public health programs that yield intangible, future benefits when money could be spent on initiatives that produce immediate results like transportation or construction projects.

All States are Not Created Equal

States vary widely in what they spend on public health as funding is determined by the set-up of each state’s unique public health department. Indiana came in at a low of $15.14 per person, while Alaska spends $50.09 per person. This could be why health levels also vary widely from state to state.

Communities Aren’t Prepared for Public Health Emergencies

Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) Cooperative Agreement Funding helps communities respond to natural disasters, epidemics, and outbreaks. It was backed by $919 million in 2005. In 2013, it was supported by just $643 million.

Hospitals Aren’t Prepared for Public Health Emergencies

The Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP) gives healthcare facilities funding to beef up their preparedness measures. Funding for this program has been slashed by almost half, dropping from $515 million in 2004 to $255 million in 2015.

It’s estimated that 2/3 of all deaths in the United States result from chronic diseases typically linked to behaviors like diet or substance abuse. These diseases could be prevented by well funded intervention programs to decrease the behaviors that eventually lead to chronic diseases. Public health spending could save Americans millions in treatments for preventable diseases. Likewise public health under-spending could be costing us more than we’re saving.

In this video, the American Public Health Association outlines financial returns on every dollar of public health spending for different activities:

The above video states that every dollar spent on fluoride in our water supply could save $40 in dental care costs and that a dollar spent on nutrition education could save $10 in health care costs. The main point? Public health programs make for a smart investment.

The Consequences of Meagre Public Health Budgets

So, America spends too much money on treatment and not enough on prevention. The results aren’t pretty. In Integrating Public Health and Personal Care in a Reformed US Health Care System, authors Chernichovsky and Leibowitz write,

Compared with other developed countries, the United States has an inefficient and expensive health care system with poor outcomes and many citizens who are denied access.

The State of U.S. Health, 1990-2010 report put the U.S. up against other members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (O.E.C.D.), a program that advocates to improve economic and social outcomes. Since 1990, the U.S. has fallen in rankings for both life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. In 1990, the U.S. stood at the number 20 spot for life expectancy.  By 2010, it was down to number 27.  In 1990, the U.S. also enjoyed the number 14 spot for healthy life expectancy. The year 2010 found us in the 26th spot.

Under-spending in public health doesn’t just lead to generally poor health, it also impedes our ability to respond to emergencies. Assistant professor at the Harvard Business School, Gautam Mukunda, referred to Ebola as a “wake-up call” for the state of U.S. health preparedness. In Ebola as a Wake-Up Call he wrote,

Ebola may serve as a badly needed wake-up call about something the public health and biosecurity community has been banging the drum about for years: the U.S. has massively underinvested in public health.

Mukunda says the Ebola situation highlighted the measly number of extreme disease cases our U.S. hospitals can handle. Hospitals have decreased their capacity for extreme cases to increase their efficiency, only to lose the ability to treat patients when rare diseases strike. Although the need for extreme treatments arises only occasionally, hospitals should always be prepared for them. But with limited funding, it’s hard to be prepared for the unlikely “worst case scenarios.”

How does the future look?

The good news: The Senate finally passed a joint budget resolution after a five year absence of agreement.

The bad news:  Their budget slahes non-defense government spending by about $500 billion over the next 10 years.

The budget cuts spell trouble for discretionary educational public health programs. From disease prevention to health care worker training, programs to promote good health may suffer across the board.

In an APHA press release opposing the measure, Georges Benjamin, executive director of APHA, says,

Simply put, our federal, state and local public health agencies will not be able to do their jobs to protect the health of the American people if these drastic cuts are enacted.

The budget would also annihilate the Affordable Care Act, including the Prevention and Public Health Fund, a program that focused on moving America towards a preventative health model by funding prevention communications, research, surveillance, immunizations, tobacco cessation programs, health-care training, and more.

The resolution isn’t yet a binding law, but indicates a set of collective and alarming priorities that steer America farther from the path of an integrated, preventative public health system. The Appropriations Committee still has to draft the spending bills, so there’s room for opposition. President Obama for one said he’ll veto bills following the restrictive budget.

Evidence to Inform the Future

According to the article, Evidence Links Increases In Public Health Spending To Declines In Preventable Deaths, published in Health Affairs, mortality rates fall anywhere from 1.1 – 6.9 percent for every 10 percent uptick in public health spend. The researchers made observations over thirteen years and found that the localities with the highest upsurges in public health spending had the most significant reductions in preventable deaths. The relationship held true in multiple causes of death and across different demographics. While the study is only a correlation, the linkage presents compelling evidence for the death-decreasing value of public health spending. The researchers believe a lack of substantial evidence for the ROI of public health campaigns may have hindered spending in the past, and their report takes one step towards getting that evidence.

The Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) advocates for an America with increased core public health spending. They also recommend ways to spend the money correctly. They call for a solid public health foundation for all populations in all states so everyone can be healthy no matter where they live. After that’s established, they advise investing in strong, evidence-backed public health programs and efforts to fortify emergency preparedness. Finally, they believe public health expenditures should be completely transparent and accessible to the American public.

Experts at a recent forum of National Public Health Week looked past mere spending to consider the future of public health and consider novel ways of approaching health to make America a healthier nation. The speakers want to stretch health thinking beyond the doctor’s office to focus on environmental and lifestyle factors that promote well-being like employment, housing, education, and even racism.

These experts dream of an improved, 360 degree view of public health. But sadly, their dreams need funding to become reality. If we continue on this path, it will be very hard to become a more healthful nation.

Resources

Primary 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Prevention and Public Health Fund

Additional

American Journal of Public Health: Integrating Public Health and Personal Care in a Reformed US Health Care System

The New Yorker: Why America is Losing the Health Race

Harvard Business School: Ebola as a Wake Up Call

Public Health Newswire: NPHW Forum: Creating Healthiest Nation Requires Addressing Social Determinants of Health

The Trust for America’s Health: Investing in America’s Health

The Washington Post: Senate Passes Budget Even as Impasse on Spending Continues

Public Health Newswire: House Adopts ‘Devastating’ Budget Agreement

Public Health Newswire: Senate Passes Budget that Batters Public Health

American Public Health Association: APHA Calls Budget Agreement Devastating

The Trust for America’s Health: Investing in America’s Health: A State-by-State Look at Public Health Funding & Key Health Facts

Health Affairs: Evidence Links Increases in Public Health Spending to Declines in Preventable Deaths

The National Priorities Project: Military Spending in the United States

New England Journal of Medicine: Why We Don’t Spend Enough on Public Health

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are We Spending Enough on Public Health? appeared first on Law Street.

An aide for Democratic California Attorney General Kamala Harris has been arrested for posing as a police officer while heading a  mysterious “Masonic” police force that he claims dates back 3,000 years.

Brandon Keil, 31, was placed on administrative leave from his position as deputy director of community affairs for the California Justice Department, which Harris heads, after news of the scandal broke. According to the LA Times, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department claims that he along with two others, David Henry and Tonette Haye, were arrested last week after suspicions came to light that the trio was illegally impersonating police officers through their roles in the Masonic Fraternal Police Department.

Aide to state AG Kamala Harris , 2 others arrested after allegedly creating fake police force http://t.co/L6AYHtP0b9 pic.twitter.com/mldidpa8t0

— KTLA (@KTLA) May 6, 2015

According to site claiming to be the Masonic Fraternal Police Department’s official site, the force claims to have traced its origins back to 1100 BC when it was created by a medieval Christian military order, the Knights Templar. The group claims they have jurisdictions in 33 states and Mexico and that the only difference between them and other police departments is that they “were here first.” The site goes on to say,

We are born into this Organization our bloodlines go deeper then an application. This is more then a job it is an obligation.

However it seems like the real police disagreed. The trio first appeared on the police’s radar after letters were reportedly mailed to various police chiefs in Southern California announcing that Kiel had been named the police force’s “chief deputy director.” Kiel apparently even called various law enforcement agencies to schedule in-person meetings, a bizarre move that clearly led to his arrest. The LA Times writes,

Sheriff’s Capt. Roosevelt Johnson, who heads the department’s Santa Clarita Valley station, met with members of the group and became wary after they could not provide rudimentary information about the group’s aims, the officials said.

When sheriff’s investigators searched the homes of the three they apparently found badges, weapons, uniforms, and law enforcement paraphernalia.

In January Harris announced she planned to run for Senate in 2016, vying for the seat that will soon be vacated by Senator Barbara Boxer. It’s highly unlikely her aide’s odd fake-police pastime will affect the Democratic rising star’s Senate run, but all this weird negative press is certainly far from ideal.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Rhodes via Flickr]

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 Kamala Harris Aide in Trouble for Bizarre Pastime appeared first on Law Street.

For some, the term “lobbying” evokes the thought of fat cat plutocrats piping money into Congress to keep their interests and deep pockets protected. But while voting is the most fundamental aspect of a democracy, lobbying–for better or worse–is one of the most direct ways to influence policy making. Read on to learn about the lobbying system in the United States, as well as the benefits and negative effects of this system.

What is lobbying?

Lobbying is a right protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and ultimately allows citizens to shape legislators’ decisions. U.S. citizens have the right to petition, free speech, and freedom of the press, so when citizens want to influence government policy, they are constitutionally protected.

Those who hire lobbyists are usually called special interest groups–groups of people who use advocacy to influence policy and public opinion.

Types of Lobbying

There are two core types of lobbying: inside and outside. Inside lobbying occurs when individuals contact their legislators directly, mostly through phone calls and letters. Outside lobbying is when citizens or interest groups form campaigns or organizations to influence public opinion or to pressure policymakers.

Types of Lobbyists 

While lobbying by businesses that see a particular benefit in swaying our lawmakers is very common, there are other motivations for lobbying as well. Unions, for example, also lobby for issues pertaining to taxes, workers’ rights, and the minimum wage, just to name a few.

Religious lobbying is another good example. The head of a church or religious organization might lobby Congress to denounce a bill that would not fit the view of the congregation. The number of religious lobbying organizations has increased from less than 40 in 1970 to more than 200 in 2012. Catholic organizations lead the way, making up 19 percent of all religious lobbying groups. So, lobbying isn’t just about the money, it can take the form of moral or personal interests as well.

Lobbying is not only popular on the federal level, but also at the state level. A 2006 survey by the Center for Public Integrity reported that there were 40,000 paid lobbyists working with state legislatures, with that number expected to rise. Other lobbying efforts are even more local. Trying to persuade a city council to halt something like a construction project to preserve wildlife is another common example of lobbying.

When is the best time for lobbying efforts?

Lobbying is most common weeks before a bill is set to be voted on, when proponents of the bill gather to discuss how they will go about presenting the initiative. Another common time to see lobbyists is during election season. This time is crucial as lobbyists can put more pressure on members of Congress to please their constituents and recognize the immediate effect of voting against their constituents’ opinions.

Show Me the Money: Lobbyists and Spending

The amount of money spent on lobbying since the late 1990s has increased dramatically, despite fluctuations in the number of lobbyists. According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets, in 1998 there were 10,405 individual lobbyists and lobbying spending totaled $1.45 billion. In 2010 there were 12,948 lobbyists, and spending totaled a high of $3.52 billion. This means that there was a 24 percent increase in lobbyists, and a staggering 143 percent increase in total spending. Fewer lobbyists are representing more wealthy interest groups.

While the fundamental practice of lobbying is notifying members of the legislative branch of the positive and/or negative consequences of their decisions, this simple practice is made complicated by companies and organizations that spend millions of dollars per year to convince members of Congress to vote for policies that positively benefit their businesses. The following list, also compiled by Open Secrets, shows the spending of the largest Congressional lobbyists in the U.S. in 2014.

• U.S. Chamber of Commerce: $124,080,000
• National Association of Realtors: $55,057,053
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield: $21,888,774
• American Hospital Association: $20,773,146
• American Medical Association:  $19,650,000
• National Association of Broadcasters: $18,440,000

According to Open Secrets, $3.24 billion dollars was spent on lobbying Congress and federal agencies in 2014. While that’s not quite as high as the peak in 2010, it doesn’t show signs of slowing down significantly anytime soon.

Regulating Lobbying

The U.S. has very tight restrictions on lobbying, with violations of these restrictions punishable by jail time or fines. These punishments can sometimes take very severe and costly forms. For example, the Sacramento Bee reported in 2014 that the California Correctional Peace Officers Association was hit with a $5,500 fine for failing to disclose $24,603.50 in gifts to state representatives. In another case, documented by the Los Angeles Times, a lobbyist was fined $133,500, the highest lobbying fine ever, for making illegal campaign donations to 40 California politicians.

The Lobbying and Disclosure Act of 1995 was a major piece of legislation that attempted to regulate and hold lobbyists accountable. While this law helped bring transparency to lobbyists, there were many loopholes, such as the fact that small grassroots lobbying groups whose “activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time engaged in services” were not regulated. Due to the many loopholes in the original law, parts of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 were amended into the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. The law gives very specific guidelines for Congressional lobbying, and prohibits activities such as bribery.

Lobbying Disclosure Act 

Here is a portion of Section 6 of the act:

Section 6 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), 2 U.S.C. § 1605, provides that: The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall (1) provide guidance and assistance on the registration and reporting requirements of this Act and develop common standards, rules, and procedures for compliance with this Act; [and] (2) review, and, where necessary, verify and inquire to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of registrations and reports.

Essentially, this portion works to guarantee the transparency and accountability of lobbyists and the officials they lobby.

Other provisions of the law include that lobbyists are required to register with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate. In addition, Cabinet Secretaries and other senior executive personnel are prohibited from lobbying the department or agency in which they worked for two years after they leave their position.

Some of the law also regulates interactions between lobbyists and officials. Lobbyists are prohibited from providing gifts, including travel, to members of Congress with the intent of violating House or Senate rules. The law also requires that lobbyist disclosures be filed electronically in both the Senate and House, and mandated the creation of a publicly searchable Internet database of such disclosures. It also prohibits officials from attending parties held in their honor at national party conventions if they have been sponsored by lobbyists, unless the member is the party’s presidential or vice presidential nominee.

How do the American people feel about lobbyists?

While lobbying is an important democratic right, most Americans view lobbyists negatively. A Gallup Poll released in 2013 showed that only six percent of Americans believe lobbyists are honest or have high ethical standards. Further confirming America’s view of lobbyists, seven in ten Americans believe that lobbyists have too much influence in Washington.

Arguments for Lobbying 

Those who support lobbying efforts point out that lobbyists bring to the forefront of the conversation topics that are not in the expertise areas of a politician. For example, a congressman with a background in energy legislation may benefit from more information on foreign affairs topics. Lobbyists also have the opportunity to educate legislators of the opinions of minorities that they may otherwise not learn about. Finally, lobbyists can bring about change directly by influencing the votes of politicians.

Arguments Against Lobbying

Those who disagree with our current lobbying system point to the Citizen’s United Supreme Court case, which allowed unlimited donations to political campaigns. They worry that such a broad decision may give lobbyists more power in negotiating a legislator’s vote. In addition, the pressure of interest groups influences politicians to vote in favor of the interest group, which may not line up with their constituents’ viewpoints. Finally, there’s a consistent fear that lobbyists use bribery and monetary threats to guide government actions.

Conclusion

Lobbying is important to the democratic process as it allows citizens to express their interests and opinions and in turn influence policy making. Second to voting, it may be the most important democratic right. But concerns abound that this right has been used increasingly in recent decades as a way for large corporations and interest groups to pressure politicians into passing legislation that favors their interests. While lobbying remains an important right, popular dissent and distrust means that it often leaves a sour taste in the mouths of many.

Resources

OpenSecrets.org: Lobbying Again on the Downward Slide in 2012

Mother Jones: K Street is Holy Place

Aljazeera America: Lobbying Tapered off in 2014 Amid Congressional Gridlock

Office of the Clerk: Lobbying Disclosure Act Guide

Sacramento Bee: Prison Officers’ Union Accepts Fine for Lobbying Violations

Gallup: Honesty and Ethics Rating of Clergy Slides to New Low

Pew: Lobbying for the Faithful

Center for Public Integrity: State Lobbying Becomes Million-Dollar Business

—

Mike Stankiewicz

Mike Stankiewicz came to Washington to follow his dream of becoming a journalist. The native New Yorker studied Broadcast Journalism and Law and Society at American University. In his leisure time he enjoys baseball, hiking, and classic American literature. Contact Mike at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lobbying: Washington’s Dirty Little Secret? appeared first on Law Street.

One of the markers of the current political climate is the animosity between President Obama and Congress. One of the manifestations of this climate can be seen in the fact that Loretta Lynch’s nomination for Attorney General has continued to languish in the halls of the Senate. If his remarks at a recent press conference are any indication, President Obama has had enough.

Loretta Lynch was nominated for the position of Attorney General nearly six months ago on November 8, 2014, but her nomination has been held up in the Senate since that point. There aren’t really any substantive reasons though, as no one seems to have any objections to Lynch’s qualifications for the job. While there are some concerns over her opinions on President Obama’s immigration reform, it seems like she’ll eventually be confirmed. It’s just a matter of when at this point.

The when is difficult though, as her nomination is being held up until a bill on human trafficking is settled, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Democrats, however, object to the bill because it contains a provision that prevents any money from the crime victims’ compensation fund from being spent on abortion services. Not only do many Senate Democrats object to the provision on moral grounds, they also claim that the Republicans surprised them by adding that provision to the bill without consulting them. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) stated,

I don’t know how that happened or who was the author of it. But the fact is, the bill that is on the floor today has a provision in it that we were told would not be included.

However, until this matter is solved, McConnell has said that they won’t vote on Lynch’s nomination. He’s framed it as a matter of priority–it’s important to finish a bill that will help trafficking victims before moving on to Lynch’s nomination. But it’s become a game of political chicken, and her nomination is caught right in the middle.

A sense of frustration and exasperation is exactly what the President expressed in a press conference Froday when speaking about the hold ups to the Lynch nomination. He emphatically stated,

Enough. Enough. Call Loretta Lynch for a vote, get her confirmed, let her do her job. This is embarrassing. There are times where the dysfunction in the Senate just goes too far. This is an example of it.

Regardless of Obama’s impassioned statements, it’s highly doubtful that his remarks will have any effect on the GOP Senators’ actions. Especially after the fights over the Iran deal and Obama’s immigration reform, there’s no real lost love between the executive and legislative branches. Lynch’s nomination will probably remain in limbo, at least for now.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Obama Lashes Out at Senate Over Loretta Lynch Confirmation Hold Up appeared first on Law Street.

Since his first presidential campaign, President Obama has advocated for immigration reform, and his administration has experienced its share of successes and failures. Notably, it failed to accomplish its goal to see through the passage of the Dream Act, legislation that would allow unauthorized immigrant students without a criminal background to apply for temporary legal status and eventually earn U.S. citizenship if they attended college or enlisted in the U.S. military. Immigration reform seemed to truly pick up steam, however, during Obama’s second term. In 2013, he proposed earned citizenship for unauthorized immigrants. But what exactly is earned citizenship?

Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S.

An undocumented immigrant is a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa, often by crossing the border to avoid inspection, or someone who overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or businessperson. According to the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics, 11.4 million undocumented immigrants lived in the United States as of 2012. The combined number of undocumented immigrants living in California, Texas, New York, and Florida accounted for 55 percent of that figure.

More than eight million, or 71 percent of all undocumented immigrants, were from Central American countries in 2008-12. Asia accounted for 13 percent; South America for seven percent; Europe, Canada, and Oceania for four percent; Africa for three percent; and the Caribbean for two percent. The top five countries of birth included: Mexico (58 percent), Guatemala (six percent), El Salvador (three percent), Honduras (two percent), and China (two percent).

In the U.S., 61 percent of unauthorized immigrants are between the ages 25-44 and 53 percent are male. Interestingly, 57 percent of unauthorized immigrants over the age of 45 are female.

What is Obama’s Earned Citizenship Proposal?

In 2013, Obama called for earned citizenship in an attempt to fix what he calls a broken system. It is an alternative to deporting the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S illegally that allows a legal path for them to earn citizenship. In this proposal, unauthorized immigrants must submit to national security and criminal background checks, pay taxes and a penalty, wait a specific amount of time, and learn English in order to earn citizenship. If the eligibility requirements are met, citizenship is guaranteed. Lastly, young immigrants would be able to fast track citizenship through military service or higher education pursuit.

Provisional Legal Status

Unauthorized immigrants must first register, submit biometric data, pass both national security and background checks, and pay penalties/fees in order to be eligible for provisional legal status. Before applying for legal permanent status–a green card–and eventually U.S. citizenship, they must wait until current legal immigration backlogs are cleared. A provisional legal status will not allow federal benefits. Lawful permanent resident status eligibility will require stricter requirements than the provisional legal status, and applicants must pay their taxes, pass further background and national security tests, register for Selective Service if applicable, pay additional fees and penalties, and learn English and U.S. Civics. In accordance with today’s law, applicants must wait five years after receiving a green card to apply for U.S. citizenship.

DREAMers and AgJOBS

This proposal includes the voted-down Dream Act. Innocent unauthorized immigrant children brought to the U.S. by their parents can earn expedited citizenship through higher education or military service. Agricultural workers can fast track legal provisional status as well in a program called AgJOBS. This a measure to specifically fight against employers taking advantage of unauthorized farmers who will work for the bare minimum.

Combatting Fraud

The proposal allocates funding to DHS, the Department of State, and other relevant federal agencies to create fraud prevention programs that will “provide training for adjudicators, allow regular audits of applications to identify patterns of fraud and abuse, and incorporate other proven fraud prevention measures.” These programs will help ensure a fair and honest path to earned citizenship.

2013 Immigration Reform Bill

Much of Obama’s proposal for earned citizenship came to life in the Senate’s 2013 Immigration Reform Bill. “Nobody got everything they wanted. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not me,” the President said, “but the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for commonsense reform.” The bill was a heavily bipartisan effort, written by a group of four Republicans and four Democrats called the Gang of Eight. The bill would have provided $46.3 million in funding for its implementation. Immigrants could start applying for a lawful permanent residence when specific goals and timelines of the bill are reached.

Border Security

The bill mandated a variety of border security measures, including the following: the training and addition of 19,200 full-time border agents amassing to 38,405 in total; activation of an electronic exit system at every Customs and Border Control outlet; constructions of 700 miles of fencing; increased surveillance 24 hours a day on the border region; and some specific technology measures including ground sensors, fiber-optic tank inspection scopes, portable contraband detectors, and radiation isotope identification devices. The bill also mandated more unauthorized immigration prosecution, including the hiring of additional prosecutors, judges, and relevant staff. Interior Enforcement would be required to increase its efforts against visa overstay, including a pilot program to notify people of an upcoming visa expiration. And finally, a bipartisan Southern Border Security Commission to make recommendations and allocating funds when appropriate.

Immigrant Visas

Registered Provisional Immigrants’ (RPI) status would be granted on a six-year basis. Unauthorized immigrants would be eligible for application if they have been in the U.S. since December 31, 2011, paid their appropriate taxes as well as a $1,000 penalty. Applicants would need a relatively clean criminal background, although the bill allowed judges more leniency in determining the severity of a person’s criminal background. After ten years of living in the U.S. with continuous employment (or proof of living above the poverty line), the payment of additional fees, and additional background checks, those with RPI status could apply for legal permanent residence. Naturalized citizenship could be applied for after three years of legal permanent residence.

Between 120,000 and 250,000 visas would be handed out each year based on a two-tier point system. Tier one visas would be designated for higher-skilled immigrants with advanced educational credentials and experience, and tier two visas would be reserved for less-skilled immigrants. The top 50 percent that accrued the most points in each tier would be granted visas, and points would be based on a combination of factors including: education, employment, occupation, civic involvement, English language proficiency, family ties, age, and nationality.

Interior Enforcement

Essentially, this provision mandated the use of E-verify, which is “an internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States by comparing information from an employee’s Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 to data from U.S. government records.” E-verify, in use now on a limited basis, would be mandated for all employers in the time span of five years. Employers would be required to register newly hired employees with E-verify within three days, and regular assessments would take place to ensure that E-verify isn’t used for discriminatory purposes.

Watch the video below for more information on the Immigration Reform Bill.

Stopped in the House

The Senate passed the bill with overwhelming support in a 68-32 vote. Both sides were highly pleased with the bipartisan teamwork the bill produced. “The strong bipartisan vote we took is going to send a message across the country,” said Sen. Chuck Shumer (D-NY). “It’s going to send a message to the other end of the Capitol as well.” When the bill was finalized, the group broke into a “Yes, we can!” chant.

Devastatingly, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) refused to even allow the bill to come to a vote after previously claiming that something needed to be done about immigration reform. He said:

The idea that we’re going to take up a 1,300-page bill that no one had ever read, which is what the Senate did, is not going to happen in the House. And frankly, I’ll make clear that we have no intention of ever going to conference on the Senate bill.

No room was allowed for comprise or debate on potential house legislation.

Obama’s Immigration Accountability Executive Actions

President Obama’s immigration reform executive actions, announced in November 2014, focus on three items: cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, deporting felons instead of families, and accountability. Basically, these encompass a minor segment of the immigration reform he was trying to pass all along. People attempting to cross the border illegally will have a greater chance of failure. Border security command-and-control will be centralized. Deportation will focus on those who threaten security and national safety. Temporary legal status will be issued in three-year increments for unauthorized immigrants who register, pass background checks, and pay appropriate taxes. It will protect up to five million unauthorized immigrants from deportation.

The executive actions established Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). While DACA protects immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, DAPA provides temporary relief from deportation for eligible parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

 Are the Executive Actions legal?

These executive actions saw immediate backlash. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) responded, “The president’s decision to recklessly forge ahead with a plan to unilaterally change our immigration laws ignores the will of the American people and flouts the Constitution.” Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) moved for the House to sue the president.

On Feburary 16, 2015, conservative Texas district court judge Andrew Hanen ruled in favor of Texas and 25 other states to overturn Obama’s action as unconstitutional. Hanen  ruled that the executive actions would cause these states “irreparable harm.”

The matter will now be appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Obama’s actions are blocked indefinitely. Until then, a number of states including New York, California, and New Mexico, have asked for a lift of the ban for their states. They await a ruling.

 Conclusion

Immigration has been the center of heated debate for years. The closest our government came to finally passing a bill that would aid the problem of illegal immigration didn’t even come to a vote in the House. So President Obama decided to take the matter into his own hands. Whether forcing states to participate in his immigration reform is constitutional or not will be a decision left to the courts. Obama’s proposal for earned citizenship started a snowball effect of immigration policy that will likely end in a showdown at the Supreme Court.

Resources

Primary

White House: Earned Citizenship

White House: Immigration

Additional

Immigration Policy Center: A Guide to S.744

Immigration Policy Center: The Dream Act

Politico: Immigration Reform Bill 2013: Senate Passes Legislation 68-32

U.S. News & World Report: Is Obama’s Immigration Executive Order Legal?

Washington Post: Boehner Closes Door on House-Senate Immigration Panel

Washington Post: A Dozen States Will CAll for Courts to Allow Obama’s Executive Actions to Proceed

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s Immigration Reform: Earned Citizenship and Beyond appeared first on Law Street.

There’s no gray area quite like international law. Historically speaking it’s a relatively new field, and every nation accepts various parts of it. But essentially there are a number of different treaties, measures, and conventions that mediate the ways in which our nations interact, both in war and peace. Nations have certain obligations, and despite the United States’ abysmal track record when it comes to international law, we’re held to them too. We don’t live in a vacuum. After the collective political hissy fit that 47 Senators just had in the form of a truly condescending letter to Iran, it’s time to remind Senate Republicans of that.

The United States has long been dismissive of international law, and understandably so. For example, we have refused to ratify the Rome Statute–the document that created the International Criminal Court–out of fear that our heads of state could ever be tried in an international court. In fact, the United States has long occupied a position upon a hypocritical throne, condemning the actions of others that don’t fall in line with international norms and agreements while seldom being held to other international standards ourselves. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. The U.S. has been the world’s superpower for decades, and we’ve acted the part.

Just because the United States is the only real superpower doesn’t mean that we got there on our own. We have allies, most of whom belong to NATO and are located in Western Europe. Could we be a superpower without Germany, and the United Kingdom, and France? Probably. Would it be harder? Almost certainly. Here’s an example: yesterday, U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus reached out to our allies asking them for help in the fight against ISIS. At a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting Mabus stated with regard to our international allies’ cooperation in the ISIS fight, “we can’t do it by ourselves and they have to carry their fair share of the burden.” Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi (who also signed the letter to Iran) said:

We are going to have to insist on more of a contribution from our international partners. We keep the lanes open for them. Our friends in Europe, our NATO friends and our other friends are depending upon what you are talking about. We are going to have to collectively come up with a plan to convince our partners that it is in their interests too to make the financial sacrifice.

We could deal with ISIS without our international partners, most likely. But any politicians who put us in that position would face a lot of backlash for the political and financial ramifications.

What does this have to do with Iran, and the remarkable letter that Senate Republicans sent to Iran’s government? Well, it’s important to remember that this deal, like any aspect of international politics, does not exist in a vacuum. Most importantly, this isn’t just a negotiation between Iran and the U.S., it involves five other countries and will be endorsed by a U.N. Security Council Resolution. We would prefer not to piss off the U.K., Germany, and France for the aforementioned reasons. Although our relationship with China is rocky at best, it’s hands down one of our biggest trading partners. Finally, the hot mess that is Putin’s Russia is at the very least a major player on the world stage, and it would probably be in our best interest to not piss it off either.

So, when Senate Republicans wrote that laughably snappish letter to Iran warning about a future president overturning a deal they don’t like “with the stroke of a pen,” that indicates that said fictional future president wouldn’t just be screwing a deal with Iran–they’d be doing the same thing to the U.K., Germany, France, China, and Russia as well. That doesn’t necessarily mean that anything would come of it–it would probably take a hell of a lot more to lose the loyalty of some of our closest allies–but it’s still not a good move for a new president to make.

That’s sort of the crux of the issue though. Either Senate Republicans don’t give a crap about the delicate balance of global politics, or they are so desperate to stick it to President Obama that they no longer care. Either way, the letter was an extraordinarily dumb move by a remarkably short-sighted group.

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 Hey Senate Republicans: Iran Negotiations Involve Other Countries appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

 Climate Change: What’s Happening?

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

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

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

Why is climate change bad for our health?

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

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

Diseases Will Become More Virulent

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

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

More Will Die From Extreme Heat

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

Basic Hygiene Won’t Be Guaranteed

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

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

Breathing Won’t Be as Easy

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

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

More People Will Go Hungry

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

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

911 Might Not Be Working

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

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

We Gotta Do Something

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

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

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

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

The Sustainable and Climate-Resilient Healthcare Facilities Initiative

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

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

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

The BRACE (Building Resilience Against Climate Effects) Framework

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

NYC Cool Roofs

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

Controversy in Congress

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

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

Conclusion

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

Resources

Primary

World Health Organization: Climate Change and Health

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

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

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

City of New York: NYC Cool Roofs

World Health Organization: Diarrhoeal disease

Additional

Emergency Management: How a Warming Climate Impacts Public Health

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

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

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

Science Daily: Heat Waves Becoming More Prominent in Urban Areas

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

New England Journal of Medicine: Climate Change and Human Health

American Meteorological Society: Climate Change Risk Management

American Phytopathological Society: Soybean Rust

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

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

BBC News: Obama Vetoes Keystone Oil Pipeline Bill

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

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Climate Change: How Will it Impact Our Health? appeared first on Law Street.

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

What is the Keystone XL Pipeline?

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

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

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

What is the Keystone XL Pipeline’s current status?

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

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

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

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

The Economic Argument

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

The Safety Argument

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

Energy Independence

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

Image courtesy of Tar Sands Blockade via Flickr

What are the arguments against the Keystone XL Pipeline passing?

The Environmental Argument

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

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

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

The Dependency Argument

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

The Health Argument

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

Conclusion

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

Resources

Primary

Senate: Keystone Pipeline XL Bill

House of Representatives: Keystone Pipeline XL Bill

Additional 

TransCanada: About the Project

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

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

John Hoeven: Statement on Keystone XL

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

John Manchin: Statement on Keystone XL

Al Gore: The Dirtiest Fuel on the Planet

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

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

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

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

Senator Joni Ernst may be a newcomer to Washington D.C., but she’s already making a big splash. She was just selected by the Republican Party to give its response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. That’s a pretty good thing for which to be chosen–the last few years the spot of responder has included Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Paul Ryan. Ryan, of course, ran for Vice President last year, and Rubio’s name keeps popping up on the list for possible 2016 contenders.

But what does this choice actually mean? When I said that Ernst is a newcomer, I really meant newcomer–before running for Iowa’s Senate seat, she was in the Iowa State Senate. So, she’ll only have been in Washington for about a month before speaking for the entire GOP in response to the President. She in some ways ran her campaign on the fact that she was a Beltway outsider–her most talked-about ad of the 2016 elections involved her discussing castrating pigs as a child.

Honestly, it’s probably that outsider status that inspired the GOP to pick her as the responder. President Barack Obama and, by extension, the Democrats have run the Executive Branch since 2008. The GOP is probably going to paint them as tired, crony-filled, and too nationally focused to look out for the average American. On the other hand, Ernst is pretty much the definition of a fresh face. She’s also a woman, which given the gender gap that has made or broke some recent national elections, probably appeals to the Republican Party. For those reasons, this is a pretty good strategic choice on the GOP’s part.

On the other hand, she’s also a risky choice. She’s untested on the national stage, and she’s said some weird things in the past. For example, she subscribes to the conspiracy theory that Agenda 21, a sustainable environmental plan created by the United Nations, is a secret drive to force Americans off their land. Last November, she stated:

All of us agreed that Agenda 21 is a horrible idea. One of those implications to Americans, again, going back to what did it does do to the individual family here in the state of Iowa, and what I’ve seen, the implications that it has here is moving people off of their agricultural land and consolidating them into city centers, and then telling them that you don’t have property rights anymore. These are all things that the UN is behind, and it’s bad for the United States and bad for families here in the state of Iowa.

It’s a relatively popular Tea Party idea–but coming out against the U.N. is…extreme, to say the least.

It’s definitely a good position to be in for your first few months in Washington, but whether or not Ernst will be able to rise to the occasion will have to be determined. No matter what, one thing is certain: it will be an interesting speech to watch.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Senator Joni Ernst Chosen to Give GOP Response to State of the Union appeared first on Law Street.

There were a lot of big news stories this year, from the Olympics in early 2014 to the ongoing Sony hack. Read on to learn about the top 15 news stories of 2014.

1. The Winter Olympics: $how Me the $ochi

Image courtesy of Atos via Flickr

The 2014 Olympics were hosted in Sochi, Russia, this winter, and the entire event was marked by controversy after controversy. The Russians were chosen to host the Olympics because of an impressive, expensive bid to the International Olympic Committee (IOC). However, the chaos of the 2014 Games left many wondering whether or not cash should be the deciding factor in the selection process.

2. Malaysian Airplane Crash: Who’s Liable?

Image courtesy of abdallahh via Flickr

In March, the world watched as a Malaysian Airlines flight disappeared, and many families were left devastated. It was a horrifying tragedy, but many were wondering who was to blame for the catastrophe, or more appropriately, who was liable? Given that much is still unknown about the crash, the legal questions are far from being answered.

3. Punishing Donald Sterling Is About to Get a Lot Harder

Image courtesy of Michael via Flickr

Clippers owner Donald Sterling came under fire after an audio recording of him making racist statements came to light. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver levied a notable punishment against Donald Sterling. However, given the unprecedented level of punishment, there were significant legal concerns.

4. An Open Letter to Shailene Woodley: What Every Not-a-Feminist Needs to Hear 

Image courtesy of Red Carpet Report on Mingle Media Tv

One of the most talked about stars of 2014 was Shailene Woodley–she starred in films such as Divergent and The Fault in Our Stars. However, she also made headlines for a less flattering reason–for saying that she wasn’t a feminist. Unfortunately, she had the definition of feminism wrong.

Answer Emma Watson’s Call for Gender Equality

Image courtesy of EyesonFire89 via Flickr

However, another movie starlet, Emma Watson of Harry Potter fame, gave an amazing speech this year about the importance of feminism and equality. Unlike Woodley, her definition of feminism was spot-on, and she made a great appeal.

5. SCOTUS Steps Up Amid Execution Controversy

Image courtesy of [Ken Piorkowski via Flickr]

6. Trigger Warnings Creep Off the Web and Into the Classroom

Image courtesy of OpenClips via Pixabay

Trigger warnings are a common sight on websites, in order to alert readers to content they may find troubling. However, trigger warnings started to make their way off the internet and possibly onto college syllabi. That change has led to concerns that trigger warnings may end up creating optional content in college courses.

7. The Dark Side of the World Cup: Corruption, Bribery, and Civil Unrest

Image courtesy of Amil Delic via Flickr

This summer, the world watched as the 2014 World Cup took place in Brazil. But, much like the 2014 Olympic Games, the World Cup had problems with corruption, lack of organization, and bribing scandals. Not only was the World Cup an interesting look into the the politics of Brazil, but it says a lot about what may happen at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

Oh, and that guy who bit another player: The People vs. Luis Suarez

Image courtesy of [George via Flickr]

8. The Senate Torture Report: Government Infighting Over Release

Image courtesy of Justin Norman via Flickr

The Senate torture report was finally released a few weeks ago, but there was a lot of infighting prior to the release. Major players included the U.S. Senate, particularly the Senate Intelligence Committee, the CIA, and the White House.

9. We Should All be Upset About What’s Going on in Ferguson: Here’s Why

Image courtesy of Elvert Barnes via Flickr

In early August, a young man named Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri, by Officer Darren Wilson. The following weeks led to protests over a few different topics, including police militarization, racial profiling, and First Amendment issues.

10. Ebola and America’s Fears

Image courtesy of CDC Global via Flickr

This year, Ebola has killed thousands in Western Africa, particularly in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. Globalization and international travel led to a case making it to the United States, sparking fear around the nation.

11. Strikes Against ISIS in Syria: Shaky Ground for Obama Administration

Image courtesy of Official US Navy Page via Flickr

The U.S. has been waging war against ISIS since it emerged in Syria and Iraq. Early this fall, the U.S. and some Middle Eastern allies bombed ISIS. Like any international action, the U.S. needed to be able to legally justify their actions, but that may be easier said than done.

12. The Washington Redskins: What’s Next in the Name Debate?

Image courtesy of Keith Allison via Flickr

The Washington D.C. NFL team is called the “Redskins,” a name that has received ire for its offensive origin. Journalists have begun to refer to the team by almost any other name, and this summer the US Patent office cancelled the team’s trademark. Whether or not the name will ever be changed remains to be seen.

13. The CIA: How to Get Away With Torture

Image courtesy of takomabibelot via Flickr

That Senate Intelligence torture report was finally released, and it was a disturbing revelation into the practices of the CIA. However, despite the fact that torture is illegal internationally, it’s doubtful that the U.S. will ever see any legal ramifications.

14. Australian Hostage Situation Ends: A Community Stands Together

Image courtesy of Corey Leopold via Flickr

Earlier this month, there was a horrifying hostage situation in Sydney, Australia. But the aftermath was heartening, as Australians banded together to show the world that the actions of one mad man does not justify discrimination on a wide scale.

Australians School the World on How To Not Be Racist

Image courtesy of Chris Beckett via Flickr

Here’s a further look into the amazing Australian compassion after the Sydney hostage situation. The hashtag #IllRideWithYou was created, in order to provide support for the Australian Muslim community. Citizens of Sydney offered company to Australian Muslims who needed to travel on public transportation without fear of discrimination.

15. Disturbing New Developments in the Continuing Sony Hacking Scandal

Image courtesy of The City Project via Flickr

One of the biggest stories of the end of 2014 was the Sony Hacking scandal, when a hacking group called the Guardians of Peace (GOP) made its way into Sony’s computer system. The story escalated quickly, as the hacking group demanded that a movie called The Interview not be released, or drastic action would be taken.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post ICYMI: Top 15 Top News Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

The ability to filibuster has long been an important tool for the United States Senate and some state legislative bodies. But some worry that it leads to unnecessary delay and a stop to productivity. Read on to learn about the development of the filibuster, its uses, and its abuses.

What is a filibuster?

In the Senate the general rule is that a Senator may speak for literally as long as he or she is physically able to do so.  When a Senator realizes that his or her position regarding a potential act of Congress is a minority one, the filibuster allows prolonging that debate indefinitely or using other dilatory tactics in order to prevent Congress from voting against that position.  Any bill can be subject to two potential filibusters. A filibuster on a motion to proceed to the bill’s consideration, and a filibuster on the bill itself. The typical practical effect of this tactic is that Congress will usually move on to other business for expediency’s sake if a filibuster is threatened on a controversial bill. Filibustering is generally very difficult if the proposed action is not controversial.

However, a filibuster in the U.S. Senate can be defeated by a procedure called cloture. Cloture allows the Senate to end a debate about a proposed action if three-fifths of available Senators concur.  After cloture has been initiated, debate on that bill continues for an additional thirty hours with the following restrictions:

• No more than thirty hours of debate may occur.
• No Senator may speak for more than one hour.
• No amendments may be moved unless they were filed on the day in between the presentation of the petition and the actual cloture vote.
• All amendments must be relevant to the debate.
• No other matters may be considered until the question upon which cloture was invoked is disposed of.

This process prevents filibustering from being used by a minimal number of Senators to obstruct bills that the vast majority of Congress wants to pass. However, cloture has drawbacks. It is difficult to implement because it often requires bipartisan support in order to get three-fifths of Senators to vote for it. It also takes time to implement because it must be ignored for a full day after it is presented. Finally, it requires a quorum call before voting so a large enough group of Senators can further delay voting by being absent so that a quorum is no longer present.

One of the most recent filibusters in the US Senate was conducted by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY):

Paul filibustered for nearly 13 hours, which is impressive. The longest Senate filibuster ever recorded was by Strom Thurmond, who filibustered for 24 hours and eighteen minutes.

What’s the argument for getting rid of filibusters?

Proponents of eliminating the Senate’s ability to filibuster argue that filibustering is childish and prevents proper resolution of disagreements about proposed bills. Filibustering allows belligerent legislators to seek acquiescence rather than compromise. When a filibuster is threatened, proponents of a bill may accept amendments to the bill that they do not favor in order to end debate. Even worse, double filibusters can make passing some bills much more time consuming. Moreover, filibusters can create dire consequences for bills that are proposed in time-sensitive circumstances e.g. when the fiscal budget is near expiration and voting is obstructed in order to advance policy interests.

What’s the argument for keeping the ability to filibuster?

Opponents of ending filibustering argue that the maneuver is necessary to preserve the fair representation and consideration of minority views. Without it, a simple majority could pass oppressive restrictions and hardship onto the minority and there would be no recourse against a duly passed law. The filibuster has been used to protect the rights of minorities in this country for a long time. The Senate was designed to ensure that the public’s representation in the decisionmaking process is not entirely controlled by the whims of the majority so that the power dynamic between majority and minority interests did not render the minority intrinsically powerless.

Recent Developments in Filibusters

In 2013, the power of the filibuster hit a road bump. The Senate voted to eliminate the possibility of using the filibuster on federal executive and judicial nominees (excluding Supreme Court nominees). This move was called the “nuclear option,” and it meant that it would just require a simple majority of Senators in order to move forward on confirmation votes. There were many Obama administration appointees stuck in a limbo because they could not get Senate approval.

168 filibusters of nominees in our history. HALF of them have occurred during Obama years! pic.twitter.com/xbQfsftLGm

— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) November 21, 2013

While the nuclear option was an unprecedented change that will have real effect on the confirmation process for a long time to come, it only affects cloture and filibuster situations in that particular context.

Conclusion

The filibuster has, for many years, played an important role in the American legislative process. But in the United States’ current condition of hyper-partisanship, it may no longer make sense for the filibuster to hold such a strong pull. Filibustering was created to allow the minority to be able to speak on issues that they feel strongly about — but when does the minority abuse that power to take the majority hostage? The Democrats’ 2013 choice to invoke the “nuclear option” may end up being the first in many changes we see to the filibuster moving forward.

Resources

Primary 

Federalist Papers: No. 62

Additional

Fire Dog Lake: The Filibuster Should be Traded for Eliminating Lifetime Judicial Appointments

Moyers and Company: Larry Cohen on Eliminating the Filibuster

Think Progress: The Filibuster is Bad

Salon: 5 Reasons to Kill the Filibuster

American Prospect: Let’s Shutdown the Filibuster

American Prospect: Don’t Eliminate the Filibuster, Restore It

Real Clear Politics: The Filibuster is a Good Thing

Campaign for Liberty: Filibusters: Good For Restraining Government

Harvard Political Review: In Defense of the Filibuster

Washington Post: Talking Filibusters Are Good For Democracy

How Stuff Works: How a Filibuster Works

Daily Banter: Our Guide to the Filibuster: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Atlantic: If You’d Like a Good, Clean Explanation of the Filibuster Disaster

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Senate Filibuster: On Its Way Out? 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.

The nation has been waiting for the Senate’s 6,000 page report on the use of torture during the War on Terror since an investigation began in 2009. However, a series of stumbling blocks–including tampering by the CIA and large redactions by the Obama administration–have continually pushed back the public release date. The Senate’s frustration is clear, and there’s no way to know when this crucial report will finally be released.

The Senate Torture Report 

The controversy revolves around a report that the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote on potential abuses of the detention and interrogation program during the Bush administration’s War on Terror. Those who have seen the report say that it is damning proof that the CIA used cruel tactics, including water-boarding, against detained terror suspects. The report also concludes that these tactics did not produce any useful intelligence information, and that CIA officials lied to Congress during multiple hearings on the subject. However, the committee was not unanimous in this conclusion. The committee’s Republicans came out strongly against the report, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) referred to the investigation as a “mistake.”

CIA reaction to the report

CIA employees are having a slight panic attack. As one not-so-eloquent headline puts it, “CIA Employees Worry They’ll Be Shafted After Torture Report’s Release.”

The primary concern of those who participated in the detention program is that they could potentially be prosecuted for torturing suspected terrorists. It is unclear whether or not this could ever happen. CIA Director John Brennan seems to be unsure, and political leaders are not providing much information either. President Barack Obama made it clear when he came into office that he would not be prosecuting Bush administration officials for their role in the detainment program, but that was five years ago.

This kind of concern over the report might explain why the CIA tried to impede the investigation.

CIA tampered with Senate computers

Last week, Brennan admitted that the CIA had accessed computers used by the Senate Intelligence Committee. CIA employees tampered with the investigation and deleted files from the computers.

According to an inquiry by the CIA’s inspector general, Five agency employees, two attorneys, and three information technology staff members gained access to emails written, sent, and received by members of the Senate committee.

This is a clear violation of the separation of powers. Watch Sen Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) list the laws that the CIA may have broken:

That speech from Feinstein took place on March 11. Brennan did not actually admit that Feinstein was correct until July 31 after an internal inquiry.

Back in March, just a few hours after Feinstein’s speech, Brennan promptly dismissed any claim that the CIA had hacked Senate computers, saying “nothing could be further from the truth.” He claimed that such hacking was “beyond the scope of reason.” Brennan has had to walk back that statement in the past few days and has apologized to Feinstein.

Feinstein has recognized but not accepted the apology. Many Senators have expressed shock and anger at this violation of the separation of powers. Some, including Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) are even calling for Brennan’s resignation.

The only person who seems to be defending Brennan is the man who appointed him to his current position. At a recent press conference, Obama defended Brennan, claiming that he had “full confidence” in the CIA leader. Obama further stated:

Keep in mind, though, that John Brennan was the person who called for the I.G. report, and he’s already stood up a task force to make sure that lessons are learned and mistakes are resolved.

Critics of Brennan still contend that he should be fired, not just for this offense but for prior offenses, including his involvement in a drone program that has killed American citizens. Brennan will come under even more fire when the committee’s report comes out. At that point, he will probably have to defend his agency against charges of torture and illegal spying.

What’s going on with the report now?

The report was sent to the Obama administration after Senate completion in April for a declassification review. During such a review, the administration and other federal agencies redact parts of the report they believe could compromise national security or the safety of CIA agents. Obama can redact anything from a single word to an entire section.

The executive branch completed this process on July 2 and submitted the reviewed report to the Senate. Feinstein has complained that there were “significant redactions” in the new version of the report. The Senate Intelligence Committee is not satisfied and has withheld release of the report until they discuss these redactions with the executive branch. Anonymous sources have told VICE News that the redacted sections of the report that discuss forms of torture, the living conditions of detainees, and the intelligence gained from torture.

Congress and Obama will have to spend a significant amount of time resolving these issues before releasing the report to the public, and the status of the CIA tampering is still up in the air. This is a controversy with a lot of angry players; but when the report is finally released it will certainly be illuminating.

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Justin Norman via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Senate Torture Report: Government Infighting Over Release appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Speaker John Boehner via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

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

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

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) published an op-ed in the New York Times last week that points out a major problem with our nation’s government–the House of Representatives doesn’t actually represent the American people. Schumer is right, and our electoral system deserves much of the blame.

As Schumer mentioned in his piece, roughly a third of Americans are right-leaning conservatives, a third are left-leaning liberals, and a third are independents with moderate views. Schumer explained that because voter turnout is so low in primaries, the extreme ends of both parties or, the “third of a third” decide who wins in primary elections. The Tea Party is a prime example of this idea in practice. Roughly 10 percent of Americans identify themselves as Tea Partiers, so if the House of Representatives was truly representative, the Tea Party would have 10 percent of the seats. But because they are way more active in elections than more moderate Republicans, 144 of 435 current congressman, or 33.1 percent, support the Tea Party. It would be easy to just blame this problem on those who don’t vote. Unfortunately, the problem is much more complex than that. According to his op-ed, Sen. Schumer’s proposal to reform our primary system is to institute a “top-two” primary. In this system, all candidates run in one primary and all voters vote, regardless of party. The top two candidates then enter a run-off, or general election. This means that you may have a general election with two Democrats, or two Republicans, but no matter what, they will represent the district’s two favorite choices. However, this reform may not be enough.

The roots of the problem stem from gerrymandering and our first-past-the-post, single member congressional districts. Let’s start with the problem of the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. Imagine a state that votes roughly 70 percent Democrat and 30 percent Republican. Under any definition of fair, roughly 70 percent of the state’s representatives should be Democrats and 30 percent Republicans. But this hardly ever happens. For example, I used an approximation of Massachusetts’s party breakdown for the description above, yet Democrats hold all nine of its congressional seats. Thirty percent of Massachusetts is not represented in Congress. This occurs because our congressional districts have only one member and are elected by FPTP, meaning the first candidate to break the 50 percent barrier wins the one seat and all those who voted for the loser are not represented.

Because the 30 percent of voters who are Republican are not concentrated in any one congressional district enough to break the 50 percent barrier, they have no representation. This may have been aided by gerrymandering–the process of drawing districts to favor a political party. But even without gerrymandering, Republicans in Massachusetts would be lucky if they won one or two seats. Where gerrymandering really amplifies the problem is when it creates completely uncompetitive districts, meaning one party is all but guaranteed to win it. This makes the primary election much more important than the general election. This brings us back to the issue raised by Sen. Schumer–the more extreme candidate often wins these primary elections, and then succeeds in an unchallenged general election. This allows the extreme 10 percent of voters to decide who represents the whole district. This is how our House of Representatives has become so polarized, and a terrible representation of the views of many Americans.

So, what is the solution to this giant mess? Unfortunately, Schumer’s solution has not been proven to work in the states that have already implemented it. This problem requires a more drastic solution, something called proportional representation. A detailed plan for a proportional representation system is described by the organization FairVote, but I will give you a simple version. Under this new hypothetical plan, there would no longer be single member congressional districts, but larger districts that would have either three or five representatives. The representatives would be elected using ranked choice voting, a method in which voters rank their favorite candidates. How exactly this would work is described here. But essentially, in these three or five seat districts, the minority party would have the chance for its voice to be heard. In a five-seat district, where exactly 60 percent of voters are Democrat and 40 percent are Republican, three seats will go to the Democratic Party and two to the Republicans. See the infographic below to see how this plan would impact a state with a party breakdown similar to Massachusetts.

Proportional representation is a system that distributes seats in a much fairer way than FPTP does. It will get moderates back in Congress and increase voter turnout, because voters will feel like they can actually elect someone who represents them. It will fix the House of Representatives by making its name match its definition–the House will finally represent the American people.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [PBS NewsHour via Flickr]

Editor’s note: The author of this piece previously interned at FairVote.

Matt DeWilde

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

The post How to Fix the House of Representatives appeared first on Law Street.

Most of us remember Todd Akin, former Missouri Senate candidate, for his comments about how women cannot get pregnant if they are “legitimately raped.” Unfortunately for him, and for everyone who has to deal with his moronic comments, the fiasco hasn’t ended there. In a recent attempt to explain his 2012 comments, all he did was dig himself into a deeper hole. It’s probably time to just stop talking, Mr. Akin. I mean, I’ve heard from doctors that if you legitimately have stupid thoughts, you won’t say them because your mouth has the ability to shut the whole thing down. Or, in this case, your hand will lose its ability to write a book if you plan to write legitimately ridiculous words.

In his new book (how did he get a publishing deal?), Firing Back, Akin defends his infamous 2012 “legitimate rape” comments and blames the evil media for spinning the whole thing. Someone needs to explain to Akin what spinning means, because he obviously doesn’t know. The media saying exactly what a politician says during an interview is not spin, Mr. Akin. That’s what we call “reporting the facts.”

In what I am sure is a positively invigorating piece of literature, Akin tries to educate his readers about what “legitimate rapes” are. You see, some rapes are not “legitimate” because some women falsely accuse, and when he spoke about a woman’s body shutting “that whole thing down,” he didn’t mean the reproductive system battening down the hatches. Rather, he was referring to rape-related “stress” inhibiting her ability to get pregnant. He does concede that perhaps his wording was a little off.  I feel like I need a Todd Akin Dictionary of Rape Terms to understand this guy’s insane reasoning.

Well, almost…

His comment brings up so many questions: what exactly is “illegitimate rape?” When a woman rejects sex sarcastically? When her attacker rapes her in a certain location? As far as I, and hopefully most other people with common sense know, uteri and fallopian tubes don’t have the capability of self-realization. I’ve never heard a case of ovaries yelling, “We’re under attack! Shut the whole thing down!” to their reproductive-system comrades.

Reviews say that the take away from his new book is that despite his apology immediately following the comments in 2012, Akin is legitimately not sorry. Apology redacted.

But not actually…

—

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 [Jennifer Moo via Flickr]

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 Todd Akin Needs to Legitimately Stop Talking appeared first on Law Street.

Parents don’t have the luxury of choosing where they are when their babies drop the bomb. When nature calls, mothers and fathers alike run to restrooms to change dirty diapers, soothing both their babies and the ears of the public. But fathers across the nation have long been frustrated by the lack of changing tables in men’s restrooms. Lawmakers across the country are finally starting to right this wrong.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 90 percent of fathers who live with children under the age of five change diapers. When a father goes to change his baby’s diaper at the pizza place in town, he’s forced to either struggle on a dirty bathroom floor or balance the baby on his lap. He has a right to be frustrated, because if he was a she, it probably wouldn’t be such a struggle.

Currently there is no federal or state legislation mandating gender-based accessibility to changing tables. But as equality in parenting increases, we may need to make some changes. California State Senators Lois Wolk and Ricardo Lara support legislation to require adequate baby diaper changing stations in public restrooms, regardless of gender. Bills 1350 and 1358 recently passed out of the California Senate Transportation and Housing Committee with bipartisan support.

Bill Breakdown

If they pass the California Assembly, the bills would go into effect on January 1, 2015. Senate Bill 1350, backed by Lara, mandates that public accommodations that undertake substantial renovations (exceeding $10,000) or install new restrooms assure open access to baby changing stations regardless of restroom gender assignment.

Senator Wolk supports the more stringent bill, 1358. Under this legislation, all public accommodations would require “…mandatory building standards for the installation of baby diaper changing accommodations in restroom facilities…” This bill would create a ripple effect by making more baby changing stations available to modern families.

This isn’t the first time a region has tried to create equality for men on diaper-duty. Pittsburgh City Councilor Natalia Rudiak proposed a bill in July 2013 that would require all city-owned buildings and facilities to offer baby changing stations for both men and women. In response to those opposed to the bill, Rudiak said the stations were fairly low-cost and would not require extensive construction.

Likewise, in July 2013, Miami-Dade County, Florida passed the Baby-Diaper Changing Accommodations Ordinance, which requires all businesses to provide baby changing stations in men’s, women’s, and unisex restrooms. Businesses in violation of the ordinance must pay a Civil Penalty of $500. The efforts of these Pittsburgh and Miami-Dade legislators are just some of the first in an effort to make parenting easier for both moms and dads.

Diaper Dads

Fathers across the nation are pleased by these new efforts. Several daddy bloggers track restrooms with diaper changing stations in restaurants, movie theaters, businesses, and other public buildings. One blogger who calls himself  “daddydoinwork,” called on his fellow fathers to publicize the lack of changing tables in men’s restrooms in order to create change.

The Pew Research Center conducted a study in 2013 and discovered that there are more than 2.6 million single fathers in the United States. The number of fathers who act as primary caregivers is increasing–especially as our modern society becomes more accepting of single parenting and homosexual parenting. Furthermore, the trend of stay-at-home-dads is rising–they comprise a total 3.5 percent of married couples with children in which one parent works full-time.

Our ever-changing society requires complimentary progress in our public facilities. This is no grand task–baby changing tables are easily installed and low-cost. If fathers were given more opportunities to easily change their babies’ diapers, establishments would better fulfill their responsibilities to serve the public’s needs. Businesses should also follow the lead–help out our diaper duty dads, and maybe they’ll leave a nice tip.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Tex Batmart via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Good but Stinky Step for Parenting Equality appeared first on Law Street.

The continuing saga of false and misleading operations at various Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals throughout the country hit a new level last week. While we know that there has been a critical backlog of veterans waiting for healthcare services, the backlog itself is not the scandal. What’s got everyone upset is misconduct by VA employees who input false and misleading information into the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA), the system used to electronically log appointment requests. The public is outraged, and rightly so, but Congress is acting just as surprised as the rest of us, and therein lies the issue. The real question the public needs to ask is, why the phony outrage Congress?

Due to public outcry, the House Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing on June 9, 2014 entitled Oversight Hearing on Data Manipulation and Access to VA Healthcare: Testimony from GAO, IG, and VA. Assistant Deputy Undersecretary of the VA Philip Matkovsky was asked about the technology used to schedule appointments, to which he answered, “Our scheduling system made its first appointment in April of 1985…it has not changed in any appreciable manner since that date.”  Yes, you read that right. The technology currently used by the VA is more than 30 years old. Technology changes significantly each year. It’s completely unacceptable to think using a system that old would increase efficiency and remain effective. As the hearing continued, Richard J. Griffin, acting VA Inspector Generalm testified that, “Since 2005 the OIG has issued 18 reports that identified at both the national and local level, deficiencies in scheduling resulting in lengthy wait times and negative impact on patient care.”

The Veterans Administration has been championed as a pioneer in healthcare information technology. In a 2005 Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing entitled Information and Technology at the VA – Is It ready for the 21st Century, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs Gordon Mansfield testified that his department had seen significant changes in IT operations.  A major reason this hearing was held was to discuss the VA’s use of more than $2 billion in appropriated funds to update information technology. (It should also be noted that 1,200 information technology service contracts valued at approximately $5.2 billion were awarded between October 2010 through June 2012.)  Mr. Mansfield pointed to editorials, professional journal publications, and even remarks from a speech delivered by President George W. Bush on April 27, 2004 describing his intentions to expand the VA’s electronic health records beyond the VA as examples of the great progress made. Although this testimony may seem to substantiate Congress’ claims of being unaware of the technology issues the VA faced, it does not explain why the Chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee personally requested an audit of Veterans Integrated Service Network 3 in 2008.

The Veterans Affairs Department breaks up the entire country into Veterans Integrated Service Networks to identify the clinics and hospitals Veterans are eligible to visit in their area.  VISN 3 represents portions of New York and New Jersey.  In 2008 the VA Office of the Inspector General conducted an audit on VISN 3 and this report uncovered the manipulation practices of the scheduling system that have also been identified in the current scandal. The report was sent to Michael J. Kussman, the Undersecretary of Health with recommendations; however, Mr. Kussman had this to say in response:

I have carefully reviewed your report on scheduling practices within VISN 3, and I do not concur with your conclusions and recommendations. Because the issues you cite reflect the need for national solutions to acknowledged policy-related concerns that VHA is already addressing in response to your previous reports, it is counterproductive to single out VISN 3 in your recommendations for accountability issues that apply to every other VISN, as well.

The Assistant Inspector General wasn’t going to take that lying down and responded with the following:

Contrary to the Under Secretary’s statement, we did not single out VISN 3 for this review. The Chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee requested we conduct this audit based on serious allegations the committee received that VISN 3 was intentionally distorting the numbers on waiting times. We also take exception to the Under Secretary’s non-concurrence with the report’s conclusions and recommendations based merely on the fact that the issues we reported reflect the need for national policy solutions that VHA claims they are already addressing. Our exception is based on the fact that VHA has recognized the need to improve the accuracy of waiting times data, yet has taken no meaningful action to achieve this goal to date. We can only conclude that VHA’s stated intention to correct recognized and long-standing problems is not sincere.

 

After reading several of the OIG reports it is clear that the VistA technology has a major flaw. Since the first report in 2005, the VA uncovered that scheduling can be manipulated by overwriting the Electronic Waiting List system and scheduling appointments on top of an already existing one. Overwriting the system does two things.

1. It changes the originally created date to the current date of entry, and changes the desired date to the date of the appointment, reducing the reported wait time.
2. The cancellation of the original date of creation is never recorded.  

In an attempt to make the logs appear to meet scheduling requirements, employees are able to overwrite the system to show they are in compliance with scheduling procedures even when they’re not. This has made it increasingly more difficult to identify when a request was originally created and interferes with the Veteran Affairs Department’s ability to accurately report the true wait time based on electronic waiting lists.

The OIG reports recommend stopping this employee behavior by providing training to employees to ensure compliance with scheduling systems standards. Surprisingly, there was never a recommendation for using a portion of the appropriated billions of dollars the VA Department was given on an entirely new scheduling system.

The VA’s Office of the Inspector General has issued 18 reports, each sent to Congress, and at least one of which was personally requested by a Senate Committee Chairman. Even if all 535 members of Congress weren’t aware, the members of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees most certainly were. Of the several billions of dollars appropriated to the VA Department for IT operations, it’s astounding to me that nobody thought to update the technology or at the very least get rid of the overwriting loophole the employees uncovered in the system.  As seen in the 2008 report, the VA knew the problem and chose to fight among themselves instead of fixing it. Then legislators responsible for oversight of the Department pretended to be completely unaware of what was going on once the truth was reported to the public. The general public, and Veterans especially, should be upset that this was allowed to continue.  But again I must ask Congress, why the phony outrage?

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [DVIDSHUB via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why the Phony Outrage Over the VA Scandal, Congress? appeared first on Law Street.

Statements by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) this week may reignite a debate over a law called the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).

Three days after the horrifying terror attacks of September 11, 2001, AUMF was passed by Congress. It was signed just four days later, on September 18, by President Bush. The law itself was simple enough in concept and was actually only 60-words long–an impressive feat in an era of long and frequently amended legislation. It states: “that the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future act of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.” Essentially, it allowed the President the ability to use whatever force necessary against those believed to be terrorists, harbored terrorists, or involved with terrorism in anyway. It sounds broad, but it was an understandably reactionary law to the shocking atrocities the nation had just witnessed.

That law has remained in place since then, and has been used as legal justification for a number of broad actions in the “War Against Terror.” For example, AUMF has been used as the reasoning behind expansive drone strikes and raids like the one used to capture Osama Bin Ladin in 2011.

But in the almost thirteen years since AUMF has passed, both the views of our nation, as well as our technical abilities have changed drastically. When AUMF was passed barely a week after 9/11, the concept of the “War on Terror” had just been barely introduced. And in the coming months, it of course received high support–a Gallup poll in November of 2001 put approval of sending troops to Afghanistan, partly under AUMF’s guises, at 89 percent. The same question today garners just 49 percent approval.

Other recent events, including realizations about drone capabilities and the extent of NSA spying have lessened Americans’ support for the kind of broad and vague actions that AUMF allows.

Discontent with AUMF has been simmering for a while. Various special interest lobby groups have been calling for repeal for years, and Senators and other lawmakers have at various points called for a repeal. Obama has supported, and even pushed for an end to the law and by extension, a sort of de facto end to the official “War on Terror.” Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) has been one of the leading voices in calling for AUMF changes. Last Wednesday he said, “we are still operating in a war declared on Sept. 14, 2001. And both the Bush and Obama administrations have determined that that war can be carried out against members of al-Qaeda, against anyone who associates with affiliates or associates of al-Qaeda, no matter when those associates pop up … so long as the al-Qaeda or affiliated organizations have violent intentions against the U.S. or coalition partners. That’s sort of a vague phrase.”

And most recently, one of the nation’s top lawmakers has stated that he also thinks that changes are warranted to AUMF. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is supporting changes to AUMF.

In the interview with Buzzfeed earlier this week, he stated in regards to AUMF, “I definitely think its something we should definitely take a look at. I think 9/11 [was] a long time ago, and it’s something that needs to be looked at again. I have no problem with that.”

However, Reid didn’t go into details about what changes exactly he thinks are warranted to AUMF but just that they need to be considered. From the language he used, it seems as though he’s relatively confident that a change needs to be made to limit the power of AUMF.

With Reid weighing in, public opinion turning, and other politicians getting involved in the it certainly seems like the issue of changes to AUMF will be firmly on the national stage in the upcoming 2014 midterm elections.

[The Huffington Post]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Feature image courtesy of [Debra Sweet via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Reexamination of AUMF: Potential End to the War on Terror appeared first on Law Street.

Thanks to petty politics, your local federal court may be lacking in the positions that it needs most to address citizens’ grievances: trial judges.

When it comes to federal court vacancies, the president has an obligation to respect senatorial courtesy, meaning that the president asks the senior senator of his political party to recommend a nominee for an open seat in the district court of his or her state. While this unwritten precedent usually does not extend to senators of the opposite political party, the president may also wish to consult senators of the other party so that their nomination is not blocked in the Senate, as senators have a de-facto power to veto nominees for a court in their home state.

However, many Republicans and even a few Democrats have begun a trend of failing to recommend nominees for vacancies on district court trial benches. These vacancies have significantly increased during Obama’s Presidency. By leaving seats in federal district courts unfilled, senators are undermining federal authority in the states. They are making a statement that demonstrates they would rather leave seats open than fill them with Obama’s appointees.

According to the Alliance for Justice, there are thirty-seven current vacancies and twenty-one future vacancies in federal courts around the country that currently have no nominees to fill these positions. The majority of these vacancies are in states that have at least one Republican senator. And these seats have been open for quite some time. The most extreme example comes from Texas, where one vacancy has been left unfilled for 1,951 days.

There are so many reasons why this trend is troubling, but I’ll attempt to explain just a few:

It’s giving states less federal oversight, and it undermines the rule of law.

By leaving the positions open, senators are effectively limiting federal jurisdiction over states. A lack of enough judges on the bench means that judges cannot handle the amount of cases brought to the court, which slows down rulings and therefore curtails the extent of federal authority over the presiding cases in these states. And states that are more conservative and have more Republican senators are experiencing more of this restriction on federal oversight than Democratic states.

But this policy goes against the rule of law in the United States. Indeed, there are certain matters that can and should be brought to state courts if there is no federal law involved or at stake. However, there are many cases that require a suit to be brought to federal court, and the fact that senators are intentionally leaving open seats on the benches of federal courts goes against the rule of law. Courts need a certain amount of justices to operate, and withholding nominations unjustly limits the power of the federal judiciary. Additionally, there should not be an uneven balance of federal oversight among states. Red states must experience as much federal oversight as blue states, otherwise the level of independence from the federal government of the different states will be unequal.

It’s a prime example of partisan politics at its worst.

As previously said, the majority of federal court vacancies are in states that have at least one Republican senator. Only eleven out of the total fifty-nine current and future vacancies with no nominees come from states with two Democratic senators. States with one Republican and one Democrat are having trouble coming to a consensus on a nominee. For example, Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey (R) and Bob Casey (D) had trouble working together to fill the eight open seats on Pennsylvania’s federal courts. The fact that political differences are now limiting the function of courts is concerning to the operation of government institutions.

Ultimately, it just hurts citizens.

When it comes down to it, the political move of leaving vacancies open hurts citizens and can deprive them of the right to receive speedy justice. Litigants will have wait for long periods of time before their case can be heard and ruled on. And some business is extremely important, such as immigration rulings. It is extremely unfair to keep citizens in limbo over cases that can impact their lives and futures.

While the senators who are neglecting to suggest nominates may feel they are protecting their states from federal judicial oversight, the reality is that they are actually failing to serve their constituents’ needs. They are depriving citizens of their right to court and failing to help them receive justice by blocking appointments. To many residents of the affected states, it doesn’t matter whether judicial appointments came from Bush or Obama; they simply need their cases to be heard. The vast amount of federal court vacancies shows the worst of how partisanship can negatively affect constituents.

Perhaps the most unfortunate part about this problem is that it won’t be solved unless citizens physically take action and rally outside court houses. Senators clearly need a reality check if they feel their methods are helping their constituents.

[The Atlantic] [Alliance for Justice] [Dallas News]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

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 Sorry, Citizens: Senators Won’t Fill Court Vacancies appeared first on Law Street.

Americans may soon get some information regarding CIA operations and intelligence procedures in the post 9-11 information gathering frenzy.

For the past five years, the Senate Intelligence Committee has been compiling a report totaling 6,300 pages, in which details of the Agency’s information-gathering tactics are assessed. The committee began looking into the Agency’s actions after 9/11. In 2012, the report was completed but remained confidential. And apparently, it doesn’t reflect too highly on the CIA. This Thursday, the Committee voted to declassify a 480-page summary of the report. Now, the White House has to agree by giving the final approval.

But declassification may not be as straightforward as many hope it to be. Before the findings are released, the CIA will have the opportunity to redact any statements which compromise national security. And rightfully so- the public doesn’t need to know every detail of what the Agency has been doing for the past decade. But the question has to be asked- if this document is so detrimental to the Agency, as Committee Chairwoman Diane Feinstein has claimed, will it stop at redacting only the parts of the document that are a threat to national security?

Another problem is the time it will take for this document to be declassified. Some suspect that because there are still trials for terrorists going on, groups like the Pentagon and FBI need to be called in to review the documents further to ensure information critical to those trials is not released. President Obama has supported declassifying the report, but his press secretary Jay Carney made it clear Obama doesn’t have a specific timeframe in mind, saying “he would expect that the actions that are necessary to declassify a document that be conducted in all due haste,” but refusing to give a specific timeframe in which they would happen.

But perhaps most problematic with the potential declassification of these documents is the fact the findings might not change anything. When Obama came into office in 2009, he stopped waterboarding. While it’s important the Senate has looked into these activities, what if releasing this information to the public is untimely? If the CIA has amended their policies to conform to Obama’s standards, is there any substantive benefit that could come from the public seeing how they messed up years ago?

I would argue yes, to an extent. From Edward Snowden to Chelsea Manning, the American public has been debating whether or not this kind of information should be provided in large quantities, and who should release the information in the first place. This committee report seems to be the best of both worlds: information released about government actions from a reliable source, in a way that won’t compromise national security. Americans will get more transparency, but not in a way that puts intelligence officers, or relations with other countries, on the line.

But at the same time, what does the American public gain from finding out about the ill actions of the CIA years ago? While there is probative value to understanding how past administrations have functioned, and this may allow citizens to stay cognizant of government officials (both elected and otherwise), it’s possible there will not be enough context provided in regards to this report. Without working background knowledge on the subject, a lot of people could look at snippets of information while missing the bigger picture.

So this declassification seems to be a step in the direction of transparency for American citizens, but a standstill for actual change in CIA policy. Ultimately, that will have to come from powers much higher up than the average American reading the report.

[White House] [CNN] [Huffington Post] [USA Today]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Votes to Declassify CIA Documents appeared first on Law Street.

Patent trolls have long been a problem in the realm of intellectual property, but companies have yet to devise a solution to successfully combat against them. As the years have gone by, patent trolls have no longer solely affected the technology industry but have begun to target many other businesses as well.

Well, now the government is getting involved in this widespread issue. The Senate is considering a bill, the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act that would force the losers of patent lawsuits to cover the winner’s legal fees in order to minimize patent trolling. The bill is similar to one that passed the House this past December. Diane Feinstein, a Democratic Senator from California, stated, “I think we are united on the troll. The troll must go.” The White House also has said it supports the measure.

Will Congress’ actions, if implemented, help to prevent patent trolling? There is evidence that suggests it will.

Making the losing party pay the other party’s legal fees will discourage patent trolls from pursuing legal action. Engaging in litigation can be a taxing and costly process, especially for small businesses, who lack the funds to engage in huge lawsuits. And in 2011, small businesses encompassed 90 percent of patent troll victims. The cost to defendants in a patent lawsuit can range from two to six million dollars. However, now faced with potential consequences, these companies engaging in patent trolling will have to think twice before filing lawsuit and extract licensing fees.

In addition, the bill would help protect true innovators. The bill’s provisions deter patent trolling companies, which exist solely to make a profit and do not actually contribute real innovation. These companies don’t create anything themselves; instead, they buy old patents and use them to file suits against other companies. Since patent trolling companies make their money off of legal cases, the potential cost not only deters these companies from filing lawsuits but also discourages anyone from forming these ventures in the first place.

Meanwhile, businesses that are actually creating innovative products or services can benefit from the bill. 40 percent of small businesses affected by patent trolls stated that the lawsuits they were forced to undergo hurt their business and ability to innovate. With the decreased threat of patent trolls, businesses will feel freer to create unique and new products without worrying about frivolous lawsuits.

The bill potentially also evens out the bias in the legal system that has long worked in favor of plaintiffs in intellectual property cases. Suing a company or individual over patent rights is relatively simple and inexpensive, but defending them can be extremely complex and costly. The fact is, patent cases are difficult to defend, many businesses are forced to settle out of court, which still costs them. Knowing that losers will have to pay for legal fees will encourage businesses to hold out for court settlement, whereas patent trollers will have a much harder time to defend their bogus claims.

While the bill exhibits many benefits against patent trolling, another question arises in the discussion of the bill: How will it affect legitimate patent litigation?

Some worry that the bill, while working against bogus patent troll lawsuits, could also affect litigation of serious infringements on patent rights. Skeptics of the bill argue that the bill goes too far and it could make it more difficult for inventors to profit from their innovations. Combatting this fear, several senators note that any legislation they support will protect the rights of companies that have legitimate claims to sue. Plus, parties with real claims of patent infringement still have the advantage of being the plaintiff in lawsuit, and can be confident of winning if their claim is truly legitimate. While fears of protecting innovation are not unfounded, those entering lawsuits to protect their legitimate patents need not fear of taking legal action.

If the bill passes in Congress and is signed into law by President Obama, businesses entangled in frivolous lawsuits will gain vital help in protecting their companies from patent trolls.

[Reuters] [Forbes] [Nextgov] [The Hill]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

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 S.1720: A Real Solution to Patent Trolling? appeared first on Law Street.

Attention all young lawyers: do you have any ambitions of making it to the bench? Or maybe another plum political position? Is that the kind of career you want? If you answered no to those questions, you can stop reading here. You can go on with your day, and you don’t need to heed the warning I’m about to give.

But if you answered yes, there’s something you really need to consider. Watch everything you do closely, because as we learned in the Senate this week, participating in a single controversial case has the potential to invalidate your entire career.

Debo Adegbile, a well respected Civil Rights lawyer who was nominated by President Barack Obama to head the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, was rejected by the Senate yesterday. His nomination was blocked through a procedural vote that fell 52-47. The reason given for his rejection was the fact that he was involved in an appeal to get Mumia Abu-Jamal, a man who was found guilty of murdering a cop in Philadelphia, off death row. That involvement was enough to render the rest of his qualifications utterly irrelevant.

Here are the top 5 reasons why Debo Adegbile’s rejection by the Senate was dead wrong.

5. His involvement in the Abu-Jamal case was pretty minor. 

Debo Adegbile worked for the NAACP’s Legal Defense and Education Fund — a widely respected institution. The NAACP routinely takes on controversial cases. This should come as a surprise to no one.

The Abu-Jamal case has been contentious for years, receiving both national and international condemnation and applause. Abu-Jamal’s supporters have alleged that the trial was marred by flawed jury selection and instruction and lack of impartiality.

Now the NAACP, not Adegbile himself, but the institution for which he worked, became involved in the appeals process in the Abu-Jamal case in 2006, roughly 25 years after Abu-Jamal’s original conviction. Adegbile didn’t become involved in the case until 2008, when he signed onto a brief. When the NAACP became more involved in 2011, eventually working to get Abu-Jamal’s death sentence overturned in favor of life in prison, Adegbile wasn’t even on the defense team. He was barely involved with this case.

4. Adegbile was doing his job.

Let’s also consider what the NAACP was arguing, what the brief that Adegbile was tangentially involved with consisted of. They were arguing that Abu-Jamal did not receive due process of law — not that he was innocent. They didn’t argue that the conviction was wrong, they argued that the sentencing was wrong. As Slate writer Dahlia Lithwick so perfectly put it, “What he did do — which fits pretty readily within the historic mandate of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund — was to help ensure that the American criminal justice system, and especially the death penalty, is administered fairly and constitutionally.” By being even slightly involved in this case, Adegbile was doing the job that he agreed to do at a respected institution with a worthy cause.

Furthermore, Adegbile was doing his job as a lawyer. Attorneys pledge to uphold the constitution, to make sure that clients get fair treatment, and have a legal obligation to do so. Lawyers, and their clients, have the right, if not the obligation, to question cases in which there is a possible loss of liberty and legal protections.

I’m not saying that any lawyer should get a free pass for cases they take, or that every lawyer would be qualified for the position for which Adegbile was nominated. But it’s pretty clear that Adegbile was doing his job, for a respected institution, with a valid legal argument, on a case which eventually was found to have been unfair to Abu-Jamal. And he’s now being punished for that.

3. Every lawyer has some controversial cases. 

I am pretty sure it’s impossible to be a prominent lawyer in the United States without at some point being involved with a controversial case. In fact, prominent cases are often the catalyst for becoming a prominent lawyer. So let’s check out arguably the most prominent legal figure in the United States right now: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John G. Roberts.

When Roberts was in private practice, he helped represent a convicted killer in Florida named John Ferguson, who killed eight people. He put in 25 pro bono hours for his work on the case, and it never came up in his confirmation hearings, and rightly so.

And Roberts isn’t the only one. Controversial cases abound, and if lawyers do their due diligence, and make appropriate legal arguments, such cases shouldn’t hamstring them and prevent them from ever serving in a political position.

2. The vote was a transparent political move. 

With the way that Congress has been behaving recently, this is almost a useless point, but I’m going to make it anyway. Adegbile lost 52-47. Now obviously all the Republicans voted against him — but so did eight Democrats: Harry Reid (Nev.), Chris Coons (Del.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin (W.V.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.) and John Walsh (Mont.).

Of those eight, only three are up for reelection in 2014. But all eight of them live in relatively purple or red states. The only exception would be Coons, but it’s important to remember that his state falls within Philadelphia’s media market, where Abu-Jamal’s crime occurred. The Democrats who voted against Adegbile may have done so from their consciences, that really may be the case. But if they didn’t, and if this was a political move, they deserve ire.

And it’s looking like that might be true. A senior aide to one of the Senators who voted against Adegbile anonymously stated, “It’s a vote you didn’t have to take. It’s a 30-second ad that writes itself.”

1. The message this vote sends to lawyers. 

The failed nomination of Adegbile for, as stated by the dissidents, his involvement in the Abu-Jamal case says a lot. If he had been rejected based on his qualifications, fine. That wouldn’t bother me in the slightest. But let’s be very clear about this: he was rejected because he did his job as a lawyer.

Watch this video of Iowa Senator Tom Harkin exclaiming his disgust over the decision. It’s long, but it’s worth it, because it sums up this entire issue near perfectly.

What does that mean for our young ambitious attorneys, our best and brightest, our potential nominees in 20 years? Well, this rejection sends them the message to watch their backs. To stop and think before they take every single case. It requires them to anticipate the future. And it tells them not to take chances, not to fight for the cases they’re passionate about. It tells them to stop taking the actions that make our legal system so great. That’s what it says. So future lawyers, current lawyers, potential lawyers: heed my warning. Watch what you do, or pay a price in the future.

—

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 [Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights 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 What the Senate’s Rejection of Debo Adegbile Teaches Future Lawyers appeared first on Law Street.

In response to Target’s massive data breach affecting nearly 110 million consumers, the Data Security and Breach Notification Act has been introduced in the U.S. Senate. Both Target and its customers were victims of the 2013 cyberattack, which increased susceptibility to identity theft for customers, and tanked profits for the company. The new legislation attempts to increase the security of consumer information, and to set requirements for companies to notify consumers and government agencies of security breaches.

The Act will establish six requirements for companies to increase data security protection: 

1. Create a security policy with respect to the collection, use, sale, dissemination, and maintenance of personal information.
2. Identify a point of contact who is responsible for the management of information security.
3. Create a process to identify and assess possible vulnerabilities within the security systems maintained by the company, including regular monitoring for breaches.
4. Create a process to make necessary changes to security practices used to maintain personal information including architecture, installation, and operating software.
5. Create a process to dispose data in electronic form by destroying, erasing, or encrypting the information.
6. Implement a standard method(s) to destroy paper and other non-electronic data that contains personal information.

While some companies maintain their own security of personal information, others contract this responsibility to third party groups. In the event of a security breach, this legislation requires any group responsible for maintaining personal information to contact the Federal Trade Commission, and to contact all consumers whose information may have been compromised. Consumers must be contacted either by mail, email, or telephone, and it is the company’s responsibility to create a hotline or website to provide additional information to those affected by the breach. If a security breach affects more than 5,000 people, companies are required to notify all major credit reporting agencies. Also, some companies will be responsible for providing at least one free credit report per quarter for each consumer with compromised personal information, for up to two years.

Some covered companies, like small businesses and non-profit organizations, that are unable to provide free credit reports due to cost may be exempt from this practice.  Additionally, companies that find other correspondence methods too costly may employ alternative notification methods like contacting print and broadcast media to inform the public. If a company does not follow the reporting requirements and are not exempted from certain practices, they can be fined.

If this legislation is passed, a company’s data security will not improve as a result of it, but rather in spite of it. Companies are improving security to combat the threat of class-action lawsuits and enormous financial losses as a result of a security breach without federal action. The Data Security and Breach Notification Act fails to understand that companies are also victims when dealing with cyberattacks, and no matter what security measures are in place, all electronic information is vulnerable to being hacked. The bill also fails to acknowledge the role bankcards play in the insecurity of personal information. As noted by David French, Vice President of The National Retail Federation, the bankcard industry prefers magnetic strip cards over PIN-and-Chip technology, which is more secure. Retail companies cannot be the only group held accountable for the actions of cyber criminals.

Requiring companies to notify government organizations, credit reporting agencies, and consumers is a more effective policy.  Although companies are improving cybersecurity, a breach in that security could cause companies to hide or delay informing consumers. This delay may impede a person from contacting their financial institution in time to prevent the misuse of his personal information. Another benefit of requiring companies to inform the public of a breach is that it reduces the consumer burden of proving identity fraud. Consumers need to be protected, and when companies fall short of providing that protection, they have a responsibility to assist consumers in correcting the company’s mistake; however, lawmakers should consider that consumers and companies are victims of data security breaches, and that different industries influence the ability to effectively secure data.

—

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Chris Potter/StockMonkeys.com via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Security Breach: The Senate Wants to Protect Your Information appeared first on Law Street.

Happy November, folks! Has everyone ditched their spooky, jack-o-lantern-themed front door decorations for some good, old-fashioned hand turkeys? Yes? AWESOME.

Feels good to start fresh, am I right? Post-Halloween, fall takes on a whole new aura.

And the Senate seems to agree! They’re not swapping out their seasonal front door decorations (or are they?), but they are introducing a new piece of legislation! Yay!

Well, sort of, at least. The Senate’s about to vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, affectionately termed ENDA by those of us who talk about this shit all day. It’s not actually a new piece of legislation, since it was first introduced in 1994, and passed in 1998, under President Clinton. But after this vote, it might have some important new provisions.

Specifically, this week’s vote is about adding protections that would benefit the LGBT community, so that all of us non-breeders don’t have to worry about getting unceremoniously fired. That would be good, right?

Absolutely! Except here’s the problem—this new and improved version of ENDA doesn’t have great prospects in the House. A bunch of Congress-people down there are planning to vote against it.

We’re looking at you, Boehner. You are just not a likeable guy these days, my man.

He’s publicly opposed the bill, sending one of his henchmen (I mean, spokespeople! Freudian slip, my bad), Michael Steel, to tell the press, “The speaker believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs.”

So, passing a bill that will prevent people from getting fired will magically make jobs disappear? Oh, Boehner, you silly goose. You’ve got it backwards! When people don’t get fired, they get to keep their jobs, meaning less unemployment and a better economy for everyone. But you knew that, right?

Right.

Also, frivolous litigation? So, when people sue their employers for wrongful termination, you would consider that to be frivolous? Interesting.

I think what Speaker Boehner is getting at here, is the idea that adding the LGBT community to ENDA is unnecessary. According to him, us queers don’t have a problem with employment discrimination, and if we do, there’s other legislation that can handle it for us.

By that line of reasoning, if we get more laws protecting our employment prospects, queers would pretty much be unfire-able. Every time one of us faces termination—no matter how warranted—we’ll threaten our employer with a discrimination lawsuit, and wind up either suing people left and right, or never being unemployed again.

Ah, if only life were that simple, Boehner. Here’s the reality for queers in the workforce.

Thanks Upworthy!

In the 29 red states on this map, it’s completely legal to fire someone from their job because of their sexual orientation.

Literally. No exaggerations, no equivocations. For real.

In the 29 red states, if your boss does not approve of who you like to fuck in your spare time, he or she can fire your ass, no questions asked.

That is a major problem.

And it’s worse for trans or gender-non-conforming people. There are 33 states where it’s totally legal to fire someone based on their gender identity.

Seriously. And, up to 43 percent of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have experienced harassment or discrimination at work because of their sexual orientation. Ninety percent of trans folks have had these experiences.

Is it just me, or are those some extremely depressing numbers?

For starters, it sucks being harassed or discriminated against at work. And that’s putting it lightly. We all spend the majority of our lives at work—imagine spending that time getting treated like shit by your boss and/or coworkers, just because of who you are? That shit’s soul crushing.

And that’s if you’re lucky enough to have a job at all. At least in this bummer-town scenario, you’re earning a paycheck.

But what happens when the abuse gets to be so bad that you’re forced to quit? Or when your boss decides that having a fabulous, queermo, rainbow butterfly on his payroll isn’t acceptable, and fires your ass?

Then you’ve got no way to pay your rent. No wonder queers face higher rates of poverty and unemployment.

So, Speaker Boehner, here’s the thing.

Adding sexual orientation and gender identity to ENDA, as two reasons that are NOT legal grounds for firing someone, is a good thing. At the end of the day, it translates to less unemployment, less poverty, and generally, less douche-iness.

So let’s get it done, Congress! Add us queers to your list of legally protected citizens who can’t be discriminated against in the workplace.

Then, maybe next week I won’t write a follow-up piece about how you’re all assholes.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Philippa Willitts via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Congress, Make it Stop: You Can Still Get Fired for Being Gay appeared first on Law Street.

It should go without saying that shutting down the government is not a good idea. It’s not good for the people of the United States, nor is it good internationally. Capital is stagnant, as seen with the plummeting stock market; and the idea that it is acceptable to stop something if you don’t like it is not only repulsive but is inherently being instilled in the minds of American citizens. As a functional citizen in the United States it is imperative to rethink government shutdowns.

 It is inevitable that the government was built to shut down because Congress can bring such a conversation to the table regarding the looming debt ceiling, and in this particular situation, Affordable Care Act. If a provision like this exists, it will unfortunately be used, often for the wrong reason. The trending question across the United States, and even the world is, “Why did the Government shutdown?” I have the answer.

The U.S. Constitution explicitly gave Congress one key responsibility, the power of the purse. This is the concept that provides Congress with the power to pass bills to fund the government. When they do not pass these bills, the government cannot run.

What is interesting, is that some services in the government are still funded. These are deemed as necessary expenses such as Social Security and Air Traffic Control. These are obviously viewed as essential expenditures.

What is also viewed as a necessary expenditure is that both Congress and the President still are paid—which is outrageous. Essentially, congressmen do not have to work and will be paid for just sitting around.

Members of the House came together in a moment of rare bipartisanship to pass a bill, by a vote of 407 to 0, approving back pay for furloughed government workers. It is funny how easy it is pass such legislation.

It is blatantly clear that this system is wrong. We should care that the system is broken because our government is inactive while we, the taxpayers, are still paying for our government.

It is necessary for the United States to have a checks and balance system in order to maintain a stable democracy—the power of the purse is one of those institutions. But the method in which essential expenditures are determined must be reviewed.

[CNN] [Washingtonpost] [Politico]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Rich Renomeron via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Shutdown Woes: Rethinking a Broken System appeared first on Law Street.

In a recent speech at the Center for American Progress, Senator Harry Reid shared his belief that the use of the filibuster has become an abused and exploited status quo in the Senate. He stated, “I love the Senate. But right now, the Senate is broken and needs to be fixed.”

The reason is simple: since the mid 1900s, the filibuster has been abused as a powerful tool to halt legislation. Essentially, if a Senator does not like the legislation, the wrath of the filibuster is relinquished.

Just look at Congress’s approval ratings. You know there is problem when the so-called “Do Little Congress” of 1947-1948 passed more legislation than 112th & 113th Congresses. While some blame this on party polarization, which is partly true, it really boils down to is the abusive nature of the filibuster.

I think it is safe to say that the general public absolutely despises the filibuster. But the filibuster was once a strategic tool that improved the democratic process.

When the filibuster was used in the “unwritten constitution” during the 1850s, it was intended to function as a means to give the minority party a voice. Essentially, a senator would be able to stop a piece of legislation, discuss it, reform it, or get rid of it entirely. From 1800s to the early 1900s the filibuster was rarely used–only utilized in dire situations with significant legislation. One notable use of the filibuster took place in 1841 when Senator William King successfully filibustered Senator Henry Clay’s attempt to recharter the national bank. Yet when looking at the present, it is clear that use of the filibuster has changed significantly since its inception.

In the early 1970’s, the filibuster took a turn for the worst, when Senator Mike Mansfield and Senator Robert Byrd introduced a new legislative process that allowed the Senate to “multi-task” during a filibuster. It was contingent on the ability to work on two tracks: a senator can filibuster legislation on one track, while the Senate as a whole functions as usual on the other track. In theory, this would improve the efficiency of Congress. Instead, the ability to threaten a filibuster, sometimes referred to as a “silent filibuster” was born.

Since that drastic change to the senate legislative process, the filibuster has become a negative trend, resulting in an unproductive congress and a disgruntled American populace. This poses the question; where is the change?

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid expressed the necessity for reform, proposing that the Senate would change the rules to require a simple majority vote to advance executive nominees, contrasting with the current 60-vote threshold. This was expressed in his nuclear option, quoted in Politico. “This is a moment in history when circumstances dictate the need for change” Reid said at the Center for American Progress. Thanks for realizing this Senator Reid. It’s better late than never.

[Huffingtonpost] [Washingtonpost] [Politico]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Martha Soukup via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Filibusters: Past, Present, and Future appeared first on Law Street.

Day two of the government shutdown has come and gone, and the streets of Washington, D.C. remain much emptier than they were two days ago.  Today though, hope of a compromise shone through the darkness of out-of-office messages and locked government buildings.

President Obama hosted an afternoon meeting of Congressional leaders that lasted for an hour and a half.  Parties present at the meeting reported that it was unproductive, but the fact that the meeting occurred is slow progress.  In the beginning of this debacle, the President had stated that the resolution was squarely on the shoulders of Representatives and Senators.

Obama’s intrusion into the stalemated talks for funding of the government evidences the urgency with which this shutdown is being approached.

The first day of the shutdown was met with a collective shock at the actions of our politicians, as it perfectly illustrated the pettiness often associated with legislative politics.

The public relations and communications teams for politicians are likely working around the clock to restore the battered images that are resulting from the shutdown.  In addition to this meeting, 108 lawmakers have pledged to donate their salaries to charities in solidarity with the hundreds of thousands of federal employees not receiving pay.

 Congress will continue working over time until a compromise is met, especially because the minute this conflict is resolved, they will need to decide whether to raise the debt ceiling.  The deadline for that decision is October 17, and is the determining factor in whether the government will be able to pay its bills.

 The debt issue is as big a deal as the government shutdown, and could have a much more devastating effect on the steady economic progress the country is experiencing.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Marina Noordegraaf via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

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

The post Shutdown 2013: The End of Day Two Sees Slow Progress appeared first on Law Street.

Although it has already passed the Senate, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says there is still a lot of work left to do in order to sell the immigration reform bill that he co-authored.

At an event hosted by the AFL-CIO, McCain announced that he will be traveling all over Arizona speaking with groups in the influential coalition of Latino organizations, evangelicals and business leaders who want to see reform passed.

“So far — I have to give you some straight talk — we haven’t done as effective a job as we’re going to have to between now and the spring,” McCain said while addressing his constituents in an attempt to gain support for the bill.

[Huffington Post]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Medill DC via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John McCain Pushing for Immigration Reform appeared first on Law Street.

Congress by The Sunlight Foundation

The Sunlight Foundation is an educational organization with the mission of increasing transparency in the U.S. government and shining light on the information that, though readily available to the public, is over overlooked.

The Sunlight Foundation’s newest release, Congress for iPhone and Android, is a user-friendly law and bill tracker that allows users to view bills in their real-time process. Congress offers all of its features for free, with the mission of educating and informing the public about governmental activities that often do not receive enough attention.

Features:

• Track and view bills as they happen
• View legislator profiles in the house and senate
• Connect with legislators through Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and their respective governmental websites
• View how legislators have voted on bills and see what they have sponsored
• Follow bills to receive activity updates as they happen

You may also be interested in The Sunlight Foundation’s many other apps including:

Sitegeist

Sitegeist combines open data in a way that allows users to learn more about the area around them. Using publicly available APIs, the app presents infographics with statistics on the people, housing, events, environment and history of a location.

Ad Hawk

Ad Hawk  helps identify political ads as they air. Ad Hawk makes an acoustic fingerprint based on audio recorded while a television or radio ad plays and compares it against a central database for a match. The application will then display information about the candidate, organizations, issues and other relevant information.

Sunlight Health

Sunlight Health is an application to look up healthcare services, medical suppliers and prescription drugs. Using data from government and nonprofit institutions, the app shows government ratings of hospitals and nursing homes, nearby locations to purchase home medical supplies and research on various prescription drug options.

[Sunlight Foundation]

—

Featured image courtesy of [sunlightfoundation via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Mobile App. ‘Congress’ Legislative Bill Tracker appeared first on Law Street.

The Senate ended debate on Tom Perez, President Obama’s Labor Secretary Nominee, with a cloture vote of 60-40, the minimum amount necessary to proceed to a final vote.  Six Republicans, two Independents, and all 52 Democratic Senators made up the coalition that led to the end of debate.  The vote came after Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) called for his colleagues to continue debate on Perez who reportedly did not cooperate with an investigation into his work at the Justice Department.  Despite Senator Rubio’s claims, there were still many who defended Perez, like Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) who said “The contentions made by the senator from Florida are just absolutely wrong.”

Perez has been waiting for his confirmation since he was nominated by President Obama back in March.  He was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee early in June with a 17-2 vote, and has been waiting for a senate vote since then.

[Politico]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Maryland GovPics via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Cloture — Barely — for Labor Nominee Tom Perez appeared first on Law Street.