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:

Republican Health Plan Struggles, But Clears First Obstacle

On Monday, Republicans unveiled their new health care plan to replace the Affordable Care Act. Yesterday, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan tried his best to sell the plan, after dissatisfaction was expressed across the political spectrum. But there’s still lots of criticism floating around–various groups representing medical doctors, retired citizens, and insurance companies from both the left and the right have spoken out against it. Some powerful conservative groups and lawmakers have organized to oppose the new plan, claiming that it doesn’t go far enough, and calling it “Obamacare-lite.”

But at least Donald Trump is supportive of the plan, and said, “we’re gonna have a tremendous–I think we’re gonna have a tremendous success.” Overnight, the House Ways and Means Committee became the first to approve it, after 18 hours of debate. The White House wants the plan to pass by April 7, but that might be easier said than done considering recent setbacks.

Despite objections from doctors, nurses, hospitals, the AMA & the AARP, and not knowing the cost, Republicans rushed through #Trumpcare. https://t.co/kc5s2bZeVH

— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) March 9, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 9, 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:

Talk Spanish To Me, Tim Kaine

As the election continues to make us groan, Tim Kaine continues to impress us. He can play the harmonica, he’s insanely charismatic and, get this…he can speak Spanish like a boss. Kaine made history by delivering a stump speech entirely in Spanish at a community center in Arizona.

After Trump’s “bad hombres” and constant alienation of bilingual and multilingual families, Tim Kaine sought to rally key voters by actually speaking their language and treating them with respect.

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 4, 2016 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:

Yahoo: “U.S. Intelligence Made Us Do It!”

Reuters reported Tuesday that Yahoo has been doing broad sweeps of its users’ incoming emails under the (no longer) classified directive of the NSA or the FBI. The details of what the company was supposed to be looking for are still unclear. When asked about the matter, Yahoo said: “Yahoo is a law abiding company, and complies with the laws of the United States.”

Which is legalese for: Yahoo denies any semblance of wrongdoing. This news comes weeks after Yahoo announced a 500 million account hack.

*Suspicious squint*

Also Yahoo’s pending deal to be purchased by telecom giant Verizon for $4.8 billion is looking pretty rickety.

via GIPHY

Sources say that it is likely other tech companies have been ordered by the government to conduct this type of surveillance too. Reuters says Google and Microsoft have not responded to requests for comment on the issue.

Rant Crush

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

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

Never has the United States seen a powerhouse debate quite like…Senator Tim Kaine and Mike Pence–two people that most of the United States don’t really care about.

But that’s kind of the point–a big part of tonight’s debate was trying to get to know the two VP candidates, who have thus far been overshadowed by their significantly more famous ticket-mates. So here were the five most defining moments of tonight’s debate:

No One Played Nice…From the First Question

From almost the first moment of the debate, Kaine and Pence went after each other. The two started squabbling early, beginning with disagreements over Hillary Clinton’s record, and the way that her campaign has been run. Pence said: “Well, let me say first and foremost that, Senator, you and Hillary Clinton would know a lot about an insult-driven campaign. It really is remarkable.”

Just a few minutes later, Kaine went hard against Trump over the tax return issue, pointing out that by not paying his federal taxes, he’s not supporting the military. Pence tried to brush it off, but Kaine got some punches in too.

Put simply: these two VP candidates brought the fire, and we finally started to see a hint of their unique personalities.

Pence Put his Foot in his Mouth on Racism and Implicit Bias

Pence tried to give a compassionate answer about police shootings in the United States, and claimed that implicit bias isn’t really something we should be caring about. He said:

Donald Trump and I both believe that there’s been far too much of this talk of institutional bias or racism in law enforcement.

For a lot of people, that kind of broad-brushed, and frankly pretty inaccurate, claim sat very poorly with a lot of people:

KAINE: there’s bias in the system

PENCE: what about when black cops shoot black people

this isn’t even a joke this just happened

— tc (@chillmage) October 5, 2016

Mike Pence has clearly never spent any time thinking about race. Like at all. #VPDebate

— Zerlina Maxwell (@ZerlinaMaxwell) October 5, 2016

Bringing up the race of a black officer to argue there isn’t “implicit bias” in policing shows you don’t know definition of “implicit bias”

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) October 5, 2016

Mike Pence Didn’t Talk that Much About Donald Trump

Mike Pence stayed away from talking a lot about his running mate, Donald Trump. Instead, Pence went on the offensive, going after Clinton and Kaine’s records, as well as President Barack Obama’s two terms in office.

That was probably a smart call. Mike Pence had a job to do tonight–look like the adult in the room. And by not trying to defend some of Trump’s more indefensible positions, he didn’t have to try to look like an adult purely at the expense of his running mate.

Tim Kaine Really Liked his Zingers…and the Tax Return Point

Whoever writes the one-liners and zingers for the Hillary Clinton campaign has perhaps been slacking a bit. Tim Kaine had some good jabs at Trump and Pence, but also had some that fell a little flat.

Kaine: “Donald Trump has a Mt Rushmore” of world dictators. Pence: “Did you work on that a long time?” Mocks Kaine zingers. #VPDebate

— Jennifer Griffin (@JenGriffinFNC) October 5, 2016

No zingers are worse than zingers from old debates.

— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) October 5, 2016

But for as many zingers as Tim Kaine tried to put out there, he also make a lot of comments about Trump’s tax returns. He brought almost every point back to it–and don’t get me wrong, it’s a powerful slam against Trump. But Kaine brought it up perhaps a few times too many, to the point where it became almost ineffective.

A Faith Question for Both Candidates

Kaine is a Catholic who has worked with Jesuit missionaries in South America; Pence is an Evangelical Christian who has long been a social conservative. A conversation about their faith led to a discussion on abortion, and it became one of the most substantive exchanges of the two debates so far.

This year’s election has been in some cases more about personal attacks than about the real ideological divides between the Democrats and the Republicans. While Kaine and Pence didn’t manage to totally avoid personal questions, some substance did shine through in tonight’s debate, and it was a welcome change.

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 Five Most Defining Moments of the Kaine-Pence VP Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Tonight, Senator Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s running mate, and Governor Mike Pence, Donald Trump’s running mate, will face off at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia at 9 PM EST. Here are the answers to the pressing questions you might have before tonight’s vice presidential debate:

So…Who are These Guys?

Republican VP nominee Governor Mike Pence was elected as Indiana’s governor in 2012. He served as a congressman for 12 years, and before that he worked as a political radio pundit. He’s a strong social conservative and a supporter of the Tea Party movement.

Democratic VP nominee Tim Kaine has served as Richmond, Virginia’s mayor, Governor of Virginia, and now a senator from his home state. He also served as the DNC chair for part of Obama’s presidency. Kaine is Catholic, speaks fluent Spanish, and has a lot of experience working with the military and in foreign policy.

Why Haven’t I Heard a Lot About Either of Them?

Pence and Kaine both have impressive resumes, but when surveyed, 41 percent of Americans couldn’t name Mike Pence, and 46 percent couldn’t name Tim Kaine. Both Pence and Kaine were chosen, in part, to balance out their more attention-grabbing running mates.

Often VPs are put in a position to be a little more fiery than their running mates and to take shots at the other side not befitting a presidential candidate. Pence and Kaine are almost the opposite this year–they are supposed to be the calmer ones, and to soften their controversial presidential counterparts.

What Are They Talking About Tonight?

Both candidates are going to come in ready to defend their candidate’s platforms, and they’ll likely have to defend their candidates as well. From questions about missing tax returns to missing emails, you’re probably going to hear “Hillary” and “Donald” a lot tonight.

But that doesn’t mean that Pence and Kaine won’t get any personal jabs in on each other. Pence has been criticized for his extremely social conservative positions in the past, like his support of Indiana’s “religious freedom” law, which led to anti-LGBT discrimination. Kaine may have to defend the fact that throughout his career, he’s been viewed as a flip-flopper on the issues of abortion and the death penalty.

Will Tim Kaine do His Donald Trump Impression Again?

We can only hope.

Will Mike Pence’s Daughter Show up on Camera?

Mike Pence’s daughter didn’t show up in a mirror during a campaign stop earlier this summer. Will anyone ask Pence about his possibly vampiric daughter? We’ll have to see on that one.

at first you think w/e this is just mike pence and his fam enjoying a nice meal at chilis. then you realize HIS DAUGHTER ISNT IN THE MIRROR pic.twitter.com/fGO1PlEQXP

— Roberto Ferdman (@robferdman) September 26, 2016

Who is Moderating the Debate?

Tonight’s VP debate moderator is Elaine Quijano, of CBS News. She’s the child of Filipino immigrants, and she’s the first Asian-American individual to moderate a presidential or vice presidential debate. While Pence and Kaine will likely be slightly easier to reign in than Trump or Clinton, Quijano, as the debate’s sole moderator, certainly has a hefty task in front of her.

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 you Need to Know about Tonight’s Vice Presidential Debate 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:

Roadside Killers Arrested In North Charleston

Like a plot from a thriller movie, two teens are being charged for murdering a man who helped them get their car out of a ditch. Major WTF. 17-year-old Deon Frasier and 19-year-old Michael Dupree-Taylor were arrested Monday night on murder charges as well as one count of possession of a weapon.

The victim had stopped to help the two boys pull their Dodge Durango out of a ditch in North Charleston, South Carolina. After the car was retrieved, the boys robbed and shot the man before driving off. Not cool, bro.

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: August 17, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Americans don’t like this election. This year has been negative and distracting, and honestly, we deserve better.  Whether you take umbrage with Donald Trump’s hateful comments, Hillary Clinton’s email server, or you’re just frustrated with the direction your party has taken, you’re not alone. Many voters are disillusioned with the candidates who emerged from the primaries, and the general election is expected to be an even nastier fight.

But there’s another fight that deserves our attention, one with far less negativity baked into the candidates. The undercard fight is a cleaner, better fight. If you look to the vice presidential picks, Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, you get a glimpse of what that reset might look like. Pence and Kaine disagree on almost everything—gun rights, civil liberties, religious freedom, women’s health–yet they’re similar in that they avoid negative campaigning, and are seen as caring family men.

@KevinMKruse Both grew up Catholic, but took different paths: Kaine adhered to Jesuit training; Pence became an “evangelical Catholic” /2

— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) July 28, 2016

The vice presidential candidates make waves for policy decisions, rather than personal drama. They’re better representations of party values than the frontrunners are. They want to focus on the issues central to their party and central to their beliefs. Of course, you still might despise their decisions — but hating ideas is whole lot better than hating a person.

Imagine turning on the TV, and instead of hearing pundits analyzing the latest disparaging remarks from one candidate to the other, they debate whether a certain is good for the economy, or whether one is discriminatory. The closest chance we’ll have for that kind of debate will be when the VP candidates have their chance to spar.

People are already remarking on the similarities and differences between the two men, and while some people will still make jokes, the tone of their comparison is much more serious:

Tim Kaine always looks like he’s seconds from laughing and Mike Pence always looks like he’s seconds from screaming

— Erin Gloria Ryan (@morninggloria) July 28, 2016

Both @mike_pence and @timkaine were student body presidents of their high schools pic.twitter.com/7wMsZqN8te

— Dave Jorgenson (@davejorgenson) July 28, 2016

Both VP nominees have strong records in promoting trade. Tim Kaine –> https://t.co/LiyyTNpMH7 Mike Pence –> https://t.co/Ri60F08B97

— U.S. Chamber (@USChamber) July 28, 2016

I wish that we had a chance to start over with candidates who are seen for their policy rather than their baggage. Perhaps then we could get a chance to reset and focus more on the differences between our solutions rather than the differences between our character.

Sean Simon

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

The post Pence vs. Kaine: The Election America Deserves appeared first on Law Street.

This year, Law Street Media is attending both the RNC and DNC conventions, and bringing Law Street readers the inside scoop. We’ll be doing day-by-day rundowns and exclusive features. Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat for even more content.

Here’s a look at the third day of the festivities, courtesy of Law Street reporters Alexis Evans and Anneliese Mahoney:

Big Tech Presence at DNC

Several tech companies, including Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft, set up shop inside the Wells Fargo Center for the Democratic National Convention. The arena quickly turned into an analytics lover’s paradise, as each company seemingly competed for the award for biggest data tech screen.

Microsoft Station Courtesy of Anneliese Mahoney for Law Street Media

#TweetShop Courtesy of Alexis Evans for Law Street Media

Pokémon Go Break

In between speeches I had time to quickly catch a cp 36 Rattata that was hiding in a camera guys lap. Hey, Ash told me I “gotta catch em’ all” right?

Image Courtesy of Alexis Evans for Law Street Media

Bernie Protesters Take Over the Media Tent…Again

For the second night in a row, protesters took over the media tent. They were protesting the fact that Nina Turner, a Sanders’ delegate and backer, was allegedly blocked from being one of Sanders’ nominators.

Image courtesy of Anneliese Mahoney for Law Street Media

A few celebrities even joined the protest, including Danny Glover, Susan Sarandon, and Rosario Dawson.

Image courtesy of Anneliese Mahoney for Law Street Media

Gun Violence Theme

There was a strong gun violence theme day three at the convention. Democrats called upon the mother of one of the Pulse nightclub victims in Orlando, the daughter of  the slain Sandy Hook Elementary principal, two of the three survivors from the Mother Emanuel Church shooting in Charleston, SC, and Gabby Giffords to rally support against the gun lobby.

Watch Christine Leinonen, mother of Pulse victim Christopher “Drew” Leinonen, give an emotional plea for gun control below:

Christine Leinonen’s son died in the Orlando shooting; she made an emotional plea about gun control at the @DNCinPHLhttps://t.co/OzFmhuMCWR

— Business Insider (@businessinsider) July 28, 2016

Joe Biden Loves the Word Malarkey

Biden made a clear case against Donald Trump last night, calling out the Republican nominee’s “malarkey” and “you’re fired” catchphrase.

VP Joe Biden calls out Donald Trump’s ‘malarkey,’ says he ‘has no clue.’ https://t.co/ZlJFcMn4hn #DemConvention https://t.co/CaVzWLXtob

— ABC News (@ABC) July 28, 2016

Tim Kaine Became the DNC’s Dad

When Hillary’s VP first stepped onto the DNC stage Wednesday night, he was still a relatively unknown senator from Virginia to many Americans. But thanks to some smooth Spanish, hilarious “believe me” Trump impersonations, and corny Dad jokes, Tim Kaine quickly won over the crowd–becoming the DNC’s newly appointed dad. Here are some of Twitter’s best dad jokes during Kaine’s speech:

Tim Kaine absolutely SCOURED Consumer Reports to get the BEST car seat for his kid

— Charlie Warzel (@cwarzel) July 28, 2016

Tim Kaine is your friend’s dad who catches you smoking weed at a sleepover and doesn’t rat you out but talks to you about brain development

— PJ Vogt (@PJVogt) July 28, 2016

Tim Kaine just wants one word alone with your prom date.

— Jordan Weissmann (@JHWeissmann) July 28, 2016

Tim Kaine really wants you to have a good time at this party but would ask that you just remember to use a coaster!!!!!!

— Kevin O’Keeffe (@kevinpokeeffe) July 28, 2016

Tim Kaine comes off as that super goofy high school teacher who always made terrible jokes and is also the reason you got to go to college.

— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) July 28, 2016

Obama and Hillary Hug

Unlike Monday and Tuesday, every seat in the stadium was filled in anticipation for the president’s speech Wednesday night–and he sure delivered. Obama warned the American public against electing Trump, declaring “America is already great!” Obama stated,”Our power doesn’t come from some self-declared savior promising that he alone can restore order. We don’t look to be ruled.” 

Obama then gave a strong endorsement of his formal rival saying,

I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman–not me, not Bill, nobody–more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as President of the United States of America.

At the conclusion of Obama’s speech, Hillary surprised the audience by joining him onstage for a warm embrace. Looks like some rivals can truly become friends.

Hillary Clinton joins President Obama on DNC stage after his speech #DemsInPhilly pic.twitter.com/fQOhrPd2aT

— BuzzFeed (@BuzzFeed) July 28, 2016

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s up at the DNC?: Law Street’s Day 3 Coverage 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.

Before he extolled Hillary Clinton’s virtues and qualifications, Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) ripped into Donald Trump. He presented the audience–gathered in the gymnasium of Northern Virginia Community College for a rally–with a three-part quiz: “Do you want a ‘you’re fired’ president, or a ‘you’re hired’ president?”; “Do you want a trash talking president, or a bridge building president?”; “Do you want a ‘me first’ president or a ‘kids and families first’ president?”

If the couple hundred strong audience’s reaction was any indication, the latter–clearly Clinton–was the unanimous choice. Thursday’s rally was an audition of sorts for Kaine, a presumed favorite as Clinton’s running mate. And perhaps as a response to those who fear he is too bland, too safe, too vanilla for the job, Kaine grew red in the face while animating his reservations about Trump and his reverence for Clinton.

“‘Ready for Hillary’ in Español is ‘estamos listos para Hillary,'” said Kaine, a fluent Spanish speaker who has spent time in Honduras as a minister. “The word ‘ready’ in Spanish is a little bit different than the word ‘ready’ in English…[In Honduras] the best compliment you could receive is to say that you are ‘listo’ because it means you’re well prepared, ready to get on the battlefield. You’re ready to fight.” At this, the crowd erupted in chants of “Hillary, Hillary.”

When it was Clinton’s turn to speak, Trump took a backseat to policy points (she still managed to land a few jabs: “this would be a good reality show, it’s just so serious”). The former secretary of state and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee evoked the popular play “Hamilton”–which, she said, she has seen three time–and the historical context it explores. America’s founding fathers “did not all agree,” she said. “They didn’t even all like each other. But here’s what they did–they worked together, and they set the most outrageous, unbelievable goal.” Their achievement, she said, was transforming disparate colonies “into a nation that could stand with the rest of the world.”

Thousands wait in over ninety degree heat. Most were turned away.

And with that, Clinton presented America’s choice as the most consequential of her lifetime, perhaps of the country’s lifetime: “We are asked whether we want to go forward into our future with confidence, optimism and hope, or whether we give in to bigotry and bluster and bullying.” She added: “Coal country, Indian country, inner city neighborhoods. I want us all to rise together.” But after the rally, on a small lawn outside the gymnasium, a scene emblematic of America’s current political gridlock unfolded.

“As illustrated recently by what happened over the email scandal, [the Clintons] have not been honest or law abiding citizens,” Laurie Kirby, who with her husband Ron braved over ninety degree heat and a staggering sun, told Law Street. The Kirbys stood with a giant American flag and signs opposing Clinton as “unlawful” and “untrustworthy.” As the soft-spoken couple shakily expressed their support for Trump (“I don’t necessarily agree with every statement that comes out of his mouth,” said Laurie), Clinton supporters streamed past, shaking their heads, shouting “stronger together!” and booing the couple.

A small circle began to form: the Kirbys conversed with a stocky, boisterous man in sunglasses, M.T. Two young women joined in. Both were turned away from the rally, they told Law Street, because the gym had reached capacity. “Our reservation apparently wasn’t good enough,” said A.D. (who declined to provide her full name), a first-generation Somalian, and a rising sophomore at Northern Virginia Community College. A.D. and her friend I.K. (who also requested only her initials be used) came as “moderates,” open to hear what Clinton had to say.

As they discussed the “false promises” of Bernie Sanders and the “elitism” of Clinton, a woman–decked in Clinton gear and clutching a “stronger together” sign–shouted at the Kirbys: “[Hillary] is not a liar” and “not crooked.” “I’m a Hillary supporter all the way, thank you,” she said, joining the circle chat. While the debate over Clinton’s character raged on, M.T. laughed. “It’s a very great conversation, it’s great dialogue,” he said. “Only in America!” He grew serious and shook his head as the tone around him grew testy, and personal attacks began to fly. “Just because you have different political views doesn’t mean people have to shame each other,” he said.

Alec Siegel

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

The post At Virginia Rally, Tim Kaine Rips Trump, Praises “Ready” Clinton appeared first on Law Street.

Tim Kaine on Meet The Press

What does he do? Democratic Senator from Virginia.

What has he done? Mayor of Richmond, Lieutenant Governor of Virginia.

The argument for him: It’s difficult to think of an argument against Tim Kaine. Perhaps he’s not a hot young thing, but he’s got the perfect pedigree for the job, and his cautious style and strong resume help him fit the ideal Hillary mold–not a firebrand, but a policy wonk willing to show a little heart. He also has the benefit of already being vetted by Obama.

Likelihood? Since the beginning of “veepstakes” speculation, Tim Kaine has been a front-and-center choice. While he is most likely still the front runner, if Hillary is looking to add a “secret ingredient” to her campaign, she might look elsewhere.

Sean Simon

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

The post Get to Know Clinton’s Likely VPs appeared first on Law Street.

Executive control over declaring war or starting military missions has long been a controversial topic. According to the U.S. Constitution, only the legislative branch can order military attacks. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, sometimes called the War Powers Clause, declares that Congress has the power “to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

Despite Congress having authorization authority, many presidents have used their executive powers to send soldiers into battle without an official declaration of war. This has been done in order to quickly activate military forces until Congress has time to pass funding and other approval measures. One might think that this violates the Constitution and has the president undermining Congress. So what powers does the president have in commanding military operations?

A Complicated History

Due to the process of checks and balances, Congress and the president both have roles in military actions. Congressional approval is needed to declare war, fund armed missions, and make laws that shape the execution of the mission. The president has the power to sign off on or veto the declaration of war, just like on other congressional bills. The president is also the Commander-in-Chief and oversees the mission once Congress has declared war. So in short, if the president vetoes a congressional declaration of war, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate, and still force the president to control military action he does not support.

For more than 200 years presidents have asked Congress for approval of war, but many presidents have wanted to bypass Congress to put their own military operations into place. It wasn’t until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 that Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1941, which gave the executive branch more power over military interventions and homeland protection, including ordering war participation from independent government agencies, and expurgating communications with foreign countries. These powers lasted until six months after the military operation. The Second War Powers Act was passed the following year, which gave the executive branch more authority overseeing War World II operations. It was this act that allowed the U.S. to relocate and incarcerate more than 100,000 Japanese Americans.

Presidents used the War Powers Act numerous times over the next 20 years. Neither the Korean or Vietnam Wars were technically wars, but were military interventions in intense foreign conflicts because neither of them were passed as a declaration of war. This angered legislators who believed the president had too much control of the military. In response, they passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which President Richard Nixon vetoed arguing that it undermined his role as Commander-in-Chief; however, his veto was overridden by Congress.

What does the Resolution do?

The resolution extends the president’s power by allowing him to conduct military operations without congressional approval, but there are limits. The War Powers Resolution allows the president to send armed forces without congressional approval only if there is an attack on American soil or its territories; otherwise the military intervention would require congressional approval. It also forces the president to notify Congress within the first 48 hours of the mission and forbids armed forces from intervening longer than 60 days, with an additional 30 days to withdraw.

Has the War Powers Resolution been violated?

Since the beginning of the resolution, numerous presidents have put military actions into play without congressional support, sometimes well past the 60-day window. In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton continued the assault on Kosovo past the deadline. In this case, Congress did not directly approve the missions, but approved funding for them.

After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress overwhelming passed a law permitting President George W. Bush 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 acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” Support for the invasion of several Middle Eastern countries was high at first, but after years of fighting with no end in sight, approval for the “War on Terror” fell and so did public opinion of Bush’s handling of the war.

In 2011, President Barack Obama faced backlash from Congress and voters who claimed his use of executive powers as Commander-in-Chief were being stretched and that his actions overreached his authority. When the Libyan army started to kill its own citizens for protesting their government, Obama and leaders from several European countries decided to aid the Libyan civilian rebels by enforcing no-fly zones and providing aid for the cause. Because the president put into place a military action on his own, congressional Republicans called foul, saying he overstepped his boundaries by not first getting Congressional approval. The president defended his actions saying that U.S. military involvement did not meet the constitutional definition of a war and that it was not the U.S. that was leading the mission, but the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Despite his assertion, in a letter addressed to President Obama, Speaker John Boehner demanded that the president withdraw troops; ten lawmakers from both sides of the aisle filed a lawsuit against the President for not getting congressional approval for the intervention.

Fighting ended on October 31 and NATO ended its operations following the death of Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi. The suit, along with ideas for other potential legal actions, then ceased for the most part, due to dismissal precedent of similar cases.

How do voters feel about President Obama’s intervention?

At its beginning, most Americans were supportive of the president’s intervention in Libya. In March 2011, a Washington Post-ABC poll found that 56 percent of those polled were in favor of the U.S. implementing a no-fly zone across the region in order to protect Libyan rebels from government attacks. While the support for assistance was very high, Americans overwhelming believed that activating troops on the ground was too much, with polls showing disapproval around 90 percent.

Support for the military action was strong in the first weeks, with about 60 percent of Americans supporting the president’s initiatives, but as time marched on without any end in sight, support began to wane. By early June, only 26 percent of those surveyed believed the U.S. should continue the mission, according to a Rasmussen Report poll.

These polls seem to show that Americans don’t like unchecked military actions that go on too long. Does that mean the War Powers Act should be replaced with something that better balances executive actions and congressional approval?

Is repeal of the resolution on the horizon?

Congress has not officially declared war since June 1942 during World War II when it unanimously voted for war against the Axis countries of Bulgaria, Hungry, and Romania. Many lawmakers think that because the U.S. response to foreign conflicts has become quicker due to improvements in technology and intergovernmental military alliances–like NATO–that the War Powers Resolution is no longer needed.

Several members of Congress have suggested the repeal of the War Powers Resolution entirely, or replacing it with a measure that gives the president diminished power. In January 2014, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) revealed a piece of legislation, the War Powers Consultation Act of 2014, that would replace the resolution and restrict the president’s military power. It would require the president to consult with Congress before using military forces in foreign conflicts and require the president to consult Congress within three days of deployment. It also sought to create a Joint Congressional Consultation Committee that would enforce a dialog between the executive and legislative branches. The act would not apply to humanitarian or covert missions. After the Libyan conflict ended in a substantial NATO victory in October 2011, support for reform fell until military intervention in Syria in 2014.

Conclusion

The definition of war makes it difficult to effectively apply the War Powers Resolution. Does war mean boots on the ground, weaponry assistance, or no-fly zones? This question is hard to answer and is debated with almost every military intervention.

Americans tend to support giving an incumbent president more power over military decisions when citizens are attacked on U.S. soil, and during the early part of missions. Once the mission seems to be dragging on, support and morale fall, and so does congressional support. If a president wants to go rogue on his own, he has to get the job done fast or the missions might fail to maintain support. The War Powers Resolution has helped the U.S. respond to foreign conflicts quickly and without that power many missions may never have been started.

Resources

Primary

Library of Congress: The War Powers Act

Additional

Washington Post: Conditional Support For Libya No-Fly Zone

IBT: Majority of Americans Against Sending Ground Troops to Libya

Washington Post: White House Should be Moderately Worried on Libya

U.S. Senate: Official Declarations of War by Congress

Senator Tim Kaine: Kaine, McCain Introduce Bill to Reform War Powers Resolution

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 War Powers Act: Has it Outlasted Its Usefulness? appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

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.