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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

The post Congress Votes to Override Veto of ‘Sponsors of Terrorism’ Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Nearly 15 years ago, after hijacked airplanes took down the World Trade Center buildings, punctured a hole in the Pentagon, and crash-landed on an airstrip in Pennsylvania, lawmakers stood on the steps of the U.S. Capitol building and sang “God Bless America.” On Friday, lawmakers gathered once more to sing Irving Berlin’s 1918 tune, and to commemorate the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks with a moment of silence. Soon after, the House passed a bill that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia, which some believe played a role in the trio of attacks that took nearly 3,000 American lives.

Sponsored and supported by a bi-partisan collection of lawmakers, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act has now passed both the Senate–which it did in May–and the House. It cleared both chambers by a unanimous voice vote. The bill’s text reads:

The purpose of this Act is to provide civil litigants with the broadest possible basis, consistent with the Constitution of the United States, to seek relief against persons, entities, and foreign countries, wherever acting and wherever they may be found, that have provided material support, directly or indirectly, to foreign organizations or persons that engage in terrorist activities against the United States.

Though it successfully passed through the House and the Senate, an accomplishment given the polarized climate of American politics, the bill is not guaranteed to be signed into law. Since its inception, President Obama has said he would veto the legislation.

“This legislation would change long-standing, international law regarding sovereign immunity,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in May, after the bill cleared the Senate. “And the president of the United States continues to harbor serious concerns that this legislation would make the United States vulnerable in other court systems around the world.” If he chooses to veto the bill, it would be the first override of a bill during his presidency.

Saudi Arabia has long been suspected of playing some sort of role in the 9/11 attacks–15 of the 19 perpetrators were Saudi citizens. With the release of 28 previously disclosed pages on its involvement in July, efforts to hold them accountable have heightened.

White House official’s concern, they say, is that passing the bill could set a dangerous precedent which foreign governments could use to sue U.S. citizens or government. In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on Thursday, Terry Strada, whose husband was killed in the New York attack, said that she and other victims’ families simply are looking for accountability.

“We’re just going to hold people accountable for terrorism acts, for funding and financing terrorist acts on United States soil that kills American citizens.” she said. “As long as we’re not funding terrorist groups, and we’re not causing terrorist attacks in other countries, we don’t have anything to worry about.

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 As 15th Anniversary of 9/11 Looms, House Passes ‘Sponsors of Terrorism Act’ appeared first on Law Street.

Tennessee’s governor, Bill Haslam, vetoed HB0615 yesterday, a bill that would have designated the Holy Bible as the state book of Tennessee. Before the governor’s veto, the bill was passed in the state house by a vote of 55-38 and in the senate by a vote of 19-8. While some argue that naming the Bible as the official state book would fundamentally intertwine the church and state, others argue that the Bible’s historic and economic significance make it relevant and appropriate as a state book.

Opponents of the bill were outraged by the thought of the Bible being designated as the state book for several reasons and, therefore, thankful that the governor vetoed the bill. First came the obvious question of the government promoting or advancing one religion over another. The ACLU-Tennessee Executive Director Hedy Weinberg pointed out potential issues with the legislation, saying:

Lawmakers’ thinly veiled effort to promote one religion over other religions clearly violates both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions.

Instituting the Bible as the state book would suggest the furtherance of Bible-based religions, like Christianity, over other religions that aren’t based on the bible. It would fundamentally violate the separation of church and state laid out in both the national and state constitutions.

Thank you, Gov. Bill Haslam, for taking a stand for religious liberty and against theocracy. https://t.co/MTREfE6Z9w

— David Waters (@DavidWatersCA) April 15, 2016

Others made fun of Tennessee for being a state so focused on religion with satirical and ironic tweets.

The Tennessee state senate voted to make the Bible the state book, I'm assuming because nobody there could name another one.

— J. Elvis Weinstein (@JElvisWeinstein) April 6, 2016

Hope the new official Tennessee state book doesn't fry in my hands while reading it. Think I'd rather go to hell

— Josh Sebastian (@tnseabass) April 6, 2016

One state Senator, Jeff Yarboro from Nashville, recognized that, even though it may be hard for some members of the legislature to want to vote against an important symbol of their faith, they needed to consider the constitutionality of their actions. “I understand that it’s hard to vote against the Bible—no one wants to do that. We have an obligation to follow the Constitution,” Yarboro told the Tennessean.

The final argument against making the Bible the state book is one that the governor himself made, and it’s not what you might expect. Similar to what our founding fathers claimed about the separation of church and state, Governor Haslam feels that making the Bible the Tennessee state book would trivialize the Bible. He even cited the founding fathers in his argument. In a letter to Beth Harwell, the Tenessee Speaker of the House, he said,

Our founders recognized that when the church and state were combined, it was the church that suffered in the long run.

He also acknowledged the difference between religion being celebrated and openly discussed in government and the actual establishment of religion by government:

Men and women motivated by faith have every right and obligation to bring their belief and commitment to the public debate. However, that is very different from the governmental establishment of religion that our founders warned against and our Constitution prohibits.

In order to override the governor’s veto, the legislature just needs a simple majority in each chamber, which seems like it could be easily attained based on the original vote counts. So, keep an eye on Tennessee everyone. It looks like it could soon become the first state to recognize a religious text as their state book and it will be interesting to see the repercussions that it may face.

Alexandra Simone

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

The post Tennessee Governor Rejects Bible as Official State Book appeared first on Law Street.

For the second time since 2015, West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) vetoed a proposal to allow people 21 and older to carry hidden guns without permits or training.

The West Virginia House voted 64-33 less than 24 hours after the governor’s decision to override the bill. It then went to the Senate, where in a 23-11 vote Saturday, the Senate voted to override the veto as well.

Permitless concealed carry coming to West Virginia after legislature overrides governor’s veto https://t.co/sJ118RaOgu

— The Washington Times (@wtimesnation) March 7, 2016

The law will go into effect in 90 days.

House Bill 4145 will get rid of the state’s current permit and training program for citizens carrying concealed weapons in West Virginia for anyone 21 and older. However, permits will still be required for those between 18-21.

According to the bill, it “establish[es] that criminal penalties for carrying a concealed deadly weapon without state license or other lawful authorization apply only to persons under twenty-one years of age and prohibited persons.”

Those excluded from the rule include those with diagnosed substance-abuse problems, multiple alcohol-related driving infractions, alcohol addiction, or serious criminal records.

Gov. Tomblin released this statement after his veto:

West Virginia’s law enforcement officers have dedicated their lives to keeping us safe and helping us in times of need, and it’s disheartening that the members of the Legislature have chosen not to stand with these brave men and women – putting their safety and the safety of West Virginians at risk. It’s unfortunate that the concerns of officers from every law enforcement branch in the state, including the West Virginia State Police and university campus police officers, have been ignored by today’s action.

What made this veto different than the previous one in 2015 is that the legislature had more time in order to override the governor’s decision. In West Virginia, it only takes a simple majority to override vetoes, thus making it easier with ample time.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) asked the legislature to reconsider swiftly following the governor’s decision.

It is already legal in West Virginia to carry a gun openly, like in a holster, without a permit. This bill will just make concealed weapon carry legal without a permit for citizens over 21.

Citizens ages 18-20 would need to participate in a training program involving live firing in order to get a permit.

There are a handful of other states that do not require permits.

According to The Washington Post, “Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Wyoming and Vermont don’t require a permit at all for concealed carry in public. Vermont has never had such a requirement; Alaska went permit-free in 2003; Arizona in 2010; Wyoming in 2011 (limited to residents); and Arkansas in 2013.”

Some of these programs do away with background checks, which are highly favored by Americans.

In a Quinnipiac poll released in 2014, it found that 92 percent of Americans surveyed favored background checks for all gun buyers. In 2013 the number was 89 percent.

Julia Bryant

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

The post West Virginia Legislature Overrides Veto Allowing Permitless Concealed Carry 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.

A new bill placed on Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s desk had me looking at the calendar to make sure we’re still living in 2014. On Monday, February 24, 2014 the Arizona State Legislature passed a bill that would allow companies to deny services to gays and others on ‘religious grounds’. Other Arizonians, despite their conservatism, spoke out against the measure, and various groups lobbied the governor to veto the bill. Both of Arizona’s Republican senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, tweeted that they hoped Brewer would veto the measure. Thankfully, the veto came on Wednesday, February 26.

It seems unusual for an executive to veto legislation coming from a legislature dominated by their  own party. Arizona’s government is dominated by the GOP, both in the state legislature as well in the governor’s office. However, this was no ordinary bill: in fact, even some of the original supporters and drafters were having second thoughts about the potential consequences of the radical legislation. They noted that the bill’s final product was not what they originally intended and believed that its passage would cause the state “immeasurable harm.” 

Here are three reasons why it is important that Brewer vetoed the bill: 

1. It’s just bad business.

If the law passed, Arizona could have lost out on bringing new business and capital to the state. Representatives from Apple and American Airlines, two major companies that planned to build new operations in Arizona, wrote to Brewer to express deep concern about the bill’s effects and stated that they would relocate their new facilities elsewhere. And there was potential for many more companies to react the same way. 

Governor Brewer’s state had already experienced economic backlash due to the implementation of another controversial policy. After the state passed its notorious immigration law in 2010, Arizona’s economy lost about $140 million in business and tourism revenue. Moreover, the state is slated to host next year’s Superbowl, but the NFL has already publicly criticized the bill and could potentially threaten relocation of the game. Again, this wouldn’t be the first time — Arizona lost its ability to host the 1993 Superbowl because it failed to recognize Martin Luther King, Jr. day as a national holiday. Both of these experiences showed Brewer the economic danger of passing controversial legislation.

2. The bill misinterpreted religious freedom.

Supporters of the bill, SB-1062, argued that it was intended to better protect religious freedom. Doug Napier, an attorney representing the Alliance Defending Freedom, commented after the veto: “Today’s veto enables the foes of faith to more easily suppress the freedom of the people of Arizona.” However, the grounds on which the legislation’s supporters argued that the bill enhanced personal religious freedom are not supported. If enacted into law, the bill would have changed Arizona’s religious exercise clause to allow citizens and businesses to refuse services to a specific group of people.

The drafters of the bill incorrectly applied the notion of freedom of religion. The First Amendment states that freedom of religion is guaranteed to all Americans to freely practice their beliefs without persecution or discrimination. What freedom of religion was not intended for, however, was the imposition of one’s religious beliefs on another. It is understood that practitioners of some religions may oppose homosexuality due to the teachings of their faith, but that does not mean that services can be denied to gay Americans because of someone’s religious beliefs. The fact that someone identifies as anything other than heterosexual should not impact someone else’s practice of religion, and therefore to say that freedom of religion supports the Arizona bill is simply wrong.

3. And of course, the bill was highly discriminatory toward gay Americans.

If signed into law, SB-1062 would have allowed gay Americans and others to be denied services just because of who they are. These people would have been discriminated against because of their personal identities — something that cannot be changed. It is no different than denying someone services because of his or her race or ethnicity. In fact, the bill would have violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares that states cannot limit the rights and privileges of American citizens. The bill would have limited the rights and privileges of gay Americans, and thus would have inflicted discrimination on a group of citizens in Arizona.

Because Brewer vetoed the bill, citizens in Arizona will not be forced to comply with the discriminatory law. However, the fact that the legislature passed it in the first place is deeply troubling. 

[New York Times] [Bloomberg] [NBC] [CNN] [FJC]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Mel Green via Flickr]

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 Brewer’s Choice: Why the Veto Was the Only Option appeared first on Law Street.