Trump Invites Rodrigo Duterte to the White House

President Donald Trump has invited Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte to the White House–a move that has stunned human rights advocates. Now the administration is preparing for an expected wave of criticism and both the State Department and the National Security Council will likely raise objections internally. The administration described Trump’s phone call with the Filipino leader as a “very friendly conversation.” But Duterte is a controversial figure. He has led a crackdown on suspected drug criminals by allowing police to kill them. He has also admitted to killing suspects himself and called President Obama a “son of a whore.”

Trump White House praises Duterte’s drug-fighting efforts while neglecting minor matter of thousands of executions. https://t.co/XKDyilIeib pic.twitter.com/nFju5oiOo1

— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) May 1, 2017

“By essentially endorsing Duterte’s murderous war on drugs, Trump is now morally complicit in future killings,” said John Sifton, the Asia advocacy director of Human Rights Watch. Trump’s chief of staff Reince Priebus said that cultivating a better relationship with Southeast Asian nations is important, because it will help the U.S. deal with North Korea.

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: May 1, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday was the March for Science in many cities around the U.S. (and the world). According to the organizers, over 600 cities participated yesterday. The organizers explain the purpose:

People who value science have remained silent for far too long in the face of policies that ignore scientific evidence and endanger both human life and the future of our world. New policies threaten to further restrict scientists’ ability to research and communicate their findings.  We face a possible future where people not only ignore scientific evidence, but seek to eliminate it entirely.  Staying silent is a luxury that we can no longer afford.  We must stand together and support science.

The application of science to policy is not a partisan issue. Anti-science agendas and policies have been advanced by politicians on both sides of the aisle, and they harm everyone — without exception. Science should neither serve special interests nor be rejected based on personal convictions. At its core, science is a tool for seeking answers.  It can and should influence policy and guide our long-term decision-making.

But, as with many of this year’s protests, one of the highlights was the awesome signs many protesters came up with. Check out some of the best in the slideshow below:

These Awesome Science March Signs Prove Scientists have a Sense of Humour | https://t.co/11IBFaC8Gi pic.twitter.com/E2wItAgQgs

— Academia Obscura (@AcademiaObscura) April 23, 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 Killer Signs at the March for Science appeared first on Law Street.

Terminal illnesses are a heartbreaking reality of life–in many cases, doctors can only provide care to help patients feel less pain in their remaining days. But, some activists believe that it doesn’t have to be that way, and that patients with terminal illnesses should be able to have control over their deaths. Physician-assisted suicide is legal in six states in the United States, and multiple states have weighed whether or not to allow it in the last few years. Read on to learn what physician-assisted suicide is, where it’s legal, and the arguments for and against the controversial practice.

What is Physician-Assisted Suicide?

Physician-assisted suicide is the prescribing of some sort of life-ending drug to a patient by a doctor. The patient then takes the steps to end their own life. Physician-assisted suicide should not be confused with euthanasia–in euthanasia, the physician physically performs the death-causing act. There are other names for physician-assisted suicide, including “physician-assisted death,” “aid-in-dying,” “right to die,” and “death with dignity.”

Across states that have legalized the practice of physician-assisted suicide, the process varies. But there are some consistent elements–only licensed medical doctors (M.D.s) or doctors of osteopathy (D.O.s) can issue the prescription. Additionally, doctors must be willing to issue the prescriptions–by no means are they obligated to do so. Many of the states that have legalized physician-assisted suicide also require that there’s some sort of waiting period between when a patient requests the procedure and when it’s granted, and that multiple doctors are consulted in the decision.

Where is Physician-Assisted Suicide Legal?

Currently, there are six states where physician-assisted suicide is legal: Oregon, Washington, Vermont, California, Colorado, and Montana. It is also legal in Washington D.C.

Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide in 1994, with 51 percent of Oregon voters voting for it. However it wasn’t enacted until 1997. That was just a few months after the Supreme Court decided in Washington v. Glucksberg that state laws banning physician-assisted suicide are not unconstitutional. This meant that the decision of whether or not to legalize physician-assisted suicide would be left up to each state to determine; other Supreme Court rulings have since continued to validate that it’s a matter for states to decide.

In 2008, Washington became the second state to legalize physician-assisted suicide, via a voter referendum. In Washington, terminally ill residents who have less than six months to live may request drugs that would end their lives.

In 2009, the Montana Supreme Court ruled on Baxter v. Montana, and became the first case to essentially legalize physician-assisted suicide through a court case. Although there was no regulatory framework for physician-assisted suicide set up in the state, it ensured that a doctor cannot be prosecuted for the act.

In 2013, Vermont became the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide through its state legislature. Like many of the other laws, it includes caveats, including that terminally ill patients need to make multiple requests and wait 15 days after their initial request.

Then, in 2015, the California legislature passed the End of Life Option Act. Like the other states, California put certain restrictions on physician-assisted suicide. The patient must be at least 18, must have a diagnosis that will–within reasonable medical judgment–result in death within six months, and be deemed competent to make medical decisions, among other restrictions.

On November 8, 2016, Colorado voters voted in favor of Proposition 106, which legalized physician-assisted suicide in the state. Almost two-thirds of Coloradans voted in favor of the proposition, which like other states’ legalization measures, requires that the patient has less than six months to live, and is deemed competent to make a decision to end their life.

In late 2016, Washington DC’s council approved a Death with Dignity law, and Mayor Muriel Bowser signed it into law. However, based on the way that DC is set up, Congress has the ability to block laws enacted by the district. While Congress did not succeed in blocking this particular law, it has been known to prevent the city from setting up successful regulatory frameworks through budgetary measures, which could still happen.

Have Other States Tried to Legalize Physician Assisted Suicide?

Many states have introduced some sort of law or measure to legalize physician-assisted suicide recently, with most floundering. Michigan lawmakers proposed a physician-assisted suicide bill in late March 2017. Hawaii’s House of Representatives “deferred” a physician-assisted suicide bill, essentially killing it for now. New Mexico’s Senate just voted down a physician-assisted suicide bill. Other states have considered or may consider bills soon, including Maine, while others, like Kansas, are considering resolutions that would ban physician-assisted suicide. For many of the states considering legalizing physician-assisted suicide, it’s not the first time. In the mid-1990s, when the debate about physician-assisted suicide first began to heat up, measures failed in many states.

Arguments in Favor of Physician-Assisted Suicide

Most arguments in favor of physician-assisted suicide cite humanitarian arguments. Advocates of physician-assisted suicide argue that if an individual knows he’s going to die within the next six months, it’s cruel to force him to suffer through it. Instead, physician-assisted suicide allows him to end his life on his own terms, humanely and peacefully. Currently, mentally-competent people have the ability to refuse potentially life-saving treatments. Those in favor of legalizing physician-assisted suicide argue that it’s a similar concept.

Real Life Example: Brittany Maynard

In 2014, the story of Brittany Maynard captivated the nation. Maynard, a 29-year-old California woman, was diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer. After trying treatments, none of which were successful in the long term, Maynard decided to end her own life. She became an advocate for physician-assisted suicide, and in many ways, a modern face of the movement. Maynard and her family moved to Oregon from California, as this was before California had legalized the practice. Maynard wrote an op-ed about her decision, explaining why she believed that physician-assisted suicide was the right choice for her, and explaining that her decision wasn’t about being “suicidal,” but about having an option at the end of her life:

I’ve had the medication for weeks. I am not suicidal. If I were, I would have consumed that medication long ago. I do not want to die. But I am dying. And I want to die on my own terms.

I would not tell anyone else that he or she should choose death with dignity. My question is: Who has the right to tell me that I don’t deserve this choice? That I deserve to suffer for weeks or months in tremendous amounts of physical and emotional pain? Why should anyone have the right to make that choice for me?

Now that I’ve had the prescription filled and it’s in my possession, I have experienced a tremendous sense of relief. And if I decide to change my mind about taking the medication, I will not take it.

Maynard did take her own life, in November of 2014, and remains a face of the movement to extend physician-assisted suicide.

Arguments Against Physician-Assisted Suicide

Those who disagree with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide argue that suicide, regardless of the reasons, is immoral and should not be condoned by the government in any way, shape, or form. Many religious institutions argue against physician-assisted suicide; in some ways, it’s become linked to the pro-life movement. Others argue that physician-assisted suicide inherently creates issues for doctors, as the Hippocratic Oath essentially prescribes that doctors are not supposed to harm their patients. There are also concerns about a slippery slope–if we make any sort of physician-assisted suicide legal, we may open up the door to euthanasia or other harmful practices. Some who advocate against physician-assisted suicide argue that there’s no way to definitively guarantee that it’s completely a patient’s choice to request medicine that would end his life–they worry that a doctor or family member could pressure a patient.

Real Life Example: Dr. Jack Kevorkian

Dr. Jack Kevorkian was known as an advocate for physician-assisted suicide, but was found guilty of second-degree murder for actually administering drugs to one patient himself, and served eight years in prison. Dr. Kevorkian, nicknamed Dr. Death, was believed to have assisted in over 130 suicides throughout his career. He used multiple methods, including setting up ways for patients to inject drugs into themselves, carbon monoxide poisoning, and his infamous “suicide machine,” which was built into the back of a van.

There were claims that Dr. Kevorkian crossed serious ethical lines with his practices. An analysis conducted by a team at the University of South Florida at Tampa of 69 assisted suicides supervised by Dr. Kevorkian claimed that 75 percent of his patients were not terminally ill.

While some defend Dr. Kevorkian as a pioneer, his methods remain controversial, and are often cited as an argument against physician-assisted suicide.

Conclusion

In addition to ethical and moral arguments, there are many other concerns that come to mind when considering physician-assisted suicide. For one, the drugs that are used for physician-assisted suicide are very expensive, and not necessarily easy to get. A patient looking to move forward with physician-assisted suicide must find a doctor willing to help, which can pose challenges, even in states that have legalized the practice. And while the publicity surrounding Brittany Maynard certainly garnered attention for the physician-assisted suicide movement, she died in 2014, and momentum for state laws may be waning. But one thing is certain: the debate over physician-assisted suicide is very far from over.

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 A Right to Die?: The Argument Over Physician-Assisted Suicide appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Imagine you’re traveling to Washington D.C. for the weekend. You arrive at the airport and, instead of waiting in the extremely long cab line, order a Lyft. The Lyft takes you to your lodgings for the weekend–a room in a house that you found on Airbnb. When you get there, you’re hungry–after all it’s a long distance from your fictional location of origin. You order a sandwich from UberEats. While you eat, you miss your dog, but you remember that he’s in good hands with his Rover sitter. And you deserve this trip–you didn’t do all those extra tasks on TaskRabbit for nothing!

All of these companies–Lyft, Airbnb, Uber, Rover, TaskRabbit–are part of the sharing economy. Unthinkable just a decade ago, the sharing economy exploded seemingly overnight, creating new services for existing markets. And with those new services come new policy concerns, including regulation, competition with traditional services, and safety. Companies that are part of the sharing economy have plenty to lobby for and against. Read on to go behind-the-scenes with the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) and follow the money behind lobbying for the sharing economy at the federal level.

Uber and Airbnb Go to Washington

Let’s look at two of the largest and most well-known sharing economy players to see how they’ve ended up in Washington–Uber and Airbnb. Founded in 2009 and 2008 respectively, Uber’s ridesharing and Airbnb’s roomsharing platforms quickly grew. But as they grew, so did some of their problems. Uber and Airbnb have both been battling regulations and concerns at local and state levels since their inception; take Uber’s exodus from Austin, Texas, or New York’s cracking down on Airbnb advertising. Both companies spend plenty of money fighting laws and regulations that could hurt their business models at the local and state levels. But, increasingly, they’ve started to set their sights on Washington D.C., and have begun lobbying Congress and federal agencies as well. That move makes sense–federal policy can have a significantly greater impact on both companies than that of one city or state. And as these companies look toward innovating for the future, they may very well need federal support.

Their efforts to lobby at the federal level have ramped up quickly. According to CRP, in 2013 Uber spent just $50,000 on lobbying; by 2016 it boosted its lobbying investment 2,600 percent, spending over $1.3 million to try to influence Congress and other federal agencies. Major tech companies that were once fledglings themselves also expanded their lobbying efforts significantly. For example, Google started lobbying in 2003 with a mere $80,000; in 2016, it spent $15.4 million, making it the behemoth in the industry. Amazon spent $11.4 million last year, and Microsoft, $8.7 million.

Airbnb has had a less precipitous ramp-up in lobbying, but has still seen a steady increase over the last few years. In 2012, Airbnb spent $195,000 on federal lobbying efforts, in 2016 that number had climbed to just under $500,000. But Airbnb isn’t trailing some of the largest hotel chains in the U.S. by much. For example, Marriott International, by many accounts the largest hotel company in the world, spent $670,000 on federal lobbying in 2016.

These numbers only provide a snapshot into the lobbying activity of these companies. For a full look at the numbers, check out CRP’s info on Uber and Airbnb. But here’s the important takeaway: Uber and Airbnb, despite being relatively young companies, are making significant moves to influence members of Congress, as well as federal agencies.

Join the Pool: Uber’s Lobbying Efforts 

So where did that money go? As a relative newcomer to the lobbying arena in Washington D.C., Uber hasn’t made any huge moves yet, but has rather mainly focused on smaller scale, attainable goals. While Uber has long sparred with taxi groups, as well as dealt with regulations that have forced it out of some cities and states, those kinds of skirmishes have largely happened at the state and local level. Nationally, Uber has had other priorities, including initiatives to clarify and modernize transportation regulations. For example, one lobbying accomplishment for Uber was getting language into the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the rideshare service to pick up and drop off passengers at military bases.

But Uber has also begun to spend some money on its future endeavors. Uber is already starting to lobby, for instance, on behalf of self-driving cars, which are largely viewed as the next level of innovation for the company. Uber joined a coalition, the Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, that includes its competitor Lyft, as well as Ford, Volvo, and Google. Headed by David Strickland, a former administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the group aims to influence the Department of Transportation as it solidifies some guidelines for self-driving cars. To that end, it spent $30,000 on federal-level lobbying in 2016.

Knocking on Doors: Airbnb’s Lobbying Efforts

What about Airbnb’s lobbying efforts–where do those end up concentrated? Like Uber, Airbnb has largely focused on building a presence and relationships with lawmakers–not any big moves. Early in 2016, Airbnb hired former Republican Congressman Vin Weber, of Minnesota, to up its federal advocacy presence. Weber explained to The Hill: “The good news is, they are smart enough to get involved in this town before they really need anything. They’re trying to introduce themselves before there’s any problem to be dealt with on the federal level.” But Airbnb has been cagey, in its lobbying reports, about revealing its interests in Washington: it often fills in the space for “Specific lobbying issues” with vague phrases like “programs and policies affecting the sharing economy” or “regulatory issues.”

Some of Airbnb’s energy has been concentrated on fighting the hotel industry. For example, the American Hotel and Lodging Association has been lobbying for more intense regulations for short term rentals like Airbnb; Airbnb has pushed back, publicly claiming the organization is anti-union and against minimum wage increases.

Conclusion

Uber and Airbnb have become such ubiquitous parts of our lives, despite the fact that they only sprung up a few years ago. But their moves in Washington, while recent, have been growing and are important to track. Because Uber, Airbnb, and other mainstays of the sharing economy like Lyft, Rover, and TaskRabbit, serve to disrupt their markets and provide existing services in new ways, they are particularly concerned about the effects certain federal regulations could have on their companies.

These companies have also started to increasingly make their political engagement known, especially in the wake of Trump’s presidential win. Right after Trump’s controversial executive order regarding travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, both Uber and Lyft fell into the political conversation. Uber came under fire after continuing to offer rides to JFK Airport despite a traffic strike, and #DeleteUber began trending as a result. In response, Lyft pledged to donate $1 million to the ACLU over the next four years. While federal lobbying matters, Uber, Lyft, and other sharing economy companies have shown that they’re willing to up their political engagement in other ways too.

Clearly there are many reasons that both companies have begun spending more heavily on federal lobbying. As Uber and Airbnb become more visible on the lobbying circuit, it’s worth watching how they spend their influence investments.

Resources

Primary

OpenSecrets: Sharing is Caring: Uber, Airbnb, Lyft Invest in Washington

OpenSecrets: Uber Technologies

OpenSecrets: Uber Technologies: Issues

OpenSecrets: Airbnb Inc

Additional

Business Insider: Uber says it has over 80% of the ride-hailing market in the U.S.

The Hill: Uber tripled its lobbying efforts in 2016

Computer World: Uber, Amazon, and Tesla Ramped Up Their U.S. Lobbying in 2016

Fortune: Major Self-Driving Car Lobbyist Talks Safety, Risk, and Tesla Autopilot

Verge: Google, Ford, and Uber just created a giant lobbying group for self-driving cars

Law Street Media: Uber, Airbnb: Is the “Sharing Economy” Dangerous?

The Hill: Airbnb bolsters its DC lobbying force

Washington Post: Airbnb bulks up lobbying presence as lawmakers increase scrutiny of ‘sharing economy’

The Hill: Airbnb hits hotel lobby in message to Capitol Hill

Center for Responsive Politics

Nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit, the Center for Responsive Politics is the nation’s premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. Our vision is for Americans, empowered by access to clear and unbiased information about money’s role in politics and policy, to use that knowledge to strengthen our democracy. Our mission is to produce and disseminate peerless data and analysis on money in politics to inform and engage Americans, champion transparency, and expose disproportionate or undue influence on public policy. The Center for Responsive Politics 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 Follow the Money: The Sharing Economy Meets Washington appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, thousands of people attended “Not My Presidents’ Day” rallies throughout the country to protest the Trump presidency. In Washington D.C., a large group gathered in Dupont Circle to listen to a number of speakers before marching toward the White House.

Lee Carter, a candidate for the Virginia State House of Delegates (50th district), was the first to address the D.C. crowd. He called for those against the president to stand up to his administration, and to “stand together and let people know that there is a viable alternative for this country going forward.”

Lindsey Middelton, a researcher at the National Institute of Health, attended the rally holding star-shaped American flag balloons and a sign demanding “respect, inclusion, and civility.” She said she “wanted the energy from the Women’s March to continue.” Middelton recalled protesting the Vietnam War, and said the protests surrounding President Donald Trump are at least equally passionate. She hopes “the public outrage affects the people downtown making decisions.”

Marchers approach the White House. Courtesy of Callum Cleary for Law Street Media.

Native and civil rights activist Gray Michael Parsons then took the stage. He spoke of the important role the media played in capturing and exposing injustice during the civil rights movement and demanded that those in the audience work to do the same. Parsons, who protested the Dakota Access pipeline in Standing Rock, North Dakota last fall, criticized the Department of Justice for not visiting the protest site and asked the crowd to “be our media…stand up for us.”

Mizraim Belman, an undocumented immigrant and first-year student at Georgetown University, stood at the center of Dupont Circle to decry the president’s hardline immigration policy. He affirmed his undocumented status before defiantly declaring that he was “unafraid” of the president’s expressed intentions.

Jordan Marie Daniels, also a native activist, stood in the center of Dupont Circle in front of a striking “Defend the Sacred” banner and asked for a continued and unified resistance in the face of an “unfit administration.” Daniels will be part of a native rights march on the White House on March 10.

At one point during rally, two men on roaring motorcycles began circling the park, attempting to drown out the speakers by revving their engines. Fixed to the back of one bike was an American flag; the other held a blue flag that read “Trump.”

“Bikers for Trump” attempt to disrupt the D.C. rally. Courtesy of Callum Cleary for Law Street Media.

Ken Boddye, a candidate for the Virginia State House of Delegates (51st district), was the last to speak in front of the crowd, and his words echoed those who spoke before him. He concluded by proclaiming that those against Trump will “not stand for his regression, hate or fear.” He, along with the other speakers, then led the rally on a march down to the White House.

Among the stream of protesters en route to the White House was Will Allen. Wearing the ubiquitous pink hat from the Women’s March and a tie-dye shirt, Allen stood to the side to speak with Law Street. He said he was protesting the endless incompetence of the Trump Administration. “It’s just one thing after another,” he said, “every day another lie, every day another story.” Before rejoining the march, Allen added: “it’s not making any sense, so we need somebody new.”

Alec Siegel also contributed to this story. 

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Happened at the D.C. “Not My Presidents’ Day” Protest? appeared first on Law Street.

In modern society, we have devised mechanisms to help us manage risk. Health insurance, for example, is a risk management system for health care costs that uses small payments, pooled from a large community, to cover those members who happen to become sick. The complications with risk management pools often do not relate to the idea of insuring people against risk. After all government itself is, in some ways, the same idea. Rather the complications arise from trying to decide who is included in the risk, in the payouts, and how the system is funded.

The Washington, D.C. city council recently passed a risk management pool, similar to health insurance, to provide family leave to district workers. There are significant benefits to workers from this system but there are also some drawbacks, which critics say will harm employers and may even harm the types of workers that the policy is designed to benefit the most.

The D.C. Universal Paid Leave Amendment Act would be a significant increase in the benefits due to D.C. employees. It will be particularly important to younger, female employees who are statistically the most likely to want to take family leave time. However it does impose significant costs on employers and other workers, and the balance between those competing interests may need to be adjusted. Now that the bill has passed the D.C. City Council, it will need to be signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser and make it through a 30-day congressional review.

D.C. Paid Leave and How It Works 

Take a look at this report from PBS that aired last year that explains some of the benefits of family leave and how it works in other countries. It is expensive to provide this benefit to employees but it can also keep employees in the workplace.

In the United States, there is no national policy for paid family leave. Federal law provides for unpaid leave, but only for companies with over 50 employees. And only to full-time workers. Only 12 percent of Americans are offered any kind of paid leave by their employers.

The D.C. Universal Paid Leave Amendment Act is the most generous family leave policy in the country, extending benefits by both duration and payout beyond family leave policies in other states. California and New Jersey, for example, only provide six weeks of leave and up to 60 percent of pay. The D.C. plan provides for eight weeks at up to 90 percent of pay. The program would guarantee six weeks of leave to care for a sick family member as well as two weeks of paid sick leave and eight weeks for new parents. The structure of the payouts is also progressive, meaning that lower wage workers will benefit more from the plan. The first $46,000 in wages are replaced at the 90 percent rate, but after that reimbursement is only 50 percent. The benefit payments are capped at $1,000 per week, and those benefits are taxed.

The program is only for private employees, not district or federal workers, and will be funded by an increase in payroll taxes on employers. D.C. already has a high tax rate, one of the highest in the region, and this law would be an increase of 0.62 percent. It does not sound like a large increase but many businesses operate on thin margins, and an almost 1 percent increase could be a significant burden. The tax increase would create a $250 million a year fund to pay out benefits. But estimates suggest that a one-time cost of $80 million would be needed for the technical administration of the program alone. To many critics, this high proportion of funding going to administration is unacceptable.

Another problem with the proposed plan is the beneficiaries. The new tax will only apply to employers who are within the district. But the benefits will be paid out to workers regardless of whether they live in the district or in surrounding states. Estimates suggest that about 65 percent of the benefits would be paid to commuters living in Maryland and Virginia, a facet of the plan that has drawn criticism from city council members and the local Chamber of Commerce.

Is Family Leave A Good Idea? 

This video explains some of the pros and cons of the new family leave act.

As the video explains there are several different angles to consider. The first issue is the incentives that it creates for employers. The employees most likely to take advantage of this policy are young women since they are the most likely to care for a newborn or an ailing family member. Under a structure that requires employers to pay for only the leave taken by their own employees, as was proposed in one version of this legislation, this can create an incentive to not hire young female workers. But because employers are paying into a common fund for the benefits, rather than providing the benefits directly, this particular incentive is reduced. The employer does not increase their risk of losing money to paid leave when they hire an employee who is likely to take that leave. That risk is spread out over all of the employers in the pool.

The fear that an employer may have to pay for, on its own and not through a fund, an employee’s leave only to have that employee not return to work is also eliminated. If an employee does not return to work after his or her leave, that would be a cost to the business, but the individual employer isn’t on the hook for the cost of the benefits that were collected. All the employers share that cost so that for each individual company it is drastically reduced.

The main problem that most have with the bill is that it may encourage employers to cut back on workers in general or move their business out of Washington in order to save money. This is a very real concern since payroll expenditures are often a large part of a company’s budget and one of the elements an employer can most easily control. A company may try to cut staff so that it owes less in taxes, even if that would make it less productive. Other family leave programs in other states have not led to that result, but this program is untested. The question of whether the benefit to all workers is worth a general hiring freeze or a reduction in the labor force can’t be answered until we know how many workers it will affect.

Additionally, the D.C. leave package is so generous it may do too much to allow workers to stay home. A worker who gets up to 90 percent of their pay doesn’t feel nearly as much pressure as one who is only receiving 60 percent, or none, of their paycheck. Although most people support some kind of paid family leave many might want a policy that encourages employees to come back as soon as they can. This could be accomplished by reducing the size of benefits paid out in subsequent weeks. But part of the rationale for the law is not only to relieve families in an emergency, but also provide work-life balance for new parents. The program is by its very nature supposed to incentivize workers to take time when they need to.

Family leave also benefits employers. The ability to take family leave can encourage workers to choose one specific employer over another. Therefore a system that guarantees paid leave to all private sector employees in a given job market levels the playing field for businesses that might not be able to offer this benefit on their own. It also encourages workers to take leave when they have a child or an emergency, rather than quit work altogether if they know they will need several weeks of time off. This keeps talented workers in the job pool and reduces the costs of training new employees.

Conclusion 

Ultimately, support for family leave, however it is organized, comes down to who we as a society want to invest in and how we are going to finance those investments. Most Americans, 82 percent, believe that there should be some sort of paid family leave for workers. Both to cover parental leave and also for workers who become ill or have a loved one who becomes ill. But devising a system that is able to finance this leave presents many challenges. In order to provide the benefit, employers, other workers, or consumers need to shoulder some of the burden.

The D.C. bill places the burden for this on employers, who may end up passing on some of the costs to consumers and to their employees. But for the workers who have a family emergency or the arrival of a new child, these benefits are critically important. Here in the United States, these family leave provisions are still in their experimental phase, and this one is more generous than the others, so it may be necessary to adjust the balance further. There is also a strong argument to be made for finding an alternate way to administer the benefits that is more cost effective, which could help lower the tax cost for employers.

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Family Leave In D.C.: Are the Costs Worth the Benefits? appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, in a tragic turn of events, more than 50 people were killed and more than 50 others wounded in a late night shooting and hostage situation in Orlando, Florida. Now considered the deadliest mass shooting in American history, the tragedy took place in a gay Orlando nightclub called Pulse.

Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer has now declared a state of emergency in the city. The shooter has been identified as Omar Mateen, 29, of Port St. Lucie, which is roughly 12o miles from Orlando. He was killed by police. He brought multiple weapons into the club, including an AR-15 and a handgun–Orlando’s police chief John Mina said that: “it appears he was organized and well-prepared.”

It is unclear at this point exactly what Mateen’s motivation was, but sources are reporting that he swore ISIS alliance.

As of right now, many survivors are being treated at local hospitals, and there is an urgent need for blood donations in the area.

County fire officials @Local2057IAFF say Orlando has a “urgent need” for blood donations following mass shooting pic.twitter.com/IdTQCPoWk7

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) June 12, 2016

June is pride month in the United States, and pride celebrations occurred in Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Boston, Detroit, Philadelphia, and other cities this weekend. Many of those events took some time to recognize last night’s victims–it was announced that the LA Pride Parade today began with a moment of silence for the victims in Orlando.

D.C.’s Capital Pride Festival also held a moment of silence.

From the US Capitol,our thoughts are with the people of Orlando. 1pm moment of silence at today’s Pride Concert. pic.twitter.com/ct4Y4uxQ69

— Capital Pride (@CapitalPrideDC) June 12, 2016

Some of the pride celebrations this weekend, like the one in Philadelphia, announced that they will be adding additional security to the venues.

The FBI and other officials have warned that a lengthy investigation into the shooting a the Orlando nightclub will be conducted–more details are sure to come as the investigation proceeds.

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 Horrific Orlando Nightclub Shooting Leaves More than 50 Dead appeared first on Law Street.

Under a scalding summer sun, a small group of men–all wearing hard hats and neon yellow vests, many with forearms covered in tattoos–stream out of a door that separates two vastly different worlds. On the inside: the fenced-in private property of the Trump International Hotel D.C., Donald Trump’s newest real estate venture in the heart of the nation’s capital. Outside: a lunch break, bustling Pennsylvania Avenue, and the anonymity of being any other construction worker, unbeknownst to strangers as the guys working on a Trump property. The $200 million Trump hotel–with its 263 rooms, BLT Prime restaurant, and renovated space within the 19th century Old Post Office Pavilion–officially began taking reservations earlier this week.

While it’s too early in the reservation cycle to analyze substantial data for his D.C. property, a recent study by the travel site Hipmunk found reservations in Trump hotels worldwide plummeted by 59 percent in the first quarter of 2016 compared to the first quarter of 2015.

In fact, 1.7 percent of all Hipmunk bookings were made with a Trump property in the first quarter of 2015. A year later, during that same time period and as the Trump name has sliced through the national conscience, bookings with a Trump property on the site were down to 0.7 percent.

Dividing lines: Trump is coming to the Capital one way or another. [Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street]

Not all media coverage is helpful, it seems, when trying to rent out hotel rooms.

Back on Pennsylvania Avenue, the men are hungry. Some carry lunch bags and stand under the shade of a tree, cigarettes dangling from their mouths as they quietly scan their surroundings.

“What do you want to know?” one man tiredly answers in response to a question from Law Street. “It’s money.”

They were tired of answering questions about what it’s like to work on a Trump property. After all, the billionaire has said some disparaging things about Hispanics, who make up a sizable slice of the property’s workforce.

“I love him!” another man chuckled, in reference to his employer whose name appears in giant font on giant buildings in major metropolises around the world. (And in smaller font on ballots now, too).

As Trump locked up the delegates needed to become the Republican party’s presidential nomination, the men who have been toiling away at his hotel for years barely acknowledge the namesake of the building that’s about to start welcoming guests any more. They put on their hardhats and get to work. After all, “it’s money.”

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 The Trump Hotel: It’s Not a Name They’re Working For, It’s a Living appeared first on Law Street.

Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx recently promised to close the Washington D.C. Metro system unless it complied with safety requirements. How did it get to this point where the nation’s second-largest mass transit system is on the verge of being shuttered due to safety concerns and a series of mishaps?

Read on to find out more about the history of the Washington D.C. metro system, how safety concerns have been postponed, the recent spate of issues leading up to its current situation, and the future of the Metro in this uncertain climate.

The History of the Metro

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, known locally as the Metro, was an ambitious project dreamed of by local residents going back all the way to the beginning of the 20th century. Residents hoped for a public transit system on par with other major northeastern cities. This hope finally started to come to fruition in 1959 when the first concrete plans for a rail system in the nation’s capital were drafted. After a bill allowing its construction passed Congress in 1965, work was finally under way.

Initially, the system was meant to serve only the capital so as not to compete with new freeways, however, it was later expanded to parts of the neighboring states of Maryland and Virginia as well. Completion of the first segments occurred in 1976, but tracks and routes were changed to meet proximity requirements for important areas like the National Mall. Only in 2001 were all the originally planned tracks finished. Upon completion, the Metro became one of the largest public works undertakings ever completed, stretching 103 total miles and serving the second most people of any rail system in the U.S., following only New York City. The completion of the Metro required the input of politicians, architects, construction workers, and engineers with the end goal of creating a system acceptable to everyone while also being aesthetically pleasing.

One of the Metro’s important goals was the ability to expand and modernize as time went on. Aside from incorporating automated technology, the area covered by the system also expanded to 117 miles served by 91 stations. In addition, the Metro operates a bus system with 1,500 buses, which enables it to serve the region 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The combined system now services an area of approximately 1,500 square miles with as many as 4 million residents. The Metro also recently completed the first phase of the new Silver Line, which will eventually connect the system to Dulles International Airport in Virginia with the second phase currently under construction. Although continued expansion and additional services have been proposed, the system is now faced with a series of long-delayed safety challenges that it must also tackle.

Success Over Safety?

While the Metro was an unqualified success in its first few decades of operation, after that, problems with the system became more apparent. First, was the structure of its governing body–elected officials from each of its four regions control the WMATA and often do not have experience with subway operations.

Also not helping matters is the Metro’s long-term funding plan, specifically, that it has never really had one. In most major cities a large portion of a system’s funding comes from dedicated taxes, often well over 30 percent. In the case of the D.C. Metro, dedicated funding amounts to just 2 percent of its budget. The lack of dedicated funding has essentially left the leadership with the task of fundraising every year to keep the system funded. Raising money became increasingly difficult after the system stopped rapidly expanding, as funds were needed to simply cover costs and maintain the tracks. While funding did continue to increase it was also increasingly siphoned off for other aspects of the Metro system such as the bus network.

As funding became harder to come by, the Metro started to become political. Representatives on the Metro’s board fought for new stations or services in their districts so as to appease their constituencies. They also worked to keep Metro open longer and later, which was met with approval by the riding audience but made routine maintenance harder and harder to complete. The D.C. Metro lacked an additional track as well, something other major systems have to allow trains to bypass maintenance work. Without additional tracks, the Metro is forced to single-track trains while doing maintenance and construction, which causes delays and decreases customer satisfaction.

Incidents

With all these issues plaguing Metro it is no surprise to critics that they started to manifest themselves in the form of accidents. In the early years, these accidents were rare. In 1982, the first major tragedy occurred when a train derailed killing three riders. It was not until 1996 when in another incident occurred when a train skipped a track in the ice and collided with another train, killing the operator. As time went on and the Metro failed to address these issues, the regularity of high-profile accidents began to increase. In 2004, 20 people were injured in a collision. Shortly after, in the span of two years between 2005 and 2007, four workers were killed in accidents. Again in 2007, 23 more passengers were injured in a derailment. The worst accident came in 2009, however, when nine people were killed and over 80 were injured in a crash on the Metro’s Red Line.

This series of embarrassing incidents forced Metro’s hand. The Metro was able to at last secure additional funding to address many of the problems haunting the system. Nevertheless, for all that was seemingly done, the true depth of the problems became clear after track issues continued to plague the rail system. An incident at the L’Enfant Plaza station in 2015 left passengers stuck on a train as it filled with smoke. As a result, one woman died and more than 80 people were taken to a hospital for smoke inhalation. This was followed by a number of different episodes including derailments, oil spills, and more fires.

The situation was so bad, in fact, that the D.C. Metro became the only major rail service in the United States to have its oversight be placed under the direct control of the Federal Transit Administration. Even after this step, though, the problems have endured, with at least eight separate incidents of either smoke or fire causing evacuations or service halts since April 23.

Recent Developments

These repeated episodes seem to have been enough to force authorities to act, but the impetus for the dire threats from Secretary Foxx were not just the incidents described above. After a fire at the McPherson Square Metro stop on March 14, safety inspectors became increasingly concerned that parts of the rail system were unsafe for operation. In an unprecedented move, the entire system was shut down on March 16 in order to conduct emergency safety inspections.

The results of the inspections prompted system administrators to consider drastic action to ensure track safety and on May 6, the Metro introduced a preliminary SafeTrack plan to complete urgent repairs. The plan, which will begin in June, calls for a series of extended repair surges and the shutdown of several stretches of track for weeks at a time. Just a day before that plan was announced, a third-rail insulator cast doubts on the system. Despite the explosion, the station was not closed until hours later and safety inspectors were not allowed access, raising concerns over the safety training of Metro workers. Unsurprisingly, incidents such as this, along with worsening service and decaying facilities, have led Metro’s weekday ridership to decline by as much as 6 percent since the end of the 2015 fiscal year.

The following video looks at the severity of the problem:

The Future

Some see a silver lining with the SafeTrack plan; the decisive action may mark an important shift in the system’s management. A major aspect of the plan is a series of safety surges, where portions of the system will be aggressively repaired for extended periods of time, meaning either single-tracking or outright closures of entire stations. The plan also calls for a roll back on operating hours, meaning stations and their corresponding lines will be closing earlier, and weekend and special event hours will be rolled back in order for workers to have more time to address issues plaguing the system. As a means to offset all these closures and service reductions, bus service will be expanded and used to service stations during temporary closures.

The accompanying video gives a brief summary of the plan:

But before these plans could even be implemented (in typical Metro fashion) they were put on hold. In this case, the decision came at the discretion of the Federal Transit Administration. Specifically, the FTA is calling on Metro to begin immediate work on three sections in particular. The impetus for this call was the recent track explosion and Metro’s botched handling of it; while these three sections were scheduled for maintenance later in the year, they will now become priorities. While it is reassuring to see work finally underway to address Metro’s core problems, these new contradictory directives also raise more questions over who is in charge and whether there is a complete plan in place going forward.

Conclusion

The Metro was once the pride of Washington D.C., admired by visitors from all over the world. However, due to poor initial planning and an even worse maintenance record, that is no longer the case. Now the Metro is faced with a potential $2 billion shortfall by 2025 due to budget cuts and lost ridership. Couple this with all the accidents, injuries, and even deaths, the Metro now finds itself in a very unenviable position.

But not all is necessarily lost. Other cities such as Chicago and New York faced similar problems and resorted to efforts like town hall meetings and extended track closures to address their problems. Going forward, the Metro can incorporate these methods along with its own ambitious maintenance and rehabilitation plans. Ultimately, the Metro needs to find leadership that is willing to make unpopular decisions and then follow through with them. In the short term, customers will be unhappy about delays and closures, but a late train is still better than one that never arrives at all.

Resources

USA Today: Transportation Department threatens D.C. Metro shutdown if safety doesn’t improve

Center for History and News Media George Mason University: Building the Washington Metro

Metro: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Washingtonian: The Infuriating History of How Metro Got So Bad

The Washington Post: At Least 6 killed in Red Line Crash

The Washington Post: 5 facts about Metro’s ‘Safe Track’ Plan

Greater Greater Washington: The Feds Tell Metro to Rearrange its Maintenance Plan

Michael Sliwinski

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

The post Trouble Below: The Problems Plaguing the Washington D.C. Metro appeared first on Law Street.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled Tuesday that part of D.C.’s new gun law, which requires that individuals must show “good reason” to get a concealed-carry permit for firearms, is unconstitutional.

In his ruling, District Judge Richard J. Leon called the requirement “inconsistent” with the Second Amendment and put in place a preliminary injunction to stop its enforcement in the District. In order to hold a concealed-carry firearm in the District, residents need to go through a multi-step application process to obtain a concealed-carry license (open carry is out of the question in the city). A part of this process requires applicants to demonstrate a “good reason” for why they would need to carry. For example, a resident could demonstrate a “good reason to fear injury to a person or property,” such as threats or attacks, or the need to carry a gun for employment purposes.

Judge Leon called the law “overly zealous,” and stated that it “likely places an unconstitutional burden”on the constitutional right to bear arms.

The ruling stems from a case filed late last year by Matthew Grace, a D.C. resident and a member the Pink Pistols, a guns rights group that describes itself as “an international organization dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for the self-defense of the sexual-minority community.” The group claims that the “good reason” clause is a “travesty of justice” and filed a lawsuit against the District of Columbia claiming that the law was unconstitutional.

So what does this mean for D.C. residents? The injunction puts a hold on the “good reason” requirement for the time being, which will make it easier for applicants to receive concealed-carry permits. The law has only granted 74 permits since the law was put into place in 2014, so D.C. will likely have more concealed weapons on its streets.

If and how this ruling has an impact on gun violence in the city remains to be seen, but this is a major development for guns rights activists.

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 Judge Says D.C. Residents Don’t Need “Good Reason” for Concealed-Carry Permits appeared first on Law Street.

Under an endless blue sky and a blazing white sun, Washington D.C.’s Lafayette Square was awash in crimson on Sunday afternoon. Turkish and American flags danced in the wind; hundreds of flag bearers milled about in red hats, tee shirts and bags, most of which were stamped with the moon and star insignia of the Republic of Turkey.

As hordes of people poured out of coach buses and into the square, which abuts the White House’s North Lawn, Turkic and Arabic blared through foghorns, announcing free sandwiches and soda. A cluster of young girls in hijabs (traditional Muslim headscarves) handed out Turkish chocolate bars and juice boxes.

The Peace and Solidarity Walk was about to begin. Hundreds of people would spend the next few hours chanting, singing, and dancing their way to the Turkish Embassy in support of their motherland and its leader, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Organized by the Turkish American National Steering Committee, or TASC, event flyers and brochures pegged the rally as a symbol of support behind Turkey in fighting “Islamophobia,” “terrorism and extremism,” and “Syria’s brutal regime.”

Children and their parents draped in red walk from the White House to the Turkish Embassy. [Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media]

But interviews with a number of participants hinted at perhaps an underlying motive: a response to recent protests by Armenians in Washington and Turkey.

“Armenian people are making protests against the Turkish government making accusations about the [1915 genocide],” said Berk Usal, a TASC staff member and English language exchange student from Turkey. “We are making a reaction to show we are with our nation, with our state.”

Though the facts are hazy, the international community officially recognizes the grisly events of April 1915 as a genocide. Armenians say 1.5 million of their people were slaughtered under Ottoman rule, though Turkey argues it was simply a consequence of a civil war, pointing out that thousands of Turks were killed as well.

“We fight [Armenia] a long time,” explained Sait Unay, who came with his mosque from Brooklyn to stand behind his motherland. Wearing a sweat-soaked hat, he sat under the shade of a tree, watching as the red mass of people and cars–one with a Turkish flag paint job–streaked by. His rocky English brought him to the crux of his reason for making the four-hour journey from Brooklyn:

“We are protesting Armenia.”

But overall, the rally was a joyous affair, and whatever their reasons for being there, the marching Turkish-Americans sang songs and engaged in coordinated chants as they curled around DuPont Circle, the home stretch of Embassy Row.

A kid in a karate uniform (he was an orange belt) held a sign that read, “Peace at home, peace in the world.”

The untamable red blob clogged 17th street, past the Smithsonian’s Renwick Gallery, as countless baffled tourists captured video of the rally on their phones. (Overheard: “Isn’t that the Soviet Union flag?”). At one point, a convoy of cars honked, as drivers and passengers waved miniature Turkish flags out their windows.

A true Turkish patriot. [Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media]

As a buffer zone between the tumultuous Middle East and the crumbling stability of Western Europe, the former Ottoman state needs all the support it can get. Refugees fleeing war-torn villages and the brutal Assad regime in Syria, as well as those fleeing violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, favored the path through Turkey to reach ports in the Greek islands, particularly Lesbos.

That route–often tumultuous and deadly–saw thousands of people each month pack into boats in an attempt to cross the Mediterranean Sea en route to Germany, their ultimate destination. But a pact between Turkey and the E.U. re-routed most migrants to journey through Libya and Italy instead. Spearheaded by Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, Turkey is required to take back migrants who reach Greece after the deal went into place on March 20. Those who had reached Greece before that date would be dealt with on a case by case basis. In exchange for housing nearly 2.7 million refugees, Turkey has demanded visa-free travel for its citizens.

There was little obvious resistance to the passionate mass of Turkey supporters, but standing by a bronze statue of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk--who in 1923 founded the Republic of Turkey—Hudai Yavalar was shaking his head. 

“Most of [the rally participants] are government-sponsored,” said Yavalar, chairman of the Atatürk Society of America, a non-partisan organization dedicated to preserving the ideals of the father of modern Turkey (Atatürk: “father of Turks”). “[Erdogan] wants to show America ‘we are strong.'”

The rally saw mosques from around the country–Chicago, Brooklyn, New Jersey–bus over their members to participate. Yavalar was suspicious of their motives for being there.

As the rally raged, Yavalar camped out next to the statue of Atatürk, protecting the red and white petunias and Mediterranean Pinks encircling it. Spillovers from the rally would pop up every now and then to have their photo taken with the sculpted father of the Turkish state.

Encircled by Hudai Yavalar’s flowers: a statue of the founder of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. [Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media]

“Don’t step on the flowers!” Yavalar cautioned the eager cloisters of friends or families, alternating between English and Turkic, his native tongue. 

A woman wearing a hijab and clutching a Turkish flag barely dipped her toe in the soil. Yavalar was on high alert.

“Ma’am please,” he pleaded, “I came here just to defend the flowers.”

Born and raised as a Muslim in Turkey, Yavalar has since distanced himself from the religion and from the country he says he hardly recognizes anymore.

“[Turkey] is not the way it used to be,” he said, railing against a state he sees as secular in name only. “They are Islamists.” In between nervous glances at his flower garden, Yavalar said that Turkey’s recent actions, namely the jailing of Turkish and foreign journalists, is bringing it back “to the Middle Ages.”

A few blocks away, two giant Turkish flags adorned the front gate of the Turkish Embassy, the finish line of the rally. Police officers stationed at the Embassy of Japan across the street watched as the usually tranquil Embassy Row turned raucous.

The chief rallying cry could probably be heard from Capitol Hill: “We support Turkey! We support America! We support peace!”

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 Turkish-Americans Rally Behind Turkey in D.C.’s ‘Peace and Solidarity Walk’ appeared first on Law Street.

In June of 2014, the U.S. Patent and Trademark office cancelled six federal trademark registrations for the Washington Redskins, declaring the team name “disparaging to Native Americans.”  This ruling was reinforced earlier today and while owner Dan Snyder is scrambling to defend the trademark, this ruling will unfortunately not actually force Snyder to change the name of the team.

Stripping the team of the trademark is an important first step, but there has been no other legal action leveled against the team that will result in an official name change. Snyder and team President Bruce Allen have doubled down on preserving the team name, finding allies in presidential candidates Donald Trump and Jeb Bush. Despite overwhelming protest from the Native American community (and the American populace in general), it seems like the leadership of the team is determined to retain the name by any means necessary. In 2013, Snyder released a letter claiming that:

After 81 years, the team name ‘Redskins’ continues to hold the memories and meaning of where we came from, who we are, and who we want to be in the years to come.  We are Redskins Nation and we owe it to our fans and coaches and players, past and present, to preserve that heritage.

In a nation where there are infinite loopholes that let teams retain offensive names, the Redskins are an omnipresent reminder of exactly how far we still have to go to create and protect racial equality. Snyder’s disconnect from the reality of the American political landscape and the importance of inclusive language is nothing short of disturbing. Eighty-one years of ignoring organized protest against a racial slur isn’t a legacy, it’s a travesty. Snyder “owes” nothing to the “nation”–football fans turn up to games because they want to see their favorite players win, not because they are demonstrating solidarity with the management’s decision to stay on the wrong side of history. His decision to retain the name is purely financial, which is exactly why he has fought so hard to retain the trademarks.

Snyder appears to be fully aware of the nonsensical nature of his claim, as evidenced by his establishment of the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation in 2014, which is dedicated to providing resources to Native communities across the country.  If the term “Redskins” is truly a term full of memories and heritage, why would he use the term “Original Americans” when establishing his foundation?  The contradictory nature of the Foundation’s name reveals that Snyder is not ignorant of the offensive nature of the slur. The Foundation is a transparent attempt to assuage his guilt and pacify Native American activists. Despite Snyder’s efforts to build a positive PR strategy, a new generation of Native youth is growing up surrounded by the slur–seeing it on television screens, t-shirts, and toys across the country. Constant use of the slur is not only frustrating for this generation, it endangers their perception of safety and their ability to learn. If Snyder truly wants to clear his conscience and make peace with the protesters, he’ll need to put in more than minimal effort. This is not a minor gaffe or an honest mistake. The use of a racial slur in the team’s name is a conscious action, which prioritizes profit over equality and inclusion.

Not everyone subscribes to the idea of karma, but if there ever was a case for its existence, it is the Washington Redskins. Since Dan Snyder purchased the team, the team has lost spectacularly and consistently. There are dozens of reasons to change the team’s name, but seeing as none of them have yet swayed management, I’d like to put forward a new one:

Snyder, perhaps if you took a racial slur off of your helmets, your jerseys, your field and your merchandise, the stars would align in your favor and you would be able to win a game.

I hate to think that such an insane idea could actually impact Snyder’s attitude, but at this point, it’s not a stretch to think that a man this deluded about the reality of the world believes that stars can control his fate.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Changing The Redskins Mascot: Washington, D.C.’s Greatest Embarrassment appeared first on Law Street.

When I learned I had the opportunity to go to TedxPennsylvaniaAvenue, I wasn’t quite sure what to expect. The event promised a noteworthy variety of speakers ranging from senior staffers at the White House to the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, all promising to open up a number of enlightening discussions. The event fulfilled that promise and more, by bringing up questions about important societal issues such as youth prisons, the benefits of Medicaid, being homeless in America, and urban youth development programs. As we struggle to address these ideas in our society, forums like TED are becoming increasingly important.

Held in the Newsuem’s Forum theater on June 24, an audience of about 500 gathered to listen to some of the world’s most innovative thinkers and doers share their ideas centered around the topic of “What Works?” at the local, national, and international levels. Some of the more prominent speakers included Elizabeth Birch (former president of the Human Rights Campaign), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), and Robert Rubin (former Secretary of the Treasury and former chairman of Citigroup). With catered meals and special musical guests in between speakers, TEDxPennAve goers were able to take in each speaker at their leisure throughout the day. During lunch, I stood and took in an exhibit inspired by TED Senior Fellow Candy Chang. An artist, designer, and urban planner, Chang created an interactive wall on the side of a home in New Orleans for people to share their hopes and dreams. It prompted people to think about their secrets and wishes and to share them. Chang explained her inspiration:

This neglected space became a constructive one, and people’s hopes and dreams made me laugh out loud, tear up, and they consoled me during my own tough times. It’s about knowing you’re not alone; it’s about understanding our neighbors in new and enlightening ways; it’s about making space for reflection and contemplation, and remembering what really matters most to us as we grow and change.

Image courtesy of Katherine via Flickr

I added my secrets and wishes to one of the boards in the exhibit, forced to face issues I had been ignoring. Like the talks, this exhibit really made you think and look in the mirror–adding to the overall feeling of reflection noticeable at the event. 

Another highlight was listening to Patrick McCarthy, President & CEO of the Annie E. Casey Foundation. McCarthy’s talk centered around the issue of youth prisons. He claimed that these prisons undermine the development of young people who get into trouble with the law, expose them to grave dangers, and ultimately fail to improve public safety. McCarthy has worked for the past 23 years to reform juvenile justice systems through the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, and is launching an effort to close youth prisons. Like all of the speakers at the day’s event, McCarthy’s talk contained such strong passion and empathy for his cause that I quickly was able to understand his problem with youth prisons and found myself taking a side on an issue I honestly hadn’t thought much about beforehand.

That was a theme constant throughout the event. Each talk contained such a compelling argument, and opened up new questions I hadn’t considered. That’s essentially the goal of TED events–creating specific conversations from broad topics like “What Works?”

TED began in 1984 as a conference where technology, entertainment, and design converged. Beginning as a conference, TED now runs multiple platforms for these independent thinkers. Between 2001-2006, TED added three major additions to its organization including a sister conference known as TEDGlobal held in locations around the world, the TED Prize–which grants winners one wish to change the world, and releases many of the talks online. 

Today it exists as a nonprofit devoted to spreading ideas in the form of short powerful talks discussing many topics, from science to business to globalization, in more than 100 languages. TEDx events–the x indicates that it was independently organized–help share ideas in communities around the world. Overall, the organization aims to provide a platform for speakers so that people around the globe can gain a better understanding of some of the most pressing international issues and feel a desire to help create a better future. Through these talks, audiences are exposed to speakers who are engaging in cutting edge work for numerous causes. The speakers often demonstrate constructive ways that people can help with these causes on a personal level.

For me, the impact this TED Talk had was challenging me to re-think my view of the world and brainstorm new ideas for how I can make a difference outside of my field of choice. I was reminded that no act is too small, because any energy put toward an issue can help make a difference. Each speaker did such an exceptional job of connecting diverse issues rather than creating dividing lines. This fall, a TedxTalk will be held at my school, Beloit College, and while the talks are supposed to be specific to the growth and positive change of the city of Beloit and surrounding areas, I am curious to see what other types of dialogue it will open where I live. We have a lot to change in this world–Ted Talks present an innovative platform to do so.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post TED Talks: A Platform for Social Change? appeared first on Law Street.

This Monday, I had the opportunity to attend the Shakespeare Theatre Company’s annual Mock Trial event at the Sidney Harman Hall in downtown Washington D.C. The event, a tradition two decades old, deals each year with a legal question regarding a character from a play or musical. This year’s focus was on Don Quixote, or more accurately Alonso Quijana, from “Man of La Mancha.” The legal star-studded event welcomed well-known Washington attorneys and judges to the stage to weigh in on the fictional knight’s fate.

In the scenario presented on Monday night, Don Quixote had already been placed into the guardianship of his niece Antonia. Given his proclivity for attacking windmills among other suspect acts, the Family Court of La Mancha determined that he was unable to take care of himself, putting Antonia in charge of his affairs. However, an advocate speaking on behalf of Don Quixote made a twofold argument that Don Quixote did not need a guardian, and even if the court decided he did, the guardianship should be put in the hands of his faithful squire “Sancho Panza.” Both the judges and the “jury”–the audience–were tasked with considering these questions.

In order to make the arguments feel as realistic as possible, the stage was fastened into a courtroom, complete with five judges and two attorneys. The presiding judge was Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was joined by fellow SCOTUS Justice Stephen Breyer, Chief Judge Merrick Garland, Judge Patricia Millett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson. The attorney arguing on behalf of Don Quixote was Tom Goldstein, of Goldstein & Russell, and a co-founder of SCOTUSBlog. The attorney arguing to uphold the decision of the Family Court of La Mancha was Carter Phillips of Sidley Austin.

Thomas C. Goldstein of Goldstein & Russel, P.C. at the Shakespeare Theatre Company’s 2015 Mock Trial. Image courtesy of [Kevin Allen]

The curtains opened to roughly an hour of rather high-spirited presentation and questioning of the legal arguments. There were some excellent pop culture references–including jokes about the Kardashians, Katy Perry’s left shark, and a wonderfully sharp Deflategate-esque jab about Tom Brady relieving some pressure. My personal favorite moment of the night came when Goldstein made a comment about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinions on procedure being “notorious”–a hilarious reference to the beloved Notorious RBG meme.

There were also jokes clearly tailored to the attorney-heavy Washington D.C. audience. For example during a back-and-forth about the usefulness of windmills, Justice Garland questioned whether we should “appoint a guardian for everyone who opposes renewable energy.” A remark about the 9th Circuit, and it’s “inexplicable” calls garnered a lot of laughs from those in the know–the 9th Circuit is famous for reversing decisions.

After the argument portion came to a close, the judges left to deliberate and the audience was asked whether we, as the “jury,” think that Antonia should remain as Don Quixote’s guardian. We were instructed to place tokens indicating our thoughts into provided baskets–a red token if we thought that Don Quixote should be guardian-less, or a blue token to agree with the Family Court of La Mancha and keep Antonia as the guardian. When the votes were tallied, it was determined that the audience wanted to see Don Quixote continue to live out his dreams without Antonia’s interference, reversing the decision. Happily, the judges agreed. They returned to the stage after their deliberations to inform the crowd that they decided to reverse the Family Court of La Mancha’s decision.

The overwhelming decision to grant Don Quixote his metaphorical freedom wasn’t surprising, given the mood of the night. As the judges consistently noted throughout the evening with their questioning of Goldstein and Phillips, this came down to a question of dreams versus delusions, and it’s a lot happier to put stock in the former rather than the latter.

In the high-stress and hectic environment that is the Washington law and policy field, Monday night’s show stood as a seemingly rare moment of levity and a reminder of the lighter and funnier aspects of life. In true Don Quixote fashion, while it may not always be pragmatic to dream the impossible dream, imagining a world where that’s possible seemed to serve as a welcome respite for many of Washington’s legal elite.

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 Dreams or Delusions? Two Supreme Court Justices Pick Their Side and it May Surprise You appeared first on Law Street.

On New Year’s Day 2014, it became legal in Colorado to sell marijuana in specially licensed dispensaries to adults 21 years and older. Much like any liquor store, you can walk in, show your ID, and make your purchase. But the dispensaries don’t just sell marijuana you smoke; you can also buy edibles, as well–marijuana you eat. As a newly legal product, the state was in uncharted territory. As we fast forward a little more than a year later, what are the state regulations on edibles, what effects have the sale of edibles had, and are other states following suit?

What is edible Marijuana?

The Science

Cannabis, or marijuana, has three primary active compounds: THC, CBD, and CBG. THC is the only psychoactive ingredient. CBD and CBG have medicinal properties and alter the effects of THC. The drug reacts with the body’s endocannabinoid system, a “regulatory mechanism that modulates the release of compounds produced throughout the body,” and causes humans to experience a high. Marijuana can be vaporized, smoked, or consumed orally.

When marijuana is smoked or vaporized, delta-9-THC is absorbed through the lungs and heads straight to the brain. The onset high is relatively quicker and shorter than if marijuana is eaten. When the marijuana is consumed and digested by the liver, the delta-9-THC turns into 11-hydroxy-THC. The transformation causes the THC to quickly bypass the blood-brain barrier and produce a more psychedelic effect than smoked THC. Smoked and vaporized marijuana completely sidestep the liver and the THC never converts.

While the high from smoking marijuana is faster, edible highs last longer. When smoking marijuana, 50 to 60 percent of the THC in a joint can reach the blood plasma. The peak of the high can come after five to 10 minutes of smoking. In comparison, only ten to 20 percent of the THC in edibles hit the blood plasma and the high takes effect an hour or two later. The high from edible marijuana is described as a “whole body” high and can last from six to ten hours. Essentially, people experience the highs from smoking eating marijuana differently.

Why would someone choose edibles over smoking?

Although the high from edibles lasts longer, it isn’t necessarily stronger. The high from smoking is rapid and strong, and the effects wear off rather quickly. It is also relatively easy to know when you’ve reached a limit since the high is so immediate. One answer could be personal choice–some people prefer the experience of edibles. Edibles could also alleviate any problems a person has with consuming smoke, and coughing fits are essentially eliminated.

Also, edibles are inconspicuous. A person eating won’t invite attention the way someone smoking will. This is probably most important to medicinal marijuana patients. Amanda Reiman, policy manager of the California Drug Policy Alliance, explains that “people using marijuana medicinally for long-lasting chronic pain often prefer oral ingestion because it lasts longer and they don’t have to consume as often.” Bob Eschino, a partner at Medically Correct, says “They’re discreet, and it’s an easy way to dose the medication…especially here in Colorado, where you can’t smoke in public, you can still medicate with edibles.”

Edible Products

The sky seems to be the limit. Marijuana comes in the form of cookies, gummies, brownies, caramels, hard candies, chocolate bars, Rice Krispies treats, and beyond. Colorado dispensaries estimate edibles account for 20-40 percent of sales. Nearly five million edibles were sold in Colorado in 2014. For example, Dixie Elixirs, a popular cannabis products store, sold THC-infused mints, truffles, dew drops, whipped cream, coffee, and tea all in a variety of flavors. There are plenty of companies getting onboard. In an interview just this past February, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream even stated they would experiment with cannabis-infused ice cream if legal hurdles were removed.

Health Concerns

A major issue when ingesting marijuana is a person’s inability to predict the right amount to take. In order to receive the intended effect, there are many factors to take into consideration. Dosage is based on the type of marijuana, tolerance, body weight, gender, body chemistry, and more. The issue is further exacerbated by the fact that an edible’s effect can take an hour to two hours to reach its height. This prompts impatient people to ingest more.

The Cannabist, which seeks to educate readers about marijuana, recommends the following steps to be safe. First, a user must acknowledge his or her drug history and tolerance and recognize body factors like body type and gender when ascertaining the proper dosage. Also, it’s recommended when eating an edible to have a full stomach or to do so while also consuming food. Next, a user should measure by milligrams. A unit is generally ten milligrams of cannabinoids. A user should stick to a brand that works for him after lightly experimenting with a variety. Be patient, and cautious.

Controversy arose after a string of tragic incidents occurred involving edible marijuana. Levy Thamba, a Wyoming college student, committed suicide by jumping from a hotel balcony after eating an entire marijuana-infused cookie. The recommend dosage was probably only a portion of that cookie. Lack of portion control knowledge is a problem. Al Bronstein, a physician and medical director of the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, explains “[portion control is] difficult to do, practically. I know, myself: I wish I could only eat one-eighth of a Snickers bar and leave the rest for later.” Another concern is that consumers don’t realize that ten milligrams refers to one-tenth of a candy bar, for example, as opposed to the entire thing.

A Colorado man was accused of killing his wife after consuming pot candy. This man is thought to also have been on prescription drugs. As with alcohol, it is extremely dangerous to mix marijuana and prescription drugs.

Another major concern is children accidentally ingesting edibles that look like their non-marijuana-infused counterparts. According to a 2013 JAMA Pediatrics study, Children’s Hospital Colorado saw a “significant spike in the number of children treated for accidentally eating marijuana-laced treats” after the new marijuana-based laws were set in place. In one month, three seventh graders were hospitalized after ingesting marijuana-infused brownies.

The culmination of these events prompted public outcry that inspired new and stricter regulations on the selling and packaging of edible marijuana

Laws and Regulations

Stricter laws and regulations in Colorado went into effect on February 1, 2015 aimed at standardizing the labeling, packaging, and potency of edibles.

The recommend amount to take is one unit or ten milligrams. According to the new law, to avoid any consumer confusion, the serving portion must be transparently clear and marked “in a way that enables a reasonable person to intuitively determine how much of the product constitutes a single serving of active THC.” For example, Dixie Elixir’s marijuana-infused mints used to come in a loose tin of ten, with ten milligrams of THC each. They are now wrapped individually and sold at 16 mints of five milligrams apiece.

Packaging must now be child-resistant. Packages must be “constructed to be significantly difficult for children under five years of age to open…opaque so that the packaging does not allow the product to be seen without opening the packaging material…[and] resealable for any product intended for more than a single use.”

Labels must be more informative and give clear warning signs such as “This product is unlawful outside the State of Colorado” and/or “The intoxicating effects of this product may be delayed by two or more hours.” This specifically targets overdoses caused by impatience and overconsumption while a user is waiting for the drug to take effect.

The Marijuana Enforcement Agency now provides incentives for companies to sell ten milligram-portioned products. Manufacturers will face larger obstacles for production of ten to 100 milligram products.

Other Laws

Marijuana is still prohibited under federal law. This means you can still be fired for recreational use, and it can also lead to the loss of benefits, public housing, and financial aid.

Driving under the influence of marijuana will always be illegal, like alcohol. In Colorado, you can transport an unopened original package, but never across state lines. It is also forbidden to fly with marijuana even if you are traveling to another state with legalized marijuana.

You can obtain marijuana from a licensed dispensary or another adult over 21 as long as no money is exchanged. It is illegal to sell or resell any marijuana.

Alaska and Washington have also legalized marijuana for adult use with similar regulations. Washington D.C. and Oregon are following suit, but certain aspects of regulation have yet to go into effect. A total of 23 states allow marijuana for medical necessity.

Conclusion

Education and clear information are both vital. The tragedies surrounding edible marijuana seem like they most likely could have been avoided if these regulations were initially set in place, but it is hard to say for sure. Legalized marijuana, including edibles and other products, remains a new territory. New consumers need to learn what is safe and right for them as a learning curve is involved. If you are going to try it, it is important to be as informed as possible and in a safe environment. In the future, additional states may follow suit and legalize marijuana, and these questions will remain essential to keeping everyone as safe as possible.

Resources

Primary

Colorado Department of Revenue: Retail Marijuana Regulations

Additional

ABC News: Why Marijuana Edibles Might Be More Dangerous Than Smoking

Cannabist: Get Educated About Edibles: Eight Tips For Getting the Right Dose

Cannabist: New Rules in Effect for Colorado Marijuana Edibles Feb. 1

CBS: Colorado Moves to Curb Dangers of Edible Pot Products

BoingBoing: Everything You Need to Know about Marijuana Edibles

Consumer Responsibly: Know the Law

Denver Post: More Than 15 Months in, Pot-infused Edibles Still Confound

Dixie Elixirs: Products

Huffington Post: Ben & Jerry’s Founders Are Totally Down With Weed Ice Cream When It’s Legal

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 Marijuana Edibles: A New Challenge for Regulators appeared first on Law Street.

Waze is a popular application that provides information to drivers about the best route to take, and utilizes user-generated information to alert drivers to where cops are located. Because of this feature, Waze has encountered criticism from various police forces and the government; however, that same technology is now enabling Waze to partner with the city of Los Angeles for the greater good.

Instead of just providing drivers with the fastest way to get from point A to point B or warning them to slow down because of speed traps, Waze will now also provide alerts to users about hit-and-run incidences as well as kidnappings, in order to try to crowd source aid. The app may also be used to provide other information to Los Angeles users, such as notifications about road closures or other delays. Additionally, Waze could create a way for users to interact with the city, such as features that allow reporting downed lights or other things that need to be taken care of by the government.

This partnership was announced by Mayor Eric Garcetti in his recent State of the City speech, and spokespeople working for Waze have said that they’re happy to be working with the city of Los Angeles. The company was purchased by Google in 2013 and has continued to grow rapidly. While Waze is working with other cities as well, such as Boston and Washington D.C., this new move to partner with L.A. seems to be very extensive, and is a big get for Waze. De-Ann Eisnor stated about the new partnership, “We are very, very excited that Los Angeles is doing this. It’s huge for us.”

It’s also a good move for the city. Overall, some ten percent of its residents use the application. Los Angeles actually has the highest population of Waze users in the United States, at around 13.1 million, and the second highest population in the world, after Sao Paolo. It’s important to keep in mind however, that Los Angles and Sao Paolo are very big cities–the city with the highest proportion of Waze users is Tel Aviv, where Waze was founded. Adding more public safety features to the app in L.A. may up the user count there even more.

This new partnership probably won’t go all the way toward assuaging concerns that police officers, or governments, have over the app. The fact that it can provide information about the whereabouts of police officers certainly can be viewed as concerning. That being said, with all the potential for public benefit, Waze seems like it can end up doing a lot more good than harm.

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 Waze App and Los Angeles Announce Partnership appeared first on Law Street.

The National Prayer Breakfast is an annual event that occurs every February in Washington D.C. As part of the event, speakers are invited to share encouraging words of faith. The National Prayer Breakfast was especially visible in the news recently as a result of controversy over a recent speech by President Obama. Read on to learn about the history, inception, and purpose of the event.

What is the National Prayer Breakfast?

The National Prayer Breakfast is an annual event held in Washington, D.C. on the first Thursday of February. This year the event celebrated its sixty-second anniversary. Among the 3,200 people in attendance, guests from all fifty states and 140 countries were represented. One of the most high-profile attendees is the president of the United States who gives a speech, as well as a designated keynote speaker whose identity is kept confidential until that morning. The event has had many notable speakers including Mother Teresa, Bono, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and NASCAR legend Darrell Waltrip. Some have garnered national attention for speeches that they have made at the Breakfast, including Doctor Ben Carson, whose speech is in the video below.

Who is invited to attend the National Prayer Breakfast?

People from all walks of life are invited. This list includes the President and First Lady, members of Congress, visiting heads of state, and a myriad of ambassadors representing scores of countries, many of them adherents of other religions or non-theist.

What is the purpose of the National Prayer Breakfast?

The purpose of the National Prayer Breakfast is two-fold, but the main intention is quite simple: to come together in prayer and thanksgiving. Non-Christians attend the breakfast, but the event is designed to make sure that everyone is respectful whenever possible. The second purpose is to hear from the prominent speakers who offer words of encouragement and/or challenge the audience to live their lives in fuller service to Christ’s teachings.

History of the National Prayer Breakfast

The first National Prayer Breakfast took place in 1953 when the houses in the United States Congress joined together to establish it during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower. Since then not only has the National Prayer Breakfast become a yearly tradition, there are also smaller versions that occur in cities and states across the country and around the world.

The concept of the event actually began in the 1930s when a young man named Abraham Vereide began to meet  with the leaders in his home area of Seattle and counseled them to study Jesus and his teachings, especially with regard to the poor and disenfranchised. As the 1940s progressed, Vereide began to meet with members of Congress for the exact same reason. The results of these meetings moved Congress to start the breakfast and invite the president to partake in the event, as well.

Is the National Prayer Breakfast a partisan or denominational event?

All members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, are invited to put aside their jobs as politicians and for that brief time come together as one. This is regardless of denomination as well as religion. One will see Lutherans sitting next to Evangelicals and those who are not Christian at all. The Dali Llama was also present at this year’s National Prayer Breakfast as a guest of President Obama.

Who organizes the National Prayer Breakfast?

There are many religious groups that help to put on the event, whether it is getting the venue set up, arranging for the speakers, or providing other forms of support; however, the organization that takes the leading role is a group called Fellowship Foundation. This group, which started in 1929, is framed as a network of friends from all walks of life joined together by an interest in the power of Jesus.

How is the National Prayer Breakfast similar to and different from other national religious events?

The National Prayer Breakfast is similar to other events such as the National Day of Prayer, in that both are a nationwide call for Prayer; however, these events differ because the breakfast is not mandated by law, but rather is sustained by private individuals. They also differ in their focus, as the National Day of Prayer is designed to be a call for Americans to humbly come before God, seeking his guidance and grace and the National Prayer Breakfast is designed as an event  to hear words of wisdom, inspiring testimony, or to give those who attend and those read about it on social media afterward something to think about in order to help to bring their own lives closer to Christ.

What topics are covered in the speeches given at the National Prayer Breakfast?

The topics have been as varied as the speakers. When Mother Teresa spoke, her topic was abortion. She condemned the procedure, stating that “any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.” When Doctor Carson was the speaker in 2013 he spoke about fixing America using principles from the Bible itself. Eric Metaxas, who spoke in 2012, discussed the topic of dead religion. Finally Darrell Waltrip spoke this year on his own conversion, stating that:

Good guys go to hell. If you don’t know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, if you don’t have a relationship, if He’s not the master of your life, if you’ve never gotten on your knees and asked Him to forgive you of your sins, you’re just a pretty good guy or a pretty good gal, you’re gonna to go to hell.

Watch the video below for more on Waltrip’s speech.

Is there opposition to the National Prayer Breakfast?

Most of the dislike for the event comes from secularists and more liberal forces. Groups such as Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have opposed it on a number of grounds, ranging from their opposition to the group that sponsors it–the Fellowship Foundation–which is a fundamentalist group, to wishing that those who attended the event better understood the need for separation between church and state.

Some have even gone so far as to suggest that the National Prayer Breakfast shouldn’t exist, at least not in its present form. In addition to the critiques that the it receives from the non-religious community, it is also no stranger to political controversy. One such controversy occurred in 2012, when the National Prayer Breakfast had additional competition from the Occupy Faith DC protest, which was set up to proptest the breakfast as an event for the rich and famous only. Other controversies included when Mother Teresa called out then-President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary on their stances on abortion; and  most recently critiques point to President Obama’s remarks at this year’s event. He was accused of comparing historical Christianity and modern extremist Islam.

Resources

Primary

National the Day of Prayer

Additional

Priests For Life: Mother Teresa’s Speech

Huffington Post: Occupy National Prayer Breakfast

American’s United Blog: Breakfast Club: Obama Endorses Seperation at Evangelical Event

America Blog: The National Prayer Breakfast Shouldn’t Exist

Americans United Blog: Doubting Thomas: Prayer Breakfast Theocrats Try to Baptize Jefferson

Doctor Ben Carson: National Prayer Breakfast Speech Transcript

Fellowship Foundation: History

Faith and Action: Salvation and Damnation in DC

Freedom Outpost: The Message You Didn’t Hear About at the National Prayer Breakfast: Without Christ, You Will Go to Hell

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 National Prayer Breakfast: History and Controversies appeared first on Law Street.

If you are an incarcerated individual in the United States, you can be found in one of two places: a government-run prison, or a private prison. Private prison is an interesting term though, as it doesn’t really explain what this kind of institutions is. A more appropriate label would be “for-profit prisons,” because at their essence, that’s exactly what they are. A small group of forward-looking thinkers in Washington, D.C. are starting to float the idea that there’s an alternative to these private, for-profit prisons. They base their concept on rehabilitation rather than punishment, and if their group continues to move forward, they could change the for-profit prison landscape for good.

Here’s a more in-depth look at private prisons and the problems they cause, but to sum it up, private prisons are the result of government prisons closing, and the government hiring private contractors to run prisons in their place. In 2011, there were 130,950 prisoners incarcerated in private facilities –more than 12 percent of the nationwide prison population. That number has grown quickly, nearly 700 percent from 1970 to 2005.

Given that the U.S. is pretty intent on locking up a larger proportion of its population than most any other country, it’s a smart business to be in. The top private prison contractor, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), posted $1.75 billion in revenue in 2012. And these contractors are smart enough to keep themselves in business — they have their own Super PACs and lobbying arms.

Finally, some individuals have started to point out that this isn’t a great idea. The whole purpose of prison is punishment,yes, but also rehabilitation. When the whole point of a business is making money off of those who have been incarcerated, what motive is there to rehabilitate them? Rehabilitation would almost certainly mean fewer repeat customers.

It was out of that idea that Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE), a prison reform group, was born. Here is the group’s mission:

We believe that prisons should be used only for those who absolutely must be incarcerated and that those who are incarcerated should have all of the resources they need to turn their lives around. We also believe that human rights documents provide a sound basis for ensuring that criminal justice systems meet these goals.

CURE, which is composed mainly of those previously incarcerated, wants to create the first non-profit prison in the United States. They are focusing on Washington D.C., particularly on the Correctional Treatment Facility, one of D.C.’s two prisons. Given that CCA’s contract with the city will be up in 2017, CURE sees the prison as a place where they could potentially become involved and make a real change in the way prisoners are rehabilitated.

Charlie Sullivan, CURE’s Executive Director, went into more detail about its motivation, saying:

What both the private and government-run prisons are doing is just holding people. They’re playing defense; we need to play offense. We need to give people an opportunity to change their lives.

Right now the plan is by no means concrete. But the idea is there — the idea that our prisons can become more than just holding areas. That we can help those incarcerated turn their lives around. That our prison population does not need to keep growing at such a high rate. Whether or not CURE is successful, its work to change the way we in the U.S. handle prisoners can definitely have an impact.

—

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 [Still Burning 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 Non-Profit Prison Group Aims to Change the Incarceration Landscape appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [thisisbossi 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 Top 10 Law Schools for Environmental and Energy Law: #4 Georgetown University Law Center appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Ingfbruno via WikiMedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Environmental and Energy Law: #5 The George Washington University Law School appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama stirred up an old debate recently by becoming the first sitting president to endorse statehood for the District of Columbia. Obama expressed his full support: “I’m in DC, so I’m for it…Folks in DC pay taxes like everybody else. They contribute to the overall well being of the country like everybody else. There has been a long movement to get DC statehood, and I’ve been for it for quite some time.”

Here’s what you need to know about Washington DC’s contentious battle for statehood, what it would mean for District residents, and what impact it would have on the country.

Why was the District of Columbia created?

To understand the arguments for statehood, you have to understand the history of Washington, DC. The District of Columbia was specifically created to house the federal government. The authors of the Constitution wanted to house the federal government in its own jurisdiction after witnessing the problems of having the nation’s temporary capital in Philadelphia. The decision was made in 1787 following an incident in which the governor of Pennsylvania refused to disperse rioters threatening Congress in Philadelphia. The framers did not want the federal government to be subject to any decisions of a specific state or governor. So, the delegates wrote Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution to outline Congress’ control over the district:

“[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.”

Congress moved to a new federal capital in 1800, and the District still stands today on land ceded by Maryland. Residents of the District face a number of unique circumstances because it is not a state.

Originally, DC residents were barred from voting for president. It was not until 1961 that the passage of the 23rd Amendment finally secured three electoral votes for the District. DC residents also elect one non-voting member to the House of Representatives.

The District of Columbia has operated under a system of Home Rule since 1973 as a way to better govern local affairs. Home rule means that DC is allowed a local government, including a directly elected mayor and city council. Still, Congress has the ultimate authority and the power to overturn any laws passed by the local government.

Why do people push for DC statehood?

Right to Vote

Residents of DC express outrage that they pay federal and local taxes, are subject to the same laws as everyone else, fight in wars, and serve on juries, yet they lack the same Congressional representation. The argument is also made that this disenfranchisement comes from a legacy of racism aimed at the District’s majority African-American population. Those in favor of statehood want the full rights of being an American citizen, which includes full representation in Congress as well as full control over local affairs. In addition to lacking voting power, DC’s representative in Congress is denied a federal salary and an office. License plates in DC decry residents’ lack of status with the slogan “Taxation without Representation.” Watch President Obama’s remarks on DC statehood below:

Local Control

Many citizens are fed up with the limitations of DC’s Home Rule. Since Congress can overturn any law, it has exerted its power on a number of issues passed by DC residents. Congress has intervened to restrict abortions, to prevent restrictions on firearm ownership, and even to control marijuana issues. Congress has also barred DC from using local tax dollars on specific things, such as statehood advocacy and needle exchange programs.

Taxes

Citizens claim they do not have enough financial resources to pay for high-quality public services. Although DC is not a state, it has all the financial burdens of one. It provides local services, like public schools and a police force, but it also provides services typically dealt with at the state level, like mental health and Medicaid. DC has limited taxing powers. The District cannot tax income earned within its borders by non-residents, even though all other states have that power. Two-thirds of income in the District is made by people who do not live in the District, yet they pay no income tax.  Additionally, the federal government, embassies, and non-profits that occupy most of DC pay no property, sales, or income taxes. The small size of the city and disproportionate number of low-income workers with higher needs for public services strain the District financially. Still, DC residents pay the highest federal taxes per capita.

Growing Population

Washington DC’s fast-growing population of approximately 650,000 — larger than Wyoming or Vermont — is large enough to make it a state. According to the Washington Peace Center, DC as a state could bring in more than $2 billion a year in additional revenue. This would allow the local government to cut taxes and better fund schools and services. Freeing itself from Congressional oversight would also make the district more efficient. Watch more about the DC statehood movement below.

Shutdowns

The 16-day federal government shutdown during Fall 2013 illustrated issues with DC dependency on federal funds and approval. DC Mayor Grey did not shut down local services but suspended some payments so the city could remain operational. Mayor Grey warned that vital city services were dangerously close to ending as the city’s emergency funds were depleted. Allowing DC the autonomy of statehood would prevent these issues in the event of a federal government shutdown.

Legally, how would statehood be achieved?

Despite President Obama’s supportive statement, making DC a state is unfortunately not within his power. There are a couple of avenues that the District of Columbia could take to obtain statehood.

Constitutional Amendment

There is some debate as to whether an amendment could make DC an official state, but it could definitely give DC’s residents much greater rights and further define the area of the federal district. Two-thirds of Congress would have to approve a matching constitutional amendment. Alternately, two-thirds of state legislatures could call a Constitutional Convention. The amendment would then be sent to the states for ratification by three-fourths. Naturally this process would be very difficult. A proposed amendment in 1985 to give DC more voting power was only ratified by 16 states in the allotted seven-year span. Further, critics point out that any constitutional amendment could later be repealed.

Law

Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution outlines the creation of new states.

“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

Under this section, an act of Congress could make DC its own state with a simple majority vote and signature from the President. This was the same process followed by Hawaii and Alaska as recently as 1959. There is some question as to whether Maryland would need to approve statehood, since DC was formed on land from Maryland. Still, bills are introduced to Congress nearly every year, but none has been brought to a vote since 1993. Most Congressional leaders like the idea of admitting states as pairs, so there is a good chance any vote to make DC a state would also include a bid of statehood for Puerto Rico.

Proposals for giving DC Congressional representation are much more common than bills for complete statehood. These bills have not been met with success. Some contend that giving District residents the right to vote may not even be within Congress’ power.

What are the current proposals?

Previous campaigns for statehood have referred to the new state as “New Columbia,” and the name is still associated with the movement today. The New Columbia Admissions Act was introduced in 2013 before failing to make it out of committee. The Act closely follows the proposed constitution ratified by DC voters in 1982. The plan would create a new state while still keeping a much smaller area of DC a federal district. The area of the federal district would shrink substantially, but would include all important federal buildings like the Capitol, White House, and Supreme Court. The Constitution sets an upper limit on the size of the District at 10 square miles, but no lower limit is set. All of the other residential land currently in DC would then become the 51st state. New Columbia would be granted the same rights as any other state in the Union.

To advance its agenda, the District of Columbia still selects members to a shadow congressional delegation that lobbies Congress to grant statehood and voting rights. The positions were authorized by a “state” constitution in 1982 authorized by voters, but this delegation is still not recognized by Congress. Numerous groups in DC continue to lobby for statehood. Watch DC Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton speak on statehood below.

What are the arguments against statehood?

In Federalist No. 43, James Madison argued that the District of Columbia needed to be independent for maintenance and safety concerns. Madison wrote,

“A dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy.”

Arguments against statehood today follow similar lines. Americans are concerned that the federal government would be dependent on a single state to cover its security and general operations. With such great power, a state could restrict the federal government in ways that would not be beneficial to the rest of the nation. However, the plan to keep important governmental buildings as a federal district largely mitigates these concerns.

The uniqueness of the DC area makes statehood very difficult politically. Some of the arguments opponents have:

• Similar to all states with relatively small populations, DC’s small size and population would give it an unfair influence in politics.
• The liberal area would be a stronghold for Democrats, and DC would always send Democrats to Congress.
• The interests of the District would be dominated by the federal government, since it would be the state’s largest employer by far.
• The state would be the only one without rural residents. This means the representatives would share none of the interests held by non-urban areas.
• A state could enact a commuter tax on non-residents who come to the state to work. Such a tax is currently banned under Home Rule.
• The constitutional question of whether the state of Maryland would have to consent to the new state, since the district was formed on land granted by Maryland.
• Some people flat out do not want to witness a strange-looking flag with 51 stars. But not to worry, numerous 51-star flags have already been designed, and they don’t look too bad.

Courtesy of jacobolus via Wikipedia

Are there any other alternatives to statehood?

Most citizens in favor of DC statehood oppose settling for anything less. Some propose bills to grant voting representation to members of DC, such as simply allowing DC’s representative in the House of Representatives the power to vote. Others worry these laws could be undone by the next Congress — and Congress may not even have the authority to make such a law.

Others propose some sort of tie with Maryland. This could mean parts of DC being given back to Maryland. However, neither Maryland nor DC really want to merge. A less drastic solution is Congress restoring the voting rights of District residents by allowing them to vote as a part of Maryland while maintaining the integrity of the District. Still, residents want voting as well as increased autonomy over local affairs.

Issues over DC statehood will not soon be resolved unless residents can be better provided some method of true representation. Most recently in the never-ending saga of DC residents, issues arose with DC driver’s licenses not being considered a valid form of ID by uninformed TSA agents. The good news is DC statehood would likely make the lives of TSA agents much easier.

Resources

Primary

Senate: New Columbia Admission Act

The District of Columbia: Statehood

Additional

Week: Obama Endorses Statehood for Washington, DC

Daily Caller: Obama Endorses DC Statehood

Huffington Post: Let’s Settle This Once and for All: DC Statehood is Constitutional

New Columbia: Vision

Brookings: If the District of Columbia Becomes a State: Fiscal Implications

Neighbors United for DC Statehood: FAQs

Mother Jones: DC: The 51st State?

Washington Post: Budget Deal Reminds DC That Congress is Still in Charge

Washington Peace Center: DC Statehood: A Primer

Brookings: A Sound Fiscal Footing for the Nation’s Capital

Hill: Denying DC Statehood Continues Federal Overreach

Smithsonian Magazine: Designing a 51-State Flag

Hill: DC Delegate to Meet with TSA

Leadership Coalition: Why DC Voting Rights Matter

Alexandra Stembaugh

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

The post The 51st State: What DC Statehood Would Mean for the Country appeared first on Law Street.

Whether you are moving to Washington DC permanently, attending one of the many universities in the city, or simply visiting, there is always something to do in the city. However, people new to DC and even longtime residents may not know the nuances of the DC code. From smoking outside, drinking in public, or to simply riding a bike, Washington has some unique laws that you may not know about. Read below for a quick breakdown of many of the rules and regulations in our nation’s capital.

This article is meant to be a guide to laws in DC; however, it should not be interpreted as the law itself. To see the actual wording of the laws check out the Official DC Code.

Alcohol

Underage Drinking/Fake ID’s

If a person under the age of 21 is convicted of purchasing, attempting to purchase, posses, or drinking alcoholic beverages they are guilty of a misdemeanor and upon first offense will face a fine of up to $300 and suspension of driving privileges for 90 days.

A person will face the same penalty for falsely representing his or her age, or possess an identification document that is fraudulent in any way for the purpose of buying, possessing, or drinking alcohol.

Bottom Line: Under DC law, it is illegal to drink alcohol underage. If you get caught drinking, possessing, or buying alcohol you will likely face a fine and suspension of your driver’s license.

Providing Alcohol to Minors

If a person who is not a licensed vendor offers, provides, or make alcohol available to someone under the age of 21 they may be face a fine of up to $1,000 and/or be imprisoned for up to 180 days for the first offense.

Open Container/Public Intoxication

No person may drink or possess and open container of an alcohol in a public area. Lawful consumption of alcoholic beverages must be in a public place that is licensed to sell alcoholic beverages, during times that such a place is authorized to sell, or in a private residence with permission of the owner. It is also unlawful in both public and private places for a person to be intoxicated and endanger the safety of himself, herself, or any person or property.

Any person convicted of violating these laws is guilty of a misdemeanor and may be punished with a fine no more than $500 and or up to 90 days in jail.

Bottom line: Under DC law, it is illegal to drink alcohol in public unless you are in an enclosed outside area at a licensed venue. It is also illegal to be drunk and endanger yourself, others, or anyone’s property.

When You Can Buy Alcohol

The Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration issues several different classes of licenses, which allow for the sale of alcohol during certain hours.

Class A (Grocery store, liquor store, corner store…): May sell beer, wine, and spirits from 7 am-midnight, Monday-Sunday.

Class B (Grocery or convenience store): May sell beer and wine from 7 am-midnight, Monday-Sunday

Restaurant/Tavern/Night Club/Hotel/Multipurpose Facility: May sell and serve beer, wine, and spirits (depending on type of restaurant license) from 8 am-2 am Monday-Friday, and from 8 am-3 am Saturday-Sunday

Controlled substances

Medical Marijuana

A patient may possess and administer marijuana as well as any other related paraphernalia given that they have a signed written recommendation from a physician operating within DC law. The patient must also register with the mayor, a process which requires providing a copy of a doctor’s written recommendation as well as the designation of a specific dispensary for use by the patient.

Upon registration a patient will receive an identification card for verification by law enforcement, each card must be renewed annually. While use and possession of marijuana is legal for those who are registered, patients are not allowed to operate a vehicle under the influence of marijuana.

Marijuana

Currently, possession of less than 1/2 lb of marijuana is a misdemeanor, which if someone is convicted of can be punished by up to 180 days in jail and or up to a $1,000 fine. However, DC just passed a bill that would decriminalize possession of up to one ounce. Under the new bill, people caught possessing small amounts would only face a $25 fine. The bill was signed by DC Mayor Vincent Gray on March 31, 2014 and now currently faces a 60-day period of congressional review.

Bottom line: Marijuana not obtained through the city’s medical program remains illegal in DC. However, if the current bill passes through the congressional review process penalties for possessing small amounts will dramatically decrease and jail time will no longer be on the table.

Other Controlled Substances

DC law makes possession of an illegal drug, except PCP, a misdemeanor. The punishment for a first offense is up to 180 days in jail and or up to a $1,000 fine. Punishment is largely dependent on the severity of the offense and the substance involved.

DC has five classes of substances ranging from Schedule I characterized by a high potential for abuse and little to no medical value, to Class V characterized by low potential for abuse and dependence as well as widely accepted medical value.

Biking laws

Helmets

It is required for any person under the age of 16 to wear a helmet while biking in public. It is unlawful for any parent or guardian to knowingly allow their child to operate a bicycle without a helmet, an offense that can result in a $25 fine.

Riding a bike

Bicyclists riding on highways are subject to the same duties as drivers of motor vehicles, including traveling in the same direction of traffic. There is no law requiring bicyclists to use provided bike lanes; however, in the Central Business District (CBD) biking on sidewalks is prohibited.

The CBD is defined by the area between 2nd Street NE and SE, D Street SE and SW, 14th Street SW and NW, Constitution Ave NW, 23rd Street NW, and Massachusetts Ave NW (click here for a map). Within the CBD biking is allowed on parks and land owned by the Federal Parks Service.

Bicycles must also be equipped with an “audible warning device” such as a bell, which can be heard at least 100 feet away. Finally, although it is not advisable, there is no law prohibiting cell phone use while biking, as existing laws only apply to motor vehicles.

For further information check out the Pocket Guide to DC Bike Laws provided by the District Department of Transportation

Miscellaneous

Littering: 1^st violation is a $75 fine (in a 60 day period)

Crosswalks: An intersection of two or more roadways is considered a crosswalk, whether it is marked or not. Drivers must yield the right of way to pedestrians in both marked and unmarked crosswalks.

Smoking 

DC’s smoke free laws went into full effect in January of 2007, after which point people are no longer able to smoke in public buildings, worksites, restaurants, and bars. The city passed further legislation that prohibits smoking within 25 feet of public parks, playgrounds, recreational centers, and bus stops.

Bottom line: You can only smoke outdoors, in cigar bars, and your residence or a rented hotel room. Otherwise you will face a fine between $10 to $50 on your first offense, and $50 to $100 for subsequent offenses. Simply put, save the cost of a pack of cigarettes and walk outside.

Renting

If you are moving to DC and plan to rent an apartment there are several laws and regulations in place to help protect consumers. Before you submit an application, a potential landlord must disclose: the cost of the non-refundable application, the amount of rent and any surcharges for the unit, the frequency that rent increases may be implemented, the cost of the security deposit (if there is one), and all reports for housing code violations that occurred in the past year.

Bottom Line: look for the important details about the cost and conditions of the building before you submit the application. There are several laws in place to help protect renters, for more information about your rights as a renter and important details about the renal process check out the Washington DC Tenant Survival Guide.

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10)

Feature Image Courtesy of [Sgt. Andy Dunaway/U.S Navy via Wikimedia]

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 Traveling to DC: Here are Your Legal Need to Knows appeared first on Law Street.

Until last year, there was only one state without a conceal carry law, and that state was Illinois. A Federal Appeals Court stated last winter that the ban on carrying concealed weapons was unconstitutional. The court required the Illinois legislature to draft a conceal carry law by July 9th, 2013, for implementation by January of 2014.

The law has been written, and is ready to take effect, but it has led to a lot of confusion in Illinois. There are a lot of places where it is still forbidden to carry a concealed weapon, and there were many caveats inserted into the brand new law. For example, one of these complications is that it is illegal to take a concealed gun to a large fair or parade. But you can have a gun on the street normally. So, if you happened to be walking home with your legal concealed gun, and run into the parade, your gun suddenly becomes illegal. This makes things very complicated, because if someone was arrested for having a gun in a public gathering, they could just claim they were walking home.

You can have a concealed gun on a bike path that goes through a park, but not in the park itself. You can’t bring a concealed gun into a post office, alright, but you also can’t bring it into a post office parking lot.

Now I think the fact that restrictions are put on where concealed firearms can be taken is a good thing. I live in the one single, solitary place in the United States where it is still illegal to carry a concealed weapon–Washington DC–and I am completely okay with that. But I have to admit that these laws in Illinois do seem unnecessarily confusing.

Colleen Lawson, who owns a gun training facility stated, “it’s like a Byzantine maze. It’s possible to get through it without breaking any laws, but it’s tricky.”

The confusing law seems to be the result of the short period of time that the Illinois Legislature had to cobble it together, as well as the conflicting lobbies fighting for their say, leading to weird contradictions and Catch-22s.

Charles Lawson, Colleen’s husband, gave an interesting example. He described,

a scenario in which an armed person goes to a restaurant for a meal and decides to take a CTA train home. In that case, the permit holder would have to unload the gun and put it in a purse, backpack or other encasement. But the trick is removing it from the holster and unloading it. That can’t be done in public view. You can’t even go to a restroom inside the station and do it. To do it legally, the carrier would have to find a place nearby that allows firearms and go there to unload and put away the gun.

It seems clear that this juxtaposition arises out of the combination of pro-gun groups lobbying to allow that man to carry a gun into the restaurant, but anti-gun groups lobbying to disallow him from carrying it onto the train.

Like I said, it’s hard for me to say that conceal carry laws should be looser, because personally I’m not a fan of conceal carry on principle. But I really do believe that if you’re going to make a law, it shouldn’t be full of such gaping contradictions and complications the way this new Illinois conceal carry law is. It will make patsies out of innocent people who didn’t realize they were breaking the law, and that’s just not right.

—

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 [Brent Danley 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 Conceal Carry Mess in Illinois appeared first on Law Street.

I have made known how I feel about Toronto Mayor Rob Ford.  The cliff notes version is that I think he is a joke.  My colleague Annaliese wrote a pretty funny sendup of him as well.  He has been discussed ad nauseum in the media as of late, mainly for being a mess of a politician and human being.

A few hundred miles away, a different city has been talking about a different politician. Rep. Radel is a freshman congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives and represents Florida’s 19th Congressional District.  In October, he was arrested for purchasing three-and-a-half grams of cocaine from an undercover police officer. This activity, of course, is frowned upon.

Rep. Trey Radel, courtesy of U.S. Government (Office of Congressman Trey Radel) via Flickr.

Ok, I have to be honest.  I did not bat an eye when I read about Radel and his nose candy purchase.  Person in a position of power decides that, in their free time, they want to play Tony Montana; also, today ends in “Y.”  Next controversy?

I got to thinking why I was so incensed about Mayor Ford, and so indifferent regarding Rep. Radel.  Here are my findings:

Their positions

Trey Radel is in his first term as a U.S. Representative. He was sworn in ten months ago, and is at the bottom of the Congressional totem pole.  In addition, there are literally 434 other people who do  the exact same job as Rep. Radel. There is enough of a buffer that a coke binge would not stop the wheels of legislation.  However Radel’s arrest has drawn the ire of many because he recently voted to drug test recipients of public monies like food stamps and welfare (the gall!). His reasoning: if you receive government money as a public benefit, you cannot do drugs. If you receive government money as a result of a job that you are doing, drugs are okay.

Rob Ford, on the other hand, is the executive of Toronto. You know, Toronto, the largest city in Canada.  Imagine the uproar if the mayor of a city like New York said that he was really drunk when he smoked crack?  Bloomberg would never. New York would also have de Blasio’s head.  It would not fly in any major American city: not Los Angeles, not Boston, not Washington, D.C.—oh wait.  Nevermind. Additionally, a mayorship inherently has more immediate power than a member of Congress could have from their job, and the duties of a mayor’s job has a more direct effect on constituents.

Their Images

Trey Radel is a 37-year old Floridian and former news anchor. The guys is good looking. Unfortunately, that helps.  Look, this is not the first time looks have been advantageous to a politician.  He is a favorite of the tea party, hip enough to tweet, and has a young family. Finally, cocaine has a different social connotation than crack. This dates back to the Reagan Administration and the war on drugs.  Drugs are still drugs, of course, but cocaine is more widely accepted as recreational or social.

Rob Ford, on the other hand, looks like a cartoon character.  He has been a public figure long enough to have many televised gaffes that have since been turned into .gifs many times over.  Additionally, crack is embarrassing. When Whitney Houston was accused of crack cocaine use, she explicitly stated that she made too much money to ever smoke crack cocaine.  The Chapelle Show’s Tyrone Biggums character was a hilariously accurate rendering of how most people imagine users of crack cocaine. To imagine the mayor of Toronto smoking crack, then, is particularly jarring.

Rob Ford, courtesy of Shaun Merritt via Flickr.

Their Reactions

Almost a month after his arrest, Radel’s office released statements that seemed to follow the tried and true “politician in trouble” response.  He acknowledged that he had a problem and wanted to take a leave of absence from the House of Representatives.  He mentioned that he’d let himself, his family, and his constituents down. His actions immediately after the arrest made it seem like he thought that the incident would remain under the radar.  This hypothesis is bolstered by the fact that, according to reports, he did not tell senior Congressional officials until recently. In the days since the widespread dissemination of his arrest details, Radel has vowed to seek treatment for his addictions.

Rob Ford’s reaction was atypical, to say the least.  He took Bill Clinton’s “definition of ‘is’ is” and ran it sixty yards to a touchdown in the game of “most ridiculous political excuses”.  You’ll recall that the Mayor said that he never lied, but instead was asked the incorrect question, which subsequently elicited an improper response.  Had the obviously inept reporter simply asked if he’d ever smoked crack, well then the answer would have been a resounding yes.  Duh.  Why? Because it’s the truth.  THE TRUTH.  Not habitually, and not voluntarily- he was just blackout drunk.  This nonsensical response is what one would expect from a crackhead.  With Ford, the jokes right themselves.

The Aftermath

What it comes down to is the potential for redemption. In America, we love a good comeback.  This is Radel’s first public slip up, and if he is smart it will be the last.  In addition, he is not the first member of Congress to be in this position. He can make a successful political comeback, and if he plays his cards right could even run for higher office.  Oh America, you truly are the land of dreams!

Ford, on the other hand, is in uncharted territory.  His behavior since the admission of smoking crack has gotten worse, believe it or not.  I mean, the man tried to tackle someone during a vote of no confidence of the Toronto legislature. He has taken the ultimate step towards irreverence and signed on for a reality television show. There is really nowhere for him to go but down- let’s just hope he puts the pipe down.

[Washington Post] [Post] [CNN]

—

Featured image courtesy of [F l a n k e r via Wikipedia]

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 A Tale of Two Politicians appeared first on Law Street.