Latest News (9/06) in the North Korean Missile Crisis: The US drafts a UN Resolution to freeze Kim-Jong-Un's assets

Citizens celebrating the latest nuclear test, according to the North Korean news agency

Main article:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41182541
Supplementary articles (for background info):
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/world/asia/north-korea-nuclear-timeline---fast-facts/index.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40871848

North Korea has been an independent, communist nation since beginning of the Cold War. They signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a treaty designed to drastically slow the development of nuclear weapons in nations, in 1985. However, North Korea had been secretly running a nuclear weapons program, violating the Non-Proliferation agreement they signed. After the Bush administration found out about this, North Korea withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since then, North Korea has conducted numerous missile tests that have drawn the attention of many nations:US, China, Japan, South Korea, and Russia to name a few. Sanctions to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program have proven ineffective over the years, and now North Korea claims to have hydrogen bombs that can easily fit into long-range missiles. 

Though many believe that North Korea is simply developing nuclear weapons as a way to gain power, big nations in danger of an attack have taken the necessary safety measures. For instance, South Korea has developed Thaad (the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense), a missile defense system funded by the United States. Japan also has a similar defense system called "the Patriot missile system."

Despite the numerous sanctions that have failed to control North Korea, The United States proposed a list of new sanctions which will soon be looked over by the members of the United Nations security council. This resolution will ban oil exports to North Korea. Though Russia and China have recently become supportive of the sanctions against North Korea's nuclear program, they are still suppliers of oil to North Korea, so there is no guarantee that they will be supportive of this one. The sanctions will also ban textile exports from North Korea, severely weakening its economy. Furthermore, the sanctions will freeze Kim-Jong-Un's assets and ban him from traveling. US envoy Nikki Haley says "Enough is enough. We must now adopt the strongest possible measures." 

Discussion questions:
Was it smart for the United States to put together these sanctions despite its ineffectiveness over the last decade?
Do you think nations like Russia and China will approve of these sanctions?
Why do you think North Korea is keep trying to expand its nuclear program?

Putin Lends Aid to Maduro Leadership in the Midst of Venezuelan Economic Crisis

On Wednesday Putin announced that Russia would work to provide political and economic aid to Venezuela in order to keep President Maduro in power.

For the last few years Venezuela's economy has deteriorated rapidly, and President Maduro has autocratically unified his power over all branches of the once-democratic Venezuelan government. The legislative branch of the government, which was once controlled by the opposition party, was shut down months ago by Maduro's allies in the Supreme Court. Maduro even swayed a vote to rewrite the country's Constitution in order to give himself more autocratic, dictatorial power. In many ways, Venezuela's government once resembled that of the United States (legislative, executive, and judicial branches), but the lack of checks and balances and widespread corruption led to the degradation of this system with Maduro's ambition for power. As James Madison once warned in Federalist #51, "ambition must be made to counter ambition", or else episodes such as the current events in Venezuela might occur.

Putin's decision to offer support to the Maduro government shames President Trump, who recently threatened Venezuela's actions. It serves as a shame because it reminds the global observers that Trump's threat was merely empty words. Furthermore, lending support to the Maduro government is highly controversial considering how Maduro has been globally condemned. Putin's support comes at a cost, however. Putin is extracting oil resources from the country in return. Putin likely sees some sort of reward to come from establishing new footholds in America's backyard. Putin's motives of lending support to Maduro are inherently suspicious, considering how his intervention in the Syrian Civil War disrupted US plans of regime change there several years ago and were purportedly even helping to assist the Assad government. In light of this news, Russia could be blamed for yet again trying to meddle with US foreign goals and interests.

Also, ironically, maduro is Spanish for "mature". :)

Links to Articles:
Putin Lends Aid to Maduro
How Venezuelan Government Has Degraded

Discussion Questions:
1) What weaknesses do you believe existed in the Venezuelan government to allow for this downfall and degradation of democracy?
2) What do you believe are Putin's inner, anti-American, intentions in lending aid to President Maduro?

Are Obama's Immigration Orders Constitutional?

Perhaps because I support the policy goals, I agree with the legal reasoning explained by this conservative/libertarian law professor:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/09/04/the-case-for-daca/?utm_term=.3a7ea7800029

But then again:

Assad's De Facto Victory in The Syrian Civil War

link to article

Syrians rally for Assad | Source: New York Times

 Recently the Syrian Army under the control of Bashar al-Assad has lifted the siege of Syrian city Deir ez-Zor from opposing ISIS. ISIS has been declining for some time, and this is a major defeat for the caliphate. Once ISIS is out of the picture the Syrian Government will be able to move troops west to fight the NATO backed rebels. Unless a major power interferes directly, it is almost certain that Assad will end up triumphant in this struggle.

 Countries such as America that have supported the opposition rebels in the past are now being forced to adopt a more realistic view of a potential deal with Assad. The idea from the Obama administration that "Assad must go" is no longer a practical thing to demand. Now, America would be lucky to get any deal with Assad.

 The international community of rebel supporters is shrinking one by one, with Countries like Saudi Arabia and America diverting their efforts to things that they believe are more winnable. Even Turkey, a member of NATO is now moving siding with Iran, as they no longer see stopping Assad as doable. Their primary concern is to stop the Kurdish backed rebels that threaten both Iran and themselves.

 A victory for Assad would hold great significance, with NATO failing to bring their chosen side victory. While Russia, Hezbollah, and Iran, all backers of the Syrian government, have taken casualties, they are all ideologically stronger. It is likely that in the future they will be more willing to involve themselves in additional military conflicts.

Questions:
 How will this de facto victory alter the strategies of Russia, Hezbollah and Iran?
 Is this the beginning of a coalition against NATO's regime changes in the Middle East
 Will NATO move on to try to change a different regime?

Hurricane Irma strengthens; Florida and Puerto Rico prepare

Instagram | Mike Buresh

Since Hurricane Harvey hit Texas on August 25, the US Coast Guard has endeavored on countless of rescue missions in the area. However, now that Hurricane Irma is increasingly expected to hit parts of Florida, some Caribbean islands, and possibly even parts of the East Coast, some of the Coast Guard has relocated from Texas into Puerto Rico, Florida, and Georgia to prepare for the effects of the next natural disaster.

 Late Monday evening, Irma's winds increased to a maximum of 130 mph, making it a Category 4 hurricane (on the Saffir-Simpson Scale measured 1-5). The storm is expected to hit the US coast in around a week, and people in the predicted affected places are scrambling to prepare. Puerto Rico governor Ricardo Rosselló has declared a state of emergency and classes have been canceled on Tuesday; Puerto Rico may start experiencing the effects of the hurricane as early as Wednesday. Along with Puerto Rico, a series of other Caribbean islands, including some of the US Virgin Islands have been issued hurricane warnings, typically given 36 hours before the effects of hurricane first begin to appear.

Though the storm isn't expected to make it to the states until a few days after, Florida governor Rick Scott has also declared a state of emergency in all 67 counties of his state on Monday, claiming that the state cannot be too prepared. He urged families to prepare their disaster kits for when the hurricane is expected to turn north and hit Florida. President Trump has "offered the full resources of the federal government as Floridians prepare for Hurricane Irma."

Unfortunately, the hurricane is also under good conditions to continue strengthening, as it is moving with "warm sea surface temperatures and favorable upper-level winds." Florida is expected to receive the usual hazards: strong winds, heavy rain, and dangerous storm surges, which may be particularly dangerous this time, considering the amount of time Irma has spent over the water.  Irma began forming near the Cabo Verde Islands in east Atlantic (which has produced some of the most intense, devastating disasters), and has traveled across the ocean to hit on or near the US coast. With the predicted magnitude of this storm, states all along the east coast may have to worry about the effects of Irma.

Predicted routes
twitter | ryanmaue

Discussion Questions:
Should the United States issue more protection (like what Trump promised Florida) to Puerto Rico and its Virgin Islands?
Has the United States done as well as it can to prepare for and recover from natural disasters? If not, or if something can be improved, what should be done?

Source 1
Source 2

On DACA, President Trump Has No Easy Path

New York Times Article

President Trump is in a sticky situation due to the matter of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals(DACA), an Obama era executive immigration order implemented in June of 2012. The policy protects over 800,000 undocumented immigrants from being deported. Mr. Trump mentioned throughout his presidential campaign that he would scrap the program if elected for office, but now that he is in office he faces the difficult decision of ousting immigrants that were promised security under DACA due to a deadline by the courts. Legally, what is the best course of action for Mr. Trump to take? Will Mr. Trump change his mind on the issue? Should childhood arrivals be granted amnesty or a path to citizenship?

*UPDATE* Obama's Position

University of Utah Hospital changes protocol with law enforcement after nurse arrest

Handout | Reuters

A little over a month ago, a video of a nurse being dragged out of a hospital by policemen sparked national outrage. The video, recorded on July 26, documented an incident at the University of Utah Hospital when Alex Wubbels, the nurse, refused to let the police take a blood sample of a crash victim in a coma because it was against hospital policy. She showed them a printout of the rules, which stated that the police must have a judge's order or patients consent, none of which the police had. The police responded by arresting Wubbels anyway, claiming they did not want to harm the patient, and taking her into the police car for 20 minutes before releasing her.

On Monday September 4, the University of Utah hospital announced new reforms to its protocols regarding law enforcement. In order to prevent similar situations from happening again, law enforcement officers will have to work with hospital supervisors instead of the nurses, who can now focus on attending to their patients instead. The nurses and care staff will also no longer need to know the policies for dealing with officers.

In addition to the new policies, Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski and Salt Lake Police Chief Mike Brown have issued official apologies to Wubbel, who accepted the apology and is now looking forward to "help promote further civil dialogue and education." It seems as though the police were unaware of the hospital policy at the time of the incident, though the protocol had been drawn up and agreed on a year ago by both the University of Utah Hospital and the police force, but the police have assured that the officers are now familiar with the new policy in place. The arresting officer Detective Jeff Payne and one other officer are now on administrative leave.

Source 1 and Video
Source 2
Source 3

Fun Fact: Alex Wubbel is a two-time national alpine skiing champion. She competed in the 1998 and 2002 Winter Olympics.

Discussion Questions:
Is this yet another example of police misconduct?
What else can be done to make sure that these incidents don't happen again?

Congress Returns from Recess with a Long To-Do List

Sites like NBC and the New York Daily News have been covering the return of the congress from it's "summer vacation." Changes have already been made, but one opinion post argues that the most important job congress has right now is deciding on a spending bill. This brings up the topic of a border well again, though the editorial board of the Washington Post believes there is almost no way this will actually result in any sort of government shut down.

Instead of a government shut down, the Post argues Hurricane Harvey may actually have made the need for a spending bill even greater, and is the reason a government shut down isn't possible. Jason Silverstein from the New York Daily News has claimed that congress has the economy hanging in it's hands as a result of the tight deadline that has resulted from it's summer recess.

All of this leads back to the posts written in early August, before the recess. CNN covered the recess, explaining that it was tradition that almost didn't happen this year. Interestingly, ten republican senators asked to cancel the recess, supporting the opinion post in the Washington Post by describing five important aspects that congress needed to solve right away, "fixing health care, funding the government, dealing with the debt ceiling, passing a budget resolution and improving the tax code." Three of those five relate to our economy, thus making these last few days for the congress to come up with decisions incredibly important.

In terms of discussion, what do you believe would have been the right thing to do? Should senators have stayed and solved these major problems? Do you agree that the economy is the most important problem for congress to solve? What do you think is the right move for congress as they come closer and closer to a major deadline?

note: all links have more descriptive opinions on the importance of congress's decisions, and what they will be deciding.

Mattis warns of 'massive military response' to NK nuclear threat

Article 1
Article 2

Two major actions being considered by President Trump to deal with the increasing nuclear threat include the "many options" of "total annihilation" of North Korea, as well as stopping all trade with any country that has economic relations with North Korea.

Launching a preemptive nuclear attack on North Korea has many implications. First, it could provoke tensions with other countries in the area, such as China or Russia. The use of nuclear weapons so close to their borders could, worst case, initiate a nuclear response, or at the very least, incite backlash, possibly diplomatically or economically. North Korea will also be looking to return fire, and could launch counter strikes against the US or its allies in Asia (South Korea and Japan). There is also the issue of likely civilian casualties in North Korea, and the aftermath of destroying a nation's leadership. A post Kim Jong Un North Korea could be similar to a post Saddam Iraq, becoming unstable, and a base for terrorism. It could even become uninhabitable due to radioactive fallout (which may even affect nearby nations due to wind and water patterns).

Stopping trade has similar negative consequences. China, who is one of North Korea's main trade partners, is also America's largest trade partner, with total trade last year adding up to over $650 billion. Ending business with China and other countries would decrease American imports, driving prices of many goods up, as well as decreasing business efficiency. Even if China agrees to cut trade with North Korea in order to maintain trade with America, this may result in North Korea launching nuclear weapons in protest anyways.

What is the correct choice for the white house to pursue? Are there other options to consider?

Connection to class topics:
Does and should the president have the sole power to end trade and launch a nuclear strike? Since the constitution, the office of President has gained significant powers, especially in the area of foreign relations. New technology, such as the invention of nuclear weapons have given the President even more military power (he alone holds the responsibility of launching a nuclear attack). Congress has no check on this presidential power, and the Supreme Court has yet to rule it unconstitutional. Yet it does appear to be the best strategy. Having 435 Congressmen deliberate over the launching of a nuclear strike in a time of crisis and national defense may be too slow. Does this mean that the constitution is outdated? Does new technologies not anticipated by the Founders make the balance of power inefficient? Or should America retain its founding principles no matter what, as the benefits of balance outweigh certain strategies?

Hezbollah accuses the U.S. of putting lives at stake by hounding ISIS convoy

Al-Akhbar/Marwan Tahtah

As the war against IS (ISIS or ISIL) continues in Lebanon, both U.S. backed Lebanese forces and Hezbollah have stepped up to confront it. On Saturday August 16th, the Lebanese army launched their biggest military attack since Syrian rebels and extremists appeared in northeastern Lebanon, hoping to regain control of all their boundaries. Hezbollah, backing President Bashar al-Assad, also began an offensive on that Saturday, though both groups claim that they are not collaborating in any sort of way.

Though Hezbollah is technically an ally to the Lebanese coalition government, which the Lebanese army answers to, the Lebanese forces are wary of constructing relations with the Lebanon-based militia. The United States supports the Lebanese army with enormous military aid, including tanks, drones, and aircrafts. The U.S. has also trained a majority of the Lebanese troops, and turned the historically feeble army into an stronger force to be reckoned with. Hezbollah, on the other hand, is backed by Iran, and is considered a terrorist organization in the United States. With their sponsors holding hostile sentiments against one another, Hezbollah and the Lebanese army stand little chance for alliance and cooperation. For the Lebanese army and the United States, it is now essential that they put out a strong front and effective offensive. Otherwise, it would be the perfect opportunity for Hezbollah and Iran to emphasize their indispensability for the stability of the state. 

More recently, Hezbollah and the United States directly clashed heads on Saturday, September 2, when Hezbollah accused the United States of putting lives on stake by preventing the passage of 600 Islamic State fighters and their families from eastern Syria, near the Lebanese border, to western Syria, near the Iraqi border. 

This was a compromise drawn between Hezbollah and IS, which ended the week-long effort to eject Islamic State presence along the Syrian-Lebanese border. In the swap, Hezbollah would allow IS members evacuate from Lebanon (with no resistance) and relocate near Iraq in return for the bodies of captured Lebanese army soldiers, Hezbollah fighters and an Iranian military adviser. However, the United States, unhappy with this decision, took action to prevent the IS convoy from reaching its destination by bombing the route on which it traveled. United States warplanes have now been monitoring the status of the stranded convoy in Syrian-government-controlled territory, and bombing any Islamic State trucks that try and come to meet it for the past three days. 

Hezbollah claims that the actions taken by the United States have put women, children, the injured, and elderly at risk of dying because the convoy does not have access to food or water when American warplanes are bombing the aid coming from the Islamic State. However, the American military says it will not infer with any aid coming from the Syrian government (only interfering when IS tries to help), and claims that a supply delivery has already been made. The convoy itself will also remain unharmed, as there are civilians traveling in the group that they do not wish to harm. 

Both Iraq and the Lebanese government have reacted negatively to this decision made by Hezbollah. Though Hezbollah defends its decision by claiming that it will prevent the deaths of more combatants, some people in Lebanon are growing discontent over the authority that Hezbollah holds over the policies and proceedings of the state. Iraq is angry about the potential relocation of the IS fighters, already preparing an offensive of its own. 

My Opinion: I think the morality of the US stopping the convoy is a difficult situation to consider, as Hezbollah's negotiation with IS seems extremely promising for the US-backed Lebanon. Many Lebanese civilians were more than happy that the Islamic State was ejected from the Qalamoun region of their country after three years of being in control, showering the Lebanese army with flower petals and gifts when they returned on Wednesday. If the US continues to block the passage of IS members to the Iraqi border, the negotiation may be nullified and the fighting may return to Lebanon. However, some experts warn that this might be "Trojan Horse" move from Hezbollah, as the militant group gets almost all the credit for the victory (the Lebanese army was not involved in brokering the compromise). The increased popularity of Hezbollah is dangerous for the Lebanese state, and some government officials and opponents are worried about the cross-border control that Hezbollah now holds, as well as the potential for increased legitimacy and influence in the country. 

Unfortunately, I think that the United States is doing exactly as it should based on its foreign policies, though it may not be the most morally sound option. Because one of the US's top priorities is to support the Lebanese government, preventing the success of deal that would legitimize the threat of Hezbollah's authority is in the US's interests. The US has also been known to have a strict official policy against negotiating with terrorists (though the US has not been very diligent in following this rule, which is poorly worded and has wildly diverged from its original purpose anyway: source), and this is not just a negotiation with terrorists, but a negotiation between two groups that the United States considers as terrorists. Furthermore, because IS is a terrorist group, the United States would logically want to cripple their ranks as much as possible. The decision not to bomb the convoy is definitely a good one, as militaries are supposed to keep civilians out of cross fire as much as possible.

Even more unfortunately, I think the US has come to a standstill about what to do next. The military can't watch over the stranded IS buses forever, and since Assad and IS aren't exactly friendly, I'm not quite sure how often supplies will be delivered, nor how long the supplies will continue coming. When the food and water runs out (or apparently is already running out according to Hezbollah), the US will either have to let the convoy go on, turn them back to where they came from and risk IS retaliation in Lebanon as well as disproval from Lebanon, bomb them, let them starve, turn complete responsibility over to the Syrian government who are unlikely to treat them well, or another version of a horrible, unappealing option that should be morally unthinkable. 

Questions:

Do you think that the United States is doing the right thing by interrupting a compromise and preventing the passage of IS members from Lebanon to Iraq?

How will the actions of the United States affect the Lebanese people, given that the decision undermines the authority of the Lebanese government, but also ends the fighting and protects the lives of Lebanese soldiers?

Now that the convoy is stranded in the middle of the desert, what should the next move be? 

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Source 4

Map of IS Occupied Cities in Lebanon

Trump preparing withdrawal from South Korea trade deal, a move opposed by top aides

Article 1
Article 2

Is the "artist of the deal," President Trump, making some poor decisions on America's free trade policy?

One of the main effects of backing out of a free trade deal with South Korea is the economic impact on US consumers and corporations. South Korean companies supply a large amount of America's electronics and technologies imports, such as Samsung, Kia, etc. Tariffs placed on these products may benefit American manufacturers and workers to some extent by encouraging purchase of American goods, but will also drive product prices up; especially if Korea responds with tariffs, prices may skyrocket, putting everyone at a disadvantage. Trump's economic advisers have spoken out against ending the deal.

Another concern is the US - South Korea coalition against North Korea, and whether trade tensions could weaken the military effectiveness against a common enemy. Several of Trump's military advisers, including Secretary of Defense Mattis have spoken against ending the deal.

Can Trump's advisers convince him to maintain the deal, and how does his track record as President so far indicate his choice of action? What are your thoughts on Trump's decision? Is it helping him achieve his goals as President?

The Nuclear Deal is Working

Yukiya Amano of Japan, a UN official tracking Iran's Nuclear Program | The Guardian

Amidst all the horrible news concerning foreign affairs (thanks North Korea!), the UN has released a report that The Guardian, The New York Times, and the American Conservative have all covered with a positive air, except for slight nudge towards Trump.

Not only has Iran complied with the JCPOA, but the country has actually housed less of the substances that the agreement outlined. For example, the stockpile of heavy water is under the agreed amount, as is the uranium stockpile. This agreement was made in return for relief from harsh sanctions on the country.

As one who has a personal connection to Iran, I find the report to be a relief, and I agree with the American Conservative's claims that this report is "not surprising," followed by the New York Times mentioning that the findings are "unsurprising."

However, the report isn't all positive. All three sources have related the findings back to Trump. Trump has been putting pressure on the senate to withdraw from the agreement. He has even claimed that, had it been up to him, he would've found Iran "noncompliant" months ago.

This is quite concerning to me. How can one claim that a country that is abiding by preset rules is noncompliant? Despite this, Trump seems to be "checked and balanced" by not only the legislative branch on this matter, but even the five other major countries that are involved in this agreement.

Is it really right for the US to pull out of an agreement that Russia, Germany, England, France and China have all warned would result in isolation of the US on this subject? Does it make sense to investigate a matter of compliance? And finally, how does the system of the government checking itself play into this?

Boats carrying fleeing Rohingya sink in Bangladesh; 26 dead

Steve Gumaer/Creative Commons

On Thursday Aug. 31, 26 Rohingya women and children fleeing the violence in Myanmar were found dead in Bangladesh. Three boats carrying an unknown amount of Rohingya Muslim refugees sunk in the Naf River near Cox's Bazar, and the bodies of 15 children and 11 women were found.  They will be buried if no family or person claims them. The boats the refugees were "rickety inland fishing boats" according to a coast guard completely unsuited to the rough waters near the Bangladesh, indicating that the boats are used as close to a last resort.

The refugees are fleeing persecution in the predominantly Buddhist country where they are denied rights and citizenship. In 2012, tensions between the Rohingya Muslims and ethnic Rakhine Buddhists erupted into bloody riots and since then, there has been an anti-Muslim sentiment throughout the country. The last major assault before the most recent one was in 2016, when nine policemen died on border patrol. The government cracked down on the attacks, which spread allegations of rape, torture, and killing of Rohingya in Myanmar.

Last week, Rohingya insurgents (Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army) attacked a few dozen Rakhine police posts. The violence has prompted a response from the security forces, and over 100 people have died and 27,000 were forced to relocate from their home in northern Rakhine to the neighboring country Bangladesh. The Myanmar police are brutal, with satellite imagery from the Human Rights Watch showing them burning the homes of refugees and attacking any non-Buddhists with sticks, guns, and knives. Some Hindus and other Buddhists have fled the country as well after being attacked by Rakhine forces. Hundreds of people are currently stranded in no-man's land at the country's border.

Rohingya Refugee Map

Discussion Questions:
Should the United States intervene and help with this situation? Should the United Nations do more? How and why?
Are human rights laws being violated? If so, what consequences should the Burmese government (government of Myanmar) face?

Source 1
Source 2

US Expels Russian Diplomats in Response to the 755 Expelled Diplomats

As of Thursday, August 31, the Trump Administration has ordered for the Russian consulate in San Francisco to close, and for a reduced number of Russians in the D.C. embassy and the New York Russian consulate. This puts both country's in an equal state, for both Russia and the US have only three consulates in the other's country. However, this decision doesn't quite seem to be made for "equality", rather the decision seems like a retaliation of Putin's decision to expel 755 U.S. diplomats from Russia by September 1st.
If that isn't enough of a back and forth, Putin's decision is in response to both new sanctions against Russia, and Putin's claim that Russia will not "leave anything unanswered." Lauren Koran of CNN reports that these decisions have all resulted from last years election, and in a conversation between the US secretary of state and Russia's foreign minister, "Russia will study the order and respond to Washington."
In March of 2017, the US had administered an expulsion of 50 Russian diplomats, and five months ago, ABC news hinted that this may be a "return to the days of the cold war games," but what about now?
These tensions add pressure to the current state of affairs in North Korea, with discussions concerning the new sanctions. Does this increasingly sensitive relationship between Russia and the United States actually pose a threat to either government? Is the ABC news valid in it's claim that we may be returning to the days of the cold war?

note: all underlined words link to the articles used to construct this post
photo: US embassy in Russia

On Voting Reforms, Follow Illinois, Not Texas

Article link

Illinois became the 10th state this week to adopt automatic voter registration when an eligible voter visits the Department of Motor Vehicles or other government agency as the default with an opt out available. The goal is to improve voter participation rates and the question still remains whether more registered voters will actually yield higher turnout on election day. There is reason for optimism based on Oregon's results over the first two years of its automatic voter registration program which produced a 68% turnout in 2016, a four percent increase over 2012 numbers, which was the largest increase of any state in the nation.

By contrast, Texas has adopted a strict voter-ID law, which is disenfranchising some voters. A federal judge struck down the law on the grounds that it intentionally discriminates against black and Latino voters. The law accepted a gun permit as a legitimate form of ID (which are more commonly held by white voters), but not student ID cards. Although Texas issues free ID cards, a study found that the state has only issued 869 free ID cards in the past four years, so more publicity about this option is necessary.

The Obama administration Justice Department sued to block the original law, but the new Trump administration Justice Department has declared that the revised law is not discriminatory. If the U.S. remains committed to improving its democracy, it most promote policies to increase voter participation. The 10 states that have adopted automatic voter registration are leading the way in this movement and hopefully more states will follow. Voter turnout as a percentage of the voting age population is down from 59% to 55% in the past sixty years and has been stagnant over the past four presidential election cycles with the exception of a slight bump in 2008. What do you think can be done to improve voter participation in 2020 and beyond? Voter turnout in the 2014 midterms was an abysmal 36%. What can be done to improve voter participation in next year's midterm election?

Mattis freezes Trump's transgender ban, civil liberty groups take the issue to court

Wikimedia Commons

On Tuesday, August 29, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis announced that transgender troops will continue serving in the military until the Pentagon completes an investigation of Trump's new directive passed last Friday (also while Harvey was raining destruction in Texas). The Pentagon has until Feb. 21, 2018 to come up with a plan for implementation of Trump's proposal or “[provide] a recommendation to the contrary that [Trump] find[s] convincing.” They must consider if and how they will allow transgender troops to continue serving, how to deal with the costs of the medical treatment for those who choose to take it, and how they will be discharged if transgender soldiers are prohibited from joining the military.  Mattis has compiled a panel of experts in combat from the Department of Defense and Homeland Security (directive would also affect Coast Guard members) to analyze and draw conclusions from data and evidence.

Trump's proposal reverses the actions of the Obama administration, as he claims that Obama"failed to identify a sufficient basis to conclude that terminating the Departments' longstanding policy [of banning transgender people from the military and practice would not hinder military effectiveness and lethality, disrupt unit cohesion, or tax military resources." Obama not only allowed transgender troops to serve in the military, but had the government pay the medical treatment bill for those who wanted to transition to a different sex. 

Starting with a series of tweets on July 26, Trump has made his concerns about transgender people abundantly clear. He believes that gender reassignment surgeries are a "tremendous medical cost" and that transgender people will cause disruption within the troops that the military should not have to deal with. Mattis has not been as explicit as president Trump in his opinions, but the Defense Secretary is known for having little tolerance for laws or policies that slow the effectiveness or disrupt the structure of the military.  In June, he delayed the integration of transgender troops into the military because he wanted to do more research on whether or not they improved the efficiency of the system. Mattis might have bought some time for Pentagon to compile more information, but the right for transgender citizens to join the military is only temporary in the moment, and it is unsure what stance the Pentagon will take based on their findings.

However, many civil liberty groups have expressed disgust and pushback against the ban. On Monday, August 28, Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN, both civil rights groups supporting LGBTQ+ cases, filed a joint lawsuit against the White House, claiming that Trump's actions are unconstitutional and waste the skill and courage of transgender soldiers. Following this lawsuit, ACLU, along with Covington & Burling LLP filed a lawsuit against an infringement of the equal protection granted by the Constitution. By discriminating against transgender people, the government potentially puts these soldiers into an precarious situation with their future careers and lives.

Update (Saturday September 2): A series of new articles from the Washington Post and a few other sources have clarified that Mattis did not freeze the transgender ban against Trump's orders. Trump himself had ordered the freeze to allow for more research to be done on how to implement his plans, and to possibly allow for Mattis to gather enough information to convince Trump to drop his proposition.  Mattis was simply following orders.

Discussion Questions:
Should transgender people be allowed to join the military? Why or why not?
Should sex transitioning surgery be provided to transgender soldiers who want it in the military? Paid for by the government?
Is/ Should compromise (be) possible between the move to bar of transgender soldiers and the current rights transgender soldiers have now. If so, what stipulations would you suggest?

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Fun fact: Mattis has no spouse, children, or television.

The Finance 202: Trump speech will bash rigged system. But tax outline would benefit 1 percent.

Article 

Taxes have been a central economic issue of American policy for as long as the government has existed, and the laws are underway to be changed. Trump has talked about simplifying tax rates, and lowering tax for the middle class and for corporations; meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are looking to ease taxes for the wealthy.

This issue focuses primarily on how much more the "top 1 percent" (and wealthy Americans and corporations in general) should be taxed. The right wing belief in tax cuts resides in the theory of trickle down or supply side economics (trickle down explanation), where increased wealth in the hands of wealthy investors and executives "trickles down" to the middle class through higher wages, lowered prices, and economic growth. Lowered taxes may also increase government revenue, easing the national deficit, as explained using the Laffer curve (Laffer curve explanation). However, even if lowered government revenue does result in an increased deficit, Trump has claimed that the economic growth stimulated by the cuts will compensate and balance out the federal income, which is valid. By planning to lower taxes, Trump and the Republicans are aiming to stimulate the country's economy, which (if the theory is correct) benefits everyone, not just the wealthy. There are past examples of tax cuts achieving this goal, as seen in the 1980's Reagan tax cuts and the 2000's Bush tax cuts, both leading to increased GDP and pulling America out of recession. Will the currently planned cuts do the same?

On the other hand, many Democrats in Congress oppose tax cuts, citing the negative effects they have had on lower class Americans and federal deficit. A major problem is the rising income inequality of Americans (keep in mind that "poor" is relative; inequality can grow even as lower class income grows), and the lack of services that the country's poorest can afford. Taxation comes as a solution, with income redistribution to support those in need of money. Democrats in Congress have insisted that potential tax cuts be proportional to all Americans, not just the wealthy. This would keep public policy fair, and does not stimulate the inequality problem. Additionally, Democrats are wary of the increased federal deficit due to a drop in revenue, which, as mentioned above, Trump does not believe will be a big problem.

Lastly, I wanted to add in a few statistics that may change the way we view tax cuts and income classes in general. Generally, we think of the "top 1 percent" of Americans in a static way; those who are rich stay rich. However, a Panel Study on Income Dynamics (link to study statistics) has revealed a more fluid depiction of income classes. For example, "11.1% of the population will have found themselves in the much-maligned 1% of earners for at least one year of their lives" and "70% of the population will have experienced at least one year within the top 20th percentile of income." Perhaps tax cuts to the wealthy more directly benefits more Americans than many people perceive, and perhaps this will change the way we look at tax policy in the near future. In any case, I strongly suggest looking at the study and thinking about it for yourself.

What are your thoughts on the upcoming tax cuts and how they will affect American people and the nation's economy? Is income inequality as bad as it is portrayed to be? And is short term welfare relief or long term economic growth more beneficial?

Maps Explain the 27 National Monuments Under Review

                                   

LINK!

A few weeks ago, I found this article and was a little shocked at what I read. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, is currently reviewing 27 national monuments across the country. After he reviews these parks, he and president Trump are said to downsize them. I personally do not agree with this because it is said that Trump will auction off the land that is no longer part of the monuments to private businesses for development purposes. These parks are home to many different types of animals and are meant to preserve what little nature we have left. I highly recommend looking at the list because a good portion of the parks are in our home state. What are your thoughts?

Already-pardoned Arpaio asks judge to undo conviction

                                                                  (Creative Commons)

Last Friday night, while Hurricane Harvey flooded Texas, President Trump pardoned Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio of his contempt of court conviction.

Four weeks ago, Arpaio was found guilty for blatantly disobeying a court order demanding that he stop his harsh immigration controls. The court order was issued in 2011 after the sheriff's office was accused of violating the Constitution by using racial profiling to target Latinos; Arpaio was specifically known to stop immigrants based solely on a suspicion that they were illegal, with no true evidence backing his claims. After the court order was issued, Arpaio, knowing fully what the orders were, extended his patrols another 17 months and declared to his subordinates that he would continuing doing what he was doing no matter what the court order designated for him to do.

Arpaio has since been pardoned by Trump for this misdemeanor (before he was even sentenced), but he now seeks to clear his name by asking the judge to throw out the conviction against him. On Monday August 28th, Arpaio and his attorneys went to court claiming that the judge in his contempt of court case was biased in the ruling and Arpaio himself "didn't do anything wrong." He has not yet revealed any reason as to why he thinks the judge was unfair, but Arpaio assures that he has all the evidence of "bias and everything else" documented and ready to present at court. President Trump of course agrees that the ruling was unjust and that Arpaio was a "patriot" for stopping any immigrant that he thought looked suspicious.

Like Trump, Arpaio has a history of fighting against judges, consistent to his present actions. He was accused of investigating the judge who oversaw his profiling case, and made an incorrect accusation of bribery against a judge who ruled against him in 2009. His decision to try and throw his ruling, however, is unconventional, as the pardon is usually the "last word in a case," as Jeffrey Crouch, a professor at American University puts it.

Arpaio's request for his conviction to be thrown has struck even more controversy surrounding his pardon and subsequent actions. "Trump may be taking Arpaio off the hook for jail time, but he can't change history or erase the measure of justice that the court's findings represent," Cecilia Wang, a lawyer in Arpaio's racial profiling case, said.

Connection to Class/My Analysis:
Trump's pardoning of Arpaio was extremely controversial in the first place, with critics believing that Trump only rewarded Arpaio with a pardon because he was a long-time Trump supporter.
The pardon was unconventional compared to the pardons rewarded by other presidents. Arpaio's crime isn't one presidents normally consider suitable for clemency, and Trump rewarded Arpaio his pardon only eight months after the start of his presidency, whereas most presidents who have given high-profile pardons in the past have waited until the end of their presidency (Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich in 2001; George Bush pardoned Caspar W. Weinberger in 1992). Furthermore, Trump chose to pardon someone who did not officially apply for a pardon, and was not even convicted long enough to be issued a sentencing before being pardoned. Many other people have actually applied for a pardon and have been waiting years to get one, but Trump chose to pardon Arpaio instead. Pardons are usually also granted to people who express remorse for what they have done (as pardons are issues of forgiveness and not innocence), and Arpaio has been everything but apologetic for his actions.

Despite the atypical circumstances of the pardon, Trump's actions are technically legal. The Constitution gives the president the right to "grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." While it is suggested that the president take a 5 year waiting period to ensure that the petitioner is well-adjusted and law-abiding, the president is not obligated to do so and may exercise their right to pardon anytime after a federal offense has been committed. Neither the legislative branch nor the judicial branch may intervene to limit the effect of a pardon, or pass laws to withhold a pardon from any person. This is one of the places in government where separation of powers does not really apply, as the president is allowed to do as he pleases without the other two branches really checking whether he is abusing his power. However, his pardon is paradoxical, as he is pardoning someone for violating (racial profiling) the same Constitution that grants him unlimited pardoning rights.

                                                                     (Michael Chow/The Republic)
                                       
Discussion Questions:
Do you think the president should have full control over the power to pardon? Why?
Do you think Trump's decision to pardon Arpaio was an abuse of power? Why? If yes, what steps can we, as the public, take to discourage similar behavior in the future?
Should Arpaio's court conviction be thrown? Why or why not?

Article: Trump pardons Arpaio
             Arpaio asks judge to undo conviction

Fun Fact: Arpaio and Trump have the same birthday. Astrology still a pseudoscience?

Trump's Legal U-Turns May Test Supreme Court's Patience

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

The news is currently being flooded with President Donald Trump's visit to Texas, but Trump's other actions are not to be ignored. Trumps administration has switched sides on both worker's rights and voting roles, changing to the support of more conservative views. (read more on worker's right changes here).
The issue is not so much the views that are being supported, rather the aspect of change. Both cases include forms of interpretation in regards to federal statutes, and both changes are made to counter that of the Obama Administration. In the past, justices have "lashed out" at such changes or shifts. What's angering to the justices can be interpreted from Justice Antonin Scalia's response to a previous proposed change, asking “Why should we listen to you rather than the solicitors general who took the opposite position... why should we defer to the views of the current administration?"
Justices typically don't respect these shifts as they are almost always based on new people in positions that are against that of those who held their seats in former years. In fact, the change concerning worker's rights now takes an opposite position, proposing restrictions on labor unions and the ability for workers to get together in response to issues at the workplace. 
This relates quite directly to our current area of study, as the changes proposed are meant to take away rights from people, perhaps viewing them in a similar way as our framers: unreliable and with only personal gain at heart. Beyond this, the connection between Trump's administration and the Supreme court puts weight on the relationship between the executive and judicial branches, and relationship that is often overlooked in the present, being swept aside by Trump's claims of closing the government if he doesn't get his way. However, it is important to keep an eye on the supreme court's interactions with the Trump administration for they, too, play an incredibly important role in controlling change, especially if that change is made to counter a previous administration instead of the greater good. 
When taking in this information it helps to look through the bias. Does the matter of change towards a conservative view really mean the administration is attempting to go against the Obama administration? How can one distinguish from spiteful shifts rather than those that are truly proposed for positive change? Any Trump post can lead to political arguments, but it may be more constructive to view these proposals as something that happens to almost every new administration, and to focus on what is right and wrong instead of the President himself (aka please be nice and don't fight about loving or hating the admin). 

Article link | highlighted words lead to other supporting viewpoints or evidence

The New Front in the Gerrymandering Wars: Democracy vs. Math

Article link

Gerrymandering, when politicians draw district boundaries in ways that help them get reelected, has always been a concern. This fall it will get national attention when the Supreme Court hears Gill v Whitford, a case that raises questions about gerrymandering in Wisconsin. The swing state that has been trending republican in recent years was key to President Trump's victory in November where he earned a narrow 22,000 vote victory. At the state level, questions have been raised over how republican state assemblymen could win the majority of the seats without the majority of the vote as happened in 2012.

In 2004, the five conservatives on the Supreme Court ruled in Vieth v Jubelirer that the court should not address partisan gerrymandering and leave that power in the hands of state lawmakers as prescribed in the Constitution. The question now becomes whether a Supreme Court with the same 5-4 conservative-liberal divide will rule the same way or whether their perspective will shift given the mounting evidence of gerrymandering.

Voters have become predictable and it is well known that democrats cluster in cities and republicans dominate in rural areas. With both parties attempting to use gerrymandering to their advantages, there have been fewer competitive House races since 2010. As we move closer to the 2020 redistricting, undoubtedly Democrats and Republicans will be jockeying for position to influence how the district maps are redrawn.

What will the Supreme Court say about this issue? The plaintiffs in Gill are not asking the Supreme Court to end gerrymandering but rather control it so as not to badly warp the outcome of elections. When one examines the data presented in the article it could be argued that the results of many legislative elections already are heavily impacted by partisan and racial gerrymandering. It raises the question of whether gerrymandering can actually be limited in the 2020 redistricting or whether it will actually get worse as predicted? Given all of the questions raised and ongoing investigations of external involvement in the 2016 election, can U.S. elections still be considered reliable or could they be improved with reforms?

Pro-Trump group cancels San Francisco rally as hundreds of counterprotesters march on the streets

A pro-Trump right wing group, Patriot Prayer, planned a "Freedom Rally" for August 26th, in San Francisco, only to cancel the event to mitigate potential violence that might occur from a build up of counter protesters on the same day. Recent Charlottesville events led the group to avoid following the precedent, and instead reschedule the rally to a different location later in the day, but was once again blocked, this time by city officials. Patriot Prayer has released statements accusing city officials as falsely representing their group as violent and extremist, and accusing Antifa and BAMN (left wing groups) of preventing Patriot Prayer from gathering. Few major violence or arrests occured throughout the day. 

Article Link

This event once again brings out concerns of the city of San Francisco and surrounding locations becoming much to polarized, and unable to accept different opinions. This issue regarding SF's governing policies revolves around First Amendment rights of free speech, but also government duties of keeping the peace and providing safety to residents. Thus, the central question of whether SF government is limiting free speech or protecting the peace depends on the nature of the planned Patriot Prayer rally. This event also calls into question the legal authority that counter protesters have in limiting free speech.

Since the event, Mayor Ed Lee has called the Patriot Prayer gathering part of a "shameful, anti-American trend of hate-filled extremist rallies." Yet Patriot Prayer founder and leader Joey Gibson has commented that the group canceled their rally to prevent "a lot of innocent people [getting] hurt." The contradictory statements of both parties makes the intent and potential violent consequences of the event difficult to judge. However, the actions of Patriot Prayer, canceling and relocating the rally to prevent violence, indicate peaceful gathering on their behalf. Perhaps the city government, while dutifully ensuring peace, has also prevented a rightful act of free speech.

The counter protesters also had a major role in preventing the rally, flooding the streets of SF, and, according to Washington Post, initiated the few violent outbursts that there were. This seems like a trend for the Bay Area in general, as past examples such as Milo Yiannopoulos's speech at Berkeley also canceled due to violent left wing extremists. Are these counter protesters considered vigilantes? In order to ensure a democratic and educated society, the government must maintain neutrality during times of social struggles.

The potential consequences of last weekend's demonstration may have widespread consequences. A people empowered by their ability to influence free speech with no legal authority, may be pushing the city towards a even steeper slope of polarization. City government while maintaining order, if biased in its actions, could further lead to instability. Yet it could all be necessary for the sake of safety. Does any group have a right to free speech, even with potential violent consequences. How preemptive should local authorities be in protecting peace, and will this inevitable encroach on people's rights? Do residents have the legal authority to prevent an event by force? These questions must be navigated in order to maintain unity in our cities, and to ensure that the people are free and safe.

Avocado Toast

Millennial: your generation got houses and jobs

Boomer: yes but we lived with constant fear of nuclear winter

Millennial: hold my avocado

— Ken Norton (@kennethn) August 8, 2017

H/T to Anne Laurie at Ballon Juice.