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.