JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
It’s Frustrating to Negotiate with Republicans
Brief # 118 – Economic Policy
By Rosalind Gottfried
In March Biden proposed a 2.3 trillion dollar infrastructure plan which he has trimmed to 1.7 trillion. The Republicans initially proffered a plan of 568 billion and have raised it to 928 billion, after sustained discussion with Republican Negotiator Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia.
Biden, after much negotiation with Republican leaders has rejected that offer saying that it fails to address significant needs in the transportation, climate control, and job creation.
Biden’s Global Vaccine Distribution Plan: More Than Just a Show
Brief # 107 – Health and Gender Policy
By Justin Lee
On June 3rd 2021, President Biden announced a plan to distribute over 25 million COVID vaccines globally; a new and separate initiative to the already $4 billion US has committed to COVAX. Under this agreement, 19 million doses will be dedicated to COVAX, which will distribute 6 million doses to Latin America and the Caribbean, 7 million doses for south and southeast Asia, and 5 million doses for Africa. The remaining 6 million doses will be shared with countries experiencing surges and US partners and neighbors.
Anti-Abortion Laws to Face the Supreme Court
Brief #108 – Health and Gender Policy
By Erin McNemar
While abortion has long been a controversial topic in American politics, there has been a recent increase in policies attempting to restrict a women’s right to chose. Last month, legislators in Texas worked to pass laws shortening the amount of time women have to make a decision regarding terminating their pregnancy.
The Texas law comes on the heels of the Supreme Court’s decision to review the Mississippi Abortion law beginning next session. This will be the first time the majority conservative leaning court will hear cases that will directly impact Roe v. Wade.
Biden Administration Announces Intent to Expand US Immigration System
Brief # 124 – Immigration Policy
By Kathryn Baron
Recently, the Biden Administration announced its intent to expand the existing American immigration system. The administration’s goal is to reverse anti-immigration efforts from the Trump Administration that led to lower levels of foreign workers, families and refugees, and numerous procedural hurdles.
Democracy Now | The Lethal Nexus: Mass Shootings and Domestic Violence
Democracy Now! U.S. RESIST NEWS OP ED
By Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan
You know the United States is emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic when the pace of mass shootings gets back to “normal.” As of June 2nd, there were 244 mass shootings in the U.S. this year. That’s one to two per day.
The place and time of the next of these horrific acts is unknown, but that one will happen is a certainty. Then another, and another. One consequence of the number of mass shootings in the U.S. is that we possess data related to the crimes, which show a correlation between mass shooters and domestic violence. A majority of the men who commit mass shootings (and men commit at least 97% of them) also have a history of domestic violence.
That knowledge, along with sensible, fully-enforced gun control measures, could help stem the epidemic of mass shootings that blights our society, and save the lives of women threatened by intimate partner violence.
One Hundred Years After the Destruction of Black Wall Street, the Community Still Suffers Economic Violence
Brief #16—The Environment
By Rosalind Gottfried
On this Memorial Day it is time to remember the post-Civil War achievements of Black communities and the violence suffered to halt their progress.
One hundred years ago today, the thriving Tulsa community known as Greenwood was incinerated by two days of riots, replete with arson firebombs, and dynamite dropped from airplanes above. The entire Black community was ravaged, leaving 300 dead, thousand homeless, and businesses permanently lost.
Thirty five city blocks were razed in the riot and the ultimate cost to the community can never accurately be assessed.
Aid to Black Farmers Sparks Backlash
Brief #117—The Environment
By Katherine Cart
Intentional social inclusivity is, once again, generating backlash and the vexed use of the word “all” is causing reaction to a highlighting and attempted remediation of historical discrimination. The March 2021 American Rescue Plan (ARPA) released by the Biden Administration included a $5 billion dollar package designated for the support of “socially disadvantaged farmers.” In the bill’s language these include Black, hispanic, indiginous and other nonwhite farmers.
Criminal Charges Levied Against the Former President
Brief #20 — Elections and Politics
By Zack Huffman
For four years, President Donald Trump was able to use his position as Commander in Chief to shield himself from legal action for alleged crimes committed both during and before his time in office. Four months out from President Joe Biden’s inauguration, Trump is starting to feel the burn of no longer having the presidential shield to protect him.
Republicans Introducing State Bills, Restricting the Citizen Ballot Initiative and Popular Referendum Process
Brief #163—Civil Rights
By Rodney A. Maggay
During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the Populist and Labor Movements in the United States helped usher in reforms, such as referendums and initiatives, that paved the way for direct democracy mechanisms to be implemented in a number of states.
Nigerian-Born Grandmother Anticipates Taking Oath to Become U.S. Citizen
A U.S. RESIST NEWS INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
AMERICANS ON AMERICA: WHAT MY COUNTRY MEANS TO ME
BY LINDA F. HERSEY
Americans on America is a U.S. RESIST NEWS investigative report series in which we interview ordinary American on the values they believe their country stands for, and what their country needs to do to live up to those values.
# 4 Nigerian-Born Grandmother Anticipates Taking Oath to Become U.S. Citizen
“Safety, equal opportunity for women and the quality of life in the United States mean a lot to me.”
By Linda F. Hersey
Nigerian-born, mother of six grown children, Celine Suala emigrated to the United States in 2012, landed a job as a private security guard, and learned to speak English fluently, in addition to her native Swahili.
At 65, she is not about to slow down either.
In February 2021, Suala will formally embrace a new identity and complete a personal journey when she takes the official oath to become an American citizen, pledging to “bear true faith and allegiance” to the United States of America.
In reciting the 140-word pledge, she will join millions of people who have become naturalized U.S. citizens. In the last decade, more than eight million people became U.S. citizens, with California having the largest foreign-born population, at 27 percent.
For Suala, who has been working in California as a lawful permanent resident, the journey has been highly individual and filled with emotional significance. and a belief in the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution,” according to the Citizen Resource Center, run by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, at the Department of Homeland Security.
Becoming a U.S. citizen is a personal quest, an opportunity to achieve a better life. More than anything, she enjoys the freedoms, both personal and economic, that living in a vital and dynamic democracy provides its citizens.
“Citizenship is a unique bond that unites people around civic ideals
Forging a New Life in a New Country
At 5’2” tall, and with a round cheerful face, Suala does not seem to pose a threat to anyone, even when she is proudly wearing her security guard uniform.
While she plans to maintain dual citizenship – keeping her birthright citizenship in Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation – Suala said she feels more aligned with and connected to the United States than her birth country.
More than 250,000 naturalized citizens in the U.S. are from Nigeria. The Pew Research Center reported that a 2018 survey showed that up to 45 percent of Nigerian adults have considered moving from the West African nation to a different country, because of political strife and economic hardship. It was the highest share of any country surveyed.
Suala said it has been a worthwhile experience forging a new life in a brand-new country. With some college education, she quickly learned to speak English fluently in the U.S., as she knew the language from her native Nigeria. Her large extended family remains in Africa, but she helps out by sending some of her earnings to assist her adult children, raising families of their own.
At 65, Suala says that having a career as a woman on equal footing with men, feeling secure and safe in her California community, and enjoying the many benefits of a free society transformed her life.
“I like having the opportunities here that are not [available] to everyone in Nigeria,” she said. “Safety, equal opportunity for women and the quality of life in the United States mean a lot to me.”
ENGAGEMENT RESOURCES
U.S. Citizenship Resource Center is a government-run website that provides helpful news, information and resources, including studying material for people seeking citizenship in the U.S.
American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by working toward a more fair and just immigration system.
A World Without Borders engages in open dialog and public advocacy for immigration issues.
Upcoming Run-Off Elections
Brief # 15 Upcoming Run-Off Elections
BY William Bourque is U.S. Resist News’s election correspondent, based in Washington, D.C.
February 5, 2021
As we enter this post-Trump world, we now switch focus to runoff elections being held in the wake of cabinet appointments and other events that have taken place. Several runoff elections are being held in several districts, such as LA-02, LA-05, NM-01, and OH-11.
In LA-02, we will be seeing a special election due to the appointment of Cedric Richmond as Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement. The district, which includes parts of Baton Rouge and New Orleans is a strong democratic seat. Several candidates have already announced their intention to run, with the frontrunners being state senators Karen Carter Peterson and Troy Carter, who will first have to face a primary on March 20, 2021. Senator Carter Peterson has served 20 years in Louisiana’s Congress, splitting evenly 10 years in the House and 10 in the Senate. Senator Carter has spent 30 years in public service, ranging from State House of Rep. to New Orleans City council to State Senate. Needless to say, the primary on March 20 is likely to decide who will ultimately win the seat.
LA-05 will be having a runoff election in the wake of the death of newly elected Representative Luke Letlow, who passed away from Covid-19, several weeks after his election. His wife, Julia Letlow, has said that she will run for her husband’s seat. In this highly republican district we expect that Letlow will win her husband’s seat comfortably, especially given the tragic circumstances surrounding his death. Several candidates have announced they are running for the seat as well, but with the endorsement of Representative Steve Scalise in her pocket, we expect to see Julia Letlow successfully win her husband’s seat.
In NM-01, the special election will be announced as soon as newly-appointed Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland is confirmed by the Senate. Rumors from the district suggest that the democratic candidate will likely be an indigenous woman, because of the strong indigenous connection to the district. Additionally, Representative Haaland is one of the first two indigenous women elected to Congress, so her constituents may wish to continue that legacy. So far, three state legislators have announced their intention to run, Representative Georgene Louis, Representative Melanie Stansbury, and Senator Antoinette Sedillo Lopez. Attorney Randi McGinn has also announced that she plans to vie for the seat. Once Haaland is confirmed, expect a fast and furious campaign for this seat.
In OH-11, Marcia Fudge is in the midst of confirmation to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and several folks have already announced their intent to run for the seat. Progressive former State Senator Nina Brown announced her campaign in mid-December, and is a frontrunner in the very liberal district. Another candidate is Cuyahoga County representative Shontel Brown, who is the chair of the Human Resources, Appointments, and Equity Committee. Additionally, Jeff Johnson, who serves on the Cleveland City Council and works as an attorney, has announced his candidacy. Once Fudge is officially confirmed an all-out sprint for her seat is expected.
We will have continuing coverage of all special elections in addition to extended coverage of November elections and beyond to 2022’s midterms.
Biden Signs Executive Orders Regarding Abortion and Obamacare
Brief # 94 Health and Gender Policy
Biden Signs Executive Orders Regarding Abortion and Obamacare
By Erin McNemar
February 4, 2021
Policy
On Thursday, January 28, President Joe Biden signed two executive orders regarding the future of health care in America. According to a press release from the White House, the Executive orders are being signed to strengthen Americans’ access to quality and affordable health care. The first of the executive orders was to roll back anti-abortion measures that were put in place during the Trump administration.
The second of the two orders was to direct federal agencies to reverse Trump administration policies that weaken HealthCare.gov, and made it harder for individuals to get Medicaid. As Biden continues to roll back Trump administration policies, the American people are going to see the return of plans that reflect the Obama era.
Analysis
President Biden’s Executive Order regarding abortion laws reverses the Trump administration’s commitment to the Mexico City Policy. The Mexico City Policy, which is often referred to as a global gag rule, prevents federal funding and U.S. aid from going to organizations that provide abortions and related services. These services include referrals, counseling and advocacy concerning abortions. The Executive Order also calls on the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to review policies that are harming women on a global scale.
Additionally, the order withdrew the United States from the Geneva Consensus Declaration, an anti-abortion agreement that Trump entered into last year with several other countries.
The new Executive Order regarding health care reopens HealthCare.gov for a special three month enrollment period that is set to begin on February 15. The normal enrollment period for health insurance is November 1 through December 15. However, this Executive Order will allow individuals that don’t have health insurance to look at their state’s health insurance options offered through the Affordable Care Act outside the typical period. According to CNBC, “This can offer many Americans, particularly those who have dealt with unemployment amid the Covid-19 pandemic, another chance to get insurance.”
When talking about the Executive Orders, Biden said, “The best way to describe them, is to undo the damage Trump has done,” Biden continued. “There’s nothing new that we’re doing here other than restoring the Affordable Care Act and restoring Medicaid to the way it was before Trump became president, which by fiat, he changed and made more inaccessible.”
These Executive Orders are the first major policy changes President Biden has made to health care. However, Biden has made it clear that these orders are only the beginning of his health care reform plan. Biden has indicated that he plans to continue expanding health care coverage and affirm women’s right to choose as Constitutional Law.
Engagement Resources
- Read more about President Biden’s Executive Orders.
- Read the signed Executive Order regarding
- Read the signed Executive order regarding Women’s Health.
- Reach out to your senators and representatives to take action!
- To keep up to date on the latest health & gender policy news, SUBSCRIBE HERE!
President Biden Moves Forward With Creation of Court Reform Commission
Policy Summary: During the 2020 presidential election campaign then Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden said on the TV program 60 Minutes, “The last thing we need to do is turn the Supreme Court into just a political football, whoever has the most votes gets whatever they want.” Biden was responding to talk over a replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who had passed away in September 2020. Republicans were then in control of the Senate and were pushing to speedily confirm nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett was eventually confirmed to the Supreme Court with less than a week until the November 3, 2020 election.
In response to the speed of the Barrett nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court Biden came under pressure, notably from the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party, to expand the Supreme Court. The Barrett nomination helped cement a 6 – 3 conservative majority on the Court and there were fears that the Court could make changes or outright reverse abortion and LGBQT rights, among others. In response, Biden promised a commission to examine possible reforms to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary.
Policy Analysis: President Biden has already begun staffing the commission with some notable names emerging. Reports are that Biden campaign lawyer Bob Bauer will co – chair the commission along with Christina Rodriguez, a Yale law school professor. Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor, and Caroline Frederickson, a former president of the American Constitution Society, have also been mentioned as persons being appointed to the commission.
The formation of the commission, which has yet to be formally announced, and the staffing of the committee signals that President Biden is willing to listen to the concerns of the Progressive wing of his party who want to implement change in the wake of the Barrett confirmation. But his choices for staffing the commission also signal that he is open to all proposals and not just the “court – packing” option. “Court – packing” refers to the tactic of adding additional seats to the Supreme Court and has become a talking point among Democrats because of how they feel that a Supreme Court seat was stolen from them due to McConnell’s actions on the Merrick Garland and Amy Coney Barrett nominations. But while this has been a popular proposal with some Democrats, President Joe Biden has admitted that he is “not a fan of court packing.” With the other members of the commission so far, it is becoming clear what proposals they support. Caroline Frederickson supports expanding the Supreme Court while Bob Bauer supports term limits for federal judges. But could there be other proposals or suggestions?
The court – packing and term limit proposals have received the most attention and pushback from opponents but there is a proposal not mentioned that should be a point of consideration by the commission. In order to reform the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court the commission should consider the experience a nominee has with conducting trials either as a district court judge or as a litigator. In – court trial work is a factor when the American Bar Association rates persons nominated to the federal bench and so this experience of understanding what people involved in a lawsuit go through should be considered. By emphasizing in – court trial work the Biden commission can limit nominees who are simply party idelologues and instead encourage justices and judges who know what it takes to work with people and solve their everyday problems. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh are people certainly well – versed in the law and bright persons but much of their career lacks in – court trial work because they had been spent years working in Republican administrations. They can recite the law according to their political party but may be inexperienced in how the application of the law affects the ordinary person on the street.
If Biden’s commission is to make any real change to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary as a whole, it needs to consider whether the courts and the people who are nominated to the bench can connect with ordinary citizens. Adding additional seats to the Supreme Court and limiting the period for how long judges can serve are valid proposals but making a concerted effort to select justices and judges who have first had experience dealing with ordinary people and their daily problems and concerns in trial court can go a long way in reforming the judiciary and making it more responsive to what a person needs when they have their day in court. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
American Bar Association (ABA) – association’s webpage on its Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary and how it rates nominees to the federal bench.
Demand Justice – non – profit group seeking to reform the Supreme Court.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Which Companies are Profiting from the Pandemic?
Which Companies are Profiting from the Pandemic?
Rosalind Gottfried
February 3, 2021
Policy
With the roll out of COVID 19 vaccinations, and the Biden administration’s pledges to speed their dissemination, it might be imagined that the drug companies are reaping enormous profits. This would be, in large part, an incorrect presumption. Because many of the pharmaceutical companies took money to develop the vaccine, there are limits on how much they can charge for the product. Pfizer, one of the first to bring a successful vaccine to market, did not take government funds for research and development of the vaccine; they did join Operation Warp Speed, at a cost of $1.95 billion to the government to provide the first batch of 100million free to the public. They will charge the government $39.99 per two dose protocol. While the vaccine costs $15 per person to produce, there are also shipping, administration, and distribution costs. They are expected to sell $14bn orth of vaccine in the first year.
Multiple factors will contribute to modest profits from the vaccine. Competition from other companies will limit the price any one company can charge. Moderna and Merck plan to sell vaccines for profit but AstraZeneca says they will sell 300 million doses at no profit and Johnson and Johnson has asserted that it will not profit during the emergency pandemic.
The pandemic fat cats are the online retailers and services. E commerce nearly doubled in May 2020. Amazon spending was up 60% in May-July compared to the same time the previous year. E commerce increased 38% and Wal-Mart 6% during the same months. Before the pandemic, Amazon accounted for 4% of retail sales and that figure increased to 15% by 2020. Economists project a potential rise to a 25% share by 2025. Amazon is valued at 1.5 trillion dollars, an increase of a half trillion in 2019. Predictions suggest that 100,000 brick and mortar stores will close by 2025.
Amazon charges their third party merchants a fee to be on the site and takes a percentage of the price of each item sold. Average sellers fees typically range from 6-15% of the product but can be significantly higher in some cases. Additionally, they charge to advertise; a company is compelled to place ads because research shows that their sales will fall if they are not in the top of lists for an item. Amazon is ranked third in advertising revenue behind Google and Facebook. In fact, around 50% of consumers go straight to Amazon when doing a product search.
In addition to the charges to third party merchants, Amazon has been known to change policies with little, or no, warning and also provide little clarity. For example, in March 2019 Amazon allowed only household essentials, medical supplies, and high demand items in their warehouses though they failed to clarify these terms, particularly the latter one. Merchants complained that the items in their stock deemed acceptable appeared arbitrary and also that when the constraints were lifted many items were lost, unpacked, incorrectly counted, and delivered unpredictably. This could cause merchant ratings to drop and that not only reduces business but runs the risk of having the merchant dropped from the site.
Amazon is facing an anti-trust suit from a consumer law firm that alleges price-fixing of their e-books.It is anticipated that a government anti-trust suit against the company is coming soon. In addition the Federal Trade Commission has ordered Amazon to pay $61 million in stolen pay.
Some accusations have been made that Amazon uses data showing high demand products to develop a private competing brand. Amazon has denied these accusations but they were mentioned in the House anti-trust hearings last spring. Though the practices are difficult, most merchants cannot afford to stay in business if they are eliminated from the Amazon site. Amazon merchant practices were brought into question in the Judiciary hearings as was their propensity to acquire companies which would compete with them or could promote their activity. For example, Amazon bought Zoox, a company working on self-driving cars, for 1.2 billion dollars; these cars could eventually be used to deliver the Amazon purchases.
Apple is another company that has made huge profits in the Covid-19 era. Similarly, revenue for Microsoft was 40 billion dollars and 28 billion for Facebook in the last quarter of 2020. Apple had sales of 111.4 billion dollars in the past three months of 2020. Part of this was due to the new Iphone 12 and to the holiday season. Their profit was up by 29 % for the same period from the previous year in spite of some temporary store closures during the shelter at home periods. Apple shares soared by 84% in 2020.
Analysis
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee antitrust subcommittee’s report, on competition in Digital markets suggests that policies regarding these online enterprises may soon be subject to anti-trust and business practice legislation restricting their operations. Google, Amazon, and to a lesser extent, Facebook were prominent in the report’s narrative. However, so far it has been difficult to restrict the practices and marketing of these entities.
It has been suggested that the taxation of global digital companies should be harnessed to pay for the pandemic and related expenses. The state of California has seen a coalition promote a bill to increase the corporate tax from 8.84 % to 9.6 %, that would produce 2 billion dollars a year to go for housing the homeless. Critics suggest that this legislation would produce a flight of businesses from the state which some analysts believe is already under way. The Bill, however, would increase the taxes on any company earning over 5 million dollars of profit in the state, regardless of where they are located. Governor Newsom declined to support an increased tax on the wealthy, which was another strategy promoted by some to alleviate the lack of services and revenue in the state.
Learn More Resources
https://time.com/5870826/amazon-coronavirus-jeff-bezos-congress/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jan/27/apple-profits-latest-quarter-surge-pandemic
https://www.accountingtoday.com/opinion/paying-for-the-pandemic-are-increased-taxes-the-answer
https://www.marketplace.org/2020/11/12/how-much-could-pfizer-make-from-a-covid-19-vaccine/
https://www.geekwire.com/2020/analysis-read-antitrust-case-amazon-key-takeaways/
https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/200336920
Resources
https://www.mediate.com/articles/awiener2.cfm Information regarding online dispute regulations
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trump on Emoluments Cases
Brief # 7 Social Justice
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trump on Emoluments Cases
Zack Huffman
February 3, 2021
The U.S. Supreme Court halted a pair of ongoing emoluments lawsuits against former president Donald Trump on Monday, Jan. 25, noting that the cases stopped being relevant when Trump left office.
One of the lawsuits was filed days after Trump’s inauguration in 2017 by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The suit claimed Trump’s vast business empire, from which he refused to divest, created numerous ways for foreign interests to buy influence over the president.
“Applied to Donald J. Trump’s diverse dealings, the text and purpose of the
Foreign Emoluments Clause speak as one: this cannot be allowed,” said the original civil complaint, which was filed in federal court in New York City.
“President Donald Trump has been violating the Constitution since noon on January 20, 2017,” wrote Gabe Lezra, staff counsel for the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “His decision in the months prior to his inauguration to retain ownership and control of his sprawling business empire—a move that went against both long-standing historical practice and the advice of career government ethics officials—put him at odds with the Constitution’s original anti-corruption provisions the moment he was sworn in.”
The second lawsuit, filed in June, 2017, came from the attorneys general of Maryland and Washington D.C. and alleged similar claims about Trump businesses functioning as a means for Trump to accept payments from foreign sources.
Both lawsuits cited the emoluments clause of the Constitution which dictates that Congress must approve all payments the president receives from foreign sources.
The rulings were part of an order list that was publicly released on Monday, Jan. 26. Each week, the Supreme Court issues an order list, which is series of brief rulings on cases. The Supreme Court’s order also included instructions for the lower courts that previous ruled on the case to vacate their actions, which effectively remove any precedents that may have been set.
Analysis
The emoluments clause, as it was originally intended, was created as a safety guard against corruption of diplomats. It was a reaction to the European royal tradition of gift giving by kings and queens, according to a 2016 report from the Brookings Institute. For example, the King of France an ornate box to Ben Franklin when he was serving as diplomat to France. Franklin had to seek permission from Congress to keep the box.
Although the clause originally applied to diplomats and ambassadors, as recently as 2009 the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel determined that the clause applied to the presidency. The official interpretation was made after Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which the Department of Justice deemed exempt from the emoluments clause because it was not granted by a foreign government.
Despite the 2009 determination, the emoluments clause remains largely untested, especially in the case of someone like Donald Trump. By refusing to divest from his businesses, Trump maintained a vast network of opportunities for foreign interests to buy influence in a manner less direct than a simple jeweled box.
“Never in American history has a president presented more conflict of interest
questions and foreign entanglements than Donald Trump. Given the vast and global scope of Trump’s business interests, many of which remain shrouded in secrecy, we cannot predictthe full gamut of legal and constitutional challenges that lie ahead,” said the Brooking Institute’s report, which was written by Norman Eisen, Richard Painter and Laurence Tribe.
The two emoluments lawsuits filed against Trump were seeking a court order that Trump’s business automatically put him in violation of the Constitution. Essentially, the plaintiffs wanted a ruling the Trump broke the lawsuit, as opposed to seeking a specific punishment for the violation.
Both cases went from federal court to their respective circuit courts of appeal where there were rulings against President Trump.. Trump then appealed his losses at the circuit level to the Supreme Court.
A pair of briefs, filed on behalf of Trump before the Supreme Court at the end of December, argued that both cases were moot since Trump had lost reelection and Biden was, at the time, on the verge of being inaugurated. Basically, the court could not properly find that Trump was in violation of the emoluments clause if he was no longer bound by that clause as a former president. The Supreme Court agreed.
Despite the outcome, the attorneys general celebrated their lower court victories for laying a pathway by which the emoluments clause could be enforced by the court – provided legal action takes place before the president leaves office.
“The Emoluments Clauses were specifically inserted into the Constitution to prevent federal officials, including the President of the United States, from profiting from their positions in government,” said AGs Karl Racine and Brian Frosh in a joint statement following the Supreme Courts ruling. “President Trump illegally profited from his office by receiving improper emoluments in the form of money from foreign governments, federal agencies, and state governments that conducted business at his hotel to curry favor with him and his administration.”
On the other hand, Trump’s attorneys created their own blueprint for dragging lawsuits out until the end of a presidential term, rendering them irrelevant.
Learn More
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Order List for Jan. 25
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012521zor_3f14.pdf
Profiting off the Presidency: Trump’s Violations of the Emoluments Clauses
Profiting off the Presidency: Trump’s Violations of the Emoluments Clauses
Brookings Institute: The Emoluments Clause: Its Text, Meaning, and Application to Donald J. Trump
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_emoluments-clause1.pdf
DOJ: President’s Receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize
https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/applicability-emoluments-clause-and-foreign-gifts-and-decorations-act-presidents-receipt
Statement by AG Racine and AG Frosh on Conclusion of Emoluments Lawsuit
https://oag.dc.gov/release/statement-ag-racine-and-ag-frosh-conclusion?src=ilaw
Biden’s Economic Executive Orders
Economic Policy Brief #107
Biden’s Economic Executive Orders
Rosalind Gottfried
February 1, 2021
Policy
In addition to his $1.9 trillion stimulus plan, now being debated in Congress, President Biden has signed a number of Executive Orders affecting the well-being of struggling Americans.
These included a request that the Department of Education further suspend student loan payments to alleviate the burden on debt carrying graduates. He also requested the suspension of evictions and foreclosures on 44 million rental units across the country.
. A group of Covid-19 related Executive Orders included creating a Covid-19 response coordinator position; invoking the Defense Production Act to fill supply shortfalls; providing for FEMA reimbursement for National Guard costs; establishing a pandemic testing board and expanding testing; bolstering access to treatment and care for the virus; improve collection and analysis of pandemic related data; mounting a more effective vaccinating campaign; providing guidance for the safe re-opening of schools; establishing an OSHA guide for worker safety; establishing a covid-19 Health Equity Task Force; and tightening Buy American rules for government COVID-related procurements. Addition Executive Orders called for an end to the Justice department’s utilization of private prisons and restored the collective bargaining rights of federal workers.
Analysis
Biden has made use of Executive Orders to pass what can be done through this mechanism. However Executive Orders do not allow for the funding of new programs; that is the responsibility of Congress to approve. So the President is now pushing for a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief program and Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer has pledged to start the process of Budget Reconciliation that would allow for the Bill to pass with a split 50-50 vote with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking the tie and casting the deciding vote.. House leadership is also moving to pass the Bill through a budget reconciliation process.
Learn More References
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/27/covid-stimulus-update-democrats-prepare-budget-reconciliation.html
President Biden’s Executive Orders Greatly Strengthen US Commitment to Fight Climate Change
Brief # 107 Environmental Policy
President Biden’s Executive Orders Greatly Strengthen US Commitment to Fight Climate Change
By Jacob Morton
Feb 3, 2021
Review
On Wednesday, January 27, President Joe Biden signed a flurry of executive actions to address the climate crisis by reviving environmental protections dismantled by the previous administration and promoting the creation of new ‘green’ jobs. The orders revive many Obama-era protections and regulations, including a rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the protection of sacred indigenous sites in Utah. Biden’s executive actions go even further still, mandating that climate change be considered in all major decisions of the Federal government, and re-establishing a culture of scientific integrity and evidence-based decision making across all Federal agencies. The President’s executive orders also call for the Federal government to play a larger role in ensuring economic success for communities and individuals affected by an energy industry shift from fossil fuels to renewables.
The list of President Biden’s environmental executive actions include:
- A commitment to using the federal government’s purchasing power to order a large fleet of zero-emissions vehicles. According to President Biden, “This will mean one million new jobs in the American automobile industry.”
- A pledge to reserve 30 percent of federal land and water for conservation purposes, as well as the creation of a civilian “climate corps” to employ people in conservation work.
- An order to pause all new oil and gas leases on federal lands and in federal waters — though this does not put a stop to drilling all together, the order directs the Interior Department, “to the extent consistent with applicable law,” to “pause” all pending leases while the new administration organizes a review of the effects on climate change associated with drilling on federal land and waters. This action does not address pending permits, only leases. According to reporting from the New York Times, “As of 2019, more than 26 million acres of federal land had been leased to oil and gas companies.” The order further calls for increasing renewable energy production on Federal lands and waters, “with the goal of doubling offshore wind by 2030.”
- A vow to review more than 100 environmental rules and regulations that were weakened or reversed by the Trump administration and to restore Obama-era protections to two Indigenous sacred sites, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, which are also national monuments in Utah.
- A “temporary moratorium” on all oil and gas leases in the Arctic national wildlife refuge.
- An order to rescind the permits for the Keystone XL Pipeline and restore the Obama-era rejection of the project that was reversed by the Trump administration.
- A mandate (the first of its kind from any president) that climate change be taken into consideration in all major foreign policy and national security decisions.
- A commitment to build out a network of electric-car charging stations nationwide by manufacturing and installing a half-million new electric-vehicle charging stations.
- A commitment to build 1.5 million new energy-efficient homes.
- A commitment to seal off one million abandoned and leaking oil and gas wells.
- An order to create a task force aimed at economically reviving communities dependent on the fossil fuel industry — an acknowledgement that the government should play a larger role in helping displaced fossil fuel workers find jobs in the clean energy sector.
- A formal appointment of the former Secretary of State, John Kerry, to play the role of President Biden’s international climate envoy, with a seat on the National Security Council.
- An announcement that the United States will host a Climate Leaders Summit of major emitting nations and others on Earth Day, April 22. Kerry says that by then, he will announce a new set of specific targets to which the United States aims to lower its carbon dioxide emissions in its commitment to rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement, abandoned by the previous administration.
- A call for the federal government’s 17 intelligence agencies “to create a first-ever National Intelligence Estimate of the national security risks posed by climate change.”
- A directive to agencies to look for ways to “increase and improve the climate-forecast information available to help governments and others prepare for the consequences of climate change.”
- An expectation of every federal agency to create plans to prepare their facilities for protection against climate-change effects, such as rising sea levels, storms, and droughts. Many agency headquarters in Washington, including the Justice Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency, lie within the 100-year floodplain (a designation of areas likely to see at least one severe flooding event every 100 years).
- A presidential memorandum instructing all agencies to make what the new administration calls “evidence-based decisions guided by the best available science and data.” As a requirement, every agency, not just those that do scientific research, must appoint “scientific integrity” officials to ensure an adherence to science-based policy.
Analysis
While environmentalists and conservation groups praise Biden’s executive actions, many Republicans and fossil fuel industry leaders argue that they are unfair and will cause more harm than good. Senator John Cornyn of Texas said in a statement, “I’m all for transitioning to cleaner forms of energy, but … How are families going to get to work, take their kids to school, or live their life if all of a sudden the very natural resource that they depend on for their cars is no longer available?” Meanwhile, former Republican governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman, praised the president’s actions, saying, “This is the way the world is going,” noting that “In 2019, about 40 percent of the United States workforce was in clean energy.” Even General Motors has gotten on board, announcing it will halt production of gasoline and diesel light-duty cars and SUVs, transitioning to all electric by 2035.
To many economists the actions represent a mixed bag. While President Biden argues these actions will create “one million new jobs in the American automobile industry,” economist at Syracuse University, David Popp, says, “[Biden’s] basically saying he’s going to double auto manufacturing. I find that hard to believe. … You can’t do that with auto emissions regulations. You can’t do that with government procurement.” However, Popp, along with other economists, admit that studies generally show that the number of clean energy and environmental mitigation jobs created by new environmental regulations, typically equals the number of jobs lost in the fossil fuels industry.
Popp even goes so far as to praise Biden for acknowledging the need to create a task force within the Federal government focused primarily on economically reviving communities dependent on the fossil fuel industry and finding clean energy jobs for displaced fossil fuel workers. Popp says, “The skills in these clean energy jobs — installing and manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines — are actually a decent match” with workers coming from mining, offshore drilling, and other fields. “What’s really important is how well you can match the job losses to gains.” The President’s executive order also calls for the creation of a “civilian climate corps to employ people in conservation work.” Gina McCarthy, Mr. Biden’s top adviser on domestic climate policy, made sure to emphasize in a press conference that, “We’re not going to ask people to go from the middle of Ohio and Pennsylvania and ship out to the coast to work on solar.” She says, “We’re not going to take away jobs,” the idea is to create clean energy jobs where fossil fuel work is already on the decline.
On the other hand, fossil fuel industry executives criticize the President for the scope, speed, and direction in which he is moving, lamenting that President Biden is going far further than President Obama ever did. Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) claims, “This is a radical departure from almost any other administration, and I would even say, President Obama.” West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and five other Republican attorneys general wrote in a letter to the President, “Our states have led the charge in successfully challenging unauthorized and unlawful executive actions, … You can be assured that we will do so again, if necessary.” The Western Energy Alliance, which represents oil and gas producers in Western states, has already filed a lawsuit against the executive order, arguing that “the President exceeded his authority to halt new leases.” Industry executives claim the executive orders, particularly the pause of all new oil and gas leases on federal lands and waters, “will do little to actually reduce United States emissions and lead to lost jobs and more imported oil.”
Former Senator John F. Kerry, now appointed as Biden’s special envoy on climate, explained to reporters following the signing of the executive orders, that the scientific reality of climate change and its economic impact leave the President no choice. Kerry says, “It is now cheaper to deal with the crisis of climate than it is to ignore it,” pointing to the enormous bills footed by taxpayers to recover from the increasingly destructive hurricanes the country has seen in recent years. Kerry says, “We’re spending more money, folks. We’re just not doing it smart. We’re not doing it in a way that would actually sustain us for the long term.”
Heather Zichal, CEO of the American Clean Power Association, and former climate advisor to Obama, says President Biden’s actions are not surprising given the amount of scientific evidence of unprecedented global warming coupled with a significant reduction in cost for renewable energy. Zichal says regarding concerns over the bold scope and pace of the President’s orders, “If we’re going to remove 5.1 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually and get to zero [emissions] in 30 years, this is going to require drastic action.” The CEO says members of the American Clean Power Association are prepared to invest $1 trillion in the coming years on clean energy projects. Zichal says, “We see nothing but opportunity.”
According to energy analysts in the United States, with Biden’s climate plan and executive orders, the new administration “could now reasonably promise to cut emissions between 40 and 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.” Despite this improvement to the country’s commitment under the Paris Climate Agreement, Europeans and environmental organizations are pressuring the administration to push for even greater reductions, as far as 70 percent below 2005 levels. Climate envoy John Kerry responded to those concerns saying, it is “way too premature” to talk numbers.
Engagement Resources
American Clean Power Association
- The American Clean Power Association works to champion policies that will transform the U.S. power grid to a low-cost, reliable, and renewable power system. The American Clean Power Association
Center for Biological Diversity
- Working to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law, and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters, and climate that species need to survive. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/
National Resources Defense Council
- Works to safeguard the earth – its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. Combining the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild. https://www.nrdc.org/
Sources Cited
Estes, N. (2021, January 28). Biden killed the Keystone Pipeline. Good, but he doesn’t get a climate pass just yet. Retrieved January 31, 2021, from https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/biden-killed-the-keystone-pipeline-good-but-he-doesn-t-get-a-climate-pass-just-yet/ar-BB1daIP1?MSCC=1605775911
Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. (2021, January 27). Retrieved January 31, 2021, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/
Friedman, L. (2021, January 27). In Sweeping Actions on Climate, Biden to ‘Pause’ Oil and Gas Leasing. Retrieved January 31, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/27/climate/biden-climate-executive-orders.html
Juliet Eilperin, B. (2021, January 28). As Biden vows monumental action on climate change, a fight with the fossil fuel industry has only begun. Retrieved January 31, 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/01/27/biden-climate-change/
Nilsen, E. (2021, January 26). Biden’s “all of government” plan for climate, explained. Retrieved January 31, 2021, from https://www.vox.com/22242572/biden-climate-change-plan-explained
Russonello, G. (2021, January 28). Biden Walks the Climate-Economy Tightrope. Retrieved January 31, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/28/us/politics/biden-climate-economy-jobs.html
Who Gets to Decide What Speech is Allowed on Social Media?
Brief #35 – Technology
By Charles A. Rubin
Who Gets to Decide What Speech is Allowed on Social Media?
February 3, 2021
Policy Summary
In the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 riot at the US Capitol inspired by then President Trump, Twitter and Facebook banned him permanently from their platforms for violations of their terms of service. In the days that followed and in the wake of other individuals being prohibited from using those services, many in the right wing camp moved to services such as Parler and Gab. These services were removed from both the Apple and Android application stores and Parler’s servers, hosted in the Amazon Web Services cloud infrastructure, were shut down.
While these moves were applauded as a justified response to hate speech and incitement to violence, the ability of these companies to take these actions unilaterally present a challenge to due process and a risk to every viewpoint’s right to be heard. There is a national debate that needs to occur and the Biden Administration needs to lead in determining how all media, electronic and otherwise, need to comport.
Analysis
In October 2020, President Trump persuaded the two app providers, Apple and Google to remove TikTok from their app stores in a move to pressure the company to sell operations and recommendation algorithms to US entities. This move was in response to Trump’s insistence that TikTok, as it was then constituted, posed a threat to US national security. In January, these same companies with Amazon joining the fray, took it upon themselves to exercise a similar ban against the social media company Parler that they had determined had become a haven for right wing extremists.
Whereas the ban was the correct course given the threat to the republic, it opens the door to future actions that might be more arbitrary in nature. The question that is raised, though, is who gets to decide what speech is permitted on social media platforms and what recourse does a platform or individual have if they feel they are being unjustly disqualified from participating or operating their service?
This is not entirely a new problem but the speed and immediacy of the internet make it one that the Biden Administration must tackle early on. In his Inaugural Address Joe Biden made a vow of a kind that few Presidents have in American history. He warned of “a rise of political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism,” which, he pledged, “we must confront and we will defeat.” This is an effort that will largely center on controlling the information that is allowed to circulate on-line.
Donald Trump showed Americans how easy it was to exploit the First Amendment protections and the power of social media in order to mount politically effective disinformation campaigns. He may not have unleashed the monster but he gave it new agency. President Biden, we hope, is setting us on the path to enacting reforms that protect free speech but set guardrails for the digital age.
Resistance Resources
- The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation focuses on a host of critical issues at the intersection of technological innovation and public policy
- Access Now defends and extends the digital rights of users at risk around the world
- The Electronic Freedom Foundation is a nonprofit defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation for 30 years and counting.
- Fight for the Future is group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who fight for a future where technology liberates not oppresses.
President Biden’s Day One Executive Order Revokes Prior Trump Orders On 2020 Census
Policy Summary: On January 20, 2021 President Joe Biden issued “Executive Order On Ensuring A Lawful And Accurate Enumeration and Apportionment Pursuant to the Decennial Census.” This was the second executive order President Biden signed after being inaugurated earlier in the day. The executive order in Section 5 specifically revokes President Trump’s Executive Order No. 13880 of July 11, 2019 (Collecting Information About Citizenship Status in Connection With the Decennial Census) and Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2020 (Excluding Illegal Aliens From The Apportionment Base Following The 2020 Census).
The executive order clarifies, with reference to Constitutional language and Supreme Court precedents, that the President will submit to Congress a report with “the tabulation of total population by State that reflects the whole number of persons whose usual residence was in each State.” This differs markedly from ex – President Trump’s executive orders because it will not consider a person’s citizenship status in order for the person to be counted and will revert to the previous method of counting “whole number of persons.” LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: President Biden’s revocation of the two actions taken by ex – President Trump is a clear rebuke from how Trump tried to politicize the activities of the process of counting persons for the decennial census. When Trump took office, the law was clear. In order to apportion seats for the House of Representatives the count of persons would be the whole number of persons without regard for a person’s immigration or citizenship status. This was the standard since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment nearly one hundred fifty years ago. But when Trump came into office he tried to appeal to those voters who were wary of immigrants and who wanted tougher anti – immigration policies. By trying to include a question on citizenship status on the census questionnaire and exclude illegal aliens from the apportionment base Trump sought to do two things. First, he tried to discourage immigrants from responding to the questionnaire. Because of fear of government inquiry, immigrants who were not citizens would not be inclined to respond to any kind of government requests. The lack of participation would then skew the numbers of persons living in the State, as they would not be counted in the final state totals. This could have impacted how many representatives a State would get in the next apportionment. Second, Trump’s Presidential Memorandum took the next logical step and tried to exclude illegal aliens from being counted at all. The likely result of these actions would be an inaccurate apportionment of Representatives by State and an allocation of financial resources in areas that would not be representative of their need because of the inaccurate population count.
President Biden’s executive actions will likely reset the decennial census activities in a manner that is more reflective of how the census had been lawfully conducted in the past and distance it from the partisanship that Trump tried to inject in them. Instead of the divisive actions that sought to marginalize immigrant groups President Biden’s executive order seeks to ensure that every inhabitant of this country will have representation in the House of Representatives and that the process in counting persons and apportioning representatives reverts to the time – tested and lawful practices that had been used through the years. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – infopage on 2020 Census.
Brennan Center for Justice – infopage on group’s litigation efforts regarding the 2020 Census.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.