JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Growing Up In the Pandemic Youth Face Great Challenges
Brief #86—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Today young people in school or entering the job market face enormous socio-economic challenges.
A Summary and Review of Netflix’s Immigration Nation
Brief #101—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
In 2017, co-directors Christina Clusiau and Shaul Schwartz began filming a six-part Netflix docuseries called Immigration Nation.
The Coronavirus Child Care And Education Relief Act
Brief #45—Education
By Emily Carty
The Coronavirus Child Care and Education Relief Act (CCCERA) is a $430 billion bill proposed on June 30 by Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in response to the COVID-19 impact on schools and their communities.
Twitter and the Ayatollah
Brief #17—Technology
By Amy Swain
Censorship of politicians has become a hot topic as of late, specifically concerning Twitter vs Trump.
Bill S.4112
Brief #44—Education
By Amy Swain
The Coronavirus Child Care and Education Relief Act (CCCERA) is a $430 billion bill proposed on June 30 by Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in response to the COVID-19 impact on schools and their communities.
Michigan Part 2
Brief #7—Congressional Updates
By William Bourque
We continue our review of Michigan’s congressional races by moving onto District 6, where once again a republican is the incumbent. The district’s most notable area is the city of Kalamazoo, but also includes rural areas in the southwest corner of the state
Calls to Defund LAPD Increase Amid Growing Gang Database Scandal
Brief #7—Criminal Justice
By Laura Plummer
Ban On Further Protest Activity By Arrested Protestors Likely Unconstitutional
Brief #131—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
For more than sixty consecutive days, protesters in Portland, Oregon have marched and protested throughout the city to protest against racism and police brutality.
Free Trade: Recipe for Overcoming Covid-19
Brief #86—Economics
By Gwayne Gautreaux
While American-first has been a theme for the Trump administration’s foreign policy, its unintended consequences have certainly restricted the collective response necessary to overcome Covid-19.
Should Facial Recognition Technology Be Used In Schools?
Policy Summary
In January 2020 the Lockport City School District located in western New York State activated a facial recognition technology program in all of the public schools in the city of Lockport in Niagara County. The school district had first been approached in 2015 and was approved by the New York State Education Department in 2017. However, news of the decision was met with resistance from local citizens that caused the project to be delayed until the project could be further reviewed by state authorities. Installation of the security cameras with facial recognition technology was finally approved and was activated in January 2020. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
The decision of the Lockport City School District comes after a long drawn out fight over the pros and cons of facial recognition technology. While Lockport was not the first school district in the United States to implement the controversial technology (eight public school systems have been identified as using the technology) the school district has generated attention to the issues about the use of the technology on school campuses.
When the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) received word that the technology would help put suspended students in a database for future use they released a statement stating, “[T]his technology [ ] could end up [causing students of color] being subject to more scrutiny.” Parents in Lockport even created a petition to delay implementation of the surveillance system. Parents and students voiced concerns that the technology would be able to track their whereabouts and who they associate with in social groups. The school district responded by stating that the system was going to be used to keep out uninvited guests such as suspended students and local sex offenders. Other school districts have pointed to recent school shootings as a reason for using the technology.
The debate on facial recognition technology always comes down to invasion of privacy and other civil liberty concerns. While the use of the systems have often been used to monitor public spaces (outdoor venues, parks, streets) the use of the technology in the school is unique because it is being used in only one location – a school campus – that has a regular and known set of daily attendees. The students and teachers will always be the same throughout the year unlike a public street. Students in districts that have been using the technology have also pointed out that having the cameras on campus have not made them feel any safer but is instead a reminder that something could happen. And because of the well known inaccuracy of the systems the debate has shifted as to whether it is proper to subject still developing adolescents to a system that could label them as potential threats for incidents that could be classified as ordinary adolescent mischief. The psychological effect on children can likely be more devastating than if the student was simply scanned on a public street. Due to these concerns, the technology should be scrutinized, if not outright barred, from school environments. Usage in a classroom and on school campuses is far different than having the technology employed on public streets and venues. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – one – page infosheet on facial recognition technology issues.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – report tracking the facial recognition technology debate in Lockport, New York.
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
US Income Inequality Explained
During the February 7, 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidate debate multiple allusions were made to the wealth gap between African American and White households, though such a gap also applies to Latino and Indigenous populations. Between 1983 and 2013 Black median household wealth went down by 75%; Latino wealth by 50%; and Native American wealth decreased by an even greater percent though it was no longer assessed after the year 2000. White household wealth increased by 14% in the same time period. Twenty five percent of Black households had no wealth or negative wealth while the corresponding figure for White households is 10%. Educated African American families have a net worth of 200,000 dollars less than comparable White families. On the average, a two parent Black household has less wealth than a single parent White household. Asian American households maintain greater wealth than White households but it must be noted that some Asian groups tend to be highly educated and live in high income regions while many, especially the more newly immigrated, are very poor. The wealthiest Asian households reveal 168 times the wealth of the lowest Asian households while the comparable figures for white rich and poor households show a differential of 121. Economists estimate that the net worth of African American households will be zero by 2053 and Hispanic households will suffer the same decline twenty years later.
Wealth inequality is a major factor in standard of living and quality of life and it has been steadily increasing for decades. The topic is incendiary because it is based on centuries of legal and de facto discrimination. The institutionalization of race inequality, aside from the obvious repercussions of slavery, depends on discriminatory practices in employment; wages; housing markets; the banking industry; the tax structure; government programs; as well as the long term consequences of slavery. Inequality of wealth is even more significant than annual income inequality which also has been sustained at all educational and income levels and actually significantly increased between 2000 and 2018. Wealth, defined as all assets minus all debts, is a marker of intergenerational well-being and has a major impact on the ability to buy a home. Home ownership determines neighborhood which is an essential indicator of home values, education resources, recreation, and other quality of life measures. African Americans have more pressure to save due to the relative unlikelihood that their youth will inherit money to gain early homeownership. They buy homes later and in less valuable neighborhoods. African American homeowners average $12,000 in equity while the comparable white home owner averages $189,000 in equity. At the same time, they have a harder time saving due to the income inequality, the cost of loans, and systemic discrimination. It has been suggested that if the home ownership gap narrowed the income race gap would decrease by 31%.
The issues becomes essential to forming policy for all the presidential candidates; although anti-discrimination laws have been forged in real estate; employment; wages; banking; taxation; education; and government programs systemic discrimination pervades these areas. The affluent middle class of the post-World War II era was made possible by inexpensive, accessible higher education; well-paid manufacturing jobs; and government programs such as the GI Bill and the Veterans Administration which disproportionately accrued to white households. The issue of reparations, and the form and nature of these, is one that will be increasingly present in the political sphere. Some proponents of these suggest that special funds be set up to bolster community well-being through low cost housing, student, and business loans and other projects which would benefit the nonwhite communities.
Resources:
- https://www.ncobraonline.org/ A national coalition of organizations devoted to gaining reparations for the descendants of slavery.
References:
- https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/sep/13/median-wealth-of-black-americans-will-fall-to-zero-by-2053-warns-new-report
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/christianweller/2020/01/14/getting-serious-about-closing-racial-wealth-gap-means-looking-for-new-large-solutions/#2cb80d534fbf
- https://www.epi.org/blog/stark-black-white-divide-in-wages-is-widening-further/
- https://www.thebalance.com/racial-wealth-gap-in-united-states-4169678
- https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
Trump Administration Proposes More Obama-Era School Lunch Rollbacks —Post Your Comments
The Policy
The Department of Agriculture proposed new rules for school lunches and meals, actively targeting policy spearheaded by Former First Lady Michelle Obama.
Currently, it is mandated that schools offer high quantities of nutritious red and orange vegetables. With this change, schools will have more discretion in the amount and variety of vegetables. Another change is that students will be able to purchase more entrée items as a la carte selections. The proposal builds off the Trump administration’s 2018 policy that rolled back whole grain and sodium regulations, allowing schools to provide white breads and saltier foods.
Such a proposal has gained support through concerns over school lunch costs and restrictions on school administration to make changes in what is served to kids. The Department of Agriculture says its goals are to “simplify” nutritional guidelines and combat waste. According to the USDA, the goal of this new rule is to give school administrators more flexibility in what they serve in school cafeterias.
This new rollback in key nutritional standards puts approximately 30 million children, including nearly 22 million low-income children at a higher risk for health issues.
Analysis:
While the Nutritional School Lunch Program is not entirely cancelled, this is a significant blow to the program aimed at combatting childhood diseases and providing school kids with nutritional meals. Critics of the proposal argue the changes will result in children eating less fruits and vegetables and more unhealthy options like pizza, burgers and fries.
Another large concern is that the new rule now allows students to purchase full entrées as a la cart items, which creates a loophole in the standards set in place. Such loophole allows students to exceed the recommended caloric intake and saturate their diets with foods that should be eaten in moderation.
USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue supported the changes by highlighting the common pickiness of kids, stating “if kids are not eating what is being served, [because they don’t like healthier options compared to unhealthy ones) then they are not benefiting, and food is being wasted”. Such a statement also tapped into fiscally conservative supporters keen on cutting government budget costs in a variety of areas, even school lunches.
With nearly 14 million obese children in the US, healthy foods are an imperative in protecting them against risks like diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and obesity, in addition to associated complications. The new Trump administration rules directly challenge the standards established by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.
Previous rollbacks on the National School Lunch Program have resulted in a lawsuit by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), organizational partners of CSPI, and attorneys generals. It is expected that with the large outcry over previous ammendments, this proposal will also be challenged in the courts.
The 60 day commenting period ends March 23rd, 2020, post your public comment to this proposal here!
Engagement Resources:
- Center for Science in the Public Interest – An independent and science-based consumer advocacy organization committed to improving the food system and to support healthy eating.
- ParentsTogether – A national and parent led organization created to keep parents informed and active in policies that impact kids and families.
- Feeding America – America’s largest hunger relief organization.
Reach out to your senators and representatives to take action!
Trump Gets Acquitted; Democracy Takes a Hit
The presidency of Donald J. Trump will always have an asterisk next to it denoting impeachment. So too will the Senate trial resulting in his acquittal, in the minds of millions of Americans. Friday’s vote to call additional witnesses failed 51-49, largely on along party lines. The two Republican Senators (Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine) were not enough to sway to two additional defectors in ensuring that the Senate trial featured witnesses. Trump’s defenders clung to his talking point that there were no firsthand accounts of President Trump tying Ukrainian military aid to investigations into the Bidens in an effort to boost he reelection bid.
According to former National Security Adviser, John Bolton’s forthcoming book, The Room Where It Happened, Trump told him he desired to block military aid until the country announced an investigation into his political rival. With Friday’s vote, 51 Senators made it clear they didn’t want to hear from Bolton in a public forum.
15 impeachment trials of government officials have occurred in United States history. Each has featured witnesses in public or private. Early last week it looked as though that precedent was to remain intact. Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, speaking to reporters on Monday night acknowledged he didn’t have the necessary votes to block witnesses. Lamar Alexander, of Tennessee, Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, Romney and Collins were considered to be the most likely ‘’yea’’ votes to call witnesses, which needed only a simple majority to pass. Alexander, 79 and retiring, announced on Wednesday night that he had decided to vote against calling witnesses. Perhaps most disheartening was his rationale, that Democrats have proven their case, but he needn’t hear more because Trump’s offenses are not impeachable.
A Quinnipiac poll prior to the vote found that 75% of Americans favored hearing from more witnesses in the trial. After Alexander towed the party line, it hardly mattered. Lisa Murkowski followed suit and the GOP had the votes it needed to prevent further, likely very incriminating, testimony against Trump. Only Romney and Collins broke rank in favor of an exhaustive trial.
Acclaimed writer and muckraker, Upton Sinclar, once said ‘’it is difficult to make a man understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding.” That’s likely the simplest explanation for the anti-witness vote. In a Republican party co-opted by Trump, Senators representing states where he remains popular take great political risk just criticizing Trump, let alone advocating for his removal from office. It’s little wonder GOP members haven’t contemplated (at least publicly) the danger in enabling this type of behavior from the Executive Branch.
John Bolton has expressed a willingness to testify after threatening to sue the House of Representatives if subpoenaed. The one missing piece from the House Manager’s compelling case for removal is first-hand testimony from someone who heard Trump express his intentions towards Ukraine and the aid. Bolton is in a position to fill in that remaining blank according to reports about his memoir. As former National Security Adviser, Trump confidant and conservative icon, his testimony would be difficult to dismiss as unreliable or politically motivated. This undoubtedly occurred to the 51 Republican Senators who voted for a trial without witnesses. This would not prevent the House from subpoenaing Bolton independent of the trial, or Bolton holding a press conference to announce Trump attempted to enlist him in putting the squeeze on Ukraine, but it will keep the bombshell revelations from the official record of this trial.
The vote against further evidence may have been taken with Bolton in mind, but his is not the only relevant information to be deliberately omitted from the proceedings. Indicted Giuliani/Trump associate Lev Parnas has hurled a bevy of accusations at the president publicly and submitted numerous documents to the House. If the bare crux of his assertions are to be believed, he was involved in the scandal in a fundamental, catalytic fashion and positioned to be the fall guy. He kept insurance in the form of documents and text messages detailing his nefarious activities, allegedly at the direction and to the benefit of the president of the United States. Parnas is no doubt an unsavory and self-serving character, but his allegations should deem them worthy of consideration. If this trial were held in the interest of justice, they would be.
In perhaps the most brazen instance of obstruction, Donald Trump’s Department of Justice stated just hours after the vote to quash additional witnesses and documents that it had two dozen redacted emails related to his role in the freeze on security assistance to Ukraine. The Center for Public Integrity requested the emails through the Freedom of Information Act. Lawyers for the Office of Management and Budget argued that the emails are protected by presidential privilege as they relate to ‘’decision-making about the scope, duration, and purpose of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine.’’ Since the impeachment inquiry began, many defenses of Trump in lieu of hard evidence, have involved not knowing what the president was thinking. By the Executive Branch’s own lawyers reasoning, those emails could clear up a lot of questions of intent. Perhaps the aforementioned emails are what Trump had in mind when he bragged two weeks ago that ‘’We have all the material. They don’t have the material.’’
American democracy, and our system of checks and balances was dealt a significant blow with Friday’s vote. Donald Trump is not the first Executive to act corruptly and abuse his authority. He certainly won’t be the last. With what feels like a neutralization of the Constitution’s impeachment clause, it begs the question of if and how a similarly misbehaving president will be held to account. In the future, if a corrupt president enjoys the support of the majority of the House or Senate, will impeachment even be viable given the precedents set in this trial? Richard Nixon resigned in the face of certain removal from office largely stemming from crimes intended to aid his reelection chances. Trump and his cohorts may not have committed any statutory crimes, but the president did invite foreign interference in the 2020 election in an effort to boost his chances of remaining in office; just as he did in 2016, just as he said he would do again on national television in the summer of 2019. A number of Trump’s enablers have acknowledged that he acted inappropriately in regard to Ukraine, but that his conduct doesn’t warrant impeachment. Such an admission is tantamount to saying ‘’yes he attempted to cheat the voting box in the upcoming election by blackmailing a vulnerable ally, but he can’t be removed for it.”
To hear previously renowned Constitutional Scholar Alan Dershowitz tell it, a president who believes his reelection is in the national interest, is acting in that interest in furthering his prospect of reelection, and thus cannot be corrupt. By that rationale, any demagogic incompetent occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, need only lack enough self-awareness to realize his reelection is to the benefit of the nation and he is not acting corruptly. As House Manager Adam Schiff said numerous times in response to asinine defenses of Trump this is ‘’dangerous nonsense.’’ Trump’s lawyer’s and numerous allies in Congress implored the Senate to let the people decide in November. Yes the people should decide, but should the next President go off the reservation, what mechanism will we use to hold him or her accountable.
Learn More:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/01/doj-emails-trump-ukraine-aid-110246
Trump Expands Travel Ban
Policy Update
As an expansion of the 2017 travel ban, the Trump Administration has added 6 countries to the list: Nigeria, Eritrea, Sudan, Tanzania, Kyrgyzstan, and Myanmar. Citizens from these nations will not be granted visas to live permanently in the United States, but the ban does not apply to individuals seeking to visit the United States for a short time or obtain student/work visas. The new ban is expected to go into force February 22, 2020 and could potentially effect around 12,400 people.
The existing nations covered in Trump’s original travel ban: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, and North Korea will remain. The Trump Administration has expressed the reason for the addition of 6 new countries is for national security purposes to ensure countries meet US security needs by requiring a certain level of identity management and information sharing [with the United States]. The administration goal is to bring governments into compliance through this ban and limit the “power of access to the United States.” Chad, which was previously included in the original travel ban, has since been removed due to its improvements in security measures.
Citizens from Sudan and Tanzania alao will no longer be eligible for the Diversity Visa Program, that awards Green Cards to 50,000 immigrants from underrepresented countries annually. Additionally, in the wake of Coronavirus, individuals (foreign nationals) who have travelled in China in the last 14 days will also be denied entry.
Analysis
As many opponents of the original travel ban have expressed, ACLU director of Immigrants’ Rights Project voiced, “the ban should be ended, not expanded.” Executive Director of Amnesty International calls the ban “offensive and actually harmful to our national security.” In the original travel ban, the majority of the countries were overwhelmingly Muslim , the 6 new countries are overwhelmingly African.
To rationalize such a ban by claiming the “power of access to the United States” will coerce these nations to improve their security measures and information sharing, is an extremely American-centric and condescending outlook. The Trump Administration’s attitude towards immigration from non-European nations is one of bias and patronage under the guise of doing these nation’s a favor.
Engagement Resources
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- Protect Democracy: a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to fighting domestic and international attacks to free, fair and fully formed self-government
- Border Network for Human Rights: network to engage education, organization and participation of border communities to defend human rights and work towards a society where everyone is equal in rights and dignity.
An Update to Brief 77 – Limiting Visas to Dependent Individuals
Policy Updates
This is an update to U.S. RESIST NEWS Immigration Policy Brief 77 concerning Trump’s desire to limit green cards and visas from individuals who are deemed likely to need government benefits. Under the Department of Homeland Security’s new rule, factors such as age, health, education and household income will also play a role in decision making.
The Supreme Court recently issued an order to allow the Trump Administration to begin enforcing new limits on immigrants who are deemed likely to become overly dependent on government benefit programs, with a vote of 5-4 for. Anyone who would be likely to require a broad range of help for more than 1-year in a 3-year period could be denied a visa. Individuals who are regarded as likely to need either non-cash benefits (like food stamps, Medicaid or housing vouchers) or cash benefits can be turned away. The Trump Administration claimed this is a necessary step in order to promote the American ideals of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility, to ensure immigrants are able to support themselves and become successful in the US.
Analysis
The Trump Administration has increasingly put forth measures to villainize immigrants as people who drain US resources.. This is in theory, a spin on the Administration’s earlier attempt to focus allocation of Green Cards to wealthier migrants who have resumes and bank statements to prove they will not need any assistance in contributing to the US economy, work force, etc. Yet again, the White House is attempting to put a price tag on immigration.
Engagement Resources
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- Protect Democracy: a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to fighting domestic and international attacks to free, fair and fully formed self-government
- Border Network for Human Rights: network to engage education, organization and participation of border communities to defend human rights and work towards a society where everyone is equal in rights and dignity.
Birth Tourism: An Update on Trump’s Visa Ban for Pregnant Women
Policy Updates
The Trump Administration has recently put forth the notion of blocking visas to pregnant women who travel to the US solely to give birth. Due to America’s birthright citizenship per the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, the babies of foreign women who give birth on American soil, will automatically gain citizenship. This has become known as ‘Birth Tourism.’ Birth Tourism as it is known is most common from Russia, China, and Nigeria. The Center for Immigration Studies – who advocates for stricter immigration laws – estimated about 36,000 foreign-born women gave birth in the US and then left the country in 2012. This new rule does not effect individuals visiting from the 39 countries that qualify for the Visa Waiver Program that allows citizens of those countries to visit the US for short periods of time without visas.
Likely, consular officials will have no medical training, but are expected to assess women applying for visas to gauge if they are pregnant. Consular Officers do not have the right to ask during visa interviews whether a woman is pregnant, nor to require pregnancy tests, so they will have to “consider the totality of circumstances and what comes out of the interviews.” Women applying for a B-1/B-2 visa – which provides temporary travel to the US for tourism, business or medical care – will essentially have to prove they are travelling because of a medical need and also have the money to support such a trip (for things like transportation and living expenses). Annually, there are roughly 5.8 million B-1/B-2 visas issued.
President Trump has expressed he seeks to end all birthright citizenship to children of noncitizens, but that would entail a lengthy process of Congress making an amendment to the US Constitution. The White House expressed they felt the Birth Tourism Industry threatens to overburden valuable hospital resources and the State Department: does not believe that visiting the US for the primary purpose of obtaining US citizenship for a child, by giving birth in the US , is a legitimate activity for pleasure or of a recreational nature.
Analysis
Many people who oppose birthright citizenship believe individuals use their ‘anchor babies’ to bring in other family members and thus, begin emigration to the US. This is a very pessimistic, conniving view of family-based immigration. There are several instances where individuals may have complicated pregnancies and thus travel to the US in the hopes of achieving more adequate medical attention.
It is also hard to implement this new policy without putting profiling, possibly racial profiling, into practice. The policy also demonstrates an inherent bias towards women applying for visas. Because pregnancy tests cannot be required of women applying for visas, if a woman does not explicitly disclose that she is pregnant, but appears pregnant to the interviewer, how will this be proven?
Engagement Resources
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- Protect Democracy: a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to fighting domestic and international attacks to free, fair and fully formed self-government
- Border Network for Human Rights: network to engage education, organization and participation of border communities to defend human rights and work towards a society where everyone is equal in rights and dignity.
Photo by Christian Bowen
US Killing of Iranian General and Its Global Regional Consequences
The death of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s substantially powerful military commander, from a US airstrike in Baghdad, signifies the escalation of vital conflict between the United States of America and Iran, with immense effects and concerns for the region as well as the entire world.
The death of Soleimani, who devised the nation’s vast regional impact, is a considerable symbolic setback to Iran and it has threatened revenge on a massive level but has not moved further than firing a few missiles on air bases housing US forces in Iraq. Though Iran may not pursue actions that would trigger the United States into direct conflict, it will probably intensify diplomatic and political pressure on Iraq to evict American military personnel.
By killing Soleimani, President Trump also surprised leaders in the region and around the world. They have been left to speculate what his ultimate objective and strategic position is in the Middle East and beyond. Trump’s decision to kill Soleimani has plunged the region into a state of political uncertainty. It has suggested it will pursue a broader, more erratic policy, which could flicker in several locations and in various modes.
Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been a dominant force not only in the Middle East region but all over the globe. However, by killing Soleimani and pushing the region into fresh unrest, Trump may have made it simpler for China (and Russia) to supersede America’s influence in the region.
Soleimani’s death will affect India and Pakistan, as well. Both of these nations will need to review their regional strategies, which have focused on maintaining friendly relations with all countries in the region.
Photo by Kyle Glenn
Week One Impeachment Trial Summary
The opening arguments in the Senate Trial of Donald J. Trump are in the books. House Managers opened the proceedings and argued for 20 hours over three days that President Trump is a danger to the country who needs to be removed from office. Trump’s legal team presented a considerably more concise argument refuting the Articles of Impeachment and portrayed their client as an adept president, targeted by his political opponents. The legal merits of each case will be a source of discussion in Constitutional law classes and impeachments to come.
The Democrat’s Case
Donald Trump withheld $400 million in military aid to Ukraine and conditioned it on dummy investigations into Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s role on Ukrainian gas company Burisma. This was the allegation central to the House Manager’s first Article of Impeachment, Abuse of Power. It was the Democrat’s contention that this act constituted solicitation of foreign election interference at the expense of US national security. In meticulous and painstaking detail, Adam Schiff led the Senate and viewing public through a ‘’factually chronology’’ of the scandal. In January of 2019 the president’ personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, visited Ukraine in the hopes of instigating investigations into his client’s political rival. He found willing partners in well-connected Ukrainians disaffected by the new regime’s anti-corruption platform. Former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, represented an impediment to the White House’s back channel diplomacy, and well-connected Ukranians who had previously benefited from the corrupt status quo. Giuliani and co. orchestrated a smear campaign which would eventually lead to her recall.
Ukraine is a key US ally in fight against Russian aggression. They have been in a hot-war with their neighboring nation since 2014. The United Nations puts the estimated death toll ataround 13,000. Newly-elected President Volodymr Zelensky was desperate, not just for the vital military aid, but for a White House visit, to demonstrate the United States’ strong support for his country’s efforts. Schiff highlighted the imminent danger faced by Ukraine and the power discrepancy between the two presidents as the leverage Trump would use to get Zelensky to do his political bidding.
The timeline of the hold on military aid had previously been somewhat nebulous. Mark Sandy, the lone official from the Office of Management and Budget to testify behind closed doors, cleared that up for investigators. His testimony was released by Democrats on Tuesday night. He stated word had trickled down to his office that Trump wanted a hold placed on the aid by mid-July, and on a July 18th call, an OMB staffer announced that a hold was to occur. Hours after the now infamous July 25th call, Sandy put the hold into effect. This proves Trump had made the unilateral decision to block the military assistance days before he would tell his Ukrainian counterpart he’d like him to ‘’do us a favor though.’’ Democrats had previously presented the testimony of EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland and Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor and their understanding of an explicit quid pro in regard to the announcement of investigations for release of aid. Supporters of the president largely disregarded their words as second-hand and inferential. The evidence presented By Mark Sandy lends additional credence to their remarks before the House.
All this amounted to a violation of the Impoundment Control Act, according to a recently released Government Accountability Office report. The funds at issue had previously been authorized by Congress on a bipartisan basis. In order for the Executive Branch to freeze the funds, a rationale based on programmatic reasoning (when a program must be implemented before money is dispersed) or unavoidable delay, must be offered to Congress. No attempt whatsoever was made to explain the hold.
Finally Trump released the aid on September 11th, well after he learned of the whistleblower complaint and Congress had announced an inquiry into the delay of Ukrainian military aid. It is the contention of House Managers that all this amounts to an iron-clad
case that the president abused the power of his office by demanding that an ally (who’d just been elected on a campaign of anti-corruption) announce sham investigations that would boost his 2020 reelection prospects by withholding security assistance without cause. In doing so, they contend Trump violated his oath of office by prioritizing his political interests over the stated foreign policy goals of the United States.
The Obstruction of Congress charge is less convoluted and rests on shakier Constitutional ground. Their premise is that the sole power of impeachment lies with the House. As such it is the legal obligation of the Executive Branch to comply with subpoenas for any and all documents or and witnesses. In October, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone responded to House subpoenas with a defiant letter stating no cooperation would be forthcoming, deriding the inquiry as ‘’invalid and unconstitutional’’, and claiming that the House lacked the proper oversight to compel testimony or documents in this instance. Trump would subsequently order all current and former Executive Branch employees not to comply with Congressional request for documents or appear before the House for questioning. Democrats view this as an affront to their ability to investigate matters within their purview and a threat to the separation of powers. It would also appear the House views this as an extension of the nonsensical claim by Trump that he cannot be investigated. Executive overreach of a lawless president was undoubtedly given weight in their deliberation; Donald Trump, at a Conservative rally last year said ‘’then I have an Article 2, which says I can do anything I want as president.’’ the clip was played numerous times throughout the presentation. The Democrats made a compelling case that Donald Trump is liable to rig the next election however he can, a threat to our system of government and needs to be removed promptly.
The Republican Case
Trump’s defense team presented a considerably briefer case over the three days they took to the Senate floor to defend the president. Their argument rested mostly on procedural issues, conjecture and a bit of projection.
The president did nothing wrong. No witness directly links Ukraine aid and Biden investigations. Even if he had, these Articles are too vague to stand. Trump is being victimized by political opponents who seek to ‘’undue the 2016 election results and interfere in the upcoming election.’’ These were the most common talking points heard from Trump’s star-studded defense team.
On the subject of innocence his lawyers focused primarily on the July 25th call between Trump and Zelensky that would eventually become the subject of the whistleblower complaint. Their interpretation of the call differed greatly from that of their Democratic counterparts. They contend the call featured no conditionality of aid, and nothing untoward that should have served as the impetus of impeachment.
This segued neatly into their attempt to legitimize their client’s purported concerns of corruption in Ukraine. Trump has always been skeptical of foreign aid. He said as much on the campaign trail and has repeatedly stated a disdain for what he’s sees as handouts. Ukraine, prior to the election of Zelensky ,has featured endemic corruption at the highest levels of government. So when Trump inquired into the activities of the Bidens in the country, he was not doing so for any nefarious reason, but acting as a responsible steward of American tax payer dollars. The alternative theory that Ukraine, and not Russia interfered with the 2016 election, has been debunked, but the president still seemed to put stock in it. His lawyers argued this belief spoke to his state of mind and his good faith intentions of ensuring American security aid was dispensed wisely.
The basis of the Obstruction of Congress charge was the White House’s blanket refusal to comply with subpoenas into the inquiry. Trump’s defense cited Executive Privilege as the rationale for senior level officials such as John Bolton to ignore calls to testify. Though the term was not found in Cipollone’s October letter or in the president’s orders to subordinates to prevent cooperation with the inquiry, his legal team argued it was his right to assert privilege to protect sensitive communication. Executive Privilege exists so that the president may receive honest counsel from close advisers who may otherwise be less candid if they were concerned what they say may later become public.
Also, Article II refers only to the official impeachment inquiry as it relates to the withholding of aid from Ukraine. In the case of Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and eight other Executive Branch officials, subpoenas were issued after impeachment articles were formalized, at which point the House lacked the authority to issue subpoenas, thus making them invalid. Previous requests for information that the Executive Branch claimed was privileged have been resolved in the courts, and it is there the Trump team contends these disputes should have been settled as well. It was only to meet their rushed and artificial deadline to impeach that Democrats did not allow the matter to be resolved by the Judiciary Branch. Trump’s defense teams does not believe the second Article of Impeachment constitutes obstruction in a legal sense, and certainly not to serve as the basis for removal from office.
Perhaps the most substantive words in defense of the president came from Constitutional Scholar Alan Dershowitz. Bucking the consensus of the legal community (and his own opinions concerning the Clinton impeachment) Dershowitz argued that a crime is necessary in order for a president to be removed from office. He asserted that the matter at hand is essentially a policy disagreement and sets a dangerous precedent for future presidential impeachments. Dershowitz also gave little weight to the GAO report finding that Trump had violated the ICA, calling it a partisan agency inclined to defer to Congress. The example he raised to demonstrate his point further was Trump selling Alaska to Russia if he thought it was the right thing. ‘’That would be terrible. But would it be impeachable?’’ ‘’Not under the Constitution’’ he contends.
In this politically polarized landscape, the Senate Trial represents something of a Rorschach Test. Each side made their argument that their desired outcome is in the best interest of the country’s present and future. Each case had its weaknesses; Obstruction of Congress is a bit dubious, Trump’s concerns about Ukrainian corruption isn’t crediuble. The entire exercise felt like a continuation of the controversies swirling around the Trump presidency since it began in January of 2017.
Ultimately House Democrats found themselves in a position similar to that of a football team down multiple scores with two minutes remaining in the game. They probably weren’t ever going to be able to do enough to achieve their objective. A vote on witnesses is yet to come, and a bit more suspenseful than they may have been earlier in the trial, but the outcome of the trial has never really been in doubt. The most significant consequences of Trump’s Senate Trial will likely be seen at the ballot box in November and future presidential impeachments.
Learn More
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/27/20985454/impeachment-trump-ukraine-aid-timeline-news
https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-congress-impeachment-and-constitutional-conflict
Photo by Free To Use Sounds
Trump Rolls Back Obama-Era Protections of US Waterways
Summary
In 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Nixon administration, revised the existing Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) into what is now called the Clean Water Act (CWA). Since its creation, the CWA has formed the basic structure for regulating the discharge of pollutants into United States waters as well as the quality standards for surface waters. More specifically, the CWA “made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained” (epa.gov). In 2015 under the Obama administration, the CWA was expanded upon with the EPA’s “Waters of the United States” regulation. This new regulation expanded the jurisdiction of the CWA to protect smaller wetlands and streams “that run intermittently or temporarily underground” (epa.gov).
These regulations were created to keep harmful levels of pollutants such as fertilizers, pesticides and industrial chemicals out of all bodies of water that will eventually end up in larger water systems used by the American people, including drinking water supplies. They also protect many wetlands from being destroyed or filled in for development. Landowners along these protected bodies of water must acquire a permit for certain land uses, industries and management practices. These cases are analyzed and permits issued on a case-by-case basis by the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. The analysis and permitting process typically takes anywhere from 14-320 days to complete. In general, if all application materials and documents are submitted, an individual NPDES permit can take around 180 days to process.
On January 23, 2020 a joint committee from the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the Trump administration, released the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule” (NWPR) to replace the 2015 “Waters of the United States” regulation and further roll back and redefine important elements of the 1972 Clean Water Act. The new rule removes CWA jurisdiction from all bodies of water deemed protected by Obama’s “Waters of the United States” regulation. Under the new NWPR, these bodies of water have been reorganized by the Trump administration as protected or not protected by CWA assessments and permits:
Protected:
- Territorial Seas and traditional navigable waters
- Perennial and intermittent tributaries to those waters
- Certain lakes, ponds, and impoundments
- Wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional waters
Not Protected:
- Features that only contain water in direct response to rainfall
- Groundwater
- Many ditches
- Prior converted cropland
- Waste treatment systems
According to the new rule, landowners no longer require case-by-case permits for discharging pollutants into or developing on or along the bodies of water listed under “Not Protected.” Furthermore, the NWPR has redefined elements of the original Clean Water Act. “Adjacent wetlands” has been redefined to mean wetlands that directly abut or have regular surface water exchange with jurisdictional waters, directly or indirectly. And, a “typical year” has been redefined so that EPA analyses for determining whether a body of water should be protected or not, may only utilize data collected in times that are not too wet or too dry. Also, the rule now merges the previously two categories of “jurisdictional ditches” and “impoundments” into one single category.
The Trump Administration’s “Navigable Waters Protection Rule” has been informed by over 6,000 recommendations and 620,000 public comments on the proposal. A “Navigable Waters Protection Rule” Fact Sheet can be found on EPA.gov and a public outreach opportunity will be provided on February 13, 2020 via a public webcast of the EPA’s and U.S. Army Corps’ explanation of the new final rule.
Analysis
The new “Navigable Waters Protection Rule” has drawn a mix of criticism and praise. Some, including Karen Harbert, Chief Executive Officer of the American Gas Association and Andrew Wheeler, EPA Administrator, believe the new rule is a victory for farmers and home builders, by limiting federal oversight and bringing the jurisdictional power back to the landowners and state governments. Harbert argues the new rule will “Protect our rivers, streams and lakes without stifling construction or important infrastructure.” Mr Wheeler proclaims the new rule “respects the limited powers that the executive branch has been given under the Constitution and the Clean Water Act to protect navigable waters.” Andrew Wheeler was nominated by President Trump in 2017 and 2018 as Deputy Administrator of the EPA, and previously worked at Faegre Baker Daniels Law Firm, representing coal magnate Robert E. Murray and lobbying against the Obama Administration’s environmental regulations. He has openly criticized the placing of limits on greenhouse gas emissions and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Many others, however, believe the new rule to be irresponsible, short-sighted and contrary to science-based recommendations. Blan Holman, lawyer at the Southern Environmental Law Center believes the new rule to be a dangerous reversal of long established clean water regulations. He says, “This puts drinking water for millions of Americans at risk of contamination from unregulated pollution. This is not just undoing the Obama rule. This is stripping away protections that were put in place in the ‘70s and ‘80s that Americans have relied on for their health.” The EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board agrees. The panel of 41 scientists, many chosen by the Trump administration, say that the new rule “neglects established science.” Adding that it’s “failing to acknowledge watershed systems” and that there is “no scientific justification” for removing protections for smaller and seasonal bodies of water, because pollutants in these smaller bodies still reach our larger water systems. In fact, according to Thomas Tafoya, a Colorado based member of Green Latinos, says 90% of the supply streams that feed the Colorado River only run after rainfall and snow melt, and thus, will no longer be protected under the new rule. “This rollback will affect almost every single stream that flows into the Colorado River,” says Tafoya, and could harm the Colorado River water quality, which supplies water to 17 western states. EPA Administrator Wheeler also claims that the new rule’s revisions are meant to create a simpler outline for which bodies of water are under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act and which are not. However, experts say that the definitions made in the new rule are actually so general and so far from established scientific evidence, that farmers and landowners are more likely to have to seek consultation for determining the jurisdiction their lands and adjacent waters fall under. This will cost farmers and landowners more money and headache, contrary to Wheeler’s claims.
According to an article in the New York Times by Coral Davenport, “Water management experts” say that under the new rule, millions of acres of wetlands will be open to pollution and/or destruction. Wetlands play a key role in filtering surface waters, protecting against floods, and providing wildlife habitat. The compromise of these watershed systems will lead to chemicals and pollutants infiltrating smaller headland waters and eventually larger bodies of water that the American people rely on. 16 State Attorneys General, including Lititia James of New York, are suing Trump’s EPA and Army Corps, arguing that the rule is not legally sound. Addressing this, Professor of Environmental Law at the University of Vermont Law School, Patrick Parenteau states that “The legal standing all has to do with whether you have a rational basis for what you’re doing. And when you have experts saying you’re not adhering to the science, that’s not rational, it’s arbitrary.” Environmental activism groups Earthjustice and The Environmental Working Group both vow to challenge the new rule.
Resistance Resources
- https://earthjustice.org – EarthJustice; Nonprofit public interest environmental law organization, dedicated to “protect people’s health, to preserve magnificent places and wildlife, to advance clean energy, and to combat climate change” (earthjustice.org).
- https://www.ewg.org – The Environmental Working Group; Nonprofit organization specializing in research and advocacy of agricultural subsidies, toxic chemicals, drinking water pollutants, and corporate accountability.
- https://alabamarivers.org – “Alabama Rivers Alliance is a statewide network of groups working to protect and restore all of Alabama’s water resources through building partnerships, empowering citizens, and advocating for sound water policy and its enforcement” (Alabamarivers.org).
- https://blackwarriorriver.org – Black Warrior Riverkeeper; “A citizen-based nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting clean water for the sake of public health, recreation, and wildlife habitat throughout…the Black Warrior River watershed” (Blackwarriorriver.org).
- https://www.conservationalabama.org – Conservation Alabama; “ensuring our decision-makers at all levels of government work to protect the people and places we all love” (conservationalabama.org).
- https://www.southernenvironment.org – Southern Environmental Law Center; Nonprofit organization using the power of law to protect clean air, clean drinking water and healthy living environments.
Learn More:
“NYS Attorney General.” NYS Attorney General, 20 Dec. 2019, https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/ag-james-leads-coalition-suing-over-trumps-repeal-clean-water-rule.
Black, Hank. “Environmental Groups Protest New Waters of the US Rule.” WBHM News, 24 Jan. 2020, https://WBHM.org/2020/environmental-groups-protest-new-waters-of-the-us-rule
Carson, Brent, et al. “Navigable Waters Protection Rule Substantially Narrows the Scope of Waterbodies Subject to Regulation Under the Clean Water Act.” The National Law Review, 25 Jan. 2020.
Davenport, Coral. “Trump Removes Pollution Controls on Streams and Wetlands.” The New York Times , 22 Jan. 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/climate/trump-environment-water.html.
EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/.
Richards, Ryan. “Debunking The Trump Administration’s New Water Rule.” Center for American Progress, 27 Mar. 2019, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2019/03/27/467697/debunking-trump-administrations-new-water-rule/.
Photo by Jong Marshes