JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
DOJ Seeks An Unnecessary Expansion Of Government Powers In Court Proceedings Due To COVID-19
Brief #118—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
n March 21, 2020 the Politico website reported that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) made a request to Congress seeking new emergency powers as a result of the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic sweeping the world.
Coronavirus Deals a Blow to US Schools
Brief #42—Education
By Ivan A Moore
On April 2nd, NPR reported that roughly 9 out of 10 schoolchildren are out of school globally due to COVID-19.
Judge Orders Release of Immigrant Children While “The Wall” Continues to be Built
Brief #91—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
A Federal Judge in Los Angeles ordered the US government to make continuous efforts to release migrant children held in detention facilities. These children are supposed to be transferred to the care of outside sponsors unless they pose a flight risk, within 7 days.
COVID-19, Corona virus, recession, economic stimulus, recovery The Two Trillion Dollar Economic Relief Plan
Brief #70—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
When the partisan bickering resolved, the country was left with a relief package that reflected some of the Democrats’ modifications on an earlier Republican-backed proposal. The bill, passed on Friday March 27th, includes help for taxpayers, small businesses, industry, student loan payments and a few other contingencies. Basically, single taxpayers making up to $75K will get a one-time payment of $1200 while married couples will get relief if they earn less than $150K.
China and Cuba Play a Global Leadership Role in the Fight Against the Coronavirus While the US Ops Out
Brief #77—Foreign Policy
By Brandon Mooney
As the coronavirus has spread across the world and effectively brought nation-states to their knees, we have seen an interesting soft power push by traditionally opposing powers of the West, and the U.S. in particular, to provide much-needed aid to thankful recipient governments.
All In This Together
Inspirational Music About Coronavirus Pandemic
By Ron Israel
Nevada First State To Make Voting By Mail Mandatory For Upcoming 2020 Primary
Brief #117—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
Due to the dangers of the COVID-19 coronavirus, the U.S. federal government, a number of U.S. states and numerous local governments encouraged a variety of preventative social measures to try and contain the virus. Shelter in place and stay at home orders, the closing of non – essential businesses and suggested social distancing techniques eventually led to an estimated 150 million Americans – out of an estimated 325 million total population – unwillingly confined in their homes.
Coronavirus Hits Higher Education
Brief #40—Education
By Ivan A Moore
As the COVID-19 crisis unfolds, universities have experienced unprecedented disruptions. Over the past few weeks, they’ve emptied classrooms and dorms, with most opting to finish the semester online. A few have cancelled courses altogether. Though extreme, these measures will protect students and staff from the rapid spread that would occur via stadium-like lecture halls, busy cafeterias, and crowded dorms. It was the only safe option, but the fallout will reverberate through America’s higher education system for years to come.
Atlantic Coast Pipeline Controversy awaits Adjudication
Brief #—79
By Shannon Q Elliot
In 2017, The U.S. Federal Regulatory Committee gave the final approval for construction of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP). A project spearheaded by corporate giants, Dominion and Duke Energy Companies, the pipeline is intended to serve as a vessel for natural gas to reach consumers throughout Virginia, West Virginia and North Carolina. The approval process included reviewing permits issued by The US National Forest Service (USFS), The National Park Service (NPS) and several other federal agencies.
Net Neutrality – Not the Net-pocolypse – Not Internet Freedom
Policy Summary
On January 4, 2018 the Federal Communications Commission under the leadership of Trump appointee Ajit Pai implemented the “Restoring Internet Freedom Order”. This order reversed the net neutrality rules that were codified in 2015 under the stewardship of the Obama Administration in the “Open Internet Order”. This protocol formally identified rules that the internet had operated on for 20 years with bipartisan support. The 2015 rules effectively classified Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as Title II Services – Common Carriers similar to phone companies and obligating them to provide their services without hindrance, preference or favor. The repeal reversed 20 years of evolving internet policy.
Analysis
Advocates of a free and open internet have long argued that the service was an essential utility similar to phone or mail service and providers should be closely regulated to ensure that content was available without interference or preferential treatment. This policy was anathema to large ISPs like Verizon and AT&T who envisaged creating streaming services of their own. It would only be logical that they would want to create an environment where their services were more attractive to consumers than established services like Netflix, Amazon, or Hulu or emerging services like Disney or CBS All-Access.
The change in policy has also allowed ISPs to gradually change the rate structure that it applies to consumers; changing the meaning of “unlimited access” to define different speeds to different consumers depending on the types of content they up or download.
What we are seeing, as the repeal quickly takes effect, is an internet that is starting to resemble the cable TV universe. A landscape where consumers need to choose upfront the types of internet services they require. Unlike cable, the internet has become an essential tool to everyday existence – job search, school homework assignments, public information and health care. The internet as originally envisioned was a place where everyone could have a voice and that new ideas and technologies would not be hindered by the delivery medium.
Resistance Resources
- Public Knowledge promotes freedom of expression, an open internet, and access to affordable communications tools and creative works. We work to shape policy on behalf of the public interest.
- The Internet Society The Internet Society was founded in 1992 by a number of people involved with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to provide an organizational home for and financial support for the Internet standards process.
- FCC – Announcement of “Restoring Internet Freedom Order” January 4, 2018
- Free Press closely watches decisions shaping the media landscape and sounds the alarm when people’s rights to connect and communicate are in danger.
Photo by Markus Spiske
The Trump Administration Defunds UNFPA for a Third Consecutive Year
Policy
For the third year in a row, the Trump administration is withholding funding to the UN Population Fund (UNFPA). The UN Population Fund is an agency that deploys into war zones and natural disaster-wrecked areas providing health services to the vulnerable. The agency focuses on ensuring that pregnant women and girls get health care, can deliver babies safely, and are protected from gender-based violence. State Department Secretary Mike Pompeo made the announcement that the United States would be withholding $32.5 million in funding from the UN agency. A State Department spokesman cited Pompeo’s decision based on his determination that the UN Agency “supports or participates in the management or a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization” in China. The United Nations Population Fund, lawmakers, and advocates refute this claim, saying that it is not true. Such a stance threatens women’s health and safety, and is a reflection of national policy from the Trump Administration.
Analysis
The UNFPA is a key player in ensuring women and girls in poor developing countries receive reproductive healthcare and protections. With the United States being one of the largest donors to the fund, blocking these funds will directly impart the central functions and goals of addressing gender-based violence, child marriage, female genital mutilation, maternal death, and threats to reproductive rights. As the Administration targets organizations that go against the conservative views of reproductive rights, UNFPA has fallen victim to defunding. With claims that the Fund supports coercive abortion and sterilization, specifically in China, the Administration has announced that such actions violate the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, first enacted in 1985, which blocks US aid to “any organization the US determines is involved in coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization”. .
In China UNFPA works only on policy guidance, with the goal of changing Chinese practices such as sex-selective abortions, contrary to the assumption that the office is persuading or administering abortions. It is worth noting that no member of the Trump Administration has visited or inspected the facility to see its true purpose, raising concern and confusion on the basis of Pompeo’s decision.
This regretful Trump administration decision will drastically impede UNFPA’s crucial work in protecting the lives and health of hundreds of millions of women and girls. Funding currently supports emergency humanitarian operations in current conflict zones like Syria and Venezuela. Critics and lawmakers state that the State Department’s decision, which is not based on evidence, will hurt vulnerable women and children around the globe.
Engagement Resources:
- Center for Reproductive Rights : Legal group ensuring the protection of reproductive rights for every woman around the world.
Photo by NeONBRAND
National Weather Service Predicts Record Number of Dangerously Hot Days for Millions by Mid-Century
Policy Summary
A recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists and an accompanying peer-reviewed paper predict that by mid-century (2036-2065), given no change to the rate of emissions, the US could face a doubling of days above 100°F and a tripling of days above 105°F compared to historic averages. There will also be a significant increase in days which exceed the heat index of at or above 127°F.
The report, which includes data for three timeframes—historical, mid-century, and late-century—is based on a peer-reviewed paper that took the average of 18 different climate models to make its predictions.
The predictions are stark.
By mid-century, the report predicts that over 6 million people will experience a week or more with temperatures that exceed the heat index. By the end of the century, there could be up to 118 million people in the US could be affected by “off-the-chart” heat for a month or more out of the year.
The risk to public health and occupational health are serious. The name of the report, Killer Heat in the United States, is an indication of this. High temperatures always have serious consequences. As the report indicates, temperatures above pose health risks to outdoor workers. A nation-wide increase in the number of days with temperatures above 90°F poses occupational health hazards especially in areas where agriculture makes up a significant portion of the economy.
Days with a heat index at or above 100°F pose serious health risks to elderly adults, pregnant women, children, and people with underlying conditions. The report notes that across the nation the number of days with a heat index of at or above 100°F is increasing. Without serious change to our emissions standards, vulnerable populations will be threatened.
Days with a heat index of at or above 105°F pose a health threat to anyone. Prolonged exposure to heat at this level can result in death even for healthy adults.
Finally, days with temperatures that exceed the heat index at or above 127°F will occur in mid to late century. The effects of these temperatures are uncertain, and any exposure can be life-threateningly dangerous.
Projections for the rise of hot days vary depending on how rapidly human beings are assumed to take action to combat global warming. Whether or not no action is taken, some action is taken, or rapid action is taken, we will still see an increase in the number of hot days. The report shows that if global temperature remains at or below the increase of two degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial era as determined by the Paris Treaty, then the number of dangerously hot days will only increase slightly.
Policy Analysis
The projected rise in hot days is part of a larger array of symptoms associated with climate change. These include rising sea levels, ocean acidification, loss of bio diversity. The costs to human well-being associated with these effects are great.
There is significant motivation to actively fight for climate legislation and regulation that greatly reduces national and global emissions since health and industry are both threatened by no-action scenarios.
Under the Trump administration, federal efforts at reducing emissions and slowing the rate at which the climate warms have slowed. On June first, 2017, President Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord, which has set a limit to the global rise in temperature of two degrees Celsius. Although the United States will not formally leave the agreement until 2020, the decision was part of a larger push on behalf of the Trump administration to stifle efforts at transitioning to an alternative energy economy.
While there are important local efforts being made to improving the environment, federal action is needed. Conservative voters and the Republican majority in the Senate have largely resisted attempts to regulate fossil fuel extraction and emissions with the support of the oil, gas, and coal industries. This is largely against the majority opinion of the public, whose support of immediate action is tempered by an unwillingness to make personal sacrifices such as paying higher taxes and driving electric vehicles.
The Green New Deal is one notable effort on behalf of the Democrats in Congress . Based on the controversial fourteen-page document, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Edward Markey have introduced resolutions that lay out the need to take immediate climate action while providing for “unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States”.
Resistance Resources
- Letter to your Congress member, prepared by the Union for Concerned Scientists to take swift climate action. If you have wanted to get in touch with your elected official but haven’t known how, this link will bring you to a forceful draft that you can adjust as needed and send off.
- Brightest helps you track conservation movements around your local area. If you are looking for nearby groups to connect with and get involved, Brightest will make your search easy.
- UN Sustainable Development Goals. While local and especially national efforts are needed, the UN has helped to provide a roadmap for needed international change. This site will provide important information to help you make better choices at the ballot.
- Protect Our Winters’ Climate Activist Roadmap, true to its name, outlines a strategy that will help you as an individual become engaged in climate activism.
- People’s Climate Movement has written a letter for you to send to your elected federal representatives in support of the Green New Deal. Legislation on the national level is imperative for fighting the worst effects of climate change.
Federal Court of Appeals Rules President Trump Cannot Block Critics on His Twitter Account
Policy Summary
In 2018 Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that President Donald J. Trump and other White House officials had violated the First Amendment by blocking a number of Twitter users from the President’s Twitter account. President Trump and other White House officials had been sued by a number of Twitter users who had been blocked and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. The President appealed that ruling to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A three-judge panel heard the appeal and subsequently issued a unanimous opinion that affirmed Judge Buchwald’s opinion in the lower court. Immediately after the ruling was handed down, a separate lawsuit was filed against Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (NY-D) as she had blocked some users from her Twitter account. That lawsuit is still pending. LEARN MORE
Analysis
While the opinion issued by the federal appeals court is certainly a setback for President Trump it is clearly a win for the Constitution’s First Amendment protection of free speech on social media and will likely offer legal guidance on how politicians are to treat speech on their own social media accounts.
At the federal district court level Judge Buchwald ruled that President Trump’s use of his Twitter account was an account used by a state actor, was a public forum and that the actions to block critics from his Twitter feed amounted to viewpoint discrimination. What this means is that the courts found significant acts taken by the President was not a means of communication taken by a private person in a private place which, astonishingly, is what lawyers for the President tried to argue. Most of the American public knew that Donald Trump was using his Twitter account for more than just private use. He had often used the social media platform to announce new policies and to question the acts of some members of his Cabinet. And it was most certainly a public forum because, as the court said, this “instrumentality of communication” was opened “for indiscriminate use by the general public.” It was not meant for only a select number of users but for all citizens to engage and interact with the President and other users who gather on his Twitter feed. As such, it was deemed a public forum and was thus required to follow the long established public forum free speech rules which include prohibitions on viewpoint discrimination.
And here is where the President ran into trouble. By blocking users who were critical of his policies, the President denied users who were critical of him a chance to engage with people who supported him. While the President was not obligated to listen to his critics he crossed the line when he decided, based on the views certain users expressed, which user would be permitted to interact and engage with others. This was clearly discrimination based on what a user thought, expressed and said and was a clear violation of the First Amendment’s free speech public forum rules. This opinion is significant because it finally states for certain that politicians – at any level and of any political party – can no longer simply ban online speech because they disagree with the message of the speech.
The opinion wrapped up by unanimously upholding all of the rulings made at the federal district court level and ended by stating, “[I]f the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less.” There could have been no better response to a President who has grappled with how to handle his critics and others opposed to his presidency. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Knight First Amendment Institute – press release on federal appeals court victory.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – blog post on Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump.
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.
Photo by Sara Kurfeß
Georgetown Law School Discovers FBI and ICE Use State DMV Databases With No Restrictions To Scan ID Photos For Investigations
Policy Summary
On July 9, 2019 the Washington Post reported that Georgetown University Law’s Center on Privacy and Technology had obtained public records that revealed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had worked with state officials and state agencies to search through DMV database photos of residents with face recognition technology. The efforts were done in connection with criminal investigations. However, residents with photos on file with the DMV in their state were not informed that the FBI and ICE were scanning thousands of photos with the new technology. The searches requested by federal government agencies and performed by state officials did not distinguish between those residents who had committed a crime and those who had not. The searches were performed to hopefully find a photo match against any photo contained in the state DMV photo database. The FBI had been conducting these kinds of searches with state agencies since at least 2011. LEARN MORE
Analysis
The report of the records obtained by the Center on Privacy and Technology at the Georgetown University Law School has caused a firestorm on Capitol Hill and in statehouses around the nation. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have come forward to condemn the activities and to call for rules and guidelines that would apply to future activities of this kind. While no substantive bill or rule proposal has been put forth yet the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee has scheduled a meeting with Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Secret Service to discuss possible guidelines.
The reason this issue has angered so many is, as Senator Patrick J. Leahy (VT-D) said, “[G]etting a driver’s license do[es] not consent to surveillance.” Federal investigators had been granted access to databases in twenty-one states and the District of Columbia. The relative ease with which outside federal agencies were permitted to scour through a database was troubling because the searches were not restricted to only those residents who had a criminal record. Representative Zoe Lofgren (CA-D) pointed out that this was an unwarranted intrusion of privacy rights and that it was done secretly and without any authorization of law. Nor was there any notice sent to citizens that this could occur or that there was any way to challenge and stop this practice, say in a court of law.
What is worrisome is that there are safeguards out there to prevent abuse or to limit how the information can be disseminated but law enforcement authorities are simply ignoring it right now. Washington State said that they only permit facial recognition searches with a court order or subpoena. This can be key because a judge can greatly limit what can be searched instead of allowing for a “fishing expedition” style search where investigators are allowed access to look for anything and everything that comes to mind. Another limitation would be to restrict searches to already convicted offenders instead of everyone in the DMV database. And, finally another limitation would be to have searches used only for the initial purpose of a search – for example, if an initial facial recognition search in a database was used for a burglary, that information cannot be used for an unconnected incident like an immigration or work – related investigation.
There are a number of issues that need to be debated and potential options thoroughly researched before this practice of federal agencies rummaging through DMV databases can continue. The letter sent by Jeramie D. Scott, Senior Counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), eloquently demonstrates the reasons to temporarily ban the use of the software and also shows the widespread support from so many other groups that also want transparency, oversight and accountability on this dangerous new technology. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) – non – profit blog post on facial recognition software.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – non – profit post on how facial recognition technology works.
- Georgetown Law Center on Privacy and Technology – law school center with links to reports on facial recognition software.
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.
Photo by Thomas Millot
Thus He Speaks, Thus They Act
Investigating the President Blog
Post #3 Thus He Speaks, Thus They Act
by Rudy Ralph Martinez, July 16, 2019
On Sunday, July 14th, president Donald J. Trump launched racist barbs via Twitter against four congresswomen of color, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Ilhan Omar (D-MN). His comments against the group of progressives known as “The Squad” included a demand to “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came.” All four women are American citizens, with Omar having left Somalia for the United States at the age of 12. Ocasio-Cortez, born in New York, hails from a Puerto Rican family, Tlaib, born in Detroit, is the daughter of Palestinian immigrants, and Pressley was born in Cincinnati.
Trump’s ill-formed remarks are another display of his inherently xenophobic and disdainful character, nearly paralleling his remarks about “shithole countries” from 2017. Just two days after his remarks, the House of Representatives voted 240 to 187 to condemn Trump’s remarks as racist. Surprisingly, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who has been critical of these women in the past and proven to be a seemingly insurmountable roadblock to impeachment, denounced the comments as racist. Unsurprisingly, the vote was nearly-partisan.
Beyond drawing a strong rebuke from “The Squad” and nearly every Democratic lawmaker on Capitol Hill, chants of impeachment are once again echoing through Washington D.C. Tlaib responded to the president, Tweeting “…His dangerous ideology is the crisis. He needs to be impeached.”
Before the vote condemning Trump’s remarks, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) voiced his intention to bring forth a vote on impeachment before the House’s five-week recess in August. Just hours after the vote, Green filed articles of impeachment against president Trump. Green’s reasoning lies within the basis that Trump continues to prove his incompetence to hold office, with his bigotry being “harmful to society.”
Green read from his resolution before the House floor Tuesday night, claiming that “Donald John Trump has…brought the high office of the President of the United States in contempt, ridicule, disgrace, and disrepute…”
There are those who fear that Green’s push for impeachment, while well-intentioned and completely within his rights, will muddy current and future efforts to have Trump removed from office.
As we go to press it turns out the Green’s impeachment resolution was voted down by the House in a 332 to 95 vote. Those opposed consisted of Republicans and Democrat moderates including Speaker Pelosi.
My question is: Why now?
This all comes as Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s testimony looms large. Mueller is set to testify before a House Judiciary and Intelligence Committee on July 24th. In my opinion, Mueller’s testimony remains an event-horizon, a spectacle of such magnitude that it is nearly impossible to predict what comes after it. There is the possibility Mueller’s testimony becomes one of the watershed political moments of the twenty-first century or is simply a reiteration of Mueller’s heavily redacted report. Rep. Cedric Richardson told The Washington Post that he doesn’t “think that impeachment is going to happen before Mueller testifies, before we gain more evidence…”
Green has done this before, most famously in 2017, when he responded to Trump’s aforementioned “shithole countries” remark with an impeachment vote backed by a mere 58 democrats. While the support he gathers this time around as stronger, Richardson’s comments are evidence democrats will want to wait until after Mueller’s testimony to make up their minds.
Whether through the efforts of Green, the words of Mueller, or the actions of the American people, Trump’s tyranny has to end. Only time will tell what means will prove to be most viable.
Confusion Results from Trump’s Meeetings With Chinese and North Korean Leaders
Summary
The meeting, which took place between Presidents Trump and Xi during the G20 summit at the end of last month, was an attempt to resuscitate trade negotiations which derailed in May, leading to a mutual rise in tariffs. The June meeting produced an agreement from both sides to hold off on imposing new tariffs. As it stands, the US has placed tariffs on $250 billion in Chinese goods, with China returning tariffs on $110 billion in US goods. Trump also promised to ease-up on the supply ban on Huawei Technologies, a Chinese company whose ability to purchase US technology has been restricted due to cybersecurity concerns regarding the possibility that it may facilitate surveillance on the behalf of the Chinese government.
After the meeting, Trump announced that “We’re holding on tariffs, and they’re going to buy farm products,” but this seemed to be a misunderstanding of the agreement. A source briefed on the meeting told Hong Kong’s South China Post that Xi had made no such commitment. On Thursday, Trump took to Twitter to state that “China is letting us down in that they have not been buying the agricultural products from our great Farmers that they said they would.”
Just before the G20 Summit, Trump tweeted “After some very important meetings, including my meeting with President Xi of China, I will be leaving Japan for South Korea (with President Moon). While there, if Chairman Kim of North Korea sees this, I would meet him at the Border/DMZ just to shake his hand and say Hello(?)!” Kim took Trump up on the informal invitation, and Trump ended up taking ten steps into North Korea, becoming the first US President to do so. Trump and Kim then spent an hour meeting privately in a South Korean building known as the Freedom House. This marked the third time the two had met and the first since talks had collapsed in Hanoi last February. Trump did not share any details of their meeting but did say that he would be willing to invite Kim to the White House.
Analysis
The connecting issue preventing progress in America’s relationships with these two countries is Trump’s lack of commitment to a foreign policy t which accounts for the interests of the parties on the other side of the table. His foreign policy vacillates constantly, seemingly in response to whoever he has in his ear at the moment. Trump had previously insisted that North Korea completely denuclearize before expecting any sanction relief. Now, accompanied by anti-interventionist Fox News host Tucker Carlson while war hawk National Security Advisor John Bolton was sent to Mongolia, Trump conceded that “At some point during the negotiation, things can happen… So we’ll be talking about sanctions.” However, it remains to be seen whether Trump was able to use the closed meeting to move the two countries closer to peace, or whether the trip was nothing more but a photo op.
Trump’s inconsistent one-man diplomacy has also prolonged the trade war with China. China knows that the longer the negotiating process goes, the more desperate Trump gets to return results before the 2020 election. Trump also has avoided confronting China on humanitarian issues such as the uprising in Hong Kong. Trump’s support for the Hong Kong protests has been vague, telling reporters earlier this month that “they’re looking for democracy. And I think most people want democracy. Unfortunately, some governments don’t want democracy.” After the G20 meeting, the State Department intervened to change a speech that was to be made by Kurt Tong, the US consul general in Hong Kong, on July 2nd. Three days later, Tong stepped down from his post.
Trump needs to fully staff his State Department, and actually listen to them. With a team of informed people behind him, he would be able to move more consistently through negotiations, and avoid embarrassing public mistakes like misunderstanding what is in an agreement. Trump also needs to determine what the other side can reasonably concede, and commit to pursuing that result. By reverting to shows of blusterous outrage whenever negotiations don’t immediately go his way, he only encourages the other side to be skeptical of diplomatic solutions and hurts the interests of the US.
Resistance Resources
- Women Cross DMZ: Women Cross DMZ is a coalition of activists from around the world, including both North and South Korea, who are calling for a peaceful solution to the Korean conflict.
- United for Peace and Justice: The UFPJ is a network of hundreds of peace and justice organizations with the shared goal of promoting a culture of demilitarization and cooperation.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Foreign Policy Analyst Colin Shanley: Contact Colin@usresistnews.org
President Trump Abandons Battle To Add Citizenship Question To U.S. 2020 National Census
Policy Summary
In March 2018 Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross announced in an internal memorandum that he intended to reinstate a citizenship question on the upcoming 2020 national census. A national census questionnaire had not asked the citizenship status question since 1950. After Secretary Ross announced his intention numerous lawsuits were filed throughout the country to block the question from appearing on the upcoming questionnaire. Two separate lawsuits were filed in federal district courts in the State of New York to block the question that were later consolidated into a single case. The federal district court later requested additional materials because they thought the initial evidence incomplete. Additional materials were submitted and at the bench trial the federal district court ruled the Secretary’s action to reinstate the citizenship question arbitrary and capricious, based on a pretextual rationale and in violation of the Census Act. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit but the case was eventually appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court before the Court of Appeals could hear the case. The Supreme Court accepted the case because of the deadline of June 2019 to begin printing and mailing questionnaires for the 2020 census.
On June 27, 2019 the Supreme Court handed down a decision that effectively banned the citizenship question for the 2020 census but ended up remanding the case back to the lower court which left open the door for the citizenship inquiry to be added on a census questionnaire in the future. However, President Trump has made it clear that he still wants to try to add the question even though the census questionnaire has begun to be printed. The week after the Supreme Court decision, President Trump floated several ideas to try and add the citizenship question in a rushed manner. However, On July 11, 2019 President Trump announced that he would pursue other options to gather citizenship status information from persons residing in the United States instead of trying to gather that information from a question on the 2020 national census questionnaire. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
After the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision blocking the citizenship question from being added to the 2020 census questionnaire the issue was thought to be over. However, President Trump wanted to continue the fight for the question. Due to the timeline of having to print the questionnaire for 327 million people, President Trump’s decision to try and continue the fight was sure to cause complications – due to the speed of the U.S. court system (there are still numerous cases in the states challenging President Trump’s attempt to add the question with the two of the most notable in Maryland and New York), the desire to try to reach every citizen/household before the end of 2020 and the possibility of having a uniform census questionnaire.
The question became so important to the President that he even tried to float some skeptical ideas that were likely to be declared unconstitutional. President Trump’s first proposal after being thwarted by the Supreme Court decision was to try to delay the 2020 census. However, the U.S. Constitution requires that a census be taken every ten years in order to allocate U.S. Representatives to each state according to the population of each state. By trying to delay the decennial census for a minor question, President Trump would have explicitly violated the U.S. Constitution and thrown the U.S. Government into a chaotic state.
President Trump’s other proposal was to try to add the citizenship question by executive order. This would also have been a violation of the U.S. Constitution since the same Article 1, § 2 requires the census to occur “in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” What this means is that Congress decides the laws that dictate how the census should be carried out while the President directs the activities to implement the laws. By threatening to use an executive order that had not been approved by Congress in a statute would have been a violation of the separation of powers principle. The kind of act that President Trump threatened to do would have been another way for him to try and get his way by going around the powers of Congress, which is without a doubt prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.
With President Trump’s announcement on July 11th the issue of foregoing adding the citizenship question on the national census and the constitutional complexities that that would have entailed now appears to have been put to rest. But things with President Trump are never so simple. While the 2020 census can now proceed, President Trump’s directive to gather citizenship info through other means and Attorney General William Barr’s curious statement that future congressional apportionment only applies to citizens have no doubt set the stage for a number of new battles to be fought over the significance and future role of illegal immigrants and illegal aliens in American society. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Brennan Center for Justice – non – profit group’s comments on Department of Commerce v. New York.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group’s comments on the case.
- Common Cause – non – profit group’s comments on the case.
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.
Photo by Arnaud Jaegers
Democratic Candidates Stance on Breaking Up Big Tech Garners Both Support and Opposition
Policy Summary
Much of the discussion among the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates regarding economic policy has centered around one particular-the question of breaking up big tech. This is due in no small part to Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) who made the subject a cornerstone of her campaign. On March 8th 2019, she published a detailed layout of why the technology sector needed to be broken up and how she would do it. Her plan centered on disrupting the ways that the giants of the industry, specifically Google, Facebook and Amazon, have limited competition within their industries by way of both mergers and proprietary marketplaces. The legislation she proposed to break up these companies’ market power and influence would see the biggest tech companies designated as platform utilities
In the months that followed, several other prominent Democratic candidates also weighed in on the issue. In an interview with the Associated Press, frontrunner Joe Biden praised Warren’s stance on breaking up big tech, stating she had made a “very strong case.” Biden added that he didn’t think that the U.S. government had dedicated enough time to investigating antitrust measures and that he felt it was something that they “should take a really hard look” at. Kamala Harris expressed a similar statement regarding Facebook, stating that to her, there was no question that “serious regulation.” would be necessary for the social networking platform. “I think we have to seriously take a look at that” she responded when asked if she thought Facebook should be broken up. A few days later, Senator Bernie Sanders stated that should antitrust action be taken against Facebook, he would support it. “We have a monopolistic— an increasingly monopolistic society where you have a handful of very large corporations having much too much power over consumers” he added.
Senator Cory Booker (D-New Jersey), however, displayed a different stance toward the idea of breaking up big tech. When asked where he stood on the subject, he responded “I don’t think that a president should be running around pointing at companies and saying break them up without any kind of process here.” Booker even went as far as to compare Warren’s techniques to those displayed by Trump. It’s not me and my own personal opinion about going after folks” he added. “That sounds more like a Donald Trump thing to say, ‘I’m going to break up you guys.’”
It is worth noting that during the first Democratic Debate of the 2020 primary, Amazon was the only member of big tech’s elite to be called out by name.
Analysis
Is pushing for further antitrust legislature aimed at breaking up big tech a winning issue for the 2020 democratic presidential candidates? There is plenty of reason to think so. America’s trust in social media has been steadily decreasing for as long as Donald Trump has been in office. Just over a year ago, leading public relations firm Edelman released a survey on the subject, consisting of data gathered from nine large countries including the U.S. and Canada as well as the U.K. According to this survey, only 30 percent of U.S. respondents still trust social media while over 60 percent felt that their government needed to do more to regulate social media. This should provide an excellent opportunity for the 2020 Democratic candidates to offer the American people something they clearly want.
As Warren laid out in her March 2019 policy rollout, though, the reasons from which her focus on breaking up big tech has stemmed have as much, if not more to do with economics than social justice. These companies have what economist Robert Reich has described as a “stronghold on our economy” in the sense that they have monopolized entire markets. Facebook and Amazon haven’t hesitated to acquire any companies that could rival them even minimally, a noteworthy example being Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram and Whatsapp. Business practices of this sort are harmful to the economy as a whole, as they serve not only to stifle competition and innovation but ultimately to hinder job growth. If they cannot acquire a company, the giants of tech have been known to resort to other tactics, such as the price war that Amazon launched against their competitors. Companies that reach this market monopoly status typically have the means to get what they want, which often means political influence. This is particularly dangerous concerning a company like Google that controls so much of what American voters see when they search the internet for news or anything else.
The Open Markets Institute, a liberal Washington D.C. based think tank, has spent years crusading against the market monopolies that have grown to dominate the technology sector. Their influence in the increasing Capitol Hill scrutiny of big tech’s giants is starting to gain traction. It certainly makes sense that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the first candidate to come out against big tech, would have a longstanding relationship with the organization that called for the sectors monopolies to be broken up before anyone else.
Sen. Warren has long understood that breaking up big tech is fundamentally important for the health of our economy. While other candidates have expressed similar sentiments since her policy rollout, she has made it a cornerstone of her campaign and that should not be forgotten when we evaluate which candidate has presented the most effective economic policies.
Resistance Resources:
- The Open Markets Institute is a progressive think tank that uses journalism to promote greater awareness of the political and economic dangers of monopolization, identifies the changes in policy and law that cleared the way for such consolidation, and fosters discussions with policymakers
- Color Of Change is the nation’s largest online racial justice organization. As a national online force driven by more than 1.4 million members, they move decision-makers in corporations and government to create a more human and less hostile world for Black people in America.
- Majority Action is a community of everyday people who believe that shareholders play a critical role in holding corporations accountable to high standards of corporate governance and social responsibility. They have advocated for Facebook to held accountable for its actions.
Photo by Ales Nesetril
12 REASONS WHY TRUMP MUST GO
12 REASONS WHY TRUMP MUST GO
By Ron Israel, Managing Editor of U.S. RESIST NEWS and
The U.S. RESIST NEWS Team
Democrats need a multi-faceted coordinated strategy to ensure that President Trump is defeated in the 2020 Presidential election. The strategy should involve taking on Trump on many different levels from his criminal behavior to his policy incompetence. And it should involve not just the Democratic candidate for President, but a range of other voices including losing Presidential candidates, Congressional leaders, leaders of advocacy groups, such as Planned Parenthood, Voter Latino, and the NAACP, and others.
U.S. RESIST NEWS suggests that the strategy should highlight the following 12 reasons why Trump should not be re-elected.
1 – Failure to respond to the harassment and sexual abuse charges of 22 women, including one accusation of rape
2- Repeated lying to the American public about his policies, his relationships, and his character
3 – Failure to condemn the actions of white supremacists extremists and the thinly veiled promotion of their racist views
4-Collusion with Russia, especially in the 2016 election, and continued efforts to obstruct investigations into said collusion
5—Failure to protect the US from foreign cyberattacks
6-Withdrawing America from the world family of nations, alienating our closest allies, and embracing Putin and other autocratic leaders
7—Undermining democracy and the rule of law
8- Taking healthcare away from millions of Americans, especially from those who can’t afford it
9- Degrading our environment and enhancing our use of fossil fuels
10- Promoting American income inequality through taxation policies that benefit the rich
11- Criminalizing immigrants and asylum seekers, and separating immigrant children from their parents
12- Harming the sales of US businesses and farmers and increasing job loss through zero-sum game trade wars with other countries