JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Iran’s Diplomatic Offensive
Brief #71—Foreign Policy
By Vanessa Noguera
US Power Grid Under Siege – Will the Lights Stay On?
Brief #6—Technology
By Charles A. Rubin
Employees or Independent Contractors?
Brief #50—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Trump Dangles Military Aid in Exchange for Personal Favors
A new series by Sean Gray that digs into the details of the all-encompassing corruption of the Trump administration
Judge Blocks Voter Registration Drive Restrictions In Tennessee
Brief #99—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
Supreme Court Upholds Trumps Ban on Immigrants from Central America Seeking Asylum in the US
Brief #80—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Hell yes we are going to take your AR-15:” Gun Control Ideas for 2020
Brief #21—Gun Control
By Amanda Richardson
Trump’s Disregard for Security Clearance Process Compromises Intelligence Community
The Corruption Blog: A new series by Sean Gray that digs into the details of the all-encompassing corruption of the Trump administration.
Landmark Decision in Opioid Epidemic Case
Brief #61—Health
ByTaylorJ Smith
The “Politics” of Fighting For A Supreme Court Seat
Brief #64—Civil Rights
Policy Summary
On July 9, 2018, President Donald J. Trump nominated Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Kavanaugh was nominated to replace Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy who stepped down after thirty years on the Court. President Trump’s nominee was then sent to the U.S. Senate which only needs a majority vote to approve the nomination. Prior to the whole chamber voting on the selection, the Senate Judiciary Committee, with twenty-one members, reviews the nomination and decides if the person should be referred to the entire Senate chamber for a vote. The committee began hearings on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination on September 4, 2018 and proceeded with questions for Judge Kavanaugh about notable Supreme Court cases and other areas of constitutional law. On September 27, 2018, the committee held a hearing to discuss allegations by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while they were high school students. The committee eventually voted along party lines (11 Republicans in favor and 10 Democrats against) to submit the nomination to the full Senate. However, a vote by the entire chamber was delayed due to a request by Senator Jeff Flake from Arizona that a supplemental FBI investigation be undertaken, specifically to the additional allegations from different women that emerged prior to and after Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. LEARN MORE
Analysis
The hearing into the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court should have been a routine confirmation until it was rocked by allegations of sexual assault by one of Judge Kavanaugh’s high school acquaintances. What those allegations did was expose the extreme politicization of the selection of judges to the United States judiciary and what the long lasting effects of this could be. Judges are supposed to be impartial and handle the facts and cases as presented to them at trial and to interpret the words and meaning of statutes as presented in the appellate record. Problems begin to arise when judges start to make policy decisions and interpret statutes according to their own political beliefs and personal worldview. The legislative branch in each individual state and Congress at the federal level are charged with policy making and if any changes need to be made to existing law, then in theory, citizens should take their case to their respective legislatures.
However, recent years have seen a frustration with the work of state legislatures and Congress. There is a general feeling that elected representatives are not responsive to the wishes of their constituencies and so taking an issue to court is seen as preferable than “going to your Congressman.” Courts, especially the Supreme Court, are now seen as the last word on hot button issues. Knowing that any issue that reaches the Supreme Court can become the final word at the appellate level on policy issues has only raised the stakes as to which judges will be permitted to sit on the court.
Religious people with objections against LGBT and same – sex marriage have seen the Supreme Court invalidate anti – sodomy laws in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas and allow same – sex marriage in 2015 in Obergefell v. Hodges. Civil rights activists have touted the work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 only to see the Supreme Court invalidate one of the major provisions of that statute in 2013 with Shelby County v. Holder, which weakened that voting protection law considerably. And in Citizens United v. FEC in 2010, the Supreme Court overturned established law going back more than fifty years and opened the door to unlimited campaign contributions from corporations.
What judges are being asked to do is take sides on a policy issue when they should instead strive to be impartial. Instead of calling your representative – who may or may not ignore you – to make a policy change, the preferred route now is to go to court and have a judge rule on the merits of a policy that probably should have been heard by the legislature. This is why the selection of judges and Supreme Court justices has become such a bruising fight. Their personal beliefs or worldview could very well have major consequences as to the validity of policy issues as the same sex, civil rights and campaign finance cases mentioned above make clear. It is unclear if these sexual assault allegations will derail Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the highest court in the land but knowing that he may have a say on important issues – the future of abortion or a ruling on whether or not a president can be indicted – has caused Republicans and Democrats to not give an inch and play for keeps and see this fight for a Supreme Court seat all the way to the bitter end. LEARN MORE
- Engagement Resources:
- Brennan Center for Justice – resource for info and topics on the federal judiciary.
- Cato Institute – research institute’s blogpost on the effects of “politicizing the judiciary.”
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 Claire Anderson
California’s Landmark Gender Law Is A Boost For Women In Corporate Boardrooms
Brief #41—Civil Rights
Policy Summary
On January 3, 2018, California State Senators Toni Atkins and Hannah – Beth Jackson introduced Senate Bill 826. This bill sought to make additions to California’s Corporations Code regarding the composition of a company’s board of directors.
Beginning in 2019, publicly held corporations whose principal executive offices are located in California must have a minimum of one female person serving on the board of directors.
In 2021, California will implement a tiered system based on the total number of directors on the board. If there are four or fewer total directors on a board, one director must be female. If the number of total directors is five, the board must have a minimum of two female directors. If the total number of directors is six or more, the board must have a minimum of three female directors. On September 30, 2018, Governor Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown signed the bill into law. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
In his signing statement, Governor Brown acknowledged that the new law may have some “serious legal concern” because of its gender – based classification and how that may be treated under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. That clause provides that “No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” which has been interpreted to mean all persons are to be treated equally under the law. Under the current legal analysis of gender based classifications, a state is granted a loophole to deviate from providing equal treatment if there is “an important government interest and the means undertaken are substantially related to that government interest.”
Despite the constitutional legal hurdles, the California bill is a landmark bill and the first of its kind in the United States. It is loosely modeled on a number of laws found in countries in Europe. (Germany requires corporate boards to be 30% female while France and Norway require company board of directors to be 40% female). This new law has a good chance of satisfying the legal test mentioned above and not be overturned because of the policy considerations underpinning the new law. When the law was introduced, State Senator Atkins cited recent studies by UC Berkeley, McKinsey and Company and Credit Suisse that showed that companies that had strong representation of women on boards and top-level management positions performed better in terms of innovation, profitability and productivity. The government interest here is in promoting a modern business trend of encouraging more female directors. As the examples in the Europe have shown, more females in positions of power have helped maximize business revenue and processes while encouraging inclusiveness and diversity. Male directors are not being discriminated and completely shut out of positions on corporate boards. This law is simply seeking to encourage companies to look toward qualified females and give them an opportunity after historically being under valued and under utilized in the United States. And as the studies have shown, encouraging women can be profitable and have a positive influence. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- National Organization for Women (NOW) – non – profit group devoted to achieving full equality for women.
- Feminist Majority Foundation – foundation dedicated to creating bold new strategies and programs to advance women’s equality.
- Business and Professional Women’s Foundation – foundation dedicated to conducting research and providing information about working women.
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 Brooke Lark
Trump Administration to Limit Green Cards for the “Burdens of Society”
Brief #54—Immigration
Policy Summary
To promote self-sufficiency and protect finite resources, the Trump Administration has proposed harsher reviews of individuals applying for green cards and/or permanent resident status in the US. Historically, federal law has excluded immigrants who are likely to become “public charge,” but Trump has taken his own drastic measures to ensure this. Specifically, immigrants who have previously relied on public assistance benefits such as food stamps, housing subsidies (i.e., Section 8 housing vouchers) and Medicaid for (low-cost prescription drugs) will face stronger barriers to obtaining a green card.
This forces millions of poor immigrants to pick between a green card to live and work legally in the US or accepting financial help. Advocates fear that those with legal resident status will stop using public benefits to protect their status. Roughly 382,000 people seeking to adjust their immigration status could be subject to “public charge reviews” each year to assess how much of a burden they could be on the American taxpayers and government. Immigration law states that age, health, family status, financial resources, skills and education should be taken into account when evaluating. Nearly 1 million people become legal permanent residents each year in the US, so the Trump Administration feels they can be choosy about who is allowed into the country.
But for some, it is not so simple to apply for such legal status. Certain health conditions like mental health disorders, heart disease and cancer are also among the heavily weighted factors being taken into consideration during application. Individuals with the above predicaments are red-flagged and seen as likely to ecru high medical costs and thus be a burden. Some immigrants could be asked in some cases to post cash bonds of at least $10,000 to avoid being denied green cards. For many, this is simply not feasible. While this new rule does not affect refugees, asylum seekers or legal immigrants who serve in the US military, many will feel the brunt of this most recent crackdown on immigration to the US.
Analysis
In contrast to the Trump Administration’s claims, there have been many studies about the economic effects and legacies of immigration to the US. According to US Citizenship and Immigration Services data, immigrants and non-immigrants alike benefit from public assistance at almost the same rate. The lasting effects of immigration has proven even more beneficial to the US as time progresses: first generation immigrants cost US taxpayers roughly $57.4 Billion dollars, but second and third generation Americans make for an economic boost of $30.5 Billion and $223.8 Billion, respectively.
This new regulation creates a caste-like system among US immigrants. Poor immigrants with health conditions are expected to prove they are insured, yet cannot access the available benefits to enroll and thus have a far lower chance at changing their immigration status than their wealthy counterparts. The executive director at the Center for Immigration Studies and others who supports decreased immigration that low level skilled workers are a mismatch for such a modern society. What they don’t like to admit is the fact that low-skilled immigrants perform many important functions in our country that others eschew, such as cleaning, gardening, picking crops and providing home health care. Tightening immigration policies has become a given to bring Republicans to the polls, while motivating Democrats to stand by their values and uphold the nation’s promise of being a beacon of light for the world.
Resistance Resources
- The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law: a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to defend and reform – as necessary – the US systems of democracy and justice, focusing on upholding the Constitution and US laws while maintaining national security.
- Stay up to date with the National Immigration Forum who advocates for the value of immigrants and immigration to the US and promotes responsible immigration policies and addresses those that hinder the success of immigrants.
- 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.
This Brief was authored by Kathryn Baron. For inquiries, suggestions or comments email kathryn@usresistnews.org.
Photo by Jhon David
President Trump Addresses United Nations
Brief #50—Foreign Policy
Policy Summary
On September 25th, President Trump delivered a speech before the United Nations General Assembly, complete with all of his signature vague jingoism and confrontational barbs. Following a year of withdrawals and cuts to international agreements and organizations, from the Iran Deal to the UN Relief Works Agency funding for Palestinian refugees, Trump’s speech reflected this desire for nationalist individualism, stating “I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and traditions. The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.”
Trump’s speech comes at a period of great tension with the EU, largely in response to his withdrawal from the Iran Deal. While the US has promised sanctions on businesses dealing with Iran, the EU has threatened sanctions on those who withdraw, forcing them to choose their allegiances. After a recent announcement of tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese imports, Trump also claimed that China “has been attempting to interfere in our upcoming 2018 election… against my administration”, but failed to provide any evidence for his claim.
The following day, Trump addressed the United Nations Security Council. The council session had originally been called by the UK to discuss last July’s nerve agent attack on Russians living in the UK within the context of the global issue of weapons of mass destruction. When Trump learned that Vice President Pence was planned to represent the US, he insisted on his own presence in his stead, and changed the topic of the talk to the danger of Iran. When he later learned that this would involve inviting a delegation from Iran to respond, he changed the topic to that of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, just days before the council session. While much of Trump’s speech still focused upon Iran, he did mention the necessity maintaining sanctions on North Korea, a position opposed by China and Russia, who announced that it was time to ease sanctions, citing the recent halting of nuclear testing.
Analysis
Trump has no real ideological commitment to American isolationism. He wields the vast power the United States holds over the global community when it serves his interests, and many of his isolationist positions are simply rejections of the weak international restraints placed on American power. The United States has not been, as Trump claims, “committed to a future of peace and stability in [Israel], including peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians” but rather sold billions of dollars worth of weapons to the Israeli government, unilaterally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, withdrew US aid to the Palestinians, and bullied third party countries who voted in support of Israel at the UN.
Billions of dollars in weapons have also been sold to the Saudi Arabian government as part of the United States’ support for a brutal war in Yemen which has resulted in a humanitarian crisis. Breaking the Iran Deal is an enormous aggression against the prosperity and security of Iran, levying sanctions which once led to an almost doubling of the poverty rate and a rise in anti-American sentiment in the region. Trump also has reportedly considered an invasion of Venezuela. It’s become clear that he only remembers his isolationist principles when he wants to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council, or ignore the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court in investigating war crimes, fearing that these organizations could stand in the way of US/Israeli/Saudi hegemony in the Middle East.
Resistance Resources
- Roots Action – An online activist group devoted to pushing US domestic and foreign policy in a progressive direction
- The US Campaign for Palestinian Rights: The USCPR is an organization founded in 2001 with the mission of shifting US policy towards recognizing the human rights of Palestinians.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Colin Shanley; Contact Colin@usresistnews.org
Photo by Jose Moreno
Methane Cutbacks and What it Means
Brief #41—Environment
Policy Summary
Rollbacks appear to be the defining characteristic of the Trump administration, particularly with relation to environmental oversight. Last week, the Department of the Interior in partnership with the Bureau of Land Management decided to ease restrictions on leaking, venting and flaring methane from fossil fuel drilling on public lands, ostensibly saving the fossil fuel industry approximately $1.01 billion over the next 10 years. By contrast, the Obama era regulations, which have since been nixed, would have reduced methane emissions by 35%. The new policy put forth by the Department of the Interior revokes mandates for companies to reduce gas pollution. Energy companies have alleged that the Obama-era regulations were, “too intrusive.” “We’re for clean air and water, but at the same time, we’re for reasonable regulations,” the Deputy Interior Secretary David Bernhardt told reporters shortly after the decision was passed. The decision also comes at the heels of another methane-related restriction put forward by the EPA, that would cut leak inspections to once per year for most wells, and twice per year for less potent ones.
Analysis
Methane contributes more to climate change than even Carbon Dioxide by even 100-fold. Immediately after the decision was made public, California and New Mexico both sued the Trump administration, claiming that they did not properly justify their reasons for the repeal. Such bureaucratic advocacy is much needed, as climate scientists are terrified by the implications of the new regulation, explaining that, “reducing methane emissions is an exceptionally cost effective way to slow climate change.” In a surprise move, a coalition of big oil companies, such as ExxonMobil and Chevron have responded to Trump’s move to roll back emissions by pledging efforts to reduce methane emissions 20% by 2025. However, many fear that this may be far too little too late. Within the last few days, methane lakes in Alaska have been bubbling to the surface with permafrost, and researchers worry that this demonstrates geologic thawing of previously-unidentified fossil fuels.
Engagement Resources
- CREDO Action: Activist organization that creates advocacy opportunities for progressive issues.
This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Zoe Stricker. Contact: zoe@usresistnews.org
Transactional Migration: a Transition in American Values
Brief #53—Immigration
Policy Summary
Following up on an Executive Order he made in September 2017, President Trump has signed a new order placing an even lower cap on immigration to the United States than ever before. Last fall, Trump signed an order lowering the number of refugees allowed into the United States to 45,000 – the lowest cap since 1980 under the Refugee Act. This was a 59% reduction from what Obama had set previously and completely blurs the line between refugees and migrants as the guidelines became a transactional ordeal. International relief groups consider the current refugee crisis to be the worst since World War I, yet the Trump Administration seeks to determine what migrants can contribute to the US rather than how the US can help. He claimed the goal should be to host refugees in nations as close to their homes as possible to eventually return them there – which is extremely problematic. However, even under this order the US still accepts more refugees than other countries.
Fast forward a year, and this September Trump seeks to lower the refugee cap to 30,000; an absolute record low. This has been slowly building up through various crackdowns on immigration to the US (both legal and illegal) if you recount the previous travel bans, events at the US Southern border and disregard for America’s history of providing asylum. Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of State claimed that the US “must continue to responsibly vet applicants to prevent entry of those who might do harm to our country.”
Analysis
It is becoming increasingly clear that the true goal of the Trump Administration is to essentially deconstruct the United States refugee program and limit immigration on all fronts; regardless of national security demands. A cap is just a cap, the Administration could accept far less than 30,000 – it is a ceiling not a floor. This drastically limits US diplomacy and lowers its image and morality on a global stage.
The Justice Department and White House ignored a report from intelligence agencies proving refugees do not pose a major threat to national security and continued to emphasize the need for extraordinary vetting measures.
Cutting the number of refugees and asylum seekers allowed into the US to what could be nothing, puts the Trump Administration on the path of regimes that America has historically tried to defeat. Those who support the Trump administration policy are either xenophobic nationalists, or are fearful of opposing an authoritarian leader.
Additionally, the Trump Administration has increasingly blurred the lines between refugee/asylum seeker and migrant in the quest to eliminate total immigration to the United States. An asylum seeker is an individual who has crossed an international border into a country in which they hope to receive refugee status due to fear of persecution for political, social, religious, or race reasons. Whereas a migrant is someone who attempts to permanently relocate to a new country or place for various reasons including personal gain, upward economic mobility, etc. Through Trump’s attempts to lower the refugee cap he has sent a clear message to the vast number of asylum seekers displaced in the world that the US can no longer be considered a place of refuge.
Resistance Resources
- The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law: a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to defend and reform – as necessary – the US systems of democracy and justice, focusing on upholding the Constitution and US laws while maintaining national security.
- Stay up to date with the National Immigration Forum who advocates for the value of immigrants and immigration to the US and promotes responsible immigration policies and addresses those that hinder the success of immigrants.
- 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.
This Brief was authored by Kathryn Baron. For inquiries, suggestions or comments email kathryn@usresistnews.org.
Photo by Martino Pietropoli
Does the Administration’s Tax Cuts and Job Act Mean Trouble for GOP in Upcoming Election?
Brief #24—Economics
Policy Summary
With the midterm elections quickly approaching, speculation continues to mount as to how much of an impact the Trump administration’s policy will have on the impending elections. Of these policies, few have raised more eyebrows that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), signed by President Trump on December 22nd, 2017. Many people on both sides of the aisle considered the piece of legislature to have been passed prematurely, as it was pushed through Congress in the span of less than two months. Prior to being signed into law, it received the support of only 32% of American voters.
The presidential administration was not without their reasons for wanting to push the legislature through Congress so quickly. Facing criticism from the right for failing to make good on the promise to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act, they found themselves in need of a quick legislative change that could potentially shift national focus onto their successes rather than their failures. It is also worth noting that the quicker the bill was passed, the less time its critics would have to build arguments against it. Were the bill signed into law in time for the 2018 tax year, there was the possibility that voters would respond positively when they saw an increase in their take-home pay as well as further economic growth stemming from the tax cuts extended to corporations. In the months since, though, this prediction has not come to pass. Rather, the opposite has taken shape.
Analysis
Does the bill’s reception serve to indicate that conservative candidates may have cause for concern in impending election? Many people seem to think so. Washington D.C. think tank Brookings Institute recently published a study discussing exactly that topic. In the study, Governance Fellow Vanessa Williamson argues that the implementation of the TCJA less than a year before a congressional election could be considered contradictory to the GOP principles —tax cuts are often an area that Republican candidates lean on in times when voter turnout is low.
The decision to implement these tax cuts, however, is misguided for several reasons. It is a policy changed fueled by poorly calculated political and economic assumptions. For many voters, the difference in take-home pay was likely difficult to notice, as the tax cuts that affected them were small. According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of Brookings Institute and fellow think tank The Urban Institute, voters in the middle-income bracket will be seeing tax savings that total less than $20 per week.
It also seems apparent that the Trump administration has failed to take recent history into account. The tax cuts implemented by President George W. Bush benefited roughly three-quarters of American voters but in the year that followed, only one in every five Americans remembered it. A few years later, the 2008-2009 tax cuts implemented by President Barack Obama caused taxes to decrease for eight out of every ten voters though it was reported that only 10% were able to take note. Despite the constant controversy over tax cuts, American voters have displayed significantly short memories when the actual policies are implemented.
Recent history has also proven that enthusiastic voters tend to look to their own party leaders for political cues, particularly in our current state that Forbes’ Howard Gleckman calls a “hyper-partisan atmosphere.’ While it is certainly possible that the GOP could have taken time to build up support for the legislation among their grassroots supporters, rushing it through Congress cost them exactly that opportunity.
We should also not forget the other element of the bill that contradicts a core belief among conservative voters. According to the study, many conservatives stand by the principle that tax cuts should not favor corporations and high-income households. The TCJA, though, did exactly that. By that logic, it does not seem like a policy change that middle and working-class conservatives should be in favor of.
The implementation of this controversial piece of legislature could serve as a valuable tool for campaigning Democrats to use to their advantage as election day draws near. As of now, it does not seem as though they are making an aggressive effort to do this–were they to treat it the way conservatives treated the ACA, the results could swing significantly in their favor.
The TCJA was a misguided policy from the start and it is not likely to prove a boon to the Republican Party in November, as voters will probably either have forgotten about the meager benefits extended to them or still be standing against the policy.
Resistance Resources:
- The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center is a nonpartisan think tank that provides independent analysis on current and long-term tax-related matters.
- The Urban Institute is a think tank dedicated to social and economic research, dedicated to improving the “well-being of people and places.”
- FairVote is a non-partisan organization that works to give voters a stronger and help shape a representative democracy that benefits all Americans.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Samuel O’Brient Brief, Contact Sam@usresistnews.org
Photo by rawpixel
Is “Anti – BDS” Legislation Compatible With Free Speech and the First Amendment?
Brief #61—Civil Rights
Policy Summary
In June 2005 one hundred seventy (170) Palestinian civil society organizations called for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) as a form of non – violent protest against illegal activities of the State of Israel against the Palestinian people. This movement became known as the BDS Movement. In subsequent years, numerous state governments and the federal government of the United States enacted legislation to try and oppose this movement. Twenty – five states have enacted legislation that oppose the BDS movement with a federal bill pending in the U.S. Congress.
In Texas, Obi Dennar, a student at the University of Texas at Austin, worked a two – day debate tournament to make some extra money. After the tournament was over, Mr. Dennar was getting ready to sign papers certifying his work for the tournament so that he would get paid. In his contract was a clause that “stated and verified” that he would not boycott Israel. Mr. Dennar refused to sign the certification and instead forfeited $150 for his time spent working at the debate tournament. LEARN MORE
Analysis
In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, Co. In that case, white store owners sued the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for damages they suffered from the loss of business because of boycotts against their stores. The store owners initially won damages but when the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court the court overrruled the lower court decision and held that boycotts were protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and that “boycotts and related activities to bring about political, social and economic change are political speech” and one of the highest and protected values of the First Amendment.
Despite this clear ruling from the highest court in the United States, it appears that the federal government and numerous state governments are simply ignoring the case. The twenty – five states that have enacted anti – BDS legislation are engaging in viewpoint discrimination and are putting up barriers to a healthy and free discussion of an important issue in order to force citizens to adopt a point of view they do not agree with. In the case of Mr. Obi Dennar, the point was illustrated most forcefully by having Mr. Dennar choose to receive payment for work he had already done or stick to his heartfelt beliefs. In another incident, an NYU professor had been invited to the University of Houston to share her research but had her talk cancelled when she refused to sign a certification that she would not boycott Israel. And at the federal level, the assistant secretary of education for civil rights, Mr. Kenneth Marcus, has re-opened an investigation into a complaint from Rutgers University that looks to controversially expand a definition of “anti – Semitism” in order to suppress criticism and protests of the State of Israel on college campuses.
It is becoming painfully clear that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become a new battleground in the war for the values of the First Amendment, Free Speech and honest and open discussion. It would seem that politicians at both the state and federal level would look to uphold and champion free speech but even they are becoming conflicted on the issue. Many politicians publicly campaign on the right to free speech and protest but then turn around and vote for bills that seek to stifle the protests and boycotts of the BDS Movement. Instead of ignoring the Claiborne Hardware case, politicians should permit all the protests and boycotts instead of trying to impose a particular viewpoint. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best when he said, “[T]he ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas” and “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” The solution is never to silence or punish anyone simply because they have a difference of opinion that the government does not agree with yet it seems that the United States is tilting in this dangerous direction with these anti-BDS bills. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) – infopage on the BDS Movement.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – webpage on the effects of anti – BDS legislation on free speech in the U.S.
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 Melany Rochester
Independent Redistricting Commissions Is Becoming The New Big Trend To Fight Abuses In Gerrymandering
Brief #62—Civil Rights
Policy Summary
On November 6, 2018, Proposition 4 in Utah and Amendments Y and Z in Colorado will be on the ballot to vote on for residents of each state. Proposition 4 in Utah is known as the Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative and if approved by voters will establish an independent redistricting commission that will be in charge of drawing the state map for congressional districts and state legislative districts. In Colorado, Amendment Y is the Independent Commission for Congressional Redistricting Amendment. Amendment Z is the Independent Commission for State Legislative Redistricting Amendment. Both are proposed amendments to the Colorado State Constitution and are proposals to change the method for drawing the congressional map and state district map for Colorado. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis: These proposals on the ballots in Colorado and Utah are part of a growing national trend to counter the effects of abusive gerrymandering in the United States. State legislatures have the power to draw the congressional district and state legislative districts of their state but the maps lately have been drawn with the intent to keep a political party in power and dilute the voting power of the electorate in the state. Instead of a true expression of an electorate’s preferred candidate the state map is drawn and designed in a way that manipulates the maps to ensure that a certain candidate will win by shifting voting blocs to other districts where their votes will not have an impact on an election.
Instead of allowing the state legislatures to continue to be in charge of drawing the maps, these initiatives will instead take this power away from them. In Colorado, the initiatives would place the power of drawing these maps in the hands of a twelve (12) member independent commission and there must be a reasonable chance for members to change hands every few years. The goal would be to try and eliminate entrenched candidates and make candidates more responsive to the concerns of their districts. In Utah, Proposition 4 would appoint a seven (7) member independent commission to draw the state legislative maps. It would also bar prior state government officeholders from serving on the commission.
These initiatives are potential game – changers and are currently gaining steam in various states around the country. Citizens have become fed up with being unable to vote out state representatives that seemingly stay in office for long periods of time and who have become unresponsive to their concerns. The Brennan Center of Justice has a list of non – partisan groups that have sprouted up in various states to combat gerrymandering. The goal of these groups is to reform the redistricting process in their respective states. Letting the representatives of the state legislature decide the maps to use for future elections is clearly a personal and professional conflict of interest and creates the perception that American elections are not as independent and transparent as we think they are. With this growing trend of independent redistricting commissions, Utah, Colorado and other states can come one step closer to having elections and chosen representatives that are more reflective of how their states vote overall. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Terminate Gerrymandering – Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Crowdpac page to raise money and fight abusive gerrymandering in the U.S.
- Common Cause – non – profit group’s webpage on their efforts to combat gerrymandering.
- Reclaim The American Dream – non – profit group’s webpage listing groups engaged in the fight against gerrymandering.
- Represent OK – state non – partisan group that is trying to combat gerrymandering in Oklahoma.
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
Time Out: Let’s Talk Health Care Rhetoric
We interrupt a regularly scheduled brief to bring you a dissection of healthcare rhetoric. If you’ve been paying any attention to the midterm elections, or just watching/reading/absorbing by osmosis the news in the last few months, you know that healthcare reform is a hot button issue. Pretty much every candidate in the game is talking about it, be it Beto O’Rourke in Texas promising universal healthcare or Bernie Sanders promising medicare for all. Healthcare in general is quite confusing, but I find the terminology around it to be quite muddled. So, I’ve attempted to research and create a cheat sheet of definitions and diagrams to help our readers understand the discussion around healthcare reform in the US.
| Healthcare: In general, this is the system that provides mental and physical health services. The United States does not have any universal healthcare system, rather it is called a “hybrid” system which is both public (owned and operated by the government) and private (typically for-profit companies owned and operated by a board of directors). These medical care companies (like hospitals or private practices owned by physicians) vary immensely, but most work with insurance companies to assist with medical billing and offsetting the upfront cost of care and government programs to help with financially offsetting the cost of those services to people that cannot afford them. There’s also two federal government programs that currently provide healthcare for older and poor people, which are known as medicare and medicaid. |
Okay, so know that we have somewhat simplified the phrase healthcare, let’s talk about the problems.
The biggest issues in the United States with the current healthcare system boil down to the exorbitant cost.
The cost is so prohibitive in fact, that a lot of people are not getting any healthcare and so more people are dying of totally preventable illnesses and are just generally more uncomfortable because they do not have access to affordable, reliable medical care. Democrats have proposed changing the hybrid system to a completely public system that is funded through tax dollars. However, not all democrats are created equally and disagree about how public to make the system. This is how we arrived at where we are now, throwing a bunch of different terms around to talk about different degrees of the same type of healthcare reform.
| Universal Healthcare
|
a health care system that ensures basic medical coverage for every citizen of the country
|
| Medicare for All
|
This system was actually a bill proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, and has become known as the main Democrat stump speech phrase (which only deepens the ambiguity). It is a national system (federal level) ensures total physical and mental medical coverage for every single person regardless of employment status, class, pre existing conditions, or geography. It would ensure that patients would pay into the system directly, not through an alternative private insurance company. The funding from this would come from various tax increases on upper classes. |
| National Health Plan
|
This is technically a hybrid healthcare system (orginally based on an insurance system) organized by the government that uses public agencies, private companies, or a combination of both that would provide healthcare to all citizens regardless of class, geography, employment status, preexisting conditions, etc. The term is also used to refer to a single payer, universal system, so it’s important to understand the context of this phrase. |
| Single Payer | This is probably the most technically accurate and specific term, but is used interchangeably with “medicare for all.” It is a federal system that will cover any citizen that pays into the program. There are no premiums, co-pays, or deductibles. However, the government does not own the healthcare facilities or directly employ workers. It merely pays the bills and sets the price for consumers.
“Under a single-payer system, all residents of the U.S. would be covered for all medically necessary services, including doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs.” |
| Socialized Medicine | A healthcare system that provides physical and mental health services to citizens. All services are completely owned and operated by the government.
|
You may be wondering how the Obama Administration’s Affordable Care Act (ACA or “Obamacare”) fits into this. Well, the ACA was a stepping stone to get to the Democratic Party’s (or at least the more progressive democrats) goal of universal healthcare. It established a system so that everyone had to prove access to affordable care in a government regulated marketplace, known as the individual mandate. Additionally, there were many tax changes and benefit subsidies that alleviated the cost of this new burden, and expansions to Medicaid and Medicare. The ACA also prohibited the use of pre-existing conditions as a reason to deny people health insurance. But, it was not completely public, the healthcare system set up by the ACA just ensured that the premiums (payment for health insurance) would be kept minimal for people that had trouble affording healthcare, but it did not legislate very substantial insurance industry reform or much of the private healthcare industry (especially large pharmaceutical companies). Ultimately, it is still very much reliant on a hybrid system of healthcare.
Hopefully this clarifies what candidates, news outlets, and elected officials mean when they use a variety of buzzwords to discuss healthcare. Please keep your eyes and ears open to these terms and how they are used to indicate certain healthcare reform, and learn more accurate definitions as these terms change and include or exclude certain key features.
This Brief was posted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyat Sophia Adams; Contact Sophie@usresistnews.org
Photo by rawpixel