currentusapoliticsblog-blog
A blog site providing you with the current news
7 posts
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Last Seen Blogs
Text
Interview with THE Expert
Savannah Brack. and Macie Gardner, college students attending Boise State University, recently conducted an interview with an individual who is considered a “politics expert” in the realm of political science. This expert will be referred to within this article by the name of R.J., due to his request that his personal identification remain anonymous. R.J. was specifically chosen to be interviewed on this topic, due to the substantial amount of professional experience he has gained in the political world. In addition, the unique perspective this man brings into the classroom during his teaching lectures, was something that could simply not be ignored. With that being said, we met with R.J. on the Boise State campus, and had a lengthy yet significant conversation with him. Here are some of the highlights to our conversation.
Quickly debrief people on what your professional experience has been since graduating college (short and sweet)?
When I was in college, I was able to earn a degree in Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and a Concentration in Public Service from the Gerald R. Ford Institute at Albion College. Afterwards, I moved on to earn my masters degree in Master of Arts in Political Science at Western Michigan University. During my graduate studies, I wanted to focus on American Politics, with a special emphasis on Congress and interest groups.
“Why?”
Why? Hmm… That’s a hard and lengthy question to attempt to answer… and I am not sure if I actually can.
Fair enough. So what happened after your masters program?”
I spent nearly eight years working professionally in the chaotic world of politics in Washington, DC. I graciously received the opportunity to spend several years as a legislative assistant to a member of the US House of Representatives.
What was your role when you were legislative assistant?
My role in the legislature was to be the primary advisor on a number of legislative issues including; agriculture, judiciary issues, and government oversight. Prior to working in the US House, Robert also worked for one of the largest policy think tanks in the country and worked on a number of political campaigns.
I am assuming there is a lot of details you cannot share in regards to that time period?
You are correct.
So moving on, what happened after you left Washington D.C.?
I served as an adjunct for Albion College and Adrian College. This is where I taught advanced courses on Congress, interest groups, campaigns and elections. I also took on the role of being an adjunct for Jackson Community College and Kalamazoo Valley Community College. And I currently am part of the Political Science faculty at the College of Western Idaho (CWI) and Boise State University.
When you made the decision to no longer work in D.C., and begin teaching politics to college students, what do you believe made you want to make the switch to teaching political science, while having ideology that you gained during your experiences?
One of the biggest threats to our nation, and all Americans, is the threat we face within the loss of our democracy. I do not believe that people truly understand what a real authoritarian government/threat looks like, or how we transition into such a form of government. That is a fact I am striving to teach to the up and coming generation, so they can be educated to the fullest extent, to be able to make the “right” decision for their generation of leaders.
Can you tell me why did you left the House of Representatives?
No. There is not enough freedom permitted to be able to create truthful answers. Nor can I properly answer that in an impromptu fashion.
Do you believe that working on Capitol Hill has changed your perspective on the topic of government and democracy? Why or why not?
Yes. It’s like astronauts that come back from space, and they say that it changed their perspective on the Earth, and life itself. Working in Congress, is very similar.
How do you think Donald Trump has impacted the perspectives of politics and influenced political science? Do you believe Trump has changed our nation to be something different than it has been seen in the past? Explain.
Like I stated earlier, I don’t believe that many people living in this current time of history truly understand what an authoritarian government or leader looks like… and we definitely do not understand the slow transition a society can go through, to be able to get to that point. With that being said, I believe a rise in nationalism is occurring on a global scale, and especially in the United States… in a way that we have never seen before. Since the most recent presidential election, we have seen a rise in nationalism right here in our home state. If that doesn’t scare you, concern you, or answer your question… you must do a little bit more digging to find the answer.
What is the answer to the rise in nationalism? Why do you think we are in a constant state of conflict?
I can not answer why there is a rise to nationalism. There are many varying reasons as to why that is occurring. However, sometimes I do wonder how much conflict would occur, if everyone was surrounded by individuals that were like them; Taking into consideration ALL OF their: ethics, ethnicity, race, sex, religion, etc.
R.J. provided us with an interesting take on politics, and the current events taking place within politics. From a man with years of experience up on Capitol Hill, and a talent for bringing the truth into the limelight during his lectures at Boise State University, it is a wonder why such a knowledgeable and influential person wouldn't attempt to stay in Congress for as long as possible… maybe we will be able to get the answers, someday.
Stay tuned for next week’s blog post, discussing the effects of Q-tips on the planet!
0 notes
Text
I Spy With My Little Eye
Written by: Macie Gardner
Since Donald Trump became president his entire administration has made allegations that law enforcement had spied on his 2016 national campaign. Most recently his new lawyer, William Barr spoke out to the Senate Committee saying “’spying did occur”’(voanews). Following the statement, Donald Trump released his own statement a day later at the White House claiming, ‘"There absolutely was spying into my campaign"’. Many are unsure as to what Donald Trump was referring to with his statement because the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts authorized surveillance of Donald Trump on more than one occasion during Trump’s foreign affairs aid Carter Page. In the words of Donald Trump this is ‘”illegal spying”’ and that the people who were investigating him were “attempting a "coup" and committing "treason" to keep him from winning”(voanews). Many of his claims come from Fox News and other conservatives while Democrats are on the defense about the spying. Democratic speaker Charles Schumer of New York and Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi have both spoken out about the allegations that trump and his lawyer have made. Schumer states that Barr, ‘"destroyed the scintilla of credibility he had left"’ with his accusations and speaker Pelosi said Barr was "going off the rails"’. Schumer also made that accusation that Donald Trump was using claims from conspiracy theorist on purpose. Despite the claims made by democrats, Donald Trump stands by Barrs saying how hard it is to believe something like this could happen, but Barrs claims are “very accurate”. However, all the skepticism has persuaded Donald Trump to go on a manhunt, to find out whether or not there was illegal surveillance done by the government in his 2016 campaign.
Taking a deeper dive into whether or not his campaign was spied on, Donald Trump appointed William Barr as the country’s top law enforcement official in hopes that he will find out whether or not there was illegal spying done on his 2016 campaign. After being appointed Barr made a statement that he just wanted to “make sure government power was not abused” he also added that he believes “the origins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe into Trump campaign contacts with Russia may have been mishandled, but that he was not sure whether there had been improper surveillance”. This caused a number of new questions to be asked about Donald Trumps involvement in the Mueller investigation.
Quick to defend his client, these new questions prompted Barr to release a statement that he will release a “redacted version of the nearly 400-page report compiled by special counsel Robert Mueller after his 22-month investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and whether Trump, as president, obstructed justice by trying to thwart the probe” in just a few days. This comes after a four-page summary on the Mueller report was released a month ago, stating that Donald Trump had not colluded with Russians during the 2016 campaign, but that a decision hadn’t been made on whether or not Donald Trump had obstructed justice. Because Mueller had not come to a conclusion on the issue Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein decided that obstruction charges against Donald Trump were not warranted. Donald Trump followed up this decision by calling it a ‘”total exoneration”’.
The accusation of whether or not the government was doing illegal spying in Donald Trumps campaign is not a new one but it has become a lot more of a hot topic, especially with the Mueller case coming to and end and Donald Trump being “exonerated”. With the exoneration from the Mueller report, a lot of speculation about Donald Trump has died down. It seems as though this was the perfecting timing for Barr to accuse the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts of having committed illegal surveillance. With Donald Trump looking a little more innocent than he is used to, Barr appointed to be chief in the investigation, and the entire Trump Administration pushing for an investigation on whether or not there was illegal surveillance on his 2016 campaign, we might once and for all get to the bottom of whether or not there was spying done. Whatever the outcome to this is, it can’t please everyone and either Donald Trump will victor, and the government will be questioned on it’s illegal actions, or Donald Trump will find no evidence of illegal surveillance and the false accusations against the government will cease. It is likely that in the following weeks we will begin to see a big investigation being done on the government and quite possible some indictments.
https://www.voanews.com/a/trump-us-law-enforcement-spied-on-my-2016-campaign/4872077.html
0 notes
Text
Congress vs. The White House
Written by: Macie Gardner
A letter introduced to the IRS by Richard Neal sparks a big debate in the white house and congress. A debate so big it has the nation has been watching, all centered around whether Donald Trump needs to release his tax returns. Presidential candidates are not required to release their tax returns- but up until Donald Trump, every candidate has. This wouldn’t be the first time Trump has broken norms set forth by other presidential candidates. Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns has sparked the interest of many and has created a battle between white house and congress, one that has been going on much longer than we would have thought.
Last week Representative Richard Neal sent a formal letter requesting Trumps, “federal income tax returns going back to 2013. The request also demands the returns for eight other entities linked to Trump”(vox). In the letter addressed to the IRS, Neal states that congress has a duty to oversee all departments and officials and that involves auditing all presidential tax returns. In the letter Neal cites a 1924 law that would give the “House Ways and Means Committee the power to request tax returns from the Treasury Department for review in closed session” (vox). In an interview done on Fox News Sunday Mick Mulvaney said that democrats will never see Trumps tax returns. Many law professors are expecting this to go up as high as the Supreme Courts. Because Donald Trump isn’t just a regular tax filer the supreme court will have to be extra careful about the separation of powers. Donald Trump’s lawyer is also, undoubtedly, getting involved stating that congress has no “legitimate legislative purpose”. This may be true, up until Neal provided congress with a purpose (the 1924 law). The request for Donald Trump’s tax returns have a deadline of Wednesday April 10, but it is appearing that the deadline will come and go without the forfeit of the president’s tax returns. “The Trump administration has signaled for months that it has no intention of complying and characterized what the Democrats are doing as an example of politicized overreach” (vox). Where the path will go depends solely on the IRS and the Treasure Department and how they will respond to the request. Democrats are more likely to see Trumps tax returns if they can come up with a more substantial reason for wanting them. The initial request was based off a law passed in 1924, which has since then had revisions, but Neal says that how the IRS and congress responds will “determine how Americans — including those elected to our highest office — are complying with those laws.” Bill Pascrell is another democrat who has been trying to get his hands on Donald Trump’s tax returns because he believes that the president “has abused our tax laws in plentiful”(vox). He highlights an investigation done on the Trump family that suggested they were involved in tax schemes.
Since before the democrats formal request the trump Administration has made it very clear they don’t plan to comply. Trump’s personal lawyers states, “Even if Ways and Means had a legitimate committee purpose for requesting the President’s tax returns and information, that purpose is not driving Chairman Neal’s request. His request is a transparent effort by one political party to harass an official from the other party because they dislike his politics and his speech (vox).” Even if democrats get Trump’s tax returns that doesn’t necessarily mean they will be made public. “If the Ways and Means Committee gets Trump’s tax returns, it could then vote to have some or all of the tax returns released to the rest of the House of Representatives, so all members would have access to it. But then it’s unclear if it’s legal to make that information public” (vox). This is because Ken Kies testified before congress that it is a felony or congress or staff to release tax returns to the public. The debate is still a long and hot one and it doesn’t look like either side is planning on backing down soon. If Wednesday passes and there is still no Presidential tax returns we will be looking at an ongoing battle that could last months. This could be the Trump Administration’s agenda, though; to hold out on giving the tax returns until reelection or until they are forced to comply with the IRS and Congress. Until then America sits and watches in disbelief as Donald Trump breaks another norm set forth by previous United States Presidents.
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/9/18296806/trump-tax-returns-congress-legal-experts
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/8/18300516/trump-tax-returns-richard-neal-mick-mulvaney
0 notes
Text
Elections Have Consequences
Written By: Josiah Bynum
One of the main issues dividing the two political parties, and the Nation, is immigration. Democrats heap praise on immigrants while disregarding the laws of America, and Republicans play to humanities fears by elevating particularly horrendous and rare events from outlier to average. And both, at times, exaggerate issues to take advantage of public divides, pushing to distinguish their party’s solutions. Whether the motive is political power or an improved America, these tactics are hard to rationalize logically. One way to decrease the incentives or effectiveness of such tactics is to point out their use and create a public awareness; hopefully attaching a cost greater than the perceived benefit. And there is no better place to highlight these strategies than the fertile grounds of the 2018-midterm elections.
Although far from the U.S./Mexico border the 2018 House race in Pennsylvania’s 8th District was largely centered on the issue of immigration. John Chrin, a partner at Circle Wealth Management and formally a managing director at JPMorgan Chase, challenged Matt Cartwright the Democrat incumbent. Spoiler alert, Matt Cartwright won the election on November 7th with 54.6% of the vote1. Pennsylvania’s 8th District was redrawn after the presidential election but still retains roughly the same partisan mix. President Trump won this district by 10 points at the same time Mr. Cartwright won his seat by 8 points2. This race was a chance for Republicans to cement political ground seemingly gained in 2016, and a chance for Democrats to show at least one of Trump’s victories was a fluke. John Chrin’s strategy consisted of backing President Trump and attacking Cartwright’s voting record. He pointed out that Cartwright consistently voted in support of sanctuary cities, and only voted in support of Kate’s law to appease potential voters after the 2016 election results3. Chrin also released a political ad accusing Cartwright of caring more about protecting sanctuary cities than a 5-year-old girl who was raped by an illegal alien. This was an attempt to connect Cartwright, a moderate Democrat, to some of the more progressive elements of the party. It’s hard to imagine a clearer example of elevating a horrendous and rare event from outlier to average. A spokesman for Cartwright’s campaign responded by saying Cartwright favors “securing our borders and a bipartisan plan for comprehensive immigration reform, and opposes sanctuary cities and safe havens for criminals and gangs.4” In the end, Chrin’s campaign was a failed attempt to rebrand an opponent as something he was not by using Trump style immigration rhetoric.
Another midterm election highlighting immigration was the Texas senate race where Beto O’Rourke challenged the Republican incumbent Ted Cruz. Cruz won the election by a slim margin receiving just over 200,000 votes more than Beto. Both candidates used immigration and Trump as a way to distinguish themselves in the minds of voters. Beto’s view is that Trump’s immigration stance and proposed wall is racist and immoral. On the campaign trail referencing children separated at the border he said, “even the faces of those children who have been reunited with their parents often have a vacant look because the forced separations and time apart have made it difficult for children to reconnect with their parents.5” Although Beto criticized Trump and Cruz on immigration issues, he largely tried to steer clear of the issue compared to Cruz. This may have been due to a memo circulated by the Center for American Progress that warned Democrats running for office in districts won by Trump in 2016 to avoid discussions surrounding immigration and especially sanctuary cities6. This was based on research that concluded the progressive position on immigration and sanctuary cities would be a handicap in certain districts. It appears Trump and Cruz may have sneaked a peak at the memo as well, as both tried to increase the discussion involving sanctuary cities.
Since losing to Cruz Beto has been slightly more open with his views on the wall and immigration. In an interview in El Paso he said if he had the power he would tear down existing sections of the border wall, and at a rally the night before he said, “Walls do not save lives. They end lives.7” He seems to hold the mainstream Democratic positions of closing private immigration detention centers and allowing illegal immigrants a path towards citizenship, but when pressed for details he falls back on the ‘we need to have a national conversation about this’ position. Both parties, although arguably one more than the other, are provided cover by the national media. By deciding which stories to report and how to provide context media companies can protect and amplify a politician’s message. They can also decide which public figures to investigate and which stories need to be hidden. The American political process and the national media will not change overnight. It will take millions of individual voters’ demanding more from their representatives. The men and women in politics and the media, with power to sway the American public, need to recognize the responsibility inherent in exercising that power.
Unfortunately, in politics it has been determined the surest way to victory is demonizing opponents as racist, xenophobic, or un-American. Politicians need votes, something that requires ordinary citizens to take an action beyond their normal routine. The strategies outlined above are designed to overcome the voting threshold and get ordinary Americans out to the polls. Nothing whips votes like the hatred of your enemies; it’s just a shame that in national politics the enemy is always a fellow American. In my experience the majority of Americans are not as polarized, even over polarizing issues like immigration, as the politicians they listen to and support. Politicians resort to tactics designed to win elections, and elements in the media, on both sides, distort and magnify the rhetoric into narratives of their choosing. Each evening talking heads argue back and forth in short segments, never ceding an inch of ground, more theater or WrestleMania than a real conversation. I know it’s not real because I have political conversations everyday, and they tend to end in compromise and the strong urge to research and understand a different perspective. I think this is the natural course, when those involved are conversing honestly and in good faith, which should not be surprising. Usually, the insight closer to the unknowable truth contains a tempered bit of each hardline position. Without nations there would be no safe harbor for immigrants, and as a nation turns immigrants away they also turn away from values and ideals held dear.
1. http://www.270towin.com/2018-election-results-live/state/pennsylvania
2. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/elections-poll-pa08-html
3. https://www.johnchrin.com
4. https://www.citizensvoice.com/news/political-ad-fact-check-john-chrin
1.2389597
5. https://elpasotimes.com
6. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/411522
7. https://www.theamericanmirror.com/beto-tear-down-existing-border-wall/
0 notes
Text
Trump Dossier – Multiple perspectives
Written By: Josiah Bynum and Savannah Brack
A dossier is best defined as a file containing specific details about a person, or the actions they partake in. This information is converted into documented and tracked paper records by an organization or an individual conducting research on the person of interest, contacting sources of information, and compiling a dossier. One of the most notorious examples is the Trump or Steele dossier, which has been a feature of the news media landscape for several years. This document has been utilized by organizations and institutions found in government and the private sector for a variety of different purposes. With so much national attention, one would imagine there is a level of agreement concerning what the dossier contains, who created it, how it has been used, and the political context surrounding it. However, making this assumption would be a mistake. Depending on the news organizations, the political pundits, or the political officials one listens to, a vastly different characterization begins to emerge.
Christopher Steele, an ex British intelligence officer, is the author of the dossier which was created during the second half of 2016. He was hired by Fusion GPS who was hired by attorney Marc Elias who was hired by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, all in order to provide opposition research on Trump. Steele was well positioned to accomplish this goal, as he had extensive experience dealing with Russian matters and he also had a number of contacts in Russia. Yglesias and Prokop from Vox sum up the contents of the Steele dossier with six allegations.
Trump has cooperated with Russian authorities for years.
There are conspiracy theories surrounding the idea that Trump was informed about his political opponents in exchange for Trump’s ‘team’ to provide the Kremlin intelligence on Russian oligarchs and their families for roughly eight years.
Trump is vulnerable to Russian blackmail on sexual matters.
Russia is claimed to have forms of “blackmail” in the sense that they have proof that Donald Trump hired prostitutes to “perform a ‘golden showers’ show in front of him,1” which he insisted on, due to him wanting to defile the bed that the prior president slept on. None of these stories have been proven to be true with any amount of legitimate evidence.
There was a “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” between Trump and Russia.
Conspiracy theories are surrounded around the idea that Michael Cohen played a significant role in the management of the “Kremlin relationship.1”
Trump’s team knew and approved of Russian plans to deliver emails to WikiLeaks, and offered them policy concessions in exchange.
With Donald Trump having knowledge of the WikiLeaks, him and his team compromised with Russia, agreeing to sideline a Russian intervention in Ukraine and categorize it as a campaign issue.
Carter page played a key role in the conspiracy.
Carter Page, an “ethnic Russian associate” of Donald Trump’s, promoted the idea that the DNC emails to WikiLeaks should be revealed to the general public to swing supporters of Bernie Sanders away from Hillary Clinton. On that note, Page has denied all allegations regarding the matter and there is no indication that any of these statements have proven-merit.
Michael Cohen played a key role in the conspiracy.1
Cohen has committed illegal acts multiple times throughout the Kremlin matter. Many of his meetings with Russian officials surrounding Ukraine involved conversations about “coverup and damage limitation.1” In addition, Cohen has been accused of discussing how to make “deniable cash payments” to hackers working with the Kremlin, and also how to cover up these transactions.
Due to the serious nature of the allegations and Steele’s tireless work at promoting his conclusions to political and media insiders, the dossier has been a near constant in the news cycle, and has also played a role in investigations conducted by the highest law enforcement agencies in the United States. According to the Washington Times Mr. Steele met with a number of journalists at major media companies prior to the presidential election to brief them on his collusion allegations. More recently it has been reported Steele also “adopted a postelection strategy to damage or perhaps stop the Trump presidency.2” Part of this effort included Mr. Steele working with Senator John McCain’s aide, David Kramer.2 In a deposition Kramer told investigators the founder of Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, thought the FBI would take the document more seriously if it was provided by the Senator’s office, as opposed to Fusion GPS.3
One major point of contention surrounding the dossier is the role it played in the genesis of the investigation into whether Trump colluded with the Russian government to win the 2016 election. It is clear the dossier was submitted as part of an application to the FISA court seeking a warrant to surveil Trump advisor Carter Page. John Solomon, an opinion contributor at The Hill, believes the FBI knew Christopher Steele was working for the Clinton campaign through Fusion GPS and that he was desperate to keep Trump from being elected. Yet the FBI failed to divulge this information to the FISA court judge. In the application the FBI referred to Steele as a “reliable source in past criminal investigations who was hired by a person working for a U.S. law firm to conduct research on Trump and Russia.4” If this warrant was the beginning of the investigation, many would argue it was based on a lie and has no credibility. Ken Dilanian, at NBC, and many others argue the FISA warrant was not the beginning of the investigation. Instead it was months earlier when the FBI learned George Papadopoulos, a campaign aide, had been approached by Russians seeking to share information about Hillary Clinton.5 Also, the FISA application includes many pages that are completely redacted. Representative Adam Schiff has said publicly these pages contain secret information establishing ties between Page and Russians that goes beyond information included in the dossier.
In the end, the proponents of each argument surrounding the dossier and the FISA court have lost a sense of urgency. The conclusions of the Mueller report were recently released, and it was found that Trump did not collude with the Russians. None of the people Trump had working for him, including Carter Page, were charged with any crimes connected to colluding with Russia. The debate may not be as heated as it was the last several years, but it seems there are a few more questions worth looking into. Regardless of when the investigation started, why was it so easy to start? Is there some way to ensure the American people this was a good faith investigation and not politically motivated? For years journalist and elected politicians have been making unverified claims concerning our president. And strangely, the claims always seem to help them politically. The end result is a 300+ page document, which could be considered the most expensive and exhaustive piece of opposition research ever created.6 In a way the public unknowingly paid for the creation of this document, and I imagine it will be used for political purposes for years to come. The cost was not only monetary; people on both sides of the investigation have had their lives ruined, and several government agencies have lost credibility and trust with segments of the population.
https://www.vox.com/2018/1/5/16845704/steele-dossier-russia-trump
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/18/christopher-steele-dossier-author-led-anti-trump-m/
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/court-files-reveal-role-of-mccain-aide-in-spreading-anti-trump-dossier
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/425739-fisa-shocker-doj-official-warned-steele-dossier-was-connected-to-clinton
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/why-team-trump-wrong-about-carter-page-dossier-secret-warrant-n893666
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-long-is-the-mueller-report-2019-3
0 notes
Text
American Governance and Constitutional Expectations
Written By: Josiah Bynum
President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on February 15th appears to be the latest data point confirming a trend of dysfunction in American governance. Our president has decided to invoke the National Emergencies Act, which was enacted by the 94th United States Congress and signed by President Ford1. Currently, there is a fierce debate over the legality of this presidential action. Many, on both sides of the aisle, argue sidestepping the Congressional power to spend in an attempt to solve the underlying issues surrounding illegal immigration at the southern border is a mistake. In order to understand why a president might feel such drastic steps are needed, it may be helpful to evaluate President Trump’s election with respect to this issue, and to investigate the relationships between the three branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial.
A presidential candidate makes his or her case to a national audience in a general sense, and thus feels a duty to deliver solutions, upon election, to the issues identified in the campaign. President Trump constructed his presidential run around illegal immigration. The voters elected President Trump and have a reasonable expectation he will use his executive powers to address the issues he brought up in the campaign and Congress will work with the President in good faith. This view appears logical, yet it is not how it works in reality, nor should it be. Thomas Massie, a U.S. Representative for Kentucky’s 4th District, recently addressed this issue in a Tweet saying, “If legislators always vote with the President, we have a king. If legislators always vote with the prevailing wind, we have mob rule. If legislators always vote with the Constitution, we have a Republic.” In many cases after the president is elected Congress becomes an obstacle to the president’s agenda. The original framers of the Constitution designed this as a feature of America’s governmental structure. According to the National Conference of State Legislators the separation of powers “refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another… the intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.4” A strong separation of powers within the government leads to effective governance, but this assumes each distinct branch exercises the core functions they were assigned.
When congress fails to reach agreement and pass legislation to address the problems of this nation, as they arise, presidents have resorted to increased executive action, circumventing the legislative body all together. This can be viewed as a failure of the administrative state to effectively address the concerns of American citizens. As Congress began to delegate its constitutional powers to administrative agencies, giving them the power in many cases, to create regulations, enforce regulations, and adjudicate cases involving those regulations they effectively created a mini government, where Article One Section One of the constitution was repealed. The opening lines of the Constitution say, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.2” By delegating legislative power to administrative agencies Congress has violated the non-delegation doctrine. This was allowed to slide by the judicial branch through a concept known as the intelligible principle. The Supreme Court decided that as long as Congress sets forth an “intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.3” In practice the intelligible principle, as a standard, has been watered down over the years, and significant legislative powers have been transferred to agencies, leading to the executive and judicial branches exercising more power.
It can be argued this delegation of legislative power is necessary due to the increase in complexity surrounding the issues our country faces, but how do we know where the responsibility lies, and who should be held accountable when institutions overstep their mandates. Is it the fault of Congress when the institutions they created and endowed with legislative powers fail to get the details right? Congress has found a loophole; elected officials can now choose to pass their responsibility on to unelected bureaucrats. What happens when a large portion of American citizens lose faith in the institutions? I would argue we are close to being in that situation. The main evidence I see for this is the election of Donald Trump.
Ultimately, President Trump is circumventing the constitutional power Congress has to authorize spending with his proposed plan to begin construction on the wall, but it will take more than a judge’s ruling to restore the separation of powers within the government. It will entail elected officials, including President Trump, taking their responsibilities under the Constitution and to the American people serious, a return to accountability that does not appear to be on the horizon. It appears the current job description of those in Congress is to make as many appearances on television as possible, raise money for themselves and party, delegitimize political opponents at the expense of the Nation, and compete for a position in the executive branch. Why would individual Congressmen and women restrict the power of an office they desire to hold in the future? While there is no easy solution to shore up the separation of powers, a legislative body less concerned with how the latest staffer constructed sound bite will affect their presidential bid and more concerned with their responsibility to the American people under the Constitution, may be a reasonable start.
1. "[USC07] 50 USC Ch. 34: NATIONAL EMERGENCIES." OLRC Home.
Accessed February 16, 2019.
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtmlpath=/prelim@title50/chapter34&edition=prelim.
2. U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 1 - The U.S. Constitution Online -
USConstitution.net." Last modified January 24, 2010.
https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec1.html.
3. Meaghan Dunigan (2017) "Intelligible Principle: How It Briefly Lived, Why It
Died, and Why It Desperately Needs Revival in Today's Administrative
State,"
St. John's Law Review: Vol. 91 : No. 1 , Article 7.
4. Warnock. (n.d.). Separation of Powers -- An Overview. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/separation-of-
powers-an-Overview.aspx
0 notes
Text
The Rundown on the Green New Deal
Written by: Savannah Brack.
Congresswoman Alexandria Osasio-Cortez, Senator Ed Markey, along with many other co-sponsors, have introduced a vision which has been created into a bill best referred to in the media as, the Green New Deal. This bill proposal was created to outline the overall motive of a plan to fight inequality and tackle the issue of climate change. To explain in further detail, it is stated in an article by The Guardian, one republican referred to the bill as a “socialist manifesto,” while several others and many environmental advocacy groups have embraced the policy. On the other hand, certain individuals in the United States of America have said that the policy simply is not efficiently combat all of these environmental issues at an efficient rate, due to the amount of consumption and emissions are currently taking place.
Although there are efforts being made within Congress, it is obvious that the policy details do not advocate for any special or specific ways of being able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With that being said, with very broad goals being stated, but no way of achieving them, the push to make the United States of America carbon-neutral (net zero carbon emissions released into the atmosphere) in 10 years seems near-to impossible. However, with the push of the Green New Deal, it seems like this bill is presenting those that are not found to be in the top 1, 10 or 20% of the economic totem pole, an opportunity to “…take part in the planning process and benefit from the green economy” (The Guardian).
As stated by the author in this Green New Deal article, he acknowledges the fact that the Green New Deal will not completely end the use of coal, oil and natural gasses, but “…it would aim to offset any remaining greenhouse gas pollution with forests,” that have the ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (The Guardian). Although the most efficient way to combat the issue of climate change would be to stop the use of all natural gasses that emit these toxic chemicals. It is apparent that there is not a lot of thought being taken to ponder the role that nuclear power and fossil fuels have on the planet, to be able to take more efficient and immediate action. However, the role of this bill is to address some of the issues that greenhouse gas pollution has on the environment and atmosphere, and “…aim to offset any remaining greenhouse gas pollution with forests that absorb carbon dioxide,” and begin to ponder what potential the role of nuclear energy and fossil fuel with carbon capturing technologies could present to the future of our survival.
Among all of the things that the bill is excluding, it still presents an effective “10-year nation mobilization” to, as stated in The Guardian article, “… build resiliency against climate change-related disasters, upgrade infrastructure [to] meet [the] power demand with ‘clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources,’ expand energy efficient and access to power, work with farmers to cut emissions overhaul the transportation sector with electric vehicles,” among other potential proposals (The Guardian).
The earth has been seen to be warming at 1 degree Celsius (or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the period of Industrialization, and exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius by half a degree “…will worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat, and poverty for hundred of millions of people,” and within the Green New Deal, they try to develop policy proposals to hopefully abruptly stop the doom that is foreseen in the future if our habits, lifestyles, and policies do not change. The Green New Deal promotes sustainable living in the form of policy enforcement by guaranteeing a job with fair pay, family and medical leave, paid vacations and retirement security, universal high-quality healthcare, free higher education, access to affordable, safe and adequate housing, stronger labor, workplace health and safety protocols, anti-discrimination, wage and hour standards, clean-up of hazardous waste sites, access to clean water and air, health and affordable food and nature; As stated before, there are many areas within the bill that are in need of improvement, in the form of strategies that the society and world can adopt to be able to pursue these standards of living. With that being said, this bill is a push in the right direction, which forces policy-makers and less-informed citizens to begin thinking about the effects that our actions have on the future of our planet and the environment in which we depend on to survive.
Holden, Emily. “What Is the Green New Deal and How Would It Benefit Society?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 11 Feb. 2019, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/11/green-new-deal-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ed-markey.
1 note
·
View note