All posts by votespotter

Commentary & Community

House Passes Police Overhaul Legislation

With minimal GOP support, the House of Representatives this week passed legislation that would mandate changes to how state and local police operate.

 

By a vote of 236-181, the House passed HR 7120, legislation named after the late George Floyd. Among the things this bill would do are:

  • Banning the use of police chokeholds
  • Removing immunity from lawsuits for police officers
  • Requiring the use of body cameras
  • Prohibiting the use of military-style weapons and equipment in police work
  • Establishing a national database for officers who have a record of abuse complaints

 

House Democrats argued these measures were necessary to stop law enforcement abuses that led to the death of George Floyd and other people in police custody. They contended that systemic racism is plaguing police departments nationwide, and their reforms can help alleviate some of the negative effects of heavy-handed law enforcement. No Democrats voted against the bill.

 

Republicans were not buying these arguments, however. Only three GOP House members supported HR 7120. They noted that this was a huge federal imposition on what is typically a state or local issue. They noted that the federal government has no constitutional role to mandate how non-federal law enforcement operates. They also said that at a time of rioting and looting, it was counterproductive to impose new restrictions on police.

 

The Senate is unlikely to consider this legislation, but Senate Republicans have introduced their own police reform bill.

 

Do you think Congress should pass a federal law to change the way state and local police departments operate?

States, Counties Mandating Masks to Battle Coronavirus

From Washington to Florida, governments across the nation are mandating that residents wear masks in public to combat the spread of the coronavirus.

 

As governors ease shutdown requirements that were aimed at stopping coronavirus cases from climbing, they are considering other ways to stop the pandemic. In some states and counties with cases that are climbing, the answer they are settling on is mandatory mask wearing in public. With rising coronavirus infections in Washington state, Gov. Jay Inslee this week mandated mask use statewide. Those refusing to wear masks in public could face a misdemeanor charge.

 

Officials say that as people return to more densely-packed places, social distancing and mask-wearing can help prevent the coronavirus’s spread. They point to studies indicating that widespread use of masks help keeps coronavirus cases at bay. While medical experts were mixed on the efficacy of masks early in the coronavirus crisis, most now embrace them as a useful way to be safe in public.

 

These mask mandates have met with opposition, however. Critics contend that it is government overreach to require masks. They say that people should be free to wear them, but not forced to do so by the government.

 

Some governors have considered a mask mandate but are so far refusing calls to impose one. Idaho has a lower coronavirus rate than many states, but with the relaxation of a shutdown imposed by Gov. Brad Little, cases are rising. Gov. Little is urging state residents to wear masks, but told reporters that he is unlikely to require their use.

 

Do you think wearing face masks in public should be mandatory?

Democrats Pushing for Quick Action on Confederate Names

Senate Democrats want to see the Department of Defense act on bases with Confederate names within the year.

 

Sen Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and 35 other senators introduced legislation this week that will require the Department of Defense to remove any names, symbols, or monuments that are associated with the Confederate States of America within one year. Grave markers could remain. This is similar to a proposal that the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously adopted earlier this month, except that the new bill has a 1-year timeframe instead of a 3-year timeframe.

 

Those supporting Sen. Warren’s bill argue that U.S. military bases should not honor a cause that tried to destroy the union in order to protect slavery. Some of them call Confederate army officers traitors and say these people should not be honored by the federal government.

 

Republicans are split on this issue. Some, such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are supportive. Others, such as President Donald Trump, are firmly opposed. There are also some in the Senate who want to explore different options. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) wants to establish a commission to study the issue of renaming military bases. Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) would like to see all military bases renamed to honor Medal of Honor recipients.

 

The Senate is likely to consider the Defense Authorization bill this summer, and discussion about military base renaming will be part of these efforts.

 

Do you think that the Defense Department should remove any names, symbols, and monuments that honor the Confederacy?

Trump Restricts Immigrant Work Visas

Earlier this year, President Trump said that the coronavirus made it necessary to halt much of the immigration coming into the United States. This week, he extended and expanded that immigration ban.

 

This move affects a variety of visas that foreign workers use to come into the U.S. and fill jobs. In March, the President issued a temporary suspension of some of these work visas as a part of his coronavirus response policy. He said it was necessary to protect the U.S. from the coronavirus and to help American workers.

 

This week’s action extends this suspension until the end of the year. It also adds more worker categories to the suspension, including high-tech workers.

 

Even before being elected president, Trump was a critic of immigration. Since he has taken office, Trump has pursued policies to limit legal immigration and crack down on illegal immigration. The current restrictions fit within his broader framework of reducing the number of people coming into the U.S.

 

Critics of this action say it has nothing to do with helping American workers. They note that this are jobs that are filled by workers with specific skills, and that they require companies to attempt to hire U.S. workers prior to hiring any foreign employees. These critics allege that President Trump is using the coronavirus crisis to advance his anti-immigration agenda.

 

Do you support suspending some immigrant work visas for the rest of the year?

House to Vote on DC Statehood

For the first time in 27 years, the House of Representatives will vote on whether the District of Columbia should become the 51st state.

 

This week, the House will consider HR 51, sponsored by DC delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton. This bill would make most of the District of Columbia into a new state. Major federal buildings, such as the Capitol and White House, along with many federal monuments, would still be left in a federal district. The rest of the city, however, would become a state with two U.S. senators and a member of the House of Representatives. Currently, Del. Holmes Norton represents D.C. in the House, but she does not have full voting privileges.

 

The last time the House of Representatives voted on D.C. statehood was 1993. In that year, bipartisan opposition defeated the bill. There has long been reluctance by both Democrats and Republicans to granting the district the status of a state. But in the wake of the protests over the killing of George Floyd, House Democrats are now seeing this vote as one of racial justice.

 

Supporters of statehood argue that the residents of D.C. should not be deprived of a voice in Congress. They note that Wyoming has fewer people in it than does D.C., but that state has full representation. They say that it is racist that a majority-minority city like D.C. is being held under control by the federal government. Opponents of this move argue that it is just pure politics. They point out that the new state will be overwhelmingly Democratic, so this is just a way to get more Democrats in the Senate and House. They also say that there may be constitutional issues with a move towards statehood.

 

With its Democratic majority, the House will likely pass H.R. 51. The Senate, however, has no plans on considering the bill, and President Trump says he will veto it.

 

Do you support statehood for the District of Columbia?

Colorado Passes Police Reform Bill

In the wake of protests over law enforcement tactics, Colorado legislators have passed a bill that will overhaul how police in that state operate.

 

This week, Gov. Jared Polis signed into law SB 217, which both houses of the legislature quickly passed this month. Among other things, this new law will:

  • Mandate the use of body cameras in many instances, and penalize officers who turn off cameras to obstruct justice
  • Allow police to be sued and be personally liable if they violate someone’s civil rights or do not step in to prevent another officer from violating someone’s civil rights
  • Ban police from firing rubber bullets at protestors
  • Establish a use-of-force database
  • Create an oversight board to monitor police actions

 

Supporters of this bill say that it will help address many of the troubling law enforcement practices that have led to the deaths and injury of suspects. They argue that these reforms will help ensure police protect the rights of people while also upholding the law. Opponents, however, contend that the bill was hastily written and will handicap efforts to protect the public.

 

Other states are considering similar reform legislation. Next week, the House of Representatives will vote on a bill that will enact some of these measures at a federal level.

 

Do you think that police officers should be personally liable if they violate someone’s civil rights? Should police be prohibited from firing rubber bullets at protestors?

Supreme Court Protects "Dreamers"

Today the Supreme Court has ended the Trump Administration's efforts to strip legal protection from "Dreamers" -- children who were brought to the U.S. illegally.
 
In a 5-4 ruling, the high court said that the Trump Administration did not follow the proper procedures to end the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. This program gave legal protection to some illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. Those in this program had to meet certain qualifications, such as having a clean criminal record.
 
President Trump had said that Congress should enact a law to protect these individuals, but that President Obama did not have the authority to protect them by executive action. He ordered the program to be phased out, which set up a legal fight that eventually ended up before the Supreme Court.
 
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts said that this case was not about the merits of the president's actions. Instead, he said it concerned the procedure the Trump Administration followed to undo DACA. His opinion leaves open the possibility that the Trump Administration could once again try to end DACA.
 
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the dissenting minority, arguing that the president's actions were indeed legal. He said that it is up to Congress, not the courts, to settle this issue.
 
Do you think the Trump Administration should continue trying to end legal protection for Dreamers?

Congressional GOP Introduces Police Reform Bill

This week congressional Republicans outlined police reform legislation in the wake of demonstrations over the killing of George Floyd. Democrats say it does not go far enough.

 

This bill would, among other things:

  • Mandate federal reports on use-of-force incidents and no-knock raids
  • Provide federal incentives for local and state police departments to ban the use of chokeholds and require the use of body cameras
  • Develop use-of-force training by the Justice Department for local law enforcement
  • Reauthorize federal law enforcement grant programs for five years

 

Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) took the lead on developing this legislation, and there is a companion bill in the House of Representatives. He and other Republicans say these steps are good ways for the federal government to respond to calls for police reform. Democrats, however, say that this bill leaves out many important provisions.

 

Congressional Democrats introduced their version of reform legislation last week. It went much further than the Republican bill, imposing new rules on state and local law enforcement as well as removing legal immunity that protects police officers from many lawsuits. Republicans argue that the Democratic bill goes too far, and intrudes upon state and local government functions.

 

The Senate will consider the Republican police reform legislation next week.

 

How far do you think the federal government should go in forcing state and local police departments to change their practices?

Congress Looking at Renaming Military Bases

Ten military installations in the United States are named after Confederate officers. A move in Congress to rename these installations is gaining support from both Democrats and Republicans.

 

A debate over how the U.S. should honor those who fought for the Confederacy has grown more intense due to the demonstrations resulting from the police killing of George Floyd. States and local governments are taking down statues honoring Confederates, saying that these men were traitors to the U.S. and fought to preserve slavery. Many activists are now calling on the federal government to rename those bases carrying the names of Confederate officers.

 

Last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would create a commission to examine this issue. The panel did so by voice vote with no opposition. This week, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, John Thune of South Dakota, also said this is something the federal government should consider. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper also said he would be open to this idea.

 

That view, however, does not have support in the White House. President Trump has taken to Twitter to denounce attempts to rename military bases. He said this would dishonor the millions of soldiers who have been stationed at these places. His spokesperson said he would veto any legislation that would lead to the removal of Confederate officers’ names from bases.

 

The Senate will consider the National Defense Authorization Act in the coming weeks. The issue of renaming military bases will likely be part of the debate.


Do you think that military bases should be named for Confederate officers?

Supreme Court Rules Anti-Gay Discrimination Illegal

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that federal anti-discrimination laws cover gay and transgender individuals.

 

The high court ruled that when the law uses the word “sex,” it also protects people from being fired for being gay or transgender. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch concluded that the plain reading of the text leads to the conclusion that sex discrimination is not limited to ensuring that men and women are treated equally in the workplace. Instead, he noted that if an employer fired a man for being in a relationship with a man, but did not fire a woman for being in a relationship with a man, then that is a clear case of an employer discriminating against someone based on sex.

 

In his decision, Gorsuch wrote, “an employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision…”

 

The three dissenting justices disagreed. Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that in the decades following the enactment of the federal anti-discrimination law, no one thought it covered gay or transgender individuals. He said that the majority was re-writing the law, not interpreting it. In his dissent, he wrote, “If every single living American had been surveyed in 1964, it would have been hard to find any who thought that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation — not to mention gender identity, a concept that was essentially unknown at the time.”

 

The case concerned three individuals who were fired for being either gay or transgender.

 

The justices joining Gorsuch in the majority were Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg.

 

Do you support the Supreme Court ruling that federal law protects gay and transgender individuals from discrimination?

Trump Administration Reverses Obama-Era Gender Identity Rule

This week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rewrote an Obama-era regulation that expanded the definition of “sex” under federal anti-discrimination law. The effect of this rule change is to remove protections for transgender individuals in health insurance purchases, but the Trump Administration says this is just a return to the original meaning of the law.

 

The regulation affects nondiscrimination protections in the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. This law prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against individuals on the basis of, among other things, “sex.” This language is similar to language in other federal anti-discrimination laws. In 2016, the Obama Administration issued a rule that expanded the protections under that law to include gender identity.

 

At the time, this move was controversial. Those opposed to it argued that it reversed the meaning of federal anti-discrimination rules. These critics pointed out that the protection of sex under federal law never protected individuals who went through a gender transition. However, the Obama Administration said that gender identity was an integral part of someone’s sex, so their expanded interpretation was legally valid.

 

The Trump Administration re-wrote the 2016 regulation to return its definition of “sex” to the earlier understanding of what the law meant. HHS officials argued that this was necessary to reverse the Obama Administration’s overreach. They argue that if Congress wants to protect transgender individuals from discrimination, Congress should write the law to reflect this, not use executive branch authority to change the law.

 

HHS action has come under fire from many people, however. They say the Trump Administration of reversing important protections for transgender individuals. They accuse the administration of anti-transgender bias, and have vowed to fight the rule change in court.

 

Do you think that federal laws banning sex discrimination also ban discrimination against transgender individuals?

Two States Allowing Online Voting

This week, some West Virginia voters cast their ballots via computers and smartphones. Next month, Delaware voters will have the same opportunity. As the coronavirus disrupts elections across the nation, some states are looking at online voting. But experts warn this type of voting comes with big risks.

 

In West Virginia, anyone who requested an absentee ballot could vote online. Delaware officials will permit voters who are self-isolating due to the coronavirus epidemic cast their ballots via the Internet. These states say that this type of voting is a good way to allow people to exercise their right to vote while also taking into account the restrictions and protocols necessary to keep people safe.

 

Security experts, however, have pointed out security flaws with the software being used by these states. With the votes moving through the cloud, they are vulnerable to hackers, say the experts. West Virginia and Delaware point to the security measures they are taking. However, since voting is an anonymous and private activity, voters will have no way to check to see if their votes were accurately cast or counted.

 

Some people see Internet voting as the way most ballots will be cast in the future. They say that if the security is tight, then people should be free to cast their votes online. However, security experts say that right now widespread online voting has significant risks.

 

During the coronavirus epidemic, many states have expanded their vote-by-mail efforts, but only these two states have embraced online voting.

 

Do you support online voting?

Judge Blocks Removal of Lee Statue

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam wants a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee removed from Richmond. A federal judge this week slowed down efforts to take the statue down.

 

In the wake of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, Gov. Northam has ordered the Richmond statue commemorating the Confederate general removed. This statue has long been controversial in the city, with activists and politicians calling for it to be taken down. This is part of a larger movement in Virginia to eliminate monuments and statues that some people see as celebrating the Confederacy and slavery.

 

A federal judge, however, has issued an injunction preventing the governor’s order from taking effect. The judge says that when the state annexed the land the statue was on, it promised to guard and protect the statue. This judge ordered a hearing to examine these issues, and the fate of the statue now depends on the courts.

 

Throughout the nation, there is increased pressure to re-examine the numerous public monuments to people and places connected with slavery and the Confederacy. Those pushing to remove them say that the nation should not celebrate people who fought to protect slavery or who were traitors to the nation. They argue that while we need to remember history, our nation should not put forward these individuals as people to be admired.

 

This campaign has prompted a strong backlash, however. Those opposing it counter that history is complicated, and trying to remove monuments to historical figures is imposing our views on the past. They accuse anti-monument activists and politicians of wanting to erase history.

 

An effort to remove a Confederate statue in Charlottesville, Virginia, prompted widespread violence and one death in that city.

 

Do you think that Confederate monuments should be removed?

Police Unions are Under Scrutiny

The protests over the George Floyd killing and other actions by the law enforcement often include a call to reform police departments. Some observers say that one obstacle to such reforms is police unions, which represent millions of law enforcement officers across the nation.

 

Many cities and counties allow collective bargaining for police officers. The unions that represent these officers bargain for pay, working conditions, and other contract provisions to govern their members. Some of these provisions concern the investigation, discipline, and dismissal of officers who have been accused of misconduct. Some are accusing these provisions of preventing bad officers from being fired and protecting officers from the consequences of unjustified violent action.

 

According to these critics, unions negotiate levels of protection that make it very expensive and difficult for bad police officers to be fired or otherwise disciplined. They point to the fact that the officer who killed George Floyd had numerous complaints filed against him, but he was still working for the Minneapolis police department. One way to improve policing, these critics argue, is to reduce the power of police unions to protect violent police officers.

 

Union leadership pushes back against these concerns, however. They contend that police officers face a uniquely difficult task, one that often results in complaints being filed against police. They argue that police need to have a process that gives them formal protections in order to ensure that they are not unfairly disciplined or fired.

 

Some police union officials have come under fire during recent disturbances resulting from George Floyd’s death. These officials have strongly supported police officials arrested for violence against protestors. Elected officials and marchers say these actions illustrate why police unions need reform, while union officials argue they are merely standing up for their membership who are being unjustly accused of crimes.

 

Do you think that police unions should be ended?

Democrats Outline Federal Police Legislation

In the wake of demonstrations nationwide concerning police conduct, Congressional Democrats this week unveiled legislation that would impose sweeping new changes on the way law enforcement is conducted.

 

Among the things this bill would do are:

  • Banning the use of police chokeholds
  • Removing immunity from lawsuits for police officers
  • Requiring the use of body cameras
  • Prohibiting the use of military-style weapons and equipment in police work
  • Establishing a national database for officers who have a record of abuse complaints

 

The backers of these proposals say they are necessary reforms to end rampant abuses by law enforcement. They argue that the death of George Floyd is only the latest example of police misconduct, and it is long overdue for the federal government to step in and curb abusive police activity.

 

Congressional Republicans are skeptical of the need for federal restrictions on local police. They point out that this would be a large federal takeover of state and local authority. They also note that in the wake of riots and other disturbances, many Americans are welcoming police presence to protect lives and property.

 

In some cities, activists and politicians are demanding that police department budgets be cut or that some troubled departments be disbanded. While this legislation would not accomplish either of those goals, it would impose new federal restrictions on how police operate.

 

House Speaker has said she would like to vote on this legislation by the end of the month. It is unlikely that the Senate will consider that chamber’s version of the legislation.

 

Do you support a federal ban on police chokeholds? Should all police officers be required to wear body cameras? Should there be a federal ban on police using surplus military equipment?

Deep Dive: Proxy Voting

The coronavirus pandemic has changed the way Americans go about their daily lives and work. Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are also affected, and have continued to meet periodically even with stay-at-home orders executed by the Washington, D.C. municipal government.

 

In addition to enforcing social distancing in the legislative chambers and limiting the number of people in the capitol building, the House also changed how its members vote. For the first time, representatives will be able to cast votes by proxy during certain times. This Deep Dive examines how this will work and why it is controversial.

 

What is Proxy Voting?

 

Proxy voting is used when an individual lawmaker cannot be physically present to cast a vote on the floor, so he or she gives permission to another member to cast a vote on his or her behalf. The process involves giving some form of signed slip to the proxy.

 

Traditionally (and, according to some experts, legally), members of the House and Senate must be present in their respective legislative chambers to cast a vote. However, the Senate allows the use of proxy voting in committee. The House of Representatives allowed proxy voting in committee until 1995, when then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich brought about rule changes that halted the practice.

 

Recent Proxy Voting Rules Change

 

On May 15, the House of Representatives adopted House Resolution 965 by a vote of 217-189. This resolution allows the following:

 

  • A House member to designate a proxy to vote on his or her behalf
  • When " a public health emergency due to a novel coronavirus is in effect," the House Speaker can designate a period when proxy voting can occur
  • This proxy voting period can last up to 45 days, with 45-day extensions allowed.
  • House committees can meet remotely during such periods in some instances, but may not hold executive sessions closed to the public.
  • The House shall study the feasibility and legality of remote voting

 

How Proxy Voting Works

 

A House member who wishes to vote by proxy must first find another member who will be physically present in the chamber and agrees to vote on that member's behalf. The member looking to vote by proxy must then notify the House clerk by letter. The clerk must receive a hard copy of the letter signed by the member personally. To revoke or alter the designation of a proxy vote, the member can send another letter to the clerk.

 

The member must then send written instructions to his or her proxy prior to each vote. The holder of the proxy cannot vote on another member's behalf unless he or she has such written instructions.

 

When a vote occurs, the member holding the proxy must obtain recognition from the Speaker of the House and announce, "As the Member designated by [NAME] pursuant to House Resolution 965, I inform the House that [NAME] will vote yea/nay/present.” The proxy holder will then take a card, vote, and designate that vote "by proxy." In the Congressional Record, the proxy votes will be noted separately from other votes.

 

Once a member revokes his or her proxy voting designation, the designee can no longer cast votes on that member's behalf. That designation is also automatically revoked if the member who requested the designation votes in person on the House floor.

 

Controversy and Lawsuit

 

On May 27, Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA) cast a proxy vote for Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA). It was the first time such a vote was cast in the House. In total, 72 Democratic House members used this process to cast votes through 42 proxies that were present in the House chamber.

 

Prior to the vote, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy filed a lawsuit against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, alleging that proxy voting was unconstitutional. He was joined by dozens of House Republicans. The suit hinges on the use of words like "assemble" and "meet" in the Constitution when there are references to Congress. These House members contend that the writers of the Constitution envisioned members of Congress physically meeting and casting votes while being present in these meetings. The lawsuit notes that proxy voting in unprecedented during floor votes in either chamber.

 

Those supporting proxy voting argue that the House rules prohibited such voting in the past, not the Constitution. With the passage of HR 965, this changed House rules and now members can legally cast proxy votes. They point out that the Constitution does not say anywhere it in that members must be physically present to vote. They go further and note that Article I, Section V, says, " Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings."

 

House Speaker Pelosi argues that proxy voting is a good way to allow Congress to function in the midst of a pandemic. Those opposing proxy voting counter that this is a way to give House leadership more control and dilute the voting power of individual House members. Some opponents of proxy voting also argue that the legality of legislation passed by such votes could be questioned.

 

What This Means for You

 

Concerns about the safety of members of Congress during the coronavirus pandemic led to cancelled legislative sessions and delays in votes. Proxy voting will allow the House of Representatives to function with fewer members present during the current pandemic and future pandemics. While this reduces these members’ need to travel and helps facilitate congressional sessions, there are also concerns about the legality of proxy voting, and the prospect that it could erode the power of individual members of Congress.

 

Los Angeles Looking at Cutting Police Funding

Police are facing scrutiny for their actions around the nation. In Los Angeles, city leadership is trying to cut their budget.

 

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has said he will look for $150 million in cuts to the Los Angeles Police Department budget. He said that other city departments are facing cuts due to the coronavirus epidemic, and that the police department should face cuts due to racial justice.

 

Prior to the mayor’s move, members of the city council had introduced resolutions calling for the same amount of budget cuts. These council members say this is one way they can introduce change to the way policing is done in California.

 

Cutting funding for police departments is becoming a popular issue for people who are upset with law enforcement actions in the wake of the George Floyd killing. They argue that the money going to police departments could be better spent on helping the community instead of paying for what they perceive as oppression.

 

Opponents of this move say these cuts will endanger public safety. They point to the unrest currently occurring and argue that it is more important than ever that police have the tools necessary to protect people and property.

 

Mayor Garcetti has said he will look to redirect money from the LAPD to other community programs.

 

Do you think that the budget for police forces should be cut?

Trump, Pentagon Clash on Insurrection Act

President Trump is frustrated that rioting and looting continue across the U.S. To stop it, he has threatened to use the U.S. military to restore order. This has prompted his Defense Secretary to issue a public disagreement with his boss.

 

This week, President Trump addressed the nation from the Rose Garden and said, ““If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.”

 

Federal law prohibits the use of active duty military personnel within the United States except in rare instances. One of the exceptions comes from the Insurrection Act, which permits troops to be used in the case of insurrections or rebellions. Presidents such as Dwight Eisenhower and George W. Bush have used this law to deal with riots.

 

Defense Secretary Mark Esper disagrees that the current situation warrants the use of the act, however. He said that invoking the Insurrection Act should be done as a “last resort and only in the most urgent and dire of situations.” He then said that the situation right now does not meet those criteria.

 

The governors and mayors targeted by Trump’s words also reject the need to call in the military. They say that armed troops will only make the situation worse. They prefer to be left alone to handle any rioting and looting their own way, without having the president override their decisions.

 

Do you think that President Trump should activate the military to deal with rioting?

New Federal Rule Will Speed Up Pipeline Approval

The Environmental Protection Agency has finalized a rule that will limit the ability of states to use federal law to delay or stop pipeline projects.

 

Under a change to the regulations that administer the Clean Water Act, states will have one year to voice objections to pipelines that cross their waterways. The new rule also says that these objections must be limited to water quality concerns. If states take longer than a year to complete their review, or they include other matters in their objection, the federal government will issue permits to the pipeline company.

 

The Trump Administration accused states of using this law to impose years of delay on energy infrastructure projects. Officials also said that these states were going beyond the bounds of the law to stop or delay pipelines based on criteria that had nothing to do with clean water. EPA officials argue that this change in the rules will allow states to voice legitimate concerns over projects but will not give them power to drag out the process and stop important national infrastructure from being built.

 

Environmentalists and some state officials are strongly opposed to this new move. They contend that this is a way for the Trump Administration to favor fossil fuel companies over environmental concerns. They also note that this is diminishes states’ power to protect their waterways.

 

Groups opposed to the new rule have vowed to fight it in court.

 

Do you think that states should have the power to delay pipeline projects for multiple years over environmental concerns?

Supreme Court Upholds California’s Coronavirus Restrictions on Churches

A California church has lost its appeal to be exempt from California Governor Gavin Newsom’s coronavirus shutdown order.

 

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court denied a Chula Vista church’s request to issue an injunction stopping the enforcement of an order that forbids it from opening. The church argued that the California governor was infringing upon the First Amendment by keeping the church shut down.

 

A majority of the high court disagreed, however. Writing for that majority, Chief Justice Roberts said that the state’s orders treated the church the same as similar secular businesses. His opinion said that it is not an infringement on the First Amendment if the government regulates churches in the same manner as other businesses with similar safety concerns, like concerts or sporting events.

 

Four justices dissented, however, arguing that the California governor is allowing some places to re-open with social distancing restrictions. The Chula Vista church has said it could abide by these same restrictions, so it should not be prohibited from opening. The dissenting justices agreed, and argued it is unconstitutional to treat churches differently than these other businesses.

 

This is the first case the Supreme Court has decided that deals with coronavirus restrictions.

 

Do you think that states should allow churches to open as governors relax coronavirus restrictions? Or should states continue to restrict church gathering because they pose too much risk of spreading the virus?

Copyright © 2018 Votespotter Inc. All rights reserved.