$758 Billion Dollar Defense Bill Passes With Flying Colors in Senate

Link to Article


On Tuesday, December 10th, the Senate voted to pass a bipartisan $758 billion defense policy bill. The 86-8 vote passed with flying colors and is one of the most expensive military measures in United States history. Some new measures in the bill are a 3% increase in pay for troops and authorization for Trump's Space Force, a new sixth branch of the American military. The bill also included Democratic priorities, such as 12 week paid paternal leave for civilian employees. The bill was then sent to President Trump, who signed it, causing the bill to go into effect.

The new measure also includes opposition to projects from foreign governments including Russia, Turkey, and China. For instance, one measure includes sanctions to resist construction of the Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which purpose is to reduce reliance on Ukraine to deliver gas to Europe. Another measure would prevent Turkey from obtaining American F-35 fighter jets. Foreign Minister of Turkey, Mevlut Cavusoglu has threatened sanctions to the United States in response. In action against China, the bill prohibits the commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, from removing the Chinese company Huawei from a entity-list, which bans American corporations from contributing to foreign companies that are deemed potential security threats, which Huawei was put on for concerns of them spying on Americans via their devices.

Democrats had extensive efforts to include provisions meant to limit the president's power, especially on military matters. For instance, after failure to include many of these provisions, they attempted to restrict powers relating to declaring war and relocating military construction fund to pay for the wall on the southern border. These provisions were eventually dropped after much opposition from Republicans.

The bill has a significant to foreign policy as many of the sanctions provided could lead to worse relationships with these governments and more sanctions against the United States in response. It also has a large impact on the budget, as $758 billion is a lot of money that would lead to further debt and could be used in other areas. Senator Sanders also reflected this grievance, stating “call me a radical, but maybe before funding a new space force, we should make sure no American goes bankrupt because of a medical bill or dies because they can’t afford to go to a doctor on time.”

1. Is $758 billion dollars for a defense policy bill too much? Is spending on the Space Force just a total waste of money? Can it be spent in more important areas or be used to alleviate debt? 

2. Are the sanctions provided on Turkey and other foreign governments beneficial? Would sanctions on the United States in response make them overall harmful in the long run? Should the United States even be involved in these foreign affairs?

3. Were Democrat's efforts to impose provisions on the president's power in violation of any defined presidential powers in the Constitution? Should Republicans have compromised on some of these provisions?

Ambassador Sondland confirms quid pro quo in house testimony

link to article

In a crucial testimony for house democrats, Gordon Sondland gave new key points to aid the impeachment hearings. With a somewhat confusing account of Trump's actions, Sondland was able to confirm that military aid was withheld from Ukraine in order to find more information on the Bidens.

While Trump had told Sondland that he wanted "no quid pro quo," Sondland's response to when asked about it was "yes," there was quid pro quo.

Sondland continued to touch up on the points the president made in their phone calls, where Trump was attempting to dodge conversations about aid. Sondland also cleared up that when he was first aware of the events that had occurred, he lobbied for a better explanation of the delay.

Arguably the most crucial statement made by Sondland came when he said that "everyone was in the loop" and "it was no secret." Sondland's statement helps highlight the corruption in the Trump organization and White House. Schiff and other house democrats will use Sondland's testimony to help push impeachment and conviction hearings. 

1. Even if Trump is impeached, what further information is needed to convict him in the Republican Senate?

2. What impact will Sondland's statement that "everyone [was] in the loop" on Trump's associates if he is convicted?

3. Most of the time Trump attacks those who give testimony against him, however in this case he told reporters that he "[didn't] know him very well," does that give any validity to Sondland's statements?

Sworn in President Jeanine Añez Put In a Tough Position of Power

Link to Article

Former Second Vice President of the Bolivian Senate Jeanine Añez was sworn in as new president of Bolivia as of last week after the resignation and exile of Evo Morales along with other Bolivian politicians ultimately striving to "unite the country and restore it to the path" saying to reporters. So far according to critics she has done the complete opposite.

Recently, this past Thursday as a way to restore order to the country Añez "issued a presidential decree exempting the military from criminal prosecution." The next day coca farmers were protesting against the government in the city of Cochabamba where police opened fire on many protesters resulting in several injuries and 9 deaths. 



Unlike former president Evo Morales, Añez is Catholic and she has made it a priority to have Catholicism as part of the government by "swearing in her ministers in front of a large Bible and making speeches shadowed by an aide carrying a cross." For the majority of Bolivia the main religion is Christianity however, Catholicism within politics is often associated with the conservative governments that were notorious for treating the indigenous population like second class citizens. This transition creates discomfort for the rather large indigenous population in Bolivia based on the history of Catholic based governments as well as how the constitution of Bolivia is classified as secular. 

Since being sworn in she has altered foreign policy by appointing a new foreign minister, Karen Longaric and has immediately cut ties with the alliances of former president Evo Morales such as President Maduro of Venezuela and Cuba. Recently deporting hundreds of Cuban doctors working in the country ultimately breaking off any socialist alliances with Bolivia. 


Some questions:
1) If Añez's goal is to unify the country, is breaking off all the alliances that are affiliated with Evo Morales aligned in the best interests of Bolivia?

2) How will Añez's Catholic backed government overall affect the prominent indigenous population of Bolivia overtime?

3) Will Añez be successful in creating a transparent election process? Why or why not?

The Supreme Court may side with President Trump in the  canceling of DACA.

Link to the article

In September, 2017 Homeland security Elaine Duke, announce the cancellation of DACA for one sole reason; "that the policy was unlawful and unconstitutional". Since then their have been fear in the Dreamers in what would be their future. This Tuesday the Supreme Court held hearings and was set to get a final verdict in the end of June 2020, in the heat of the 2020 elections. 

Conservative say that the president had all legal right in canceling the DACA program. However, the democrats and the lover courts sated that the decision of ending DACA was "arbitrary and capricious". The battle still stand in whether that President administration followed the requirement in giving a reason of "changes on the sound reasoning that is explained to the public".


Due, to President Trump already leaving his mark in the Supreme Court, the chances of winning is minimal. It is 4 v 5 in the position in the Supreme Court, in where the republicans party have the majority.  Chief Justice John Roberts is the key vote in the final decision. He voted against President Trump in his effort in adding a citizen question in the 2020 census. Even if the court rule in the favor in calcining the DACA, Trump said that he would still negotiate with democrats. Although, he would ask for  fund to his wall.

If the ruling would to favor Trump administration, it would hinder the 700,000 people in DACA, with out a place to in america. But, if a Democrat win the presidential election, the new president could reverse ruling in reenactment of the program.


Can the public appose the ruling of the Supreme Court for it to be reconsidered?

Who is the most likely to win in the supreme court decision?

Do you think that the democrats would need to cave in to President Trump demands to at least give another status to the dreamers? Or would they need to run on a democratic president to win the 2020 election to reverse the decision?


If the Dreamers win, what other tactics do you think President Trump would do to get his funds in building his wall?

Are Firearm Companies Liable for the Aftermath of Shootings?

Are Firearm Companies Liable for the Aftermath of Shootings?

Link to article

The Supreme Court will decide by the rule of four whether to grant a writ of certiorari for the families of the Sandy Hook victims against the manufacturers of Remington Firearms. The families of the Sandy Hook victims are hoping that the Supreme Court will hear their case, and find gun companies liable for shootings based on how they market their product. 

The Protection of Lawful Commerce passed in 2005 protects gun manufacturers from being liable from crimes that involve their products. The families claim that Remington was advertising to disturbed young men. They also claim they used the military and incited violence in their advertising for one of their rifles.

                             

This is ruling can have a huge impact on the firearms industry and second amendment rights. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case they can reverse one of the gun industries biggest wins in legislation. Also the NRA has said that the law will make the firearm industry disappear. 

If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case it can be very controversial with the court, and the outcome can have a very big impact on second amendment rights. If the Supreme Court rules that firearm manufacturers are liable for shootings it will become very difficult for firearm companies to sell their products. Also it will set precedent for further cases that can eventually cause the firearm industry to run out of business. 

1. What would be the benefits to having firearm manufacturers be liable for the aftermath of shootings?

2. Would it be successful to restrict marketing techniques of firearm manufactures in order to prevent mass shootings?

3. Would Trump be considered more of a success with the right if the Supreme Court heard the case and decided to not rule in favor of the Sandy Hook families?

Supreme Court blocks 2020 census citizenship question for now, handing Trump administration a major defeat

Link to Article

The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Trump administration's plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census Thursday, giving opponents new hope of defeating it.

The ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the rationale for the administration's effort, just as challenging states and immigrant rights groups have done.

In a complex decision with several dissents and concurrences, the court's four liberal justices said they would have struck down the citizenship question outright, while the court's four other conservative justices said it should have been upheld.

The court's decision doesn't end the dispute. A separate challenge to the administration's motive for asking the citizenship question remains alive in another federal district court. That inquiry could drag on for much of the summer, jeopardizing the timetable for printing the census questionnaire.

Opponents contended that adding the question was an effort to scare non-citizens into avoiding the census. That in turn would require expanding largely Democratic congressional districts, potentially reducing their overall number. It could cost California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and Arizona seats in Congress. 

Though it had appeared during oral argument that all the court's conservative justices were on the administration's side, Roberts proved the deciding vote.

The lower court judges – all named by President Barack Obama – described acts of subterfuge and misleading statements intended to obscure the real reasons for asking the citizenship question.

1. What are arguments made for the side that favors implementation of the citizenship question on the new census?

2. What are arguments made for the side that does not favor implementation of the citizenship question on the new census?

3. What past Supreme Court rulings provided the current justices with a precedent for which to help make their decision? Did they make the right decision?

Facebook adopts a Hands-Off Stance on Political Ads: Was it the right choice?

Dissent Erupts at Facebook Over Hands-Off Stance on Political Ads

Attention has been brought to the authenticity of political ads on Facebook and raises the question of whether adopting a hands-off stance on political ads is ethical, and if not ethical, whether prohibiting free expression on social media goes against the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

A little background on the issue: It started with a letter written by Facebook's employees that disparages Zuckerberg and his executives' decision to let politicians post any claims they wanted —even false ones — in ads on the site. It also urges the leaders of Facebook to reconsider their stance, positing that Facebook's position on political advertising is "a threat to what FB stands for".

"Free speech and paid speech are not the same thing", the employees wrote and claims that Facebook's current policy gives political corporations the power to "weaponize" Facebook's platform and target people who places utmost trust in content posted by political figures.

In addition to resistance from within, Facebook has also been facing criticism and condemnation from presidential elections, lawmakers and civil rights groups. This is largely due to what President Trump did a month ago. His campaign had begun circulating an ad for Facebook that makes false claims about former vice president Joeseph R. Biden Jr., who is running for president. When Biden's campaign had asked Facebook to remove the ad, the company had refused, claiming "ads from politicians were newsworthy and important for discourse"

In response to this, Zuckerberg reinforces his defense of the issue on premises of the rights given by the Constitution to American people: freedom of expression. “People having the power to express themselves at scale is a new kind of force in the world — a Fifth Estate alongside the other power structures of society,” Mr. Zuckerberg said in a 5000-word speech to students at Georgetown University.

What happens next however, is left to be seen, as every party involved in the matter stood their ground on how they believe the issue should be resolved. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat running for president, has made her position clear by buying a political ad on Facebook that falsely claimed Mr. Zuckerberg and his company supported Mr. Trump for president, challenging Zuckerberg to how far she could take it on the site. As of now, Zuckerberg has not responded in action, simply stating that Facebook’s policies would be seen positively in the long run, especially when compared with policies in countries like China, where the government suppresses online speech.

This issue is significant to our current studies in class, as it not only brings light to an essential aspect of the political campaigning: the media, and raises the question of whether or not political advertising is ethical if the information presented is misleading, but also allows us to observe a real-life scenario in which freedom of expression does not necessarily have a positive effect, which could potentially instigate the creation of a bill that prohibits misleading political campaigns.

Here's my question: Should politicians be given free rein in media advertising? And would stifling and filtering political messages on the media because they are misleading be a violation of the 1st Amendment?