Free Archives - Page 19 of 23 - Close Up Foundation

Primary Voting Begins: Iowa and New Hampshire

Posted on January 29, 2020December 9, 2022 by Ashleigh Barber

From left: Former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Bernie Sanders, and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg

What Should You Watch for in the Democratic Primaries?

The next month features four nominating contests: the Iowa caucuses (February 3), the New Hampshire primary (February 11), the Nevada caucuses (February 22), and the South Carolina primary (February 29).¹ A great deal of polling has been done to determine voters’ favorites in these contests, particularly in Iowa and New Hampshire. However, looking at current aggregate polling for those two states, the probable outcome is anything but clear:

Source: Real Clear Politics³

At first glance, the numbers above indicate that Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has an edge in both New Hampshire and Iowa primary elections, but there are several potential confounding factors. For one, these rankings have alternated for months, with Sanders, former Vice President Joe Biden, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) all having occupied the top spot in each state at least once since primary season began in 2019.^{4, 5}

Second, a number of voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have not yet decided on a candidate. Recent polling indicates that as many as 60 percent of voters in those states are undecided, and that at the very least, a sizable minority of voters still remain uncommitted.⁶

READ: Close Up In Class examines the presidential nominating process and the early voting status of Iowa and New Hampshire

What about the Republican Party?

As the sitting president, President Donald Trump is all but guaranteed to be the Republican nominee (no sitting president has lost the nomination since President Franklin Pierce in 1852).⁷ Several states have even decided not to have Republican primaries or caucuses at all, despite the fact that several candidates are technically running against President Trump.⁸

How Does 2020 Compare to Other Primary Seasons?

In 2016, polling showed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a small but clear lead over Sanders in Iowa; in New Hampshire, Sanders was much further in front of Clinton. When the time came for voting, Clinton barely beat Sanders in Iowa (by 0.25%); in New Hampshire, Sanders handily beat Clinton and even did slightly better than the pre-election polls had suggested.

On the Republican side in 2016, now-President Trump slightly led Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in polling, but Cruz ultimately beat Trump by 3.3%. In New Hampshire just over a week later, Trump had a significant lead in the polls and did slightly better than the polls predicted when votes were cast.

Source: Real Clear Politics ^{9, 10}

In many ways, the 2020 Democratic primary season is more similar to the 2016 Republican primary season. In each, the party had a large field of candidates at first; by the time primary voting began, there were still several viable candidates. Republicans in 2016 also had a clear sense of running against Clinton in the same way that Democrats in 2020 know they will be running against President Trump.

So, Why Does All of This Matter?

A victory in Iowa or New Hampshire does not guarantee a candidate’s victory overall. However, a strong performance or an unexpected result sometimes makes or breaks a campaign. Winning the first contest in Iowa grants legitimacy to a candidate, especially if that candidate has never run in a presidential primary (like Buttigieg or Warren). Winning one or both contests would prove that a candidate could compete with more established candidates, like Biden or Sanders. For example, people cite the relatively unknown Senator Barack Obama’s win over the widely known Clinton in Iowa in 2008 as a turning point in the race between them.¹¹

Alternatively, a win in Iowa and/or New Hampshire for Biden or Sanders could help solidify their positions and signal to other candidates that the time has come to rally around them. On the other hand, losing, or even just barely winning, in Iowa and New Hampshire could have negative consequences for their arguments, especially if they lose out to newcomers like Buttigieg or Warren.

Of course, it’s also possible that the results of Iowa and New Hampshire could have little significance at all. The two remaining contests in February can also reinvigorate a campaign. Governor Bill Clinton (D-Ark.) famously lost both Iowa and New Hampshire in 1992, but his large margin of victory in South Carolina less than a month later earned him the nickname “The Comeback Kid” and helped propel him to the nomination.¹²In addition, March sees many more contests dealing with much larger populations, and the results of those primaries and caucuses will likely make a frontrunner clear.

Discussion Questions:

What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of having many candidates to choose from in a primary or caucus?
In February 2020, there will be four contests for Democrats: in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. Each of these states is intended to represent a different part of the country. Do you agree with these choices?
Under New Hampshire law, the state is required to hold the first primary in the country; Iowa state law similarly mandates that the Iowa caucuses be held at least eight days before any other nominating contest. Are these good enough reasons for Iowa and New Hampshire to be the first states to cast votes?
Some have suggested that instead of state-by-state/week-to-week contests, all primaries should be held on one date, similar to the general election. Do you agree/disagree with this idea? Why?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: https://people.com/politics/top-democratic-candidates-2020-list-poll-numbers-names-fundraising/

[1] People: https://people.com/politics/top-democratic-candidates-2020-list-poll-numbers-names-fundraising/

[2] 270toWin.com: https://www.270towin.com/2020-election-calendar/

[3] Real Clear Politics: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html

[4] Ibid

[5] Real Clear Politics: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-6276.html

[6] Los Angeles Times: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-16/iowa-caucus-nears-undecided-voters-feel-the-pressure

[7] NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/politicaljunkie/2009/07/a_president_denied_renominatio.html

[8] Fortune: https://fortune.com/2019/10/10/trump-2020-republican-primaries-cancelled/

[9] Real Clear Politics: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html

[10] Real Clear Politics: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-3350.html

[11] BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7171282.stm

[12] IdeaStream.org: https://www.ideastream.org/news/with-a-month-to-go-before-iowa-and-new-hampshire-anything-can-happen

U.S.-Iranian Relations Following the Death of Qasem Soleimani

Posted on January 13, 2020February 13, 2023 by Ashleigh Barber

On January 2, 2020, it was announced that an air strike ordered by President Donald Trump had successfully targeted and killed Qasem Soleimani, chief of the Quds Force, at Baghdad International Airport. The Quds Force is regarded as the elite unit of Iran’s military; it handles overseas operations and is classified as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States. Soleimani and his troops have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members, as well as the wounding of thousands more.¹

Soleimani’s killing follows an Iranian attack on December 27, 2019, against a U.S. military base in Iraq, and a coordinated assault on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Both of these attacks were commanded by Soleimani.² In a statement, the Department of Defense explained that the strike was “aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”³ The day after Soleimani’s death, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that there was an imminent threat of attack, plotted by Soleimani, that would have put many American lives at risk.⁴

The news of President Trump’s order to kill Soleimani has received both praise and criticism from members of Congress. Republican lawmakers have largely applauded the strike, arguing that it brought justice to many American military families; they also insist that the Quds Force would be to blame for any escalation that comes.⁵ Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, meanwhile, has stated that the administration’s action risks provoking further escalation of violence around the world.⁶ Many Democrats fear that the consequences of the strike could lead to another war in the Middle East.⁷ The divided response from Congress on the legality of the attack has also reignited a debate on presidential war powers.

There has been criticism from congressional Republicans as well. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) said that the administration’s effort to explain the attack was “probably the worst briefing I have seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I’ve served in the United States Senate.” Senator Lee added, “What I found so distressing about the briefing is one of the messages we received from the briefers was, ‘Do not debate, do not discuss the issue of the appropriateness of further military intervention against Iran,’ and that if you do, ‘You will be emboldening Iran.’”⁸ Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) added, “I think it’s sad when people have this fake sort of drape of patriotism, and anybody that disagrees with them is not a patriot. … For him to insult and say that somehow we’re not as patriotic as he is—he hasn’t even read the Constitution … he insults the Constitution, our Founding Fathers, and what we do stand for in this republic by making light of it and accusing people of lacking patriotism.”⁹

Even with those questions and critiques from President Trump’s fellow Republicans, it is unlikely that the Senate will take actions to curb the president’s authority. On January 9, the House of Representatives passed a concurrent resolution to restrict the administration’s authority to strike Iran without congressional approval. The resolution now heads to the Senate, but it is less likely to pass in that chamber. Meanwhile, House leadership is considering further action to reduce the president’s authority to act without the input of Congress.¹⁰

While U.S.-Iran relations have long been tense and unsettled, those relations have become have become increasingly contentious in recent years. With the United States’ withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, the reinstatement of sanctions in 2018, and Iran’s recent attacks on U.S. personnel, the hope for improved relations still seems distant.

Discussion Questions

Do you think the United States was right to kill Soleimani? Why or why not?
Was the attack on Soleimani a proper response to the December attacks on Americans? Why or why not?
Why do you think members of Congress are so divided in their response?
How does this impact U.S. troops abroad?
Do you think the killing of Soleimani has lessened or heightened the risk of an Iranian attack against the United States?
What should the balance of power be between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to military action?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200102230543-qassem-soleimani-file-2016-restricted-exlarge-169.jpg

[1] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/03/asia/soleimani-profile-intl-hnk/index.html

[2] The Hill: https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/476632-soleimani-is-dead-but-the-enemy-still-stands

[3] Department of Defense: https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2049534/statement-by-the-department-of-defense/

[4] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-blast-target/iranian-commander-soleimani-had-been-in-pompeos-sights-for-years-idUSKBN1Z21UT

[5] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/us/politics/us-iran-war.html

[6] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/world/middleeast/iranian-general-qassem-soleimani-killed.html

[7] Ibid.

[8] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/08/most-disturbing-part-mike-lees-broadside-against-trump-administrations-iran-briefing/

[9] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/09/why-dont-mike-lee-rand-paul-have-support/

[10] CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/war-powers-resolution-house-votes-to-limit-trumps-ability-act-against-iran/

The Death Penalty: A Just Punishment?

Posted on December 4, 2019August 8, 2023 by Ashleigh Barber

On November 15, 2019, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals suspended the execution of Rodney Reed and sent his case back to trial, due to new witness testimony that pointed to his innocence and raised concerns about how evidence was handled during the initial trial.¹ Since 1977, at least 166 inmates have been released from death row after new evidence came forward or problems were found in the trial procedures.²

Currently, 29 states have death penalty laws, and the federal government recently announced that it would resume executions after a 16-year hiatus. Attorney General William Barr has scheduled five death sentences to be carried out by the end of the year, all in cases involving horrifying murder (and, in some cases, sexual assault as well). Seven states have carried out 20 executions this year,³ the lowest number since 1976, when the Supreme Court found in Gregg v. Georgia that the death penalty does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.⁴ Among the factors hindering the pace of federal executions are the difficulty of obtaining the drugs necessary for lethal injection, as well as declining support for the death penalty among the public,⁵ possibly due to lower rates of violent crime and the recent exoneration of some death row inmates.⁶

On November 25, 2019, Gallup released the results of a new survey indicating for the first time that Americans now prefer life in prison with no possibility of parole over the death penalty when a person is convicted of murder. Support for life in prison rose from 45 percent in 2014 to 60 percent in the most recent survey; support for the death penalty dropped from 50 percent to 36 percent. However, 56 percent of Americans still broadly support the death penalty, even if they prefer life in prison as a just punishment for convicted murderers.⁷

Although capital punishment has been a controversial issue for decades, researchers from the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit that tracks death penalty statistics, noted that “[t]his year has had an extraordinarily high percentage of cases in which there is very serious evidence that people who did not commit the killing are being subjected to death warrants.”⁸ As such, policymakers are considering and reconsidering whether or not the death penalty is an appropriate way to deliver justice.

Both supporters and opponents of the death penalty are vehemently opposed to any innocent person being put to death. But supporters insist that some crimes are so terrible that death is the only suitable punishment. They also argue that the possibility of a death sentence helps prevent crime from happening in the first place.⁹ In response to Attorney General Barr’s decision to schedule executions for five federal prisoners, victims’ advocates pointed out that some families find it extremely painful to wait years or decades for an execution that they see as closure and justice for their loved one(s).¹⁰ For his part, President Donald Trump supports the death penalty and has called for using capital punishment for mass shooters and drug traffickers.¹¹

Opposing opinions on the death penalty point to inmates like Reed, who was convicted and sentenced to death even though his blood did not match the blood found under the victim’s fingernails and observers have contested the legitimacy of the central evidence in his case.¹² Critics argue that the justice system can be flawed, and that there is always a risk that an innocent person could be executed. Opponents also note that even when guilt is certain—as it was in the case of Daniel Lewis Lee, who was convicted of murdering a couple and their child—judgments of who receives the death penalty can be arbitrary and unfair. For example, Lee’s co-conspirator, Chevie Kehoe, received a life sentence even though most accounts point to Kehoe as instigating the violence.¹³

For further reading on the death penalty, please see Close Up in Class’ Controversial Issue in the News on the subject.

Discussion Questions:

Do you support the death penalty? Why or why not?
What type(s) of crime, if any, should warrant the death penalty?
How should policymakers respond to the problem of potentially innocent people serving on death row?
How should public opinion factor into death penalty decisions made by judges and justices?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Associated Press

[1] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/rodney-reed-texas-execution.html

[2] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/us/death-penalty-rodney-reed-crimes.html

[3] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-executions/ex-judges-families-of-murder-victims-call-for-halt-to-us-federal-death-penalty-idUSKBN1XN046

[4] Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/74-6257

[5] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-executions/ex-judges-families-of-murder-victims-call-for-halt-to-us-federal-death-penalty-idUSKBN1XN046

[6] Gallup: https://news.gallup.com/poll/268514/americans-support-life-prison-death-penalty.aspx

[7] Ibid.

[8] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/us/death-penalty-rodney-reed-crimes.html

[9] BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/for_1.shtml

[10] The Gazette: https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/public-safety/execution-for-iowa-mass-killer-dustin-honken-on-hold-20191121

[11] WhiteHouse.gov: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-mass-shootings-texas-ohio/

[12] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/rodney-reed-texas-execution.html

[13] Los Angeles Times: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-11-12/rod-reed-ray-cromartie-kardashian-injustice-capital-punishment

Political Ads on Social Media

Posted on November 25, 2019January 30, 2023 by Ashleigh Barber

On October 30, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced that, effective November 22, Twitter would ban all political advertising on its platform. Dorsey justified the decision by explaining that political ads present “entirely new challenges to civic discourse.”¹ Twitter’s sweeping decision was not an arbitrary one; it was the result of a new wave of scrutiny and criticism over the way social media companies manage political advertising, especially when the ads in question are false or misleading.

This past month, President Donald Trump’s campaign ran ads baselessly accusing his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, and Biden’s son, of a corruption conspiracy in Ukraine. The videos were viewed millions of times and allowed to stay up on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other social media websites.² When the Biden campaign asked Facebook to remove the ads, the company refused, citing the “newsworthiness” of the political statements, even though they were not supported by evidence.³ Katie Harbath, Facebook’s head of global elections policy, explained, “Our approach is grounded in Facebook’s fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is.”⁴

Facebook was previously reluctant to police content back in May, when it allowed a doctored video of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi—one that was slowed down and made her appear drunk—to remain on the website. The company has also faced intense criticism for its failure to both prevent and acknowledge the distribution of Russian propaganda during the 2016 election. Russian state agents were able to buy thousands of ads, target specific users, and spread fake news to sow confusion, discord, and division.⁵ Facebook responded with fact-checks to accompany dubious posts and made ad information—such as the purchaser, the amount paid, and the audience reach—publicly accessible. Still, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said that he sees the value of not moderating ad content, noting, “In a democracy, I don’t think it’s right for private companies to censor politicians, or the news.”⁶

To criticize Facebook’s ad policies, Senator Elizabeth Warren ran an intentionally false ad on the website, claiming that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg had endorsed President Donald Trump.

Twitter’s ban on political advertising includes all “ads that refer to an election or a candidate” and “ads that advocate for or against legislative issues of national importance.” However, the site will still allow ads that promote voter registration information.⁷ While Facebook does not require political ads to be accurate, it has removed several ads by the campaigns of President Trump, Biden, and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) due to unrelated policy violations, such as the use of profanity, misleading links, and/or fake buttons.⁸ This shows a willingness by Facebook, however small, to regulate and reject ads by using some standardized criteria.

Social media has become an increasingly effective tool for politicians to reach and influence voters. According to Advertising Analytics, about $152 million has been spent on digital ads by the 2020 presidential candidates thus far, with online advertising making up 57.5 percent of their total ad spending.⁹ This isn’t surprising, considering the fact that people increasingly rely on their social media accounts as sources of news and information. Twitter has approximately 126 million daily users, while Facebook has over 1.2 billion daily users worldwide.¹⁰

The decisions of Twitter and Facebook have highlighted the tensions regarding content regulation and the partisan divide that accompanies them. Warren has derided Facebook as a “disinformation-for-profit machine,” and her campaign even created a purposely false Facebook ad to underscore the point.¹¹ Facebook’s inaction concerns those who fear a repeat of what happened in 2016.

Likewise, Twitter has attracted criticism for banning political ads altogether. Brad Parscale, the manager of President Trump’s 2020 campaign, called it “yet another attempt to silence conservatives, since Twitter knows President Trump has the most sophisticated online program ever known.”¹² Many lesser-known candidates at the grassroots level are also concerned that they may be inadvertently suppressed, as they often turn to online advertising for its broad reach and relatively small costs.

Discussion Questions

How frequently do you see political ads online?
How pressing of an issue do you believe fake news and disinformation on social media to be?
Should politicians be required to make sure everything they post is accurate?
What action(s) should social media companies take regarding political ads? (Banning them completely like Twitter, allowing them to say anything like Facebook, something in between?)
Should there be laws or campaign regulations that hold candidates’ advertising to a standard of truth?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: WFAE/Twitter

[1] Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack/status/1189634369016586240

[2] Vox: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/9/20906612/trump-campaign-ad-joe-biden-ukraine-facebook

[3] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/technology/elizabeth-warren-facebook-ad.html

[4] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/technolog y/facebook-trump-biden-ad.html

[5] House Intelligence Committee: https://intelligence.house.gov/social-media-content/

[6] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/technology/facebooks-earnings-and-revenue-jump-topping-forecasts.html?module=inline

[7] Twitter: https://twitter.com/vijaya/status/1189664481263046656

[8] BuzzFeed News: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/facebook-warren-biden-trump-ads-take-down-profanity

[9] Axios: https://www.axios.com/2020-presidential-campaign-advertising-online-tv-8e036c37-68cc-48e4-861e-52ab26b42b6d.html

[10] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/02/07/twitter-reveals-its-daily-active-user-numbers-first-time/

[11] Elizabeth Warren via Twitter: https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1183019880867680256

[12] Trump Campaign via Twitter: https://twitter.com/parscale/status/1189656652250845184

Vaping: Free Market vs. Consumer Safety

Posted on November 19, 2019July 23, 2022 by Ashleigh Barber

On September 11, 2019, President Donald Trump told reporters that his administration was considering a ban on flavored vaping products.¹ This announcement came after a sometimes-fatal, vaping-related illness began appearing across the United States. On November 18, the Trump administration seemed to reverse course under pressure from constituents² and corporate donors,³ announcing that no new regulations would be put in place at this time.

Vaping is the use of electronic cigarettes (often stylized as e-cigarettes). E-cigarettes are battery-operated devices that heat a liquid into a vapor that is inhaled.⁴ E-cigarettes can contain an assortment of substances, including nicotine and THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, the active compound in marijuana). E-cigarettes can also come in various flavors that mimic candies, soft drinks, or fruits. The flavoring of e-cigarettes has sparked nationwide discourse about the free market and consumer safety principles.

Opponents of flavored e-cigarettes claim that such products add to the influx of adolescents becoming addicted to nicotine. Prior to the rise of e-cigarettes, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported downward trends in tobacco consumption. However, “since 2014, e-cigarettes have been the most commonly used tobacco product among U.S. middle and high school students. Between 2017 and 2018 alone, the number of youth who used e-cigarettes went up by 1.5 million. In fact, the U.S. Surgeon General has called e-cigarette use by youth an ‘epidemic,’ and warned that it threatens decades of progress toward making sure fewer young people use tobacco.”⁵

Supporters, on the other hand, view e-cigarettes as a safer alternative to cigarettes—one that has helped many people break their addiction to smoked tobacco products. Proponents of flavored e-cigarettes believe that banning flavors would not discourage people from the risks of vaping; rather, it would make them turn to the black market, where they could come into contact with unregulated, potentially dangerous products.⁶ Advocates of flavored e-cigarettes also argue that over-regulation of flavored tobacco products would hurt small businesses. Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a conservative advocacy group, noted, “Eliminating all but one or two of these options [of e-cigarette flavors] for adults would destroy thousands of small businesses, force many adult vapers to return to smoking, and force some to seek out products on the black market.”⁷

However, as a result of the vaping-related hospitalizations and deaths, state governments and some private businesses have begun implementing new restrictions. Juul Labs Inc., one of the largest e-cigarette providers in the United States, announced on October 17, that it would suspend sales of all non-tobacco- and non-menthol-based flavors of its e-cigarette products.⁸ As of October 28, the state governments of Michigan, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington have issued temporary bans on flavored vaping products, and other states are considering implementing bans. Massachusetts has instituted the most restrictive ban—a four-month ban on the sale of all vaping products, regardless of whether or not products are flavored.⁹

As the conversation about flavored e-cigarettes continues, individuals on both sides of the debate are taking a closer look at this social phenomenon and its impact on American society.

For further reading on e-cigarette bans, please see Close Up in Class’ Controversial Issue in the News on the subject.

Discussion Questions:

How much have you heard about the addictiveness of nicotine and other stimulants?
Should companies be allowed to knowingly cause addiction in consumers? Why or why not?
Do you think vaping is a health crisis? Why or why not?
Who should be responsible for managing the risks of using e-cigarettes: government or consumers?
Is limiting access to flavors a legitimate way to discourage vaping? Why or why not?
When do government regulations begin to encroach on individual liberties?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Arnd Wiegmann/Reuters via theatlantic.com

[1] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/11/politics/donald-trump-vape-e-cigarette-flavors/index.html

[2] Slate: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/trump-reversal-flavored-e-cigarette-vape-ban.html

[3] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/17/health/trump-vaping-ban.html

[4] National Institutes of Health: https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2019/02/vaping-rises-among-teens

[5] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/features/back-to-school/e-cigarettes-talk-to-youth-about-risks/index.html

[6] https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2019/09/30/dont-make-the-vaping-crisis-worse-with-hasty-new-regulations/#1fca1e53169f

[7] Forbes: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/464470-trump-takes-heat-from-right-over-vaping-crackdown

[8] NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/10/17/771098368/juul-suspends-sales-of-flavored-vapes-and-signs-settlement-to-stop-marketing-to-

[9] Associated Press: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/27/washington-joins-other-states-in-flavored-vaping-ban.html#targetText=New%20York%2C%20Michigan%20and%20Rhode,vaping%20products%20%E2%80%94%20flavored%20or%20not.

How the Supreme Court Could Reshape Discrimination Lawsuits

Posted on November 15, 2019February 13, 2023 by Ashleigh Barber

On November 13, 2019, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media.¹ The Court’s decision will determine how difficult it will be to bring future cases regarding possible discrimination and racial bias to trial.²

Facts of the Case

Byron Allen, an African American, owns Entertainment Studios Networks (ESN), which operates channels including JusticeCentral.TV and Pets.TV.³ Cable provider Comcast declined to carry ESN channels, citing capacity constraints and lack of demand.⁴ Allen alleges discrimination, claiming that Comcast offered untruthful excuses and added white-owned networks instead of his.⁵ Comcast calls the case frivolous, pointing out that a Carter-appointed district judge dismissed the case three times.⁶ The Supreme Court will decide if Allen’s case merits discovery and trial.⁷

Legal Arguments and Ramifications

Allen cites one of the first U.S. civil rights laws,⁸ the Reconstruction-era Civil Rights Act of 1866,⁹ which was intended to help former slaves overcome discriminatory “Black Codes” by guaranteeing them equal rights to make and enforce contracts.¹⁰ Allen calls it “an economic pathway for former slaves”¹¹that should ensure “equal access for economic opportunity for all Americans.”¹²

But does the law require Allen to prove that race was one motivating factor or the only factor in Comcast’s decision-making?¹³ Allen claims that the higher threshold would encode discrimination.¹⁴ The U.S. Chamber of Commerce asserts that the lower threshold would force businesses to settle costly nuisance suits¹⁵ rather than risk negative publicity and an onerous discovery process.¹⁶

Civil rights lawyers call¹⁷ the stricter test a “near-impossible”¹⁸ standard that would block victims’ suits¹⁹ and deter lawyers from taking their cases²⁰by precluding tactics like depositions.²¹ Drexel University law professor David S. Cohen summarizes, “Today very few people are openly racist, so they hide behind other reasons. A law that requires someone to say that race is the only reason for discrimination will be very hard to prove.”²²

Comcast states that it isn’t advocating a major legal change,²³ just a narrow ruling²⁴ that won’t have far-reaching effects.²⁵ Comcast touts its progressive diversity record²⁶ in programming and in developing African-American ownership²⁷ (which Allen disputes²⁸). Comcast calls the discrimination allegations a “preposterous”²⁹ business tactic.³⁰

Political Involvement

The Department of Justice took Comcast’s side (despite President Trump’s derision of Comcast-owned channels),³¹ advocating the higher standard³² with 10 minutes of Comcast’s argument time.³³ Some congressional Democrats have called for Comcast to be broken up,³⁴ while others have joined some 2020 Democratic presidential candidates³⁵ and over 20 civil rights organizations³⁶ (including the NAACP³⁷) in siding with Allen’s legal interpretation.

Some analysts see the conservative-leaning Supreme Court as unfriendly to civil rights plaintiffs³⁸ and guarding of higher pleading standards.³⁹ Though the justices appeared to favor Comcast during the hearing, Allen still expressed hope.⁴⁰ The Supreme Court decision is expected in June 2020.

Suggested Further Reading

READ: Explanation of the “But-for” legal test that will decide this case (from Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute)

READ: Text of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 with historical context and study questions (from TeachingAmericanHistory.org, a project of the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University)

READ: Analysis of the hearing from SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe

VIEW: What’s on the Supreme Court calendar?

Discussion Questions:

Is it important to have diverse actors and characters on screen? Why or why not?
Is it important to have diversity among writers, directors, and producers of shows and movies? Why or why not?
Is it important to have diversity among owners of media companies? Why or why not?
Is the Civil Rights Act of 1866 still relevant over 150 years later? Why or why not?
In a discrimination trial, should Allen win if he can prove that Comcast was partially motivated by racial bias, or should he have to prove that bias is the only reason Comcast didn’t do business with him?
Respond to this quote from Allen’s lawyer (in a Washington Post article): “Imagine somebody goes to a hotel to rent a room and the clerk says, ‘We’re not renting a room to you because we don’t have rooms available and we don’t rent rooms to black people,’” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of University of California’s Berkeley School of Law, who will argue on Allen’s behalf. “Under Comcast’s theory, that wouldn’t be enough to prove discrimination.”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals thinks that if Comcast is partially motivated by racial bias, it doesn’t matter if the company also has legitimate business reasons not to carry Allen’s channels. The Ninth Circuit says that Allen should get a chance to gather more evidence by looking at Comcast documents and interviewing their employees, and then there should be a trial. Do you agree or disagree with the Ninth Circuit? Why?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Steve Helber, Associated Press, via https://images.wsj.net/im-123817?width=1260&size=1.5

[1] Oyez Project: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1171

[2] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/10/politics/supreme-court-race-discrimination-comcast/index.html

[3] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-comcast/supreme-court-to-hear-comcast-appeal-in-byron-allen-racial-bias-suit-idUSKCN1TB1QR

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Fox Business: https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/byron-allen-case-supreme-court-civil-rights

[7] The Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/byron-allen-v-comcast-supreme-court-race-case-could-reshape-bias-lawsuits-1245950

[8] U.S. House of Representatives History, Art, and Archives: https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1851-1900/The-Civil-Rights-Bill-of-1866/

[9] Federal Judicial Center: https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/civil-rights-act-1866

[10] The Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/byron-allen-v-comcast-supreme-court-race-case-could-reshape-bias-lawsuits-1245950

[11] American Bar Association ABA Journal: http://www.abajournal.com/web/article/scotus-considers-whether-comcast-discriminated-against-entertainment-mogul-in-denying-cable-tv-slots

[12] Yahoo: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/byron-allen-comcast-supreme-court-case-135904187.html

[13] Associated Press: https://apnews.com/c2f708547aa04b65b68ecf571a0236b1

[14] NewsOne: https://newsone.com/3891953/everything-to-know-about-bryon-allens-20-billion-racial-discrimination-lawsuit-against-comcast/

[15] Philadelphia Inquirer: https://www.inquirer.com/business/trump-comcast-civil-rights-byron-allen-race-hollywood-cable-20190907.html

[16] The Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/byron-allen-v-comcast-supreme-court-race-case-could-reshape-bias-lawsuits-1245950

[17] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/11/13/race-discrimination-standards-hang-balance-supreme-court-takes-up-comcast-suit/

[18] Deadline: https://deadline.com/2019/09/comcast-naacp-supreme-court-discrimination-battle-byron-allen-urban-league-1202747067/

[19] Philadelphia Inquirer: https://www.inquirer.com/business/comcast/comcast-byron-allen-lawsuit-naacp-civil-rights-laws-20191002.html

[20] The Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/byron-allen-v-comcast-supreme-court-race-case-could-reshape-bias-lawsuits-1245950

[21] Philadelphia Inquirer: https://www.inquirer.com/business/trump-comcast-civil-rights-byron-allen-race-hollywood-cable-20190907.html

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Deadline: https://deadline.com/2019/09/comcast-naacp-supreme-court-discrimination-battle-byron-allen-urban-league-1202747067/

[25] The Hill: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/447704-supreme-court-to-hear-racial-discrimination-case-against-comcast

[26] Ibid.

[27] Deadline: https://deadline.com/2019/11/comcast-breakup-threat-congressman-letter-byron-allen-lawsuit-1202781178/

[28] The Hill: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/447704-supreme-court-to-hear-racial-discrimination-case-against-comcast

[29] Associated Press: https://apnews.com/c2f708547aa04b65b68ecf571a0236b1

[30] Yahoo: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/byron-allen-comcast-supreme-court-case-135904187.html

[31] Philadelphia Inquirer: https://www.inquirer.com/business/trump-comcast-civil-rights-byron-allen-race-hollywood-cable-20190907.html

[32] Deadline: https://deadline.com/2019/08/byron-allen-comcast-civil-rights-lawsuit-supreme-court-filing-reaction-doj-donald-trump-1202671369/

[33] Deadline: https://deadline.com/2019/11/comcast-breakup-threat-congressman-letter-byron-allen-lawsuit-1202781178/

[34] Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-11/comcast-faces-call-for-breakup-in-legal-fight-with-byron-allen

[35] Deadline: https://deadline.com/2019/10/kamala-harris-cory-booker-civil-rights-donald-trump-comcast-lawsuit-byron-allen-supreme-cout-1202751831/

[36] Philadelphia Inquirer: https://www.inquirer.com/business/comcast/comcast-byron-allen-lawsuit-naacp-civil-rights-laws-20191002.html

[37] NAACP: https://www.naacp.org/latest/naacp-statement-comcast-corporations-partnership-trump-administration-eviscerate-civil-rights-protections/

[38] Philadelphia Inquirer: https://www.inquirer.com/business/trump-comcast-civil-rights-byron-allen-race-hollywood-cable-20190907.html

[39] The Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/byron-allen-v-comcast-supreme-court-race-case-could-reshape-bias-lawsuits-1245950

[40] CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/13/comcast-poised-to-beat-20-billion-discrimination-case-at-supreme-court.html

The Supreme Court Will Address DACA. What Will Follow?

Posted on October 30, 2019August 16, 2021 by Maura O'Brien

On November 12, 2019, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about the Trump administration’s efforts to end the immigration policy known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The status of DACA recipients has been in limbo for over two years amidst administration actions and court injunctions.

What Is DACA?

After Congress failed in its attempts to pass a bill dealing with undocumented immigrant minors,¹ then-President Obama created DACA in the run-up to his reelection campaign in 2012.² The program deferred deportation for undocumented individuals who arrived in “the U.S. before their 16th birthday, were under age 31, had continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007,”³ had not committed serious crimes, and met educational or military service requirements.⁴ Considered a temporary fix awaiting congressional immigration reform, DACA allowed for infinite renewals of two-year deferrals.⁵

How Did DACA Reach the Supreme Court?

The Trump administration decided not to defend DACA in a possible court case,⁶ arguing that the Obama administration lacked the authority to establish the policy—a claim that opponents characterized as a misread of the law, open to judicial review.⁷ These opponents assert that the policy change did not meet federal standards and that the Trump administration violated due process and “the Equal Protection Clause because it was motivated by discriminatory animus.”⁸ Lower courts agreed and left the law temporarily in place.⁹ After repeated requests, the Supreme Court agreed to weigh in.¹⁰

The Supreme Court must decide if courts can review the policy change and if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) made the change lawfully.¹¹ The administration argues that their agencies have the necessary discretion (so courts cannot intervene) and that their legitimate rationale included doubts about DACA’s legality¹² absent congressional authorization.¹³ DHS also claims that DACA encourages further illegal immigration, because it undercuts the “ability to send ‘a message that leaves no doubt regarding the clear, consistent and transparent enforcement of the immigration laws.’”¹⁴

Where Does DACA Stand Now?

Currently, DHS is not accepting new DACA applications, but it is continuing to process renewals.¹⁵ As of June 2019, there were approximately 660,880 active DACA recipients.¹⁶

What’s Next for DACA?

DACA activists have begun a 230-mile march from New York City to the Supreme Court,¹⁷ highlighting the significant personal stakes they want the Court to consider.¹⁸ Their allies cite DACA’s high polling approval,¹⁹ economic benefits,²⁰ and support from an array of large businesses.²¹ Their opponents argue that the executive order is an executive overreach,²² and they want a legislative compromise that includes increased border security and limits to further immigration.²³ President Trump has hinted at a possible deal,²⁴ depending on the Court hearing. The justices’ decision will likely come in June 2020.

VIEW: What’s on the Supreme Court calendar?

READ: Legal analysis of the DACA case on SCOTUSblog

For further reading on DACA, please see Close Up in Class’ Controversial Issue in the News on the subject.

Discussion Questions:

How present are recent immigrants in your school and community?
Do you think the DACA policy encourages other immigrants to enter the United States illegally?
Should DACA limit the number of deferrals that recipients can access? Should recipients be able to achieve lawful permanent resident or citizen status?
Should the fate of DACA be determined on its own, or should it be part of a larger set of immigration reforms? If the latter, what reforms are necessary?
Should a president be able to bypass Congress with an executive order to establish an immigration program like DACA, or is that an overreach (an abuse of power)?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images, via https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/10/28/20909969/daca-workers-dreamers-supreme-court

[1] American Immigration Council: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/dream-act-daca-and-other-policies-designed-protect-dreamers

[2] NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/smart-facts/what-daca-n854906

[3] Department of Homeland Security: https://www.dhs.gov/deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca

[4] Ibid.

[5] NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/smart-facts/what-daca-n854906

[6] PBS NewsHour: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/trumps-decision-end-daca-explained

[7] Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-587

[8] Ibid.

[9] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-daca/second-u-s-appeals-court-rules-trump-cannot-end-protections-for-dreamers-idUSKCN1SN1VN

[10] NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-agrees-hear-daca-case-win-trump-administration-n1020481

[11] Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-587

[12] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/20/politics/justice-department-deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals-supreme-court/index.html

[13] NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-agrees-hear-daca-case-win-trump-administration-n1020481

[14] Ibid.

[15] Department of Homeland Security: https://www.dhs.gov/deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca

[16] U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/Static_files/DACA_Population_Receipts_since_Injunction_Jun_30_2019.pdf

[17] New York Daily News: https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-daca-dreamers-supreme-court-nyc-dc-make-the-road-immigration-20191022-7cj63amqnnhvhjfwyctyq52sum-story.html

[18] Vox: https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/10/28/20909969/daca-workers-dreamers-supreme-court

[19] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/survey-finds-strong-support-for-dreamers/2017/09/24/df3c885c-a16f-11e7-b14f-f41773cd5a14_story.html

[20] PBS NewsHour: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy

[21] CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/04/major-companies-tell-supreme-court-ending-daca-will-hurt-the-economy.html

[22] Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/its-time-to-end-daca-its-unconstitutional-unless-approved-by-congress

[23] Fortune: https://fortune.com/2018/01/25/trump-daca-citizenship/

[24] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-suggests-hes-open-to-daca-legislation-if-he-prevails-in-supreme-court-case/2019/09/06/94d0295e-d093-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html

Using the Harkness Method to Teach the News

Posted on October 24, 2019August 25, 2023 by Scot Wilson

A Brief Introduction to The Harkness Method¹

The Harkness method is a type of student discussion created at the Phillips Exeter Academy in 1930. At the time, most methods of education involved teacher-led lectures and rote memorization. But a wealthy philanthropist, Edward Harkness, promised a financial contribution of over $5 million (or almost $90 million in 2019 dollars²) to the school—if it adopted a revolutionary method of student-directed teaching in a “conference-like” atmosphere.³

“What I have in mind is [a classroom] where [students] could sit around a table with a teacher who would talk with them, and instruct them by a sort of tutorial or conference method, where [each student] would feel encouraged to speak up,” Harkness said of the school he envisioned. “This would be a real revolution in methods.” To bring this idea to life, the school used a portion of the money to change the classroom environment to suit student-centered instruction. Desks in rows became round tables, and class sizes of 25 to 35 were reduced to 12. Eventually, the now-signature Harkness table became oval, allowing the instructor to see and make eye contact with every student. The idea is that all people at the table are equal and, in the words of Harkness, “there are no corners to hide behind.”⁴

Exeter still uses the Harkness method in teaching today, in every subject. “What happens at the table is, as Harkness described it, ‘real revolution,’” the school notes. “It’s where you explore ideas as a group, developing the courage to speak, the compassion to listen, and the empathy to understand. It’s not about being right or wrong. It’s a collaborative approach to problem-solving and learning.”⁵ Exeter also offers an institute each year, bringing together more than 400 teachers to learn about implementing the method in their classrooms.⁶

Overview of the Harkness Method

In a traditional Harkness method discussion, 12 students sit at an oval table with a teacher acting as the facilitator. The primary goal of the method is to place students in the driver’s seat of their learning and to make learning a more participatory process. To achieve this, students come to the table having read a piece of material as background (e.g. a primary source, a news article on a current event, or a piece of literature). They actively participate in a discussion about the content while the facilitator monitors.

On the surface, this may seem like the Socratic method, but there is a significant difference. In the Harkness method, the teacher must give up the need to “guide” students to the “right” solution and instead be an active participant in the discussion.⁷ A sign of a high-quality Harkness discussion would be one that requires little to no direction by the teacher; instead, the learning occurs student-to-student. During the discussion, the teacher uses various discussion tracking tools to monitor students’ participation and dialogue and to ensure that participants are following norms and staying on topic. They can track everything, including who has spoken, amount of speaking time, and body language, to see the quality of conversation and monitor student gains.

Using this Method to Teach the News

While most schools have much larger class sizes than 12 and rarely have large oval tables, you can make modifications to employ this method. For example, Chicago teacher Aida Conroy was able to implement the method in a class of 33 and saw tremendous gains in college-readiness test scores that surpassed the standard “college-ready” score.⁸

Suggested Steps for Employing this Method in a Modern Classroom

Before actually using the method, you will need to introduce students to the Harkness method and give (or have students create) expectations/table norms.
1. Some examples of table norms include looking at the person speaking, staying engaged, and asking clarifying questions.
2. You should give students examples of what active participation looks like in a Harkness discussion (e.g. ask a question, present evidence from the text). These norms and participation guidelines could be a form you distribute or a poster in the room. Find more examples here.
Assign students an article (or two) on a current event or a historically controversial issue that you would like students to explore. Assigning the article(s) as homework would give students time to digest and come prepared with notes, talking points, questions, and ideas.
Place chairs or desks in an oval shape (as an oval table is likely unavailable), ensuring eye contact between all students. Invite students to join you in this Harkness discussion and remind them of the expectations and goals of the conversation.
Using a version of the Harkness table discussion tracking system, have students begin discussion of the background information they read. The first several times you do this, students will likely need more hands-on facilitation and reminders about expectations at the table. Again, these expectations can be unique to the specific class or those you introduced earlier.
Once the class is accustomed to this model, it could be possible to teach students to act as facilitators (and to use some basic table tracking tools). This allows smaller groups to discuss while the teacher floats to monitor, clarify, and observe student learning.
To more closely approximate the small class size of the Harkness method, consider placing students in pairs and designating each member of the pair as an A or B. Then, have a first-round discussion with all As participating while the Bs track their partners’ participation. After 15 to 20 minutes, switch roles.

Resources and More Information

Download Exeter’s free Harkness Toolkit pieces here
Read essays by educators who have used the Harkness model here
The Concise EHI Experience Guide to Harkness, created by a teacher who attended the Exeter Institute, can be found here

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Upland Country Day School

[1] Phillips Exeter Academy: https://www.exeter.edu/exeter-difference/how-youll-learn

[2] CPI Inflation Calculator: http://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1930?amount=5840000

[3] Boarding School Review: https://www.boardingschoolreview.com/blog/to-harkness-or-not-to-harkness

[4] Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/phillips-exeter-harkness-table-2014-11

[5] Phillips Exeter Academy: https://www.exeter.edu/exeter-difference/how-youll-learn

[6] Phillips Exeter Academy: https://www.exeter.edu/programs-educators

[7] University of Bedfordshire: https://www.beds.ac.uk/jpd/volume-4-issue-3/harkness-learning-principles-of-a-radical-american-pedagogy/

[8] Boarding School Review: https://www.boardingschoolreview.com/blog/to-harkness-or-not-to-harkness

President Trump Seeks to Further Reduce U.S. Military Presence in Syria

Posted on October 18, 2019October 5, 2020 by Maura O'Brien

On October 6, 2019, President Trump made the surprising announcement that he would pull out most of the 1,000 U.S. troops in Syria, where the United States has been working with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Force (SDF) to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), al-Qaeda, and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and to repel Russian and Iranian influence in the region. Apparently, this announcement was made without the knowledge of most of President Trump’s cabinet, including the State Department.¹

The Syrian civil war erupted in 2011, when government forces violently suppressed protesters who were calling for Assad to step down. The conflict has been deadly and devastating, resulting in six million Syrian refugees and another six million citizens internally displaced (out of a population of around 18 million people).² The war has allowed for extremist groups, including ISIS, to gain power in the region; since 2014, the United States has partnered with the SDF to fight extremists and Assad’s forces.

However, Turkey—a NATO ally that is also fighting against Assad—has long considered the Kurds on their border to be a threat and have promised strikes against them in the last few months.³ The Kurds have benefited greatly from the partnership with the United States, which has allowed the formerly oppressed minority group to establish Kurdish schools and set policies that represent their interests.

Removing U.S. troops would allow Turkish forces to control the area in northeastern Syria along the Turkish and Iranian border, which is currently held by U.S. and SDF forces. Turkey presently claims that its goals include removing Kurdish forces from the area and resettling Syrian refugees along the border.

Throughout the week of October 6, U.S. troops have pulled back from the Turkish border. Increased violence in the region began almost immediately after President Trump’s announcement, and on October 9, the Turkish military fired shots in Syria. In response, the Kurdish authorities stated, “We call upon our people, of all ethnic groups, to move toward areas close to the border with Turkey to carry out acts of resistance.”⁴ ISIS suicide bombers have also attacked Kurdish positions in the Syrian city of Raqqa.⁵

President Trump’s withdrawal announcement met backlash from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, with Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a strong Trump ally, calling the move “short-sighted and irresponsible.”⁶ Critics argue that Turkey is planning on diluting the power of the Kurds in their historic homeland by resettling millions of ethnic Syrians in the area.⁷

In order to keep Turkish forces from attacking Kurdish allied forces and the Kurdish population in the area, President Trump tweeted that he would, “totally destroy and obliterate” Turkey’s economy if they did anything “off-limits” after the United States pulls out. The Trump administration has said that the Kurdish alliance is complete and that the Kurds are strong fighters, “but were paid massive amounts of money and equipment to [fight against ISIS].” President Trump indicated that it is time for the United States to remove itself from the conflict and bring troops home.⁸

Discussion Questions

What have you heard about the Syrian civil war?
Should the United States continue to keep troops in Syria? Why or why not?
How, if at all, should the United States support the Kurds in Syria?
Does the United States have a responsibility to ensure that its transition out of the region goes smoothly? Why or why not?
What should be the role of the United States in protecting oppressed groups around the world?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Reuters

[1] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/world/middleeast/trump-turkey-syria-kurds.html

[2] United States Institute of Peace: https://www.usip.org/syria-study-group-final-report

[3] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-pull-troops-from-northern-syria-as-turkey-readies-offensive/2019/10/07/a965e466-e8b3-11e9-bafb-da248f8d5734_story.html

[4] Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/world/turkey-syria-kurdish-troops-military-assault

[5] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/09/politics/syria-turkey-invasion-intl-hnk/index.html

[6] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/07/politics/lindsey-graham-donald-trump-syria-troops/index.html

[7] The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/10/danger-abandoning-our-partners/599632/

[8] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/world/middleeast/trump-turkey-syria-kurds.html

Understanding the Current Impeachment Inquiry

Posted on October 15, 2019July 9, 2021 by Maura O'Brien

In late September 2019, it was revealed that an officer at the Central Intelligence Agency filed an official complaint with the intelligence community’s inspector general, alleging that President Trump had engaged in an inappropriate phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky on July 25. The whistleblower alleged that President Trump threatened to withhold approximately $400 million in military aid to Ukraine unless President Zelensky agreed to launch an investigation into the business activities of Hunter Biden. (Hunter Biden—the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, a potential rival for President Trump in the 2020 election—used to work for a Ukrainian gas company.)¹

Shortly after this information became public and the White House released an edited summary of the phone call, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced that the House of Representatives would begin a formal impeachment inquiry, led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.²

What is Impeachment?

READ: The Close Up in Class Primer on Impeachment

Impeachment is the adoption of formal charges against the president or another civil officer in the federal government. The impeachment process begins in the House. The House is responsible for carrying out an investigation, or impeachment inquiry, into potential wrongdoing by an official. After the investigation, if a simple majority of the House votes in favor of formal articles of impeachment, the official is impeached. Impeachment does not mean an official will be removed from office.

Next, the process moves to the Senate. The Senate conducts a trial for the impeached official, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the senators present in order to convict the impeached official. The penalty for conviction is removal from office. In some cases, the Senate has also disqualified an official from holding public office again in the future.

Only two presidents—Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton—have been impeached, but both were acquitted by the Senate. To date, no president has been removed from office by the Senate. (The House launched an impeachment inquiry into the actions of President Richard Nixon, but he resigned before the full chamber voted on articles of impeachment.)

Impeachment is a Real Possibility; Removal is Much Less Likely

With at least 226 members of the House supporting the impeachment inquiry, it is a very real possibility that the House could impeach President Trump.³ And as more information has come to light, including a second whistleblower,⁴ allegations that President Trump asked other countries for investigations,⁵ and the arrest of two associates of Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani,⁶ public support for impeachment has grown.⁷ On October 8, Fox News released a poll indicating that 51 percent of respondents not only want President Trump to be impeached but removed from office as well.⁸

However, the path to removing President Trump from office contains several significant hurdles. Not only would a vote to convict President Trump, if he is impeached, set a striking precedent (as the first removal of a president in U.S. history), the fact is that the votes simply may not be there.

Currently, the Senate is made up of 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and two independents who caucus with Democrats. Even if all 47 Democrats and independents voted to convict in an impeachment trial, they would need the votes of 20 Republicans as well in order to remove the president from office. This would be difficult in normal circumstances; it is particularly unlikely with a national election approaching in 2020.

President Trump remains popular among Republican voters, with 87 percent voicing their approval to Gallup in mid-September. Among independents, the president’s job approval rating is 36 percent.⁹ For the 23 Senate Republicans up for reelection in 2020, as well as some Democrats in heavily Republican states, voting to remove the president from office could inspire their constituents to vote them out. For many senators, it may not be worth the risk, especially since voters will have the chance in November 2020 to vote on President Trump’s reelection themselves.

Discussion Questions

Do you believe President Trump should be impeached? Do you believe he should be removed from office? Why or why not?
Should asking a foreign government to investigate a political opponent in exchange for aid count as an impeachable offense?
Do you believe it is reasonable to require a simple majority vote (50 percent +) in the House for impeachment but a supermajority (67 percent +) in the Senate for removal? Why might these standards be different?
Besides removal from office, do you think an impeached president should face other less/more severe sentences if convicted?