Washington lawyer Michael A. Carvin will be back at the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the second great battle over the Affordable Care Act
since the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in 2012 to uphold the constitutionality of the measure, devastating those who wanted the justices to strike down the nearly 1,000-page law in its entirety.
“The thing’s working. And there’s in our view not a plausible legal basis for striking it down,” he said. “But, you know, we’ll have to wait and see what the Supreme Court decides.”
Simplified, the case, King v. Burwell, comes down to those four words in the text — “established by the state” — and whether justices must place those words in the context of the entire bill
“I do find it interesting that there’s been this conservative-led effort to kill this bill through the courts,” she said. The groups seem to be operating under the theory that “the courts are sort of an untapped resource for pursing the conservative agenda.”
Big business was active in opposing the law in the last fight.
our bills that would strengthen interior enforcement of immigration laws; remove the ability of the President to unilaterally shut down immigration enforcement; ensure jobs are preserved for legal workers; reform the United States’ asylum laws and make sure unaccompanied alien minors who make the dangerous trek to the United States are safely returned home have been introduced in the House
There are many issues plaguing our nation’s immigration system but the biggest problem is that our immigration laws are not enforced,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (
“By refusing to enforce the laws against illegal immigration, President Obama’s immigration policies collectively undermine the integrity of our immigration system and send the message to the world that our laws can be violated with impunity.”
“The bills introduced by Representatives Trey Gowdy (R-SC), chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Lamar Smith (R-Texas) -- the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee – Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah),
other broken aspects of our immigration system,
President can’t shut down immigration enforcement
“For decades, Americans have been promised a secure border and an immigration system that works for all Americans,” Gowdy said in a statement, stressing that, “Those promises have not been kept and both political parties bear responsibility for that. This legislation allows state and local governments to assist in the enforcement of our federal immigration laws. By doing so, we remove the ability of this or future Presidents – of either party – to systematically shut down portions of the law to suit their political purposes.”
During a House Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this month, Smith described The Legal Workforce Act as a tool that “turns off the jobs magnet that attracts so many illegal immigrants to the United States.”
“administration’s rubberstamping of fraudulent applications and policies, and effectively ends ‘catch and release,’” he stated.
“Even before the President’s promises of amnesty went into effect, our borders were being inundated with unaccompanied children and teens responding to the incentive of a broken asylum policy,”
he Asylum Reform and Border Protection Act not only addresses the immediate concern with unaccompanied children, but closes long-exploited holes in our asylum practices.”
“Additional judges, attorneys and other resources will ensure children are processed, reunited with their families and sent home as swiftly as possible,”
The Protection of Children Act introduced by Carter would ensure unaccompanied alien minors who make the dangerous journey to the United States are safely returned home.
Bills are introduced to strengthen interior enforcement of immigration laws. This is slightly in response to Obama's call for immigration reform and his policies to make these changes. However, these bills are made to make immigration enforcement more strict, while Obama's policies attempted to weaken the enforcement of these laws. This is a large political war with democrats siding with Obama and his policies and Republicans siding with these new bills.
He went on to argue, however, that, despite this, he could not stay silent while Iran remained a threat to his country. He believes the agreement as currently formulated will still allow Iran to be a formidable nuclear power.
John BoehnerThe Speaker of the House was the person who invited Netanyahu to speak to Congress in the first place.
President Obama asked Congress to put off these plans during his 2015 State of the Union, to ensure that Iran's interest in the negotiations does not evaporate.
The Obama administration, besides being miffed that Republican lawmakers invited a foreign leader without asking permission, is also trying to refute the arguments Netanyahu has been making against the nuclear negotiations.
Representative Steve Cohen told the New York Times, “I stand with Israel, always have stood with Israel, and always will, but this speech is not about Israel. Netanyahu is not Israel just like George W. Bush wasn’t America.”
Kerry really wants these talks to work out, especially since his diplomatic forays in Israel and Syria have not worked as well.
Kerry also made an effort to show he was very much aware of what Obama administration opponents were saying about his schedule during a speech to the U.N. Human Rights Council on Monday, According to the Associated Press, Kerry urged the organization "to end what the United States says is its unfair and biased focus on the Jewish State."
A news article that gives a description of the current situation in Washington with visiting Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. The article briefly outlines the state of the pending negotiations with Iran concerning the nuclear weapons that Iran is possibly in possession of.
Benjamin Netanyahu, who was originally a supporter of Mitt Romney, visits congress in attempt to cut down the sanctions in Iran for the country's agreement to not make nuclear weapons. Throughout his visit, Netanyahu tried to play down the dramatism of the situation.
The issue at hand is the creeping cloud of war being brought against Russia by the typical neo-liberal mechanism of incrementalization via the agency of NATO.
NATO's "wet dream" is and always has been to "finish" World War II, by taking down Russia.
NATO was set up as both a vehicle for maintaining American hegemony in Europe and as a means of doing an end-run around the requirement of consensus in the UN Security Council, thereby defeating the purpose of the United Nations in eliminating wars of choice and aggression.
This article shows an opinion about NATO as an agency that exists to prove the supremacy of the USA. It talks about NATO's goal that has been continued since WW2.
Divisive presidential campaigns are not new in American history. Politics has always been a brutal sport in which different factions vie for any advantage on voting day. While the competitive spirit of elections has little changed over the centuries, the modes in which candidates communicate their platforms and tear down their opponents have changed significantly. Now, presidential contenders are tasked with crafting a unique brand, cultivating a positive public image, and must appeal to a broader base of voters with a wider array of backgrounds and interests than ever before. The ways in which voters come to perceive and judge candidates have likewise changed with time. Visual media, especially the Internet, is one of the most important factors in modern elections.
Until the end of the nineteenth century, presidential candidates did little personal campaigning, preferring to let their supporters do the heavy lifting of attacking opponents and persuading voters.
This is one of the lead ups to the recall election. If you don't understand how it connects if you search around wikipedia you may be able to get a better understanding of the big picture
This is beginning to change the civil rights for gay couples and starting to lead to more equality in the south. This is significant considering how the south is so conservative.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Monday to turn away appeals from a handful of states including Virginia means marriage bans are unconstitutional throughout the 4th U.S. Circuit.
It is still possible that other Supreme Court cases will find different results, leading to less equality for gays.
"We'll accept same-sex marriage just like we accepted desegregation and the end of slavery," Ferris added. "These other barriers that have burdened us for too long are coming down and the people in the South are open to change."
These court rulings can't help but "change the culture of the South," said the Rev.
"left Virginians without a definitive answer."
Attorney Byron Babione of the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented two Virginia clerks in their appeal, noted that it's still possible that another federal case will reach the Supreme Court and produce a different result.
I've noticed that there are a lot of people who chose to discuss the topic of same-sex marriage. It's understandable for it to be unconstitutional for marriage to be banned whether it is between a man and a women, or of those who are of the same sex. Recently many states have abolished their laws against same-sex marriages. States such as Idaho and Nevada have just legalized gay marriage.
Posted by Andrew Walker. It's a pretty simple question, really. Is the United Nations effective in the modern world? At the time of its inception, the UN was deemed as an absolutely necessary piece of maintaining world peace, and for the most part, you could argue that its existence was a pivotal piece of keeping the Cold War cold.
I believe that the UN is absolutely a necessary tool in keeping world peace. Although ratings of its effectiveness have gone down significantly in the U.S. More than 50% of Americans believe that the UN is necessary. Although conflicts continually arise between nations, it is important to have an organization to regulate nations decisions throughout the world.
I agree with Kyrra and strongly believe that UN is crucial in making world peace. Although UN does not have the strongest army in the world and does not have the ultimate power to stop a war, the power it has to influence different nations and aid them in their relationships is essential.
As Netanyahu is prepared to tear down the White House's efforts in negotiating Iraqs nuclear program, some democrats decided it wasn't worth attending while eight senators thought the same thing.
This just proves that the disaster with this whole agreement will be huge. Iran's government obviously doesn't like us, and the Senate's participation in listening to the speech upset Netanyahu. And he argued that the deal currently in the works to prevent the nation from gaining nuclear weapons would in fact "guarantee" that it secures them - "lots of them." This scares me personally because the relationship between the U.S. and Iran doesn't look promising right now.
The Supreme Court denied a plea from gay and lesbian couples in Louisiana on Monday that it consider striking down the state's ban against same-sex marriage.
a district court ruling upholding the ban there first must be challenged in a federal appeals court,
Supreme Court experts believe the justices will agree to hear a case during its current term.
.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upholding four states' marriage bans created a split among the nation's appellate courts that only the high court can resolve.
70% of Americans live in states where same-sex marriage is allowed.
he state argued that the high court should choose its case because of "the traditional definition of marriage that is reflected consistently across Louisiana's family laws," as well as "to consider a wider range of marriage laws, defended by a wider array of legal arguments."
As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters.
William Sullivan, 56, shuffled forward a foot at a time, feeling around for soft spots as he tried to avoid the slick areas that would take him down. He made it, that time. His 84-year-old neighbor was not so lucky; he fell last month going to the corner bodega for coffee, and he still has back pain.
In the city, where walking is a way of life, keeping sidewalks clear in the winter is not merely a neighborly courtesy, it is also required under the law.
The Sanitation Department has issued more than 10,000 tickets this winter and more than 42,000 tickets since 2010, according to a New York Times analysis of city data. In total, those tickets carried fines of nearly $8.5 million (excluding a small percentage of tickets that were successfully challenged), of which just $2.6 million has been paid so far.
Some residents say the tickets have made little, if any, difference, in their neighborhoods. For instance, city sanitation supervisors and enforcement agents have repeatedly come by the houses at 896 and 892 East 167th Street, affixing a total of 64 tickets to the chain-link fence and wood partitions in front since 2010. Still, the ice remains.
A bulk of the issue is that in vacant buildings it can be difficult to determine who the owner is, who is responsible for maintenance, or to compel payment.
“Everybody complains about it in the neighborhood, but nothing gets done,” said Mr. Sullivan, a cook and single father of eight. “I really get mad because children and the elderly have to pass here every day. It’s dangerous, and it has to be cleaned up.”
Keith Mellis, a spokesman for the Sanitation Department, emphasized that this snow and ice removal was “the sole responsibility” of private property owners.
This is a more local topic, but it raises an interesting question. If the lot is owned but foreclosed/vacant, whose responsibility is it to maintain the property so it isn't a public hazard?
New social media are already changing the way organizations attract supporters.
But the collective outrage focused on a top-down, big-money view of politics, well, that's so . . . last century. If the goal of television ads is to motivate viewers to vote, volunteer, or give money, there are far better ways to reach people, thanks to the new media.
I think this article shows how technology and the new forms of media are having a huge effect on the politics today, and I agree that the new media is one of the biggest things that influence the politics.
The large number of candidates in each party -- with front runners like Hillary Clinton challenged by a younger generation and veterans like John McCain fading -- creates a fluid situation that has some voters nostalgic for successful politicians of the recent past.
That is unlikely to happen. McCall and Reagan were men of their own time and that time has passed. McCall and Reagan were creatures of a mass media culture created largely by three television networks that replaced mass circulation magazines by the 1960s.
Former congressman Les AuCoin read it and asked me, “So how are we going to govern the country if everyone is operating on different facts?”
Both men were successful because they knew how to appeal to the mass audience television created. It is not a coincidence that both McCall and Reagan began their careers as broadcasters.
I responded, “I don’t know.” A decade later, one answer is obvious. We are not governing the country. We have two sets of leaders from at least two different worlds. They talk past one another. They appear incapable of communicating with each other and exhibit little respect for those who differ. It is more acute among Republicans than Democrats. Nonaffiliated voters are usually ignored.
Hillary Clinton and John McCain are practicing mass media politics in a world of narrowcasting. McCain is fading. If Clinton is nominated, she might become our last mass media president.
Barrack Obama may have something to offer. He is appealing to a diverse group -- younger and broader politically -- that seems to defy the deliberately circumscribed demographic categories of narrowcasting. We’ll see.
Of one thing I am sure. We will not see another Tom McCall or Ronald Reagan. The conditions that allowed these men to communicate so successfully with the voters no longer exist.
Great article, I did not realize that narrowcasting had such an effect on the voters outlook. It is interesting that someone that is not a participant in specific party can get so lost in politics because broad ideas are no longer being discussed compared to narrow ideas that are biased to one side of the debate.
This is a very percise article about narrowcasting. It exemplifies very well what we are discussing in class and gives awesome examples on what narrowcasting is, especially in politics. It also breaks down how to identify different types of narrowcasting and how the media may be potentially trying to manipulate Americans.