apgov

October 2, 2017 0 Comment apgov
Share:

Supreme Court kicks off blockbuster term: Cases to watch

(CNN) – A full-strength Supreme Court will take the bench Monday for what could be the most consequential term in decades, as the ideologically split justices consider cases as diverse as religious liberty, immigration, cell phone privacy, voting rights and possibly the legality of President Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban.
“There is only one prediction that is entirely safe about the upcoming term, and that is it will be momentous,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said at an event at Georgetown Law recently.

The justices spent most of last term with only eight members rendering narrow opinions — at times — in an attempt to ward off 4-4 splits.

But that’s all over now.

Justice Neil Gorsuch has settled into his new role as a staunch conservative, filling the role previously held by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

That means there are five conservatives and four liberals on the bench, with Justice Anthony Kennedy resuming his post as the swing vote from the conservative- to liberal-leaning side. Sources say he has been seriously considering retiring, and liberals fear that their last remaining chance at a win on issues — like LGBT rights — might rest with him.
Here are the big issues this year:

Travel ban
Leading the docket, until recently, was a challenge to Trump’s signature policy: the travel ban. The justices were scheduled next week to hear oral arguments and decide whether the President was legally justified when he temporarily blocked travel from several Muslim-majority countries, citing national security concerns.

Challengers argue that the executive order violates the the Constitution. They say the President was motivated in part by religious animus and point to some of the things Trump said during the campaign calling for a Muslim ban.
“The President has claimed limitless authority to exclude any alien he wishes,” Neal Katyal, the lead lawyer for Hawaii, wrote. “This court has the power and the duty to police these excesses.”

But the administration says the White House has the authority to act to restrict immigration.

“The Constitution and Acts of Congress confer on the President broad authority to suspend or restrict the entry of aliens outside the United States, when he deems it in the Nation’s interest,” Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall wrote in court papers.

Late last spring the justices allowed part of the travel ban to go into effect, pending appeal, for foreign nationals who “lack any bona fide relationship with any person or entity in the United States.” They were scheduled to hear oral arguments October 10 — but that’s now been postponed.

The twist: Last month, the President replaced a major provision of his controversial March executive order with new restrictions that have yet to go before any court.

Trump administration announces new travel restrictions
Now, the justices must decide whether they should hear the challenge, or send the case back down to the lower courts to take a fresh look.

Immigration
The court this week will rehear two immigration-related cases will be watched closely for tea leaves of what justices are thinking on the travel ban, although they don’t pertain to it specifically.

Monday, the court will rehear a case concerning mandatory deportation of lawful permanent residents for criminal convictions.

The Sessions v. Dimaya case was argued before the court in January, before Gorsuch was nominated and confirmed. At the end of June, the justices signaled they were divided 4-4 on at least some aspects of the case and wanted Gorsuch to weigh in.

Tuesday, justices rehear another immigration related case, Jennings v. Rodriguez. The case was brought by a class of immigrants — some who sought entrance at the border, others lawful permanent residents — who are fighting removal and arguing that they cannot be held in prolonged detention. After six months of detention, they seek hearings to prove that they are neither a flight risk nor a danger to society.

“Both cases implicate the scope of the government’s authority over different classes of immigrants in ways that won’t directly bear on the travel ban litigation, but could provide important clues into what the key justices are thinking,” said CNN legal analyst and University of Texas Law School professor Steve Vladeck.

Voting rights and gerrymandering
Tuesday, justices will tackle a case that could reshape electoral maps across the country.

At issue is partisan gerrymandering — or the length to which legislators go when they manipulate district lines for partisan advantage. Democratic voters in Wisconsin are challenging maps they say were drawn unconstitutionally to benefit Republicans.

Wisconsin voter hopes Supreme Court will revolutionize map drawing
While the Supreme Court has a standard limiting the overreliance on race in map drawing except under the most limited circumstances, it has never been successful in developing a test concerning the overreliance on politics.

Wisconsin, in its arguments, says that both the challengers have no power to bring such a claim and that the issue should be decided not by the judiciary but the political branches.
Redistricting is an issue close to former President Barack Obama, who has vowed to dedicate part of his post-presidency to the issue. Prominent Republicans such as Arizona Sen. John McCain and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have filed briefs in support of the challengers, arguing that the issue does not only adversely impact Democrats.
“It’s not a Democratic or a Republican issue,” Schwarzenegger said in a recent conference call,” it’s simply a power issue.”
Another election law case, Husted v. Randolph Institute, will be heard in early November dealing with Ohio’s method of removing names from its voter rolls. A federal appeals court ruled that the program violates the National Voter Registration Act.
Religious liberty
One of the most controversial cases of the term pits claims of religious liberty against LGBT rights.

At the center of the case is Jack Phillips, who owns a bakery called Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado. In 2012, he refused to make a cake to honor a couple’s same-sex marriage, citing his religious beliefs. Lower courts ruled in favor of the couple, citing a state anti -discrimination law.

Trump admin backs Colorado baker who refused to make cake for same-sex wedding
Now Phillips, who calls himself a “cake artist,” is asking the Supreme Court to protect his rights, and he received a big boost last month from the Trump administration.

“Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights,” acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall wrote for the Justice Department in briefs filed to the court.

“The government may not enact content-based laws commanding a speaker to engage in protected expression: An artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced to write,” Wall added.

Louise Melling, an ACLU lawyer representing the plaintiffs, says that the Masterpiece case is “making a radical argument.”
“When you look at it, they are saying there is a constitutional right, whether it’s rooted in speech or religion, to discriminate,” she said in an recent interview.

“A ruling for the bakery would have implications far beyond LGBT people and would put in jeopardy our longstanding laws against discrimination,” she said.

Cell phone privacy
The court will also hear a major case concerning privacy in the digital age when it determines whether investigators need to obtain a warrant for cell tower data to track and reconstruct location and movements of cell phone users over extended periods of time.

The case was brought by the ACLU on behalf of two men who were arrested after a string of robberies in Michigan and Ohio. At trial, the government’s evidence included records from the defendants’ phones that showed that the men used their phones within a close radius to several robberies.

How the justices decide the issue could provide a framework for other issues such as facial recognition technology and surveillance law.

Most courts have held that there is a diminished privacy interest in this area because the information has already been provided to third parties such as phone companies.

Source: US Government Class

October 1, 2017 0 Comment apgov
Share:

Does the Colorado River have rights? A lawsuit seeks to declare it a person

Santa Fe New Mexico – DENVER — Does a river — or a plant, or a forest — have rights?

This is the essential question in what attorneys are calling a first-of-its-kind federal lawsuit, in which a Denver lawyer and a far-left environmental group are asking a judge to recognize the Colorado River as a person.

If successful, it could upend environmental law, possibly allowing the redwood forests, the Rocky Mountains or the deserts of Nevada to sue individuals, corporations and governments over resource pollution or depletion. Future lawsuits in its mold might seek to block pipelines, golf courses or housing developments and force everyone from agriculture executives to mayors to rethink how they treat the environment.

Several environmental law experts said the suit had a slim chance at best. “I don’t think it’s laughable,” said Reed Benson, chairman of the environmental law program at The University of New Mexico. “But I think it’s a long shot in more ways than one.”

The suit was filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Colorado by Jason Flores-Williams, a former Santa Fe lawyer now in Denver. It names the river ecosystem as the plaintiff — citing no specific physical boundaries — and seeks to hold the state of Colorado and Gov. John Hickenlooper liable for violating the river’s “right to exist, flourish, regenerate, be restored, and naturally evolve.”

Because the river cannot appear in court, a group called Deep Green Resistance is filing the suit as an ally, or so-called next friend, of the waterway.

If a corporation has rights, the authors argue, so, too, should an ancient waterway that has sustained human life for as long as it has existed in the Western United States. The lawsuit claims the state violated the river’s right to flourish by polluting and draining it and threatening endangered species. The claim cites several nations whose courts or governments have recognized some rights for natural entities.

The lawsuit drew immediate criticism from conservative lawmakers, who called it ridiculous. “I think we can all agree rivers and trees are not people,” said Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont. “Radical obstructionists who contort common sense with this sort of nonsense undercut credible conservationists.”

The office of Hickenlooper, a Democrat, declined to comment.

The lawsuit comes as hurricanes and wildfires in recent weeks have left communities across the country devastated, intensifying the debate over how humans should treat the earth in the face of global climate change.

Flores-Williams characterized the suit as an attempt to level the playing field as rivers and forests battle human exploitation. As it stands, he said, “the ultimate disparity exists between entities that are using nature and nature itself.”

Imbuing rivers with the right to sue, he argued, would force humans to take care of the water and trees they need to survive — or face penalties. “It’s not pie in the sky,” he said of the lawsuit. “It’s pragmatic.”

Jody Freeman, director of Harvard’s environmental law program, said Flores-Williams would face an uphill battle.

“Courts have wrestled with the idea of granting animals standing,” she wrote in an email. “It would be an even further stretch to confer standing directly on rivers, mountains and forests.”

The Colorado River cuts through or along seven Western states and supplies water to approximately 36 million people in those states, including New Mexico. It also feeds millions of acres of farmland.

It is as famous for its power and beauty as it is for overuse. Scientists expect that increased temperatures brought on by climate change will cause it to shrink further, leaving many people anxious about its future.

Flores-Williams is a criminal defense lawyer known for suing the city of Denver over its treatment of homeless people. Deep Green Resistance believes that the mainstream environmental movement has been ineffective, and that industrial civilization is fundamentally destructive to life on earth. The group’s task, according to its website, is to create “a resistance movement that will dismantle industrial civilization by any means necessary.”

Flores-Williams responded to criticism that his argument, if successful, would allow pebbles to sue the people who step on them.

“Does every pebble in the world now have standing?” he said. “Absolutely not, that’s ridiculous.”

“We’re not interested in preserving pebbles,” he added. “We’re interested in preserving the dynamic systems that exist in the ecosystem upon which we depend.”

Source: US Government Class

September 28, 2017 0 Comment apgov
Share:

Trump authorizes waiver to loosen shipping regulations for Puerto Rico

(CNN) – The White House has authorized a waiver to loosen shipping rules regarding Puerto Rico that island officials say would be a significant help for recovery efforts from Hurricane Maria.

“At @ricardorossello request, @POTUS has authorized the Jones Act be waived for Puerto Rico. It will go into effect immediately,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted Thursday morning.

Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke said the waiver will be in effect for 10 days and will cover all products being shipped to Puerto Rico, according to a release from the department.

The waiver will guarantee the needed equipment to repair infrastructure damaged by the storm and restore emergency services, Duke said in a news release.

Earlier Thursday, Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló said he had asked the White House to loosen the regulations.
He joined the growing list of officials who argued that lifting the the Jones Act — a federal law designed to protect the financial interests of US shipbuilders by limiting shipping by foreign vessels — would help expedite supplies to the ravaged island. The act has had the unintended consequence of making it twice as expensive to ship things from the US mainland to Puerto Rico as it is to ship from any other foreign port in the world, according to Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain’s office.
DHS denies that it rejected request to loosen shipping rules for Puerto Rico

The act was quickly lifted to help Texas and Florida in the wake of hurricanes Harvey and Irma. The Department of Homeland Security said it was able to lift the restrictions quickly because the Department of Defense requested a waiver for those states and the department hadn’t yet done so for Puerto Rico.

Trump told reporters on Wednesday that “we’re thinking” about lifting the law, but added that a “lot of shippers” didn’t want it lifted.

What the Jones Act controversy is all about
In the wake of the devastation in Puerto Rico caused by Hurricane Maria, San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz — along with other US politicians, including McCain and Marco Rubio, R-Florida — had urged the suspension of the Jones Act in order to speed up supply deliveries.

The last Jones Act waiver was issued earlier this month to provide relief assistance prior to Hurricane Irma’s landfall, the DHS said.

CNN’s Rene Marsh, Gregory Wallace, Noah Gray, Kevin Liptak and Hannah Lang contributed to this report.

Source: US Government Class

September 27, 2017 0 Comment apgov
Share:

Rep. Green seeks Trump impeachment vote, putting Dems in tight spot

FoxNews – Texas Rep. Al Green is planning to file a resolution next week calling for President Trump’s impeachment, a move that would force fellow House Democrats to take a potentially risky vote.

While congressional Democrats uniformly oppose Trump, party leaders have pushed back on early impeachment calls. Any Democrat who votes to impeach could face a backlash, considering some live in districts or states Trump won and the party has struggled to win special elections all year on an anti-Trump message.

In a floor speech Tuesday, Green condemned Trump’s weekend attack on NFL players who kneel during the national anthem, then vowed to file the impeachment articles. However, he has declined to say on what grounds he would file the articles.

“I rise to denounce these comments that have been made because they have brought discourse to a new low,” Green said. “This is a level of indecency that is unbecoming of the presidency. … I will stand here in the well of the Congress and I will call for the impeachment of the president.”

New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee where impeachment proceedings typically begin, told The Hill in response to Green’s threat: “We’re not there yet,” despite Trump having done “really terrible things.”

He also suggested that impeachment proceedings could be more effective later, saying, ”We don’t have the evidence. We don’t have the case. … You don’t want to discredit it by voting for impeachment resolutions before you have the facts.”

House rules indicate the filing of an impeachment article would trigger a floor vote within two days.

The GOP-controlled chamber would almost certainly reject the resolution, but its filing would still result in a procedural vote that would likely have the same impact as a full House floor vote.

California Rep. Maxine Waters — among several House Democrats who have talked about impeaching Trump — declined to tell The Hill how she’d would vote if Green’s resolution comes up.

Source: US Government Class

September 26, 2017 0 Comment apgov
Share:

Senate public hearing on Facebook will happen soon

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Burr said on Tuesday he hopes to hold the public hearing on Facebook and social media “in the next month to month and a half.”

The North Carolina Republican told CBS News the social media giant has been “incredibly helpful,” after the company acknowledged Russians purchased $100,000 in ads on its platform surrounding the 2016 presidential election, and turned over materials about those ad buys to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. Facebook has also handed the committee a lot of records, Burr said. Last week, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg said the company has shut down thousands of fake accounts created to attempt to influence elections around the world, and is working with the U.S. government finding ways to make political advertising more transparent.

“They have been incredibly helpful to us through this,” Burr said of Facebook. “And I think their actions just last week indicate that they believe that it’s important to get out in front of this and share as much of it as possible.”
But Facebook isn’t the only social media company the committee needs to speak with, Burr said. His committee, along with the House Intelligence Committee and Mueller, are investigating any ties between Russian entities and Mr. Trump’s associates.

“We think that everybody in the social media space, I don’t want to single them out,” Burr said. “They just happen to be the one that we’ve had extensive conversations with, ongoing.”

Asked if there is any connection between Russians who are using Facebook and Mr. Trump’s associates, Burr dismissed any notion of collusion.

“Listen, I’ve said I don’t think this is about collusion,” Burr said. “Facebook is a company that most advertisers rely on Facebook’s information to determine what the target is.”

Burr said the goal in any social media influence was to create “chaos.”

“I think clearly there was an effort to bring some chaos to groups on the right and left,” Burr said. “So, there’s nothing that – at least preliminarily – we see that leans towards one candidate versus the other. I think there was equal money spend trying to create some type of chaos on both sides of the political – or Ideological spectrum. We’ll find more as we go in.”

CBS News’ John Nolen contributed to this report.

Source: US Government Class

September 25, 2017 0 Comment apgov
Share:

Santa Fe efforts to regulate panhandling runs up against first amendment

Santa Fe New Mexican – Santa Fe city officials once again are attempting to reduce panhandling, long a source of complaints from downtown merchants, tourism promoters and others annoyed by people who ask passers-by for money.

The city in 2010 outlawed aggressive panhandling by people who block sidewalks, use foul language or touch their intended benefactors, or those who beg from medians or near cash machines, bus stops and parking lots. Data released last week by the Santa Fe Municipal Court show cases filed against panhandlers more than tripled from 2010 to 2016.

Councilors Renee Villarreal and Signe Lindell, who represent the downtown business district, recently proposed even stricter language in the city’s panhandling ordinance, which included prohibiting begging within 20 feet of any business. That proposal was tabled last week by the city Public Safety Committee, reflecting the difficulty local lawmakers face in restricting people from soliciting money without violating free speech rights. Neither councilor responded to requests for comment.

Critics say the measure could effectively ban a form of speech in the dense commercial area including the Plaza.

But other ways to reduce panhandling are percolating.

The police chief, Patrick Gallagher, floated the idea of installing an old parking meter on the Plaza. Then donations could be made for city-funded programs to deal with homelessness.

Simon Brackley, president and CEO of the Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce, said the meter could serve as another option for anyone who wants to show generosity but doesn’t want to hand money directly to panhandlers.

Greg Gurulé, a spokesman for the police department, said in an email that Gallagher brought up the idea of the parking meter with downtown merchants in a midsummer meeting. But the idea has not been formally proposed, said Matt Ross, a spokesman for the city.

On Saturday, police received a complaint about panhandling from a customer at the Starbucks on West San Francisco Street, where people were playing music.

Jen Carroll, a manager of the Starbucks, said panhandlers made remarks to a regular customer, who called police. It’s a difficult situation, she said, with her customers often complaining after stepping over panhandlers on the narrow sidewalk. Carroll said she does not mind someone earning a living by playing music on the sidewalk. But other activities hurt the store’s bottom line.

“I would rather they not panhandle, not loiter and not smoke,” Carroll said.

Panhandlers say they’re trying to make money.

Near the coffee shop, Dylan Howard, 24, sat on the sidewalk on a skateboard one recent afternoon. He asked a passer-by if he would exchange his sunglasses for a soul — a line he learned from a friend.

Howard said he is from Tulsa, Okla., and travels the country on freight trains. He said he had been in Santa Fe for almost a week, panhandling by day and sleeping under bridges by night. By midafternoon, he said, he had collected about $12.

Earlier, Howard said, he was playing a ukulele with others in front of the Starbucks store when a police officer informed him they needed a permit to play music. He said police “ran our names and told us we can’t panhandle.”

Howard moved away from the Starbucks but continued to panhandle, this time without an instrument to help him make money. Shown the list of city restrictions on panhandling, Howard said he was unaware of many of the prohibitions.

Howard said he sees no problem with panhandling, as long as one is not aggressive about it.

“I just don’t understand why it’s illegal to sit down and ask for help,” he said. “It’s either ask or steal, and I’m not much of a thief.”

Peter Simonson, executive director of the New Mexico American Civil Liberties Union, said in an email that a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, handed down years after Santa Fe instituted its panhandling ordinance, rendered the law unconstitutional.

In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the U.S. Supreme Court justices ruled that a “government, including a municipal government vested with state authority, ‘has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content,’ ” Simonson said.

The case dealt with the Arizona town of Gilbert’s restrictions on displaying signs in public, but Simonson said courts in Massachusetts, Illinois, Colorado and Maine have relied on it to strike down panhandling ordinances, several of which were similar to Santa Fe’s.

In 2010, when the Santa Fe City Council passed language banning “aggressive” panhandling, the New Mexico ACLU sent a letter warning that the proposal may violate the First Amendment and due process protections. Simonson’s letter said the amendments currently in place, banning panhandling around bus stops, cash machines and other places creates “complex web of restrictions” that a reasonable person cannot be expected to know.

“Panhandling is speech that confronts people on the street with the uncomfortable truth of poverty in our community,” Simonson wrote in his 2010 letter to the city. “We may not like the speech, but it is protected by our Constitution, and being exposed to it is one of the corollaries of living in a truly free society.”

Simonson said that if the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., had come down in 2010, “we would have recommended the city abandon the legislation altogether.”

City code says, “Panhandlers may engage in the act of panhandling on public property in the city provided that the panhandler comply with the following regulations.” The law then lists well over a dozen restrictions on the time, place and manner of panhandling, violations of which are a petty misdemeanor that can send a beggar to county jail.

Ross, the city spokesman, did not respond to questions about whether the city attorney’s office is confident in the constitutionality of the current panhandling ordinance, or why the proposal to make it stricter was tabled.

Warnings from the state ACLU have not stopped police from enforcing the ordinance. Police in 2016 issued 86 panhandling citations compared to 25 such cases in 2010. There have been 43 panhandling citations from Jan. 1 to Sept. 19 of this year, records show.

Yet such data does not give a full picture of interactions between police and panhandlers, because such cases are often reported as disorderly conduct calls, according to Gurulé.

“For panhandlers, we give a verbal warning, then cite,” Gurulé said. He added that arrests are made only after repeated warnings are ignored.

Chad Chittum, the city prosecutor, said the maximum penalty for a petty misdemeanor panhandling citation is up to 90 days in jail, a $500 fine or both. But Chittum said he does not seek for a judge to impose the maximum penalty. Rather, Chittum said he often seeks deferred sentences that might address the underlying causes of panhandling, such as homelessness.

Under such a sentence, a defendant may be ordered to perform community service through such organizations as The Life Link or the Interfaith Community Shelter, where those in need may get treatment or social services.

Still, deferred sentences also may present legal and financial liabilities, including probation violations and court costs. And court-ordered volunteering does not address homelessness by putting money in one’s pocket. City code says defendants sentenced to community service “shall not be entitled to any wages, shall not be considered an employee for any purpose and shall not be entitled to workers’ compensation, unemployment benefits or any other benefits otherwise provided by law.”

Police also have discretion to book panhandlers in jail pending arraignments, resulting in a mugshot that any potential employer can easily find online.

Elena Cardona, a public defender who represents indigent defendants in municipal court, said she sees panhandling cases filed from all parts of the city, not just downtown.

Cardona says there is a First Amendment dilemma with the city’s prohibitions against begging from the medians. For instance, she said, The New Mexican’s vendors use those same medians to sell newspapers.

“In general, it’s an ordinance against poverty,” Cardona said.

Contact Justin Horwath at 505-986-3017 or jhorwath@sfnewmexican.com.

Panhandling cases filed in Santa Fe Municipal Court from 2010 to Sept. 19.

2010: 25, with 10 guilty

2011: 24, with six guilty

2012: 31, with eight guilty

2013: 31, with 10 guilty

2014: 58, with 16 guilty

2015: 88, with 22 guilty

2016: 86, with 36 guilty

2017: 43, with seven guilty

How city code defines panhandling:

The city code lists over one dozen restrictions on the time, place and manner of begging in city limits. The prohibitions restrict panhandling before sunrise or after sunset; on streets, alleyways or “other public passageway in any manner that obstructs the operation of any vehicle by any motorist”; at bus stops; within 20 feet of entrances or exits of public transportation facilities; in a “sidewalk café”; within 20 feet of ATMs or banks; in “off-street public parking lots or public parking structures”; and within street medians.

Panhandling in an “aggressive manner” is also prohibited, with restrictions against “touching the solicited person without the solicited person’s consent”; panhandling a person standing in line to be admitted at commercial establishments; blocking the path of or following the person being solicited; using “profane or abusive language, either during the solicitation or following a refusal to make a donation, or making any statement, gesture or other communication which would cause a reasonable person to be fearful or feel compelled”; panhandling in a group of two or more persons; or panhandling with a sign exceeding four square feet.

Panhandling at one location for longer than two hours is prohibited, the ordinance says, “and the panhandler shall stay a minimum of one hundred fifty feet (150’) away from such location and shall not return to that same location for two (2) hours.”

Panhandling on private property is also prohibited unless “formal written permission is granted from the property owner to the person panhandling,” city code says.

Source: US Government Class

September 21, 2017 0 Comment apgov
Share:

President praises China for taking action to limit financial transactions with North Korea

(CNN) – President Donald Trump announced a new set of sanctions on North Korea Thursday and praised China for taking action to limit financial transactions with the isolated communist nation.

The effort to project forward momentum in his bid to isolate Pyongyang came at the end of Trump’s four-day visit to the United Nations General Assembly, where the crisis has taken prominence in rapid-pace meetings with more than a dozen world leaders.
Trump indicated ahead of talks with his Japanese and South Korean counterparts that China’s leader Xi Jinping — who was not present — had told financial institutions to stop dealing with North Korea.
The step would amount to major progress in US efforts to cut off support for Pyongyang as punishment for its nuclear provocations.
“It is unacceptable that others financially support this criminal rogue regime,” Trump said at the start of the talks, held at a hotel in New York, adding he was calling for “complete denuclearization” in North Korea.
The executive order Trump inked just ahead of the lunch enhances US Treasury Department authorities to target individuals who provide goods, services or technology to North Korea, Trump said.
He said the order would also allow the US to identify new industries — including textiles, fishing and manufacturing — as potential targets for future actions.
“Tolerance for this disgraceful practice must end now,” he said of providing resources to North Korea.
The new sanctions come two days after Trump threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea if it continues to threaten the United States and its allies.
Trump insists that military options are on the table for dealing with North Korea, but his aides have said diplomacy is the preferred outlet for containing the nuclear crisis.
And Trump himself appeared to open the door for talks with North Korea, an option he’d previously ruled out. Asked at the end of the photo-op whether dialogue was still possible with North Korea, Trump said: “Why not?”
The remark indicated fresh openness for talks with Pyongyang, despite his insistence earlier this month that “talking is not the answer.”
The United Nations Security Council has approved multiple rounds of sanctions on North Korea, including on its exports. But they have yet to stop the communist nation’s leader Kim Jong Un from launching ballistic missile tests.
During talks Thursday with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan and President Moon Jae-in of South Korea, Trump was expected to reiterate that military options are available in retaliation for North Korean threats.
That’s likely to draw a rebuke from Moon, who has ruled out military action and issued warnings on the ramped-up rhetoric coming from Washington.

Source: US Government Class

September 20, 2017 0 Comment apgov
Share:

California suing Trump over border wall, escalating battle with White House

FoxNews – California Attorney General Xavier Becerra plans to announce Wednesday that the state will sue the Trump administration over one of President Trump’s paramount campaign promises—the border wall.

Becerra’s lawsuit, expected to target planned projects in San Diego and Imperial counties, marks the latest shot in California’s legal and legislative war against Trump.

The state essentially has emerged as the heart of the Trump “resistance,” pumping out lawsuits against his immigration policies and even passing a resolution Friday in the Assembly censuring Trump for his comments on the violence stemming from white nationalist protests in Charlottesville, Va.

The forthcoming lawsuit comes as Trump works with Congress to try and secure funding for a border wall — though the specifics of the project itself remain unclear.

The president issued an executive order in January calling for securing the “southern border of the United States through the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border, monitored and supported by adequate personnel so as to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking and acts of terrorism.”

SESSIONS BLASTS CALIF. FOR SANCTUARY STATE BILL

Last month, the administration awarded contracts to four companies to begin construction.

The president tweeted last week that “the WALL, which is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls, will continue to be built.”

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders underscored the president’s commitment to the border wall earlier this month.

“I don’t think the president has been shy about the fact that he wants a wall,” Sanders said. “It’s certainly something he feels is an important part of a responsible immigration package.”

This isn’t Becerra’s first lawsuit against the Trump administration. Just last week, Becerra joined state attorneys general from Minnesota, Maryland and Maine in filing suit against the administration over its decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, arguing that the White House violated the Constitution and federal laws by rescinding the Obama-era program.

“We will not permit Donald Trump to destroy the lives of young immigrants who make California and our country stronger,” Becerra said in a statement last week. “The court of public opinion has already spoken: the vast majority of Americans agree Dreamers should be here to stay; so now it’s time to fight in every way we can — and on multiple fronts — in the court of law.”

But Trump has put the onus on Congress to draft legislation that would protect ‘Dreamers,’ even meeting with Democratic congressional leadership last week to discuss a path forward.

California has been firmly against most Trump administration immigration policies. The state’s legislature also passed a sanctuary state measure over the weekend and is awaiting approval by Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown that would bolster protections for illegal immigrants in the state—a move Attorney General Jeff Sessions called “unconscionable” on Tuesday.

“The bill risks the safety of good law enforcement officers and the safety of the neighborhoods that need their protection the most,” Sessions said during a speech in Portland, Ore., on Tuesday. “There are lives and livelihoods at stake.”

Sessions urged Brown not to sign the law that would halt local police from cooperating with federal authorities to deport illegal immigrants.

The Trump administration has faced significant roadblocks in efforts to crack down on jurisdictions that do not cooperate with federal immigration agents. Last week, a federal judge in Chicago ruled that Sessions could not withhold public grant money from sanctuary cities for refusing to follow federal immigration law—an option the attorney general has used to threaten states and localities who call themselves ‘sanctuaries.’

“We strive to help state and local law enforcement,” Sessions said. “But we cannot continue giving such federal grants to cities that actively undermine the safety of federal law officers and actively frustrate efforts to reduce crime.”

Fox News’ Alex Pappas and the Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Source: US Government Class

September 19, 2017 0 Comment apgov
Share:

CBS News – In his first major address to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, President Trump delivered his harshest warning yet to the North Korean regime, saying it risked “total destruction” if it continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

“The U.S. has great strength and patience but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea,” said Mr. Trump to the UNGA.

The president also said of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and his regime.” It’s a nickname he has recently started using in tweets.

Mr. Trump said the regime’s “reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles” threatens the entire world with unthinkable loss of human life.

“It is an outrage that some nations would not only trade with such a regime — but arm, supply and financially support a regime that imperils the world with nuclear conflict.”

Describing the North as a “depraved regime,” Mr. Trump blamed it for “the starvation deaths of millions, and for imprisonment torture and oppression of countless more,” and he cited the case of American student Otto Warmbier, who died after being held in North Korean captivity.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told CBS that Mr. Trump’s comments toward North Korea was yet another example of his “strong rhetoric and strong language.”

“We’ve seen the international community condemning North Korea of the developing of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, the importance of working together to make sure that North Korea bounds it missile program and refrains from more testing, it is a threat toward all of us and it requires a global response,” said Stoltenberg.

He added, “there’s no easy way out, no easy answer” but that the international community needs to “find something in between doing nothing” and using military force.

As anticipated, Mr. Trump also spoke in harsh terms about Iran and the nuclear deal signed by his predecessor. He called it “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the U.S. has ever entered” and deemed it an “embarrassment to the U.S.”

In an indictment of the international body, Mr. Trump said the Iran nuclear deal provides a “cover for the potential construction of a nuclear program” in the region, an outcome that the U.S. would not tolerate.

“We cannot let a murderer’s regime continue these destabilizing activities while building dangerous missiles, and we cannot abide by an agreement if it provides cover for the eventual construction of a nuclear program.” It was a signal from the president that he is seriously considering either pulling out of or renegotiating the Iran nuclear deal, CBS News’ Margaret Brennan observed.  The Iran deal is agreement some of America’s strongest allies have signed, and they have said that it cannot be renegotiated.

Mr. Trump also framed his campaign’s “America First” ideology as American sovereignty in this speech. He told world leaders that the U.S. “can no longer be taken advantage of” in deals where the U.S. “gets nothing in return.”

“In America, the people govern the people rule and the people are sovereign,” said Mr. Trump, adding that he was elected to serve the people of his country.

“As long as I hold this office I will defend America’s interests above all else but in fulfilling our obligations to our own nations we also realize its in everyone’s interest to seek a  future where all nations can be sovereign, prosperous and secure,” he added.

On Monday, the president kicked off his week of diplomacy with a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, where he promised the leader that there was a “good chance” for peace in the Middle East. He also sat with French President Emmanuel Macron and lauded the president for his impressive military parade on Bastille Day. 

Source: US Government Class