Trump's Impeachment Inquiry

Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/30/trump-impeachment/ 

House Democrats plan to ramp up their impeachment efforts in the coming week and have subpoenaed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Members of the House Intelligence Committee have pledged to stay in Washington to work through Congress’s scheduled recess. House Democratic leaders are eyeing a rapid investigation, to wrap before the holiday season. That will keep it focused on the accusations about Trump’s request to the Ukrainian president. However, if the House impeaches Trump, the Senate may be able to just not hold a trial.


Impeachment means that Congress thinks the president is no longer fit to serve and should be removed from office. It doesn’t actually remove him from office; the House can vote to impeach the president, and then the Senate holds a trial to determine if he should be removed. This is how impeachment works.

1) Do you think Trump could evoke executive privilege to block access to documents and testimonies? What would be the consequences if he did?

2) What do you think is the likelihood of Trump being impeached? If he did, how likely do you think it would be for him to be removed from office? Justify your answer.

3) What are the consequences, negative and positive, of Trump being impeached? How will our country as a whole be affected?

McConnell Could Prevent Trump From Getting Impeached

Last week, the House opened a formal impeachment inquiry following a whistleblower’s complaints on a phone call President Trump made to the Ukrainian President. In the House, six House committees are expected to investigate Trump’s impeachable offenses and send their strongest cases to the Judiciary Committee. If it passes the committee and wins a majority of the House vote, the process will move to the Senate where they hold a trial. After the trial, two-thirds of the Senate has to vote in favor of convicting Trump, however, since the Senate is controlled by Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, it is unclear if the impeachment would proceed. McConnell could also choose to table to impeachment proceedings, preventing debates or votes. In 2016, McConnell stated that the Senate would not vote on Merrick Garland, Obama’s Supreme Court Justice nomination. McConnell argued that the voters should decide by voting in the upcoming presidential election which would allow the new president to fill the vacancy. McConnell has not responded to reporters’ questions on whether he would allow Senate to hold a trial, but other members of Congress hope that he will go through with the trial. The role of the Senate in the impeachment process is vague and its rules are flexible according to the Constitution giving McConnell more power to decide to continue the impeachment process.

Article: How Mitch McConnell could give impeachment the Merrick Garland treatment

Questions:

1. What happened to Merrick Garland and how does it relate to Trump’s impeachment process?

2. Compare Trump’s impeachment case to the previous impeachment cases. How are they different?

3. Do you think the reasons for impeachment are valid? Why?

Would the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act solve the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act issues?

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) prohibits foreign exchanges of bribery between firms and individuals in the nation to gain further advantages in business deals. However, it doesn't extend to officials who take money from bribery to help win contracts or maintain business. It brings up several

Here's the article that comes with this blog post:)

issues that while helping limit briberies between countries both within the US it lacks authority between US and foreign businesses. Through this law, it brings up a big issue that some business agreements have not been considered official acts because it must involve some type of governmental power exercise that has physical proof of the event actually happening, like a lawsuit and the people within being put under oath to make a fair agreement. Therefore, "casual" meetings discussing potential briberies or actions being taken without federal work involved doesn't count under the FCPA, especially with foreign businesses. The FCPA also contains two defenses business workers can use to defend their briberies; the "local law" defense allows the defendants to show how their exchanges weren't illegal with physical proof, and the other authorizes facilitations permits to keep routined government action in the nation. This doesn't help decrease the amount of bribery and cheating that happens within US businesses because it gives the defendants an edge that helps them win and get away with bribery crimes committed.

The Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA) has become a bill and has been introduced to Congress in August for furthering the FCPA protections by expanding prohibitions on foreign officials involved in briberies. The idea of this bill is how it would help put prohibition on foreign exchanges of bribery. Through the support of both Democrats and Republicans, it would help charge businesses of fraud through the anti-bribery statue over the FCPA. As stated in the bill it could also help establish crimes that interfere with official obligations of US and foreign businesses. But, if this bill does become law it could raise greater potential issues for the Justice Department because it could mean that foreign business officials would have to be brought back to the US for a trial to be held. If this becomes a requirement, those foreign officials would probably be reluctant to coming back to the US and thus create an issue with holding trial alone.

With the facts about the FCPA and the basic knowledge of the FEPA, it's still in question whether the bill will make smart and efficient changes to help the FCPA. The bill would make holding crimes against these businesses easier but would cause the Justice Department to lose authority over the trials held.

1. According to this article, what are some case examples that show how the FCPA is not helpful with filing crimes against businesses committing fraud?

2. In your opinion, what is the biggest issue that is a result of the FCPA? What about the FEPA?

3. Do you think the FEPA should become a law? Would it help the FCPA gain more power against these businesses?

Will Pelosi and Trump Work Together to Lower Drug Prices?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/us/politics/pelosi-drug-prices.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FU.S.%20Congress&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=10&pgtype=collection

 Last week, Speaker Pelosi announced a bill that would allow the US to negotiate prices of insulin and 250 other drugs for users of Medicare. Private insurance plans would also have to follow, facing large fines up to 95% of the profit of the drug if they also don't comply with the regulations. The first committee to discuss the bill will be the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which will hopefully get it to the floor in the next month. However, Republicans in the Committee currently don't support the bill, as they feel it is a move that Pelosi is making to appeal to the representatives on the extreme left. In the past, President Trump supported reducing drug prices during his previous presidential campaign. Some do believe there is a bipartisan solution, which is challenging to find since the continuation of polarization beginning in the 1980s. Pelosi noted that Trump has told her that this is one of his priorities, which leaves Washington stunned if these powerful people decide to work together. Trump could still issue an executive order, and avoid having to work with Congress or Pelosi, but it remains unclear what he will do, since he wants to deal with it in a bipartisan fashion, according to one of his tweets. Some worry about getting the bill passed in the Senate, but Trump could influence his party in favor of passing the bill.

Questions:

1. What do you think the consequences are, both positive or negative, of Trump choosing an executive order over working with Pelosi and Congress?
2. What are different ways that Pelosi can use to try and make sure her bill doesn't get killed in committee or on the Senate floor?
3. Why is the bill going through the Energy and Commerce Committee first?

States Crack Down on Partisan Gerrymandering

The 2010 redistricting cycle guaranteed Republican victories for the rest of the decade. The project, known as "Redmap", created a 33 seat margin in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2010 election. Recently, North Carolina Judges struck down district lines arguing that they heavily favored the Republican Party. Republican state senators won 49.5% of the popular vote but ended up with 29 of the 50 seats (or 58% of the seats) due to Republican majorities in most districts. The North Carolina state legislature was ordered to redraw its district maps, following a pattern of anti-gerrymandering laws and court decisions enacted throughout the decade. In 2012, for example, Obama won Florida by a narrow 0.9% yet Republicans won 17 of 27 congressional districts. Then in 2015 the Supreme Court ordered redistricting in Florida and now Democrats have 13 seats and Republicans 14 seats (much more consistent with Florida's purple color). However, the methods in which the government can regulate gerrymandering have been in debate for the past decade. In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the Arizona state legislature challenged a state constitutional amendment (enacted through a ballot initiative) that gave redistricting power to an independent commission. The Supreme Court rejected the state's argument that an independent commission bypasses representation on the grounds that the amendment was enacted through a ballot initiative. Still, this was a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court decision and the case could potentially reopen. Recently, in June 2019, the supreme court ruled that federal courts cannot intervene in partisan gerrymandering in Rucho v. Common Cause. In essence, the ruling stated that federal courts are to remain neutral on partisan gerrymandering. However, if state governments continue to regulate gerrymandering, Republicans will find much more difficulty in gaining districts like they did in 2010.

The cracks in the GOP’s gerrymandering firewall

1. Do you agree with the ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause? Should federal courts be able to regulate partisan gerrymandering?

2.  Why do you think Republicans gained such an advantage in 2010? In other words, what political, economic or social conditions allowed for such large scale gerrymandering?

3. Which (types of) states are more likely to be victims of gerrymandering? Less likely?

What does the Republican victory in the North Carolina special elections mean for Trump in 2020?

This past Tuesday, September 10 2019 North Carolina had 2 special elections to elect 2 vacant seats in the house. As the title of this post suggests, this piece aims to answer the question, what do these victories mean for Trump and the Republicans going into the 2020 election. This special election can be seen as a continuation of the 2018 midterms and the last of that election cycle. The first New York Times article argues that while it is definitely a positive that the Republicans won, it is not truly indicative of a Republican victory in 2020. The victory was very close and could have gone to the Democrats, not a landslide victory, however could be more indicative of the kind of results we'll see in 2020. The narrow win may have kept a few lawmakers from retiring but the fact is, the victory in North Carolina will not be much help for the Republicans in 2020. However, when it comes down to it, it is evident that the Democrats should not underestimate Trump's power or ability to rally his support and win close elections. 

Questions:

1. How should Democrats be concerned with the results of this election?
2. What can Republicans attribute this win to?
3. What can the Republicans next steps be if they want to regain control of the house?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/us/politics/north-carolina-special-election.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/us/politics/trump-voters-supporters-policies.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

Trump and DeVos' plans to cut college student aid programs

Link to the article

While public colleges get their funding from both state and national governments, most do not have enough money to provide students with adequate aid to allow them to graduate with minimal debt. Because of this, low income students rely on Pell Grants and various student loan exceptions to afford college and minimize debt after they graduate. Despite the fact that college tuition continues to increase along with student loan debt, President Trump and Education Secretary DeVos want to cut funding for student aid programs and change loan forgiveness policies and income-driven repayment policies. Trump plans to cut funding from federal work-study programs and end loan forgiveness for public servants such as teachers and social workers. To incentivize more colleges to accept Pell grant students, The Trump administration plans on providing funding partially based on the number of Pell grant recipients attending a college. While Trump wants to get more colleges to accept Pell grant recipients, he also wants to lower the maximum amount of money given to each student and encourage students to pursue short term certificates rather than four year colleges. In some ways, this could reduce the amount of money spent by the federal government on student aid, as well as reduce student debt. However, some argue that using grant money on a certificate is less beneficial than a college degree.

Questions:
1. What are some arguments for and against encouraging Pell grant recipients to pursue certificates rather than four year college degrees?

2. What are some of the concerns advocacy groups have with Trump's new policies for funding education and paying student loans?

3. If government funding becomes partially based on the number of Pell grant recipients enrolled in a college, which colleges will benefit and which will lose funding?

Nebraska and Oklahoma vs. Colorado: The Legalization of Marijuana

Here is a link to an NPR article that talks about this case

The struggle marijuana legalization is one of the most prevalent and controversial conflicts about federalism in recent times. The roles of federal and state drug laws have created a lot of instability and put the legality of marijuana in question. Nebraska and Oklahoma tried to sue Colorado over the legalization of recreation marijuana, however, the Supreme Court refused their complaint. The two states claimed that Colorado's legalization caused Nebraska and Oklahoma to struggle with enforcing the federal ban and that Colorado's establishment of a regulated market prompted marijuana to flow into their states. It drains their treasuries, places stress on their justice systems, and endangers the health of their residents. Nebraska and Oklahoma did concede that Colorado has the power to legalize production, distribution, possession, and use of marijuana. Nebraska Attorney General said the Supreme Court's denial of the case does not mean that "unconstitutional facilitation of marijuana industrialization is legal." Those on Colorado's side say that states have the right to regulate or prohibit the marijuana industry, and Colorado as a state has "done more to control marijuana than just about any other state." This case indicates the fight between state and federal powers. The federal government is able to regulate marijuana based on the Commerce clause while state authority regulates it based on the Tenth Amendment which states the powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States and the people. State governments have sovereign powers but are not equal to the federal government because of the Supremacy Clause. However, states are free to write their own criminal statutes and thus does not conflict with federal law.

Questions:
1. The article states the claim that Colorado's law puts stress on Nebraska and Oklahoma's criminal justice systems. Discuss the drawbacks and benefits of Colorado's law.

2. The article makes it clear that Nebraska and Oklahoma were both against Colorado's law. What was Nebraska and Oklahoma's standing?

3. Opinion: What do you think the outcome of the case should have been and provide your reasoning.

Post Industrial Economics Pushed the White Working Class to Republicans

Please see NYTimes Opinion piece that references a Duke/Ohio State study on white working class voters

Realigning elections reflect a significant change in party platforms, ideology or a shift in demographic support for particular parties.  For example, the 1932 FDR victory created the New Deal coalition that included a large part of the white working class.  This group included many union members especially in Rust Belt states that are often pivotal in presidential elections.  As a result of President Trump's 2016 victory white working class voters have come under increasing scrutiny.  One telling statistic reflected a shift from 2010 to 2018, in which whites without a college degree grew from 50 to 59 percent of the Republican Party's voters.  This group tends to be more liberal economically, so Trump's promises to protect Medicare and Social Security also reveal the sentiment that Trump was relatively moderate compared to post 1980 national Republican candidates.  The article is quite deep with a nuanced look at white non-college graduates in the upper two income quintiles as especially committed to the Republican party.   Finally, the article attempts to contextualize the demographic changes by explaining the realignment of white voters as part of the tectonic shift from an industrial to a knowledge based economy.  In response to the economic shift, demographics that formerly fell into the New Deal Democrat coalition shifted their political focus to "2nd dimension issues of citizenship, race and social governance."  Ultimately, these trends are likely problematic for the Republicans as the changes in US demographics make white voters a smaller block.

Questions:
1.  The article discusses non-college grad whites that are in the upper two income quintiles (above $77,000).  Why would these groups be especially attracted to the Trump and the modern Republican Party?

2.  Conversely, the article identified low income white college graduates as the most loyal white constituency.  Why would this group lean heavily Democratic?

3.  The article cites numerous other scholarly works and breaks down racial attitudes as well as church attendance as an indicator of voting behavior.  What is one fact from the article that is especially relevant?