Impeachment Scandal

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/impeachment-process-works/story?id=51202880



Summary: While allegations about Trump's misdemeanors have been surfacing the media for months, the Democrats efforts to impeach Trump have gained attention in recent weeks over suspicion of Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Though the Muller report did not clear the president of obstruction of Justice, the Ukraine Call may call for further investigation. Trump portray's the accusation as a "Witch Hunt, and members of Congress have criticized the accusations as well claiming that it violates the president's due process rights and interferes with his ability to conduct foreign policy. The leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, announced the formal opening of the impeachment inquiry saying the president betrayed his oath in office and our national security. However, the impeachment process is dictated entirely by the ruling party. The House of Representatives is currently majority democrat, meaning that they will most likely vote to impeach him. This would not change much though since the president has to be acquitted in both the House and the Senate to actually be impeached, and the Senate is majority Republican. If the senate fails to convict, the president will be considered impeached but not removed. If Trump were to be impeached, the vice president would assume office under the 25th amendment. Only two presidents were impeached in the past, Johnson and Clinton, and we will see if this number will change after the upcoming trials.

Questions:
In what ways would the accusations against Trump violate his due process rights?

How are these impeachment trials going to effect the upcoming election?

In what ways does what was said on the phone call categorize as a misdemeanor, felony, treason or bribery?

Favoring Money Over Rights

https://www.wsj.com/video/free-speech-vs-chinese-market-us-companies-face-tough-choice/92AFA903-5523-4023-B51C-2111B45A24EA.html
https://in.ign.com/hearthstone-heroes-of-warcraft/140306/feature/fans-pledge-to-boycott-blizzard-over-hearthstone-pros-ban
A few weeks ago two large companies, the NBA and Activision-Blizzard, came under fire for stopping their employees and players from speaking out about the ongoing Hong Kong protests. The decision from both of these companies has resulted in massive blowback from their respective audiences as protests were staged and Blizzard employees even walking out in support of Hong Kong protestors. The main issue that has been brought up because of these protests has been the necessity to favor national values over profit. What is going on in China right now is a civil rights catastrophe, but large companies restrict their players from complaining because of the possible repercussions from the Chinese market. For years almost every type of media has worked with the Chinese government in order to allow their products to enter the market. In movies and games, it usually involved removing parts of the story or game to fall in accordance with China's strict policy. For over a decade Activision-Blizzard has been running a separate version of their game World of Warcraft that cuts all of the bones, blood, and references that go against China's standards. This calls into question the morals of companies like Activision-Blizzard because of their complacency of China's actions in order to enter their billion-person market. People are demanding that lines are drawn in the sand to withdraw out of the Chinese market until their civil rights issue is properly resolved to make a statement that they are not okay with China's actions. Activision-Blizzard has already made a step with an official apology and reversing the decision that caused the outcry in the first place. But this is only the first step in showing that the rights of people are more important than the buck.

Do you think companies should withdraw from the Chinese market?

Can and should the government require U.S. companies to stop trade with China?

What would your response be if you were the NBA or Activision-Blizzard?

Does the Civil Rights Act protect LGBT workers? The Supreme

Court is about to decide

https://www.salon.com/2019/11/08/does-the-civil-rights-act-protect-lgbt-workers-the-supreme-court-is-about-to-decide_partner/

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act makes it illegal for employers to discriminate
based on numerous factors, including race, religion, and sex. Lower federal courts
have disputed how sex should be defined as stated in this act for many years, with
three cases about LGBT employment discrimination even reaching the Supreme Court
in October 2019. Until now, however, the Supreme Court has avoided making
a definite ruling on whether Title VII prohibits LGBT employment discrimination.

It is expected that Justices who subscribe to originalism—such as Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh,
two of Trump's nominees—are more likely to define sex narrowly, as the writers of Title VII
did not have LGBT rights in mind when writing it. However, there are also some strong
precedents set for broad interpretation of sex, even among originalists. Consequently, it is
difficult to predict what the Supreme Court will ultimately decide. The Supreme Court's final
decision is expected to occur in mid-2020.

• How are originalism and judicial activism applicable to the interpretation of Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act?

• What do you think the Supreme Court will decide? Why? 
• How is this case relevant to the Free Exercise Clause? What role has this clause played 

in past decision(s) regarding LGBT employment discrimination?

Can Trump Legally Out The Whistleblower?

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/06/776481504/can-trump-legally-out-the-whistleblower-experts-say-it-would-not-violate-any-law 

In the midst of the impeachment inquiry, many Trump supporters and the president himself have pushed for the unmasking of the whistleblower. This poses the question of whether it would be considered a crime if the president were to expose the identity of the whistleblower to the public. Several experts weigh in on the issue, agreeing that while “outing” the whistleblower would not be a crime, there are potential consequences if revealing the identity resulted in danger for the whistleblower or their family. Robert Litt, the former general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under President Barack Obama, stated that if Trump revealed the name, “he's probably as protected as anyone is," whether he says it or tweets it. They declared that if Trump, a news outlet, a member of Congress, or even a normal citizen revealed the whistleblower, “no criminal law would be violated”. Federal law does not protect the identity of the whistleblower as “Congress has never provided that protection”. 

In theory, however, exposing the identity could lead to retaliation against the whistleblower and their family so consequences do exist if a person chose to publicize the name. The person could be at risk of a civil lawsuit, and if they are a member of Congress, they could be removed from committees. As we have learned, workplace retaliation is in fact a federal crime, so while the action of outing a whistleblower is legal, there are many ramifications to this action that could be illegal. McLaughlin, the former acting director of the CIA, explained that there is a “longstanding deference to the protection of whistleblowers who risk their jobs to expose corruption, waste and abuse that has largely prevented federal government officials from naming them”, but now under the Trump administration, there are concerns that the president may ignore this history. Precedent such as this can be ignored, but this would create a new precedent that may discourage future whistleblowers from stepping up. The law was made to protect their interests from possible vengeance. Whistleblower protections in this case stem from the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998. This act bans retaliation and prevents the inspector general from revealing the whistleblower's name, however it does nothing to prevent anyone else from identifying the whistleblower. This brings attention to the gaps within whistleblower protection laws, and the threat is poses to protecting their rights and safety. 

As we study civil liberties and rights, we discover more holes like those in the whistleblower protections. These gaps have significant consequences and may even contribute to silencing people by allowing others to potentially threaten to their safety if they speak out. 

1. Is it legal (for anyone) to reveal the identity of a whistleblower? 
2. Explain the protections included in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998.
3. What are the potential consequences of outing a whistleblower, and how could precedent be changed if the president were to reveal the identity of the whistleblower?

Judge Voids Trump-Backed "Conscience Rule" For Health Workers

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/upshot/trump-conscience-rule-overturned.html

On Wednesday, Judge Engelmayer of the District Court for the Southern District of New York
voided the Trump administration’s “conscience rule.” Planned to be implemented
this month, the rule built on existing civil rights protections for religious health care
workers by merging 25 separate laws into a single framework, and it would have
permitted medical providers to deny care if it conflicted with their religious or moral beliefs.
Under the rule, the government could withhold or even terminate funding if recipients
compelled their employees to perform such tasks despite objections—a provision that
Engelmayer concluded to be “impermissibly coercive.” To justify the rule, administration
officials claimed that the number of conscience complaints from health care workers
had skyrocketed, but Engelmayer argued that the officials mischaracterized many of
these complaints. In his written opinion, he states that the Department of Health and
Human Services does not even have the authority to impose much of the rule. Opponents
of the rule lauded Engelmayer for voiding a policy that they believe permits legal
discrimination, whereas supporters express disappointment in his decision, claiming
that it harms medical professionals by denying them religious liberty. It remains unclear
whether the Trump administration will appeal the ruling.

1. How does New York v. H.H.S. illustrate the conflict between civil liberties and civil rights?
2. How does the federal judge’s decision in New York v. H.H.S. compare to recent decisions the Supreme Court has made in similar cases? Does the judge’s decision overturn or uphold precedent? Perhaps consider the Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. 
3. Do you think the “conscience rule” is unconstitutional? Why or why not? Perhaps consider the decision in Casey v. Planned Parenthood. 

The ERA May Pass Now. It's Only Been 96 Years.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/us/politics/virginia-ratify-equal-rights-amendment.html

Summary: 

Following a recent election, Virginia’s state legislature is now under Democratic control. It is speculated that Virginia will now become the 38th state to ratify the ERA. The ERA was first proposed nearly a hundred years ago, and Congress passed the amendment in 1972. However, only 35 of 38 state legislatures needed had ratified the amendment by the 1982 deadline set by Congress. However, more state legislatures have recently begun to ratify the amendment. In 2017, Nevada became the 36th state, and in 2018, Illinois became the 37th state. The ERA originally failed in the Virginia Senate by one vote, so the new Democratic state legislature has decided to reintroduce the ratification of the amendment when the legislature convenes in January. However, even with the 38 states needed to ratify the amendment, it is unknown whether or not the original 1982 deadline will be repealed by Congress. Regardless, there will still be a long legal battle to pass the ERA. States like Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Tennessee have rescinded their ratifications, but based on legal precedent, original ratifications have still be counted in the past. Experts expect that a Supreme Court decision will ultimately decide the fate of the revival of the ERA. 

1. Does Congress have the constitutional power to set and remove deadlines for the ratification of amendments, and if so what are the ramifications of this power?
2. The article mentions states have rescinded their support for the amendment. How has support for the ERA wavered throughout the years?
3. What will be the effects of the ratification of this amendment? How will the ERA change women’s rights in the United States? (Build off fishbowl discussion)

Climate Change Becoming an Increasing Issue in Today's Poltical Discourse

 

ABC News Article

Imagine this. You’re Dianne Feinstein, and you’re sitting in your office doing—I dunno—political
things. And then, you’re asked to speak to a bunch of young climate activists. They, being kids and all, 
are kinda annoying, and you rebuke and contradict their naive and idealistic points. After all, they don’t
understand the difficulty that being a politician entails, and you’re frickin’ Dianne Feinstein! You’re
one of the most progressive members of congress when it comes to climate change! 

Well. Dianne Feinstein did get in trouble for contradicting those kids. The number one rule of politics 
is to NEVER disagree with kids when they’re in front of you. But this brings up a more fundamental 
and interesting debate. Climate change is becoming a more pressing issue in American politics.

In the upcoming 2020 election, among Democratic candidates, climate change is becoming a focal 
point for candidates and their agendas. According to ABC News, in 2016, Clinton and Trump spent 
only 6 minutes in their debates talking about climate change. In 2012, Obama and Romney ignored 
the topic altogether. In this year’s cycle, climate change has been discussed numerous times by candidates, some of whom (i.e Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and more) have made climate change a focal issue.

In the September 2019 climate strikes, millions of Americans—many of whom students—participated 
in striking for the environment. It is obvious that climate change has become a huge point for younger 
voters, and candidates are clambering to get their vote. But who knows what will happen? Will these 
voters succeed in getting a candidate who supports their agenda into office? Or will this just be a 
political fad? Time will tell. 

• What is the difference between what politicians agree with, and what they can actually accomplish?
• Will pushing the Democratic party to be more progressive move the overall political discourse to 
  become more progressive?
• Will climate change become a more and more important element in future political discourse?