Justices Consider How to Apply 18th Century Law to Digital Privacy

When the constitution was written in 1787 no one expected that the world would change so drastically. With the development of technology and the constitution not adapting, there comes an issue of how to apply the old laws to the new world. Since the government started tracking information people have raised concern about how it violates their personal rights. Currently the Supreme Court “require[s] a warrant to search the cellphones of people placed under arrest” but you don’t need a court-ordered warrant to access data collection through phones. There is a precedent set by a 1979 case, Smith v. Maryland, that people have no right to expect that their privacy extends to a third party. There is a federal law that requires prosecutors to basically get a warrant to get tracking data. In Timothy Ivory Carpenter's case he was convicted of a series of robberies that were partially tracked via his cellphone GPS over the course of months. Carpenters lawyer argued that this violates the "fourth amendment, which bars unreasonable searches, by failing to get a warrant for the information". Although there are laws about cell phone tracking, they are very loose.


Justice Considers How to Apply 18th Century Law to Digital Privacy

Should lawmakers adapt the fourth amendment to reflect current times?

How should the Supreme Court set guidelines to control the collection of people's private data?

Why is it important for amendments to be reevaluated every so often?

What Does the Future of Net Neutrality Hold?

NYT article: Net Neutrality Hits a Nerve, Eliciting Intense Reactions

Recent decisions made by the Federal Communications Commission, headed by Trump appointee and former Verizon employee Ajit Pai, have ruffled numerous feathers especially in the tech sector. As Pai work arduously to justify his decisions to repeal net neutrality regulations, it's important to reflect on the history of the subject. In recent years content on the internet has exploded to the point of being nearly essential to all. The internet is host to a wide variety of content, and as users we expect to access anything the same as any other piece of content. The basic idea of net neutrality preserves that ideal, that all content is treated fairly by internet providers and one service or type of content isn't favored. In the past tampering by ISPs has occurred. One instance, in 2007, saw Verizon blocking a text alert service by the pro-choice group Naral due it being "controversial". This seems to be in clear contradiction to net neutrality as well as the basis of political freedom so vital in a democracy. A decision made in 2015 by the then Democrat led FCC, classified broadband internet as a public utility which entailed strict enforcement of net neutrality. Despite the issue of net neutrality being proven be non partisan and widely supported, Republicans across the board criticize it for stifling investment and growth. These claims have proven hard to confirm but the FCC, now led by Pai, plans to vote to repeal the regulation on December 14th. Public comments have come in hordes to decry the vote, and numerous dead citizens have been tied to accounts supporting the lack of regulation.  Additionally, dozens of internet companies, including the likes of Netflix, Google, and Reddit, have spoken out in support of the regulations protecting net neutrality. Things are heating up as the vote approaches, with Pai's family even receiving death threats. The fate of the open internet as we know it may be decided on December 14th.
1) Do you feel like people are aware of the importance of net neutrality and the problems facing it?
2) Why might Republican representatives stray from their base and make net neutrality a partisan issue?
3) What are any possible positives to come of repealed regulation of net neutrality?

Trump Temporarily Continues With Elephant Trophy Importation Ban

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/us/politics/trump-elephants-trophy-hunting.html

Recently Trump put a stop to the importation of Elephant trophies hunted in the African country of Zimbabwe. However, the permanence of this decision remains to be seen. The reason for his decision to temporarily reinstate the ban on importing big game trophies, which was put into place mid-way through Obama’s presidency as an attempt to stabilize the elephant population, is claimed to be that the choice to allow these trophies to once again be brought into the US was made without his knowledge or consent. Trump addressed his decision, writing, “Big-game trophy decision will be announced next week but will be very hard pressed to change my mind that this horror show in any way helps conservation of Elephants or any other animal”. Despite these claims that hunting is a “horror show”, Trump’s sons have been known to hunt and have been photographed doing so. They claim, however that, while he let them hunt, he “really doesn’t understand why Eric and [Donald Jr.] hunt”.

Trump’s delayed involvement in the decision as well as his true rationale are being questioned.  He may simply be exercising his role as the Chief of State attempting to uphold a good moral precedent set during the Obama administration. He may also be attempting to exercise his role as the Chief Executive who has influence over the implementation of policies and laws, but his final ruling on the matter is not yet known.

1. What do you think Trump’s main motive is for temporarily (at least) banning the importation of these trophies?
2. Do you think he will make this ban permanent? Why or why not?

Sexual Harassment Continues to Trouble Capitol Hill

Article From Politico

NBC Sexual Harassment Change Article

On Sunday, November 26, leading Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers announced that he would be stepping down following sexual harassment accusations. Conyers has served as Michigan’s representative since 1965. He has confirmed the issue of a $27,000 settlement to a former employee who claimed she was fired because of her refusal to give into sexual advances, but he has denied the reasoning behind it. According to Conyers, “‘many of [the allegations] were raised by documents reportedly paid for by a partisan alt-right blogger’” and despite his decision to step down, he has no intention of leaving Congress altogether. Rather, he feels as though remaining on the committee during the investigation would undermine the work of fellow Democrats.

Nancy Pelosi has become actively involved in the event as well. The surfaced accusations have put party leaders in a troubled position and Pelosi has made sure to remain neutral or relatively distant from the event. After some backlash from her initial comment holding Conyers as an “icon”, she has since taken a firmer stance, stating “‘no matter how great an individual’s legacy, it is not a license for harassment’”. Although she is far from buying into the accusations against Conyers, Pelosi has been put in a unique position and must remain cognizant of the other side’s argument.

Not only do these allegations present a publicity problem for the party and Capitol Hill as a whole, but the turn of events poses the question of replacement and protocol in a peculiar situation such as this. A replacement has not been confirmed yet and standard protocol of next senior member doesn’t necessarily stand because Conyers stepped down mid-term.

These allegations come at a very troubling time for all of Capitol Hill. Recently, there has been a long line of victims coming forward and accusing members of Congress. These events have seemingly revived old cases as well, with former accusers such as Anita Hill being approached and asked for their opinion on the matter. Just a few weeks ago, the Senate and House have made moves to change how sexual harassment complaints are handled, largely as a result of the #metoocongress campaign by a number of Congress members. A directive was even issued requiring all Senate members and staffers to watch a training video on sexual harassment. Pushes to further address the issue of how sexual harassment allegations are handled were gaining steam, and will certainly gain even more momentum following the recent decision of Conyers and future House Ethics Committee investigation.

1. Considering how much momentum sexual harassment allegations have gained recently, do you think the accusations against Conyers will finally push for actual changes? Why or why not.
2. What is Capitol Hill’s next move following the stepping down of Conyers?
3. Pelosi commented that all these events are unfolding nearly 100 years after women gained the right to vote and this unfolding is a “wonderful thing”. Do you agree that something very transformative is in the midst of happening? Why or why not.

Trump's New Tax Plan, Who Loses?

Article From CNN

With the introduction of President Trump’s proposed tax reform, controversy has arisen over how the plan will affect the United States population. According to Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, "For the highest earners -- those in the top 1 percent and top 0.1 percent -- nearly all would see lower taxes." While earners in the top 1% may see tax cuts of near $200,000, middle class households would see tax breaks “on average of “$660, or 1.2% of their after-tax income.” Not only is this tax cut for middle income households relatively minute in absolute terms when compared to the tax breaks received by the upper 1%, but it is reported that "By 2027, more than one of every four middle-income families would pay more in taxes." Essentially, while the upper class sees large tax breaks, as well as corporations with the tax rate changing from 35% to 20%, the middle class receives virtually insignificant tax breaks, which will be replaced by even higher taxes within 10 years. Lastly, the lower class loses when it comes to Trump’s new tax plan, as significant cuts to funding for medicaid would be made to accommodate. If approved by congress, Trump’s tax plan would primarily benefit the highest earners, while the rest of the population loses.

1) How do you think Trump's tax plan will be perceived by congress?

2) To what extent do you think the plan will affect funding for social programs?

3) How will the plan affect the national debt?

Should Roy Moore Be Allowed To Run For Senate?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mcconnell-calls-on-roy-moore-to-end-senate-campaign-following-accusations-of-sexual-misconduct/2017/11/13/1ca48d56-c890-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.3f7198415313

Alabama GOP nominee Roy Moore is being urged to drop out of the Senate race due to numerous allegations of sexual harassment of minors throughout his career. While the Republican Party believes Roy Moore's actions are unacceptable, they also worry that he will damage the party's reputation and standing with voters for the 2018 mid-term elections. Moore has denied the allegations and is refusing to step down from the race despite strong opposing forces. Many believe that putting Jeff Sessions in as a write-in candidate is the best option to prevent Moore from joining the Senate, however he would have to leave his job in the Trump Administration to do so. The National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Cory Gardner stated that if Moore wins, the Senate should vote to expel him. However, expelling a senator is extremely rare and would require approval from 2/3 of the chamber. Many are looking to Donald Trump for answers as the Alabama Republican Party would withdraw Moore's name from the running if there were a White House order to do so, however Donald Trump has kept quiet on the situation and stated that if the allegations against Moore are true, he is confident he will step aside.



Questions:
1. Is it reasonable to require a candidate to step down if allegations have yet to be proven in the court?

2. Do you think the ideals that one is "innocent until proven guilty" and that a crime must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal law are stopping people from taking this measure against Moore?

3. If Moore were convicted, he still would not be expelled without 2/3 approval. Is it moral to allow Senators to serve despite criminal charges? Do you think the type of charge should be taken into question?

Travel Ban Recap. Effective?

USA Today article
NY Times article
In January 2017, President Trump banned all tourists, students, and even greencarid holders from entering the US from seven Muslim countries including Syria, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Somalia,  Sudan, Iraq. He ruled the executive order on the basis that these were the countries from which terrorists were entering the US and thus threatened the country’s safety. Protests against the ban immediately began nationwide. Judicial bodies began retaliating. A judge from New York partially blocked his initial order and a judge from Hawaii completely blocked it. In response the widespread resistance, the Trump administration revised the ban to exclude greencarid holders.

After the judge from Hawaii deemed his order unconstitutional on the basis of religious discrimination and temporarily blocked the provision all over the country, Trump reworded the travel ban to circumvent the Hawaii judge’s ruling in early March. The Trump administration removed wording that said Christians from the original seven countries could still enter, and added that on a case by case basis some could get a waiver to the ban. They also removed Iraq from the ban and added North Korea and Venezuela to eradicate the notion that the ban was religiously discriminatory. Again, judges from Maryland and Hawaii blocked his executive order, saying it was still unconstitutional. Using the president’s own discriminatory words against Muslims from his speeches as a presidential candidate, they temporarily blocked the travel ban from the six Muslim countries (although it’s still in effect for North Korea and Venezuela). 

Trump again reworded his executive order in September 2017 to ban entry from these countries because they have “inadequate identity management protocols, information sharing practices, and risk factors.” In other words, these countries lack means by which to  identify their citizens, conduct background checks and/or do not share this information from the US, therefore making it harder for the US to vet for terrorists. Also, the new ruling enforces travel restrictions unique to the foreign nationals of each country. The latest version was again blocked, this time by a federal judge. The judge found that it, “lacks sufficient findings that the entry of more than 150,000,000 nationals from six specified countries would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” In order to keep the travel ban in effect, the court must have evidence of the harm the immigrants allegedly cause as a precondition. 

In response, President Trump turned to the Supreme Court. Although they recently dropped the case against the second travel ban (Hawaii vs Trump) on October 24th, this ruling was more a housecleaning procedure than a victory for Trump (the 120 day March ruling is expiring anyways). Also, the third version of the travel ban has already been challenged by judges on the basis of discrimination by nationality and is being partially blocked. Challenges against the order will most likely appear before the Supreme Court in the near future.

1. Do you think Trump will be able to successfully circumvent (or partially circumvent) judges’ rulings against his travel bans? Will the issue be resolved, or be an ongoing battle throughout his presidency?
2. To what extent do you think the travel bans actually prevent terrorism, if at all? (Would it have prevented attacks such as the recent one in NYC?)
3. Is selective entry an effective method of thwarting terrorism? What alternative methods could be used?