Home Politics Page 4

Politics

Carl Levin

Carl Levin

 


Carl Levin

 

Carl Levin has been a senator representing Michigan since 1979. In legal circles, Carl Levin is best known for his role in the authorship of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), which includes a controversial clause authorizing the indefinite detention of those suspected in aiding and abetting terrorist activities.

 

Carl Levin was one of several senators to work on the bill, which was passed in December 2011. Its critics charged that section 1021(b)(2) and is too vague in establishing the criteria for indefinite detention. In January of 2012, a coalition of interested parties filed suit over this bill against both the administration of President Barack Obama and members of Congress involved in its creation and passage.

 

The case was initially heard by the federal district court located in the southern district of New York. After hearing the case, the presiding judge issued an injunction nullifying this part of the NDAA bill. In her opinion, the judge noted that this part of the legislation could lead to violations of both the First Amendment right to free speech and the Fifth Amendment right to due process. The ruling went on to note that the government did not present a convincing case that the language on which Carl Levin had worked could not lead to abuses of authority and improper detention of journalists and others involved in investigations.

 

The Obama administration requested that this legislation by Carl Levin and others have the injunction against it lifted, claiming that this injunction would severely impeded the executive branch and the efficaciousness of the prosecution of the war on terror. However, the judge declined to lift the injunction. An appeal was then filed by the Manhattan US Attorney in federal appeals court.

 

Subsequently, an appeal hearing was held and a ruling issued against the Obama administration. In her opinion, the presiding judge wrote that the powers of the executive branch did not supercede the protection of citizens' constitutional rights, compelling her to find this part of the legislation authored by Carl Levin unconstitutional. The judge further wrote that no detentions could be made using this section of the law as justification and urged Congress to consider alternative legislation for the same purposes which would not violate constitutional rights.

 

The Obama administration again filed an appeal against this permanent injunction. The case was then transferred to the Second District Court of Appeals. In October of 2012, the Court made the decision that this law would remain in effect until the appeal had been investigated and a ruling issued. In its preliminary findings justifying this stay of the suspension of the injunction against the clause, the Court noted that it did not seem to affect the rights of domestic American citizens. The appeals court also noted that it believed the District Court had exceeded its authority in its previous injunction.

Charles Nesson

Charles Nesson

 


Charles Nesson

 

Charles Nesson is an American attorney who has been associated with many prominent legal cases. He is known for his specialized focus on issues of intellectual property law. One of the most famous of his cases was his successful 1971 defense of Daniel Ellsberg.

 

The roots of the case date back to 1967, when then US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara convened a task force composed of 36 analysts to create a history of the Vietnam War up to that point. The study was completed in 1969 and totaled 7,000 pages. Of these, 3,000 were original analysis, while the remainder contained government documents related to the Vietnam War. 15 copies of this report were made, two of which were sent to the RAND Corp., which employed Daniel Ellsberg as a military analyst. With assistance from others, Daniel Ellsberg made copies of the report, which came to be known as the "Pentagon Papers."

 

Two years later, excerpts from these papers were made public for the first time in a series of articles published by the newspaper "The New York Times." A court order requested by the White House temporarily restricted publication, but this order was quickly reversed by the Supreme Court. The publication of this information embarrassed the Nixon White House.

 

On June 28, 1971, Daniel Ellsberg voluntarily turned himself in to the authorities, stating that he felt it was his responsibility to make the information public and that he was willing to accept any legal consequences. In August of that year, while his case was making its way through the legal system, a group of individuals acting at the behest of the White House burgled the offices of Ellsberg's psychiatrist in a failed attempt to gather information discrediting him. However, they were unable to locate his file.

 

Charles Nesson acted as co-counsel for the defense in the trial, which began in January of 1973. In April of that year, the attempted burglary of Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office was made known to the judge in a memo. Shortly thereafter, the presiding judge, William Byrne, disclosed that he had been approached by the White House about being appointed director of the FBI. Shortly thereafter, more evidence emerged of legal misconduct against Ellsberg. Specifically, it was learned that the FBI had illegally wire-tapped conversations Ellsberg had conducted, information which the prosecution was aware of and had failed to share with Charles Nesson and his co-counsel as required by the law.

 

In response to the increasing evidence of government impropriety, Charles Nesson and his co-counsel were successful in obtaining a mistrial ruling from William Byrne, thereby exonerating Ellsberg.

 

Another prominent case in which Charles Nesson was involved was Anderson v. Cryovac, a prominent trial concerning six children who developed leukemia as the result of contamination of water wells by two companies. Charles Nesson served as one of the counselors working on behalf of the families of the children.

 

Froilan Tenorio

Froilan Tenorio

 

Froilan Tenorio

Froilan Tenorio is the former president of the Northern Mariana Islands. During and after his presidency, which lasted from 1994 to 1998, Froilan Tenorio was associated with several legal controversies. In legal history, the most notable is the case of Sonoda v. Cabrera, in which litigation continued past the end of his presidency.

 

Sonoda v. Cabrera had its roots in an executive order drafted by Froilan Tenorio in 1994, numbered Executive Order 94-3. This proposed law stated that anyone working for the government capacity at a level of authority greater than that of division director would work "at the pleasure of" the Governor. This meant that any such government workers could be hired and fired at the discretion of Froilan Tenorio. The legislature did not object to or alter the wording of Executive Order 94-3, allowing it to take effect.

 

In 1995, Jose A. Sonoda was chosen by Froilan Tenorio to a position within the government's Department of Finance. As part of his hiring, Sonoda signed a two-year contract, as well as an agreement stipulating the terms of his employment. These terms noted that the governor had hiring and firing authority. In March of 1996, Sonoda had testified before a legislative committee and expressed views of the political party opposing Froilan Tenorio. When he was fired shortly thereafter, Sonoda concluded that he had been fired in retaliation for his testimony and filed suit against Froilan Tenorio as well as the Secretary of Finance, Antonio R. Cabrera.

 

The district court in which Sonoda filed suit passed the case along to the Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana Islands. In April of 1997, the court ruled that the actions taken by Froilan Tenorio had exceeded his legal authority. The court also found that Executive Order 94-3 was itself in violation of the constitution of the Northern Mariana Islands, since it claimed the authority to deem government jobs as exempt from the regulations of the civil service system. Under the Constitution of the Northern Mariana Islands, such distinctions can only be made by the legislature. Therefore, Executive Order 94-3 was struck down.

 

This verdict was appealed by Froilan Tenorio and Antonio Cabrera. In 1999, the appeals court processing their request declined to issue a ruling on grounds that the court did not have the authority to consider issues which do not involve federal laws and rights. Sonoda then filed a motion seeking a summary judgment against Froilan Tenorio and Antonio Cabrera. This motion was dismissed in 2000 on grounds that Froilan Tenorio and Antonio Cabrera were immune from judgment against them because they had acted on the reasonable assumption that their actions were legal.

 

In 2001, an appeals court reversed this ruling, noting that even if Froilan Tenorio and Antonio Cabrera had acted on the assumption that Executive Order 94-3 was legal, they should have been aware that firing an employee in retaliation for his testimony was a violation of his free speech rights.

Robert Torricelli

Robert Torricelli

 


Robert Torricelli

 

Robert Torricelli is a former Senator from New Jersey who only served a single term. He withdrew from the election race after allegations that he had accepted bribes from a businessman were made public.

 

Robert Torricelli was an elected member of the US House of Representatives from 1983 to 1997, serving as the representative of the 9th district of New Jersey. In 1996, he ran for the United States Senate and was elected. He began his term in January 1997 and served until January of 2003.

In the weeks prior to the election, a businessman named David Chang publicly stated allegations about bribing Robert Torricelli. Chang stated that he had sought the cooperation of the office of Robert Torricelli in helping him obtain payment from North Korea which he had sold to that nation. To that end, David Chang alleged that he had bribed Robert Torricelli with gifts such as Italian suits, a new Rolex watch, and a 52-inch television set. Though Robert Torricelli denied all the allegations, he decided to drop out of the race regardless.

 

David Chang's statements were made following his agreement with federal prosecutors to receive a reduced sentence for illegal campaign contributions within the state in return for testimony about corruption in the state's political system. However, prosecutor decided not to prosecute Robert Torricelli because Chang's testimony as a convicted felon would lack credibility, making it difficult to obtain a guilty verdict.

 

However, the state's Democratic Party had difficulty replacing Robert Torricelli's name on the ballot. State law stipulates that the names of candidates in an election cannot be changed any closer than 51 days after the election. However, Robert Torricelli exited from the race 35 days before the election. Therefore, legally Democrats were prohibited from replacing his name on the ballot with that of his replacement candidate, Frank Lautenberg.

Democrats argued before the State Supreme Court that despite the law, they should be allowed to replace Robert Torricelli's name in the public interest of the voters. Republicans argued before the Supreme Court that because the language of the legislation in question is clear and unambiguous, the Democratic request for an exception to the rules should not be argued. In its unanimous ruling, the New Jersey Supreme Court stated that it had decided it was in the public interest to grant the Democratic status, allowing for the replacement of Robert Torricelli's name on all ballots.

 

Following the end of his political career, Robert Torricelli became a lobbyist. In 2010, he again attracted attention when it was reported that he had used funds which were raised in the course of his aborted Senate re-election race and donating them to the campaigns of other politicians. While these donations did not violate federal law, the contributions attracted media attention and were cited as evidence of the need to create new laws regarding the legal use of money raised during political campaigns.

Philip E. Tetlock

Philip E. Tetlock

 

Philip E. Tetlock

Philip E. Tetlock is a professor specializing in organizational behavior who is a member of the faculty at the University of California at Berkeley. In the legal field, Philip E. Tetlock is best known for his many papers co-written with Gregory Mitchell, a law professor who is a faculty member at the University of Virginia School of Law.

 

One of their most controversial and prominent papers is the 2006 article "Antidiscrimination Law And The Perils Of Mindreading," published in the "Ohio State Law Journal." The purpose of this article was to challenge some recent developments in the field of legal scholarship regarding the best methods of passing anti-discrimination laws and how to evaluate the role of prejudice and bias when considering legal situations. As part of their argument, Philip E. Tetlock and Gregory Mitchell concentrate specifically on the Implicit Association Test, a psychological test designed to measure associations with objects.

 

In their 2006 paper, Philip E. Tetlock and Gregory Mitchell argue that the Implicit Association Test is not a strong basis on which to base anti-discrimination law. Specifically, the authors allege that these types of tests do not demonstrate conclusive links between the responses chosen and the reasons for these responses. Philip E. Tetlock and Gregory Mitchell argue that, for example, test results and associations made on the basis of racist biases or prejudices can be indistinguishable from those made on an empathetic basis. Further, they argue that the value judgments made during these tests are not based on empirical scientific evidence, as claimed by scholars who wish to pass anti-discrimination laws which prescribe enhanced or different penalties and sentences for crimes committed on the basis of unconscious bias or prejudice.

 

The assertions made by Philip E. Tetlock and Gregory Mitchell in this paper were controversial, prompting a variety of papers which argued that their conclusions would make it impossible to punish even conscious prejudiced or biased acts. In 2009, Philip E. Tetlock and Gregory Mitchell published a follow-up defense of their work in the "Hofstra Law Journal." This paper was entitled "Facts Do Matter: A Reply To Bagenstos," and was specifically directed at a piece written by Samuel R. Bagenstos published in 2007. Bagenstos argued that the conclusions drawn by Philip E. Tetlock and Gregory Mitchell would make it difficult or impossible to consider how to approach prejudice and discrimination in society.

 

In their follow-up article, Philip E. Tetlock and Gregory Mitchell argued that they did not believe that acts of rational prejudice or discrimination should be ignored either in the drafting of laws or in their enforcement. However, Philip E. Tetlock and Gregory Mitchell went on to draw a distinction regarding the difference between social recognition of racist prejudices or biases and their legal recognition. Their paper cautions that while the legal recognition and punishment of such biases might necessarily have to be more limited than its social recognition, the evidence on this is not yet clear.

Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

 


Erwin Chemerinsky

 

Erwin Chemerinsky is a prominent legal scholar specializing in issues of constitutional law. Though he has acted as a lawyer in several capacities, Erwin Chemerinsky is better known for his public commentary on a number of prominent issues.

 

One of his prominent public moments came in 2000, when he was asked by the Los Angeles Police Department to analyze the results of a Board of Inquiry investigation into the so-called "Rampart Scandal." This refers to a series of incidents involving corrupt LAPD officers from 1997 to 2000. The first of these was the fatal March 1997 shooting of an off-duty LAPD officer, Kevin Gaines, by another undercover officer, Frank Lyga. Lyga claimed that Gaines had threatened him and he had acted in self-defense.

 

The next incident took place in November 1997, when a bank robbery was linked to police officer David Mack. In February 1998, officer Brian Hewitt allegedly beat a hand-cuffed gang member, resulting in internal injuries. Hewitt was a member of the CRASH (Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums) division, part of the Rampart department. In March 1998, another officer in this division, Rafael Perez, was linked with the disappearance of more than six pounds of cocaine confiscated as police evidence. In September 1999, Perez agreed to a plea bargain. Under the terms of this plea bargain, he spent nine months detailing his knowledge of corruption in the Rampart department, implicating approximately 70 of his fellow officers in misconduct.

 

In response to these revelations, police chief Bernard Parks convened a Board of Inquiry to investigate the Rampart unit. Their report was issued in March 2000 and blamed poor management practices. The CRASH unit was disbanded that same month.

 

In September 2000, Erwin Chemerinsky completed his independent analysis of the Board of Inquiry's report. This report concluded that their report had deliberately understated and underestimated problems of corruption within the LAPD force, failed to firmly state the problems of the police force's internal culture, did not adequately consider how to institute internal reforms, did not adequately address LAPD procedures for handling cases in which officers made use of excessive force, failed to adequately consider malfunctioning internal discipline procedures, and did acknowledge problems endemic to the entire criminal justice system of the city of Los Angeles. That same month, the United States Department of Justice was given the authority by the Los Angeles City Council to supervise reforms within the LAPD for the following five years.

 

Following the release of this analysis by Erwin Chemerinsky, another independent review panel issued their report in November 2000. This report supported his findings, noting that the LAPD compromised its own internal investigations of disciplinary violations and was viewed by the communities it patrolled as violent and unresponsive or actively hostile.

 

In 2009, Erwin Chemerinsky assumed the position of founding dean at the newly formed school of law at the University of California at Irvine.

Peter King

Peter King

Peter King: New York’s Representative for the 3rd Congressional District


Peter King is most well known for being the Republican representative for the 3rd Congressional district of New York in the United States House of representatives.
Peter King was born in New York, New York but was brought up in Sunnyside, Queens, New York. He attended St. Francis College, where he graduated from in 1965. He continued at the University of Notre Dame Law School where he received his Juris Doctor in 1968. After graduating from law school, he started to work for the District Attorney’s Office of Nassau Count. He also served in the New York National Guard in the 96th Infantry Regiment from 1968 to his honorable discharge six years later.
Peter King started his political career in 1977, when he ran for a seat in the Hempstead Town Council. He was supported by the Nassau County Republican Party and won the seat. Four years later, Peter King decided to run for the Nassau Country Comptroller, which he was chosen for and subsequently re-elected for two more terms.
In 1986, Peter King decided to run for New York State Attorney General, which was a long shot. He did not win the election. In the 1990’s, Peter King played an active role through the Muslim community within his district. He not only held book signings and gave speeches, but he also supported American intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia, which most Republican’s did not do.
Peter King assumed office as a representative in 1993 and since then has held the position. Since then he has held these political positions:
Opposed closing Guantanamo bay detention camp
Opposed the economic stimulus package of 2009
Opposed the Lillie Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009
For the Wall Street Bailout
Opponent of illegal immigration
Supported congressional earmarks
Supported the Iraq War
Supported the Patriot Act
Opposed the appeal for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Criticized WikiLeaks and felt it should be considered a terrorist organization
Peter King currently lives in Seaford, New York with Rosemary King, his wife, and has two adult children along with one grandson. He has two other siblings, Barbara and Kevin. He also writes and is an author of 3 novels that are inspired by his early years in Congress: Deliver Us From Evil, Terrible Beauty, and Vale of Tears.

Janet Napolitano

Janet Napolitano

Janet Napolitano: the Current U.S. Secretary for Homeland Security


Janet Napolitano is most well known for being the current United States Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security under the Obama administration. She was also the former Democratic governor of Arizona as well as the Attorney General of Arizona.

Early Life and Education
Janet Napolitano was born in New York City on November 29, 1957 in New York City and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as well as Albuquerque, New Mexico. In 1975 she graduated from Sandia High School and was also voted most likely to succeed.
She then attended and graduated Santa Clara University as valedictorian. After, she studied for a semester at the London School of Economics and later attended the University of VA School of Law where she received her Juris Doctor. Once completing law school, she worked as a law clerk in the 9th Circuit in the United States Court of Appeals and later joined the Phoenix Law firm with Lewis and Rocca.

Political Career
Napolitano began her political career when she was appointed at the United States Attorney for Arizona by President Bill Clinton in 1993. At this time, she investigated Michael Fortier during the Oklahoma City bombing. She then ran for the position of Arizona Attorney in 1998, which she won.
In 2002, Napolitano decided to run for the gubernatorial election of Arizona. She narrowly defeated her Republican opponent, Matt Salmon who was a former congressman. This made her the third female governor in Arizona’s history as well as the first woman to succeed a female governor. In 2005, she was named one of the five best governors in the United States by Time magazine.
As a governor, Napolitano has set a record for the highest total number of vetoes issued, having 58 in a single session which was more than twice the previous years. She also set the all-time record with her 115th veto and left office with 180 vetoes. She won the gubernatorial election again in 2006, making her the first female to be re-elected in that specific office. 
In 2008, Napolitano endorsed Senator Barack Obama as the Democratic nomination for president and she was later named to the Obama-Biden transition Project Advisory board. She was then named as Barack Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security, and was confirmed at the beginning of her presidency. Napolitano is the first female to hold this position.


Personal Life
Janet Napolitano is an extreme basketball fan and also plays tennis. Her other hobbies include hiking and whitewater rafting. She has previously hiked in the Superstition Mountains of Arizona and along with the Sandia Mountains in New Mexico. She has climbed the Himalayas and Mount Kilimanjaro. In 1998 she discovered she had breast cancer but has so far survived.

Ben Nelson

Ben Nelson

Ben Nelson: the Senior Senator of Nebraska


Ben Nelson is most known for being the current Senior Democratic Senator for Nebraska. He was also the former Governor of Nebraska as well.

Early Life and Education
Ben Nelson was born on May 17, 1941 in McCook, Nebraska as an only child of his parents. He attended the University of Nebraska, where he received his undergraduate degree in 1963, his master’s degree in 1965, and his Juris Doctor in 1970.
After law school, Ben Nelson worked for the Central national Insurance Group of Omaha as an assistant general counsel and later became the state insurance director. He then went back to Central National Insurance to act as the executive vice president and then the president.
Political Career
Ben Nelson ran for the seat of Governor of Nebraska and was elected into office in 1990 after winning in one of the closest gubernatorial races in the history of the state, where he had received the Democratic nomination because of two votes. He was then re-elected for a second term by a very large vote.
As governor, Ben Nelson worked to close the gap between urban and rural areas of Nebraska in order to have a more effective government. He also helped cut spending when it was scheduled go up higher and created legislation to lower crime rates.
When Democrat Jim Exon retired from in 1996 from his seat in the United States Senate, Ben Nelson decided to run for the seat, but was defeated by a Republican candidate. He continued his term as governor until 1999. He was then nominated once more in 2000 as a Democratic candidate for the 2000 Senate election. He won the election and has since held his position.
Currently, Ben Nelson serves on the following committees and subcommittees:


Committee on Armed Services
Chairman of Subcommittee: Strategic Forces
Subcommittee: Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee: Personnel

Committee on Appropriations
Chairman of Subcommittee: Legislative Branch
Subcommittee: Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, & Related Agencies
Subcommittee: Interior, Environment, & Related Agencies
Subcommittee: Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA , & Related Agencies
Subcommittee: Financial Services & General Government
Subcommittee: Homeland Security


Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Subcommittee: Energy, Science & Technology
Subcommittee: Rural Revitalization, Conservation, Forestry and Credit
Subcommittee: Domestic & Foreign Marketing, Inspection, &  Plant and Animal Health
Committee on Rules and Administration
Some of his influential opinions and votes include:
Voted in favor of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act that did not include the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that limited abortions funded by taxpayer money despite his pro-life views
Voted against invoking cloture in 2008 that would have helped withdraw many U.S. combat troops from Iraq
Supported the tax cut that proposed cutting taxes in 2001 by $1.3 trillion along with 2003 tax cut
Tried to prevent a vote of the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act (2009) with a point of order
Voted against Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (2002)
Voted against a bill in 2006 extending Stem Cell Research federal funding
Voted for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

President of the United States

President of the United States

The President of the United States


The President of the United States is the executive of the country meaning he is the head of state as well as the head of the U.S. government. The President of the United States has the role of being the head of the Federal government’s executive branch as well as the commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
The power of the President of the United States is given by Article II of the U.S. Constitution which is the authority of the Federal government’s executive branch.  Article II also gives the President of the United States the authority and responsibility of appointing different federal officers, such as executive, regulatory, diplomatic, and judiciary powers. Furthermore, the President has the power to conclude treaties with other foreign powers as long as the Senate has consent.
Since the President of the United States is the commander-in-chief, the president has the authority to command and direct military forces and is also responsible for military strategy. However, he does not have the power to declare war. That power rests in the hands of Congress.
Since the founding of America, the federal government’s power as well as the power of the President of the United State has grown significantly. The president has continued to play a powerful role in dictating his party’s legislative agenda regarding domestic and foreign policy within the country, despite lacking powers beyond signing and vetoing bills.
The specific powers that are given to the President of the United States include:
Signing legislation that makes a bill into a law.
Vetoing legislation and having it return Congress and discussing any objections
o If each house of Congress votes to override the veto, they must both have a two-thrids majority.
Take no action in regards to a bill. Here the president does not sign or veto the piece of legislation. By doing this, two things can happen after 10 non-Sundays:
o The bill becomes law if Congress is still convened.
If Congress is no longer convened, the bill will not become law.
Election of the president of the United States occurs through the electoral college who serve as the citizen’s delegates. The presidential term lasts four years and is one of the two Federal positions that are national elected, the other being the Vice President.
There are limitations to how many terms a president can serve because of the 22nd amendment which was put into effect in 1951. Under this amendment, no individual can serve as the President of the United States after two terms for a full third term. Furthermore, a former president, or acting president for over two years cannot be elected to the president.