Stuff YOU Should Know
CA vs USA?
Lately, Congress has been deeply divided over the issue of immigration reform–so much so that the federal government has shut down twice so far in 2018 as a result. The state of California, run by Democratic governor Jerry Brown, is taking the immigration debate into its own hands. As a result, the federal Justice Department is suing the state of California, Governor Brown, and California attorney general Xavier Becerra.
The city of San Francisco.
In 2017, California passed three laws that work to block the Department of Homeland Security from enforcing new immigration policies that have developed under Trump’s administration. The first law requires employers to give their employees advance warning of a federal raid. The second law prohibits handing over law-abiding undocumented immigrants to the federal government. And the third law concerns inspections of the detention centers where undocumented immigrants are held.
But is this legal? In 2012, the reverse situation happened: the state of Arizona tried to pass stricter immigration laws, and was sued by the Obama administration as a result. The Supreme Court eventually decided that the federal government’s immigration laws win out. Otherwise, each state could develop its own rules about immigration. Also, according to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, when the federal government sets a policy, any state policy that directly violates it is invalid.
On the other hand, however, the state of California can argue that these laws don’t directly violate federal law, and that the federal government can’t force California law enforcement agents to carry out its policies. Some experts have also pointed out that with other federal laws, such as background checks for gun purchases, state participation is only “voluntary,” and that the same should apply for immigration. Either way, it’s likely that the case will wind up at the Supreme Court.
What Do You Think? Imagine that you are a federal justice hearing the case described above. Would you side with the federal government or with the state of California? Explain.
Fighting the FCC
Back in November, Election Central took a look at the issue of net neutrality, and what it would mean for consumers if the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) voted to remove net neutrality laws. Basically, net neutrality requires internet service providers, or ISPs, to treat all online content the same. It keeps ISPs from slowing down, blocking, or charging more for some Web sites and content than for others. Despite widespread consumer opposition, the FCC voted on December 14 to remove net neutrality. These protections will officially end on April 23.
As promised, however, states are fighting back. The governor of Washington, Jay Inslee, has signed a law preventing ISPs from blocking or slowing down online content. Though Inslee is a Democrat, the law is supported widely by both Republican and Democratic lawmakers. The Washington state law will take effect on June 6.
Washington is the first state to take such a step. However, many other state legislatures have introduced bills protecting net neutrality, and several governors have issued executive orders to the same effect. Attorneys general from more than 20 states–both Republican and Democrat–filed a joint lawsuit in January to stop the removal of net neutrality. At the same time, private consumer groups nationwide also have filed lawsuits against the FCC.
Dig Deeper Visit the Battle for the Net Web site to find out how your state’s senators and representatives have voted on net neutrality. Then use the links provided to send messages to one or two of your state’s legislators, either thanking them for their stance, or encouraging them to change their point of view (and why).
Conway Un-Hatched
Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, is in hot water for violating the Hatch Act, which prevents government officials from using their position to get involved in partisan politics. The Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent federal ethics agency, found that Conway used live interviews from the White House lawn to talk about Roy Moore, who was running against Doug Jones in the Alabama special election in late 2017. While Conway didn’t go as far as telling people to vote for Moore, she did say that Doug Jones would be weak on crime and immigration, and bad for property owners because he would raise taxes. Conway did this twice: in an interview with Fox News on November 20, and with CNN on December 6. In both cases, she was identified on the screen by her official title. According to the OSC’s report, Conway has received several ethics trainings, including around the time when she gave the interviews and is very familiar with the Hatch Act.
So who will decide if Conway receives punishment for her actions? Because she is a high-ranking presidential appointee, it will be up to Trump to decide. And it doesn’t look like much will be done. The White House argues that because Conway didn’t specifically tell people to vote for Moore, she did not violate the Hatch Act.
Government officials are also barred from their position to endorse products or companies, or from using their position for financial gain.
What Do You Think? In your opinion, why are ethics rules like the Hatch Act important?
Message in a Bottle: Fact or Fiction?
A message in a bottle washes up on shore . . . it’s a plot line from a bad movie or novel, right?
Wrong.
In January, Tonya Illman of Perth, Australia, was walking the sand dunes when she came across an old bottle that she thought would make a nice decoration. When she got it home, she found that it was full of wet sand, and a rolled-up note tied with twine. After drying the note in her oven for a few minutes, she unrolled it to find a message written neatly in German. Though she couldn’t understand the words themselves, the date was clear: 1886.
Illman immediately notified authorities, who verified the bottle’s authenticity. But if you are a romantic who hopes that the message contained a distress call or a love letter, you’re in for a disappointment. From 1864 to 1933, Germany threw bottles into the sea as a way to study ocean waves and currents. Each message sent listed the date, the ship’s coordinates, and its travel routes. Whoever found it was supposed to turn it over and write when and where it had been found, and then return it. Over time, more than 600 of these messages were returned, though none since January 1934. Based on the bottle’s excellent condition, scientists theorize that the bottle actually washed up on Australia’s shore soon after it was launched and has remained there in the sand ever since, waiting to be found. They believe a recent cyclone was responsible for bringing the bottle to the beach’s surface.
Illman’s find is the oldest message in a bottle ever discovered to date. Which is a very happy ending to this real-life story.