As of 5am GMT - US Government is now closed...

Seven hours to go until US Government Shutdown ... and that isn't even the worst of it...

The US Senate has rejected a budget bill passed (see BBC article for some decent analysis) by the Republican-led House of Representatives, with just hours left to avert a government shutdown.

The Democratic-led Senate voted 54-46 against the bill, which would fund the government only if President Obama's healthcare law were delayed a year.

If no agreement is reached by midnight (04:00 GMT), the government will close all non-essential federal services.

See this interesting BBC article on the US government shutdown, and how this isn't even the worst of it. The bigger problem is, if the Democrats and Republicans continue to disagree, then the US would breach its "debt ceiling" - that means there's a chance that the world's biggest economy could default on its debt.

The Case of Abu Qatada and the European Convention on Human Rights

Abu Qatada

One of the highest profile disputes about human rights in recent years has been the saga of the prisoners' right to vote. The second has been the deportation (expulsion from the UK) of Abu Qatada. This importance case was solved in July 2013 but why is it such an important case for Parliament Sovereignty?

Abu Qatada arrived in the UK on a forged U.A.E passport in 1993. 

In April 1999 a court in Jordan convicted Qatada, in his absence, of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts in the country. 

Over subsequent years he made speeches advocating the killing of Jews, and other radical sermons. 

In August 2005, Qatada was taking into policy custody pending extradition (forced expulsion) to Jordan to stand trial there. 

In April 2008, three appeal court judges halt his deportation, ruling that his conviction for terrorism in 1999 was based on evidence gathered torture. 

In February 2009, the Law Lords (highest judges in the UK) rule that Qatada could be deported to Jordan. 

The European Court of Human Rights blocked the deportation in January 2012 because of the risk of him being put on trial based on torture-tainted evidence.  

In April 2012 a fresh attempt is made to deport him by the government, but the European Court of Human Rights halts the deportation. 

Theresa May continues to attempt to deport Qatada, but again in March 2013, judges reject her attempts. The Court of appeal turns down May's attempt to take the case to the Supreme Court in the UK. 

In June 2013, Jordan and Britain sign a Treaty of 'mutual assistance' which says that Qatada will not be tried using evidence obtained through torture. He is deported on 7 July 2013. 

Legal costs of attempting to deport him reached £1.7 million since 2005. 

A good example of the politicisation of the judiciary?

Judicial Review of Police requests for DNA samples from suspects fails

An ex-prisoner has lost a legal challenge at the High Court against a request by police for him to provide DNA samples.

The legal challenge or 'judicial review' is a means by which the courts can supervise bodies which exercise public functions to ensure that they are acting both lawfully and fairly.

Under Operation Nutmeg, which runs in England and Wales, DNA has been gathered from people jailed for serious crimes before routine collection.

R - who was jailed for manslaughter in the 1980s but after his release was in trouble for a lesser, non violent offence - argued that he had turned his life around since 2000.

The police force contacted him in March and delivered a letter which told him that because he had a previous conviction for a serious offence he was being asked to give the officer a DNA sample.

The letter went on to say that if he chose not to, he would be required to attend a police station within seven days and if he failed to do that he could be liable to arrest.

The court's power of judicial review has emerged primarily from case law, with judges seemingly giving themselves discretion to hold the public bodies accountable.

This has not been without controversy since many people consider that unelected judges should not get in the way of publicly elected decisions.

The client believed his human rights had been breached because he had a right to a private life.

Lord Justice Pitchford at the High Court said that the request was both "lawful and proportionate".

Do you agree?

WND Superstore - Independent US News Website Shop launches Politically Orientated Bumper Stickers...

WND Superstore claims to be an extension of its news and information service, providing products that enlighten and empower you in your personal quest to protect your family, engage the culture, speak out against injustice, and fight for what is right.

Here are some items that seek to protect you and your family including; 

Bumper stickers

Yard signs

And my favourite ... a radiation detector ... in case you need one. 

According to the WND Superstore website, "the mission of the WND Superstore is to help equip you to analyze, understand, and act on the challenges we face in the world around us. We seek to be a reliable provider of information products that have practical and transcendent value to you."

Practical and transcendent eh? I'm not sure. What do you think?

Former United States presidents who ran for office after leaving the presidency

I was teaching a year 13 politics lesson today when a student asked if a President serving two terms could run for Congress afterwards.

At the time I didn't know the answer to the question. Thankfully, my old friend Professor Google provided the answer.

Only two former presidents have successfully run for Congress. John Quincy Adams (President 1825-9) entered the House of Representatives in 1830 and won 9 elections there until his death in 1846.

John Quincy Adams (sixth President of the United States)

Andrew Johnson (President 1865-9) ran for the Senate in 1868 but lost. He tried again in 1874 but this time he won, and served in the Senate until his death.

Andrew Johnson (seventeenth President of the United States and first American to be impeached - he was acquitted)

Recent John Boehner Plan Highlights Importance of Checks and Balances

John Boehner, current Speaker of the US House of Representatives (Ohio), has recently suggested a Republican plan to avert the immanent 'fiscal cliff' or austerity crisis, by using Congress' powers to raise the debt ceiling (the amount that the government can borrow for public spending). To not raise the ceiling would lead to severe austerity and possible recession.



Boehner has suggested that he would only agree for Congress to raise the debt ceiling if  President Obama agreed to make changes to Obamacare. He has accused the President of partisanship (working in the interests of his party - in contrast to bipartisanship [working with other parties to achieve a goal]):

“Given the long history of using debt limit increases to achieve bipartisan deficit reduction and economic reforms, the speaker was disappointed but told the president that the two chambers of Congress will chart the path ahead,” a Boehner aide said in an email.

President Obama warned Boehner against playing politics with the nation's finances:

“The President telephoned Speaker Boehner and told him again that the full faith and credit of the United States should not and will not be subject to negotiation,” the official said in a statement provided to POLITICO. “The President reiterated that it is the constitutional responsibility of the US Congress to pass the nation’s budget and pay the nation’s bills.”

He has now suggested granting autonomous power to the president to willfully raise the debt ceiling without Congress.

Opinions vary on whether this is good or bad thing for checks and balances. On the one hand,  handing over additional powers to the president could be seen as undesirable as signals an expansion of the executive. The bipartisan compromises that come out of incidences between Congress and the President lead to effective checks and balances on abuses of power.

The argument can also be made that accomplishing things would come at a greater ease and benefit to the people if only one man had the power to enact changes. This is something that the Founding Fathers were guarding against, because they understood that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

However, William Galston, writing in the Wall Street Journal, said President Obama is probably permitted - and even required - to borrow money himself in order to pay off debts coming due and to avoid defaulting, whether Congress approves or not.

Writes Galston:

The precise constitutional issue is the relation between the two terse sentences that define and delimit authority over government borrowing. Article I, section 8, provides (in part) that “The Congress shall have Power . . . To borrow money on the credit of the United States.”
The other key constitutional provision is section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which provides (in part) that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions . . . shall not be questioned . . . ”
The most plausible reading of the Constitution allows him—in fact requires him—to do what is necessary to avoid defaulting on the public debt, whatever Congress may do or fail to do. But the Constitution does not allow him to treat all existing statutory programs on a par with the public debt—if doing so would require him to issue new debt above and beyond what is needed to pay the principal and interest on existing debt.

Obama appears to agree. What you think Mill Hill Politics students? 

An article agreeing that powers should be given to the President to raise debt ceiling:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/take-debt-ceiling-authority-away-from-congress/2012/12/03/20513fe2-3d41-11e2-8a5c-473797be602c_blog.html

http://www.policymic.com/articles/20511/fiscal-cliff-deadline-obama-attempts-to-seize-power-over-debt-ceiling-in-fiscal-cliff-negotiations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis_of_2013

Ten most vicious fights in Australian politics

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/27/vicious-fights-australian-politics

Two interesting articles on Judicial Review in the UK

'Judicial review process to be made tougher' - The Daily Telegraph, July 2013

The Ministry of Justice is to make it tougher for judicial reviews to be brought to court, following concerns that the procedure is being abused by pressure groups and campaigners.

'Judicial review is increasingly essential, judges warn government' - The Guardian, Feb 2013

Gridlock and divided government

A collection of recent news articles on gridlock and the political impact of divided government in the US.

• The New York Times - 'The Real Price of Congress's deadlock' Aug. 2013
• The Hill - 'Obama blames Boehner for gridlock' Sept 2013
• NBC News - 'Washington still in gridlock 11 days before shut-down deadline' Sept 2013
• RealClearPolitics - 'The Premature Burial of Divided Government' Oct 2012

Checks and balances in the US Constitution: Presidential vetoes

Article I of the US Constitution requires every bill, order, resolution or other act of legislation by the Congress of the United States to be presented to the President of the United States for his approval.

When the President is presented the bill, he can either sign it into law, return the bill to the originating house of Congress with his objections to the bill (a veto), or neither sign nor return it to Congress after having been presented the bill for ten days exempting Sundays (if Congress is still in session, the bill becomes a law; otherwise, the bill does not become a law and is considered a pocket veto).

Occasionally, a President either publicly or privately threatens Congress with a veto to influence the content or passage of legislation. There is no record of what officially constitutes a "veto threat," or how many have been made over the years, but it has become a staple of Presidential politics and a sometimes effective way of shaping policy.

Here is a list of recent presidential vetoes. 

President	Regular vetoes	Pocket vetoes	Total vetoes	Vetoes overridden	Percentage vetoes overridden[2]	Percentage regular vetoes overridden
Total	1497	1067	2564	110	4%	7%
Richard Nixon	26	17	43	7	16%	27%
Gerald Ford	48	18	66	12	18%	25%
Jimmy Carter	13	18	31	2	6%	15%
Ronald Reagan	39	39	78	9	12%	23%
George H. W. Bush[3][4]	29	15	44	1	2%	2%
Bill Clinton	36	1	37	2	5%	6%
George W. Bush	11	1	12	4	33%	36%
Barack Obama	2	0	2	0	0%	0%

Barack Obama 

December 30, 2009: Vetoed H.J.Res. 64, Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes. Override attempt failed in House.

October 7, 2010: Vetoed H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010. Override attempt failed in House.

Divided government in the US - the last 45 years

The checks and balances between the three branches of the federal government have important consequences for US politics. Gridlock can result when the Senate disagrees with the President. For most recent presidents have accused the Senate of either rejecting or blocking their judicial nominations for partisan reasons.

This raises the issue of 'divided government', a term used to refer to the situation in which one party controls the presidency and the other party controls Congress. Of late, this has become the norm. 

The 40 years between 1969 and 2009 have seen 22 years of divided government when both houses of Congress were controlled by the party which did not control the White House.

Year	President	Senate	House
1969-1971	R	D	D
1971-1973	R	D	D
1973-1975	R	D	D
1975-1977	R	D	D
1977–1979	D	D	D
1979–1981	D	D	D
1981-1983	R	R	D
1983-1985	R	R	D
1985-1987	R	R	D
1987-1989	R	D	D
1989-1991	R	D	D
1991-1993	R	D	D
1993–1995	D	D	D
1995-1997	D	R	R
1997-1999	D	R	R
1999-2001	D	R	R
2001-2003	R	D*	R
2003–2005	R	R	R
2005–2007	R	R	R
2007-2009	R	D	D
2009–2011	D	D	D
2011-2013	D	D	R
2013-2015	D	D	R

*The 2000 election resulted in a 50-50 tie in the Senate, and the Constitution gives tie-breaking power to the Vice President. The Vice President was Democrat Al Gore from January 3, 2001 until the inauguration of Republican Richard Cheney on January 20. Then on May 24, Republican Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the Republican Party to caucus with the Democrats as an independent, resulting in another shift of control.

A good website on the US Constitution

This site is designed to help the user understand the United States Constitution. It contains vocabulary, information, graphics, resource links, activities and quizzes to help the user learn the tenets of the United States Constitution. The site is accessible for use by persons with and without disabilities.

It has some pretty good quizzes as well. 

Book Review of 'The Blunders of our Governments', A. King and I. Crewe by Peter Wilby in The Guardian

Professor Anthony King and Sir Ivor Crewe two of the most prestigious writers on British Politics alive today have released a new book on the blunders of the British Government over the last sixty years. You can read a review by the guardian here. You can buy a copy of the book from amazon, though perhaps wait till its out in paperback.

British Government and the Constitution - A Blog

Worth a quick peak at Professor Adam Tomkins's blog: http://britgovcon.wordpress.com/ on the subject of British Government and the Constitution. Has many posts on Constitutional Reform, Judicial Review, Human Rights and Civil Liberties.

Handy Youtube playlist on The US Constitution

A handy youtube playlist on the The US Constitution can be found here. Some deleted videos. There's some great stuff here, including the late night hosts focus on Speaker John Boehner's 'over-sized gavel'.

Another Video from Educator, Vlogger and Author John Green on The Constitution and Federalism

Congress and the Commander in Chief

Informative radio programme. As the US Congress prepares to vote on whether to take military action against Syria, the BBC World Service explores how the US has taken similar decisions in the past – and how that might shape the decisions of the present. Claire Bolderson delves into the history of tension over the issue between the White House and Capitol Hill.

Not technically politics but ...

Just been doing some research on the West Wing. What do you get when you combine Kayne West lyrics with screencaps from Aaron Sorkin's fantastic show, West Wing? A flawless blog that's what...

Thatcher: The Downing Street Years

For the last month the BBC has been re-showing its award-winning four-part documentary series, examining Margaret Thatcher's 11 years as Prime Minister. You can catch the last episode where Margaret Thatcher recalls in candid terms her feelings about cabinet members on iplayer. Failing that, you can watch all four episodes on youtube.

Welcome to the Mill Hill AS and A Level Politics Blog!

I've set up a blog in order to provide reading/stimulus material for those studying AS or A-Level Politics at Mill Hill School. The intention is to use this blog to expand the walls of the classroom and, in collaboration with students, seek to expand our understanding of British and American politics.