The recent Budget Deal and the US Debt Ceiling explained

2013 has been the least productive year in Congress on record. However, this week Congress has passed a significant piece of legislation. It was the first time Congress has passed a budget in several years.

This week the US Senate has passed a two-year federal budget bill by 64 votes to 36 in a rare outbreak of fiscal deal-making on Capitol Hill. The bipartisan bill aims to avert another government shutdown.

The bill does several things:

1. It gives Congress until 15 January to pass a $1.012 trillion spending bill for 2014.
2. It does not raise taxes. 
3. It rolls back $63bn in military and domestic spending cuts due to take effect in January. 
4. It does not extend long-term unemployment benefits that are due to expire for nearly 1.3 million Americans later this month. 
5. It cuts inflation increases to pensions for military retirees under the age of 62. 
6. It aims to reduce the federal deficit by up to $23 bn. 

The passing of the Budget deal is significant for two reasons: firstly, because it deals with the issue of the fiscal cliff in America, and secondly, it signals perhaps a return of bipartisanship in Congress.

So what is the fiscal cliff? 

Simply put, the fiscal cliff was a situation which came into existence in January 2013 whereby a series of previously enacted laws would simultaneously come into effect. These acts were: 

1. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 (further extended for two more years in the 2010 Tax Relief Act. This is the revenue side of the fiscal cliff - i.e. how much the government collected in taxes.  
2. The 2011 Budget Control Act which cut public spending (referred to as budget sequestration) and extended the debt ceiling to 31 December 2012 - the same day as when the Bush tax cuts expired. . The public spending cuts were delayed until March 2013 by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. 

The fiscal cliff would increase tax rates and decrease government spending. At the same time, government spending would continue to exceed its revenue. 

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 addressed the first issue - revenue. The Act implemented smaller tax increases compared to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

So what was this debt ceiling crisis thing? 

Although one part of the fiscal cliff (taxation) had been resolved, the debt ceiling remained. The debt ceiling is the limit placed by Congress on the amount of money the Federal Government can borrow. For a great (albeit fast) non-partisan explanation, see the following video by CP Grey.

Although the debt ceiling was technically reached on 31 December 2012, the Treasury took special measures to enable the government to be financed.

In 2013 the debate on what to do began in earnest. Republicans argued that the debt ceiling should not be raised unless spending was cut by an amount equal to or greater than the debt ceiling increase. Democrats have suggested raising or removing the debt ceiling altogether.

By September 2013 the measures the Treasury enacted to continue funding the Federal Government were nearly exhausted. The Treasury announced that the Federal Government would default on its debt (be unable to pay interest incurred). 

That same month, Republicans in the House of Representatives drafted a bill that would postpone default by twelve months in return for a one year delay to the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

So how was it all resolved? 

 In  October, the Senate passed the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, to fund the government until 15 January 2014, and suspending the debt ceiling until February 2014. 

It also set up a House-Senate budget conference committee to negotiate a long-term spending agreement. It was this conference that proposed the two-year federal budget bill passed this week. 

What does this all mean for Congress and levels of partisanship? 

While the bill is heralded as a break from routine partisan rancour on Capitol Hill, lawmakers are cautious about forecasting a change in the climate there next year.

President Obama hailed the passage as "a good first step away from the short-sighted, crisis-driven decision-making that has only served to act as a drag on our economy."

However, rather than signalling a new turn towards greater bipartisanship in Congress, commentators suggest the act signals a temporary truce before the fight resumes over the question of raising the debt ceiling yet again next year. 

Nick Gibb: Public believe prisoners 'lose right' to vote

A joint committee of Commons and Lords has proposed the idea of giving the vote to prisoners who have been sentenced to less than a year in jail, and to others who are nearing the end of their sentence. Nick Gibb, the Conservative chair of the committee, and Crispin Blunt, the Conservative former prisons minister, talk to presenter James Naughtie.

Click here to download MP3 of interview: BBC Today Programme: Public believe prisoners 'lose right' to vote

Tea Party America (BBC Documentary)

Interesting documentary from 2010 discussing the importance of the Tea Party within the Republican Party.

Partisanship and Gridlock in Congress: Can Democracy Work? Institute of Politics - Harvard Kennedy School of Government

Alex Keyssar, professor of history and social policy, Mark McKinnon, co-founder of No Labels, Theda Skocpol, professor of government and sociology, and Hilda Solis, former US Secretary of Labor joined moderator Karen Gordon Mills, former administrator of the US Small Business Administration for a discussion on partisanship and gridlock in Congress. President of Harvard University, Professor Drew Gilpin Faust delivered opening remarks prior to the panel. The speakers addressed topics ranging from campaign finance reform to the lack of compromise in Congress. Topics also discussed were the effect of the media on politics, what the Congress could do to address the lack of bipartisan cooperation, and the social and political phenomena that fuel the lack of cooperation.

Videos explaining the work of Parliament

This film focusses on the work of the House of Commons Chamber and is divided up into seven sections which cover:

• Guide to the Chamber
• A Day in the the Chamber
• How the Chamber Works
• Making Laws
• Scrutinising Government
• Westminster Hall and Committees
• Working for You

Select Committees of the House of Commons are an essential part of its role to scrutinise government. This short film guides you through Select Committees of the House of Commons: how they are formed, the work they do and the impact they have. 

http://www.parliament.uk/about/podcasts/theworkofparliament/select-committees-in-the-house-of-commons/

What is the House of Lords? 

How does the House of Lords Work? 

These and many other videos explaining the work of Parliament can be found at the UK Parliament youtube channel

Congress - links to aid your A2 studies

The Capitol 

The place to start studying Congress through the internet would be the websites of the two houses of Congress - the House of Representatives (www.house.gov) and the Senate (www.senate.gov). These sites have information on such things as members, the leadership, committees, legislation and votes. It is possible to find out about, for example, specific members of Congress, the work currently going on in committee or how members vote.

There is also the Library of Congress THOMAS website - (http://thomas.loc.gov) - which provides legislative information.

You might be interested to watch the House or Senate in session and this can be done online at www.c-span.org. There is live coverage of the House on C-SPAN and live coverage of the Senate on C-SPAN2. C-SPAN3 covers committee hearings as well as other programming.

Another extraordinarily good resource on Congress is http://congress.indiana.edu/ which is sponsored by Indiana University and hosted by former Representative Lee Hamilton. One of its most innovative feature is its interactive learning modules on such topics as how a member decides to vote, public criticisms of Congress, and the legislative process.

Finally, the highly respected Washington-based journal Congressional Quarterly has a free website called Roll Call at www.rollcall.com/politics/

Congress - 11 Declarations of War

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/the-11-countries-congress-has-declared-war-on-and-why?s=mobile

Fashionable members of Congress

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/15-members-of-congress-that-are-killin-the-fashion-game?s=mobile

The US Budget - why so hard for Obama

Why the budget is so hard for Obama : http://wapo.st/15PXim2

Congress somewhere below cockroaches, traffic jams, and Nickelback in Americans' esteem

Our newest national poll finds that Congress only has a 9% favorability rating with 85% of voters viewing it in a negative light. We've seen poll after poll after poll over the last year talking about how unpopular Congress is but really, what's the difference between an 11% or a 9% or a 7% favorability rating? So we decided to take a different approach and test Congress' popularity against 26 different things. And what we found is that Congress is less popular than cockroaches, traffic jams, and evenNickelback.

Here's what we found:

It's gross to have lice but at least they can be removed in a way that given the recent reelection rates members of Congress evidently can't: Lice 67 Congress 19

Brussel sprouts may have been disgusting as a kid, but evidently they're now a lot less disgusting than Congress: Brussel Sprouts 69 Congress 23

The NFL replacement refs may have screwed everything up, but voters think Congress is screwing everything up even worse: Replacement Refs 56 Congressmen 29 (the breakdown among Packers fans might be a little bit different).

Colonoscopies are not a terribly pleasant experience but at least they have some redeeming value that most voters aren't seeing in Congress: Colonoscopies 58 Congress 31

And you can make the same point about root canals: Root Canals 56 Congress 32

You might get a bad deal from a used car salesmen, but voters evidently think they're getting an even worse deal from Congress: Used Car Salesmen 57 Congress 32

Being stuff in traffic sucks, but voters are even less happy about being stuck with this Congress: Traffic Jams 56 Congress 34

America might have had to bail out France multiple times over the years but voters still have a more charitable opinion of it than Congress: France 46 Congress 37

Carnies may use loaded dice, but voters still think they have a better chance of winning with them than Congress: Carnies 39 Congress 31

It may be true that everyone hates Nickelback, but apparently everyone hates Congress even more: Nickelback 39 Congress 32

Genghis Khan did a lot of bad stuff but I guess it's faded from voters' minds in a way that Congress' recent misdeeds haven't: Genghis Khan 41 Congress 37

DC political pundits and Donald Trump aren't held in very high esteem by the population, but they still both manage to just barely edge Congress: DC political pundits 37 Congress 34 and Donald Trump 44 Congress 42

Cockroaches are a pretty good reason to call the exterminator but voters might be even more concerned if their homes were infested with members of Congress: Cockroaches 45 Congress 43

Now the news isn't all bad for Congress:

By relatively close margins it beats out Lindsey Lohan (45/41), playground bullies (43/38), and telemarketers (45/35). And it posts wider margins over the Kardashians (49/36), John Edwards (45/29), lobbyists (48/30), Fidel Castro (54/32), Gonorrhea (53/28), Ebola (53/25), Communism (57/23), North Korea (61/26), and meth labs (60/21)

But when you're less popular than cockroaches, Genghis Khan, traffic jams, and yes even Nickelback, well, it might be time to reevaluate.

Full results here

The Constitutional Basis of Federalism

The U.S. Constitution does not use the term federalism, nor does it provide extensive details about the federal system. Nevertheless, the framers helped created a federalist system in the United States, particularly in the ways the Constitution allocates power.

The National Government
Article VI of the Constitution declares that the Constitution and any laws passed under it form the “supreme Law of the Land” in a passage called the supremacy clause. This clause implies that the national government has authority over the state governments.

The Constitution grants the national government several different kinds of powers and prohibits it from taking certain actions. The Constitution outlines four major types of power: enumerated, implied, inherent, and prohibited.

THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT’S POWERS

Type	Key Clause	Explanation	Examples
Enumerated (expressed)	Article I, Section 8	Powers explicitly granted to Congress	Declare war, coin money, levy taxes, regulate interstate commerce
Implied	Necessary and proper (Article I, Section 8)	Powers that Congress has assumed in order to better do its job	Regulate telecommunications, build interstate highways
Inherent	Preamble	Powers inherent to a sovereign nation	Defend itself from foreign and domestic enemies
Prohibited	Article I, Section 9	Powers prohibited to the national government	Suspend the writ of habeas corpus, tax exports

Enumerated Powers
In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution specifically grants Congress a number of different powers, now known as the enumerated powers. The enumerated powers include the power to declare war, coin money, and regulate interstate commerce. Because these powers are expressly stated in the Constitution, political scientists sometimes also refer to them as expressed powers.
Implied Powers

The national government is not limited to the enumerated powers. At the end of Article I, Section 8, the Constitution also grants Congress the power to do anything “necessary and proper” to carry out its duties. This clause is known as the necessary and proper clause or the elastic clause because of its mutability. Because the powers bestowed by this clause are implied rather than stated, they also are known as implied powers.

Example: The Constitution does not specifically grant Congress the power to regulate telecommunications because such technology did not exist at the time of the founding. But according to the Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Regulating telecommunications is considered necessary for Congress to properly regulate interstate commerce, and so Congress has since assumed this power.

McCulloch v. Maryland

This landmark Supreme Court case from 1819 concerned a state government’s ability to tax a national bank. The Court, relying on the necessary and proper clause, ruled that the national government has far more powers than the Constitution enumerates in Article I, Section 8. The necessary and proper clause has allowed the national government to regulate air travel, combat industrial pollution, and foster the creation and growth of the Internet.

Inherent Powers
The preamble to the Constitution lays out the basic purposes of the United States government: to provide for the welfare of its citizens and to defend against external enemies. Because the federal government is sovereign, it also has certain powers called inherent powers, which are necessary to protect its citizens and defend its right to exist. The primary inherent power is self-preservation: A state has the right to defend itself from foreign and domestic enemies.

Prohibited Powers
The Constitution also explicitly denies the national government certain powers. For example, Congress cannot tax exports or tell states how to choose electors for the Electoral College. The powers denied to the national government are called the prohibited powers.

The Commerce Clause
The Supreme Court’s decision in the 1824 case Gibbons v. Ogden reasserted the federal government’s authority over the states. Aaron Ogden had a monopoly on steamship navigation from the state of New York. When Thomas Gibbons began operating his steamship in New York waterways, Ogden sued. The Court found that New York State did not have the right to issue a monopoly to Ogden because only the national government has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Chief Justice John Marshall referred to the commerce clause (which gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce) of the Constitution as justification for his decision.

The State Governments
The Constitution also grants state governments some key powers, including the right to determine how to choose delegates to the Electoral College. States also have a great deal of latitude to write their own constitutions and pass their own laws. All state governments have three branches (paralleling the national government), although the powers granted to the branches differ in each state. In some states, for example, the governor has a great deal of power, whereas in others, his or her power is severely limited. States also use a variety of methods to choose judges.

The vast expanse of the national government has led some to conclude that state governments are of secondary importance. In 1941, for example, Supreme Court justice Harlan Stone remarked that the Tenth Amendment (which reserves powers to the states) had no real meaning. State governments, however, are still vital political actors, and they have adapted to new roles and new circumstances. At the start of the twenty-first century, many states have reasserted their strength and taken a larger role in homeland security, economics, and environmental policy.

Professional and Nonprofessional LegislaturesAll states have a legislative body that makes laws, and all but one of the legislatures are bicameral. (Nebraska is the lone state with a unicameral legislature.) In some states, being a legislator is a full-time job. These legislators are paid well, have large staffs, and meet in session for much of the year. Political scientists call this type of legislature a professional legislature. In other states, the legislators are in session for short periods, receive very little pay, and have almost no staff. These states pride themselves on having nonprofessional citizen legislators rather than professional politicians.

Reserved Powers
The Tenth Amendment states that the powers not granted to the national government, and not prohibited to state governments, are “reserved to the States.” Political scientists call this the reservation clause, and the powers that states derive from this clause are known as the reserved powers.

Concurrent Powers
Powers held by both states and the national government are known asconcurrent powers. The power to tax is an example of a concurrent power: People pay taxes at the local, state, and federal levels.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause
The full faith and credit clause (found in Article IV of the Constitution) both establishes and limits state powers. It declares that state governments must respect the laws and decisions of other state governments, such as driver licenses and marriage certificates issued by other states. To some extent, then, the clause expands state power: A state’s decision is binding on other states. At the same time, the clause limits state power by forcing the states to honor one another’s laws.

Local Governments
Although the Constitution mentions state governments and grants them some specific powers, it does not mention local governments at all. Courts have interpreted this omission to mean that local governments are entirely under the authority of state governments and that a state can create and abolish local governments as it sees fit.

State Power
The most obvious example of state supremacy over local government is that state governments take over local institutions somewhat regularly. State governments also have the power to redefine local governments, stripping their powers and changing the laws. In 1995, for example, the state of Illinois gave the mayor of Chicago almost complete control of the Chicago school system because the previous board of education had failed to improve schools.

Types of Local Government
States have created a multitude of types of local government. In fact, there are approximately 84,000 local governments in the United States. Each state has the power to define local government in any way it wants, allocating different types and degrees of power and responsibility. For a local government to have power, it must be granted a charter by the state, specifying its powers and responsibilities.

Most states grant some degree of autonomy to local governments. This autonomy is known as home rule: a promise by the state government to refrain from interfering in local issues. State governments give up this power because local governments with substantial autonomy can often manage local affairs better than the state government could. Ultimately, however, the state can still take power away from local governments, even those with home rule.

Some states have a complicated patchwork of town governments, with villages, townships, counties, and cities all having different powers. The most common—and probably the least known—type of local government is called a special district, a local government created to deal with a single issue or problem. Special districts frequently overlap with other types of local government, and the range of powers they possess varies greatly. Control of special districts also varies greatly: Some have elected leadership, whereas others have leaders appointed by the governor or legislature.

Example: Special districts are the most numerous type of government in the United States—totaling more than 39,000 across the country. They are also the most diverse. In some states, boards of education are special districts. Most states also have very specialized districts, such as water reclamation districts, boards to oversee public universities, and economic development districts. In some states, many of these districts have elected leaders. In Illinois, for example, citizens vote for dozens of local governments. Some special districts have the power to borrow money and oversee major construction projects (such as bridges, landfills, and treatment plants).

The Lords' Tale - fantastic documentary on Lord's Reform in 1999.

Molly Dineen's documentary recalling the events of 1999 when hereditary peers were kicked out of the House of Lords.

Look here for news stories about UK constitutional reform!

The Guardian has a section of its website dedicated to news items about constitutional reform. Definitely worth a look.

Supreme Court and the protection of rights and liberties

Our next section looks at the Supreme Court and the protection of rights and liberties. 

The key questions you need to be able to answer are: 

1. What is the structure of the federal courts in the USA? 
2. What is the membership of the Supreme Court? 
3. How does the appointment process work? 
4. What is the power of judicial review? 
5. What have been the recent landmark decisions of the Supreme Court? 
6. How might the Roberts Court differ from the Rehnquist Court?
7. What checks exist on the Court's power? 
8. Is the Court now the 'Roberts Court'?

Resources

• The place to start for electronic sources on the US Supreme Court is the Court's own website. The 'About the Supreme Court' button is the best one to use from the home page. You can also research Supreme Court decisions by going to the button marked 'Opinions' but be aware that these are the actual opinions and hence highly detailed and not easy for the layperson/student to readily understand.

• There is also Scot's US blog which has some impressive but very accessible statistics on each recent term of the Court. For each case it has a short paragraph entitled 'Plain English' with a brief explanation of the case in 'plain English.'

• There is also a website from Cornell University in the States, , which gives a brief commentary on Supreme Court decisions, and which makes them much easier to follow than the full opinion. 

• This useful government site gives clear explanations of the Court's procedure as well as simulations of Court decision making. 

• More widely on the federal judiciary, the website of the Federal Judicial Center is quite helpful at .

• Media sites such as the Washington Post and New York Times give regular reports on matters relating to the Supreme Court.

• The website of the Senate Judiciary Committee will have details of any judicial confirmation hearings that may take place. 

You may also want to consult websites relating to some of the specific rights and liberties discussed in the Constitution. These include:

www.aclu.org
www.freespeechcoalition.com
www.nra.org
www.bradycenter.org
www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
www.naacp.org
www.affirmativereaction.org
www.nrlc.org
www.plannedparenthood.org
www.now

Janet Yellen to be nominated as next head of the US Federal Reserve

US President Barack Obama will nominate Federal Reserve Vice-Chair Janet Yellen to be the next head of the US central bank on Wednesday, according to a White House official.

If confirmed by the US Senate, Ms Yellen, 67, would replace Ben Bernanke, who has held the post for eight years.

She has been his deputy for the last two years, and would become the first woman to head the Federal Reserve.

Ms Yellen and Mr Bernanke are due to appear with the president on Wednesday.

She has taught at Harvard University and the London School of Economics, as well as holding a series of senior administrative positions in the US.

Read more on this story at the BBC

See Mark Mardell, BBC North America Editor's opinion on Yellen's nomination here

ConstitutionUK: Crowdsourcing the UK's Constitution - Event tomorrow evening at the LSE

Crowdsourcing a New UK Constitution: Launch Event 8th October

Tuesday 8 October 2013, 6.30pm – 8pm

Sheikh Zayed Theatre, New Academic Building

Panel: David Blunkett MP, Richard Gordon QC, Carol Harlow QC, Dr Lea Ypi

Host: Professor Conor Gearty

Join the debate on Twitter. Tweet your thoughts to using the hashtag #ConstitutionUK or follow us @ConstitutionUK

This event is free and open to all with no ticket required. Entry is on a first come, first served basis. For any queries email events@lse.ac.uk or call 020 7955 6043.

What is Constitution UK?

Constitution UK is a trailblazing project led by the LSE that invites members of the public to participate in, offer advice on and eventually to draft a new UK constitution through crowdsourcing.

The process is simple but key to the success of Constitution UK. Through this blog and other social media you will debate and develop a UK constitution.

We are encouraging participation from across the UK, from all ages and communities. We welcome international input. We want to know who does this better and why.

Keen contributors will be invited to a Constitutional Carnival in April 2014 when a first draft will be thrashed out.

Interesting radio documentary on UK Devolution, and how it has impacted lives of teenagers

The Young Devolutionaries is a BBC 4 radio programme looking at the generation who have grown up under devolution. Now, nine teenagers from Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales share their vision of the system that bought them up.

David Cameron has recently denied a Lib Dem claim that Conservatives are blocking further devolution to Wales. He has told the BBC that he is attracted by the idea of the Welsh government being able to raise some of its own budget. 

The Silk Commission is examining the future of devolution in Wales and has recommended some tax-varying powers. It is due to publish a report of recommendations in Spring 2014.

However the UK government has said in the past it does not believe there is a case for radical changes to Welsh devolution. 

 

UPDATE: A very useful update on the British Constitution

UPDATE: What's been happening to the British Constitution over the summer?

• Ongoing debate and confusion about Bill of Rights reform 
• Freedom of Information 
• Scotland
• Britain and the EU
• Collective Ministerial Responsibility
• The Civil Service
• National Security
• Freedom of Expression 
• Prisoner's right to vote
• Lord Chancellor's plans to reform legal aid
• Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
• Provisions in planned Immigration Bill 

For more information on these developments visit Professor Adam Tomkins' blog here

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