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