A House Divided: Boehner and Republicans on Verge of Avoiding Another Government Shutdown

The divisions between the Obama Administration and the incoming Republican majority have only grown larger midst poor cooperation and an executive action authorizing new legislation for domestic immigration policies. As their feud with Democrats in Congress continues, House Republican leaders face their own fight from within their own ranks; against Tea Party conservatives who fight Republican moderates on spending deals to avoid another government shutdown. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in the House, although not looking to impede Republican-backed legislation, are looking to make sure their policies are included in hybrid bills that are scheduled to be passed early next week, if not later that same week. House Speaker John A. Boehner obviously has a lot on his plate in the coming weeks that needs to be dealt with tactfully in order to not alienate too many supporters and reduce the political divisions between Republican and Democratic politicians.

Mr. Boehner must examine the various components of passing the spending bill and must decide how to accumulate votes without stirring the pot too much within the House. Senate majority leader Harry Reid and other Senate members have noted that the spending bill will pass in the Senate, and that the president is open to passing this legislation without any impedance, Tea Party conservatives and House Democrats remain indefinite in their stance on the bill and are still deciding on the specifics of the final parts of the spending plan. Mr. Boehner’s plan has a complex duality to its structure: the first step allows members of the House to vote against the executive action authorized by Obama and retract the immigration legislation passed  recently, while the second step would produce a hybrid spending bill to accompany the vote and reorganize federal funding. The hybrid bill would organize spending until September 30th, or through the next fiscal year, but would only devote funding to the Department of Homeland Security until March, when a Republican majority could institute new spending plans for this specific institution in the bureaucracy.

Although House Democrats don't want to impede progress and want to avoid another government shutdown, they are concerned with the restricted funding to the Department of Homeland Security and feel that Republicans would face a deficit in funding early next year. The short-term results won't produce long-term progress and could possibly lead to a partial government shutdown, which has the capability to produce the same economic and political stresses in the country. However, House Democrats have realized the urgency in the matter and have agreed on many of the points within the bill, guaranteeing Boehner votes for the bill and completing one part of the puzzle.Meanwhile, Republican conservatives see Boehner’s passiveness and concentration on the spending bill rather than advocating for adversity against the immigration legislation as a sign of weakness and surrender to the Obama Administration. Representative Steve King from Iowa, along with 50 other members look to vote against the bill, while Senator Ted Cruz wants to take the controversy over the executive action to the Senate floor rather than pair it with a hybrid bill, thus only encouraging political gridlock rather than progress. Some conservatives have even gone as far to propose cutting funding to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, but practically cannot be accomplished since Congress cannot purposely reduce funding to an agency. While conservatives look only to ignite tensions in Congress, moderates and Democrats should fill up the needed votes for the passage of the bill, thus giving Boehner the victory he needs to keep the federal budget in order and keep the government rolling, for now.

The duality of this bill proposes various problems and creates many roadblocks for the passage of its policies, thus keeping John Boehner and Republicans on their heels until votes can be assured towards their legislation. Does the complexity of the spending plan damage its effectiveness or chance of being passed through the House and the Senate? Are Tea Party conservatives becoming too detrimental to the Republican Party when passing legislation? Do you think a government shutdown is a probable outcome from this controversy?

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/us/politics/house-on-brink-of-deal-to-avoid-government-shutdown.html?ref=politics&_r=0

http://online.wsj.com/articles/house-republicans-dont-expect-a-u-s-government-shutdown-1409506899

Senate Responds to the Military's Sexual Assault Problem

Earlier this year, the Pentagon announced to the public that 26,000 cases of sexual assault were reported in the military last year. This is not only an ongoing problem in the U.S., but also a growing one. Reports show that the number of reported cases has increased 37%. Understanding how great of an issue this has become, the government is now stepping in to find a solution.

As of now, the system for reporting sexual assault works in a way that allows the problem to continue. In the armed forces, a victim must report the case to the military commander, not to the police. As the statistics show, reporting to a person in the chain of command isn't working well, as often times, no real action is taken or the commander is buddies with the perpetrator. With this rule set so firmly in a system that values rules and authority over all else, what can be done to lower those staggering numbers?

Leading the campaign is Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, the New York Democrat who has sought to reform the system for some time now. Gillibrand points right to the Depart of Defense's failure to solve the problem over the last 20 years and the fact that they allowed the problem to escalate dramatically this past year. She says that they have done a poor job of cracking down on the commanders who fail to adequately investigate accusations. Gaining other senators to her side, Gillibrand proposed a bill that will take the power out of the commanders' hands in the sexual assault matters.

Although she faces some Republican opposition, many have joined her side. Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky is one who takes her side, expressing that it simply makes no sense to have victims report to their boss rather than the police.  Still many Republican lawmakers can't look past how this may effect the image of the military. South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham argues that the military is a place of discipline and order, and taking the commanders out of this process would corrupt those values. In the military, one commander is supposed to hold all the power, that's just how the military works.

Last year, Gillibrand fell five votes shy of the required 60 to pass the bill, but she isn't giving up. I admire Gillibrand's fight against sexual assault in the armed forces. This is a huge problem that no one has been able to solve, and she's finally pushing a bill that has gained support and may actually institute a change. I also think it's important to note that many Republicans are rallying with her as well, a contrast to the face off we've seen in Congress lately. Although the armed forces value their ranks of power and taking care of discipline and order, I think the problem has spiraled out of control and this plan is worth sacrificing some of the military's traditional values.

What do you think about this situation? Obviously something has to be done, but should Congress uproot the military's values and traditions? Should the military remain unchanged with its own rules and manners? Finally, do you think Congress will actually push this bill through?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/03/us/senators-renew-push-for-bill-on-sexual-assault-in-military.html?ref=us&_r=0
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-kirsten-gillibrand-renews-push-senate-vote-military/story?id=27308547
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/military-sexual-assault-debate/story?id=20950361

Straddling the Line Between Free Speech and Threats

​     

  Anthony Elonis, a man who posted violent rap lyrics on facebook was convicted of threatening his wife. children, and an FBI agent. The violent lyrics described him killing his wife, shooting a classroom of kindergarteners and attacking an FBI agent. A federal jury didn’t believe Elonis when he said he was only kidding. In a second post online, Elonis said "Revenge is a dish that is best served cold with a delicious side of psychological torture." Clearly these are threatening words, but where do we draw the line between free speech and illegal threats? After a three hour court hearing, Elonis’ wife Tara was able to obtain a restraining order, but Elonis continued to post threatening messages on facebook.

​ Free speech advocates say that it is easy for messages posted online to be misunderstood when viewed out of context. The American Civil Liberties Union said that "A statute that proscribes speech without regard to the speaker's intended meaning runs the risk of punishing protected First Amendment expression simply because it is crudely or zealously expressed.” The government however believes that it does not matter what Elonis intended with the online posts. The only test of a threat is whether or not the words make a person feel threatened. Lower courts have stood by this view that the Supreme Court has agreed with for more than four decades. When he testified, Elonis claimed he was depressed and simply venting about losing his job at an amusement park and his wife leaving him. He also claimed his posts were no different than many of the words in rap music of today. Regardless, Elonis was indicted on five counts of interstate communication of illegal threats. He was sentenced to 44 months in prison, but his appeal has now reached the Supreme Court. Elonis contends that a jury must find he actually intended to be threatening, not that a person could find the words threatening. Previously in 2003, in the case of Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court stated that a person doesn’t have to intend to carry out a threat, threatening itself is a crime as it causes other people to fear for their lives. The Supreme Court aims to clarify what the government requires to convict a person of threatening someone else illegally.

​ Do you think that lower courts were correct in convicting Anthony Elonis of threatening his wife and others? Or should his online posts be protected under the first amendment's guarantee of free speech. I believe he is guilty, and the convictions against him are correct, especially due to the fact that he continued the messages after receiving a restraining order. However, it is very difficult to create a way to judge a persons supposed threats in a consistent way in every case. The Supreme Court has a tough job ahead of them as it seems like there will always be some way to claim your speech should be protected under the first amendment.

Sources:
​http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/when-does-the-first-amendment-protect-threats-elonis-united-states-supreme-court-free-speech/383255/2/
​http://www.npr.org/2014/12/01/366534452/is-a-threat-posted-on-facebook-really-a-threat
​http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-an-online-threat-illegal-and-when-is-it-free-speech/