Podcasts about Article Two

hulu wishing omg kudos pawnee mid century modern io west jaime moyer article two

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 9, 2025 56:58

President Trump has been threatening to “take back” the Panama Canal since he regained power. In this episode, listen to testimony from officials serving on the Federal Maritime Commission who explain why the Panama Canal has become a focus of the administration and examine whether or not we need to be concerned about an impending war for control of the canal. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Current Events around the Panama Canal March 5, 2025. the Associated Press. Sabrina Valle, Suzanne McGee, and Michael Martina. March 4, 2025. Reuters. Matt Murphy, Jake Horton and Erwan Rivault. February 14, 2025. BBC. May 1, 2024. World Weather Attribution. World Maritime News Staff. March 15, 2019. World Maritime News. July 29, 2018. Reuters. Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 U.S. Department of State. The Chinese “Belt and Road Initiative” Michele Ruta. March 29, 2018. World Bank Group. The Trump-Gaza Video February 26, 2025. Sky News. Laws Audio Sources Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation January 28, 2025 Witnesses: Louis E. Sola, Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) Daniel B. Maffei, Commissioner, FMC , Professor, Scalia Law School, George Mason University Joseph Kramek, President & CEO, World Shipping Council Clips 17:30 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Between the American construction of the Panama Canal, the French effort to build an isthmus canal, and America's triumphant completion of that canal, the major infrastructure projects across Panama cost more than 35,000 lives. For the final decade of work on the Panama Canal, the United States spent nearly $400 million, equivalent to more than $15 billion today. The Panama Canal proved a truly invaluable asset, sparing both cargo ships and warships the long journey around South America. When President Carter gave it away to Panama, Americans were puzzled, confused, and many outraged. With the passage of time, many have lost sight of the canal's importance, both to national security and to the US economy. 18:45 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): But the Panama Canal was not just given away. President Carter struck a bargain. He made a treaty. And President Trump is making a serious and substantive argument that that treaty is being violated right now. 19:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): President Trump has highlighted two key issues. Number one, the danger of China exploiting or blocking passage through the canal, and number two, the exorbitant costs for transit. 19:20 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Chinese companies are right now building a bridge across the canal at a slow pace, so as to take nearly a decade. And Chinese companies control container points ports at either end. The partially completed bridge gives China the ability to block the canal without warning, and the ports give China ready observation posts to time that action. This situation, I believe, poses acute risks to US national security. 19:50 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Meanwhile, the high fees for canal transit disproportionately affect Americans, because US cargo accounts for nearly three quarters of Canal transits. US Navy vessels pay additional fees that apply only to warships. Canal profits regularly exceed $3 billion. This money comes from both American taxpayers and consumers in the form of higher costs for goods. American tourists aboard cruises, particularly those in the Caribbean Sea, are essentially captive to any fees Panama chooses to levy for canal transits, and they have paid unfair prices for fuel bunkering at terminals in Panama as a result of government granted monopoly. Panama's government relies on these exploitative fees. Nearly 1/10 of its budget is paid for with canal profit. 21:25 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Panama has for years flagged dozens of vessels in the Iranian ghost fleet, which brought Iran tens of billions of dollars in oil profits to fund terror across the world. 21:40 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): And Chinese companies have won contracts, often without fair competition, as the infamous Belt and Road Initiative has come to Panama. China often engages in debt trap diplomacy to enable economic and political coercion. In Panama, it also seems to have exploited simple corruption. 32:40 Louis Sola: The Panama Canal is managed by the Panama Canal Authority, ACP, an independent agency of the Panamanian government. The ACP is a model of public infrastructure management, and its independence has been key to ensure a safe and reliable transit of vessels critical to the US and global commerce. 33:25 Louis Sola: In contrast, the broader maritime sector in Panama, including the nation's ports, water rights, and the world's largest ship registry, falls under the direct purview of the Panamanian government. 33:35 Louis Sola: Unfortunately, this sector has faced persistent challenges, including corruption scandals and foreign influence, particularly from Brazil and China. These issues create friction with the ACP, especially as it works to address long term challenges such as securing adequate water supplies for the canal. 33:55 Louis Sola: Although the ACP operates independently, under US law both the ACP and the government of Panama's maritime sector are considered one in the same. This means that any challenges in Panama's maritime sector, including corruption, lack of transparency, or foreign influence, can have a direct or indirect impact on the operations and long term stability of the canal. This legal perspective highlights the need for diligence in monitoring both the ACP's management and Panama government's policies affecting maritime operations. 34:30 Louis Sola: Since 2015, Chinese companies have increased their presence and influence throughout Panama. Panama became a member of the Belt and Road Initiative and ended its diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Chinese companies have been able to pursue billions of dollars in development contracts in Panama, many of which were projects directly on or adjacent to the Panama Canal. Many were no bid contracts. Labor laws were waived, and the Panamanian people are still waiting to see how they've been benefited. It is all more concerning that many of these companies are state-owned, and in some cases, even designated as linked to the People's Liberation Army. We must address the significant growing presence and influence of China throughout the Americas and in Panama, specifically. 35:20 Louis Sola: American companies should play a leading role in enhancing the canal's infrastructure. By supporting US firms, we reduce reliance on Chinese contractors and promote fair competition. 36:55 Daniel Maffei: Because the canal is essentially a waterway bridge over mountainous terrain above sea level, it does depend on large supplies of fresh water to maintain the full operations. Panama has among the world's largest annual rainfalls. Nonetheless, insufficient fresh water levels have occurred before in the canal's history, such as in the 1930s when the Madden Dam and Lake Alajuela were built to address water shortages. Since that time, the canal has undertaken several projects to accommodate larger, more modern ships. In the last couple of years, a trend of worsening droughts in the region, once again, has forced limits to the operations of the canal. Starting in June of 2023 the Panama Canal Authority employed draft restrictions and reduced the number of ships allowed to transit the canal per day. Now the Panama Canal limitations, in combination with the de facto closure of the Suez Canal to container traffic, has had serious consequences for ocean commerce, increasing rates, fees and transit times. 39:30 Daniel Maffei: Now, fortunately, Panama's 2024 rainy season has, for now, alleviated the most acute water supply issues at the canal, and normal transit volumes have been restored. That said, while the Panamanian government and Canal Authority have, with the advice of the US Army Corps of Engineers, developed credible plans to mitigate future water shortages, they also warned that it is likely that at least one more period of reduced transits will occur before these plans can be fully implemented. 41:55 Eugene Kontorovich: We shall see that under international law, each party to the treaty is entitled to determine for itself whether a violation has occurred. Now, in exchange for the United States ceding control of the canal which it built and maintained, Panama agreed to a special regime of neutrality. The essential features of this regime of neutrality is that the canal must be open to all nations for transit. That's Article Two. Equitable tolls and fees, Article Three. An exclusive Panamanian operation, Article Five. The prohibition of any foreign military presence, Article Five. Article Five provides that only Panama shall operate the canal. Testifying about the meaning of the treaty at the Senate ratification hearings, the Carter administration emphasized that this prohibits foreign operation of the canal, as well as the garrisoning of foreign troops. Now, Article Five appears to be primarily concerned about control by foreign sovereigns. If Panama signed a treaty with the People's Republic of China, whereby the latter would operate the canal on Panama's behalf, this would be a clear violation. But what if Panama contracted for port operations with a Chinese state firm, or even a private firm influenced or controlled in part by the Chinese government? The Suez Canal Company was itself, before being nationalized, a private firm in which the United Kingdom was only a controlling shareholder. Yet this was understood to represent British control over the canal. In other words, a company need not be owned by the government to be in part controlled by the government. So the real question is the degree of de jure or de facto control over a Foreign Sovereign company, and scenarios range from government companies in an authoritarian regime, completely controlled, to purely private firms in our open society like the United States, but there's many possible situations in the middle. The treaty is silent on the question of how much control is too much, and as we'll see, this is one of the many questions committed to the judgment and discretion of each party. Now turning to foreign security forces, the presence of third country troops would manifestly violate Article Five. But this does not mean that anything short of a People's Liberation Army base flying a red flag is permissible. The presence of foreign security forces could violate the regime of neutrality, even if they're not represented in organized and open military formations. Modern warfare has seen belligerent powers seek to evade international legal limitations by disguising their actions in civilian garb, from Russia's notorious little green men to Hamas terrorists hiding in hospitals or disguised as journalists. Bad actors seek to exploit the fact that international treaties focus on sovereign actors. Many of China's man made islands in the South China Sea began as civilian projects before being suddenly militarized. Indeed, this issue was discussed in the Senate ratification hearings over the treaty. Dean Rusk said informal forces would be prohibited under the treaty. Thus the ostensible civilian character of the Chinese presence around the canal does not, in itself, mean that it could not represent a violation of the treaty if, for example, these companies and their employees involved Chinese covert agents or other agents of the Chinese security forces. So this leads us to the final question, Who determines whether neutrality is being threatened or compromised? Unlike many other treaties that provide for third party dispute resolution, the neutrality treaty has no such provision. Instead, the treaty makes clear that each party determines for itself the existence of a violation. Article Four provides that each party is separately authorized to maintain the regime of neutrality, making a separate obligation of each party. The Senate's understanding accompanying to ratification also made clear that Article Five allows each party to take, quote, "unilateral action." Senator Jacob Javits, at the markup hearing, said that while the word unilateral is abrasive, we can quote, "decide that the regime of neutrality is being threatened and then act with whatever means are necessary to keep the canal neutral unilaterally." 46:35 Joseph Kramek: My name is Joe Kramek. I'm President and CEO of the World Shipping Council. The World Shipping Council is the global voice of liner shipping. Our membership consists of 90% of the world's liner shipping tonnage, which are container vessels and vehicle carriers. They operate on fixed schedules to provide our customers with regular service to ship their goods in ports throughout the world. 47:15 Joseph Kramek: As you have heard, using the Panama Canal to transit between the Atlantic and Pacific saves significant time and money. A typical voyage from Asia to the US or East Coast can be made in under 30 days using the canal, while the same journey can take up to 40 days if carriers must take alternate routes. From a commercial trade perspective, the big picture is this. One of the world's busiest trade lanes is the Trans Pacific. The Trans Pacific is cargo coming from and going to Asia via the United States. Focusing in a bit, cargo coming from Asia and bound for US Gulf and East Coast ports always transits the Panama Canal. Similarly, cargo being exported from US and East Coast ports, a large share of which are US Agricultural exports, like soybeans, corn, cotton, livestock and dairy also almost always transits the Panama Canal. The result is that 75% of Canal traffic originates in or is bound for the United States. 48:55 Joseph Kramek: We've talked about the drought in 2023 and the historic low water levels that it caused in Lake Gatún, which feeds the canal locks, a unique system that is a fresh water feed, as contrasted to an ocean to ocean system, which the French tried and failed, but which is actually active in the Suez Canal. These low water levels reduced transits from 36 transits a day to as low as 22 per day. Additionally, the low water levels required a reduction in maximum allowable draft levels, or the depth of the ship below the water line, which for our members reduced the amount of containers they could carry through the canal. This resulted in a 10% reduction in import volumes for US Gulf and East Coast ports, with the Port of Houston experiencing a 26.7% reduction. 51:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Are you aware of allegations from some vessel operators of disparate treatment such as sweetheart deals or favorable rebates by Panama for canal transits? Louis Sola: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman, we have become aware through some complaints by cruise lines that said that they were not getting a refund of their canal tolls. When we looked into this, we found a Panamanian Executive Order, Decree 73, that specifically says that if a cruise line would stop at a certain port, that they could be refunded 100% of the fees. And as far as I know, that's the only instant where that exists. 53:05 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): So Panama was the very first Latin American country to join China's Belt and Road Initiative, and right now, China is building a fourth bridge across the Panama Canal for car traffic and light rail. Chairman Sola, why should Chinese construction of a bridge near Panama City concern the United States? Louis Sola: Mr. Chairman, we all saw the tragedy that happened here in the Francis Scott Key Bridge incident and the devastation that had happened to Baltimore. We also saw recently what happened in the Suez Canal, where we had a ship get stuck in there. It's not only the construction of the bridge, but it's a removal of a bridge, as I understand it, called the Bridge of the Americas. It was built in 1961 and that would paralyze cargo traffic in and out of the canals. 53:55 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Panama also recently renewed the concessions for two container ports to a Chinese company, Hutchison Ports PPC. Of course, Chinese companies are controlled by the Communist Party. How does China use control of those ports for economic gain? Louis Sola: Mr. Chairman, I am a regulator, a competition regulator. And the Chinese ports that you're referring to, let me put them into scope. The one on the Pacific, the Port of Balboa, is roughly the same size as the Port of Houston. They do about 4 million containers a year. They have about 28 game tree cranes. The one on the Atlantic is the same as my hometown in Miami, they do about 1 million containers. So where Roger Gunther in the Port of Houston generates about $1 billion a year and Heidi Webb in Miami does about $200 million, the Panama ports company paid 0 for 20 years on that concession. So it's really hard to compete against zero. So I think that's our concern, our economic concern, that we would have. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Commissioner Maffei, anything to add on that? Daniel Maffei: Yeah, I do too also think it is important. I would point out that you don't have to stop at either port. It's not like these two ports control the entrance to the canal. That is the Canal Authority that does control that. However, I think it's of concern. I would also point out that the Panamanian government thinks it's of concern too, because they're conducting their own audit of those particular deals, but we remain very interested as well. 56:25 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Would the facts discussed here be considered violations of the neutrality treaty in force right now between the United States and Panama? Eugene Kontorovich: So I think Senator, I think potentially they could, but it's impossible to say definitively without knowing more, in particular, about the degree of Chinese control and involvement in these companies. I think it's important to note that these port operation companies that operate the ports on both sides, when they received their first contract, it was just a few months before Hong Kong was handed over to China. In other words, they received them as British companies, sort of very oddly, just a few months before the handover. Now, of course, since then, Hong Kong has been incorporated into China, has been placed under a special national security regime, and the independence of those companies has been greatly abridged, to say nothing of state owned companies involved elsewhere in in the canal area, which raised significantly greater questions. Additionally, I should point out that the understandings between President Carter and Panamanian leader Herrera, which were attached to the treaty and form part of the treaty, provide that the United States can, quote, "defend the canal against any threat to the regime of neutrality," and I understand that as providing some degree of preemptive authority to intervene. One need not wait until the canal is actually closed by some act of sabotage or aggression, which, as we heard from the testimony, would be devastating to the United States, but there is some incipient ability to address potential violations. 58:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): If the United States determines that Panama is in violation of the treaty, what is the range of remedies the United States would have for that treaty violation? Eugene Kontorovich: So I think it may be shocking to people to hear today, but when one goes over the ratification history and the debates and discussions in this body over this treaty, it was clear that the treaty was understood as giving both sides, separately, the right to resort to use armed force to enforce the provisions of the treaty. And it's not so surprising when one understands that the United States made an extraordinary concession to Panama by transferring this canal, which the United States built at great expense and maintained and operated to Panama, gratis. And in exchange, it received a kind of limitation, a permanent limitation on Panamanians sovereignty, that Panama agreed that the United States could enforce this regime of neutrality by force. Now, of course, armed force should never be the first recourse for any kind of international dispute and should not be arrived at sort of rationally or before negotiations and other kinds of good offices are exhausted, but it's quite clear that the treaty contemplates that as a remedy for violations. 1:03:20 Louis Sola: I believe that the security of the canal has always been understood to be provided by the United States. Panama does not have a military, and I always believed that there's been a close relationship with Southern Command that we would provide that. And it would be nice to see if we had a formalization of that in one way or another, because I don't believe that it's in the treaty at all. 1:05:05 Daniel Maffei: While we were down there, both of us heard, I think, several times, that the Panamanians would, the ones we talked to anyway, would welcome US companies coming in and doing a lot of this work. Frankly, their bids are not competitive with the Chinese bids. Frankly, they're not that existent because US companies can make more money doing things other places, but even if they were existent, it is difficult to put competitive bids when the Chinese bids are so heavily subsidized by China. 1:06:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): What would China's incentive be to heavily subsidize those bids to undercut American companies and other companies? Daniel Maffei: Yeah, it's not a real short answer, but Senator, China's made no secret of its ambitious policies to gain influence of ports throughout the globe. It's invested in 129 ports in dozens of countries. It runs a majority of 17 ports, that does not include this Hong Kong company, right? So that's just directly Chinese-owned ports. So it has been a part of their Belt and Road strategy, whatever you want to call it, the Maritime Silk Road, for decades. So they believe that this influence, this investment in owning maritime ports is important to their economy. 1:07:05 Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE): In 2021, Hutchison was awarded those two ports, Port Balboa and Port Cristobal, in a no-bid award process. Can you tell me, does the United States have any authority or recourse with the Panama Canal Authority under our current agreement with Panama to rebid those terminal concession contracts. And perhaps Mr. Kantorovich, that's more in your purview? Louis Sola: Senator, both of those ports were redone for 25 years, until 2047, I believe. And they have to pay $7 million is what the ongoing rate is for the Port of Houston- and the Port of Miami-sized concessions. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE): And it can't be rebid until after that date? Louis Sola: Well, I believe that that's what the comptroller's office is auditing both of those ports and that contract. That was done under the previous Panamanian administration. A new administration came in, and they called for an audit of that contract immediately. 1:20:10 Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Are the companies now controlling both sides of the Panama Canal, the Chinese companies, subject to the PRC national security laws that mandate cooperation with the military, with state intelligence agencies. Does anyone know that? Eugene Kontorovich: They're subject all the time. They're subject to those laws all the time by virtue of being Hong Kong companies. And you know, they face, of course, consequences for not complying with the wishes of the Chinese government. One of the arguments -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Wouldn't that be a violation of the treaty? And isn't that a huge risk to us right now that the Chinese -- Eugene Kontorovich: That is a threat to the neutrality -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): If they invaded Taiwan, invaded the Philippines, they could go to these two companies saying, Hey, shut it down, make it hard, sink a ship in the canal. And wouldn't they be obligated to do that under Chinese law if they were ordered to by the PLA or the CCP? Eugene Kontorovich: I don't know if they'd be obligated, but certainly the People's Republic of China would have many tools of leverage and pressure on these companies. That's why the treaty specifically says that we can act not just to end actual obstructions to the canal. We don't have to wait until the canal is closed by hostile military action. Thatwould be a suicide pact, that would be catastrophic for us, but rather that we can respond at the inchoate, incipient level to threats, and then this is up to the president to determine whether this is significantly robust to constitute -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): So aren't we kind of walking up to the idea of a suicide pact, because we've got two big Chinese companies on both ends of the Panama Canal, who, if there's a war in INDOPACOM, Taiwan that involves us and China, these companies would be obligated to do the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party and PLA? I mean, are we kind of walking up to a very significant national security threat already? Eugene Kontorovich: Yeah, certainly, there's a threat. And I think what makes the action of the Chinese government so difficult to respond to, but important to respond to, is that they conceal this in sort of levels of gray without direct control. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Let me ask you on that topic, as my last question, Professor, let's assume that we find out. And again, it wouldn't be surprising. I think you can almost assume it that these two companies have Chinese spies or military officials within the ranks of the employees of the companies. Let's assume we found that out, somehow that becomes public. But I don't think it's a big assumption. It's probably true right now. So you have spies and military personnel within the ranks of these two companies that are controlling both ends of the Panama Canal for you, Professor, and Chairman Sola, wouldn't that be a blatant violation of Article Five of the neutrality treaty, if that were true, which probably is true? Eugene Kontorovich: Yeah, I do think it would be a clear violation. As former Secretary of State, Dean Ross said at the ratification hearings, informal forces can violate Article Five as well as formal forces. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Is there any evidence of Chinese spies or other nefarious Chinese actors embedded in these companies? Louis Sola: Senator, we have no information of that. That's not under the purview of -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): But you agree that would be a violation of Article Five of the neutrality treaty? Louis Sola: I do. 1:26:25 Daniel Maffei: Senator Sullivan was talking about Hutchison Ports. That's actually the same company that runs terminals on both ends of the canal. I am concerned about that. However, if we want to be concerned about that, all of us should lose a lot more sleep than we're losing because if there are spies there, then there might be spies at other Hutchinson ports, and there are other Hutchinson ports in almost every part of the world. They own the largest container port in the United Kingdom, Felix Dow, which is responsible for nearly half of Britain's container trade. They control major maritime terminals in Argentina, Australia, the Bahamas, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Myanmar, the Netherlands, South Korea and Tanzania. If owning and managing adjacent ports means that China somehow has operational control or strategic control over the Panama Canal, they also have it over the Suez, the Singapore Straits, the Mediterranean Sea and the English Channel. 1:35:45 Louis Sola: The fees that I think we are looking at, or have been looked at, the reason that we went there was because of the auctioning of the slots. And so what Panama did is they had a smaller percentage, maybe 20% allocation, and then they moved it up to 30% and 40% because it became a money maker for them. So as they were doing -- Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): Okay, let me interject here. The auctioning of the slots gives these the right to skip the queue? Louis Sola: Yes, ma'am. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): Okay, so just for the record there. Continue. Louis Sola: So the auctioning of the slots. Under maritime law, it's first come first serve, but Panama has always put a certain percentage aside, and they started to put more and more. So we got a lot of complaints. We got a lot of complaints from LNG carriers that paid $4 million to go through, and we got a lot of complaints from agriculture that didn't have the money to pay to go through, because their goods were gonna go down. So if you look at the financial statements -- I'm a nerd, I look at financial statements of everybody -- the canal increased the amount of revenue that they had from about $500 million to $1.8 billion in the last three years just because of those fees. So this is what is very concerning to us. 1:39:20 Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): Do you know of any instances where the United States has been singled out or treated unfairly under the neutrality treaty in the operation of the canal? Daniel Maffei: I do not. I would add that one of the reasons why saying the US is disproportionately affected by raises in Canal fees and other kinds of fees at the canal is because the United States disproportionately utilizes the canal. 1:44:55 Louis Sola: We have a US port there, SSA, out of Washington State that I actually worked on the development of that many years ago, and helped develop that. That used to be a United States Navy submarine base, and we converted that. As far as the two ports that we have, they're completely different. One is a major infrastructure footprint, and also a container port that's moving 4 million containers a year. That's really phenomenal amount. That's more than Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and you've probably got to get Tampa and a little bit of Jacksonville in there to get that type of volume. And on the other side, we have a very small port, but it's a very strategic port on the Atlantic. So how are the operations done?I don't know how they don't make money. I mean, if you want to come right down to it, if they've been operating the port for 20 years, and they say that they haven't made any money, so they haven't been able to pay the government. That's what concerns me is I don't believe that we're on a level playing field with the American ports. 1:58:50 Eugene Kontorovich: I think the charges and fees are less of an issue because they don't discriminate across countries. We pay more because we use more, but it's not nationally discriminatory. 1:59:00 Eugene Kontorovich: The presence of Chinese companies, especially Chinese state companies, but not limited to them, do raise serious issues and concerns for the neutrality of the treaty. And I should point out, in relation to some of the earlier questioning, the canal, for purposes of the neutrality treaty, is not limited just to the actual locks of the canal and the transit of ships through the canal. According to Annex One, paragraph one of the treaty, it includes also the entrances of the canal and the territorial sea of Panama adjacent to it. So all of the activities we're talking about are within the neutrality regime, the geographic scope of the neutrality regime in the treaty. 2:00:30 Daniel Maffei: I actually have to admit, I'm a little confused as to why some of the senators asking these questions, Senator Blackburn, aren't more concerned about the biggest port in the United Kingdom being run by the Chinese. Petraeus in the port nearest Athens, one of the biggest ports in the Mediterranean, is not just run by a Chinese-linked company, it's run directly by a Chinese-owned company, and I was there. So you're on to something, but if you're just focusing on Panama, that's only part. 2:01:45 Louis Sola: About a year ago, when we were having this drought issue, there was also a lot of focus on Iran and how they were funding Hamas and the Houthis because they were attacking the Red Sea. What the United States has found is that Iranian vessels are sometimes flagged by Panama in order to avoid sanctions, so that they could sell the fuel that they have, and then they can take that money and then they can use it as they wish. Panama, at the time, had a very complicated process to de-flag the vessels. There was an investigation, there was an appeals process. By the time that OFAC or Treasury would go ahead and identify one of those vessels, by the time that they were doing the appeals and stuff like this, they've already changed flags to somewhere else. So when we went to Panama, we met with the Panamanian president, and I must say that we were very impressed, because he was 30 minutes late, but he was breaking relations with Venezuela at the time because the election was the day before. We explained to him the situation. The very next day, we met with the maritime minister, with US embassy personnel and Panama actually adjusted their appeals process so to make it more expedient, so if the United States or OFAC would come and say that this Iranian vessel is avoiding sanctions, now we have a process in place to go ahead and do that, and 53 vessels were de-flagged because of that. 2:06:05 Sen. John Curtis (R-UT): Is there any reason that China can't watch or do whatever they want from this bridge to get the intel from these containers? And does that concern anybody? Louis Sola: Well, it definitely concerns Southern Command, because they've brought it up on numerous occasions that there could be some sort of surveillance or something like that on the bridges. 2:20:30 Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT): We segregate ourselves artificially in a way that they do not. We segregate ourselves. Let's talk about military. Let's talk about intelligence. Let's talk about economics. They don't. China doesn't work that way. It's a whole of government approach. They don't draw a delineation between an economics discussion and a military one. And their attack may not look like Pearl Harbor. It may look like an everyday ship that decides, you know, it pulls into the locks and blows itself up. And now the locks are non-functional for our usage, and we can't support an inter ocean fleet transfer, and our ability to defend it, as you referred to Chairman, is now inhibited by the fact that we no longer have the military infrastructure around the canal that we did just as recently as 1999. 2:21:10 Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT): So from a commercial perspective, do the shipping companies have concerns over the security of the narrow waterways? We've the Strait to Malacca, we've got the Suez Canal, we've got Gibraltar, we've got Panama. Is that a concern that's thrown around in the boardrooms of the largest shipping corporations in the world? Joseph Kramek: Senator, I think it's something they think about every day. I mean, really, it's drawn into sharp relief with the Red Sea. It was what I call a pink flamingo. There's black swans that just come up and there's pink flamingos that you can see, but you don't act. But no one really thought a whole lot that one of the most important waterways in the world could be denied, and moreover, that it could be denied for such a sustained period. The good news is that -- Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT): And denied, I might add, by a disaffected non-state actor of Bedouins running around with rocket launchers, who also managed to beat us in a 20 year war in Afghanistan. My point to saying all this is we're just debating operational control of the canal, yet it seems very clear to all of us that a very simple act can debilitate the canal and eliminate our ability to use it in a matter of minutes with no warning, and we have no ability to intervene or stop that. To me, that means we do not have operational control of the canal. 2:30:40 Daniel Maffei: I will say that certainly we need to look at other kinds of ways to get US companies in positions where they can truly compete with the Chinese on some of these things. Blaming it all on Panama really misses the point. I've seen the same thing in Greece, where Greece didn't want to give the concession of its largest port to a Chinese company, but because of its financial difficulties, it was getting pressure from international organizations such the IMF, Europe and even maybe some of the United States to do so. So I just ask you to look at that. 2:31:20 Daniel Maffei: Panamanians are making far more on their canal than they ever have before. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's going to the right place. But where they're really making the money is on these auctions, and that is why it remains a concern of mine and I'm sure the chairman's. That is where we are looking at, potentially, using our authority under Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act where we could, if we can show that it is a problem with the foreign trade of the US, it's interfering with foreign trade of the US, there are certain things that we can do. Senate Foreign Relations Committee January 15, 2024 Clips 4:01:40 Marco Rubio: The thing with Panama on the canal is not new. I visited there. It was 2016. I think I've consistently seen people express concern about it, and it's encapsulized here in quote after quote. Let me tell you the former US ambassador who served under President Obama said: "the Chinese see in Panama what we saw in Panama throughout the 20th century, a maritime and aviation logistics hub." The immediate past head of Southern Command, General Laura Richardson, said, "I was just in Panama about a month ago and flying along the Panama Canal and looking at the state owned enterprises from the People's Republic of China on each side of the Panama Canal. They look like civilian companies or state owned enterprises that could be used for dual use and could be quickly changed over to a military capability." We see questions that were asked by the ranking member in the house China Select Committee, where he asked a witness and they agreed that in a time of conflict, China could use its presence on both ends of the canal as a choke point against the United States in a conflict situation. So the concerns about Panama have been expressed by people on both sides of the aisle for at least the entire time that I've been in the United States Senate, and they've only accelerated further. And this is a very legitimate issue that we face there. I'm not prepared to answer this question because I haven't looked at the legal research behind it yet, but I'm compelled to suspect that an argument could be made that the terms under which that canal were turned over have been violated. Because while technically, sovereignty over the canal has not been turned over to a foreign power, in reality, a foreign power today possesses, through their companies, which we know are not independent, the ability to turn the canal into a choke point in a moment of conflict. And that is a direct threat to the national interest and security the United States, and is particularly galling given the fact that we paid for it and that 5,000 Americans died making it. That said, Panama is a great partner on a lot of other issues, and I hope we can resolve this issue of the canal and of its security, and also continue to work with them cooperatively on a host of issues we share in common, including what to do with migration. 4:38:35 Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT): Now, President Trump has recently talked a little bit about the fact that there are some questions arising about the status of the Panama Canal. When we look to the treaty at issue, the treaty concerning the permanent neutrality and operation of the Panama Canal, we're reminded that some things maybe aren't quite as they should be there right now. Given that the Chinese now control major ports at the entry and the exit to the canal, it seems appropriate to say that there's at least an open question. There's some doubt as to whether the canal remains neutral. Would you agree with that assessment? Marco Rubio: Yes. Here's the challenge. Number one, I want to be clear about something. The Panamanian government, particularly its current office holders, are very friendly to the United States and very cooperative, and we want that to continue, and I want to bifurcate that from the broader issue of the canal. Now I am not, President Trump is not inventing this. This is something that's existed now for at least a decade. In my service here, I took a trip to Panama in 2017. When on that trip to Panama in 2017 it was the central issue we discussed about the canal, and that is that Chinese companies control port facilities at both ends of the canal, the east and the west, and the concerns among military officials and security officials, including in Panama, at that point, that that could one day be used as a choke point to impede commerce in a moment of conflict. Going back to that I -- earlier before you got here, and I don't want to have to dig through this folder to find it again, but -- basically cited how the immediate past head of Southern Command, just retired general Richardson, said she flew over the canal, looked down and saw those Chinese port facilities, and said Those look like dual use facilities that in a moment of conflict, could be weaponized against us. The bipartisan China commission over in the House last year, had testimony and hearings on this issue, and members of both parties expressed concern. The former ambassador to Panama under President Obama has expressed those concerns. This is a legitimate issue that needs to be confronted. The second point is the one you touched upon, and that is, look, could an argument be made, and I'm not prepared to answer it yet, because it's something we're going to have to study very carefully. But I think I have an inkling of I know where this is going to head. Can an argument be made that the Chinese basically have effective control of the canal anytime they want? Because if they order a Chinese company that controls the ports to shut it down or impede our transit, they will have to do so. There are no independent Chinese companies. They all exist because they've been identified as national champions. They're supported by the Chinese government. And if you don't do what they want, they find a new CEO, and you end up being replaced and removed. So they're under the complete control of their government. This is a legitimate question, and one that Senators Risch had some insight as well. He mentioned that in passing that needs to be looked at. This is not a joke. The Panama Canal issue is a very serious one. 4:44:30 Marco Rubio: In 2016 and 2017 that was well understood that part of the investments they made in Panama were conditioned upon Panama's ability to convince the Dominican Republic and other countries to flip their recognition away from Taiwan. That happened. Jen Briney's Recent Guest Appearances Travis Makes Money: Give and Take: Music by Editing Production Assistance

united states america ceo american president donald trump australia europe starting china science house mexico state americans british french germany professor miami russia chinese united kingdom barack obama modern brazil bbc afghanistan argentina iran hong kong baltimore focusing britain bridge atlantic netherlands labor greece senate commerce philippines indonesia venezuela tampa south america taiwan engineers south korea pacific secretary republic americas senators east coast athens port jacksonville hamas commissioners canal iranians panama bahamas richardson mediterranean washington state belt dominican republic tanzania red sea latin american treasury myanmar us navy clips reuters associated press pearl harbor herrera imf hutchinson blaming fort lauderdale blackburn equitable ccp gibraltar threatening houthis sky news united states navy chinese communist party decree suez canal communist party suez panama canal south china sea english channel lng united states senate mediterranean sea pla hutchison strait panama city testifying prc road initiative ssa panamanian balboa acp world bank group liberation army caribbean sea fmc ofac matt murphy transpacific us army corps petraeus malacca bedouins congressional dish southern command jen briney world weather attribution chinese belt us gulf article five article two maritime silk road jacob javits hutchison ports dean rusk lake gat

(S5Ep19) Article Two!

Park Pals

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 6, 2025 71:35

Omg it's Ted Party day!!!!!!! aka Star Wars/Patton Oswalt Day! Today, we get some behind-scenes on removing some Pawnee charter rules, Chris and Ron debate which motivation tactic is better, and Ann and Ben join forces to figure out Leslie's incessant anniversary gifts. Kudos to Leslie for moving Pawnee forward and bringing our town into the future while finding a compromise that suits its citizens best. :)Today, we also get a voice memo from my past improv teacher at iO West, Jaime Moyer! She plays Roz Degrandis, Leslie's mail lady, yay! Please check out the new show Mid-Century Modern on Hulu to see Jaime shine! What a fun voice memo and a great memory to hear from her! Wishing you so much success

Executive Orders - Приказы президента

Radio Femida-Kitchen Talk - Радио Фемида-Кухонные Разговоры

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 7, 2025 75:18

In the United States, an executive order is a directive by the president of the United States that manages operations of the federal government.[1] The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources. Article Two of the United States Constitution gives presidents broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the federal government's executive branch. The ability to make such orders is also based on expressed or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the president some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[2] The vast majority of executive orders are proposed by federal agencies before being issued by the president.

united states acts congress executives executive orders united states constitution article two

Day 350: Persevering in Prayer (2024)

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 15, 2024 16:13

The Catechism teaches about the effectiveness of prayer and how to persevere in prayer. Fr. Mike explains that although God already knows what we need before we ask, he wants us to pray, and he extends us dignity by allowing us to pray and ask for what we need. In the process of prayer, we are able to learn the heart of the Father, grow closer to him, and become more like him. The Catechism goes on to state that when it comes to prayer, it is always possible, a vital necessity, and inseparable from the Christian life. Today's readings are Catechism paragraphs 2738-2745. This episode has been found to be in conformity with the Catechism by the Institute on the Catechism, under the Subcommittee on the Catechism, USCCB. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/ciy Please note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

Day 334: How Jesus Prayed (2024)

happy thanksgiving article two

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 29, 2024 19:35

We look at how Jesus prays in this section of the Catechism. It is revealed how Jesus learned to pray, the frequency of his prayers, and where he prayed. Jesus brought his needs to the Father including his last words and final “loud cry”. Through his example of filial prayer, we are able to pray to the Father as sons and daughters. We can ask him for anything as all of our thoughts, desires, troubles, fears, and needs are already with the Lord. “The Father accepts them and, beyond all hope, answers them by raising his Son.” Today's readings are Catechism paragraphs 2598-2606. This episode has been found to be in conformity with the Catechism by the Institute on the Catechism, under the Subcommittee on the Catechism, USCCB. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/ciy Please note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

Ep. 144: S5E19 "Article Two"

Citizens of Pawnee

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 26, 2024 46:29

This week, I covered "Article Two" from season 5. Leslie is in over her head when she challenges a local historian; Ron and Chris compete to see who has a better management style; and Ben and Ann bid over the same item online. So essentially this whole episode is about competition. Happy Thanksgiving! Intro/general nonsense (00:11) FILLER: Tulsa King (06:22) "Article Two" (11:06) New episodes every Tuesday citizensofpawnee@gmail.com @parksrecmemes @citizensofpawneepodcast

“THE WEREWOLF OF DEFIANCE” and More Strange True Stories! #WeirdDarkness

Weird Darkness: Stories of the Paranormal, Supernatural, Legends, Lore, Mysterious, Macabre, Unsolved

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 20, 2024 48:29

Darkness Syndicate members get the ad-free version: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/yud2bwr2Info on the next LIVE SCREAM event: https://weirddarkness.com/LiveScreamIN THIS EPISODE: Defiance Ohio is a small town that reported a rash of werewolf sightings in the early 1970's, and it's a legend that still persists to this day. (The Werewolf of Defiance) *** What would happen if the First Lady of the United States disclosed that she believed she traveled with extraterrestrials to Venus? That's exactly what happened to the First Lady of Japan! (First Contact With The First Lady) *** The island of Guam is well known for the part it played in World War II – but 120 miles northeast of Guam is the tiny island of Tinian, and while it too had a part in World War II, it also contains secrets millennia old of a people that might have existed before the oldest people recorded living there. (The Mysterious People Before Time) *** Robert Nelson had no professional background in medicine or refrigeration, he didn't even have a college degree, but this everyday TV repairman found himself in the center of the cryogenics movement – and that's when things started to get messy. (Cryogenics And The TV Repairman)CHAPTERS & TIME STAMPS (All Times Approximate)…00:00:00.000 = Disclaimer and Cold Open00:01:45.956 = Show Intro00:04:13.956 = Werewolf of Defiance00:19:30.936 = Cryogenics And The TV Repairman00:30:23.749 = First Contact With The First Lady00:35:39.171 = The Mysterious People Before Time00:46:13.929 = Show Close SOURCES AND REFERENCES FROM THE EPISODE…“Cryogenics And The TV Repairman” by Marco Margaritoff for All That's Interesting https://tinyurl.com/yaowv6j6“First Contact With The First Lady” from AncientCode.com: https://tinyurl.com/yxww2yv2“The Mysterious People Before Time” by A. Sutherland for AncientPages.com: https://tinyurl.com/yyuzyu4g“The Werewolf of Defiance” from ArmedWithSilver.com: https://tinyurl.com/y4zlhnxh (Defiance werewolf, “Toledo Blade” newspaper articles: Article One= https://tinyurl.com/y3dtkx4v, Article Two= https://tinyurl.com/y2q2c8tl,Article Three= https://tinyurl.com/y5l89z25; Defiance werewolf, Crescent News” newspaper article:https://tinyurl.com/yya7vyku; “Werewolf Shamans In The Ancient Woodlands…” published paper:https://tinyurl.com/yxka58st)“Ohio Police Capture Drunken Local Werewolf” by Jack Dickey for Deadspin.com: https://tinyurl.com/y6rpckbvWeird Darkness theme by Alibi Music Library. = = = = =(Over time links seen above may become invalid, disappear, or have different content. I always make sure to give authors credit for the material I use whenever possible. If I somehow overlooked doing so for a story, or if a credit is incorrect, please let me know and I will rectify it in these show notes immediately. Some links included above may benefit me financially through qualifying purchases.)= = = = ="I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness." — John 12:46= = = = =WeirdDarkness® is a registered trademark. Copyright ©2024, Weird Darkness.= = = = =Originally aired: January 26, 2021CUSTOM LANDING PAGE: https://weirddarkness.com/WerewolfOfDefiance

united states tv japan strange world war ii true stories copyright werewolf first lady defiance guam sutherland deadspin toledo blade tinian article one article two weird darkness cold open00

Day 280: The Christian Name (2024)

Weird Darkness: Stories of the Paranormal, Supernatural, Legends, Lore, Mysterious, Macabre, Unsolved

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 6, 2024 16:48

What does it mean to bear the Christian name? The Catechism reminds us that in Baptism, we are given our Christian name, which is sacred. Our name represents the dignity of each of us and depicts how God loves us each uniquely. Fr. Mike explains that each time we make the Sign of the Cross, we call upon the Lord to bear witness to what we are about to do. Today's readings are Catechism paragraphs 2156-2167. This episode has been found to be in conformity with the Catechism by the Institute on the Catechism, under the Subcommittee on the Catechism, USCCB. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/ciy Please note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

Patton Oswalt: Article Two (S5E19)

Parks and Recollection

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 30, 2024 56:40

Comedian Patton Oswalt joins Jim O'Heir and Greg Levine to break down his epic Star Wars filibuster as Garth Blundin (the Pawneean with a passion for history), his old-timey wager with Leslie at the historical house, and the waffle iron battle royale between Ann and Ben. Got a question for the Pawnee Town Hall? Send us an email at ParksandRecollectionTownHall@gmail.com

star wars patton oswalt article two greg levine

(Non-Christmas Episode!) “THE WEREWOLF OF DEFIANCE” and More Strange True Stories! #WeirdDarkness

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 23, 2023 48:48

PLEASE SHARE THIS EPISODE in your social media so others who loves strange and macabre stories can listen too! https://weirddarkness.com/werewolf-of-defiance/IN THIS EPISODE: Defiance Ohio is a small town that reported a rash of werewolf sightings in the early 1970's, and it's a legend that still persists to this day. (The Werewolf of Defiance) *** What would happen if the First Lady of the United States disclosed that she believed she traveled with extraterrestrials to Venus? That's exactly what happened to the First Lady of Japan! (First Contact With The First Lady) *** The island of Guam is well known for the part it played in World War II – but 120 miles northeast of Guam is the tiny island of Tinian, and while it too had a part in World War II, it also contains secrets millennia old of a people that might have existed before the oldest people recorded living there. (The Mysterious People Before Time) *** Robert Nelson had no professional background in medicine or refrigeration, he didn't even have a college degree, but this everyday TV repairman found himself in the center of the cryogenics movement – and that's when things started to get messy. (Cryogenics And The TV Repairman) *** (Originally aired January 26, 2021)SOURCES AND REFERENCES FROM THE EPISODE…“Cryogenics And The TV Repairman” by Marco Margaritoff for All That's Interesting https://tinyurl.com/yaowv6j6“First Contact With The First Lady” from AncientCode.com: https://tinyurl.com/yxww2yv2“The Mysterious People Before Time” by A. Sutherland for AncientPages.com: https://tinyurl.com/yyuzyu4g“The Werewolf of Defiance” from ArmedWithSilver.com: https://tinyurl.com/y4zlhnxh (Defiance werewolf, “Toledo Blade” newspaper articles: Article One= https://tinyurl.com/y3dtkx4v, Article Two= https://tinyurl.com/y2q2c8tl, Article Three= https://tinyurl.com/y5l89z25; Defiance werewolf, Crescent News” newspaper article:https://tinyurl.com/yya7vyku; “Werewolf Shamans In The Ancient Woodlands…” published paper:https://tinyurl.com/yxka58st)“Ohio Police Capture Drunken Local Werewolf” by Jack Dickey for Deadspin.com: https://tinyurl.com/y6rpckbvVisit our Sponsors & Friends: https://weirddarkness.com/sponsorsJoin the Weird Darkness Syndicate: https://weirddarkness.com/syndicateAdvertise in the Weird Darkness podcast or syndicated radio show: https://weirddarkness.com/advertise= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =Weird Darkness theme by Alibi Music Library. Background music provided by Alibi Music Library, EpidemicSound and/or StoryBlocks with paid license. Music from Shadows Symphony (https://tinyurl.com/yyrv987t), Midnight Syndicate (http://amzn.to/2BYCoXZ) Kevin MacLeod (https://tinyurl.com/y2v7fgbu), Tony Longworth (https://tinyurl.com/y2nhnbt7), and Nicolas Gasparini (https://tinyurl.com/lnqpfs8) is used with permission of the artists.= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =OTHER PODCASTS I HOST…Paranormality Magazine: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/paranormalitymagMicro Terrors: Scary Stories for Kids: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/microterrorsRetro Radio – Old Time Radio In The Dark: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/retroradioChurch of the Undead: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/churchoftheundead= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =(Over time links seen above may become invalid, disappear, or have different content. I always make sure to give authors credit for the material I use whenever possible. If I somehow overlooked doing so for a story, or if a credit is incorrect, please let me know and I will rectify it in these show notes immediately. Some links included above may benefit me financially through qualifying purchases.)= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ="I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness." — John 12:46= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =WeirdDarkness® is a registered trademark. Copyright ©2023, Weird Darkness.= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =CUSTOM WEBPAGE: https://weirddarkness.com/werewolf-of-defiance/This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/3655291/advertisement

Day 350: Persevering in Prayer

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 16, 2023 16:13

Day 334: How Jesus Prayed

washington acast constitution delaware broom national archives retrieved military history robert k article two army center

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 30, 2023 19:35

We look at how Jesus prays in this section of the Catechism. It is revealed how Jesus learned to pray, the frequency of his prayers, and where he prayed. Jesus brought his needs to the Father including his last words and final “loud cry”. Through his example of filial prayer, we are able to pray to the Father as sons and daughters. We can ask him for anything as all of our thoughts, desires, troubles, fears, and needs are already with the Lord. “The Father accepts them and, beyond all hope, answers them by raising his Son.” Today's readings are paragraphs 2598-2606. This episode has been found to be in conformity with the Catechism by the Institute on the Catechism, under the Subcommittee on the Catechism, USCCB. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/ciy Please note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

Episode 19: Jacob Broom

Imperfect Men

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 10, 2023 41:18

On this episode, Steve and Cody attempt to sweep away the dust of history that surrounds Jacob Broom of Delaware, and discuss Article Two of the Constitution.Podcast to recommend: Grimm Reading (https://grimmreading.podbean.com/)SourcesWright Jr., Robert K. and MacGregor Jr., Morris J. Soldier-Statesmen of the Constitution. Washington, DC: U. S. Army Center of Military History, 1987.“The Founding Fathers: Delaware.” National Archives. 16 Feb 2018. . Retrieved 19 Sept 2023.See pinned tweet for general sources Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Day 280: The Christian Name

Stories of Women's Health

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 7, 2023 16:48

Perfect mothers, sexist comments* and parental burnout

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 26, 2023 53:39

We are all Burnt Out, can anyone truly be a Perfect Mother, and is it ever OK to comment on a mother's ambition after she has had a child??? (Article Two is from The Guardian* - apologies for forgetting to announce that, a sign of our burn out perhaps!!) We discuss all of this, and more in today's episode. Joy has had a better week, and Caitlin hasn't thrown any watermelons so everyone is winning. It is also Leo Season so time to put your best foot forward. We hope you have had a good week, what has gone well?? What hasn't??? Come and find us on instagram and join the conversation xx Links: Mel Robbins Friendship Ep Recco: https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/the-mel-robbins-podcast/id1646101002?i=1000620430591 If you would like more support after listening to our Parental Burnout Segment: COPE 1300 740 398

burnout mothers guardian parental sexist leo season burnt out perfect mother article two

Article One of the United States Constitution (Part I)

Law School

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 20, 2023 11:58

Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. Under Article One, Congress is a bicameral legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Article One grants Congress various enumerated powers and the ability to pass laws "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers. Article One also establishes the procedures for passing a bill and places various limits on the powers of Congress and the states from abusing their powers. Article One Vesting Clause grants all federal legislative power to Congress and establishes that Congress consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. In combination with the vesting clauses of Article Two and Article Three, the Vesting Clause of Article One establishes the separation of powers among the three branches of the federal government. Section 2 of Article One addresses the House of Representatives, establishing that members of the House are elected every two years, with congressional seats apportioned to the states on the basis of population. Section 2 includes various rules for the House of Representatives, including a provision stating that individuals qualified to vote in elections for the largest chamber of their state's legislature have the right to vote in elections for the House of Representatives. Section 3 addresses the Senate, establishing that the Senate consists of two senators from each state, with each senator serving a six-year term. Section 3 originally required that the state legislatures elect the members of the Senate, but the Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, provides for the direct election of senators. Section 3 lays out various other rules for the Senate, including a provision that establishes the vice president of the United States as the president of the Senate. Section 4 of Article One grants the states the power to regulate the congressional election process but establishes that Congress can alter those regulations or make its own regulations. Section 4 also requires Congress to assemble at least once per year. Section 5 lays out various rules for both houses of Congress and grants the House of Representatives and the Senate the power to judge their own elections, determine the qualifications of their own members, and punish or expel their own members. Section 6 establishes the compensation, privileges, and restrictions of those holding congressional office. Section 7 lays out the procedures for passing a bill, requiring both houses of Congress to pass a bill for it to become law, subject to the veto power of the president of the United States. Under Section 7, the president can veto a bill, but Congress can override the president's veto with a two-thirds vote of both chambers. Section 8 lays out the powers of Congress. (Taxes are apportioned by state population) It includes several enumerated powers, including the power to lay and collect "taxes, duties, imposts, and excises" (provided duties, imposts, and excises are uniform throughout the US), "to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," the power to regulate interstate and international commerce, the power to set naturalization laws, the power to coin and regulate money, the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, the power to establish post offices and post roads, the power to establish federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court, the power to raise and support an army and a navy, the power to call forth the militia "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions" and to provide for the militia's "organizing, arming, disciplining...and governing" and granting Congress the power to declare war. Section 8 also provides Congress the power to establish a federal district to serve as the national capital and gives Congress the exclusive power to administer that district. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

united states house congress supreme court union senate taxes united states congress united states constitution under section article one article two

Do You Need To Disclose Known Projects Of A Neighbor?? - Ep 199

Toe-2-Toe Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 17, 2023 9:44

Do You Need To Disclose Known Projects Of A Neighbor?? - Ep 199 On this episode of the Real Estate Fight Club, Jenn, and Jim Camarata are addressing the topic of, “Do You Need To Disclose Known Projects Of A Neighbor?” Is it an ethics violation when you don't? And what kind of questions can help you identify if this directly involves the transaction? Tune in and find out! Episode Highlights: Jenn addresses the scenario of which it's about disclosure projects from neighbors. Jim talks about Article Two and what it says Jim now explains the situation. The seller notified the listing agent that the neighbor was putting up a fence in the property line. The question is: Is there a moral, ethical, or legal obligation to notify the property buyer that a fence is going up on the property line? Jennifer says that it is a courtesy to tell the buyers that the fence is going up the neighbor's property. Jim gives us probing questions that can help with a situation like this. Jim agrees that it is more of a courtesy issue rather than an ethics issue. When the buyer disagrees with the fence and asks to get out of the contract because of it, your response would be to ask for legal advice since it's a legal issue. 3 Key Points: There are appropriate questions that need to be answered when you come across a situation like this. It is common courtesy to notify the buyer about certain changes but until it directly involves the subject property, it is not violating anything. When there is new information, over-sharing the information is not a bad thing. Tweetable Quotes: “I think it's a courtesy to tell to notify the other agent because it does change something changes, right?” - Jennifer Murtland “Personally, I think over sharing the information is not a bad thing. I think you should do that.” - Jennifer Murtland “I said it's more of a courtesy issue than anything else. Is it really ethics? No. Is it violating anything about disclosing? No, it's on the neighbor's property, not the subject.” - Jim Camarata Resources Mentioned: Jenn Murtland LinkedIn | Facebook | (513) 400-1691 | Website | Instagram https://jennifermurtland.com/Vault/ Monica Weakley website | LinkedIn | Facebook Real Estate Fight Club Podcast Facebook page | Instagram | YouTube Jimcamarata@kw.com / Jim Camarata 612-562-7461 Thank You To Our Incredible Sponsor Partners (Get Great Discounts with these links) Ghostpostr - https://www.ghostpostr.com/ (Get It For FREE!) Pipeline Pro Tools - https://pipelineprotools.com/fightclub/ RedX - https://www.theredx.com/fight-club/ Achosa - https://www.achosahw.com/ (Use the Code FightClub)

projects neighbor disclose key points there article two

S05E19 - Article Two

Live from Pawnee: A Parks and Recreation Fan Rewatch Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 7, 2023 80:13

This week Mark and Allen break down the Episode with special guest star Patton Oswalt! The City of Pawnee annually celebrates the great Pawnee tea dump of 1817, but due to how the old-timey script looks, "tea" looks like "ted", so each year the city dumps a man named "Ted" into Ramsett Lake. This year, the "Ted" thrown into the lake becomes very angry, and demands Leslie address the many, many outdated laws still active in Pawnee. To this end, at the next City Council Meeting, Leslie proposes the city purge many of its old and obscure laws. However, citizen Garth Blunden is overtly against changing the laws due to historical significance, and successfully filibusters the meeting to prevent further action. Leslie implores Garth to reconsider. Garth accuses Leslie of having no respect for tradition. Finally, they decide to settle things with a wager: whoever can survive the longest living primitively at the Pawnee Historical House gets to make the other back down from their agenda. Meanwhile, now that April has been promoted to Deputy Director of Animal Control, Chris requires her to complete the Chris Traeger Management Training Seminar, or "ka-tumps". April asks Ron to help get her out of the seminar, but when Chris learns Ron has ALSO never had any management training, it backfires, with Ron getting roped in as well. As one might expect, things do not go well: Chris is overtly cheery, Ron is stoic and grumpy, April is sarcastic and snarky. Ron and Chris completely disagree on the best motivational methods, so Chris challenges Ron to see whose method works best: encouragement/appreciation/smiles (Chris), or money/fear/hunger (Ron). Finally, Ann's custom holiday with Leslie, "Breakfast Day", is coming up, and she found a waffle maker from JJ's Diner on an online auction. Unfortunately, somebody is bidding against her ... and she discovers that someone is Ben, who is shopping for a present for HIS custom holiday with Leslie, "Waffle Day". The two of them battle it out, trying to win the waffle maker, but ultimately lose to the owner of the Pawnee Pawn Shop, who they then have to deal with. While all this is happening, both Ann and Ben come to the realization that they are EXHAUSTED trying to keep up with the thoughtful but never-ending custom holidays Leslie has come up with for both of them. As always, we tackle the tough questions, such as ... Who will win their competition, Leslie or Garth? Will Ron or Chris win the competition, and what side will April be on? Who will win the coveted JJ's waffle maker? Is Garth cheating, or is he just really good at old-timey gibberish? Can Ron and Chris find a suitable mindless worker drone for their test subject? Can Ann and Ben continue dealing with all these custom holidays? Can Leslie get all the chickens out from under her dress? Will April and Ron be able to keep their conductor hats from the seminar? Loyal podcast viewers, this is competition cranked up to 11, just like in Spinal Tap! Many thanks to our wonderful sponsor, "Ron's One Minute Seminars", or ROMS.

27 Days. 40 Mass Shootings In America.

Morning Shift Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 27, 2023 22:37

Article: (Two sentences max) With the seemingly never-ending barrage of gun violence, how do you cope? Do you go numb? Can't sleep? That's all normal according to the American Psychological Association. Reset talks with a psychologist Iggy V Ladden and pastor Raymond Chang and hears from WBEZ listeners.

america reset mass shootings american psychological association wbez article two

“THE WEREWOLF OF DEFIANCE” and 3 More Strange True Stories! #WeirdDarkness

Weird Darkness: Stories of the Paranormal, Supernatural, Legends, Lore, Mysterious, Macabre, Unsolved

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 2, 2022 48:56

Find Weird Darkness on the free Spreaker app: https://www.spreaker.com/show/weirddarkness, or look for it wherever you listen to podcasts: https://linktr.ee/weirddarkness IN THIS EPISODE: Defiance Ohio is a small town that reported a rash of werewolf sightings in the early 1970's, and it's a legend that still persists to this day. (The Werewolf of Defiance) *** What would happen if the First Lady of the United States disclosed that she believed she traveled with extraterrestrials to Venus? That's exactly what happened to the First Lady of Japan! (First Contact With The First Lady) *** The island of Guam is well known for the part it played in World War II – but 120 miles northeast of Guam is the tiny island of Tinian, and while it too had a part in World War II, it also contains secrets millennia old of a people that might have existed before the oldest people recorded living there. (The Mysterious People Before Time) *** Robert Nelson had no professional background in medicine or refrigeration, he didn't even have a college degree, but this everyday TV repairman found himself in the center of the cryogenics movement – and that's when things started to get messy. (Cryogenics And The TV Repairman)SOURCES AND ESSENTIAL WEB LINKS…“Cryogenics And The TV Repairman” by Marco Margaritoff for All That's Interesting https://tinyurl.com/yaowv6j6 “First Contact With The First Lady” from AncientCode.com: https://tinyurl.com/yxww2yv2 “The Mysterious People Before Time” by A. Sutherland for AncientPages.com: https://tinyurl.com/yyuzyu4g “The Werewolf of Defiance” from ArmedWithSilver.com: https://tinyurl.com/y4zlhnxh (Defiance werewolf, “Toledo Blade” newspaper articles: Article One= https://tinyurl.com/y3dtkx4v, Article Two= https://tinyurl.com/y2q2c8tl, Article Three= https://tinyurl.com/y5l89z25; Defiance werewolf, Crescent News” newspaper article: https://tinyurl.com/yya7vyku; “Werewolf Shamans In The Ancient Woodlands…” published paper: https://tinyurl.com/yxka58st)“Ohio Police Capture Drunken Local Werewolf” by Jack Dickey for Deadspin.com: https://tinyurl.com/y6rpckbv = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =Weird Darkness Publishing: https://weirddarkness.com/publishingVisit the Church of the Undead: http://undead.church/ Find out how to escape eternal darkness at https://weirddarkness.com/eternaldarkness = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =Weird Darkness theme by Alibi Music Library. Background music provided by Alibi Music, EpidemicSound and/or AudioBlocks with paid license. Music from Shadows Symphony (https://tinyurl.com/yyrv987t), Midnight Syndicate (http://amzn.to/2BYCoXZ), Kevin MacLeod (https://tinyurl.com/y2v7fgbu), Tony Longworth (https://tinyurl.com/y2nhnbt7), and/or Nicolas Gasparini/Myuu (https://tinyurl.com/lnqpfs8) is used with permission.   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =(Over time links seen above may become invalid, disappear, or have different content. I always make sure to give authors credit for the material I use whenever possible. If I somehow overlooked doing so for a story, or if a credit is incorrect, please let me know and I will rectify it in these show notes immediately. Some links included above may benefit me financially through qualifying purchases.)= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ="I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness." — John 12:46Trademark, Weird Darkness®, 2022. Copyright Weird Darkness©, 2022.

2019: The Unsolved Case of Jessica McCormack

One Nation Under Crime

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 15, 2022 61:40 Transcription Available

*Correction: After recording our episode about Jessica, we received a message that one of the friends and Jessica's birthdays are only a day apart and Jessica's is actually the 15th while the friends is the 16th. This episode will be released on the 15th and once Kayla is back from vacation, the recording will be updated to reflect the correction. However, we still wanted to release the episode on Jessica's actual birthday even if currently the date in the episode is off. The updated recording will be corrected by June 21.*This is not a typical ONUC episode. A friend of Jessica McCormack reached out to us asked if we could do anything to spread awareness of their friend's unsolved murder. Kayla spoke with Jessica's friend and looked more into the case to see what we can do to help. This episode is our contribution to the fight to find Jessica's murderer. The thing is... we think it could be solved. But, why hasn't it? If you have any information regarding the murder of Jessica McCormack, please contact the McDonald County Sheriff's department at (417)223-4319.Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Hotline: 1-800-662-HELP (4357) or visit SAMHSA.govNational Domestic Violence Hotline: 800-799-7233 or Text ‘Start' to 88788 or go to TheHotline.orgSources: McDonald County Press, KNS Four States - Article One and Article Two, and Joplin Globe Support the show

substance abuse mccormack samhsa unsolved case thehotline article two correction after

The Kingdom of God, Part Nine – Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures (Article 2)

Zion Primitive Baptist Church Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 21, 2022

by Elder Chris McCool, Pastor (preached 2/13/22) Article Two of the Articles of Faith of Zion Primitive Baptist Church reads as follows: WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT ARE THE WORD OF GOD AND ONLY … Read More

kingdom of god pastor scriptures divine inspiration article 2 article two

19 - Confirmation

Crash Course Catholicism

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 6, 2022 29:45

What's the deal with Confirmation, is it just a symbolic coming-of-age ceremony? Why is it necessary? And what does it give us that the other sacraments don't?In this episode we discuss the often-misunderstood sacrament of Confirmation. This episode covers Part Two, Section Two, Chapter One, Article Two of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (pts 1210-1321).Contact the podcast: crashcoursecatholicism@gmail.com.Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/crashcoursecatholicism/.....References and further reading/listening/viewing:Catholic Answers. "Catholic Answers Focus: What Does Confirmation Do?" Catholic Answers. "Do Catholics Only Receive the Holy Spirit Through Confirmation?"Word on Fire. "Bishop Barron on the Sacrament of Confirmation."The Catholic Encyclopedia. Confirmation. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Sacraments.The Catholic Encyclopedia. Character (in Catholic Theology).Catholic News Angency. "Pope: Fear of the Lord an alarm reminding us of what's right" The Council of Trent. On the Sacraments. Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity: Apostolicam Actuositatem. November 18, 1965. Catholic answers. "Responsibilities of a Confirmation Sponsor." St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 3. Fulton Sheen. These are the Sacraments.Confirmation | Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen | Catholic Podcast.

Teachings Article - Two in One

Svaroopa Vidya Ashram's Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 1, 2022 14:10

Satguru Swami Nirmalananda's Satsang For more, please visit https://svaroopa.org/

teachings article two

12 Monkeys, 11 Hamsters, Red Herrings and Bio Labs

News Zombie

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 25, 2022 27:00

Show notes: Main Article: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/hong-kong-warns-people-stop-trying-prevent-covid-hamster-cull-2022-01-21/ Article Two: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/hong-kong-orders-hamster-cull-after-covid-19-hits-pets-2022-01-18/ Video: https://youtu.be/Ikk5v2GxMYc --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/newszombie/support

video labs hamsters red herring 12 monkeys bio labs article two

Article Three of the United States Constitution: Section 1: Federal courts / Clause 1: Vesting of judicial power and number of courts / Clause 2: Tenure

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 10, 2021 8:27

Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason. Section 1 of Article Three vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court, as well as inferior courts established by Congress. Along with the Vesting Clauses of Article One and Article Two, Article Three's Vesting Clause establishes the separation of powers between the three branches of government. Section 1 authorizes the creation of inferior courts, but does not require it; the first inferior federal courts were established shortly after the ratification of the Constitution with the Judiciary Act of 1789. Section 1 also establishes that federal judges do not face term limits, and that an individual judge's salary may not be decreased. Article Three does not set the size of the Supreme Court or establish specific positions on the court, but Article One establishes the position of chief justice. Section 2 of Article Three delineates federal judicial power. The Case or Controversy Clause restricts the judiciary's power to actual cases and controversies, meaning that federal judicial power does not extend to cases which are hypothetical, or which are proscribed due to standing, mootness, or ripeness issues. Section 2 states that federal judiciary's power extends to cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, federal treaties, controversies involving multiple states or foreign powers, and other enumerated areas. Section 2 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction when ambassadors, public officials, or the states are a party in the case, leaving the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction in all other areas to which the federal judiciary's jurisdiction extends. Section 2 also gives Congress the power to strip the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction, and establishes that all federal crimes must be tried before a jury. Section 2 does not expressly grant the federal judiciary the power of judicial review, but the courts have exercised this power since the 1803 case of Marbury v Madison. Section 3 of Article Three defines treason and empowers Congress to punish treason. Section 3 requires that at least two witnesses testify to the treasonous act, or that the individual accused of treason confess in open court. It also limits the ways in which Congress can punish those convicted of treason. Section 1: Federal courts. Section 1 is one of the three vesting clauses of the United States Constitution, which vests the judicial power of the United States in federal courts, requires a supreme court, allows inferior courts, requires good behavior tenure for judges, and prohibits decreasing the salaries of judges. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Article Two of the United States Constitution: Clause 3: Recess appointments / Section 3: Presidential responsibilities / Clause 1: State of the Union / Clause 2: Making recommendations to Congress/ S

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 9, 2021 14:00

Clause 3: Recess appointments. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. During recesses of the Senate, the president may appoint officers, but their commissions expire at the conclusion of the Senate's next session. Section 3: Presidential responsibilities. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. Clause 1: State of the Union. The president must give the Congress information on the "State of the Union" "from time to time." This is called the State of the Union Clause. Originally, presidents personally delivered annual addresses to Congress. Thomas Jefferson, who felt that the procedure resembled the speech from the throne delivered by British monarchs, chose instead to send written messages to Congress for reading by clerks. Jefferson's procedure was followed by future presidents until Woodrow Wilson reverted to the former procedure of personally addressing Congress, which has continued to this day. Kesavan and Sidak explain the purpose of the State of the Union clause: The State of the Union Clause imposes an executive duty on the president. That duty must be discharged periodically. The president's assessment of the State of the Union must be publicized to Congress, and thus to the nation. The publication of the president's assessment conveys information to Congress—information uniquely gleaned from the president's perspective in his various roles as commander-in-chief, chief law enforcer, negotiator with foreign powers, and the like—that shall aid the legislature in public deliberation on matters that may justify the enactment of legislation because of their national importance. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Article Two of the United States Constitution: Clause 7: Salary / Clause 8: Oath or affirmation / Section 2: Presidential powers / Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardo

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 7, 2021 13:24

Clause 7: Salary / Clause 8: Oath or affirmation The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them. The president's salary, currently $400,000 a year, must remain constant throughout the president's term. The president may not receive other compensation from either the federal or any state government. Clause 8: Oath or affirmation. Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." According to the Joint Congressional Committee on Presidential Inaugurations, George Washington added the words "So help me God" during his first inaugural, though this has been disputed. There are no contemporaneous sources for this fact, and no eyewitness sources to Washington's first inaugural mention the phrase at all—including those that transcribed what he said for his oath. Also, the president-elect's name is typically added after the "I", for example, "I, George Washington, do...." Normally, the chief justice of the United States administers the oath. It is sometimes asserted that the oath bestows upon the president the power to do whatever is necessary to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." Andrew Jackson, while vetoing an Act for the renewal of the charter of the national bank, implied that the president could refuse to execute statutes that he felt were unconstitutional. In suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, President Abraham Lincoln claimed that he acted according to the oath. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Chief Justice Roger B Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, (1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order. Finally, Andrew Johnson's counsel referred to the theory during his impeachment trial. Otherwise, few have seriously asserted that the oath augments the president's powers. The vice president also has an oath of office, but it is not mandated by the Constitution and is prescribed by statute. Currently, the vice presidential oath is the same as that for members of Congress and members of the Cabinet. I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

"Article Two"

Parks And Rewatch

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 6, 2021 61:06

Grab your X-Men PJs and your hoop and join us as we dive into Belgian waffle makers, obsolete laws, and much more!Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/parksandrewatch)

belgians article two

Article Two of the United States Constitution: : Clause 3: Electoral College / Clause 4: Election day / Clause 5: Qualifications for office / Clause 6: Vacancy and disability

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 3, 2021 10:12

Clause 3: Electoral College. The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each, which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall choose from them by Ballot the Vice President. (Note: This procedure was changed by the 12th Amendment in 1804.) --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Article Two of the United States Constitution: Clause 1: Executive power and term of office / Clause 2: Method of choosing electors

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 2, 2021 11:35

Article Two of the United States Constitution establishes the executive branch of the federal government, which carries out and enforces federal laws. Article Two vests the power of the executive branch in the office of the president of the United States, lays out the procedures for electing and removing the president, and establishes the president's powers and responsibilities. Section 1 of Article Two establishes the positions of the president and the vice president, and sets the term of both offices at four years. Section 1's Vesting Clause declares that the executive power of the federal government is vested in the president and, along with the Vesting Clauses of Article One and Article Three, establishes the separation of powers among the three branches of government. Section 1 also establishes the Electoral College, the body charged with electing the president and the vice president. Section 1 provides that each state chooses members of the Electoral College in a manner directed by each state's respective legislature, with the states granted electors equal to their combined representation in both houses of Congress. Section 1 lays out the procedures of the Electoral College and requires the House of Representatives to hold a contingent election to select the president if no individual wins a majority of the electoral vote. Section 1 also sets forth the eligibility requirements for the office of the president, provides procedures in case of a presidential vacancy, and requires the president to take an oath of office. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: Section 1 begins with a vesting clause that confers federal executive power upon the president. Similar clauses are found in Article 1 and Article 3; the former bestows federal legislative power exclusively to Congress, and the latter grants judicial power solely to the Supreme Court, and other federal courts established by law. These three articles together secure a separation of powers among the three branches of the federal government, and individually, each one entrenches checks and balances on the operation and power of the other two branches. Article I grants certain powers to Congress, and the Vesting Clause does not reassign those powers to the President. In fact, because those actions require legislation passed by Congress which must be signed by the president to take effect, those powers are not strictly executive powers granted to or retained by Congress per se. Nor were they retained by the U.S. Congress as leftovers from the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation, Continental Congress and its powers were abolished at the time the new U.S. Congress was seated and the new federal government formally and officially replaced its interim predecessor. And although the president is implicitly denied the power to unilaterally declare war, a declaration of war is not in and of itself a vehicle of executive power since it is literally just a public declaration that the U.S. government considers itself "at war" with a foreign political entity. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Constitution of the United States: Articles of the Constitution: Article One (Part 1 of 6)

united states house congress senate united states congress united states constitution under section article one article two constitution article

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 18, 2021 14:19

Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. Under Article One, Congress is a bicameral legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Article One grants Congress various enumerated powers and the ability to pass laws "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers. Article One also establishes the procedures for passing a bill and places various limits on the powers of Congress and the states from abusing their powers. Article One Vesting Clause grants all federal legislative power to Congress and establishes that Congress consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. In combination with the Vesting Clauses of Article Two and Article Three, the Vesting Clause of Article One establishes the separation of powers among the three branches of the federal government. Section 2 of Article One addresses the House of Representatives, establishing that members of the House are elected every two years, with congressional seats apportioned to the states on the basis of population. Section 2 includes various rules for the House of Representatives, including a provision stating that individuals qualified to vote in elections for the largest chamber of their state's legislature have the right to vote in elections for the House of Representatives. Section 3 addresses the Senate, establishing that the Senate consists of two senators from each state, with each senator serving a six-year term. Section 3 originally required that the state legislatures elect the members of the Senate, but the Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, provides for the direct election of senators. Section 3 lays out various other rules for the Senate, including a provision that establishes the vice president of the United States as the president of the Senate. Section 4 of Article One grants the states the power to regulate the congressional election process but establishes that Congress can alter those regulations or make its own regulations. Section 4 also requires Congress to assemble at least once per year. Section 5 lays out various rules for both houses of Congress and grants the House of Representatives and the Senate the power to judge their own elections, determine the qualifications of their own members, and punish or expel their own members. Section 6 establishes the compensation, privileges, and restrictions of those holding congressional office. Section 7 lays out the procedures for passing a bill, requiring both houses of Congress to pass a bill for it to become law, subject to the veto power of the president of the United States. Under Section 7, the president can veto a bill, but Congress can override the president's veto with a two-thirds vote of both chambers. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

[Gottesblog] The Future is Now — Larry Beane

The Gottesdienst Crowd

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 17, 2021 6:15

The Future is Now “Based upon the logic I've heard from other pastors over the past 15 months, if experts & elected officials declare Climate Change a global emergency, pastors will close their churches again. After all, “gathering isn't essential”, “we're not climatologists”, “love your neighbour”, “it's life or death”, “zoom church is suitable”, “the $ fines will be too high”, & “Rom 13”. ” — THE REV. AARON ROCK Pastor Aaron Rock, a Neo-Evangelical minister who serves Harvest Bible Church in Windsor, Ontario, Canada, who wrote the above on Facebook, seems to understand ecclesiology better than a lot of Lutherans - even lacking the belief that what happens at the altar and in the sanctuary during Holy Communion is a literal miracle in which Christ is truly present in His body and blood. Canada is becoming quite an oppressive state. One recent example is the severe lockdown that went into effect just hours before Easter Sunday this year. On Good Friday, Canadian PM Justin Trudeau acknowledged the “long weekend” (a wonderful euphemism for the holiest day of the year to some two billion people) and that “we're all going to have to do things differently again this year.” Article Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association.” Well, sort of. For Article One preemptively takes away those freedoms when the State decides citizens don't have freedom of religion, thought, belief, opinion, expression, press, assembly and association: “only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the first ten amendments of which are known as the Bill of Rights) does not include such a disclaimer - such a disclaimer implying that one's “rights” are not rights at all - which come from God - but are actually State grants of privilege. That said, we have seen our governments - federal, state, and local - act as though they did have the Canadian Loophole in them. In fact, many countries - including Communist China - also “guarantee” religious freedom, albeit with the Canadian Loophole. And this shows the real value of such lofty government “guarantees.” The past couple years caught the Church by surprise, and we learned not only a lot about our governmental leaders, but also about our church leaders. We have learned a lot about ourselves, and what we really believe, teach, and confess regardless of what we say on paper: in Scripture and in the confessions. Whether or not you agree with Pastor Rock regarding the danger of government overreach related to “climate change,” it is hard to be so Pollyannish as to believe that we will not have future conflicts with the State in whether or not our services are “essential,” whether our God-given rights trump positive law, whether their constitutional limitations are real or only theoretical, and whether or not the Ekklesia (Church) can long exist where there is no ekklesia (assembly). Sadly, some people will never return to assemble with the saints again, seeking instead convenient Zoom sessions that they can watch in their pajamas. We have opened the proverbial can. But as for future government “emergencies,” we need to start talking about this now. At what point do we comply? And for how long? At what point do we resist openly? At what point do we take the Divine Service underground in defiance of the State? These are questions for individual believers, families, congregations, districts, synods, and the church catholic. And we confessional Lutherans need to crush underfoot any and all heretical and oxymoronic suggestions such as lay-communion or remote electronic consecration, not to mention granting the State unconditional authority based on a flawed reading of Romans 13. The time to wrestle with these issues is not in the middle of a crisis when pastors, congregations, and families have a window of opportunity to do whatever they want with impunity - whether out of well-intentioned ignorance, or by carefully planned stealth. After all, as the saying goes, never let a crisis go to waste. Thank you to Pastor Rock for calling Christians to deal with future “emergencies” by talking about them now.

Donald Trump Inauguration Speech, January 20, 2017 (complete speech)

Music and Sports History | Free Audiobooks | Famous Speeches | Podcast by Henry Gindt

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 13, 2021 16:28

Complete Donald J. Trump Inauguration Speech given on January 20, 2017 (complete speech). Background: The inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States marked the commencement of the only term of Donald Trump as president and Mike Pence as vice president. An estimated 300,000 to 600,000 people attended the public ceremony held on Friday, January 20, 2017, at the West Front of the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. The event was the 58th presidential inauguration. Held in Washington, D.C., from January 17 to 21, 2017, inaugural events included concerts, the swearing-in ceremony, a congressional luncheon, parade, inaugural balls, and the interfaith inaugural prayer service. Administered by Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, the presidential oath was taken by Trump as his first task after becoming president at noon, in keeping with Article Two, Section 1, Clause 8 and the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with the vice presidential oath taken by Pence and administered by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas immediately preceding it. Trump was sworn in with his left hand on a pair of Bibles, his personal copy and the Lincoln Bible. The inauguration was accompanied by protests worldwide. Foreign languages: استمع إلى دونالد ترامب ডোনাল্ড ট্রাম্পের কথা শুনুন 听唐纳德·特朗普 Slušajte Donalda Trumpa Poslechněte si Donalda Trumpa Lyt til Donald Trump Kuuntele Donald Trumpia Écoutez Donald Trump Hören Sie Donald Trump Ακούστε τον Ντόναλντ Τραμπ ડોનાલ્ડ ટ્રમ્પને સાંભળો האזינו לדונלד טראמפ डोनाल्ड ट्रम्प को सुनो Dengarkan Donald Trump Ascolta Donald Trump ドナルド・トランプに耳を傾ける Donald Trump 듣기 Dengarkan Donald Trump ഡൊണാൾഡ് ട്രംപ് പറയുന്നത് ശ്രദ്ധിക്കുക डोनाल्ड ट्रम्प ऐका Lytt til Donald Trump ଡୋନାଲ୍ଡ ଟ୍ରମ୍ପଙ୍କ କଥା ଶୁଣ به سخنان دونالد ترامپ گوش دهید Posłuchaj Donalda Trumpa Ouça Donald Trump ਡੋਨਾਲਡ ਟਰੰਪ ਨੂੰ ਸੁਣੋ Ascultă-l pe Donald Trump Слушайте Дональда Трампа Слушајте Доналда Трампа Vypočujte si Donalda Trumpa Poslušajte Donalda Trumpa Escuche a Donald Trump Msikilize Donald Trump Lyssna på Donald Trump டொனால்ட் டிரம்பைக் கேளுங்கள் ฟัง Donald Trump Donald Trump'ı dinle Слухайте Дональда Трампа ڈونلڈ ٹرمپ کی بات سنو Nghe Donald Trump --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/henry-gindt/support

3: Article Two: The Lord Jesus Christ, God's Only Begotten Son

The Apostles Creed

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 25, 2021 37:48

In the second article of the Apostle's Creed, we read, “...and in Jesus Christ, His only begotten son, our Lord” Here the Christian confesses not only that Jesus is the Son of God but also that Jesus is his Lord.

god jesus christ lord apostles begotten son jesus christ god article two lord here

“THE WEREWOLF OF DEFIANCE” and 3 More Strange True Stories! #WeirdDarkness

Weird Darkness: Stories of the Paranormal, Supernatural, Legends, Lore, Mysterious, Macabre, Unsolved

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 27, 2021 63:08

“THE WEREWOLF OF DEFIANCE” and 3 More Strange True Stories! #WeirdDarknessPlease SHARE this episode with someone who loves paranormal stories, true crime, monsters, or mysteries like you do! Telling others about Weird Darkness helps make it possible for me to keep doing the podcast! IN THIS EPISODE: Defiance Ohio is a small town that reported a rash of werewolf sightings in the early 1970's, and it's a legend that still persists to this day. (The Werewolf of Defiance) *** What would happen if the First Lady of the United States disclosed that she believed she traveled with extraterrestrials to Venus? That's exactly what happened to the First Lady of Japan! (First Contact With The First Lady) *** The island of Guam is well known for the part it played in World War II – but 120 miles northeast of Guam is the tiny island of Tinian, and while it too had a part in World War II, it also contains secrets millennia old of a people that might have existed before the oldest people recorded living there. (The Mysterious People Before Time) *** Robert Nelson had no professional background in medicine or refrigeration, he didn't even have a college degree, but this everyday TV repairman found himself in the center of the cryogenics movement – and that's when things started to get messy. (Cryogenics And The TV Repairman)STORY SOURCES AND MUSIC CREDITS…(Over time links may become invalid, disappear, or have different content. I always make sure to give authors credit for the material I use whenever possible. If I somehow overlooked doing so for a story, or if a credit is incorrect, please let me know and I will rectify it in the show notes immediately.)“Cryogenics And The TV Repairman” by Marco Margaritoff for All That's Interesting https://tinyurl.com/yaowv6j6 “First Contact With The First Lady” from AncientCode.com: https://tinyurl.com/yxww2yv2 “The Mysterious People Before Time” by A. Sutherland for AncientPages.com: https://tinyurl.com/yyuzyu4g “The Werewolf of Defiance” from ArmedWithSilver.com: https://tinyurl.com/y4zlhnxh “Ohio Police Capture Drunken Local Werewolf” by Jack Dickey for Deadspin.com: https://tinyurl.com/y6rpckbv Weird Darkness theme by Alibi Music Library. Background music, varying by episode, provided by Alibi Music, EpidemicSound and/or AudioBlocks with paid license. Music from Shadows Symphony (https://tinyurl.com/yyrv987t), Midnight Syndicate (http://amzn.to/2BYCoXZ), Kevin MacLeod (https://tinyurl.com/y2v7fgbu), Tony Longworth (https://tinyurl.com/y2nhnbt7), and/or Nicolas Gasparini/Myuu (https://tinyurl.com/lnqpfs8) is used with permission.   ESSENTIAL WEB LINKS… “The Showers” episode: https://weirddarkness.com/archives/5433 “Insane Things You Probably Forgot Happened in 2020” episode: https://weirddarkness.com/archives/8280 Defiance werewolf, “Toledo Blade” newspaper articles: Article One= https://tinyurl.com/y3dtkx4v, Article Two= https://tinyurl.com/y2q2c8tl, Article Three= https://tinyurl.com/y5l89z25Defiance werewolf, Crescent News” newspaper article: https://tinyurl.com/yya7vyku “Werewolf Shamans In The Ancient Woodlands…” published paper: https://tinyurl.com/yxka58st TRANSCRIPT FOR THIS EPISODE (if available): Visit WeirdDarkness.com, search for the title of this episode, click on episode photo, then scroll down the blog post. Transcript will be at the bottom of the blog post.HOT 50 CHART VOTING: https://WeirdDarkness.com/VOTE BECOME A PATRON: https://WeirdDarkness.com/Patron(Amazon links included above may benefit me financially through qualifying purchases.)WANT TO ADVERTISE ON WEIRD DARKNESS OR BE A SPONSOR?Weird Darkness has partnered with AdvertiseCast to handle our advertising/sponsorship requests. They're great to work with and will help you advertise on the show. Email sales@advertisecast.com or start the process now at https://weirddarkness.com/advertise = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ="I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness." — John 12:46Find out how to escape eternal darkness at https://weirddarkness.com/eternaldarkness WeirdDarkness™ - is a registered trademark. Copyright ©Weird Darkness 2020.= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

95: Anniversary

TV Winner Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 23, 2021 83:11

Better late than never! Thanks for understanding. Let's talk Anniversaries Episodes: Broad City 4x10 "Friendiversary" (12/6/17; Hulu) vs. Parks and Rec 5x19 "Article Two" (4/18/13; Peacock) Get social with us @tvwinnerpod on all the stuff. Email us at tvwinnerpod@gmail.com. Visit our website for more information from each episode. Find Beth @yourbeth_friend. Find Hannah @nobriggity. Our theme music is by @ariellajoymusic. Rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. ALL CLIPS ARE THE PROPERTY OF COMEDY CENTRAL AND NBC UNIVERSAL. THEY ARE USED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.

hulu parks rec anniversaries broad city article two friendiversary

Perspective: The Power To Pardon Needs Reigning In

Perspectives - WNIJ

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 5, 2021 1:39

Since Trump lost the election, I’ve been more or less successful in quelling the ire and disgust he provokes. I can feel how unhealthy it is and want to re-enter the field of positive energy in 2021. But his parade of pardons, although expected, is making it difficult. Presidential pardons give too much unchecked power to one individual. A holdover from the British monarchy, Article Two of the Constitution must be amended. There have already been too many self-serving pardons from previous presidents. Moreover, we’ve now seen that Americans are capable of electing a malevolent autocrat. The so-called “law and order” president is pardoning his partners in federal crimes, along with others convicted of abhorrent and racially incited acts, including murders. And there’s still time for him to throw his own name into the ring, which would be a real test for this singular power. I find the ability of an impeached president to issue pardons, self or otherwise, oxymoronic. Pardons that

americans british presidential constitution pardon reigning pardons since trump article two

Eyes Are Complex

All Around Science

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 14, 2020 50:34

On today’s episode: Scientists are still learning what causes leaves to change color. Evidence for the hypothesis that water is actually two coexisting liquids! Eyeballs are really neat! All that and more today on All Around Science... LINKS: ARTICLE: Which factors trigger leaf die-off in Autumn? ARTICLE: Two liquids of water exist THEME MUSIC by Andrew Allen https://twitter.com/KEYSwithSOUL http://andrewallenmusic.com

evolution climate change scientists complex biology chemistry neurology theme music eyeballs andrew allen article two

What Is The Executive Branch?

The American Experiment: A Republic If You Can Keep It

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 8, 2020 59:59

Questions? Comments? Email us at theamericanexperimentpodcast@gmail.comRead the ConstitutionQUIZ: Question 1: In what month is the U.S. Presidential election held? JanuarySeptemberOctoberNovemberQuestion 2: Which one of these presidents won both the electoral and popular vote?Rutherford B. HayesJohn F. KennedyGeorge W. BushDonald J. Trump Question 3: Which of these U.S. Presidents held office the longest?Abraham LincolnWilliam Howard TaftFranklin Delano Roosevelt Dwight D. Eisenhower Question 4: Which President was sworn into office by his father?John Quincy AdamsWilliam McKinleyCalvin CoolidgeGeorge W. Bush Question 5: If both the President and the Vice President were to die or become incapciated, who is next in line to become president?President pro tempore of the SenateSpeaker of the House of RepresentativesSecretary of StateAttorney GeneralANSWERSNovemberKennedyRooseveltCoolidgeSpeaker of the House of Representatives

president house politics government vice president executives presidential constitution presidents electoral college executive branch comread american experiment rutherford b article two which president

Butter Is My Favorite Food

Parks n Wrecked

Play Episode Listen Later May 28, 2020 59:40

Patton Oswalt guest stars in this episode and goes on a filibuster for the ages. There are also a lot of dumb rules in the Pawnee constitution – like annually throwing people named Ted into the water – so Leslie does her best to rewrite some of ‘em. To add even more fire to the flame, Leslie and Patton have to stay at an old cabin for two weeks. And Andy realizes butter is his favorite food.Meanwhile, April works on pitting Ron and Chris against each other during the Chris Traeger Management Training Seminar (or CTMTS, for short). Will she succeed? Probably. She’s sneaky like that. Ann and Ben are also pitted against each other, but it’s on a weird eBay-esque bidding site.Plus, the most obscure things about watching sports, Sean once again has to deal with a crappy situation at work, and we dive into fun statues and fake fans in and around baseball stadiums.Most importantly, Sean is now 33 years old! He’s Scottie Pippen, Larry Bird, and Patrick Ewing all at once. What a great age.EPISODES5, E19: Article TwoDRINK OF THE EPISODEBoomtown Blonde from Spindletap BreweryTOP 5 OF THE EPISODETop 5 Most Ridiculous HolidaysCATEGORIESMajor League Baseball Teams

ebay butter birthdays patton scottie pippen larry bird patton oswalt parks and recreation patrick ewing favorite foods pawnee leslie knope mlb teams article two chris traeger

Introduction To Article Two

Actual Conversations

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 24, 2020 42:36

Christin McMasters returns to continue our study of the constitution. We discuss entry level understandings of Article 2, some basic history of the executive, some controversies surrounding what a president can and cannot do, and more! Check out Her columns here: https://www.thelibertybellenc.com/ Check out her Youtube page here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClKLJE76UcRIFk6O6fhKTHA

article two

CD182: Justice Kavanaugh

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 14, 2018 154:53

It's done. Brett Kavanaugh is a Supreme Court Justice. Most of the media coverage of his confirmation centered on the sexual assault allegations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford but that's only one part of the story. In this episode, learn about the procedural tricks employed by Senate Republicans and the George W. Bush administration to place Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court and hear highlights from over 40 hours of Brett Kavanaugh's policy-oriented confirmation hearings that most of the country didn't see. Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links Click here to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North Number 4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD117: Authorization for Limitless War Additional Reading Blog: Why the ACLU opposes Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court by Susan N. Herman, ACLU, October 3, 2018. Article: California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault by Emma Brown, The Washington Post, September 16, 2018. Records: Records, papers, decisions: Kavanaugh records and the Presidential Records Act, related author Meghan M. Stuessy, FAS.org, August 27, 2018. Report: ACLU report on Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, ACLU, August 15, 2018. Article: Brett Kavanaugh ruled Consumer Financial Protection Bureau structurally unconstitutional by Manuela Tobias, Politifact, July 25, 2018. Article: There's no conspiracy between Trump and Kennedy. There's just the swamp by David Litt, The Washington Post, July 3, 2018. Article: Donald Trump made Justice Kennedy an offer he couldn't refuse by Abigail Tracy, Vanity Fair, June 29, 2018. Article: Inside the White House's quiet campaign to create a Supreme Court opening by Adam Liptak and Maggie Haberman, The New York Times, June 28, 2018. Article: Here's what is known about the surprising choice to lead the CFPB by Francine McKenna, Market Watch, June 18, 2018. Article: The clock is running out on Mick Mulvaney by Renae Merle, The Washington Post, June 12, 2018. Article: Official cause of death for Antonin Scalia released by David Warren, Dallas News, February 2016. Article: George W. Bush's bizarre bathroom self-portraits laid bare by audacious hack by Sam Byford, The Verge, February 8, 2013. Resources Case Information: Carpenter v. United States Executive Order: Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act Sound Clip Sources Hearing: 2004 Kavanaugh Judicial Nomination Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, April 27, 2004. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 1:14:14 Senator Jeff Sessions (AL): Judges, if you’re confirmed, are not accountable to the public. You never stand for election again. You hold your office for life. Many of your decisions are unreviewable ultimately, and it leaves the American people subject to decisions in an anti-democratic forum unless that judge restrains him or herself and enforces the law as written or the Constitution as declared by the people of the United States. 1:24:15 Senator Patrick Leahy (VT): The question is secrecy in government, and this administration has shown more secrecy than any administration I’ve served with, from the Ford administration forward. You were the author, one of the first indicators of this increase in secrecy, Executive Order 13233, that drastically changed the Presidential Records Act. It gave former presidents, their representatives, and even the incumbent president, virtual veto power over what records of theirs would be released, posed a higher burden on researchers petitioning for access to what had been releasable papers in the past. After the order was issued, a number of historians, public interest organizations, opposed the change. The Republican-led House Committee on Government Reform approved a bill to reverse this. A lawsuit to overturn it was filed by Public Citizen, American Historical Association, Organization of American Historians, and a number of others. Why did you favor an increase in the secrecy of presidential records? Brett Kavanaugh: Senator, with respect to President Bush's Executive Order, I think I want to clarify how you described it. It was an order that merely set forth the procedures for assertion of privilege by a former president, and let me explain what that means. The Supreme Court of the United States in Nixon v. GSA in 1977, opinion by Justice Brennan, had concluded that a former president still maintains a privilege over his records, even after he leaves office. This was somewhat unusual because there was an argument in the case that those are government records. But the Court concluded that both the current president and the former president have the right to assert privilege to prevent the release of presidential records. That’s obviously a complicated situation. The issue was coming to a head for the first time because there’s a 12-year period of repose, so 12 years after President Reagan left office was when this President Bush came into office, and there was a need to establish procedures. How’s this going to work, two different presidents asserting privilege or having the right to review? No one really had a good idea how this was going to work. The goal of the Order was merely to set forth procedures. It specifically says in Section 9 of the Order that it’s not designed in any way to suggest whether a former president or a current president should or should not assert privilege over his records. You’re quite right, Senator Leahy, that there was initial concern by historians about the Order. I think it was—I like to think it was based on a misunderstanding, and Judge Gonzales and I undertook to meet every 6 months or so with a large group of historians, first to discuss the Order and explain it, and then after that, to discuss any problems they were having with the Order, and to help improve it, if they suggested ways for improvement. I think those meetings, I think the historians who’ve come to see us, have found them useful, and I think we helped to explain what we had in mind and what the president's Order meant in terms of the procedure. So, that’s my explanation of that Order. Hearing: 2006 Kavanaugh Judicial Nomination Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, May 9, 2006. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 58:44 Senator Orrin Hatch (UT): I also want to acknowledge the presence of Mr. Kavanaugh’s parents. I’ve known them for a long time. Ed Kavanaugh, for many years, he headed up the major trade association, the Cosmetic, Toiletries, and Fragrance Association, and he is deservedly admired by many in this town. And his mother served with distinction as a state court judge in Maryland for many, many years. 1:47:15 Senator John Cornyn (TX): Of course, as you know, I met you a number of years ago when I was Attorney General of Texas and had the honor to represent my state in an argument before the United States Supreme Court, and that was Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, which involved a question of whether school children could voluntarily offer a prayer or an inspirational saying before school football games in Texas. And as you know, the Court ultimately ruled against that voluntary student prayer in the case. And Chief Justice Rehnquist, in dissent, said that the Court's ruling exhibited hostility to all things religious in public life. And I’m very concerned about that because I do believe that the founders thought that the posture of the government with regard to religious expression should be one of neutrality, not hostility. I realize as a lower court judge you’re going to be bound by the Supreme Court's precedents, but I wonder if you would address the issue of religious liberty and religious speech insofar as how you believe in your position as a circuit court judge, how you would approach those issues. Brett Kavanaugh: Senator, if I were confirmed to be a D.C. Circuit judge, I would of course follow the precedent of the Santa Fe case. That case addressed a question that had been left open in the Lee v. Weisman case in 1992. In that case, there was a school-sponsored prayer at a graduation ceremony where the government was actually involved, and one of the questions that was left open was, what happens if a student or a private speaker participates in a school event as a private speaker? And in the Santa Fe case, I think the Court concluded, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, that it could be attributed to the school and so was a violation of the Establishment Clause. I think the overall area represents a tension the Supreme Court has attempted to resolve throughout the years in terms of facilitating the free exercise of religion without crossing the Establishment Clause lines that the Court has set out for many years now. I know that the Court in recent years has made clear in a number of cases that private religious speech, religious people, religious organizations cannot be, or should not be, discriminated against and that treating religious speech, religious people, religious organizations equally—in other words, on a level playing field with nonreligious organizations—is not a violation of the Establishment Clause. In past years there had been some suggestion that treating religious organizations the same way in the public square as nonreligious organizations could sometimes be a violation of the Establishment Clause. I think the Court's really gone to a principle of equality of treatment does not ordinarily violate the Establishment Clause—again, equality of treatment of religious speech, religious people, religious organizations; equality in the public square. That's been something we've seen over the last, I'd say, decade or a little more. 2:04:00 Former Senator Sam Brownback (KS): But just give me your view of the Constitution as a document itself. Is this a—can you put yourself in a category? Do you have a view that it’s established as a living document, as a strict constructionist of the Constitution itself? Brett Kavanaugh: Senator, I believe very much in interpreting text as it’s written and not seeking to impose one's own personal policy preferences into the text of the document. I believe very much in judicial restraint, recognizing the primary policymaking role of the legislative branch in our constitutional democracy. I believe very much, as a prospective inferior court judge, were I to be confirmed, in following the Supreme Court precedent strictly and absolutely. Once as a lower court judge, I think that’s very important for the stability of our three-level system for lower courts to faithfully follow Supreme Court precedent, and so that’s something that I think’s very important. In terms of the independence of the judiciary, I think that’s something that’s the hallmark of our judiciary, the hallmark of our system, that judges are independent from the legislative branch and independent from the executive branch. I think that’s central to my understanding of the proper judicial role. Hearing: 2018 Day 1 Part 1 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 4, 2018. 12:55 Senator Chuck Grassley (IA): Good morning. I welcome everyone to this confirmation hearing on the nomination of— Senator Kamala Harris (CA): Mr. Chairman? Sen. Grassley: —Brett Kavanaugh— Sen. Harris: Mr. Chairman? Sen. Grassley: —to serve as Associate Justice— Sen. Harris: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to be recognized for a question before we proceed? Unknown Speaker: Regular order, Mr. Chairman. Sen. Grassley: —of the Supreme Court of the United States. Sen. Harris: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to be recognized to ask a question before we proceed. The committee received just last night, less than 15 hours ago— Unknown Speaker: Mr. Chairman, regular order. Sen. Harris: —42,000 pages of documents that we have not had an opportunity to review or read or analyze. Sen. Grassley: You’re out of order. I’ll proceed. Sen. Harris: We cannot possibly move forward, Mr. Chairman, of this hearing. Sen. Grassley: I extend a very warm welcome to Judge Kavanaugh— Sen. Harris: We have not been given an opportunity to have a— Sen. Grassley: —to his wife, Ashley— Sen. Harris: —meaningful hearing on the nominee. Sen. Grassley: —his two daughters, their extended family and friends— Senator Mazie Hirono (HI): Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague, Senator Harris. Mr. Chairman— Sen. Grassley: —Judge Kavanaugh’s many law clerks— Sen. Hirono: —we received 42,000 documents that we haven’t been able— Sen. Grassley: —and everyone else joining us today. Sen. Hirono: —to review last night, and we believe this hearing should be postponed. Sen. Grassley: I know this is an exciting day for all of you here, and you’re rightly proud of the judge. Senator Richard Blumenthal (CT): Mr. Chairman, if we cannot be recognized, I move to adjourn. Sen. Grassley: The American people— Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn. Sen. Grassley: —get to hear directly from Judge Kavanaugh later this afternoon. Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn. Mr. Chairman, we have been denied—we have been denied real access to the documents we need to advise— Unknown Speaker: Mr. Chairman, regular order is called for. Sen. Blumenthal: —which turns this hearing into a charade and a mockery of our norms. Sen. Grassley: Well— Sen. Blumenthal: And Mr. Chairman, I, therefore, move to adjourn this hearing. Sen. Grassley: Okay. Protester: This is a mockery and a travesty of justice. This is a travesty of justice, and we’ll not go back. Cancel Brett Kavanaugh. Adjourn the hearing. Leave me alone. Leave me alone. Unknown Speaker: _______(02:07—What do we have to do? Trump? We may have to work with Trump. In a demonstrative adjourn, we have to have—) Unknown Speaker: We’re not in an executive session. Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a roll-call vote on my motion to adjourn. 18:40 Senator Mazie Hirono (HI): Mr. Chairman, it is also— Senator Chuck Grassley (IA): I think that I— Sen. Hirono: Mr. Chairman, it is also not regular order for the majority— Sen. Grassley: Senator Hirono— Sen. Hirono: —to require the minority to pre-clear our questions, our documents and the videos we would like to use at this hearing. That is unprecedented. That is not regular order. Since when do we have to submit the questions and the process that we wish to follow to question this nominee? Sen. Grassley: Senator— Sen. Hirono: I’d like your clarification. Sen. Grassley: Senator Hirono— Sen. Hirono: I’d like your response on why you are requesting— Sen. Grassley: —I would ask that you— Sen. Hirono: — ____(00:30) order to submit our questions, too. Sen. Grassley: —I ask that you stop so we can conduct this hearing the way we have planned it. Maybe it isn’t going exactly the way that the minority would like to have it go— Protester: [unclear] Sen. Grassley: —but we have said for a long period of time that we were going to proceed on this very day, and I think we ought to give the American people the opportunity to hear whether Judge Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court or not. And you have heard my side of the aisle call for a regular order, and I think we ought to proceed in regular order. There will be plenty of opportunities to respond to the questions that the minority is— Protester 2: We didn’t vote for Judge Kavanaugh. [unclear] Sen. Grassley: —legitimately raising. Unknown Speaker: Get her thrown out of here, my god. Protester 3: [unclear] Sen. Grassley: And we will proceed accordingly. Unknown Speaker: What did she say? Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Mr. Chairman, under regular order, may I ask a point of order, which is that we are now presented with a situation in which somebody has decided that there are 100,000 documents protected by executive privilege, yet there has not been an assertion of executive privilege before the committee. How are we to determine whether executive privilege has been properly asserted— Protester 4: [unclear] Sen. Whitehouse: —if this hearing goes by without the committee ever considering that question? Why is it not in regular order for us to determine before the hearing at which the documents would be necessary whether or not the assertion of privilege that prevents us from getting those documents is legitimate or indeed is even an actual assertion of executive privilege? I do not understand why that is not a legitimate point of order at this point, because at the end of this hearing, it is too late to consider it. Senator Patrick Leahy (VT): Mr. Chairman, if I might add to this, on the integrity of the documents we’ve received, there really is no integrity. They have alterations, they have oddities, attachments are missing, emails are cut off halfway through a chain, recipient’s names are missing—many are of interest to this committee, but it’s cut off. The National Archives hasn’t had a chance to get us all that we want, even though you said on your website the National Archives would act as a check against any political interference. But— Protester 5: [unclear] Sen. Leahy: —I’d check after the hearing is over, there’s no check, I think we ought to at least have the National Archives finish it, and to have for the first time, certainly in my 44 years here, to have somebody say there’s a claim of executive privilege when the president hasn’t made such a claim, just puts everything under doubt. What are we trying to hide? Why are we rushing? Hearing: 2018 Day 1 Part 2 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 4, 2018. Hearing: 2018 Day 2 Part 1 Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 53:00 Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA): What would you say your position today is on a woman’s right to choose? Brett Kavanaugh: Well, as a judge— Sen. Feinstein: As a judge. Kavanaugh: As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court—by “it,” I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey—and reaffirm many times Casey is precedent on precedent, which itself is an important factor to remember, and I understand the significance of the issue, the jurisprudential issue, and I understand the significance, as best I can, I always try and I do hear, of the real-world effects of that decision, as I try to do of all the decisions of my court and of the Supreme Court. 1:02:35* Brett Kavanaugh: I can tell you about the U.S. v. Nixon precedent, and I did about Chief Justice Burger’s role in forging a unanimous opinion—and, really, all the justices worked together on that—but Chief Justice Burger, who had been appointed by President Nixon—appointed by President Nixon—writes the opinion in U.S. v. Nixon, 8-0—Rehnquist was recused—8-0, ordering President Nixon to disclose the tapes in response to a criminal trial subpoena. A moment-of-crisis argument, I think July 8, 1974. They decided two weeks later a really important opinion, a moment of judicial independence, important precedent of the Supreme Court. 1:09:49 Senator Orrin Hatch (UT): I’d like to turn now to your work in the Bush administration. As you know, my Democratic colleagues are demanding to see every, every piece of paper or every single scrap of paper you ever touched during your six years in the Bush administration, in part because they want to know what role, if any, you played in developing the Bush administration’s interrogation policies. Well, six years ago, Ranking Member Feinstein, who was then the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a good one at that, issued a lengthy report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program under President Bush. The report detailed the origins, development, and implementation of the program. In 2014 a declassified version of that report was released to the public. The declassified version, or report, runs well over 500 pages, and your name appears nowhere in it. Now, I, myself, spent over 20 years on the Intelligence Committee. I know the quality of its staff and the work that they do, and I know the ranking member and how diligent she is. If you had played a role in the Bush administration’s interrogation policies, I think the ranking member would have discovered it. Numerous administration lawyers appear in the report, but not you. And that should tell us something. With that said, Judge Kavanaugh, I want to ask you for the record: what role, if any, did you play in developing or implementing the Bush administration’s detention and interrogation policies? Brett Kavanaugh: Well, the policies that are reflected and described in Senator Feinstein’s extensive, thorough report were very controversial, as you know, Senator—the enhanced interrogation techniques— Sen. Hatch: Right, right. Kavanaugh: —and the legal memos that were involved in justifying some of those techniques also were very controversial when they were disclosed in 2004. And I was not involved. I was not read into that program, not involved in crafting that program nor crafting the legal justifications for that program. In addition to Senator Feinstein’s report, the Justice Department did a lengthy Office of Professional Responsibility report about the legal memos that had been involved to justify some of those programs. My name’s not in that report, Senator, because I was not read into that program and not involved. There were a number of lawyers—and this came up at my last hearing—a number of lawyers who were involved, including a couple who were then judicial nominees. At my last hearing, I recall Senator Durbin asking about whether I also was likewise involved as these other judicial nominees had been, and the answer was no, and that answer was accurate, and that answer’s been shown to be accurate by the Office of Professional Responsibility report, by Senator Feinstein’s thorough report. 2:37:49 Senator Lindsey Graham (SC): So when somebody says post-9/11, that we’ve been at war, and it’s called the War on Terrorism, do you generally agree with that concept? Brett Kavanaugh: I do, Senator, because Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which is still in effect. And that was passed, of course, on September 14, 2001, three days later. Sen. Graham: Let’s talk about the law and war. Is there a body of law called the law of armed conflict? Kavanaugh: There is such a body, Senator. Sen. Graham: Is there a body of law that’s called the basic criminal law? Kavanaugh: Yes, Senator. Sen. Graham: Are there differences between those two bodies of law? Kavanaugh: Yes, Senator. Sen. Graham: From an American citizen’s point of view, do your constitutional rights follow you? If you’re in Paris, does the Fourth Amendment protect you as an American from your own government? Kavanaugh: From your own government, yes. Sen. Graham: Okay. So, if you’re in Afghanistan, do your constitutional rights protect you against your own government? Kavanaugh: If you’re an American in Afghanistan, you have constitutional rights as against the U.S. government. Sen. Graham: Is there a longstanding— Kavanaugh: That’s long-settled law. Sen. Graham: Isn’t there also a long-settled law that—it goes back to Eisentrager case—I can’t remember the name of it— Kavanaugh: Yeah, Johnson v. Eisentrager. Sen. Graham: Right. —that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy have considered enemy combatants? Kavanaugh: They can be. Sen. Graham: Can be. Kavanaugh: They can be. They’re often—they’re sometimes criminally prosecuted, sometimes treated in the military sense. Sen. Graham: Well, let’s talk about “can be.” I think the— Kavanaugh: Under Supreme Court precedent— Sen. Graham: Right. Kavanaugh: —just want to make….yeah. Sen. Graham: There’s a Supreme Court decision that said that American citizens who collaborated with Nazi saboteurs were tried by the military. Is that correct? Kavanaugh: That is correct. Sen. Graham: I think a couple of them were executed. Kavanaugh: Yeah. Sen. Graham: So if anybody doubts, there’s a longstanding history in this country that your constitutional rights follow you wherever you go, but you don’t have a constitutional right to turn on your own government, collaborate with the enemy of the nation. You’ll be treated differently. What’s the name of the case, if you can recall, that reaffirmed the concept that you could hold one of our own as an enemy combatant if they were engaged in terrorist activities in Afghanistan? Are you familiar with that case? Kavanaugh: Yeah. Hamdi. Sen. Graham: Okay. So the bottom line is I want every American citizen to know you have constitutional rights, but you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy. There's a body of law well developed long before 9/11 that understood the difference between basic criminal law and the law of armed conflict. Do you understand those differences? Kavanaugh: I do understand that there’re different bodies of law, of course, Senator. Hearing: 2018 Day 2 Part 2 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Hearing: 2018 Day 2 Part 3 Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 25:10 Brett Kavanaugh: My case, I upheld, importantly I upheld limits on contributions in the RNC case and in the Bluman case, and the Supreme Court has upheld contribution limits generally but struck them down when they’re too low in cases like Randall v. Sorrell, and McCutcheon. 54:45 Brett Kavanaugh: The religious tradition reflected in the First Amendment is a foundational part of American liberty, and it’s important for us as judges to recognize that and not—and recognize too that, as with speech, unpopular religions are protected. Our job—we can, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, question their sincerity of a religious belief, meaning, is someone lying or not about it? But we can’t question the reasonableness of it, and so the Supreme Court has cases with all sorts of religious beliefs protected—Justice Brennan really the architect of that. So religious liberty is critical to the First Amendment and the American Constitution. 1:50:00 Brett Kavanaugh: All the significant wars in U.S. history have been congressionally authorized, with one major exception—the Korean War. And the Korean War is an anomaly in many respects, and I think some of—the fact that it was undeclared and unauthorized really did lead to the Youngstown decision. But, you know, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf War, the AUMF against al Qaeda, the 2003 Iraq War, and then going back, World War II, World War I, the War of 1812—they’re all congressionally authorized. You can go back throughout, and I specify that. And so the war power, the power to take the nation into war, at least a significant one—and there’s some questions about short-term air strikes and things like that—but a significant war, that’s the biggest of all, and that’s something that Hamilton talked about in ’69 and that our historical practice, I think, is actually lived up to. I don’t mean to footnote Korea—that’s an enormous exception—but since then, they’ve all been congressionally authorized. 1:56:30 Senator Ben Sasse (NE): And one of the reasons that the executive branch seems so powerful right now is, again, because of how weak the legislature is. I mean, it’s a fundamental part of why we have the term “president.” In the 1780s, this wasn’t a very common term in the English language. “President” was just a nounified form of the name “presiding officer,” and we made it up, our founders made it up so that we wouldn’t have a term that sounded a lot like a king. And so we wanted to be sure that the term “presiding officer” sounded pretty boring and administrative, because the legislative, the policymaking powers were supposed to sit in this body, and the Article Two branch is supposed to preside over and execute the laws that have been passed. It’s not supposed to be the locus of all policymaking in America, but one of the reasons we have some of these problems with so many of these executive agencies is because Congress regularly doesn’t finish its work, punch those powers to Article Two, and then it’s not clear who exactly can execute all those authorities. And so we end up with this debate about the unitary executive, and you had a different term for it, but unpack for us a little bit why you have a different view about both the prudence and the constitutionality of one-person-headed independent executive agencies or pseudo-independent agencies versus commission-structure-headed independent agencies. Brett Kavanaugh: The traditional independent agencies that were upheld by the Supreme Court in Humphrey’s Executor in 1935 are multi-member independent agencies. And so usually sometimes three, five, occasionally more, but they’re multi-member independent agencies, and that’s been all the way through. And then the—for the significant independent agencies—the CFPB—and I had no—it’s not my role to question the policy or to question the creation of the new agency. In fact, I think it was designed for efficiency and centralization of certain overlapping authorities. It’s not my role to question that policy. Someone challenged the fact that it was headed, for the first time on something like this, by a single person. And a couple things, then, I wrote about in my dissent in that case—I’ll just repeat what I wrote in the dissent—I said, “First of all, that’s a departure from historical practice of independent agencies, and that matters according to the Supreme Court.” They had a previous case involving the PCAOB, where they had different innovation there that the Supreme Court had struck down in part because of the novelty of it. So departure from historical practice matters because precedent always matters, including executive precedent. Then, diminution of presidential authority beyond the traditional independent agencies in this sense. With traditional independent agencies, when a new president comes in office, almost immediately the president has been given the authority to designate a new chair of the independent agencies, so when a new—when President Obama came in, was able to designate new chairs of the various independent agencies, and the chairs, of course, set the policy direction and control the agenda. That’s historically been the way. That does not happen with the CFPB. And finally, having a single person—just going back to liberty—who’s in charge, who’s not removable at will by anyone, not accountable to Congress, in charge of a huge agency is something that’s different and has an effect on individual liberty. So a single person can make these enormous decisions—rule makings, adjudications, and enforcement decisions, all of them—and from my perspective—I am just repeating what I wrote here. I’m not intending to go beyond what I wrote in that opinion that was an issue of concern. And I did put in a hypothetical because it seems abstract that—I think we’ll realize this issue with that agency or any other—when a president comes in to office and has to live for three, four years with a CFPB director appointed by the prior president. And then I think everyone’s going to realize—of a different party— Sen. Sasse: Right. Kavanaugh: — in particular—and then I think everyone’s going to realize, wow, that’s an odd structure. Now, maybe not, but that’s what I wrote in my opinion that that will seem very weird because that’s not what happens with all the traditional independent agencies. And so whenever any president leaves and has appointed in the last two years a CFPB director, the new president might campaign on consumer protection. Let’s imagine, okay, presidential campaigns on consumer protection and consumer issues and then comes into office and can’t actually appoint a new CFPB director for the whole term of his or her office, that’s going to seem, I think, quite odd structurally. At least, that’s what I said in my opinion. Hearing: 2018 Day 2 Part 4 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 4:45 Senator Richard Blumenthal (CT): I want to talk about Jane Doe in Garza v. Hagen. As you know, she was a 17-year-old unaccompanied minor who came across this border, having escaped serious, threatening, horrific physical violence in her family, in her homeland. She braved horrific threats of rape and sexual exploitation as she crossed the border. She was eight weeks pregnant. Under Texas law, she received an order that entitled her to an abortion, and she also went through mandatory counseling, as required by Texas law. She was eligible for an abortion under that law. The Trump administration blocked her. The Office of Refugee Resettlement forced her to go to a crisis pregnancy center, where she was subjected to medically unnecessary procedures. She was punished by her continued requests to terminate her pregnancy by being isolated from the rest of the residents. She was also forced to notify her parents, which Texas law did not require. And the pregnancy, which was eight weeks, was four weeks further when you participated on a panel that upheld the Trump administration in blocking her efforts to terminate her pregnancy. The decision of that panel was overruled by a full court of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. It reversed that panel, and the decision and opinion in that case commented “the flat barrier that the government has interposed to her knowing and informed decision to end the pregnancy defies controlling Supreme Court precedent.” And it said further, “The government’s insistence that it must not even stand back and permit abortion to go forward for someone in some form of custody is freakishly erratic.” In addition to being erratic, it also threatened her health because she was unable to terminate her pregnancy for weeks that further increased the risk of the procedure—one study said 38 percent every week her health was threatened. She was going through emotional turmoil. And yet, in your dissent, you would have further blocked and delayed that termination of pregnancy. All of what I said is correct, hence to the facts here, correct? Brett Kavanaugh: No, Senator. I respectfully disagree in various parts. My ruling, my position in the case would not have blocked— Sen. Blumenthal: It would have delayed it. And it would have set imperiously close to the 20-week limit under Texas law, correct? Kavanaugh: No. We were still several weeks away. I said several things that are important, I think. First— Sen. Blumenthal: Well, I want to go on because I can read your dissent, but I want to go to— Kavanaugh: Well, but you read several things, respectfully—first of all, I think the opinion was by one judge that you’re reading from that was not the opinion for the majority. Secondly, I was trying to follow precedent of the Supreme Court on parental consent, which allows some delays in the abortion procedure so as to fulfill the parental-consent requirements. I was reasoning by analogy from those. People can disagree, I understand, on whether we were following precedent, how to read that precedent, but I was trying to do so as faithfully as I could and explained that. I also did not join the separate opinion, the separate dissent, that said she had no right to attain an abortion. ____(04:29) I did not say that. And I also made clear that the government could not use this immigration-sponsor provision as a ruse to try to delay her abortion past, to your point, the time when it was safe. 21:15 Brett Kavanaugh: And I said, thirdly, that if the nine days or seven days expired, that the minor at that point—unless the government had some argument that had not unfolded yet that was persuasive, and since they hadn’t unfolded it yet, I’m not sure what that would have been—that the minor would have to be allowed to obtain the abortion at that time. Hearing: 2018 Day 2 Part 5 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 1 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. 30:35 Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA): It’s my understanding that by agreement with private lawyer Bill Burke, the chairman has designated 190,000 pages of Kavanaugh’s records “committee confidential,” and by doing this, Republicans argue members can’t use these documents at the hearing or release them to the public. Unlike the Intelligence Committee—and I’ve been a member for about two decades—the judiciary committee doesn’t have any standing rules on how and when documents are designated “committee confidential.” Previously, the judiciary committee has made material confidential only through bipartisan agreement. That has not been done in this case. So this is without precedent. Republicans claim that Chairman Leahy accepted documents on a committee-confidential basis during the Kagan administration. It’s my understanding that those documents were processed through the National Archives, not private partisan lawyers, and Republicans agreed. Ninety-nine percent of Elena Kagan’s White House records were publicly available and could be used freely by any member. By contrast, the committee has only seven percent of Brett Kavanaugh’s White House records and only four percent of those are available to the public. No Senate or committee rule grants the chairman unilateral authority to designate documents “committee confidential.” So I have no idea how that stamp “committee confidential” got on these documents. 39:10 Senator John Cornyn (TX): Mr. Chairman, I’m looking at a Wall Street Journal article, back during the Elena Kagan nomination. It says, document production from Elena Kagan’s years in the Clinton White House counsel’s office was supervised by Bruce Lindsey, whose White House tenure overlapped with Ms. Kagan. Bill Clinton designated Mr. Lindsey to supervise records from his presidency in cooperation with the National Archives and Records Administration under the Presidential Records Act. So President Bush, by choosing Mr. Burke, is doing exactly what President Clinton did in choosing Bruce Lindsey for that same purpose. 1:51:22 Brett Kavanaugh: My religious beliefs have no relevance to my judging. I judge based on the Constitution and laws of the United States. I take an oath to do that, and for 12 years I’ve lived up to that oath. At the same time, of course, as you point out, I am religious, and I am a Catholic, and I grew up attending Catholic schools. And the Constitution of the United States foresaw that religious people or people who are not religious are all equally American. As I’ve said in one of my opinions, the Newdow opinion, no matter what religion you are or no religion at all, we’re all equally American, and the Constitution of the United States also says in Article Six, no religious tests shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. That was an important provision to have in the founding Constitution to ensure that there was not discrimination against people who had a religion or people who didn’t have a religion. It’s a foundation of our country. We’re all equally American. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 2 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. 22:30 Senator Mike Lee (UT): What you were asked about was whether or not you were involved in crafting the policies that would govern detention of enemy combatants. Is that right? Brett Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: And that was a classified program, classified at a very high level, presumably compartmentalized such that you would have had to have been read into that program in order to participate in that process. Is that right? Kavanaugh: I believe that’s correct. Read in. I wasn’t necessarily using the formal sense of that, but what I meant is I was not a part of that program. Sen. Lee: Okay. But that is a binary issue. You were either involved in the development of that policy or you were not. Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: And you were not. Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: And Tim Flanigan, who was, I believe, at the time the White House counsel. Kavanaugh: He was the deputy counsel. Sen. Lee: The deputy counsel. Has confirmed that you were not involved in that. Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: We have your word and the word of the then-deputy White House counsel. Then, there is a separate issue. Well, I guess one could argue a related issue, but a separate— Protesters: [unclear] Unknown Speaker: ____(01:17—I don’t know if it’s worth it, but he said something that got read into it. I don’t know whether people understand what it means.) Sen. Lee: I assume that won’t be counted against me, there. Unknown Speaker: It will be counted against you. Sen. Lee: Oh, okay. All right, well, I’ll have to speak more quickly then. When we talk about being read into, that is a colloquial term that we sometimes refer to. It’s government speak that talks about being cleared to discuss certain classified matters. In any event, you were not brought into the development of this policy. Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: Secondly, there was a separate, arguable related, but a distinct issue involving a meeting where you were asked for your opinion about how Justice Kennedy might react to certain legal arguments that people in the administration were pushing. Is that right? Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: And you answered that question. Kavanaugh: I said that indefinite detention of an American citizen without access to a lawyer, which at the time was what was happening in that particular case, would never fly with Justice Kennedy. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 3 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 4 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. 18:25 Senator Jeff Flake (AZ): Specifically, what impact does technology have on the Fourth and the First Amendments? Brett Kavanaugh: So I think the Carpenter case explains that once upon a time if a piece of information of yours ended up in the hands of a third party, and the government got a third party, that really wasn’t of any effect on your privacy. But now when all of our data is in the hands of a business, a third party, and the government obtains all your data, all your emails, all your tax, all your information, your financial transactions, your whole life is in the hands of a data company, and the government gets that, your privacy is very well affected. And that’s the importance, I think, of the Carpenter decision is that it recognizes that change in understanding of our understandings of privacy, and I think going forward, that’s going to be a critical issue. 1:27:10 Brett Kavanaugh: One of the things that we have to do as judges, as I’ve emphasized many times in this hearing, is maintain the independence of the federal judiciary, independence from politics, independence from political influence or public pressure or public influence. And part of that, part of the canons for federal judges, federal judiciary, is that we don’t attend political rallies, we’re not allowed to donate to political campaigns, support political candidates, put bumper stickers on our cars, signs in our yards. And one of the things I decided—we are allowed, technically, to vote, but one of the things I decided after I voted in the first election, and I read something about how the second Justice Harlan decided not to vote in elections because he thought that reinforced the independence that he felt as a judge. And I thought about that, and I decided to follow that lead. I’m not saying my approach is right, and other judges take a different approach on that, and I fully respect that. But for me it just felt more consistent for me, with the independence of the judiciary, not to vote, because I’ve always considered voting a sacred responsibility and one in which I think very deeply about the policies I’m supporting and the people I’m supporting, and that seemed almost as if I were taking policy views, at least to myself, into the voting booth, and I didn’t want to do that as a judge. So I decided to follow the lead of the second Justice Harlan. I’ll be the first to say I’m not the second Justice Harlan. He was a great justice on the Supreme Court and someone, of course, who I would be—if I were to be confirmed—honored to be on that Court and follow in his lead. Senator John Kennedy (LA): So you don’t vote in political elections. Kavanaugh: I do not vote in political elections. Sen. Kennedy: Interesting. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 5 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 6 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 7 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. Hearing: Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Hearing, Professor Blasey Ford Testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 27, 2018. 3:37 Dr. Christine Blasey Ford: When I got to the small gathering, people were drinking beer in a small living room/family room-type area on the first floor of the house. I drank one beer. Brett and Mark were visibly drunk. Early in the evening, I went up a very narrow set of stairs, leading from the living room to a second floor to use the restroom. When I got to the top of the stairs, I was pushed from behind, into a bedroom across from the bathroom. I couldn’t see who pushed me. Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. There was music playing in the bedroom. It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark once we were in the room. I was pushed onto the bed, and Brett got on top of me. He began running his hands over my body and grinding into me. I yelled, hoping that someone downstairs might hear me. And I tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy. Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time because he was very inebriated and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit underneath my clothing. I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. This is what terrified me the most and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me. Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They seemed to be having a very good time. Mark seemed ambivalent at times, urging Brett on, and at times telling him to stop. A couple of times I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not. During this assault, Mark came over and jumped on the bed twice while Brett was on top of me. And the last time that he did this, we toppled over, and Brett was no longer on top of me. I was able to get up and run out of the room. Directly across from the bedroom was a small bathroom. I ran inside the bathroom and locked the door. I waited until I heard Brett and Mark leave the bedroom, laughing, and loudly walked down the narrow stairway, pinballing off the walls on the way down. I waited, and when I did not hear them come back up the stairs, I left the bathroom, went down the same stairwell, through the living room, and left the house. I remember being on the street and feeling this enormous sense of relief that I escaped that house and that Brett and Mark were not coming outside after me. Hearing: Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Hearing, Professor Blasey Ford Testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 27, 2018. 1:22:10 Senator Dick Durbin (IL): Dr. Ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted you? Dr. Christine Blasey Ford: 100 percent. Hearing: Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Hearing, Judge Kavanaugh Testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 27, 2018. 10:04 Brett Kavanaugh: This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus. 18:04 Brett Kavanaugh: From 2001 to 2006 I worked for President George W. Bush in the White House. As staff secretary, I was by President Bush’s side for three years and was entrusted with the nation’s most sensitive secrets. I travelled on Air Force One all over the country and the world with President Bush. I went everywhere with him, from Texas to Pakistan, from Alaska to Australia, from Buckingham Palace to the Vatican. Three years in the West Wing, five and a half years in the White House. 2:57:20 Senator John Kennedy (LA): None of these allegations are true. Brett Kavanaugh: Correct. Sen. Kennedy: No doubt in your mind. Kavanaugh: Zero. I’m 100 percent certain. Sen. Kennedy: Not even a scintilla. Kavanaugh: Not a scintilla. One hundred percent certain, Senator. Sen. Kennedy: Do you swear to God? Kavanaugh: I swear to God. Meeting: Meeting on Brett Kavanaugh Nomination, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 28, 2018. 4:12:55 Senator Jeff Flake (AZ): I have been speaking with a number of people on the other side. We’ve had conversations ongoing for a while with regard to making sure that we do due diligence here. And I think it would be proper to delay the floor vote for up to, but not more than, one week in order to let the FBI continue—to do an investigation, limited in time and scope to the current allegations that are there, and a limit in time to no more than one week. And I will vote to advance the bill to the floor, with that understanding. Community Suggestions See Community Suggestions HERE. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

united states america god american texas president donald trump australia english new york times war ms office barack obama congress white house afghanistan fbi world war ii maryland court supreme court harris nazis vietnam alaska republicans hamilton wall street journal hearing catholic washington post roe v wade cia korea bush democratic pakistan constitution senators clinton donations bill clinton vatican carpenter terrorism george w bush burke herman attorney generals vanity fair first amendment executive orders verge brett kavanaugh appeals planned parenthood circuit santa fe aclu al qaeda protesters rnc numerous war on terror justice department west wing garza iraq war supreme court justice korean war humphrey buckingham palace hagen ninety air force one united states supreme court jane doe cosmetic marketwatch national archives clintons house committees feinstein circuit court senate republicans senate judiciary committee youngstown leahy gsa authorization blumenthal cfpb kagan fas consumer financial protection bureau hwy durbin antonin scalia fourth amendment christine blasey ford executor weisman grassley senate intelligence committee politifact mccutcheon mick mulvaney refugee resettlement sorrell maggie haberman american constitution justice kennedy elena kagan hamdi public citizen clinton white house american historical association persian gulf war establishment clause intelligence committee american historians records administration government reform religious freedom restoration act military force professional responsibility presidential records act toiletries aumf congressional dish unknown speaker hirono crestview music alley david warren emma brown pcaob david litt adam liptak bill burke article here dallas news rehnquist article two both brett article there justice brennan newdow cover art design david ippolito article inside renae merle

According2Sam #6

According2Sam Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 9, 2018 66:54

Section 1 of Article Two of the Constitution states that no Person except a “natural born Citizen” shall be eligible to be President of the United States. For years, legal scholars have debated the meaning of “natural born Citizen”. Several candidates for president have been accused of being ineligible to hold the Office based on this clause, but the issue has yet to be settled by the courts. In each case these debates have been viewed as legal or political issues, until Obama was challenged on this clause and it was viewed as a racial issue. Was Obama’s legitimacy to be president challenged based on his race, or are there legitimate questions as to whether he is a natural born Citizen of the United States? Join the conversation and get answers to this question and more on According2Sam episode #6.

united states president office barack obama citizens constitution article two united states join

Exploring the Constitution with Professor Adam Winkler, Part 2 – Article 2

Blunt Force Truth

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 11, 2018 62:29

Mark and Chuck are joined again by Professor Winkler as they continue the special series exploring the Constitution of the United States. We take a balanced, deep dive to help Americans better understand the foundations of our country. On this episode, Chuck, Mark, and Professor Winkler are exploring Article two of the Constitution and the powers it grants to the president and vice president. They discuss the election process, pardon powers, grounds for impeachment and much more. They walk through each paragraph of Article Two and explore the topics to give a better understanding of our founding fathers' goals. To read the Constitution, visit TheConstitutionCenter.org. About the guest: Professor Adam Winkler is a specialist in American constitutional law and history. He is the author of We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights (2018) and Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America (2011). His scholarship has been cited in landmark Supreme Court cases, including opinions on the Second Amendment and on corporate free speech rights. His popular writing has been featured in the New York Times, New York Review of Books, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New Republic, Atlantic, Slate, SCOTUSblog, and Daily Beast. He is a frequent commentator about legal issues and has appeared on Face the Nation, CNN, NBC Nightly News, C-SPAN, Newshour, ABC News, All Things Considered, Morning Edition and Marketplace. He also served as co-editor of the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution (2d Edition). Follow him on Twitter @adamwinkler. Visit his website: https://law.ucla.edu/news-and-events/in-the-news/2018/02/we-the-corporations-by-adam-winkler/

CD171: 2,232 Pages

Hungry Poets’ Anchor Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 14, 2018 120:56

In a special crossover episode of The David Pakman Show on YouTube, hear the infuriating story of how the 2,232 page “omnibus” government funding bill became law , discover a provision snuck into law that further erodes privacy rights, learn why only some stoners and legit medical marijuana patients are protected by the omnibus, and hear about some strange provisions that appear to give free reign to the intelligence agencies for the next six months. Please Support Congressional Dish Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Listening The David Pakman Show: Budget Disaster: When Congress Can't Do It's Job - Jen guest hosting for David OR listen on Libsyn Additional Reading Article: How will the CLOUD Act work? by Lauren C. Williams, FCW, April 5, 2018. Article: Members literally don't have enough time to read some bills before a vote is held. This change would require they do by Jesse Rifkin, GovTrack Insider, March 29, 2018. Article: Two more wildfire seasons will pass before deal to fix federal funding kicks in by Kate Irby, McClatchy DC, March 27, 2018. Article: Sen. James Risch's decades-old grudge briefly derailed the big spending bill by Mike DeBonis, The Washington Post, March 23, 2018. Article: Trump signs $1.3 trillion spending bill despite veto threat on Twitter by John Wagner and Mike DeBonis, The Washington Post, March 23, 2018. Article: As the CLOUD Act sneaks into the omnibus, big tech butts heads with privacy advocates by Taylor Hatmaker, Tech Crunch, March 22, 2018. Press Release: Goodlatte statement on inclusion of CLOUD Act in Omnibus, House Judiciary Committee, March 22, 2018. Article: READ: House releases 2,232-page spending bill by The Hill Staff, The Hill, March 21, 2018. Article: Congresional negotiators reach deal on $1.3 trillion spending bill ahead of Friday government shutdown deadline by Mike DeBonis and Erica Werner, The Washington Post, March 21, 2018. Article: Microsoft's supreme court case has big implications for data by Louise Matsakis, Wired, February 27, 2018. Article: Military injuries and deaths off the battlefield are increasing by Erika I. Ritchie, Military.com, October 15, 2017. Article: Mattis: Unclear if budget cuts play role in military crashes by Lolita C. Baldor, Military.com, September 19, 2017. Article: Five Marines in critical condition after AAV catches fire by Hope Hodge Seck, Military.com, September 13, 2017. Article: Legal battle haunts MOX project 10 years later by Michael Smith, Aiken Standard, August 2, 2017. Article: Project Maven to deploy computer algorithms to war zone by year's end by Cheryl Pellerin, Department of Defense, July 21, 2017. Article: Israeli air force deploys operational Arrow-3 missile defense by Barbara Opall-Rome, Defense News, January 18, 2017. Article: Pentagon's black budget tops $56 billion by Noah Shachtman, Wired, February 1, 2010. Issue: Into the black, The Atlantic, September 2002 Bill Outline H.R. 1625: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 DIVISION B - Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Explanatory Statement Sec. 521: Money appropriated by this Act for intelligence activities are "deemed to be specifically authorized by Congress "during fiscal year 2018 until the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018". Sec. 537: "None of the funds made available under this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, or with respect to the District of Columbia, Guam, or Puerto Rico, to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana." DIVISION C - Department of Defense Sec. 8018: Prohibits the Department of Defense from disposing of M-1 Carbine rifles, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols or to destroy ammunition that is allowed to be commercially sold. Sec. 8071: Over $705 million will be spent on missile defense for Israel, with requirements that $420 million of that be shared with U.S. war equipment manufacturers, including at least $120 million to be shared with Boeing for the Arrow 3 Upper Tier system. Sec. 8073: Money appropriated by this Act for intelligence activities are "deemed to be specifically authorized by the Congress" during fiscal year 2018 until the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. Sec. 8107: Allows local military commanders - if the Defense Secretary creates regulations allowing it - to provide payments to people for damage, injuries, and deaths caused by the Armed Forces. Sec. 8115:: Prohibits the Defense Department from initiating or expanding support to foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals without informing Congress 15 days in advance, but the Defense Secretary can waive this and tell Congress within 72 hours. Sec. 8119: Military and civilian employees of the Defense Department can't use their Government Travel Charge Card on gambling or strippers. AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND - $4.666 billion will be provided to the "security forces of Afghanistan, including the provision of equipment, supplies, services, training, facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, construction, and funding." COUNTER-ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND - $1.769 billion will be provided for "assistance, including training; equipment; logistics support, supplies, and services; stipends; infrastructure repair and renovation; and sustainment, to foreign security forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals participating, or preparing to participate in activities to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and their affiliated or associated groups" - The money can also be used to "enhance the border security of nations adjacent to conflict areas including Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Tunisia." Sec. 9007: Prohibits the US Government from creating any permanent military bases in Iraq or Afghanistan or from exercising "United States control over any oil resource of Iraq." Sec. 9011: Allows $500 million to be given to Jordan "to support the armed forces of Jordan and to enhance security along its borders." Sec. 9013: Provides $200 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative to "provide assistance , including training; equipment; lethal weapons of a defensive nature; logistics support, supplies and services; sustainment; and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine, and for replacement of any weapons or defensive articles provided to the Government of Ukraine from the inventory of the United States" Sec. 9022: Allows the money in the Afghanistan Security Forces fund to be used to provide training, equipment, and "other assistance" that is legally prohibited because the "Secretary of Defense has credible information that he unit has committed a gross violation of human rights." . This is allowed as long as the Defense Secretary notifies Congress within 30 days. Defense Explanatory Statement Provides over $131 million ($100 million more than requested ) for Project Maven Classified appropriations total $46,659,168,000, which is $2.3 billion more than requested. DIVISION D - Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Sec. 108: Prohibits permits from being required for the release of dredged or mill material from farming, ranching, construction and maintenance of dikes, dams, levees, and "transportation structures", construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches, construction of farm roads or forest roads, or for temporary roads for moving mining equipment. Sec. 302:: Money appropriated for intelligence "by this or any other Act" are "deemed to be specifically authorized by the Congress" for ["intelligence or intelligence-related activity](http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:50%20section:3094%20edition:prelim) for the rest of fiscal year 2018 (until September 30, 2018) or until the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018. Sec. 306: Prohibits the Secretary of Energy from creating any new regional petroleum reserve unless the "reserve is explicitly requested in advance in an annual budget submission and approved by the Congress in an appropriations Act." Sec. 309: Allows money to be used for the construction of the 99-D-143 Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility in South Carolina. Sec. 311: Allows the Secretary of Energy to sell oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if the President determines that a regional supply shortage exists and there will be severe increase in the price of oil. Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Explanatory Statement Funding Levels by Energy Type Geothermal Energy: $80 million Wind Energy: $92 million Water Power: $105 million Solar Energy: $241 million Total Renewable Energy = $2.3 billion (Trump administration requested only $636 million) Fossil Fuel Energy Unconventional fossil fuels: $40 million Natural Gas: $50 million Coal: $481 million Fossil Fuels: $726 million Nuclear Energy: Over $1.2 billion DIVISION F - Department of Homeland Security Department of Homeland Security Explanatory Statement Sec. 506: Money appropriated by this Act for intelligence activities are "deemed to be specifically authorized by the Congress" during fiscal year 2018 until the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. DIVISION G - Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Sec. 113: Allows the Secretary of the Interior to remove wild horses and burros from public land and transfer them to other governmental agencies to be used a work animals. Sec. 120: Prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from protecting the sage grouse using the Endangered Species Act Sec. 121: Enacts several provisions and full bills into law, including a bill that renames the White Clouds Wilderness in Idaho after Cecil D. Andrus. Sec. 416: Prohibits money from this or "any other Act" from being used to implement any regulation requiring permits for livestock producers to emit carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, water vapor, or methane. Sec. 417: Prohibits money from being used to implement any regulation requiring mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from manure management systems. Sec. 418: Prohibits money from being used to regulate the lead content of ammunition or fishing tackle. Sec. 432: Prohibits permits from being required for the release of dredged or mill material from farming, ranching, construction and maintenance of dikes, dams, levees, and "transportation structures", construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches, construction of farm roads or forest roads, or for temporary roads for moving mining equipment (this provision was also in Division D) Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Explanatory Statement DIVISION R - TARGET Act Sec. 3: Adds human trafficking to the definition of “transnational organized crime” in order to allow the State Department to pay snitches. - Current law allows the State Department to appropriate "such amounts as many be necessary" - Payments are capped at $25 million except as personally authorized by the Secretary of State. The cap is $50 million for information leading to the capture of a leader of a foreign terrorist organization. - Payments under $100,000 do not need approval from the Secretary of State. - The decisions made by the Secretary of States are final and can not be reviewed by the courts. - The original law from 1984 allowed payments capped at $500,000. Payments over $100,000 had to be approved by the President. DIVISION S - Other Matters Title V: Stop School Violence Act Sec. 502: Provides grants to States, local governments, and Indian tribes to train school personnel and students to prevent school violence, develop and operate systems for anonymous reporting of threats (including apps, hotlines, and websites), placement of metal detectors, locks and lighting, and new technologies and "any other measure" that "may provide significant improvement in security". Authorizes $75 million in funding for 2018 and $100 million per year from 2019-2028. Title VI: Fix NICS ACT Other Matters Explanatory Statement DIVISION V - Cloud Act Sec 103: Requires that providers of electronic communication services "preserve, backup, or disclose the contents of a wire or electronic communication" regardless of if that information is stored inside or outside of the United States. - Service providers can challenge the orders in court if they think the target is not a United States person and does not live in the United States and that the disclosure would break the law of a foreign government. Sec. 104: It will be legal for electronic communication providers "to intercept or disclose the contents of a wire or electronic communication in response to an order from a foreign government". - Electronic communications providers can not be sued in court for complying with these information requests. Sec. 105: In order for information sharing to occur between the US Government and a foreign government, the countries must enter into an "Executive Agreement" - The Executive Agreement will be valid if the Attorney General submits a written certification to Congress that the country has, among other qualifications, "robust substantial and procedural protections for privacy and civil liberties" and is a party to the Convention on Cybercrime. - Determinations made by the Attorney General are not subject to judicial review. - The Executive Arrangement can not take effect until after 180 days after Congress is notified. - Congress can enact a joint resolution of disapproval to stop it. - An order issued by a foreign government has to identify a specific person, account, address, or personal device and the order must be for a fixed, limited duration. Orders by foreign governments are subject to review by our courts. Resources Bill Overview: H.R. 1625 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 Bill History: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Congress.gov Bill Summary: Omnibus 2018 Summary by GOP Staffers Bill Summary: H.R. 1625, Targeted Rewards for the Global Eradication of Human Trafficking Act, Congressional Budget Office, May 10, 2017 Amendment: Senate amendment to H.R. 1625 Video: Sen. Bob Corker is Sleepy, H.R. 1625 Senate Committee Hearing, March 22, 2018. Hearing: Rules Committee Hearing Senate amendment to H.R. 1625, March 21, 2018. OR watch on Youtube Video: Intelligence Blank Check, US Select Committee on Intelligence, Jan 22, 2018 Sales Info: Sales & Services, Civilian Marksmanship Program, 2017. Budget Info: Budget Justification for Military Construction, FY 2018. Budget Info: Link Plumeria funding from 2015 Public Law: 115-31 115th Congress, May 5, 2017 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

united states new york california texas money president donald trump israel science washington service energy state colorado michigan arizona ukraine government ohio north carolina new jersey minnesota oregon pennsylvania tennessee alabama current hawaii illinois wisconsin utah north congress afghanistan indian environment indiana kentucky defense maryland oklahoma iowa massachusetts missouri military states alaska south carolina atlantic louisiana washington post act connecticut iraq mississippi maine arkansas nevada montana columbia puerto rico new mexico intelligence idaho paypal sec secretary syria west virginia new hampshire vermont wyoming payments lebanon convention delaware interior rhode island boeing wired electronic pages north dakota arrow requires orders attorney generals state department adds coal us government sleepy tunisia armed forces techcrunch ritchie guam cybercrime fossil fuels islamic state natural gas omnibus solar energy michael smith house judiciary committee defense department fy fiscal year hwy defense secretary mox congressional budget office wind energy andrus public law aav strategic petroleum reserve john wagner authorizes fcw prohibits bob corker enacts carbine consolidated appropriations act congressional dish defense news crestview cloud act music alley garand determinations homeland security department water power baldor louise matsakis article two mike debonis military construction civilian marksmanship program cover art design erica werner mcclatchy dc david ippolito hope hodge seck article trump

Article Two From Unity

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 5, 2018 2:25

This poem was rejected by voicemail poems.

unity article two

Donspirasies P1-Birtherism

Public Access America

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 10, 2018 15:27

if you love him or hate him, well you're wasting a lot of time sitting watching t.v. Take our #TenPersonChallenge, Make a difference in ten lives and watch it spread. Please. Exercising your rights is a lot easier than actual exercise. We are literaraly spoon feeding you information from throughout history to help you when the time comes to have some educated opinions. We offer none of our own. Perspective aside. The truth is not subjective. During Barack Obama's campaign for president in 2008, throughout his presidency, and afterwards, a number of conspiracy theories were circulated, falsely asserting that Obama was ineligible to be President of the United States on the basis that he was not a natural-born citizen of the United States within the requirement of Article Two of the U.S. Constitution. Theories alleged that Obama's published birth certificate was a forgery—that his actual birthplace was not Hawaii but Kenya. Other theories alleged that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia in childhood, thereby losing his U.S. citizenship. Still others claimed that Obama was not a natural-born U.S. citizen because he was born a dual citizen (British and American). A number of political commentators have characterized these various claims as a racist reaction to Obama's status as the first African American President of the United States. These claims were promoted by fringe theorists pejoratively referred to as "birthers", some of whom sought court rulings either to declare Obama ineligible to take office, or granting access to various documents which they claimed would evidence such ineligibility; none of these efforts were successful. Some political opponents, especially in the Republican Party, have expressed skepticism about Obama's citizenship or been unwilling to acknowledge it;[5] some have proposed legislation which would require presidential candidates to provide proof of eligibility. Expressed belief in such theories has persisted despite Obama's pre-election release of his official Hawaiian birth certificate in 2008,[1] confirmation by the Hawaii Department of Health based on the original documents,[6] the April 2011 release of a certified copy of Obama's original Certificate of Live Birth (or long-form birth certificate), and contemporaneous birth announcements published in Hawaii newspapers. Polls conducted in 2010 (before the April 2011 release) suggested that at least 25% of adult Americans said that they doubted Obama's U.S. birth, and subsequently a May 2011 Gallup poll found that the percentage had fallen to 13% of American adults (23% of Republicans) who continued to express such doubts. This plummeting percentage of doubters has been attributed to President Obama's release of the long form in April 2011. Information from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories Body sourced from https://youtu.be/Ynw8MUmt_v0 Public Access America PublicAccessPod Productions Footage downloaded and edited by Jason at PublicAccessPod producer of Public Access America Podcast Links Review us Stitcher: goo.gl/XpKHWB Review us iTunes: goo.gl/soc7KG Subscribe GooglePlay: goo.gl/gPEDbf YouTube goo.gl/xrKbJb YouTube

CD160: Equifax Breach