Ford teams with IBM to trace cobalt on the blockchain – The Union Journal

Posted on by

IBM has actually developed a brand-new blockchain system together with Ford, Huayou Cobalt, LG Chem, and also RCS Global in an effort to develop a clear approach of monitoring cobalt manufacturing from the mine to the end customer.

IBM exposed the pilot blockchain business as a prospective supply chain remedy for mapping and also validating useful resources the whole time its manufacturing trip.

Marketlines Global Metals & &(********************************************************************************************************* )(*************************************************************************************************************** )(******************************************************************************************************* & )&(*********************************************************************************************** )(************************************************************************************************************************************* )Analysis had actually valuedthe worldwide mining and also steels market at US$ 1.8 trillion in 2018, yet the sector has actually commonly struggled under inadequacies in the pipe many thanks to a reliance on paper-based, hands-on procedures and also an absence of openness in between the differed supply chain individuals located in various components of the globe.

The pilot job is developed on top of the IBM Blockchain Platform, and also each firm included stands for vital companions from every phase of the supply chain, consisting of a cobalt mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Cobalt remains in high need in the production of digital customer items, significantly as a vital active ingredient in creating lithium ion batteries, with need for the mineral predicted to rise eight-fold in between currently and also 2026.

However, the high need has actually seen cobalt connected with honest concerns going back to at the very least 2012, when UNICEF approximated that 40,000 youngsters were operating in Congolese mines, acknowledged websites for the manufacturing of cobalt.

IBM is more working with the Linux Foundations Hyperledger Fabric to established the decentralized journal structure that will inevitably lead to a blockchain platform that could ultimately be used to trace and validate a range of minerals used in consumer products, according to IBM representative Hannah Slocum.

Initially, the miner in this case, Huayou will add data into the blockchain at the point cobalt is bagged and tagged, Slocum informed Supply Chain Dive For key events like smelting, refining, etc., the inputs and corresponding outputs are added to the blockchain.

Shipping information are additionally being annotated in the journal, along with various other information from companions along the supply chain path. The record is automatically updated each time a transaction is recorded and made visible to the permissioned participants in real time, Slocum stated.

Blockchains decentralized modern technology has actually been hailed as a protected video game changer, yet not everybody is persuaded of the modern technologys preparedness to be applied in supply chains, with research study from Gartner anticipating blockchain fatigue throughout sectors by 2023.

This cobalt campaign is among numerous blockchain tasks IBM is running with numerous companions, and also the modern technology titans representative Slocum increased down on guarantees that the systems chain is protected.

In a permissioned blockchain network, which is what we have announced, participants are known to one another, so were there a bad actor trying to alter the ledger, the actions could easily be seen by other participants, Slocum stated.

Furthermore, if fraudulent, or even accidental, activities occur off-chain, the system will show an incomplete chain, giving the network insight as to where an issue may be happening so it can be addressed. This way, users can ensure that the data on the blockchain maintains its integrity.

Post Views: 237

Link:

Ford teams with IBM to trace cobalt on the blockchain - The Union Journal

Block.one Invests $150 Million in Voice, a Blockchain-based Social News Platform – Crowdfund Insider

Posted on by

Block.one, a Cayman Islands-registered firm that developed EOS, a leading platform for creating decentralized applications (dApps), has been working on a new blockchain-enabled social media platform, called Voice, for more than a year.

Block.one reports that it has invested $150 million in Voice, which was introduced in June 2019 during a presentation made by Brendan Blumer (the CEO at Block.one).

The investment will help Voices management to conduct operations in an independent manner so that it no longer relies completely on Block.one.

As mentioned in a company release, Voice is a social news platform that will reward users and content creators in cryptocurrency tokens for their contributions.

As explained in the announcement:

The [Voice] platform, which aims to address many of the flaws in todays media world, including data ownership, fake news and bot manipulation, was conceived of and incubated by Blumer and CTO Dan Larimer.

Blumer noted that Voice aims to create living journalism instead of static news platforms.

He claims that Voice will fundamentally change how media platforms are working.

Blumer says that this is the right time for Block.one to hand over management duties to Voice CEO Salah Zalatimo and allow the social news platform to grow under his leadership to create a truly unique experience for content creators everywhere.

Voice will be managed as a separate business entity. It will use the $150 million in funding to grow its operations and add more team members.

Salah remarked:

Todays media and social media landscapes are rapidly converging and the resulting digital forums for engagement are broken.

He continued:

Weve witnessed a profound loss of trust on social media sites given their opaque use of personal data and capricious content regulation rules: If you need to hire armies of people to remove disturbing content, then theres something fundamentally wrong with the platform.

Salah explained that Voice aims to bridge divisions and rebuild trust in media platforms by promoting authenticity, transparency and humanity within its community.

Voices beta version was introduced in the US on February 14, 2020. The platform is being rolled out in different phases in order to obtain real-time feedback from users, perform testing and make the necessary updates or changes.

The Voice platform has been built on Block.ones EOSIO protocol. Its notably one of the first large-scale projects that aims to promote the mass adoption of blockchain or distributed ledger technology (DLT).

Follow this link:

Block.one Invests $150 Million in Voice, a Blockchain-based Social News Platform - Crowdfund Insider

Coronavirus and the Neo-Eugenics Era – The Good Men Project

Posted on by

Texas lieutenant governor Dan Patrick, who is 63-years-old, told Fox host Tucker Carlson on air Monday, March 23 that: No one reached out to me and said, As a senior citizen, are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren? And if thats the exchange, Im all in.

The next day, Fox News host and reporter, Brit Hume, defended Patricks remarks saying it is entirely reasonable that older U.S. residents should be fine with dying over complications of coronavirus infection if it assures a better U.S. economy.

The utter collapse of the countrys economy which many think will happen if this goes on much longer is an intolerable result of mandatory social isolation, continued the 76-year-old Hume.

Not only does the premature mass reopening of the business sector pose a potential death sentence to many of our seniors, but it also presents major health risks for younger people, especially those with other medical conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes, heart and other organ problems.

Reports indicate that even young people without other medical complaints are turning up in a hospital intensive care units hooked up to ventilators as a result of contracting the coronavirus.

Adultism refers to oppression against young people by adults, and ageism against elders by youth and by adults.

Adultism, as defined by John Bell (2003) includes behaviors and attitudes based on the assumption that adults are better than young people and entitled to act upon young people without their agreement. This mistreatment is reinforced by social institutions, laws, customs, and attitudes.

Within an adultist society, adults construct the rules, with little or no input from youth, which they force young people to follow.

While elders in most countries were once considered as wise and treasured members of their communities, in many contemporary societies, older people are often marginalized, stripped of their rights and responsibilities, their dignity, their voice, and the power over their lives.

Todd Nelson (2005) summarizes the change in attitudes regarding elders resulting from two dramatic historical developments.

First, the advent of the printing press was responsible for a major change in the status of elders (quoted in Branco & Williamson, 1982). The culture, tradition, and history of a society or tribe now could be repeated innumerable times, in exact detail through books, and the status and power elders once had as the village historians was greatly reduced and, in many cases, eliminated.

The second major development in society that led to a shift in attitudes toward the elderly was the industrial revolution (Stearns & Tassel, 1986). The industrial revolution demanded great mobility in familiesto go where the jobs were. In light of this new pressure to be mobile, the extended family structure (with grandparents in the household) was less adaptive. Older people were not as mobile as younger people.

An early writer on the topic of oppression toward older people is Robert Butler (1975) who defines ageism as:

A process of systematic stereotyping of and discrimination against people because they are old. Old people are categorized as senile, rigid in thought and manner, old fashioned in morality and skills. Ageism allows the younger generations to see older people as different than themselves; thus they subtly cease to identify with the elders as human beings.

Margaret Morganroth Gullette (2017) describes ageism as the infliction of suffering by the mere fact of birthdate.

In terms of age, some of the most creative and successful thinkers have been at all stages of life, from very young to extraordinarily old.

I recently commented on a Facebook posting, and in response, someone called me a damned Boomer. Well, I say, damned right Im a Boomer, and a proud one at that.

We damned Boomers served proudly in our military alongside other generations.

We worked tirelessly in the service of civil and human rights, in ensuring the rights of women to control their own bodies, in protecting and defending lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, in protecting the separation of government and religion, in protecting our environment, and in attempting to bring down the rate of gun violence.

We designed and built your buildings. We cleaned your offices and homes. We cared for you in doctors offices and hospital rooms, and we defended you in the courtroom.

We collected your garbage and prepared your taxes, laid your roadways, paved your sidewalks, and constructed your bridges.

We wrote your books, taught you how to read and write, add and subtract. We helped you learn the names of the states and their capitals, inspired your enthusiasm and your critical thinking and trained you in the fields you were to enter.

We manufactured your automobiles, invented your social media, planted and picked your vegetables, and shipped your products to market. We reported the news and gave you solace in good times and bad.

We cleaned your asses and collected your soiled diapers, and we gave you a shoulder to cry on as we wiped away your tears.

And many of us continue to carry out these essential tasks today.

For some members of the following generations, we have always had and maintained your respect. Others, unfortunately, consider us as mere dinosaurs and inconveniences as we maintain positions they covet for their career advancement.

How convenient it is to justify opening the economy by placing our seniors at higher risk for death. How insidious it is to place economic considerations far above the physical welfare of actual living human beings.

But this is quickly becoming the norm in these terrifying Trumpian times in which the President of the United States rose to power by dehumanizing undocumented immigrants who attempted to escape rape, kidnapping, poverty, and death in their home countries.

The times in which the President of the United States rose to power by attacking the integrity, humanity, and honesty of women who called him on his rampant misogyny.

The times in which the President of the United States rose to power demonizing all members of U.S. Muslim communities and others throughout the world, and by defining all Jews as ethnically connected to their/our supposed Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

The times in which the President of the United States rose to power by mocking a reporter with a disability, and the residents of supposed shithole countries, all of which are majority populations of color.

The times in which the President of the United States rose to power by labeling the mainstream media as the lamestream media, and attacking them as the enemy of the people.

In his call to reopen the economy and to fill the churches this Easter Sunday, Trump has added all seniors to his tyrannical mix of disposables. It seems the only people he considers worthy of life include primarily relatively young (up to early middle age) white Christian heterosexual cisgender U.S. native-born able-bodied and preferably politically conservative male Republicans.

All others be damned with you.

Are we to return to the era when Eugenics was considered a bone fide scientific field of inquiry and practice?

The British psychologist, Francis Galton (1822-1911), a first cousin of Charles Darwin, was a founder of the Eugenics Movement. In fact, Galton coined the term eugenics in 1883 from the Greek word meaning well-born.

Eugenicists attempted to improve the qualities of a so-called race by controlling human breeding. It was based on the theory that genetic predisposition determined human behavior. Galton also profited greatly from the slave trade. He stated:

I do not join in the belief that the African is our equal in brain or in heart; I do not think that the average negro cares for his liberty as much as an Englishman, or as a self-born Russian; and I believe that if we can in any fairway, possess ourselves of his services, we have an equal right to utilize them to our advantages (Galton, 1857).

Galton, in his books: Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into Its Laws and Consequences (1869), and Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development (1883), centered on the notion that the purpose of eugenics was to promote judicious mating in order to give the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable.

He assessed the relative intellectual capabilities of the so-called races, including Africans, Australians, Chinese, Jews, and others. He stated that degenerates exhibited deterioration to a level below the acceptable standards that were implicit in the Great Chain of Being hierarchy of worth.

Several forced sterilization laws stemmed from the Eugenics movement. Charles Benedict Davenport (1866-1944), Instructor of Zoology at Harvard University, in 1910, Director of the Cold Springs Laboratory, Long Island, New York, founded the Eugenics Record Office.

In his books, Heredity in Relation to Eugenics (1913) and Race Crossing in Jamaica (1929), strongly argued against miscegenation: sexual relations between whites and blacks, which he argued resulted in cultural and biological degradation. He favored mandatory sterilization of the unfit. In 1918, he was elected chair of the Galton Society for the Study of the Origin and Evolution of Man.

Have we now added our elders to the list of degenerates that bring down the race, and attendant economy?

Well, this Boomer will shout again as loudly and forcefully and I did in my youth when protesting the U.S. unwarranted and illegal incursion into Vietnam, this time in opposition to reopening the workplace before we have scientific indications that the time is right to do so.

References

Bell, J. (2003). Understanding adultism: A key to developing positive youth-adult relationships. Olympia, WA: The Freechild Project.

Branco, K. J., & Williamson, J. B. (1982). Stereotyping and the life cycle: Views of aging and the aged. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), In the eye of the beholder: Contemporary issues in stereotyping (pp. 364410). New York: Praeger.

Butler, R. N. (1975). Why survive? Being old in America. New York: Harper and Row.

Davenport, C. B. (1929). Race crossing in Jamaica. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution.

Davenport, C. B. (1913). Heredity in relation to Eugenics. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution.

Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development. London: Macmillan.

Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. London: Macmillan.

Galton, F. (1971). in Hunt, J. M. (ed.). Human intelligence. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Galton, F. (1857). Negroes and the slave trade. Letter to The Times [of London] Eugenics, December 26.

Gullette, M. M. (2017). Ending ageism or how not to shoot old people. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Stearns, P. N. & Tassel, D. V. (1986). Introduction: Themes and prospects in old age history. In Old age in a bureaucratic society, in D. V. tassel and P. N. Stearns, ix-xx. New York: Greenwood Press.

OUR CALLS ARE OPEN TO ALL PREMIUM MEMBERS AND WRITERS/CONTRIBUTORS/COLUMNISTS. Become a member for just $12 (limited time offer).Or join as a writer/contributor, here.

***

1. Free and UNLIMITED ACCESSto participate in ANY of our new Social Interest Groups.We have activecommunities of like-minded individuals workingto change the world on important issues. Weekly facilitated calls that lead to theexecution of real-world strategies for change. Complete schedule above, with new ones starting all the time. We now offer 500 calls a year!

2. Free and UNLIMITED ACCESSto ALL LIVE CLASSES. Learn how tobuild your own platform, be a better writer, become an editor, create social change.Check out our training sessions. As a Platinum member, you can take them all.

3. Invitation to the MEMBERS ONLY Good Men Project Community on Facebook. Connect with other members, network and carry the conversation no one else is having one step further.

4. Access to our PREMIUM MEMBER LIBRARY with our recorded ConvoCasts and classes.ConvoCasts are a new form of mediaand you are in them! Only Platinum Members get access to our recordings. And recordings of our classes are really valuable for those who do not have time to take the live classes or just want to review.

5. An ad-free experience.No banner, pop-up, or video ads when you log in.

6. Weekly conference calls with the publisher and other community members.Our weekly calls discuss the issues we see happening in the world of men in a friendly group setting.

7. PLATINUM member commenting badge.Your comments on our website will appear with a platinummember badge, signifying you are a part of our core community.

Price for ANNUAL PLATINUM membership is NOW JUST $12 PER YEAR (regularly $50/year).

***

Get the best stories from The Good Men Project delivered straight to your inbox, here.

Sign up for our Writing Prompts email to receive writing inspiration in your inbox twice per week.

***

We have pioneered the largest worldwide conversation about what it means to be a good man in the 21st century. Your support of our work is inspiring and invaluable.

stock photoID: 1538080052

Continue reading here:

Coronavirus and the Neo-Eugenics Era - The Good Men Project

Friending the World Sociality and the Transhuman Vision – Patheos

Posted on by

by Clark Elliston, Assistant Professer of Religion and Philosophy, Schreiner University

Friends are all-too-frequently taken for granted, both in everyday human experience and in theology. It seems that for many people friends simply emerge; a shared laugh or thought becomes many and through some unseen alchemy a friend is created. Theologically the situation is a little more delicate. The concept of friendship poses a problem for theology insofar as friendship, in both antiquity and early theology, remains largely a preferential love. We choose our friends based on any number qualities, but we nevertheless choose them. This is a good gift, but as Soren Kierkegaard makes all too plain, this can be problematic for followers of a Savior who commands a neighbor-love of all persons. A preferential love which by necessity excludes others (as no one can love the whole world equally) thus violates the universality of Christs command to love all. Yet even here there are perplexing tensions. After all, the New Testament repeatedly mentions the beloved disciple and Jesus suggests an appropriate category of friendship when he notes that the greatest love is laying ones life down for friends. Nonetheless such difficulties, as well as the embedded character of human friendship, have made it strikingly absent from much theological discourse.

Yet like so many areas of human life in a technological world, sociality too has been affected. Study after study indicates that the social life of Westerners is suffering. We are more lonely, depressed, and anxious than ever before. We also know that self-reported social encounters are perhaps the greatest source of meaning and happiness available to us. Yet this is not to say that we simply need more social encounters after all, we are in the midst of one of the greatest social revolutions in history courtesy of the Internet. Though we may seclude ourselves physically from the surrounding world, most people will have hundreds of online interactions a day. As we work harder, as traditional ties lessen, and as the allure of instant communication grows, we should not be surprised as social media opportunities increase. Yet this transition into an online context poses myriad problems. Not least is the devolution of friendship as a fundamental form of human relationship. Instead, social media technologies promise ever-greater connectivity to others while paradoxically eroding constituent elements of friendship classically considered.

Two immediate issues arise when considering the digitalization of friendship through social media. First, social media friendship lacks consideration of character and the time it takes to cultivate character. Second, social media friendship remains crucially limited in terms of its presence with the other as friend. These issues, to be sure, do not undermine the project of social media entirely meaningful encounters with others can happen on several platforms. However, social media disciplines and forms our online relationships in crucial ways. When this disciplined thinking and formation creeps into other realms of life it becomes toxic.

When Aristotle wrote one of the most influential treatises on friendship, books seven and eight of the Nicomachean Ethics, he delineated between three types of friendship. Two are immediately familiar to us: friendships based on pleasure and on utility. In these we are friends with those whom we enjoy or who provide clear benefit to our personal projects. These are inferior modes of friendship, however, relative to friendships based on virtue. The friendship of virtue, in contrast, centers upon the character of the friend. We befriend those whose character we admire and who admire us for our character. While this emphasis on virtue possesses problems of its own, it nevertheless offers insight into a crucial facet of authentic friendship, namely that friendship should involve something other than deferred self-love. Friendships of virtue rightly privilege an other for their performance of virtue, rather than our own gratified desires or pursuits.

Second, social media cannot mediate the distance between persons. If time poses an immediate issue for the cultivation of relationship, then we should not be surprised that place does as well. More specifically, friendship is centrally related to presence with and for the other. This is poignantly and pastorally put best by Nicholas Wolterstorff when he writes about the death of his son:

If you think your task as comforter is to tell me that really, all things considered, its not so bad, you do not sit with me in my grief, but place yourself off in the distance away from me. Over there, you are of no help. What I need to hear from you is that you recognize how painful it is. I need to hear from you that you are with me in my desperation. To comfort me, you have to come close. Come sit beside me on my mourning bench (Wolterstorff, Lament for a Son, 34).

The images of proximity in this passage resonate. It is not the demonstration of either wit or wisdom which mitigates the distance between self and other, but the sheer presence of oneself alongside another in suffering. Whereas social media, as a quintessentially intellectual exercise, exists primarily in the mind, genuine friendship becomes incarnate in the concrete situations in which we find ourselves. The sympathy that undoubtedly exists in social media communities is thus closer to pity than compassion. Pity remains, while deeply sympathetic, apart from the one being pitied. I can pity someones circumstance from a distance. In contrast, and as indicated above, the practice of compassion requires that I be both present and willing to get my hands dirty. This is profoundly difficult and undermines the easy deployment of what we commonly call compassion.

Social media can be engaged wisely, and it indeed allows for convenient communication. Yet, its value lies primarily in its capacity to support already-existing friendships it is not generative of friendship. Friendship requires the patient cultivation of virtue alongside the courageous willingness to walk alongside another in their suffering. Such friendships school us for loving both God and world. Thus, Nobody would choose to live without friends even if he had all the other good things. (Nicomachean Ethics, VIII.i).

Continue reading here:

Friending the World Sociality and the Transhuman Vision - Patheos

Technology and Human Creativity in Theological Perspective – Patheos

Posted on by

by Victoria Lorrimar

In engaging with transhumanist visions of the future, and the more general notion of human technological enhancement, from a theological perspective, a helpful starting point is the place of technology within a doctrine of creation.

Within a Christian understanding, an examination of the biblical language for creation (i.e. a word study of the Hebrew brand ytsar the first of which is reserved only for the action of God while the second is an activity that both God and humans carry out) suggests that it is appropriate to speak of humans as being genuinely creative from a theological perspective. Drawing on a metaphor of God as divine artist, we might situate human making within a theology of creation, rather than relegating it to the more distant doctrines of preservation, providence or redemption. Trevor Hart sums up this approach, arguing that viewing creation as a project divinely begun and established, yet one that is handed over to us with more to be made of it yet and inviting our responsible participation in the making, affords a fruitful perspective on the matter (Making Good, 2014: 8).

For a long time, the semantic scope of creation rejected the possibility of such parallels and served to underscore the radical otherness of God. We can chart the historical shift which saw the notion of creation extended from its previous preserve of God alone to human artistry. Creation proper may still apply solely to the work of God in certain instances, but the idea of creation more generally has expanded in scope.

In fact, we can track the understanding of human creativity as it diverges from its humble scriptural origins. The language of creativity is first ascribed to humans during the Renaissance, as the idea of art being a faithful imitation of divine creativity gave way to the idea of the artist or poet as a creator in their own right. This extends through the Romantic era and the Enlightenment period, with the result that the modern understanding of the arts is, on the one hand, more limited than its classical and mediaeval counterparts, in that earlier understandings of art encompassed human productivity more generally, but also more audacious in the claims it makes on behalf of human capacities and originality.

From the time of Francis Bacon, the father of modern science, we see this understanding of human capacities bound up in the promise of empirical science, the immense confidence in the expansion of human knowledge, the drive to master nature and the flourishing of utopian thought. This emphasis on dominion came to be enmeshed within theological understandings of creation, as creation found its way into the vocabulary used for human activities.

This does not mean, however, that it is inappropriate to speak of humans as genuinely creative. Hart, after an extensive historical analysis of the language of creation, reaches the conclusion that: at various key points in the story of Gods creative fashioning of a world fit for his own indwelling with us, divine artistry actively solicits a corresponding creaturely creativity, apart from which the project cannot and will not come to fruition (Making Good, 2014: 37).

We find similar ideas in the work of Jacques Maritain and Dorothy Sayers, who reinforce the theological significance of human making and its proper place within a doctrine of creation. Maritain describes the creativity of the artist as a development of divine creation, a work proceeding from the whole soul which bears the image of God. Though he distinguishes the creation of God (who is able to truly generate another substance through divine utterance) and human works of creating (which can only ever be signs), Maritain nevertheless grounds the dignity of art in his assertion that it realizes in act one of the fundamental aspects of the ontological likeness of our soul with God. Sayers, too, locates human creativity in our being made in the image of a triune Creator, introduced in her play The Zeal of Thy House(1937) and unpacked further in The Mind of the Maker (1941).

The challenges posed by transhumanist visions of the human future require us to develop a sufficiently robust account of theological anthropology in return. Of course, theological anthropology is a very broad category, and Ive focused on the understanding of human creativity within that. If we reflect on enhancement technologies, this prompts the question as to whether these kinds of technology are a legitimate exercise of our creativity, set within the framework of a broader doctrine of creation.

Most of the detailed theological treatments of human creativity we might turn to focus almost exclusively on the arts. If they do treat technology, they tend to have developed within the science and religion field and often are accompanied by an over-privileging of rationality and an epistemological confidence in human capability that neglects an account of fallenness and the need for discernment (here Im thinking mainly of Philip Hefners created co-creator proposal outlined most comprehensively in his 1993 work The Human Factor). In these latter discourses, even if they are moving beyond a foundationalist epistemology, the role of the imagination for understanding and discernment is often neglected.

Yet, transhumanism as a philosophy is veryimaginative. There are all kinds of synergies with science fiction that other scholars have drawn out, but (whatever we say about some of the ideologies involved) we have to admit that transhumanist visions of transcendence are captivating for many (even if not always taken seriously). If we are to engage these movements from a theological perspective then we need to meet them with equally compelling theological accounts of the future, and the good news is that Christian theology has a deep well of resources to draw on in this area.

James McClendon argued for the need to enter the tournament of narratives competing for attention within a postmodern milieu. Presented in ways that recruit the imagination (as James K. A. Smith describes the imperative for good stories in the moral arena), the visions of transcendence and glorification proclaimed so confidently in transhumanist literature are ripe for reclamation by Christian theologians, philosophers, writers and artists. We might respond with a fuller vision of the human future, a greater hope to set alongside the imaginings of transhumanists and techno-utopians. Of course, this is already a move to eschatology, but then we dont want to separate out creation and redemption as entirely independent doctrinal loci.

Whereas technology itself tends to occupy many of the classic roles of a deity in the present technological paradigm, theologians are able to expose the pretensions to self-love inherent in certain technological mindsets (as theologian Brian Brock puts it). A Christian account of hope declares that in conceiving, assessing and implementing technologies, we bear neither the burden of correctly envisioning or accomplishing redemption for ourselves nor the risk and dread of complete failure. Technology occupies its proper place within the work of a gracious God who allows creation to participate in bringing the creation toward glorious fulfilment.

By reflecting on our technological activity in the context of theological accounts of co-creation (recognising and challenging the ways in which understanding has diverged from a biblical account of creativity), and by setting imaginative portrayals of Christian hope alongside transhumanist projections, we might think of theology as entering the tournament of narratives competing for victory over the human (and non-human, an aspect often neglected by transhumanists!) future.

More here:

Technology and Human Creativity in Theological Perspective - Patheos

What is an artificial womb and can it work for humans? – Screen Shot

Posted on by

In 2017, when a premature lamb was successfully grown to term inside an artificial womb, a bio bag, spectators argued that human fetuses would be next. In October 2019, Dutch researchers were awarded 2.9 million to develop a prototype. In a time of a pandemic where everyone is affected and people fear for their life, could artificial wombs represent a glimpse of hope for a better future?

Unlike existing incubators that provide artificial respiration, this technology simulates the biological environment and feeds the fetus oxygen and nutrients through tubes, in the same way the placenta and umbilical cord do. This would allow premature babies, whose lungs are often not developed enough to breathe air and have high mortality rates to grow to term outside the uterus, which is the largest supporting argument for the technology.

Artificial wombs will help babies born prematurely survive. Thats the main help, Zolton Istvan, a transhumanist figurehead running in the 2020 US presidential election as a Republican, told Screen Shot. This is an intrinsic part of the transhumanist movement since it will use radical science to change an existing institution of humanity, he added.

Artificial wombs could eliminate risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth although, currently, the mother is still an integral part of the birthing processan embryo cannot be fertilised and planted in an artificial womb, first it must be partially grown inside a uterus. If this was possible, it would be what is called ectogenesis.

It will also give women a third choice when it comes to abortion. Instead of aborting, they can have the fetus transplanted into an artificial womb, Istvan added. Theres a lot of fighting between pro-life and pro-choice, having a third choice regarding abortion will ease societys divisiveness. Terminating a pregnancy without having to end the life of the child presents vast social and ethical questions, such as an increased pressure on the state to provide the necessary equipment and resources. In 2018, there were 205,295 abortions in England and Wales.

Speaking to Screen Shot, Elizabeth Chloe Romanis, a lawyer and bioethicist at the University of Manchester, explains that Access to choices in pregnancy are subject to lots of social, legal and medical control and we need to make sure that the artificial womb is not used to deny women access to reproductive healthcare like abortion.

Although technology is not yet advanced enough for ectogenesis, many see bio bags, which could hinder female autonomy, as a stepping stone. Removing the natural dependency on women to have children could be integral in achieving true gender equality and balanced parenting. As a result of this, what it means to be a mother could be redefined.

At its very basic level, the technology would mean women no longer have to leave their jobs or go through labour, both things which Ivstan sees as positives. If neither parent was tied to a child physically, maternity and paternity leave would potentially equalise.

Giulia Cavaliere, a lecturer specialising in bioethics and reproductive technology at Lancaster Medical School, agrees with the fact that artificial wombs will allow women to become mothers in the same ways as men became fathers, by enjoying all the positive stuff while not experiencing any of the negative physical, psychological, professional and personal effects.

She added: There are also other benefits; women who could not or would not want to gestate and birth children could still be able to have genetically related children. A society where women are less subjected to health-related risks is a better society. This would be particularly impactful for women without a uterus, male same-sex couples and single males.

Itsvan explained that it is likely that womens pay will increase as a result of the technology, because womens careers wont be interrupted. At the moement, growing embryos into babies outside of a womb is restricted legally and technologically, with no evidence an embryo can be taken to term from scratch with current bio bags, and it being illegal to do so.

Instead, legal definitions and potential backlash to existing functionalities must be managed. Romanis explained that what is most interesting is how this will change some of our ideas about birth. A subject in an artificial womb is not completely born, even though they have been delivered from their mother, because they are still undergoing gestation and are not interacting with the external environment. The social response is hard to predict. Should we treat it like a foetus, or like a born baby?

Regulation will play a part in this, determining whether artificial wombs are restricted for medical use. While depicted as freedom and equality-promoting for all women, as Romanis said, if used generally bio pregnancies could exaggerate class divide with fewer middle-class couples opting for natural pregnancy or, on the contrary, it could see vulnerable mothers who smoke, take drugs or are from a minority group being coerced into using the technology.

If artificial wombs become an option in the near future, it remains uncertain whether women will opt for it without good reasons as Romanis highlighted how invasive the procedure would be. Although it is facing important financial, technological and legal hurdles, the continued development of this niche health tech no doubt holds the key to both true gender equality and widespread social controversy. As controversial as they are, artificial wombs are also something exciting to look out for in the near futurea positive thing to think about while stuck at home.

Read more:

What is an artificial womb and can it work for humans? - Screen Shot

How the Fast & Furious Movies Should End (and Live on Forever) – Observer

Posted on by

Observation Pointsis a new, semi-regular discussion of key details in our culture.

TheFast & Furiousmovies are ridiculousness incarnatethe artistic expression of that weird noise your dishwasher makes when a fork gets caught between the grates. Yet strangely, they just work. The physics-defying stunts, the over-the-top lunacy, the complete disregard for coherence and the tried-and-true emphasis on family. It all just somehow clicks together. Thats why its such a monumental letdown that the coronavirus forced F9to abandon its planned May release until April 2021.

The delay gives us roughly 12 months to ponder the future of the franchise and a total of 20 months between series releases when accounting for Augusts Hobbs & Shaw. I dont know about you, but thats too damn long without any fresh Fast & Furiousin my life. So in lieu of the blockbusters we were promised, here is my completely logical plan for the future of the franchise that I definitely have not been thinking about non-stop for the last two years.

SEE ALSO: Mission: Impossible Director Brian De Palma Had Zero Interest in Making Sequels

Here is the official plot synopsis forF9from Universal:

Vin Diesels Dom Toretto is leading a quiet life off the grid with Letty and his son, little Brian, but they know that danger always lurks just over their peaceful horizon. This time, that threat will force Dom to confront the sins of his past if hes going to save those he loves most. His crew joins together to stop a world-shattering plot led by the most skilled assassin and high-performance driver theyve ever encountered: a man who also happens to be Doms forsaken brother, Jakob (John Cena).

Thats not a whole lot to go on. But we do know that Jakob is working withThe Fate of the Furiouscyber terrorist villain Cipher (Charlize Theron). Thanks to the trailer, we also know that Han (Sung Kang) is somehow alive after seemingly being killed by Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) inTokyo Drift. How? Fuck you, this is Fast & Furious, thats how!

InHobbs & Shaw, an unknown villain that uses a computerized voice to communicate leads the terrorist organization Eteon, which specializes in transhumanism. This mysterious mastermind enhances Brixton Lore (Idris Elba) through cybernetics, suggesting advanced bioengineering and technological capabilities. Thats not how Han survivedJakob rescued him and held him hostage to extract information about Dom and his crew, obviouslybut it will come into play later.

And finally, its a safe betat some pointthat one or more members of Doms team will drive in space, given the conspicuous placement of a rocket-powered car in the F9 trailer. Beating theMission: Impossible franchise to that particular punch is a badge of honor.

Thats what we know so far about info teased relating to F9. In our version of the Fastfranchise,F9reveals that, unbeknownst to them, Jakob and Cipher have been serving under this anonymous puppet master for years. Whats more, there are clues indicating that this antagonist has ties to the Diplomatic Security Service, where Dwayne Johnsons Hobbs used to work. Boom, nowFast & Furioushas its own Thanos-lite Big Bad to contend with, though his identity remains unknown.

Fast & Furious 10was meant to arrive on April 1, 2021, but withF9moving into that slot thanks to the COVID-19 lockdown, Universal is going to be forced to delay. In the interim, the studio can pivot to a sequel to the franchises first successful spinoff.

This time around, Hobbs & Shaw have been tasked with investigating the destruction of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the worlds largest and highest-energy particle collider and the largest machine in the world, currently built beneath the France-Switzerland border near Geneva. (We know the Hobbs & Shaw post-credits scenes teased a deadly virus, but that just feels yucky after COVID-19.) What concerns authorities more than the supercolliders destruction is what wasntfound in the rubble: central working components of the machine. This technology is used to explore quantum mechanics, general relativity and the deep structures of space and time. In the wrong hands, it poses a global threat.

Naturally, Eteon is behind it all (and no, Ryan Reynolds Locke is not the secret bad guy). To retrieve the stolen materials, Hobbs and Shaw must pull off a daring raid on the organizations secret compound. But instead of finding missing machine parts, they come acrossprepare for our first Holy shit! momentGisele Yashar (Gal Gadot), the love of Hans life who was seemingly killed off in Fast & Furious 6.Shes unconscious, hooked up to a host of medical machines, but very much alive.

Brixton wasnt Eteons only cybernetic human test subject, after all. Dun, dun, dunnnn.

Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham were not going to appear inF9 thanks toHobbs & Shaw. Assuming Universal doesnt use the 11-month delay to add them into the film, Fast & Furious 10will take on added importance as a reunion of sorts. You can practically hear the box office banknotes rolling in.

Here, our characters are puzzling over Giseles survival, reintegrating her back into the crew (she and Han navigate a V-12 engines worth of sexual tension, obviously) and still searching for Eteon and their supercollider. All of a sudden, a mortally wounded Ciphernot seen since escaping in F9turns up at HQ with a warning. You must stop him, she says as she slips Dom a flash drive before dying. One of their most hated rivals using her last breath to help them? Shit must be getting real.

The flash drive contains detailed files on what Eteon is planning with their supercollidera tear in the space-time continuum that enables time travel, because why the hell not at this point?!The plans also reveal the last piece Eteon needs to complete it which sends our heroes on a mission to intercept them.

A massive battle breaks out immediately upon their arrival. Every rule of physics that can be broken on screen isbroken. Everything that can be on fire ison fire. Every bicep comparison between main characters that can be made is made. You know, normalFast & Furiousstuff.

When the dust settles, Roman (Tyrese Gibson) isheld at gunpoint bywait for itKeanu Reeves! Reeves character is revealed to be the mastermind behind Eteon andHobbs childhood friend/former partner who was believed to be killed on their first mission together. (Hobbs, of course, still blames himself to this day.) He murders Roman (sorry, Tyrese, but we needsome emotional fallout) and escapes, leaving our heroes distraught and defeated.

That brings us to

Reeves bad guyintent on ruining Dom, Hobbs and the whole crew before taking over the worldflings himself to the future in order to kill the adult versions of Doms son Brian and Hobbs daughter Sam, who are totally married and also happen to be badass super spies themselves. Han and Giseles kid is their guy in the chair tech expert too. What is the Fast & Furiousfranchise if not a soap opera soaked in diesel fuel?

Adult Brian is played by Shia LaBeouf, adult Sam is played by Keke Palmer, and Han and Giseles kid is played by Steven Yeun. LaBeouf will win his first Oscar for the role.

So our crew follows Reeves villain into the future where they pair up with the now-grown versions of their own children in an X-Men: Days of Future Past-esque set-up that doubles as the conclusion to the current iteration of theFastseries and a bridge to the new spinoff franchise Universal has been planning this entire time.

MIND = BLOWN.

See original here:

How the Fast & Furious Movies Should End (and Live on Forever) - Observer

You’ve seen commercials for Marsy’s Law. Here’s the story behind the proposed Wisconsin constitutional amendment. – Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Posted on by

Teri Nicolai speaks at an event supporting Marsy's Law for Wisconsin(Photo: Courtesy of Marsy's Law for Wisconsin)

A flood of advertising on social media and television is backing a proposed constitutional amendment as a way to cement the rights of crime victims in Wisconsin,but opponents are raising red flags about the damage the measure could do to the state's criminal justice system.

Marsy's Law, as the amendment is known, will appear on the April 7 ballot for voters across the state.The amendmenthasalready been approved by the state Senate and Assembly twice, in 2017 and 2019, and is now up for voters to decide.

Voters may have seen or heard ads running on TV, radio and social media aired by the well-funded campaign. Marsy's Law for Wisconsinspentmore than $128,000 on Facebook ads alone between March 19 and 26, according to the site's ad library report. The campaign is in the top 20 of spenders on ads for Facebook in the U.S., the report shows.

The Wisconsin Justice Initiative, one of the strongest opponents, has spent less than $200 on its opposition since September of last year.

Groups like the Wisconsin Justice Initiative and the ACLU of Wisconsin have sharply criticized the amendment. They say victims' rights are already protected in state law and that the wording on the ballotmay be misleading to voters. The proposed amendment, they say, would bog down the legal process and pollute the system by inappropriately inserting victims as a third party to the prosecution and defense in a criminal case.

Marsy Nicholas(Photo: Courtesy of Marsy's Law for Wisconsin)

The amendment stems from the killing of Marsy Nicholas in California in 1983. She was murdered by an ex-boyfriendwho had been stalking her.A week after her death, the ex-boyfriend confronted Nicholas' family in a grocery store,at a time when they did not know he had been released on bail.

Marsy's Law has been nationally championed by her brother, billionaire Henry T. Nicholas III. Nicholas is the former CEO and co-founder of the technology company Broadcom Corp.

The amendment is similar to others that have been passed in Illinois, California, North Dakota and South Dakota, along with several other states. Montana also passed the amendment, but it was overturned in 2017 because of issues with the way the question was posed to voters, according to the Bozeman Daily Chronicle.

In Wisconsin, the amendment would afford 16 additional rights to victims, according to the Marsy's Law for Wisconsin website, including the right to be treated with respect, the right to privacy, proceedings free from unreasonable delay, notification of proceedings, ability to confer with the attorney with the government, and the right to be heard during any proceeding, among others.

Teri Nicolai is shown in 2004 during her recovery from the brutal kidnapping at the hands of her ex-husband.(Photo: Jack Orton / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)

Teri Nicolai, who was brutally attacked by her ex-husband in 2004, is a high profile proponent who appears in ads flooding the market in Wisconsin.The victim of a violent crime herself,Nicolai said that had Marsy's Law been in effect when she was going through the Wisconsin court system in 2004, she may have had a bigger say in whether or not her ex-husband should go to a trial instead of taking a plea deal.

The details of Nicolai's ordeal were horrifying.

Nicolai went to pick up her two daughters from her ex-husband's house

and when she arrived, Larsen told her that they were hiding inside the house, waiting for their mom to find them.

When Nicolai stepped through the door into the house, her ex-husband, David Larsen, attacked.

"He came up behind me and beat me over the head with a baseball bat," she said.

He removed some of her clothes and put duct tape around her wrists, ankles and head. He stuffed her socks in her mouth, Nicolai said.

"From there, he put me in a large Rubbermaid garbage container," she said.

Larsen filled the container with snow and drove the container from Racine to a storage facility in Illinois, near where he worked.

After being rescued the next day, Nicolai was taken to the hospital, where she found she had miscarried. Doctors did what they could to fight the extreme frostbite on her extremities, but ended up having to amputate all 10 of her toes.

After recovering, Nicolai watched as the case against Larsen made it through the Wisconsin justice system. She was disappointed when she found out that he was going to accept a plea deal for 35 years in prison, instead of having to go through a trial and be found guilty.

"I wanted him to answer for what he did," she said.

Nicolai did eventually see justice, she said, when Larsen was charged with several federal crimes because he took her across a state borderwhen he left her in the Illinois storage unit. He was sentenced to life in prison.

Opponents of the amendment acknowledge the impactof experiences like Nicholai'sbut say the powergiven to victims and making them into a third partyduring the legal process in addition to the defense and the state and extending the time it takes to see a case through damages the legal process.

"A party in a legal case is a person or entity whose rights are being decided, said Dennis Grzezinski, a lawyer representing the Wisconsin Justice Initiative.

Several times, opponentslike the ACLUof Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Justice Initiative have tried to stop the amendment.In December, Dane County Circuit Judge Frank Remington ruled that the question would remain on the ballot after a lawsuit was brought forward trying to stop it. Those challenging the referendum decided not to appeal the decision of the judge, and will instead argue that the amendment should not take effect if voters were to approve it.

The strongest opposition of the amendment has come from the Wisconsin Justice Initiative, which has gone as far as adding a "Marsy's Flaws" tab to its homepage, with information about the amendment.

"It's a really bad idea. It amounts to a wholesale alteration of our criminal justice system," Grzezinskisaid

He said that though there are some portions of Marsy's Law that are workable and even good ideas, other parts could be harmful to the state's justice system.

He worries about the time that trials could take if victims ask to be heard along every step of the way, the cost to the system to accommodate lengthier trials, the ability of victims to request an appeal be heard by the state Supreme Court, the ability to refuse discoveryand the loss of a defendant's rights, among other concerns.

Grzezinski said that the amendment fails to acknowledge that Wisconsin already has victims' rights in the constitution.

"The amendment ignores that Wisconsin was the first of 50 states to include in its own constitution a series of victims' rights," he said. "It ignores the fact that the rights have been doing a very good job."

The Initiativeis also concerned over the wording of the amendment as it appears on the ballot:

"Additional rights of crime victims. Shall section 9 m of article I of the constitution, which gives certain rights to crime victims, be amended to give crime victims additional rights, to require the rights of crime victims be protected with equal force to the protections afforded the accused while leaving federal constitutional rights of the accused intact, and to allow crime victims to enforce their rights in court?"

Grzezinski said that the question doesn't do enough to explain to voters what they are specifically approving.

"Who could oppose creating and enlarging the rights of victims?" he said. "That's essentially what the question tells the public. That question misrepresents what these changes will do. It expands 16 different categories of rightsand creates duties and requirements for law enforcement, prisonsand judges."

And as for all the money the group has been spending on advertisements, Grzezinskiisn't surprised that it's so high.

"One questionthis raises is whether the contents of the Wisconsin Constitution are simply up for sale to billionaires," he said.

Asma Kadri, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Wisconsin, said that the protections offered by the state and federal constitutions don't need the addition of Marsy's Law which may only serve to muddy the already complicated waters of the justice system.

"We believe it causes more harm than good," she said.

Kadri said that the waythe amendment is written poses more questions on how it will be enforcedand that other states that have enacted the law have struggled with enforcement, too.

"It's hard to determine how it will be implemented," she said.

In Florida, Marsy's Law was enacted about 15 months ago, said Barbra Peterson, the president of the Florida First Amendment Foundation, and since then it's caused a slew of problems.

One of the bigger ones has been access to information from police agencies, who are using Marsy's Law to curtail the flow of information to the public when a crime is committed. In one case, Peterson said, an officer got into an altercation with a suspect, and the officer ended up shooting and killing the suspect.

Under Marsy's Law, the department decided not to release the name of the officer involved, saying that he or she was a victim in the case.

In another case, a neighborhood woke one morning to find a car in the middle of an intersectionwith a decapitated body next to it. Under Marsy's Law, the department wouldn't release any information not the names of the victim or suspects, what took place orwhere it took place despite the fact that neighbors discovered the scene, Peterson said.

"Law enforcement agencies around the state are interpreting Marsy's Law and applying Marsy's Law in any way they think they should," she said.

And the unequal way that it's been applied throughout the state raises a lot of concerns, Petersen said. Some departments are still releasing information, while others release little to none.

"If I live near a city park and a 911 call goes out because a crime occurs in the park, what I find out depends on who responds to the call," she said.

There's also concern over law enforcement agencies using the law to prevent the release of names of officers involved in shootings or who are being internally investigated.

"Law enforcement officers have extreme power, they can arrest you," she said. "It's important to know people with that level of authority are acting within procedures, and when they don't, to know that steps to make sure this doesn't happen again are being taken."

Petersen said that people should push for interpretations to be put in place on the law.

"People need to know what they're voting for. Everyone wants to protect the victimbut also have to retain the ability to oversee law enforcement," she said. "And that's what we've lost with Marsy's Law."

Aside from the sharp criticism the amendment has received in Wisconsin, there is still a large base of supporters.

The Marsy's Law for Wisconsin website has a page dedicated to showcasing those who endorse the amendment, including Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul. Sheriffs from across the state, as well as police chiefs are also listed as supporters, alongside district attorneys and mayors of several cities.

"We must do all we can to protect victims of crime. Im in favor of Marcys Law, and I believe we need to do more to assist law enforcement and victim advocates with the critical work they do to support victims," said Kaul, according to a release on the Marsy's Law website.

Myranda Tanck, communications director for Marsy's Law for Wisconsin, saidpassing the amendment in Wisconsin is a natural next step for the state, after the original passing of the Crime Victims' Bill of Rights in 1993.

"Passing Marsy's Law sends a strong message to victims that the system is on their side, and will allow them to enforce their rights in the courtroom, while not taking away any rights from the accused," she said.

If the amendment were to pass April 7, residents of Wisconsin would see a change in the protection of victims right away, she said.

"Victims will be able to invoke the State of Wisconsins Constitution to secure all of their rights as they navigate the difficult legal process, rather than see the rights of the accused automatically trump their own rights."

The accused would still be protected, too, Tanck said.

"The accused still has federal rights," she said.

Tanck also hopes that the passing of the amendment would encourage more victims of crimes to come forward like in the case of sexual assaults,which are more likely to go unreported.

"We have found in speaking to survivors that still too many victims are afraid to come forward. They fear for their safety and reputation," she said. "That's what we hope to curtail."

But the most important argument for the passing of the amendment is the fact that it will be able to help so many people.

"The adoption of this amendment will have a lasting positive impact on victims in the Badger State for generations to come," Tanck said.

RELATED: The April 7 election is still set to take place. Here's what we know so far

RELATED: How to get an absentee ballot in Wisconsin during the coronavirus outbreak

More information about Marsy's Law, and the text of the full amendment are available at http://www.equalrightsforwi.com. Information about arguments against the amendment are available at http://www.wjiinc.org.

Laura Schulte can be reached atleschulte@gannett.com and twitter.com/SchulteLaura.

Our subscribers make this reporting possible. Please consider supporting local journalism by subscribing to the Journal Sentinel at jsonline.com/deal.

Read or Share this story: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/03/27/additional-rights-crime-victims-amendment-what-marsys-law-proposal-wisconsin/2875793001/

View original post here:

You've seen commercials for Marsy's Law. Here's the story behind the proposed Wisconsin constitutional amendment. - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

House Departs Without Vote to Extend Expired F.B.I. Spy Tools – The New York Times

Posted on by

WASHINGTON House Democrats left the capital on Friday after passing the $2 trillion coronavirus relief legislation without taking up a Senate bill to temporarily revive three expired F.B.I. surveillance tools for terrorism and espionage investigations, ensuring that the laws will remain lapsed at least until the Senate returns from vacation next month.

The series of laws, which includes two provisions created by the Patriot Act after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, expired on March 15. They give investigators the power to get court orders for business records deemed relevant to a national security investigation, and to swiftly follow around a wiretap target who changes phone lines in an attempt to evade monitoring.

A spokeswoman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not explain why she did not bring up the legislation while House members were briefly back in Washington to vote on the stimulus package.

Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman, promoted changes that the F.B.I. has already made to tighten its use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, and said the department still wanted the House to pass the Senate bill.

We urge the House to approve the Senate-passed temporary extension, she said, as soon as possible to avoid any further gap in our national security capabilities over the next several weeks and look forward to working with the Senate when it takes up the Houses bipartisan package of reforms.

Still, the lapse of several more weeks may not have a significant operational effect on the F.B.I., said Julian Sanchez, a specialist in surveillance legal policy at the Cato Institute.

That is because of the way the law is written. A so-called savings clause permits the laws to remain in effect for investigations that already existed on March 15, or for new investigations into events that occurred before then.

The authorities remain available for either investigations open at the time of expiration or investigations predicated on underlying conduct that predates the sunset date, Mr. Sanchez said.

The F.B.I. has open-ended investigations into long-term organizational threats, including major terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State and the espionage agencies of foreign adversaries like Russia and China. Thus, the FISA court that has oversight of national security surveillance can still issue orders giving investigators the power to target a newly identified suspect linked to one of those entities.

The third expired provision permits eavesdropping on a so-called lone wolf terrorist who is not part of an established foreign terrorist group. That provision could be invoked now only if the F.B.I. can show that a newly identified targets suspicious conduct included actions before March 15.

But that theoretical risk may not matter operationally either, Mr. Sanchez said, noting that as far as has been disclosed, the F.B.I. has never used the lone wolf provision.

A majority of lawmakers in both chambers support extending the expired provisions, but they have been caught up in a larger argument over whether and how strictly to impose new restrictions on the F.B.I.s FISA powers after an inspector generals damning report found numerous factual errors and omissions in applications to target the former Trump adviser Carter Page during the Russia investigation.

The House passed a bill, negotiated by Ms. Pelosi and Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House Republican leader, this month before the provisions expired that would extend the expiring provisions while making changes to FISA.

The House bill, for example, would push the FISA court to appoint an outsider to critique the governments arguments when a wiretap application raised serious issues about First Amendment activity, which could include political campaigns.

It would also make clear that the government cannot use a FISA business records order to collect information like cellphone location data, which in a criminal investigation requires a search warrant that has a higher legal standard.

But amid objections from libertarian-leaning senators of both parties that the House bill fell short in curtailing surveillance powers, the Senate did not take it up.

More here:

House Departs Without Vote to Extend Expired F.B.I. Spy Tools - The New York Times

Lawmaker: Law never meant to allow for hiding details of response plans – Gainesville Sun

Posted on by

MIAMI A law the Legislature passed three years ago allows Florida's flagship public university to keep secret all details about whether it had developed and was adhering to a response plan for the pandemic that has already infected at least 20 students, faculty and employees.

The University of Florida was not among the earliest schools in the United States to effectively close its campus, moving classes online last week and sending students home for the semester.

It was widely criticized for failing to quickly acknowledge the first positive cases of the virus among students on campus. One infected student a College of Dentistry student who treated patients after he felt sick said school officials urged him to keep quiet for at least five days.

The 2017 law allows the university to withhold details of its emergency plans or even whether it has any. It is among hundreds of formal exemptions that allow the government to withhold information from citizens under Florida's otherwise powerful public records law.

The University of Florida declined this week to release its pandemic plan to Fresh Take Florida, a news service operated by UFs College of Journalism and Communications, as part of investigative reporting to determine whether school leaders were following their plan. It cited the exemption: This reply completes your public records request, the school said.

A school spokesman, Steve Orlando, later confirmed with the general counsels office that it will not publicly release the pandemic plan.

The 2017 law also allows other Florida public colleges and universities to withhold information about their pandemic responses. It covers any universitys response to or plan for responding to an act of terrorism or other public safety crisis or emergency. Other schools, including Florida State University and the University of Central Florida, have not yet responded to requests by Fresh Take Florida for their pandemic plans.

The laws co-sponsor, Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Naples, told Fresh Take Florida that it was never intended to prevent disclosure of a universitys pandemic plans. Donalds said he urges school officials to voluntarily release the document.

I would hope that college officials would understand that in times like this, there are times when you want to share your plans, especially with your faculty and staff when it comes to a pandemic, he said. Donalds said the law was intended to protect terrorism plans from being revealed to would-be terrorists. He never imagined it would be applied to pandemics.

The 2017 law is set to expire in two years unless Florida lawmakers renew it. It's unclear whether the Legislature might change the law, since it prevents tens of thousands of students, parents, alumni, faculty and employees from knowing whether the university acted appropriately to protect those on campus. The House and Senate voted unanimously on the measure at every stage in 2017, and legislative records show that no one formally objected to the proposal during any committee hearings.

Im flabbergasted they would hide that at a time people crave information and want to know if theyre safe, said David Cullier, president of the National Freedom of Information Coalition and an associate journalism professor at the University of Arizona. Its a huge mistake.

The former president of the Tallahassee-based First Amendment Foundation, Barbara Peterson, said she did not oppose the legislation in 2017 because no one expected it would be applied to virus plans. It was intended to keep security plans for physical terror attacks out of the wrong hands to ensure the safety of students and faculty, she said.

Were not talking about Al-Qaeda storming the gates of our universities, she said. Were talking about a pandemic.

Some schools, such as the University of Mississippi, University of Houston, Villanova University and Indiana State University, openly publish their pandemic response plans on the internet. The U.S. government encourages colleges and universities to develop detailed pandemic responses, which it said will play an integral role in protecting the health and safety of students, employees and their families. Public health experts also encourage evaluating and assessing emergency plans and how they were implemented during and after pandemics, as an exercise in accountability and transparency.

Its nuts. Its actually outrageous that these records would be withheld, said Adam Marshall, a staff attorney at the Washington-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. This is exactly the kind of record there is the highest level of public interest in. It should have been made available online a long time ago.

In its response to a separate request for records about the College of Dentistry student who was infected with the virus, the University of Florida also cited the 2017 law as a reason it would not turn over those documents.

Cullier agreed that secrecy laws like Floridas were intended to prevent terrorists from circumventing security plans. To apply that to a virus is ludicrous and not how all that was intended, he said. He added that withholding details about UFs pandemic plans will inevitably cause people to wonder whether officials were embarrassed or hiding information.

If we cant trust our government, its going to cause more fear and suspicion and hoarding, he said.

Peterson said the pandemic plan might help students and parents understand whether and when expenses might be refunded and provide details about UFs evacuation plans. She noted the law doesnt prohibit the university from releasing its pandemic plan it allows the school to choose to keep it secret.

When people are scared pantsless, youre withholding information that could have squashed their fears and youre not doing it, she said. Shame on you.

The Florida secrecy law was proposed by Donalds and Rep. Bob Rommel, R-Naples. Rommel did not immediately respond to phone messages left at his home and office or email sent to him and his legislative scheduler. Then-Republican-Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill into law in June 2017. Scott, now a U.S. senator, last month said the federal government must do more to protect Americans from coronavirus.

Rommel, 57, is a multi-millionaire who co-owns a bayfront bistro on Fort Myers Beach that is temporarily shut down from the virus under orders from Gov. Ron DeSantis. He was chairman of the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee and vice chair of the Judiciary Committee and veterans affairs subcommittee.

Donalds, 41, is a long shot candidate among 10 Republicans running for Congress in Floridas 19th House district. He has described himself as a Trump supporting, liberty loving, pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment black man. He is a financial adviser with Wells Fargo in Naples, according to his state financial disclosure filings.

See the original post here:

Lawmaker: Law never meant to allow for hiding details of response plans - Gainesville Sun

Unincorporated Brevard County Beaches to Remain Open This Weekend, Municipal Beaches to Close | – SpaceCoastDaily.com

Posted on by

beachside parks, public parking to remain closedThe Brevard County Policy Group voted 7-2 Friday afternoon that beaches in unincorporated Brevard County will remain open throughout the weekend after all. Municipalities that will keep the beach ban include Cocoa Beach, Satellite Beach, Indialantic, Indian Harbour Beach and Melbourne Beach.

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA The Brevard County Policy Group voted 7-2 Friday afternoon that beaches in unincorporated Brevard County will remain open throughout the weekend after all.

The majority of the same group had agreed 5-4 on Thursday to close the Space Coasts unincorporated beaches Friday through Sunday from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Municipalities that will keep the beach ban include Cocoa Beach, Satellite Beach, Indialantic, Indian Harbour Beach and Melbourne Beach.

All unincorporated beachside parks, municipal beachside parks, Patrick Air Force Base beachside parks and beachside public parking access of the Brevard County, municipalities and Patrick Air Force Base will remain closed.

See the updated official Brevard County Commission beach closure proclamation here:

WHEREAS, on March 14, 2020, a State of Local Emergency was declared by Brevard County (Covid-19 Document #1); and

WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020 the First Amendment to the State of Local Emergency Proclamation was issued (COVID-19 Document #2); and

WHEREAS, on March 18,2020, during a Policy Group meeting, Sheriff Ivey conveyed he had a discussion with Governor DeSantis wherein the Governor requested that Brevard County issue an Order to close all beachside public parks and close all beach public parking access in an effort to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus during the ongoing pandemic;

WHEREAS, on March 18, 2020 the Second Amendment to the State of Local Emergency Proclamation was issued to close all beach public parking access in Brevard County (COVID-19 Document #3); and

WHEREAS, on March 26, 2020 the Policy Group issued a Beach Closure Order (COVID-19 Document #5); and

WHEREAS, during a special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners on March 27, 2020, the Board voted 4:1 to decline to allocate resources to enforce beach closures described in COVID-19 Document #5, entitled Beach Closure Order; and

WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners also requested that the Sheriff focus on more important public safety needs and similarly choose to use its resources to maximize public safety rather than closing safe public beaches, and

WHEREAS, in order to avoid having an Order without enforcement capability, and

WHEREAS, in order to maintain conformity with the Board of County Commissioners earlier 4:1 vote regarding the Beach Closure Order, (COVID-19 document #5) and

WHEREAS, in response to the earlier vote provided by the Board of County Commissioners, the Policy Group reconsidered the Beach Closure Order (COVID-19 Document #5) and voted to rescind the Beach Closure Order; and

WHEREAS, Chapter 252.38(3)(a), Florida Statutes, provides authority for a political subdivision such as Brevard County to declare a state of local emergency and to exercise certain powers and authority to safeguard the lives and property of its citizens and such declaration may be amended.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED this 27th day of March 2020, that the Beach Closure Order issued on March 26, 2020 (COVID-19 Document #5) is hereby rescinded effective immediately. This does not prevent individual municipalities from taking action to close beaches within its incorporated area;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to the Second Amendment to the State of Local Emergency Proclamation issued on March 18, 2020 (COVID-19 Document #3), all County beachside parks, Municipal beachside parks, Patrick Air Force Base beachside parks and beachside public parking access of the County, Municipalities and Patrick Air Force Base will remain closed.

CLICK HERE FOR BREVARD COUNTY NEWS

Read the rest here:

Unincorporated Brevard County Beaches to Remain Open This Weekend, Municipal Beaches to Close | - SpaceCoastDaily.com

Capitol Perspectives: Issues in covering the COVID-19 pandemic – The Daily Star-Journal

Posted on by

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has raised some difficult journalistic questions for which there are not easy answers.

Journalists are facing conflicts between stressing good health practices while, at the same time, holding public officials accountable for their actions and, sometimes, inaction.

Another conflict involves protecting one's own health by staying home which can restrict accessing news sources.

The personal health concerns were amplified when we learned a state representative tested positive for the virus just a few days after they had been in the House chamber.

Ironically, the House had been acting on a hefty appropriation to deal with coronavirus in the final three months of the budget year.

An infected person in the building is a serious cause for concern because of how crowded the hallways and the chambers become when the legislature is in session.

The positive test caused the Capitol to be closed for several days to disinfect the place.

Ten days earlier, legislative leaders had asked schools to not bring groups of students to visit the seat of Missouri state government.

I understood their request. I had begun feeling uneasy entering the building when it was packed with legislators, lobbyists and school groups.

Like some other reporters, I've been covering state government from my home by listening to live streams of legislative sessions and the governor's daily briefings.

But not being in the building has restricted coverage.

I have not been there to ask follow-up questions of the governor or to easily query legislators and lobbyists about issues like the potential loss of state revenues from the economic impact of the virus that likely will severely cripple state services.

So, I have a nagging sense of guilt that I am not fulfilling my journalistic responsibilities.

Like many reporters, I occasionally have risked my own safety in pursuit of a story or to assist journalism in emerging democracies.

Why not this time?

To be honest, I am unsure how much of my decision to stay at home and limit my coverage has been motivated by personal health concerns versus a sense of responsibility to comply with the advice from health officials on how to slow the spread of this disease so as not to overwhelm health facilities and medical staff.

Has maturity made me more cautious, maybe less reckless, than I had been in my younger years? Or has it made me more responsible?

Another question I'm facing involves how to balance coverage between politics and policy disagreements with public safety.

That conflict was demonstrated when Gov. Mike Parson announced he was instructing the Health Department director to issue an order prohibiting groups larger than 10, with exceptions.

Violation of that order is a misdemeanor crime.

Over the decades, I've covered the debates as the legislature extensively expanded the emergency powers of state agencies and the governor including even the power to seize private property.

So, I fully understand the public-policy disagreements about those powers.

Balancing public safety and health with constitutional freedoms has been a continuing issue for as long as our country has existed.

The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment provision establishes "the right of the people peaceably to assemble."

Yet, health experts across the world tell us that avoiding large crowds is a key step to avoid spreading coronavirus.

So, what aspect do I emphasize in my stories? Do I focus on explaining the public-health benefits for people to comply with the Health Department's order?

Or, do I focus on the public-policy questions, even if such an emphasis could undermine efforts to obtain public compliance with an order critical to managing this disease as best as possible?

That conundrum reminds me of questions about coverage of the Vietnam War debate.

Some attacked extensive coverage of protests opposing the war as undermining the nation's war effort.

There is one huge difference from today.

There was a legitimate dispute about as to whether the Vietnam War even should be pursued.

But in the battle with coronavirus, there's no debate about the objective.

Phill Brooks has been a Missouri statehouse reporter since 1970. He is the statehouse correspondent for KMOX Radio, director of Missouri Digital News and an emeritus faculty member of the Missouri School of Journalism. He has covered every governor since the late Warren Hearnes.

More:

Capitol Perspectives: Issues in covering the COVID-19 pandemic - The Daily Star-Journal

Self-Quarantine Orders Meet the Right-Wing Militia Movement – Mother Jones

Posted on by

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis and more, subscribe to Mother Jones' newsletters.

It was only a matter of time before efforts to contain the coronavirus bumped up against the Sagebrush Rebellion.

Yesterday, Idahos Republican governor Brad Little issued a self-isolate order closing all nonessential businesses in the state, banning all gatherings, and ordering a halt to unnecessary travel. The order was designed to prevent the community spread of the novel coronavirus, which has infected more than 123 people in Idaho so far. But the order has already stirred up a hornets nest from those who arent inclined to follow such a directive without a fight: Namely the Bundy family and their followers in the right-wing militia movement who have engaged in armed standoffs with the federal government in the past over attempts to enforce the law.

On Thursday, Ammon Bundy, one of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundys 14 children, posted a video on Facebook inviting people to a public meeting in Emmett, Idaho, where he lives, to talk about the coercive measures included in the governors self-isolate order. He read from the 11-page document, explaining that it would prevent people from gathering, riding a scooter, or traveling around the state.Whats more, law enforcement would be empowered to issue fines or even putviolators in jail.

The last time it was illegal to meet together as a people on this land was before the Revolutionary War, he said. Since we won our independence, it has never been illegal to assemble as a people. Bundy then offered a brief tutorial on First Amendment rights and Supreme Court decisions acknowledging Americans natural rights to assemble peacefully.

It does not matter what is most safe or not, what is good or not, he said. Because in this case, the government does not have the right to do what theyre doing. They do not have a right to restrict you from going to church, worshiping, having meetings, or being with your family, grieving with them. They do not have that right. He compared the state government to someone trying to steal your backpack off a park bench;if that person is too big and you cant fight back, you can call on others in the park to help you. That is what we are doing today, he concluded. We are calling on you to help protect your own backpack and the very precious stuff you have in it.

The Bundy family made similar online appeals for support back in 2014, when they engaged in an armed standoff with federal law enforcement officers who were attempting to move Cliven Bundys cattle off public land near his ranch in Nevada. Cliven Bundy owed more than $1 million in federal grazing fees that he hadnt paid in two decades. Meanwhile, his cows, which were essentially feral, were menacing locals, wandering onto a local driving range, and munching through the Mesquite community garden. Militia members and other anti-government activists came from all over the country to defend Bundy, and some took up sniper positions on highways and aimed assault weapons at federal officers around the ranch. The Bureau of Land Management eventually backed off before causing any bloodshed. The cows remain a nuisance.

Two years later, Ammon Bundy also led the 2016 armed takeover of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon to protest the prosecution of a pair of Oregon ranchers accused of arson on public land. He was charged with a variety of federal crimes for both episodes but was acquitted in Oregon. His Nevada case ended in a mistrial because of prosecutorial misconduct. Ammon has since moved to Idaho with his wife and six children.

The Bundy family seemed at one point to have fallen in with the pro-Trump crowd, as Trump embraced some of their issues, like returning control of federal land to the states and protecting Second Amendment rights. Trump also pardoned the ranchers whose case had set off the wildlife refuge takeover. But in 2018, Ammon Bundy announced that he was breaking with Trump over his anti-immigrant rhetoric aimed at migrant caravans coming to the southern border. Bundy criticized Trump for stereotyping migrants as criminals and gang members.

But what about those who have come here for reasons of need? he said in a video he posted online. What about the fathers, the mothers, the children, who have come here and are willing to go through the process to apply for asylum so they can come into this country and benefit from not having to be oppressed continually by criminals?

Ammon Bundys break with Trump and his defense of immigrants caused a major backlash from his followers in the patriot movement. At the end of 2018, he announced that he was leaving the movement, and he shut down his social media accounts. But Ammon has returned to the fray, and over the past two years, he has been involved in various land fights in the west. Hes also gone on the lecture circuit, giving talks about federal overreach. Over the last month, hes posted numerousFacebook warnings about the evils of government-imposed quarantinesand now he is turning those warnings into a potential confrontation. The meeting he is calling for likely violates the governors ban on public gatherings, which Bundy well knows. But,as he says in the video, Were not in any way trying to be rebellious or even civilly disobedient. We need to discuss these matters, and to decide how and what we should accept as a people.

See the article here:

Self-Quarantine Orders Meet the Right-Wing Militia Movement - Mother Jones

Now More Than Ever, Prisoners Should Have Some Access to Social Media – EFF

Posted on by

COVID-19 has trapped many of us in our homes, isolating us from family and friends and limiting our movements. But there are few people who feel the isolating impacts of COVID-19 more acutely than those who are actually incarcerated in jails and prisons across the country. As Jerry Metcalf, an inmate in Michigan, wrote for the Marshall Projects Life on the Inside series:

For those of you reading this who feel trapped or are going stir-crazy due to your coronavirus-induced confinement, the best advice I can give youas someone used to suffering in long-term confinementis to take a pause, inhale a few deep breaths, then look around at all the things you have to be grateful for.

Metcalfs is an important perspective to have, but, unfortunately, it is increasingly difficult to hear from inmates like him. That's because prison systems are making it harder for the public to hear from incarcerated people through excessive restrictions on the ways prisoners can express themselves over the Internet.

As the pandemic unfolds, state agencies should take a flexible approach to enforcement of restrictions on inmates ability to connect with the outside world.

Its especially important to hear from Metcalf, and others like him, in this momentgiven the heightened risk COVID-19 poses to inmates. The virus has already demonstrated an ability to move swiftly through closed spaces, like cruise ships and nursing homesand its already made its way into several prison systems, the consequences of which well sadly see unfold over the next several weeks. As Metcalf described it, COVID-19 has turned his prison into a death trap. Given the potential humanitarian crisis many prisoners now face, its critically important to receive unvarnished reports from them about life inside prison walls.

For those outside of prison, social media has been an important tool during the pandemichelping us connect with family and friends, to share updates and news, and to stay informed.

But, overwhelmingly, the incarcerated cannot connect to the outside world in this way.

At EFF, weve long been concerned with government attempts to unduly limit prisoners speechespecially by limiting access to technology that would allow the incarcerated to lift their voices beyond the prison walls. These restrictions come in a variety of forms, but one type weve paid particular attention to in the past is limitations on access to social media.

Many states prohibit inmates from accessing or posting information to social media in any manner. Some states, like Alabama and Iowa (pdf), go so far as to limit the ability of third-parties outside of prisonlike a friend or relativeto post information to social media on an inmates behalf. Some of these policies can even extend beyond what we typically think of as social media, prohibiting access to email or even any online publication of prisoners speech (including, as a potential example, stories like Metcalfs published by the Marshall Project). Violations can carry extreme and disproportionate consequences. For example, some inmates in South Carolina received years in solitary confinement for posting on Facebook while in prison.

Even in calmer times, draconian limitations on social media access are dangerous and raise serious First Amendment concerns. Prisoners, and those who support them, use social media to raise awareness about prison conditions; to garner support for court cases or clemency proceedings; and to otherwise advocate for important social and political issues.

As weve said before, invoking the immortal words of Martin Luther King, Jr, whose writings from jail changed the course of civil rights in America:

Inmates may lose many liberties when they enter the correction system, but the ability to participate in debate online should not be one of them. Censorship of prisoners is also censorship of society at large because it deprives the public of the freedom to read the long letters, consider the long thoughts, and hear the long prayers of people who have lost their freedom.

The need to hear these voices now is particularly importantas prisons begin to close to outside visitors, and further isolate, in an attempt to stave off COVID-19. Jerry Metcalfs perspectivefrom inside a prison in Michigan in the midst of a global pandemicis equally important if its published by the Marshall Project or if its shared by a relative in a Facebook post. Whats important is that the world is able to hear his story, and those like him, right now.

As the pandemic unfolds, state agencies should take a flexible approach to enforcement of restrictions on inmates ability to connect with the outside world, including curbing the enforcement of overly restrictive social media policies. Well be carefully watching to make sure any restrictions that are applied are done so consistent with the First Amendment rights of inmates and those who support them.

More:

Now More Than Ever, Prisoners Should Have Some Access to Social Media - EFF

Lobbying frenzy connected to stimulus sparks backlash | TheHill – The Hill

Posted on by

The frenzy on K Street over the coronavirus stimulus bill is sparking a new backlash.

Watchdog groups have seized on the activity as major industries push for financial relief and other assistance from Washington. K Streets critics say the lobbying boom highlights the need for tougher controls on the influence industry and accuse businesses of using the coronavirus crisis to push through long-standing priorities they say go beyond immediate economic relief.

Those frustrations have also found expression in the $2.1 trillion House Democratic stimulus proposal, which includes a lobbying ban for companies that receive government aid until the funds are repaid. It would also ban corporations that receive a loan for coronavirus relief from giving bonuses to executives, buying back their own stock, and paying out dividends to shareholders.

The stimulus deal being worked out in the Senate is likely to include restrictions on corporate compensation and stock buybacks but not a lobbying ban. But lobbying watchdogs say the House language highlights their growing concerns with K Street, which is one of the few industries enjoying a boom amid the crisis.

The COVID crisis is shaking up Washington, and since more stimulus packages are likely to be on the table, we expect K Street to continue to ratchet up their attention and spending, Lisa Gilbert, vice president of legislative affairs at Public Citizen, told The Hill. With that backdrop, putting limits on the corporations that receive taxpayer dollars in bailouts is just common sense.

Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, supports language that would require companies that receive government help to forego lobbying.

Corporations that receive our taxpayer dollars to stay afloat need clear checks on their ability to engage in influence peddling, Gilbert said.

The coronavirus outbreak has sparked a scramble in Washington as major industries and companies are pressing for aid to weather the economic downturn.

The airline industry last week initially requested $50 billion in aid, while Boeing requested $60 billion for itself and aerospace suppliers. The aggressive lobbying has included a wide range of groups: Child care companies, the candy industry, alcohol beverage producers, tourism and travel companies, and manufacturers are just some of the businesses that have sought relief from Washington.

Thats alarmed progressive and consumer groups who worry the stimulus package will be a boon to big business.

We cannot allow corruption at the highest levels of our government to infect our response to this virus, said Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US, a nonpartisan watchdog. Washington has a choice stand with Americans who are already sick and those living in fear, or stand with the powerful special interests that have filled their campaign coffers and are now looking to cash in.

The House language on a lobbying ban is only the latest effort from Democratic lawmakers to rein in K Street.

Democrats have ramped up calls for lobbying bans, and presidential candidate Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersThe Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Airbnb - House to pass relief bill; Trump moves to get US back to work Oil price drop threatens US fracking boom Democratic fears rise again as coronavirus pushes Biden to sidelines MORE (I-Vt.) has included similar provisions in his platform, calling for a ban on corporate funding for conventions as well as a lobbying ban on former members of Congress and senior staffers.

But those efforts and the latest Democratic proposal to ban lobbying by businesses that receive federal help has rankled K Street lobbyists and those from business groups.

This proposal smacks of a lack of seriousness. The lobbying thats going on right now are folks helping lawmakers understand whats actually happening out beyond the beltway, in the real world, with thousands of employers and small businesses, Neil Bradley, Chamber executive vice president and chief policy officer, told The Hill. Blocking that information from lawmakers, all thats going to do is make this crisis even worse.

The Chamber has been one of the most active groups pushing for protections for businesses and calling on President TrumpDonald John TrumpDefense industrial base workers belong at home during this public health crisis Maduro pushes back on DOJ charges, calls Trump 'racist cowboy' House leaders hope to vote Friday on coronavirus stimulus MORE to designate essential businesses and services during the crisis.

The scrutiny on K Street during a crisis is also not new. Similar proposals on lobbying were floated during the 2008 financial crisis: Sen. Dianne FeinsteinDianne Emiel FeinsteinLobbying frenzy connected to stimulus sparks backlash House bill would ban stock trading by members of Congress Loeffler under fire for stock trades amid coronavirus outbreak MORE (D-Calif.) proposed that any financial institution that receives help from the Treasury Department be banned from lobbying with that money, The Wall Street Journal reported at the time.

But K Street groups are pushing back hard.

It seems both unconstitutional and shortsighted to remove the First Amendment right to petition the government from the very companies who need to be working with the government right now. Its unclear how this idea helps workers, their families, the economy, or anyone, really, said Stephen Worley, the International Franchise Association (IFA) senior director of communications. The IFA is asking Washington for a $300 billion fund to provide liquidity to business owners.

I think a lobbying ban is a bad idea. The First Amendment is the first amendment for a reason and limiting the ability to petition the government is a slippery slope that needs to be avoided, lobbyist headhunter Ivan Adler told The Hill.

Public Affairs Council, a nonpartisan association for public affairs professionals, also said such a ban would violate the constitution.

The courts would likely throw out this proposal because it would clearly violate the First Amendment right to petition the government, Doug Pinkham, the associations president, said. Companies lobby for things like protecting domestic jobs, increasing critical health care research and many other policies that help our countrys economy move forward.

Corporations often assist our lawmakers in crafting sound public policy, and taking away a companys ability to do so during this complicated time is incredibly shortsighted, he added.

But as the coronavirus outbreak plays out and as the government and businesses look to save the economy, the scrutiny on K Street is unlikely to lift.

Bradley, from the Chamber, called the Democratic response disappointing.

Its disappointing because all across America, small businesses are wondering when Washington will get this phase three bill done because they are literally counting the days until they wont be able to make payroll for their employees, he said.

Watchdog groups hope that the stimulus debate will help move the needle on lobbying reform.

Anything that represents long-term corporate reform, not just short-term conditions, is great, said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

Go here to see the original:

Lobbying frenzy connected to stimulus sparks backlash | TheHill - The Hill

N.H. Court Rejects Challenge to Ban on Gatherings of 50 or More People – Reason

Posted on by

This came in yesterday's Binford v. Sununu, written by state court Judge John C. Kissinger. First, the court concluded (correctly, I think) that the Governor had the statutory authority to impose the restriction:

Plaintiffs contend that Governor Sununu lacks the [statutory] authority to declare a state of emergency because the circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 outbreak do not amount to an emergency under the definition of emergency in RSA 21-P:35. Plaintiffs argue that "New Hampshire has had just 17 people diagnosed with [COVID-19], and ZERO deaths. In a state of over 1 million people, those numbers alone make it clear this is not an 'emergency."' This argument is without merit.

It would be irrational to find that the governor must wait for the health care system of New Hampshire to be overwhelmed with patients suffering from COVID-19 before he is authorized to declare a state of emergency and take preventative measures to slow the spread of a highly contagious and potentially deadly disease. Indeed, RSA 4:45 contemplates the need to take preemptive action and explicitly authorizes the governor to do so. Specifically, RSA 4:45, I permits the governor to declare a state of emergency where a disaster is "imminent or has occurred within this state." (Emphasis added).

The court also soundly rejected some constitutional arguments that the plaintiffs had made only briefly: "Plaintiffs do not assert any facts that would lead the Court to conclude that Governor Sununu has declared martial law, has taken any property from Plaintiffs without just compensation, or has exercised impermissible control over Plaintiffs' bodies."

It then turned to the freedom of assembly challenge, and again I agree with its analysis here:

Multiple jurisdictions have contemplated the executive's authority to suspend or infringe upon certain civil liberties during states of emergency. See Smith v. Avino, 91 F.3d 105, 109 (11th Cir. 1996) ("In an emergency situation, fundamental rights such as the right of travel and free speech may be temporarily limited or suspended."); United States v. Chalk, 441 F.2d 1277, 1280 (4th Cir. 1971) ("The invocation of emergency powers necessarily restricts activities that would normally be constitutionally protected."); In re Juan C., 33 Cal. Rptr.2d 919, 922 (Ct. App. 1994) ("An inherent tension exists between the exercise of First Amendment rights and the government's need to maintain order during a period of social strife. The desire for free and unfettered discussion and movement must be balanced against the desire to protect and preserve life and property from destruction."); ACLU of W. Tenn., Inc. v. Chandler, 458 F. Supp 456, 460 (W.D. Tenn. 1978) (explaining that the governor has the authority to impose "limitation on the exercise of [First Amendment rights] only in very unusual circumstances were extreme action is necessary to protect the public from immediate and grave danger").

The 11th Circuit has articulated a two-prong test to determine whether an executive order passes constitutional muster during a state of emergency. In Avino, the Governor of the State of Florida issued an executive order declaring a state of emergency in the wake of Hurricane Andrew. This executive order provided that Miami city and Metropolitan Dade County officials could impose curfews from August 24, 1992 through December 21, 1992. The Miami Dade county manager set the curfew from 7:00 pm to 7:00 am and called in the National Guard and other law enforcement officials to aid local police. By October 2, 1992, the curfew was in effect from 10:00 pm through 5:00 am. County residents were required to stay in their homes during the curfew hours unless otherwise authorized. The curfew was ultimately lifted on November 16, 1992.

The Avino court began its analysis by establishing that the curfew ordinance must be considered "in the circumstances under which the curfew was instituted." The Avino court noted that the State of Florida was devastated by Hurricane Andrew and that all parties agreed that "[p]olice action was clearly required." The court went on to note that "[c]ases have consistently held it is a proper exercise of police power to respond to emergency situations with temporary curfews that might curtail the movement of persons who otherwise would enjoy freedom from restriction." Id. (citing Chalk, 441 F.2d 1277; In re Juan C., 33 Cal. Rptr.2d 919; and Moorhead v. Farrelly, 727 F. Supp. 193 (D.V.I. 1989)).

The Avino court articulated that in a state of emergency, "governing authorities must be granted the proper deference and wide latitude necessary for dealing with the emergency." Accordingly, the court held that "when a curfew is imposed as an emergency measure in response to a natural disaster, the scope of review in cases challenging its constitutionality is limited to a determination whether the executive's actions were taken in good faith and whether there is some factual basis for the decision that the restrictions imposed were necessary to maintain order." The Avino court went on to hold that there was no suggestion that the Dade County officials acted in bad faith. The Avino court further found that a factual emergency existed necessitating emergency intervention. The court ultimately concluded that under extreme emergency circumstances, "fundamental rights such as the right of travel and free speech may be temporarily limited or suspended."

The case currently before the Court concerns a ban on gatherings in excess of 50 people and a ban on dining in at food and beverage service establishments in order to prevent the spread of a highly infectious and deadly disease. The Court finds that this type of ban is sufficiently analogous to a curfew in response to a riot or natural disaster such that the 11th Circuit's two-prong test established in Avino would apply. Here, there is no allegation that Governor Sununu has acted in bad faith. [And] EO 2020-04 set out ample factual bases to conclude that the Governor had the authority to declare a state of emergency concerning the global pandemic caused by COVID-19. Accordingly, the Court finds that there is a sufficient factual basis for the prohibitions contained within Emergency Order #2.

Further buttressing the Court's finding that the Governor's actions are constitutional is the fact that there are multiple checks on Governor Sununu's authority to enforce Emergency Orders pursuant to EO 2020-04. Absent a renewed factual finding by the Governor, EO 2020-04 will be in effect for only 21 days. RSA 4:45, l(d). In addition, the legislature has the authority "by concurrent resolution" to end the state of emergency at any time and can block the governor from renewing the state of emergency at the expiration of 21 days. RSA 4:45, ll(c). Furthermore, Emergency Order #2 is in effect for a limited duration, beginning on March 16, 2020 and ending April 6, 2020. During that time, should the factual bases for enforcing the Emergency Order change, it is subject to review by the Court.

The court then turned to a different argument for why the order is permissible, and here I think it erred to some extent:

Although the Court finds that the Governor may suspend or limit constitutional rights during a state of emergency, for the purpose of establishing a complete record, the Court will also analyze the facial constitutionality of Emergency Order #2.

"Where a law regulates speech only incidentally, as a consequences of expressly regulating conduct, it will withstand first amendment scrutiny if, in its application to incidental speech, it is no more restrictive than a time, place, and manner regulation." Comely, 130 N.H. at 691 (citing United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376-77 (1968)). Determining whether a time, place, and manner regulation comports with the Constitution, requires the Court to employ a three-prong test. Comely, 130 N.H. at 691. The Court must determine whether the regulation: (1) is content-neutral; (2) narrowly serves a significant governmental interest; and (3) allows for other opportunities for expression. Although these cases consider laws rather than emergency orders, the effect of the emergency order is functionally the same. As a result, the Court concludes that the same standard is generally applicable to emergency orders enacted pursuant to RSA 4:45.

The first step of the analysis is to determine whether the restrictions contained within Emergency Order #2 are content neutral. Plaintiffs contend that Emergency Order #2 is expressly content based because of the language in paragraph 1 banning "[s]cheduled gatherings of 50 people or more for social, spiritual and recreational activities." Plaintiffs argue that inclusion of the word "spiritual" expressly targets religious activities and is therefore not content neutral. This argument ignores the remainder of paragraph one which includes an illustrative list detailing the types of events to which Emergency Order #2 applies. Id. (banning gatherings in excess of 50 people for events "including but not limited to, community, civic, public, leisure, faith based, or sporting events; parades; concerts; festivals; conventions; fundraisers; and similar activities"). Based on the inclusion of this illustrative list, Emergency Order #2 is clearly content neutral in that it prohibits any gathering in excess of 50 people, regardless of the content of the event. Accordingly, the Court finds that Emergency Order #2 is content neutral and thereby satisfies the first prong of the time, place, and manner test.

The second step of the analysis is to determine whether the restriction is narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. [B]ecause Emergency Order #2 limits its restrictions to those suggested by the CDC to slow the spread of COVID-19, and because the effects of Emergency Order #2 have a limited duration, the Court finds that Emergency Order #2 is narrowly tailored to serve the government's significant interest.

The final step of the analysis is to determine whether Emergency Order #2 allows for alternative opportunities for expression. Comely, 130 N.H. at 691. This prong of the test is clearly satisfied. As stated above, Emergency Order #2 only bans scheduled gatherings of 50 or more people and dine-in restaurant services. People are free to attend scheduled gatherings with fewer people. They can attend impromptu gatherings of any kind. They are free to communicate via the internet or telephone. They may tune into televised events. They can continue to dine together in their homes or outdoors. There are a wealth of opportunities for individuals to exercise their right to freely assemble and associate that do not require them to gather in large groups or eat at a restaurant during a public health emergency. Accordingly, the Court finds that Emergency Order #2 allows for alternative opportunities of expression.

I think the order is indeed content-neutral, but I think it doesn't leaves open "ample alternative channels" for expression (the general First Amendment requirement for upholding something as a time, place, and manner restriction). If, for instance, a total ban on large gatherings were enacted during normal timesfor instance, a total ban on gatherings of more than 50 people in any park, to prevent wear and tear on parks, litter, and the likeit would be seen asnotleaving open ample alternative channels: other channels would be more expensive, or wouldn't reach the same audience, or wouldn't convey the same message. (SeeCity of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994).)

Rather, because the order doesn't leave open ample alternative channels, it greatly burdens assembly and speech, and thus can't be defended as a mere time, place, and manner restriction, even though it's content-neutral. Rather, it must be judged under strict scrutinynot because it's content-based, but because it's so broad and burdensome. Yet it would pass strict scrutiny: For the reasons given above, it is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest in preventing many deaths from communicable disease (and the availability of alternative means to speak, however imperfect they may be as substitutes for assembly, is one element that makes it narrowly tailored).

The court then rejected the religious freedom challenge:

Nothing in Emergency Order #2 suggests that it is intended to target any religion or specific religious practice. While a ban on scheduled gatherings of 50 or more people may have an impact on the ability for a congregation to assemble at church, the Court concludes that such an impact is merely incidental to the neutral regulation and is otherwise reasonable given the limited duration of the order and public health threat facing the citizens of this State. Accordingly, for all the reasons set forth in the section above, the Court finds that Emergency Order #2 does not unconstitutionally infringe upon Plaintiffs' freedom of religion.

This is correct, I think, under the federal Free Exercise Clause and theEmployment Division v. Smithdecision. (The New Hampshire Supreme Court has interpreted the New Hampshire Constitution the same way thatSmithinterpreted the First Amendment, and New Hampshire doesn't have a RFRA statute.) And even if one concludes that, underSmith, strict scrutiny is required because this is a "hybrid situation" where "the Free Exercise Clause [is raised] in conjunction with other constitutional protections, such as freedom of speech and of the press," strict scrutiny would still be satisfied, for the reasons given above.

Thanks to Prof. Lindsay Wiley (American) for the pointer.

Originally posted here:

N.H. Court Rejects Challenge to Ban on Gatherings of 50 or More People - Reason

Trump Can’t Reopen the Country Over State Objections – Lawfare

Posted on by

In 2007, researchers published findings in the scientific journal PNAS showing how local governments mitigated outbreaks of the 1918 flu pandemic by aggressively limiting public gatherings. Cities such as San Francisco and St. Louis, which introduced restrictions early in one of the waves of the disease, fared much better than Philadelphia, which held a World War I victory parade that attracted tens of thousands of people to its famous Broad Street. Philadelphia was soon hit hard by the flu, while San Francisco and St. Louis were relatively spared.

When multiple interventions were introduced early, they were very effective in 1918, one of the researchers, Richard Hatchett, told the New York Times. And that certainly offers hope that they would be similarly useful in an epidemic today if we didnt have an effective vaccine.

Thirteen years after Hatchett and his colleagues released their work, many of Americas governors are counting on findings like these. The likes of Mike DeWine of Ohio, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, Larry Hogan of Maryland and J.B. Pritzker of IllinoisRepublicans and Democrats alikehave mandated strict social distancing measures in an attempt to curb the spread of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, before it overruns their states health systems. Other governors, such as Andrew Cuomo of New York and Jay Inslee of Washington, have ordered particularly far-reaching limits on congregating in response to the advanced threat confronting their constituents.

But President Trump is threatening to undermine the state responses to this unfolding crisis. Although the White House rolled out its 15 Days to Slow the Spread guidelines on March 16, Trump has since reversed course and proposed, for example, curtailing those guidelines in order to jump-start the economycontrary to the near unanimous consensus of public health experts that the restrictions are necessary to save a million or more lives, and save the economy by doing so.

What happens if Trump tries to order or coerce states to relax their restrictions and put their residents at risk? Earlier this week in Lawfare, Robert Chesney described some limitations on the presidents power to force changes if state and local officials wont follow his lead. Hes right. And if the president tries to force states to ease restrictions, they should resist. They have the Constitution on their side, and they will almost certainly win in court.

A triad of bedrock constitutional principles gives the states the upper hand. First, the Constitution and cases dating back to the founding era make clear that the power to make decisions about public health and welfarefor example, whether to close businesses and schoolslies primarily with the states, not the federal government. Second, to the extent that the federal government does have power in these areas, that power lies with Congress, not the president. Third, federal powers, even when wielded by Congress, are limited. And, as a practical matter, Congress is extremely unlikely to use its power to force states to roll back public health measures, even if it could do so as a formal legal matter. Under these principles, Trump lacks the legal authority to override orders from governors and other state and local officials that are designed to protect the public health and welfare of their citizens.

State Power

First and foremost, states currently retain power to decide who stays home and for how long. The 10th Amendment expressly reserves to the states those powers not delegated to the federal government. As the Supreme Court has explained, the Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act ... through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The 10th Amendment codifies the U.S. system of dual sovereignty and makes clear that, although the states surrendered many of their powers to the federal government, they retain a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over those powers not assigned to the federal government.

Among the powers generally reserved to the states is the authority to quarantine individuals and otherwise protect public health. The regulation of the health and safety of individuals is primarily, and historically, a matter of local concern, the Supreme Court has held. Accordingly, [s]tates traditionally have had great latitude under their police powers to legislate as to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet of all persons.

States and localities have exercised their power to impose quarantines throughout U.S. history. At the turn of the 19th century, the Boston Board of Health quarantined ships arriving from the West Indies, the Mediterranean and other tropical ports to limit the influx of smallpox and other diseases. In 1866, New York City issued a quarantine to prevent a cholera outbreak after health officers discovered that 37 passengers on a ship from Liverpool had died of the disease. More recently, in 2014, many statesincluding Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Texasinstituted quarantines aimed at curbing the spread of the Ebola virus. And over time, a number of states and cities have enacted statutes and promulgated regulations codifying and explicating their quarantine powers. So it should not have come as a surprise in March 2020 when Virginias governor reminded Liberty University thatnotwithstanding the schools decision to require faculty and staff to come back to campus and to encourage thousands of students to do sothe university was still obligated to comply with state public health directives, including Virginias new ban on gatherings of more than 10 people.

The federal government cannot directly hijack states historic quarantine powers for its own ends. In a line of 10th Amendment cases establishing the anti-commandeering doctrine, the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the federal government cannot issue orders directly to the States, forcing their governments to enact laws or act as appendages of the federal government, carrying out federal programs.

This means that neither the president nor Congress can directly require states and cities to call off their shelter-in-place orders, or to reopen schools and businesses. If states wish to keep those restrictions in place beyond Trumps 15 days, they may.

Congress, however, could choose to effectively displace states quarantine power. As a general rule, Congress can displace states traditional police powers when it acts pursuant to one of its enumerated powers, even when its exercise may preempt express state law determinations contrary to the result that has commended itself to the collective wisdom of Congress. As long as any statute is directed at private citizens and interstate commerce directlyand not to the states as statesit likely does not run afoul of the anti-commandeering doctrine. So here, Congress could conceivably invoke its Commerce Clause power and enact a statute specifying that state orders, laws, and regulations closing businesses that substantially affect interstate commerce or prohibiting individuals from going to work are preempted as an undue burden on interstate commerce.

But Congress has not displaced states quarantine powers. Instead, in 1978, Congress invoked the Commerce Clause to complement those powers by amending the Public Health Service Act to provide the federal government with its own limited quarantine authority. The act today grants the secretary of health and human services power to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession. But Congress was careful to make clear that nothing in the act was intended to supersede state and local quarantine authorities.

There are, of course, other limits on states health and wellness powers. States must exercise these powers consistent with the rights protected by the federal Constitution. And these powers must be used consistent with the dormant Commerce Clause, a doctrine that restricts state actions that impose too heavy a burden on interstate commerce. As Robert Chesney explains, courts are unlikely to conclude that shelter-in-place orders of the types now in force fall on the wrong side of that balancing test.

Congressional Power

Second, the power that the federal government does have in these areas lies with Congress and not the president. The post-9/11 era may have conditioned Americans to think that in times of national crisis, power devolves to the president as commander-in-chief. But while theres some truth to that when it comes to matters of war and peace, thats simply not the case for public health crises. It is Congress, not the president, that has the power to provide for the ... general welfare, to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, to appropriate money, and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States.

To be sure, Congress has, in many instances, delegated this authority to executive branch agencies and the presidentas it did with the Public Health Service Act. But that which Congress grants, Congress can take away.

In other instances, Congresss reliance on the executive branch to dole out the money appropriated by the legislature has left de facto discretion to the executive as to when and how that money is spent. But this discretion is limited. For example, any conditions on federal aid must be imposed by Congress, rather than the president, and must be unambiguously stated by Congress at that.

This creates limitations on how Trump can respond to the current situation. He has threatened that federal funds may only go to states whose governors have treat[ed] him well. But, of course, Congress has never unambiguously stated this. Withholding funding, or threatening to withhold funding, on this basis would contravene the law, including Trumps constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executedand possibly even the First Amendment, if the president were to dole out or withhold resources on the basis of political allegiance.

Could Congress Force States to Reopen?

President Trump generally cannot coerce states to relax restrictions designed to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. But it is worth considering whether Congress could enact legislation that requires states to move back toward business as usual.

As discussed above, Congress could invoke its power under the Commerce Clause, on the theory that state restrictions such as stay-at-home orders have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. But we are unaware of any preexisting statutes that even arguably grant this kind of authority to the presidentand as Chesney points out, it is exceedingly unlikely that the current Congress, particularly the Democratic-controlled House, would take this step.

Second, it is well established that Congress has the powerthrough the Spending Clauseto condition the receipt of federal funds on state compliance with certain federal requirements. So, in theory, Congress could tell states that they are eligible to receive certain federal funds only if they agree to lift stay-at-home orders.

In addition to the same practical limitations described above, this power is subject to several limitations that would make it difficult for Congress to leverage its spending power in the current situation (or, as discussed above, for the executive branch to try to use existing statutes to create this leverage). Any condition on the grant of federal funds must be unambiguous. As the Supreme Court explained in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB)which struck down the Medicaid expansion provision of the Affordable Care Act as violative of the Spending ClauseSpending Clause legislation is like a contract between the federal government and the states. As such, the states must know what theyre signing up for. This means that Congress cannot change the terms of the deal down the road by adding conditions to existing programs or sources of funding. So, with respect to the current situation, Congress would need to create new funding streams or find existing funding streams that are at least arguably already conditioned on compliance with federal public health guidelines.

Conditions on federal funding must also be related to the interest that the funding seeks to advance. So, to use the example that the Supreme Court considered in South Dakota v. Dole, Congress can condition the receipt of federal highway funding on states setting a minimum drinking age of 21, because that condition is closely related to one of the main purposes of the federal highway funds, that is, safe interstate travel. While relatedness is not an exacting standard, it might be difficult for Congress to identify funding streams that are sufficiently related to a requirement to ease social distancing restrictions.

On top of this, in the words of Chief Justice John Roberts in NFIB, a Spending Clause condition must not be so coercive that it amounts to a gun to the head of the states. States must be left with a legitimate option to refuse to comply with the condition and thus reject the federal funds. In NFIB, this meant that Congress could not condition all Medicaid fundinga substantial portion of state budgetson the requirement that states expand Medicaid in the manner dictated by the federal government, because this supposed choice really left states with only one option. To renounce the federal funds would be catastrophic.

* * *

There is a legitimate discussion to be had about the social and economic consequences of social distancing, and when those costs might come to outweigh the costs of the spread of the virus. But experts agree that the United States is months away from that point. For now, the scientific consensus is that the U.S. must continue social distancing in order to avoid overwhelming the medical system and endangering millions of lives.

Despite this, the president has pushed to ease restrictions put in place to mitigate the pandemic. Congress is very limited in its ability to enact Trumps unwise suggestion. But even if the president cannot force the states to stop pursuing sound public health policy and protecting their citizens, he can still do profound damage and cost lives by modifying the social distancing guidelines provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or otherwise pressuring states to lift their public health measures.

Some states reluctant to act on their own, such as Texas, initially followed the CDCs lead in making their decisions to close schools and enact social distancing measures. But now that the president is wavering on keeping the guidelines in place, those same states are showing signs that they will do the same. Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, for example, echoed Trumps recent comments by telling Fox Newss Tucker Carlson that Texans should get back to work. (Fortunately, Texass governor does not seem to share those views.) Meanwhile, shortly after the president started talking about putting an end to social distancing, Mississippis governor, Tate Reeves, issued an executive order that effectively overrode local social distancing orders.In those states that continue their restrictions in spite of federal guidance, individuals may nonetheless look to the president in deciding whether to follow the states rules, or even in deciding to self-medicate for the infection rather than seeking professional advice. This can have deadly consequences; indeed, it already has. But the states have the legal power to blunt the presidents dangerous influence, and they should not hesitate to use it.

While the federal government traditionally plays the central role in mobilizing a response to national crises, there are occasions in which states can be best positioned to play the primary role in protecting the health and welfare of their constituents. The COVID-19 pandemicwhich necessitates agile and proactive government interventions, based on fast-developing circumstances in specific localesis one such occasion. Governors must be in a position to act swiftly if they deem it prudent. The federalist system allows them that flexibility.

Disclosure: The authors work for Protect Democracy, which has represented Lawfare editors Benjamin Wittes, Jack Goldsmith, Scott Anderson and Susan Hennessey on a number of separate matters.

See more here:

Trump Can't Reopen the Country Over State Objections - Lawfare

Amid stay-home order, Ammon Bundy hosts meeting; calls on Idahoans to defend rights – Idaho Press-Tribune

Posted on by

EMMETT Ammon Bundy hosted on Thursday a meeting in Emmett, where he called on attendees to pledge to defend Idahoans who are pressured to comply with a stay-home order enacted this week by Gov. Brad Little.

Reached by phone Friday, Bundy said the gathering was about discussing the states self-isolation order.

We discussed with each other whether our rights can be taken by an order from a governor or an agency, and if they can be, what good are our rights? Bundy said.

Little on Wednesday issued a statewide stay-home order for all Idahoans for 21 days. The order requires all residents to self-isolate at home if you can, not just if you are sick, according to the governors office.

Bundy said self-isolation during the spread of the new coronavirus is not a bad thing.

Im not sure its warranted completely to even ask that, but thats not the argument here, he said. If it was a guideline, I would applaud it. Its not, its an order.

A 19-minute video of Thursdays two-hour meeting, recorded live and posted on a public Facebook account, shows Bundy pledging to help provide legal, political and physical defense to people who are pressured by the authorities or anybody else to comply with the order.

I will be there, Bundy said. I will bring as many people as we can. We will form a legal defense for you, a political defense for you, and we will also, if necessary, provide a physical defense for you, so that you can continue in your rights.

Bundy asked meeting attendees to sign a piece of paper, provide their contact information and agree that, as someone decides to stand, we form a legal and political and physical defense. Bundy said he knows a lot of good people that have a tremendous amount of legal capabilities, and there are people who are very effective at political defense.

If you are within your rights, acting, and you are receiving pressure or force from anybody that this is the people that you contact, he said, referring to the pledge paper. What their job is, is to activate everybody in the situation.

Bundy said the situation could be so and so needs (us) to go down to his business, or so and so (needs us) to file suit, grievance. Bundy also said that a bad actor, or someone who infringes on peoples rights, could be targeted for protests at their homes.

We need to find out whos the bad actor here, he said. We need to go to his house and act in that way.

Bundy told the Idaho Press hes not opposed to weapons being used in a situation where physical defense is required.

Do you LOVE local news? Get Local News Headlines in your inbox daily.

Thanks! You'll start receiving the headlines tomorrow!

When someones rights are being violated for whatever reason then thousands of people come and surround that person and bring a tremendous, a lot of attention and bring accountability to the bad actors, he said. The First Amendment is secured by the Second Amendment.

Earlier on Thursday, Bundy, who lives near Emmett, posted a Facebook video inviting all the people of Idaho to come to a peoples meeting.

The last time it was illegal to meet together as a people on this land was before the Revolutionary War, said Bundy, wearing a cowboy hat and filming himself. Since we won our independence, it has never been illegal to assemble as a people.

In 2016, Bundy helped lead the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. He also participated in an armed standoff with federal law enforcement at his fathers Nevada ranch in 2014.

The Thursday meeting was held in an industrial building in Emmett, which Bundy owns and leases. The video shows more than a dozen people in attendance, both sitting and standing, and they mostly appeared to be keeping some distance from one another. Bundy said he plans to host another meeting next week at the same location.

The meeting likely violates the states stay-home order. At a Friday press conference, Little said he has the authority to outlaw public gatherings, even political gatherings. He said gatherings are discouraged and are frankly in violation of this stay-home order.

Theres no difference between a political gathering and any other gathering, Little said.

The Idaho Press is offering free online access to all of our local coronavirus stories. Our ongoing coverage of the Treasure Valley relies on the generous support from our readers. To strengthen local journalism, please consider subscribing at iptoffers.com. For daily updates in your inbox, sign up for our COVID-19 newsletter.

Ryan Suppe is the Meridian reporter for the Idaho Press. Contact him at 208-465-8119. Follow him on Twitter @salsuppe.

The rest is here:

Amid stay-home order, Ammon Bundy hosts meeting; calls on Idahoans to defend rights - Idaho Press-Tribune

Sixteen Stormy Days: Tripurdaman Singh’s account of the First Amendment to Indian Constitution makes for… – Firstpost

Posted on by

Its fair to say that the average Indians faith in the judiciary and the Constitution in general is at an all-time low. A few days ago, we learned that former Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, will be a Rajya Sabha MP soon. This is less than a year after he presided over his own sexual harassment allegation hearing just one of the many unpopular decisions he took in the last year of his career, all of which favoured the Narendra Modi government (Ayodhya, the Rafale deal and so on). The most contentious issue in India (other than the governments handling of COVID-19, of course) today, after all, is an act that many of us feel is unconstitutional (violates Article 14, for starters) and yet, the fight against the CAA is led by street protests, not legal challenges.

When did the executive branch begin to bend the judiciary to their (political) will in India and how? Sixteen Stormy Days (Penguin Random House India), a new non-fiction book by Tripurdaman Singh, tries to answer this question and address the long-term effects of the First Amendment to the Indian constitution.

Sixteen Stormy Days, by Tripurdaman Singh

As the author says, How did this magnificent Constitution, the most elaborate declaration of human rights yet framed go from being a charter of freedom & fulfillment of the dreams of Indias people in 1950 to being an impediment in the will of the same people by 1951?

Why did Jawaharlal Nehru push so hard for the First Amendment in 1951, especially in the face of challenges both within the provisional parliament (general elections were still a few months away) and from various High Courts? The answer is both simple and not. The objective was three-fold: the abolition of the zamindari system (the impediment being the right to property), the application of caste-based reservations (the impediment being the right to equality) and the censoring of publications deemed as national security threats (the impediment being freedom of speech).

Each of the three objectives, therefore, involved a clash between political objectives and fundamental rights. This brought Nehru back to the original question: why do we have fundamental rights in the first place? Is it not to protect the most vulnerable among us? Nehru was certainly correct in his over-arching view of things that as long as structural inequities existed in the Indian state (the caste system, for instance, something that persists to this day and is easily Indias biggest social justice issue), fundamental rights could be misused to privilege the powerful over the weak. Zamindari did need to go, caste-based reservations were needed in India (still are).

As part of its agenda, the Congress wanted to abolish the zamindari system as soon as possible. Obviously, faced with the overnight evaporation of their power, the zamindars of Bihar in particular fought back hard, helped by allies like Rajendra Prasad, Indias first President. On 12 March 1951, the Patna High Court struck down the Bihar Land Reforms Act, saying that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution (which pertains to the equality of all citizens in the eyes of the law).

In a searing indictment of the Congress party and the Bihar governments manifest authoritarianism, the judges denounced the Act as an unconstitutional law enacted in the belief that the right of the plaintiffs to challenge it and ask for relief from its operation has been taken away. The courts decision shook the government and the Congress party to its core. It shattered the illusion of the current regime having inherited the absolute power of the Raj. The Bihar Land Reforms Act bit the dust. An entire pillar of the Congress partys social agenda stood virtually crippled.Singhs research is thorough. He excels in the blow-by-blow accounts of those crucial weeks when Nehru tried to bring his allies and his opponents around to his point of view. (Realpolitik is a thorny affair at the best of times, one that Singh is clearly familiar with). Immediately after the Patna High Court ruling, Nehru had a fairly strong-worded statement for the press:

If the Constitution is interpreted by the Courts in a way which comes in the way of the wishes of the legislature in regard to basic social matters, then it is for the legislatures to consider how to amend the Constitution so that the will of the people as represented in the legislature should prevail.

Most students of history and/or political science will, I am sure, find the back-and-forth between Nehru and BR Ambedkar, or between Prasad and Nehru, compelling reading. This is among the reasons why Singhs work is such a valuable resource. To his credit, the book is also accessibly written, for the most part, only slipping into legalese at a few places every now and then small blemishes in an otherwise thoroughly professional job.

I was also impressed by the fact that Singh, despite his Bharatiya Janata Party affiliations (his father Mahendra Aridaman Singh re-joined the BJP in 2017; at various points through the 90s and 2000s, he had been a part of the Samajwadi Party and Janta Dal as well), isnt interested in painting Nehru as an outright villain (although predictably, his book has been gleefully reported on by right-wing publications with a history of Islamophobia and publishing falsehoods like Swarajya magazine, complete with headlines blasting Nehru). As the author himself pointed out in a recent interview, he saw Nehru as a hard-nosed politician (and not as the saboteur of fundamental rights in India, despite his stand here). Hopefully, this sense of nuance also reaches Singhs colleagues in the BJP soon.

Find latest and upcoming tech gadgets online on Tech2 Gadgets. Get technology news, gadgets reviews & ratings. Popular gadgets including laptop, tablet and mobile specifications, features, prices, comparison.

Go here to see the original:

Sixteen Stormy Days: Tripurdaman Singh's account of the First Amendment to Indian Constitution makes for... - Firstpost

The Sobering Realities of the American Dystopia – CounterPunch

Posted on by

I write this update to you against the sobering realities of the coronavirus crisis, a profound U.S. leadership crisis and the reality that 2020 is closing down early across our society.

Turns out I am in a designated risk category by virtue of my 62 years of age, but have direct family members and people in my regular social network who fall into much higher critical risk categories due to pre-existing conditions.

In the face of the coronavirus crisis, we must increasingly look to local and global health leaders for action in the absence of any real leadership from the U.S. government.

The Trump administration order to classify updates on coronavirus developments and testing is frankly a coverup of the U.S. governments abysmal failure to protect the welfare, health and well-being of the people.

Yet key indications and warning from months ago were ignored by Trump and his administration when the coronavirus broke out.

This reminds me of the failures of the U.S. government to provide for the common defense not keeping people out of harms way on 9/11 when almost 3,000 lives perished on that fateful and tragic day, despite many years of ignored indications and warnings (including reports I helped send out in 1993 after terrorists attempted to drop the World Trade Center Towers the first time). Those indications and warnings were then covered up to hide culpability and truth about 9/11 behind a blanket of national security lies and classified secrets.

In addition, the coronavirus crisis is exposing lots of fraud and sand castles. Therefore, despite government lies and denials and too many people in high places sticking their heads in the proverbial sand (while wishing on rainbows and mirages), we must face this global health crisis together as we all live in the same global village on this planet called Earth.

As I write this, just today the Federal Reserve Bank pumped more than atrillion and a half dollarsinto the economy under the guise of market intervention and the stock market still fell some 10 percent on the day in its worst showing since 1987.

Can you imagine how far atrillion and a half dollarswould go to protect the health and well-being of people, let alone promoting the general welfare of the populace? It is one of the two primary responsibilities of government in the Preamble of the Constitution, besides providing for the common defense.

And then we have President Trumps 2020 campaign suing several media outlets for libel over opinion pieces. This is incredibly dangerous, treating the First Amendment and free expression and speech as a direct threat to his ego, personal vanity, autocratic behavior, and megalomania. It sends a most chilling message when daring to write and publish something Dear Leader doesnt like.

Trump is doing this in the form of defamation lawfare suits that abuse the court system and judiciary, while attempting to overturn and set new precedent for prior restraint.

With all these attacks on the First Amendment by the Trump administration, I am experiencing major flashbacks.

That is because the government charged me with espionage; it accused me of stealing and then disclosing government property and secrets that I then gave to the press. Government prosecutors alleged that the reporter was the only eyewitness to my apparent crime committed against the state for speaking truth about the abuse of national security state power and the mass violations of privacy and Fourth Amendment protections of people.

There is also a lot of Newspeak propaganda and disinformation operations using convenient foils and overstated bogeymen to exploit fear, sow discord and promote division while hiding the truth behind a veil of secrecy and national security state briefings. This type of executive action makes it all too easy to manipulate for political ends.

Trump continually demonstrates his contempt and hatred for democracy, preferring the rally stage of a performance-driven presidency while spreading the memes and propaganda of his own Trump-branded autocratic authoritarianism.

U.S. democracy is under assault by the Trump syndicate as he issues pardons contributing to the advancement of white-collar crime and enhanced corruption abusing his power to attack and threaten his enemies while persecuting and prosecuting those who dare to expose his massive confraud on America.

Trumps priorities are now vengeance and revenge engaging in a new series of retaliatory acts to preserve his power in violation of his constitutional oath. His vindictive actions and unlawful orders are malicious assaults on democracy as he ramps up his retribution tour against his designated enemies and those he claims betrayed him using the power of his presidency to protect his abuse of power.

And yet democracy dies in the darkness of dystopia, and there are now alarming new developments in the updated U.S. 20-22 counterintelligence strategy report for identifying and targeting hacktivists while calling them out as social media manipulators and also targeting anti-secrecy and public disclosure groups as direct threats to the national security of the United States.

These new and chilling counterintelligence threats to the U.S. also include targeting anyone else who fits an ideologically motivated entities profile as designated espionage threats to the U.S. considered equal and on par with the threats posed by existing and more traditional state and non-state actors.

The U.S. is now clearly formalizing threat monitoring of dissent and truth-telling public interest disclosures in the updated executive counterintelligence strategy recently signed by Trump.

It reminds me of when I was declared an Enemy of the State, a secrecy leaker and one who self-radicalized as alleged by the Joint DoJ/DNI National Insider Threat Task Force (NITTF) back in late 2015 in formal threat briefings.

The NITTF also pinned me up alongside Edward Snowden as a National Security State criminal on a rogues gallery of counterintelligence threats from those that have done us harm (equating me with the newly minted moniker of leaktivist in the 20-22 counterintelligence strategy) and other real spies and mass shooters in U.S. history.

What future do we want to keep? It is up to us.

I will keep on keeping on defending life, liberty and our precious freedoms and rights standing tall along that long moral arc of the universe and help bending it toward justice and mercy.

Please take care of yourselves and each other, because it so important to remember that we bring out the best of who we are in each other as human beings.

Continue reading here:

The Sobering Realities of the American Dystopia - CounterPunch