id
int64 1
141k
| title
stringlengths 15
150
| body
stringlengths 43
35.6k
| tags
stringlengths 1
118
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
61,778 | Can someone please explain this political cartoon? | <p>I have always enjoyed the political cartons at <a href="https://www.usnews.com/cartoons/donald-trump" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.usnews.com/cartoons/donald-trump</a></p>
<p>However, this one has me stumped. Can someone please explain it? It's not hat I don't find it humorous, or disagree with it. I simply do not understand what it is trying to convey.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/2tYdk.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/2tYdk.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
 | united states donald trump cartoon | 0 |
61,781 | What is the rationale behind Angela Merkel's criticism of Donald Trump's ban on Twitter? | <p>According to <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/germanys-merkel-hits-out-at-twitter-over-problematic-trump-ban.html" rel="noreferrer">CNBC</a>, Angela Merkel (via her chief spokesman) criticized Donald Trump's ban on Twitter.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance,”
Steffen Seibert, Merkel’s chief spokesman, told reporters in Berlin on
Monday, according to Reuters.</p>
<p>“Given that, the chancellor considers it problematic that the
president’s accounts have been permanently suspended.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The same article mentions that this is quite surprising due to not so good relations between Donald Trump and Angela Merkel:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Her apparent alignment with the president against the decision by
Twitter to remove him comes as a surprise. The German leader, who
doesn’t herself have a Twitter account, has often clashed with Trump
over the years, while diplomatic relations between Washington and
Berlin have been on the wane.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Also, the decision to ban Donald Trump seems to be more related to breaking the platforms' terms and conditions rather than an arbitrary limitation of freedom of speech.</p>
<p>Why criticize this?</p>
 | donald trump freedom of speech social media angela merkel | 1 |
61,785 | Why do non-federations need bicameral parliaments? | <p>Federations often have a bicameral parliament: one house speaks for the nation itself, whereas the other one speaks for the subjects within the federation (it could be summoned by the means of the popular vote, like the U.S. Senate since Amendment XVII of 1912-13, or appointed by subject governments, like the Russian Federal Council).</p>
<p>The state legislature in the U.S. got me thinking: why do non-federations (unitary governments or U.S. states) need the upper house? <a href="https://www.quora.com/Why-do-states-have-bicameral-legislatures" rel="noreferrer">This was asked on Quora</a>, yet the answers seemed quite shaky. I liked this one:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The point of a bicameral legislature at any level is to have one body that responds quickly to political demands, and another that moves more slowly and carefully. Sometimes what people are screaming for just isn't a good idea. A more deliberative body that doesn't have to face re-election immediately can take a longer term view. -- <a href="https://www.quora.com/profile/Louis-Cohen-1" rel="noreferrer">Louis Cohen</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yet it seems (to me) that such a system would give rise to in-all-earnest populism during the upper house elections.</p>
<p>So, why do non-federations need the upper house? If Louis Cohen got it right in his answer, am I right to reckon populism to be a standing problem in such a system?</p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Besides,</strong> Nebraska got rid of the upper (well, the lower) House back in 1937. How is this working out for them?</p>
 | united states parliament federalism state legislatures bicameral | 1 |
61,786 | What prevents a government from taxing its citizens living abroad? | <p>South Africa recently <a href="https://businesstech.co.za/news/wealth/378057/new-tax-laws-for-south-african-expats-the-facts-vs-the-noise/" rel="noreferrer">introduced new legislation</a> that means many citizens working abroad that were previously exempt from paying income tax are now required to do so. It is also common knowledge that citizens of the United States are required to pay tax to the US government even if they do not live or work in the US.</p>
<p>Many countries have a huge diaspora due to bad governance, discrimination against specific ethnic groups or general corruption. The members of the diaspora would typically be seen as being hostile towards the government, so implementing policies that disaffect them would not be a problem for said government. Many of the diaspora would also reside in countries that have tenuous, even hostile, relationships with the home country.</p>
<p>So what prevents this government from suddenly claiming income tax from these citizens? They would increase their coffers at little expense, disaffect a part of their population that they don't care much about anyway (this may even improve their standing with their remaining electorate), and as a bonus redirect valuable capital from another country into their own coffers. Even if only a fraction of the diaspora comply with the law in order to maintain their good legal standing at home, it would still seem to be a profitable strategy.</p>
<p>Why do we not see this happening more often?</p>
 | taxes international expat | 1 |
61,793 | Apparently, there is a message behind the suspension of Trump's accounts from Big Tech companies, what is it? | <p>Today, January 13th, Google has also decided that they don't want the appearance of Donald Trump on their social platform Youtube, for at least seven days.</p>
<p>I think that this move is an excess act if it is just for guaranteeing the next week transition from Youtube and especially Google.</p>
<p>And in addition, by exercising this act, Google risks of facing many harsh criticisms as well as questions that they have been trying to avoid for years, namely: Their political stance (by this I mean their political principles), freedom of speech, publisher or not publisher, the extent of their involvement in politics, the extent at which legal figures can involve in their decision making, etc.</p>
<p><em>Remark</em>: As we all know, Chancellor Merkel has expressed her concerns.</p>
<p>Although much of risk can be faced, if Google has harboured for long their intention to draw a line between them and US legislators (as well as Congress) in the above matters, IMHO, this is the best opportunity to throw their attack.</p>
<p>Above this is my vague assessment of the action from Big Techs, especially after Apple and Google have done their part. But I'm not sure if my assessment is correct. So my question is:</p>
<p><strong>Is it true that US Big Techs are trying to convey a message to US legislators and congress? If it is true, what is their (most pertinent) rationale as well as motives behind these actions?</strong></p>
<p>Thank you,
Sincerely,</p>
 | donald trump technology | 0 |
61,811 | Can the senate now vote to bar Trump from standing again? | <p>It looks the senate will not hold an impeachment trial very soon. But can they vote by simple majority to bar Trump from ever standing for president again?</p>
 | united states donald trump presidential election senate impeachment | 0 |
61,814 | When will Chuck Schumer become Majority Leader? | <p>I'm not from the USA myself and I'm trying to understand the transfer of power following the Georgia Run-off elections for the senate.</p>
<p>So far in my head I've got the following:</p>
<ul>
<li>Joe Biden is the president elect and will take over on the 20th Jan</li>
<li>The Democrat's control the House by 4 so have a majority and from what I can see Nancy Polosi will remain and the Majority leader</li>
<li>The Senate is 50/50 split with Mitch McConnell still the current Majority leader.</li>
</ul>
<p>I've seen newspaper reports that Chuck Schumer is due to become the Majority Leader... at some point. I know there is some form of vote for a Leader of each party and then the Leader of the party in control becomes the Senate leader.</p>
<p>What I can't find out is a date for when this transfer is due to happen?
Will it happen after Biden and Harris are sworn in? It would make sense as there won't be a change of power in the senate until until Harris is the VP and then can cast the deciding vote. Or is there a fixed date of when new leaders are voted in? A special session that happens every X years or months?</p>
<p>Thanks in advance</p>
 | united states senate senate rules political transitions | 1 |
61,818 | What allows the House of Representatives to fine its members and is there precedent for doing so? | <p>Speaker Nancy Pelosi and some House members are proposing a fine for members who <a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-politics-adam-kinzinger-liz-cheney-impeachments-2a2431b25720b8815727d4e2fe4e9062" rel="noreferrer">bypass the security protocols</a> of the House or <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/12/house-democrats-propose-1-000-fine-members-who-dont-wear-masks/6641400002/" rel="noreferrer">fail to wear a mask on the floor</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Lawmakers will be fined $500 on a first offense and $2,500 for a second offense, and fines will be deducted from their pay, according to the aide. Fines cannot be paid with members' campaign funds or their expense accounts.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What allows the House of Representatives to fine its members? In other words, what gives the House the authority to fine its members? Is there precedent for fining members?</p>
 | united states house of representatives house rules fines | 1 |
61,823 | Why is the IRS issuing some stimulus payments using a Debit card? | <p>In the United States, as part of the second wave of coronavirus stimulus payments, the IRS said some payments will be sent as VISA debit cards issued by MetaBank.</p>
<p>Wouldn't this be more complicated and more expensive then printing a check? (e.g. the debit card has to have an associated account opened for it)</p>
<p>Is the government getting some kind of kickback from MetaBank or VISA for issuing these cards?</p>
<p>VISA normally gets to earn merchant processing fees from stores anytime anyone uses a VISA debit or credit card - is VISA opportunistically paying the government to issue VISA cards so when consumers spend their stimulus at stores, VISA gets a forced kickback (2.5% of tens of billions) from the merchants?</p>
<p>Also, I looked up MetaBank on Wikipedia and, relatively speaking, it's a smallish bank. Why would the government partner with MetaBank instead of a larger more established bank like e.g. Bank of America?</p>
<p>To be clear, my question is, <em>why mail debit cards <strong>instead of checks</strong> for people the IRS don't have direct deposit info for?</em> And, <em>why choose MetaBank to handle that instead of a larger bank</em>?</p>
 | united states irs stimulus | 0 |
61,828 | Given Covid, why will Biden's inauguration not be virtual? | <p>No matter the social distancing practised, there will inevitably be <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54487154" rel="nofollow noreferrer">some spread of Covid at any large gathering</a> such as an inauguration.</p>
<p>Add the crowds of people who always come to DC, just because of the inauguration, even though they are not invited.</p>
<p>Add to that probable protesters and counter-protesters. Add to those the number of <a href="https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2021/01/13/one-week-after-deadly-attack-capitol-hill-halls-filled-with-national-guard-troops-instead-of-tourists-and-staffers/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">national guard troops</a> and other security forces who will be present, and you have great number of people in DC who would not otherwise be there (has anyone estimated how many?).</p>
<p>Given <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=us+covid" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the US current Coved situation</a>, why is this event happening in the flesh and not virtually?</p>
 | united states covid 19 virus joe biden inauguration | 1 |
61,830 | Does the impeachment of Donald Trump render his future pardons void? | <p>Usually near the end of their terms, U.S. Presidents grant pardons. It is expected from current U.S. President Donal Trump that he will grant several pardons in the following week. Granting pardons is a presidential power as written in the U.S. Constitution (article 2, section 2, clause 1):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, <strong>except in Cases of impeachment</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But it happens that Trump is now impeached since January 13<sup>th</sup>, and he will very likely still be impeached by the end of his term on January 20<sup>th</sup>.</p>
<p>Does the emphasized exception mean that any pardon that Trump would grant between his impeachment on January 13<sup>th</sup> and the end of his term on January 20<sup>th</sup> are void?</p>
 | united states donald trump trump impeachment pardon | 0 |
61,831 | Can the senate Democrats now force a trial with witnesses, and compel Trump to give testimony? | <p>President Trump has been impeached for a second time, in January 2021.
Now the trial goes to the senate.
Now that the Democrats have control of the senate, can they compel witnesses to give testimony, and can that include Donald Trump.
Up to 20 January, can Trump use Executive Privilege to avoid being called (both himself and others), and does that change after 20 January?</p>
 | united states donald trump senate trump impeachment | 1 |
61,835 | Why are congressional votes not secret? | <p>In general, a person in the United States has the right to vote. As far as I can tell, this vote is private—no one else knows who you voted for. Why are the votes in congress public? Wouldn't it help the representatives and senators to vote with a secret ballot—they could then vote with integrity if they so chose to?</p>
 | united states congress voting privacy secret ballot | 1 |
61,836 | Are there research results on what makes people in established democracies believe in election fraud? | <p>One might assume that ballots and vote counts come close to an absolute truth, that large-scale election fraud is nearly impossible in stable and wealthy democratic countries: Public observers and reviews, recounts and challenge in courts, if demanded. Also, basic political processes are more important to people than historical events, where conspiracy theories may be adopted solely for entertainment (such as moon-hoax, JFK and 9/11).</p>
<p>This refers to the voting and vote count itself, not other influences, like biased media, voter suppression before ballots are cast, or distortion by the process (intermediate instances like districts with "winner takes it all" principle, or the electoral college in the USA).</p>
<p>On the other hand, in less stable countries or fake democracies, election fraud is common: Ballots being destroyed or not counted, fake ballots, minors, dead or non-existing people "voting", or simply fabricated results.</p>
<p>Are there any investigations, and possibly results, on what makes, for example, a huge part of US voters seriously believe that the voting process itself was fraudulent, similar to that of a developing country? I assume that a majority of them does not intend to bring Trump back into office at all cost, even by overthrowing democracy itself and installing him as a dictator.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/half-of-republicans-say-biden-won-because-of-a-rigged-election-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN27Y1AJ" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/half-of-republicans-say-biden-won-because-of-a-rigged-election-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN27Y1AJ</a></p>
<p>Suggestions:</p>
<ul>
<li>Trust in an individual (e.g. Trump) over trust in a system</li>
<li>Confusion of "hard" facts (poll results) with "soft" points-of-view (e.g. biased media).</li>
<li>Large scale delusion (belief in conspiracy theories, QAnon etc. of entities exercising even unlikely levels of control)</li>
</ul>
 | election election fraud conspiracy theories psychology | 0 |
61,846 | Has a state official ever been impeached twice? | <p>The Wikipedia article for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump" rel="noreferrer">Donald Trump</a> states that he is</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the only federal officeholder to be impeached twice.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What about officeholders in <em>other</em> jurisdictions of the United States? <strong>Has any state, territorial, or local official ever been impeached more than once?</strong></p>
 | united states impeachment | 1 |
61,850 | Can the Senate put an in-progress impeachment trial on pause? | <h1>Background</h1>
<p>Mitch McConnell has <a href="https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/mcconnell-statement-on-senate-schedule-jan-2021" rel="noreferrer">released a statement</a> stating that the impeachment trial will not begin until the next regular meeting following the receipt from the house:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The House of Representatives has voted to impeach the President. The Senate process will now begin at our first regular meeting following receipt of the article from the House.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This likely means that, barring an extremely quick trial, this will go on into Biden's presidency. A concern that <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/533753-trump-impeachment-collides-with-bidens-agenda" rel="noreferrer">Biden himself</a> has raised is that the impeachment trial will cut into the beginning of his presidency, as he states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Can we go half day on dealing with impeachment, and half day getting my people nominated and confirmed in the Senate as well as moving on the package?” Biden asked. “I haven’t gotten an answer from the parliamentarian yet.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Biden already states one proposed method to deal with this conundrum: splitting business concurrently with typical senate processes alongside an impeachment trial. However, given that the senate will have to pause to swear in new members, elect a new Senate Majority Leader, and swear in new Senators, the Senate will have to take up non-impeachment related motions anyway. This reality is what prompted me to ask</p>
<h1>Question</h1>
<p>Can the Senate just pause an impeachment trial mid-trial entirely, then pick it up at a separate date?</p>
 | united states impeachment senate rules | 1 |
61,854 | Can the Senate Majority Leader reconvene the US Senate early during a recess? | <p>It has been unclear as to how the Senate would be able to reconvene in order to convict/acquit Trump, or at least start his trial before 1 p.m. on January 20th, which is the date and time that will happen if nothing is done. Some have suggested that it would require a unanimous consent agreement during one of the pro forma sessions between now and the 20th. I thought this was the answer, but recently certain articles and other info has come out that suggests that it could be done with Mitch McConnell alone, or Mitch acting jointly with Chuck Schumer. Does Mitch have the authority to reconvene the Senate for regular buisness without unanimous consent?</p>
 | united states senate senate rules | 1 |
61,855 | Explain for kids — Why isn't Northern Ireland demanding a stay/leave referendum like Scotland? | <p><a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/34470">https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/34470</a> is too abstruse — the history and religion conflicts are too complicated. I'm seeking answers written for a 10 y.o.</p>
<p>Every week, I see a new article on the SNP or Nicola Sturgeon demanding a referendum to stay or leave the U.K. Why isn't Northern Ireland doing same? Deliberately I'm asking just about staying or leaving the U.K., not whether Northern Ireland will become an independent nation state or reunite with Republic of Ireland — don't hesitate to address both possibilities.</p>
<p>This doesn't duplicate <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/40439">Why isn't Northern Ireland demanding a referendum on joining Ireland, similar to the one in Scotland?</a>, which was answered on Apr 10 2019, because the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement with 1246 pages was agreed on Dec. 26 2020.</p>
 | brexit northern ireland independence | 1 |
61,859 | What does "H St Aff" mean as an action taken on a proposed bill (Idaho)? | <p>Idaho's legislature is in session. I've been monitoring their activity on <a href="https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2021/legislation/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this page</a>. I can usually tell what abbreviations for actions taken on bills mean at a glance, but this one has me stumped:</p>
<pre><code>H0001 Disasters, governor’s powers H St Aff *
 ^^^^^^^^
</code></pre>
<p>From looking at an <a href="https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2005/legislation/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">older session</a>, I see many abbreviations that look like (H)ouse committees - i.e. "H Rev/Tax", "H Transp", etc. So I suspect this indicates a committee, but the name of it is eluding me (and <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=idaho+legislature+h+st+aff" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Google isn't very helpful</a>).</p>
 | united states legislative process us state laws state legislatures | 1 |
61,868 | How strong is the association between the complexity of the electoral process and beliefs in voting fraud? | <p>It's been suggested in <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/61842/18373">a fairly upvoted answer</a> to a related question that the complexity of the electoral/voting process is a main driver in beliefs in voting fraud, at least in developed countries.</p>
<p>Are there cross-country empirical studies on the association between the complexity of the electoral process (either operationalized objectively or merely as perceived by voters) and beliefs that fraud is occurring?</p>
<p>(10 up-votes, which is what that answer got insofar, might not be enough to support a q on Skeptics notability-wise, so I'm asking here.)</p>
<hr />
<p>Somewhat related, I found a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379417302792" rel="nofollow noreferrer">paper</a> that does find a moderate association in Australia between belief in fraud happening and the perception that rules are too complex, but by rules there they don't mean the counting process in itself, but mainly the "complexity of the preferential system" used in Australia, although the latter does have some implications for the complexity of the counting process. Two thirds of those surveyed would have also preferred that the PM be directly elected; there was a stronger correlation between the desire for this particular rules change and the stated belief that fraud was happening.</p>
 | comparative politics election fraud bureaucracy empirical studies | 0 |
61,869 | Why did the proposal for a Common Assets Trust (CAT) not pass the Vermont legislature? | <p>The idea of a common assets trust (CAT) is to hold and manage natural and collectively created assets and pay citizens a dividend from the proceeds. The proposal entered the Vermont legislature twice (in 2007-08 and in 2011-12) but did not pass.</p>
<p>The VCAT has continued to be discussed in academia, e.g. in this 2015 <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800914003267" rel="nofollow noreferrer">article</a>.
In June 2020 the proposal was taken up again in the context of funding a UBI. See details <a href="https://vtdigger.org/press_release/universal-basic-income-must-be-at-core-of-state-stimulus-plan/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>.</p>
<p>What were the objections to the VCAT at the time?<br />
What is the current status of the proposal?</p>
 | united states economy climate change environmental policy basic income | 0 |
61,874 | Where can I find details of conference report that restricted construction of new public housing units, and was added to H.R.4194? | <p>The <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/4194/text/pl?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22cite%3APL105-276%22%5D%7D&r=1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">published law for H.R.4194</a> includes the restriction of building public housing units</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[[Page 112 STAT. 2556]]</p>
<pre><code> ``(3) Limitation on new construction.--
 ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in 
 subparagraphs (B) and (C), a public housing agency may 
 not use any of the amounts allocated for the agency from 
 the Capital Fund or Operating Fund for the purpose of 
 constructing any public housing unit, if such 
 construction would result in a net increase from the 
 number of public housing units owned, assisted, or 
 operated by the public housing agency on October 1, 
 1999, including any public housing units demolished as 
 part of any revitalization effort.
</code></pre>
</blockquote>
<p>However, the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/4194/text/rh?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22cite%3APL105-276%22%5D%7D&r=1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">original law proposed</a> does not include any restriction. I looked through the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/4194/amendments?q=%7B%22search%22:%5B%22cite:PL105-276%22%5D%7D&r=1&searchResultViewType=expanded" rel="nofollow noreferrer">amendments</a> and was unable to find any of the amendments to include this restriction. My hunch was that it must have been <a href="https://www.congress.gov/amendment/105th-congress/house-amendment/739?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22cite%3APL105-276%22%5D%7D&s=a&r=17" rel="nofollow noreferrer">H.Amdt.739</a>, but upon looking at <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">H.R.2</a> I was unable to find any restriction. My only thought left is that this restriction must have been added by the House Appropriations Committee.</p>
<p>How can I see exactly where and when the restriction was added, and all the people involved in that decision?</p>
<p>EDIT: Based off the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/4194/actions" rel="nofollow noreferrer">list of actions</a> for this bill I was able to find <a href="https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/1998/10/05/house-section/article/H9359-1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a conference report</a> that adds the restriction. What's unknown to me is the exact events in this conference event, and who proposed the restriction?</p>
 | united states legislation housing public funding specific legislation | 1 |
61,880 | Are there academic journals in the topic of political science discussing, researching and developing theories from the political right spectrum? | <p>First of all, I am not 100% sure if this question belongs here because it is in clear overlap with <a href="https://academia.stackexchange.com/">Academia StackExchange</a>.</p>
<p>My question comes as a thought that has developed mainly during the series of events that have inundated USA politics in the last weeks. Mainly my question concerns the ban of the President Donald J. Trump from Twitter and other BigTech companies as well as many other personalities and intellectuals. Some of these people have lost an important way of connecting with their followers and sharing ideas between themselves, which is something objectively bad for the development of our societies as this action cuts artificially off an important part of our societies and population.</p>
<p>Following this ban I asked myself where could I find these people and their ideas in case all the Big Tech would decide to ban them all at the same time. I reached the conclusion that, although not impossible, this task would be certainly not easy and overall unproductive breaking and damaging any possibility for the sociological right to discuss and develop their ideas and (even worse) impeding irremediably the exchange of ideas between the left and the right.</p>
<p>I ask myself now if in Academia something similar has happened during the past decades - maybe something that is now translating from Academia to the street and the real politic but (as many other things) began there. It is clear that the majority of professors and intellectuals in USA education and research institutions and universities declare themselves in the left spectrum (even though there is also plenty of variety and point of view). The majority of current US intellectuals (and I would say that this is true worldwide) are leftists (either communist, marxist, progressive, liberal, etcetera) and this means that plenty of ideas from the right are passing through the world without and academic critical thinking and discussion (which is highly problematic because as a consequence inexpert people receive partial, incomplete and failed ideas that were not fully addressed by experts in the first time).</p>
<p>Thus I think that a solution to the extreme and toxic polarization of society that we are experiencing would come from integrating right ideas into the discussion and discourse academically instead of cancel and suppress them from the public agenda. We are doing just the opposite that should be done!</p>
<p>Can you share examples of right-wing-leaning academic journals?</p>
<p>In particular and as an example, I found the Wikipedia list for journals in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_science_journals" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Political Science</a> but I do not know if any of these journals has a conservative or right-wing-leaning point of view. Do you know which of these journal discuss and develop ideas considered in the political right spectrum?</p>
<p><strong>Edits surged from the ongoing discussions in the comments of the question:</strong></p>
<p>I will stick with the example of the journal American Political Science Review (I have nothing against this journal in particular but it is a good example), whose editorial board is exclusively women based... and this fact is ideological as this kind of women empowerment (in these terms of exclusive majorities) is pervasive in the left and not well-seen in the right.</p>
<p>Let stick to anti-abortion, anti-immigration, unlimited freedom of speech, defence of Christian values and traditional family structure and some protectionist anti-China commercial measures, for example</p>
 | reference request conservatism | 0 |
61,881 | Is overturning Citizens United part of the Green Party Platform? | <p>Is over turning <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Citizen's United v. FEC</em></a> officially part of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_the_United_States" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Green Party's</a> platform? Does it include other mentions changing campaign finance laws?</p>
 | united states campaign finance green party | 0 |
61,889 | Does Congress have the power to bar someone from standing for presidential election? | <p>This question is partly about what laws congress can pass by simple majority and partly about the US constitution.</p>
<p>Could congress pass a law by simple majority that barred an individual from standing for presidential election in the future?</p>
 | united states presidential election | 0 |
61,892 | Does a vice president retain their tie breaking vote in the senate during an impeachment trial if it is the vice president being impeached? | <p>If the vice president is the subject of an impeachment, does the vice president have a vote in the senate trial of which they are the subject?</p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Note:</strong> The constitution only mandates that the Chief Justice preside over impeachments of Presidents, but not necessarily of others. (<code>When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside</code>.) Hence, this question isn't a duplicate of <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/49305/does-the-vice-president-retain-their-tiebreaking-vote-during-an-impeachment-tria">Does the Vice-President retain their tiebreaking vote during an impeachment trial of the President?</a> as that question explicitly asked about the impeachments of Presidents.</p>
 | united states senate impeachment senate rules vice president | 0 |
61,894 | Was there a limit on the number of times a person could have been elected the president of the United States before 1951? | <p>According to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" rel="noreferrer">twenty-second amendment</a> to the United States Constitution:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than
twice.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This amendment was ratified in 1951, and Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected more than twice because this amendment wasn't still there.</p>
<p>I want to know:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Was there any limit on the number of times a person could have been elected the president of the United States before 1951?</p>
</li>
<li><p>If there was no limit, how come no one was elected more than twice before 1940s.</p>
</li>
</ul>
 | united states presidential election constitution | 1 |
61,899 | Who enforces the insurrection rules in the 14th Amendment, section 3? | <p>The 14th amendment says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/01/11/14th-amendment-trump-insurrection-impeachment/" rel="noreferrer">Some historians have said it may be applicable to the 2021 attempted coup</a>. But how can it be enforced?</p>
 | united states constitution fourteenth amendment | 0 |
61,904 | If something happens to the elected president shortly before the inauguration ceremony, who will be the president? | <p>Suppose there is a newly elected president in USA, however before the official switch (i.e. before the inauguration ceremony takes place) something happens to the elected president and they can't function properly anymore.</p>
<p>Who will be the president until new elections can take place, or until the newly elected president recovers?</p>
 | united states presidential election | 0 |
61,907 | Can all sanctions imposed by Trump administration be removed by Biden? | <p>Secretary Pompeo has recently announced some more <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-usa/us-imposes-new-sanctions-on-iranian-foundations-in-last-days-of-trump-term-idUSKBN29I24N" rel="nofollow noreferrer">sanctions</a> on Iranian Astan Qods foundation. It seems that Biden wants to return to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action" rel="nofollow noreferrer">JCPOA</a> and he should remove sanctions to be able to negotiate with Islamic Republic.</p>
<p>My questions:</p>
<ul>
<li>Given that both chambers are blue, can Biden remove all sanctions as soon as he enters the White House?</li>
<li>If so, what's the point of imposing such late sanctions by Trump administration, when they won't last long?</li>
</ul>
 | united states president iran middle east sanctions | 1 |
61,911 | Can a vice-president vote for his successor in the Senate before becoming president under the 25th amendment? | <p>What does the constitution prescribe in a situation where there is a 50-50 Senate, the president passes away or resigns, and the vice-president becomes the president? Section 2 of the 25th amendment states that a new vice-president (who, under those circumstances, would also be the Senate tiebreaker) is chosen by the majority of both houses of Congress. Since the senate is 50-50, there's a heightened possibility of a tie, so would the vice-president be allowed to cast a tie-breaking vote for his successor before ascending to the presidency? Or would the vice-presidential vacancy only happen after the ascension, at which point the vice-president no longer has the Senate vote?</p>
 | united states senate vice president 25th amendment | 1 |
61,914 | During Trump's presidency, did White Americans (on average, still) believe there was more anti-White than anti-Black bias in the US? | <p>An interesting, perhaps, survey on perceptions of racial inequality in the US, conducted some 10 years ago, as (somewhat better) summarized in <a href="https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/Racial%20Color%20Blindness_16f0f9c6-9a67-4125-ae30-5eb1ae1eff59.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">another paper</a> (of the same authors):</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/norton%20sommers%20whites%20see%20racism_ca92b4be-cab9-491d-8a87-cf1c6ff244ad.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Norton and Sommers (2011)</a> administered a national survey in which Americans reported their beliefs
about the extent to which Blacks and Whites are the targets of discrimination. The results revealed that, although both Whites and Blacks agree that anti-Black bias was pervasive in previous eras, the average White American now believes that Whites are <em>more</em> victimized by racial bias than Blacks are.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(The original paper is fairly cited with approx. 600 citations in Google Scholar.)</p>
<p>I'm curious if that result had anything to do with who was president at the time... namely Obama. So, was any similar survey conducted during Trump's presidency? And if there is one, did it have similar or different findings?
(Comparing surveys with different wording is potentially problematic; ideally, the same question should be asked in a longitudinal survey. Also, to be most relevant, such a poll should have been conducted before Trump lost the re-election.)</p>
 | united states donald trump polling racism barack obama | 1 |
61,915 | To what extent are senior non-elected officials such as the WH Chief of Staff provided with protection? | <p>I have to admit my question is triggered by a scene in Veep, where a security situation results in the President being surrounded by Secret Service agents (s04e02), but after spending some time on Wikipedia, I think my question is still relevant and not immediately easy to answer.</p>
<p>What sort of personal protection do senior non-elected officials get, such as Chiefs of Staff or other Senior Advisors? I can understand why they may not be afforded around the clock protection, but if a situation does arise, are senior advisors protected alongside the official (whether they are POTUS, Vice President, or legislators), or is the focus entirely on the elected official?</p>
<p>Given my relatively limited understanding of government, it seems to me that unelected officials, at least senior ones, are as vital to the running of government business / execution of policy as the elected officials they advise.</p>
 | united states president executive civil service | 0 |
61,916 | Who must be present at the Presidential Inauguration? | <p>The current outgoing USA President will not attend the ceremony for the inauguration of the new president. Apparently also the outgoing First Lady will not be present.</p>
<p>Is the presence of both Presidents on Inauguration Day something regulated by the law or is it left to the common sense of each person involved?</p>
 | united states presidential election inauguration | 0 |
61,923 | Why are former presidents given intelligence briefings? | <p>According to ABC news, all former presidents <em>"[continue to receive] the President's Daily Brief, a top-secret summary of US intelligence and world events, in a format and style that suits them"</em>. This is supposedly a "courtesy" (<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-05/what-is-donald-trump-entitled-to-when-he-is-former-president/12937940" rel="nofollow noreferrer">see</a>).</p>
<p>What is the rationale behind continuing to provide former presidents the PDB? Is this not an (unlikely, but potential) national security risk? How is it delivered, securely? Where is it stipulated that former presidents should continue to receive this information (the Former Presidents Act?)? Of what use is it to those who receive it?</p>
<p>I imagine there is a lot we don't know. What do we?</p>
 | united states president donald trump intelligence | 0 |
61,924 | Is there any example of multiple countries negotiating as a bloc for buying COVID-19 vaccines, except for EU? | <p>The European Union started <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-vaccines-exclus/exclusive-eu-in-talks-with-moderna-biontech-curevac-to-secure-possible-covid-vaccines-sources-idUSKCN24I1HA" rel="noreferrer">negotiations with vaccine producers back in July 2020</a> and that means that more than 25 countries acted as one for buying the vaccine. This clearly helps the countries with a lower negotiating power (either logistically or financially).</p>
<p>As some campaigners are saying that <a href="https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/campaigners-warn-9-out-10-people-poor-countries-are-set-miss-out-covid-19-vaccine" rel="noreferrer">poor countries have serious issues securing the vaccine</a> for their citizens, I am wondering if the European Union model has been used in other parts of the world (e.g. 3+ countries agreed to negotiate, buy and distribute the vaccine together).</p>
<p><strong>Question:</strong> Is there any example of multiple countries negotiating as a bloc for buying COVID-19 vaccines?</p>
 | international relations covid 19 virus | 1 |
61,929 | Any data about Trump supporters amount in National Guard? | <p>As we <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/inside-25000-national-guardsmen-arriving-washington-dc/story?id=75299202" rel="nofollow noreferrer">know</a>, now there is about 25000 national guardsmen in Washington DC. But doesn't it increase risk of strikes from the inside, from hidden Trump supporters? More people - seems more risky. And FBI is now <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-18/joe-biden-inaugration-fbi-vets-national-guard-insider-attack/13067114" rel="nofollow noreferrer">checking</a> that forces.</p>
<p>Is there any data about Trump supporters amount in National Guard?</p>
 | united states donald trump military joe biden inauguration | 1 |
61,933 | US secrecy determination as per Article I, Section 5, Clause 3 | <p><strong>Question:</strong> What does it take exactly to determine a judgement of proceedings and votes by either house to require secrecy?</p>
<h2>Why, context, etc.</h2>
<ul>
<li>As per <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-5/clause-3/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Article I, Section 5, Clause
3</a>
does this mean only on fifth of either housed determines which
proceeding take place in secrecy or is there more to this than that (see <strong>supporting resources</strong> below).</li>
<li>I read over an excellent answer recently added to the
<a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/61835/why-are-congressional-votes-not-secret/61927#61927">Why are congressional votes not secret?</a>
and it was stated about this article and clause and said for example
"<em>the House passed an amendment to FOIA in 2016 by a voice vote, with
no record of individual votes being made</em>" so it seems this is
technically and legally possible just not the "normal".</li>
<li>With the recent <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/13/politics/house-vote-impeachment/index.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">incitement of insurrection by POTUS
Donald
Trump</a>
and some Republicans voting to impeach
it's also been reported <a href="https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/house-trump-impeachment-vote-01-13-21/h_8ecf6f48ec1a823cecafae541f5dc3c5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">"many more GOP members who "want to vote to
impeach but they legitimately fear for their lives and their
families’
live""</a>—this seems like a legitimate reason Senate could vote in secrecy for this same fear on the impeachment.</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<h1>Supporting Resources</h1>
<h2>Article I</h2>
<p><strong>Section 5</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong><a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-5/clause-3/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Clause 3</a></strong></p>
<p>Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from
time to time publish the same, <strong>excepting such Parts as may in their
Judgment require Secrecy;</strong> and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of
either House on any question shall, <strong>at the Desire of one fifth of
those Present, be entered on the Journal</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>
 | united states congress constitution impeachment | 0 |
61,936 | The House has passed the Big Cat Public Safety Act | <p>What happens now? When will the Senate vote on it? And if the Senate passes, what happens then?</p>
 | united states senate house of representatives legislative process legislation | 1 |
61,937 | What are the dress code rules for the Houses of Congress | <p><strong>Question:</strong> Is the dress code policy for the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Houses of Congress</a> available publicly?</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>If so</strong>, is there an official source such as a US .gov website or how might a citizen go about finding it?</li>
<li><strong>If not</strong>, has it ever been and why is it not available for citizen review now?</li>
</ul>
 | united states congress senate rules house rules | 0 |
61,939 | What can be done at the Federal level to increase police accountability? | <p>There are a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc-0YpRpqgA5lPTpSQ5uo-Q" rel="nofollow noreferrer">vast wealth</a> of carefully documented instances with video evidence of police misconduct in the US. Often times the departments internally investigate and find <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XNIclMuYDE" rel="nofollow noreferrer">no wrongdoing, even when it's on video</a> or issue a slap on the wrist and allow the officer to continue his job with little or no consequence, even as we watch video evidence with lawyers explaining that the police interactions are blatantly illegal. Often the victims sue and win, but the taxpayers cover this consequence rather than the officers.</p>
<p>Even after the nation broke out in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests" rel="nofollow noreferrer">massive historic protests of police misconduct</a>, perhaps shining the biggest spotlight on the issue ever likely to occur, seemingly very little has been done to meaningfully address this problem.</p>
<p>It seems like every time I see the topic brought up, the obstacle to reforming the police departments involved is</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_unions_in_the_United_States" rel="nofollow noreferrer">police
unions</a>
are too powerful."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>and</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Police are sheltered from consequence by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity" rel="nofollow noreferrer">qualified
immunity.</a>"</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But neither of those things seem to have solutions obvious to a layperson, as both of them have a fairly clear role in allowing police to do their jobs and protect their rights. On the other hand, clearly many police departments and municipal governments can't be reliably counted on to hold officers accountable. So I'd like to ask:</p>
<p><strong>How can police be held accountable for wrongdoing without deterring their ability to enforce the law?</strong> To narrow down the scope of this question, I'm looking for political avenues at the <s>state</s> federal level of government.</p>
 | united states police | 0 |
61,940 | Is this person in this picture from the squad? | <p>The following picture has often been associated with the squad. But who is the lady on the leftmost?</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/lnafz.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/lnafz.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
 | united states congress | 0 |
61,946 | What determines who gets to stay in the Presidential Townhouse / Trowbridge House? | <p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Townhouse" rel="noreferrer">Presidential Townhouse</a> (716 Jackson Place NW) is a government property near the White House</p>
<blockquote>
<p>reserved for the exclusive use of former presidents of the United States during visits to the capital.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trowbridge_House" rel="noreferrer">Trowbridge House</a> (708 Jackson Place NW) is nearby and is currently undergoing renovations to also serve as guest house for former presidents. Neither should be confused with the President's Guest House (commonly called Blair House), which is a guest house for <em>foreign dignitaries</em>.</p>
<p><strong>What determines who can stay in these two houses?</strong> Specifically,</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Is the "exclusive use by former presidents" actually authorized by law? By executive order? Or simply by tradition?</p>
</li>
<li><p>Can/Has it been occupied by more than one ex-president at a time? If not, who decides which ex-president has priority?</p>
</li>
<li><p>Can/Has a current President prevented (or interfered with) an ex-president from staying there?</p>
</li>
<li><p>Do presidential widows also have rights to stay in these houses?</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/H17Sw.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/H17Sw.jpg" alt="PTH and Trowbridge near the White House" /></a></p>
 | united states president washington dc | 1 |
61,947 | What triggers a vote to replace the Senate Majority Leader? | <p>On January 20th, Kamala Harris will become the Vice President and thus the Democrats will have 50 votes and the VP tie breaker in the Senate. Does this automatically trigger a vote in the Senate to replace the Majority Leader? If not, who has to trigger it?</p>
 | united states senate | 0 |
61,951 | Can states buy vaccines directly from the manufacturers? | <p><a href="https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/new-york-seeks-to-buy-vaccines-directly-from-pfizer-11611001427" rel="noreferrer">New York</a> and <a href="https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2021/01/11/covid-19-vaccine-pfizer-michigan-gretchen-whitmer/6629216002/" rel="noreferrer">Michigan</a> have been requesting to purchase vaccines directly from the manufacturers.</p>
<p>From <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cuomo-wants-new-york-buy-covid-vaccine-directly-pfizer-n1254605" rel="noreferrer">NBC News' reporting</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>No can do, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-18/cuomo-says-n-y-to-give-more-vaccine-doses-to-faster-facilities" rel="noreferrer">Pfizer replied</a>.</p>
<p>While the company is ready to collaborate with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on ways to “quickly distribute its vaccine to as many Americans as possible,” it still needs the okay from the [federal] government.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Can states buy vaccines directly from the manufacturers? If not, are there any federal guidelines that prohibit states from procuring vaccines directly from the manufacturers?</p>
 | united states covid 19 virus federalism vaccine | 1 |
61,952 | How will the vaccine be given in the US? | <p>The UK decision has been to go for one-jab followed by a 12-week wait for the second - based on the theory that it is better for overall public health to begin by getting one-shot into twice the number of people.</p>
<p>However Pfizer (whose first shot I was given on Sunday) seem hesitant about endorsing this, but AstraZeneca less reluctant.</p>
<p>The other advantage of AZ is that theirs is only a fraction of the cost, and can be stored at domestic fridge temperature.</p>
<p>How will the Pfizer vaccine be given in the US - one shot + 3 weeks wait, or one shot + 12weeks?</p>
<p>Will they be using any AZ?</p>
 | united states covid 19 virus vaccine | 0 |
61,963 | What is the significance of Sec. Pompeo's labeling of China's treatment of the Uighurs as "genocide"? | <p>A couple of recent headlines:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><a href="https://thehill.com/policy/international/534816-pompeo-labels-chinas-treatment-of-uyghur-genocide" rel="noreferrer">Pompeo labels China's treatment of Uighurs 'genocide'</a> - The Hill</p>
</li>
<li><p><a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/19/us/us-xinjiang-china-genocide-intl/index.html" rel="noreferrer">US accuses China of 'genocide' of Uyghurs in Xinjiang</a> - CNN</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>It seems reasonable to expect that this kind of labeling would mean something, but looking at the excerpts from the above articles it doesn't seem to really have to entail anything at all.</p>
<p>CNN talks about keeping pressure on the issue:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The incoming Biden administration, if elected, would likely keep up US pressure on the issue. The President-elect's campaign has already issued a statement saying it considers China's actions in the region "genocide," while the Trump administration was still debating the term earlier this year.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And The Hill basically says too little too late:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“This decision is good and right, but it’s late. The United States isn’t taking the Uyghur genocide seriously. A lot of folks in the Trump Administration wanted to talk about China primarily in terms of a trade deficit, and a lot of folks in the Biden Administration want to talk about China as merely a competitor," Sasse said in a statement.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Is the labeling of "genocide" just an empty gesture?</p>
 | united states international relations china rhetoric genocide | 0 |
61,965 | How do modern conservatives frame identity-based disparities? | <p>I was reading the president's recent <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/The-Presidents-Advisory-1776-Commission-Final-Report.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1776 Commission</a> and was struck by how the idea of identity politics is portrayed as the offspring of the Civil Rights Movement (actually called pejoractively? the "stepchild").This line specifically makes me ask this question:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Identity politics makes it less likely that racial
reconciliation and healing can be attained</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Today in the United States, the data tell us that <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">wealth</a> and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425844/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">health</a> disparities fall along racial lines. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662085/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">People who identify as LGBT have a higher rate of suicide and suicide risk in our current society</a>. Insert your favorite <em>social injustice</em> here.</p>
<p>My question is <strong>How does someone who rejects identity politics come to terms with the fact that, statistically speaking, the person society sees you as seems to determine how rich, healthy, happy (etc.) you are rather than the other way around?</strong></p>
<p>I can't imagine the idea that laziness, poor work ethic, mental illness, et al are still widely believed to be the causes (please correct me if I'm wrong about this), but I also can't think of another reason for not connecting big events of history to our current situation: slavery -> Jim Crow south -> segregation -> continuing wealth disparity. Or anti-sodomy laws -> no gay marriage/rights -> social ostracism -> higher suicide rates.</p>
<p>I get that the solution to the problem might be different given your political leaning, and labelling parts of the progressive platform like affirmative action or special protections for LGBT people as <em>identity politics</em> suggests that conservatives would prefer <em>identity-less politics</em>. That much makes sense to me, but what I don't understand is how we make life better for all Americans without resorting to putting identity front and center in the eyes of the law.</p>
<p>Even though all men should be created equal, and be treated so in the eyes of the law, the truth is they aren't always. At what point do we reevaluate the needs of a minority group (who can rarely marshal enough votes) to continue to deliver on the promise of equality?</p>
 | united states civil rights identity politics | 1 |
61,967 | Have there been (or are there) serious proposals to extend the terms of the US House of Representatives? | <p>The term of the US House of Representatives is two years, which is very short compared to parliaments in other countries (e.g. in Germany the Bundestag is elected for four years and state parliaments are shifting from four to five years).</p>
<p>Have there been (or are there) serious proposals in recent history (say after 1900) to extend the terms?</p>
 | united states house of representatives | 1 |
61,968 | Is their a significant named political movement in the United States for Latino civil rights? | <p>I am aware of movements like Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ+ Pride, and the Women's March that stand for the civil rights of different groups. Is there such a movement or organization that organizes for Hispanic and Latino civil rights in the United States? I'm hoping to find such a movement that, like the ones I listed, has a name that most, or at least many, Americans will recognize offhand and understand what it stands for.</p>
 | united states immigration protests | 0 |
61,969 | Can the President sign a Bill after it has been Pocket Vetoed? | <p>During the recently-ended 116th Congress, H.R. 6192 was approved by the Senate on Dec. 17th, 2020, and presented to the President on Dec. 24th. The 116th Congress adjourned for good on Jan. 3, 2021 with H.R. 6192 unsigned. By my understanding of the law this should constitute a Pocket Veto, and the Bill should be officially dead.
However, President Trump signed it on Jan. 5, 2021, the 10th day (excluding the day it was presented to him and excluding Sundays) since it was presented to him. Is this now a Law, or did the Bill legally die on Jan. 3, 2021?</p>
 | united states veto | 0 |
61,970 | When will Alex Padilla be seated in the US senate? | <p>For the Democratic party to have a majority in the US senate, the two newly elected senators from Georgia must be seated, Kamala Harris must become vice president, and Alex Padilla must take the seat vacated by Kamala Harris.</p>
<p><a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/61814/6927">Another question</a> has covered the first three, but not the last. When is Alex Padilla likely to be seated in the US senate?</p>
 | united states senate | 0 |
61,976 | How similar are Trump supporters and opponents on China’s treatment of the Uyghurs? | <p>In the United States, are both Trump supporters and Trump opponents largely opposed to how China has treated the Uyghurs, or is there a partisan divide on the issue?</p>
<p>I’m primarily interested in sentiment in the general population or the media, as opposed to official government actions.</p>
 | united states china uyghurs | 0 |
61,980 | How many soldiers were present in DC for past presidents' inaugurations? | <p>Recently it has been in the news that Biden's inauguration could feature more than 2,500, more than 5,000, more than 10,000, 20,000, 25,000, or even 30,000 national guardsmen in DC.</p>
<p>It's hard to contextualize these numbers because I'm not sure what is normal.</p>
<p>How many soldiers were present in DC for past inaugurations?</p>
<p>I am mainly interested in the more recent presidents (say, back to Clinton) as I think they will be most relevant in the comparison. I am also interested if there is any specific reason why a president has more or less than usual.</p>
 | united states inauguration | 0 |
61,986 | Is it usual to make significant geo-political statements immediately before leaving office? | <p>Yesterday, less than 24 hours before leaving office <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/19/mike-pompeo-china-uighur-genocide-sanctions-xinjiang" rel="noreferrer">Mike Pompeo</a> declared that China was commiting genocide against its Uighur population.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, has declared that China is committing “ongoing” genocide against Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province, less than 24 hours before leaving office.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Leaving aside the details of the matter at hand, is it usual for significant geo-political statements like this to be made during the lame duck period, or more generally at the last possible moment before leaving office?</p>
 | united states geopolitics | 1 |
61,987 | How is the seniority of Senators decided when most factors are tied? | <p>Senator-elect Raphael Warnock recently <a href="https://twitter.com/ReverendWarnock/status/1351738722690035714" rel="noreferrer">tweeted a photo with the caption</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>.@ossoff trying to explain how he gets to be the senior senator from Georgia.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm wondering about this too. Since both Senators-elect Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock are going to be <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/534906-warnock-ossoff-to-be-sworn-into-senate-wednesday-afternoon" rel="noreferrer">sworn in on the same day</a> and both have not held any prior congressional position, why will Ossoff become the senior Senator?</p>
 | united states senate senate rules | 1 |
61,991 | Day-One executive actions from Biden's predecessors? | <p>Commenting on Biden's plan to sign a number of executive orders on Inauguration Day, the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-trump-orders-masks/2021/01/20/7b6a1bec-5a98-11eb-b8bd-ee36b1cd18bf_story.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Washington Post</a> quotes Jen Psaki as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“President-elect Biden is taking historic action on Day One to advance his agenda — including signing 15 executive actions and asking agencies to take steps in an additional two areas,” incoming White House press secretary Jen Psaki said. “This compares to two Day One executive actions from Biden’s four predecessors in the White House combined.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm interested in the last sentence, the "two Day One executive actions" signed by Biden's four predecessors (Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton). Apparently, one of them is Executive Order 13765 signed by Trump, which, according to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13765" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a>, sets out "interim procedures in anticipation of repeal of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)".</p>
<p>But I couldn't find the second Day-One executive action that Psaki refers to. Which president signed it, and what was its content?</p>
 | united states president executive order | 1 |
61,994 | What happens with the second impeachment now that Trump has left office? | <p>I know there has been talk already about whether or not a former president can be impeached. I have not, however, heard the practical ending to that talk. What happens with Trump's second impeachment (over the events of Jan 6 2021) now that he has left office (or will have left office come noon time)? Are there practical answers? All I've heard is theoretical discussion - but it is not a theoretical issue anymore.</p>
 | united states donald trump trump impeachment | 1 |
61,996 | Has an American president's administration ever requested the military to investigate political views of soldiers? | <p>Has an American president's administration ever requested the military to perform political purity tests on soldiers?</p>
<p>Business Insider:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The National Guard is running additional background checks on its guardsmen ahead of President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration on Wednesday, in an attempt to weed out potential extremists...</p>
<p>...National Guard spokesperson Major Matt Murphy, USAF, told Insider the reserve branch was working with the Secret Service and the FBI to determine 'which service members supporting the national special security event for the Inauguration require additional background screening.'...</p>
<p>...Gen. Daniel R. Hokanson, chief of the National Guard Bureau, told the AP that 'If there's any indication that any of our soldiers or airmen are expressing things that are extremist views, it's either handed over to law enforcement or dealt with the chain of command immediately.'"</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What is the reason for political purity tests for soldiers?</p>
 | united states military joe biden election security | 0 |
61,997 | What consequences could Trump face if convicted by the Senate in his second impeachment trial? | <p>Removal from office (which will be irrelevant 2.5 hours from the time of writing this) and optionally being barred from holding public office in the future are the two biggest and most talked about consequences of being convicted in an impeachment trial, but are there any other potential repercussions? As an example I've seen talk that his pension could be revoked. Is this true? What about the other benefits, such as a travel budget, Secret Service detail, and intelligence briefings? Could those be revoked?</p>
 | united states donald trump trump impeachment | 0 |
62,001 | Why did Trump rescind his executive order that barred former White House employees from lobbying the government? | <p>Just before leaving office, President Trump <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/us/politics/trump-rescinded-order-barring-white-house-employees-from-lobbying-the-government.html" rel="noreferrer">rescinded his 2017 executive order which limited lobbying by former government officials</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In the final hours of his term, President Donald J. Trump rescinded
early Wednesday an executive order he had issued years earlier to bar
former White House employees from lobbying the government after they
leave their jobs. ...</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/politics/trump-toughens-some-facets-of-lobbying-ban-and-weakens-others.html" rel="noreferrer">original order issued in 2017</a> was one of the few concrete steps
that Mr. Trump took in his pledge to “drain the swamp.”</p>
<p>It expanded on rules adopted during the Obama administration and
included a five-year ban for former officials lobbying the agencies
they once worked for.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Since "draining the swamp" was one of his core promises, and this EO was one of the few broadly popular parts of his legacy, is there any explanation for why he did this as what is, essentially, his last action in office? Was there any official explanation?</p>
 | united states donald trump lobbying executive order | 0 |
62,007 | The legal status of the State of Israel | <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here</a> is mentioned that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal by the
United Nations, which recommended a partition of Mandatory Palestine
at the end of the British Mandate. On 29 November 1947, the UN General
Assembly adopted the Plan as Resolution 181 (II).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The plan was adopted in the General Assembly and from legal point of view, General Assembly resolutions are non-binding.</p>
<p>And <a href="https://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/commercial-awareness/commercial-insights/are-un-resolutions-legally-enforceable-" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this</a> source says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Articles 10 and 14 of the UN Charter refer to General Assembly
resolutions as “recommendations”, and the International Court of
Justice has stressed the recommendatory nature of General Assembly
resolutions repeatedly.</p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>What is the legal status of the State of Israel while the resolution was adopted in the General Assembly?</li>
</ul>
 | united nations israel middle east | 0 |
62,008 | Taxing companies owned domestically, but registered abroad | <p>In a book by economists Saez and Zucman, they state the following:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In 1936, dozens of wealthy Americans had created offshore shell
companies, to which they had transferred the ownership of their stock
and bond portfolios. The shell companies, instead of their
flesh-and-blood owners, collected dividends and interest, thus
escaping American taxation. The government was quick in changing the
law to render this operation explicitly illegal. From 1937 on, any
income earned by foreign holding companies controlled by Americans
would become immediately taxable in the United States. Instantly,
owning foreign holding companies to avoid taxes became pointless.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Would this still be possible nowadays?
Also, how would it relate to the fact of those earnings may be doubly taxed (domestically and abroad) ?</p>
 | united states taxes corporations | 0 |
62,010 | How do countries justify their missile programs? | <p>I will use India as an example.</p>
<p>India seems to have only two real enemies: China and Pakistan.</p>
<p>The longest range missiles India would need to launch an attack on China should be roughly around 5000 km (4788.76 km, to be specific).</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/jliJJ.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/jliJJ.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>However, India is developing a missile named Agni-III with a maximum range of 8000 km.</p>
<p>I have two questions:</p>
<ol>
<li>How does Indian justify its missile program having a range of 8000km to the international community?</li>
<li>According to the current rules-based international order, could Pakistan field a missile of a range of 8000 km and point toward the Indian program as a justification?</li>
</ol>
<hr />
<p><strong>N.B.</strong> I am not talking about China or Russia, as they have their self-described enemies, the West, to justify their missile programs.</p>
 | united states india military pakistan missile | 1 |
62,017 | As of 2021-01-20, which Federal facilities did not require wearing a mask on premises? | <p>President Biden <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-protecting-the-federal-workforce-and-requiring-mask-wearing/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">signed an executive order</a> today titled "Executive Order on Protecting the Federal Workforce and Requiring Mask-Wearing":</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Accordingly, to protect the Federal workforce and individuals interacting with the Federal workforce, and to ensure the continuity of Government services and activities, on-duty or on-site Federal employees, on-site Federal contractors, and other individuals in Federal buildings and on Federal lands should all wear masks, maintain physical distance, and adhere to other public health measures, as provided in CDC guidelines.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As of January 20, which Federal buildings or lands did not have an existing mask mandate? I'm curious to understand the practical impact of this executive order.</p>
 | united states covid 19 virus | 1 |
62,020 | Why does the US President use a new pen for each order? | <p>This photo shows President Biden at his desk in the Oval Office. He is holding a pen and signing an executive order. On his right is a pile of further executive orders. In front is a box with approximately 12 pens, apparently one for each order.</p>
<p><img src="https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/8502/production/_116605043_065297472.jpg" alt="Biden signing executive orders" /><br />
<em>Source: BBC News</em></p>
<p>Why does the President need so many pens? It gives a slightly comical impression.</p>
 | united states executive order | 1 |
62,024 | What did the Trump White House have as written rules regarding mask wearing on WH premises? | <p>I'm aware of photos like these:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/dbwoU.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/dbwoU.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>(Source: <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54401186" rel="nofollow noreferrer">BBC</a> --more photos therein. That event had been <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54487154" rel="nofollow noreferrer">criticized</a> by Fauci as a "superspreader".)</p>
<p>But it's also been said in a <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/62017/as-of-2021-01-20-which-federal-facilities-did-not-require-wearing-a-mask-on-pre#comment246563_62017">comment to another q</a> that mask-wearing rules did cover most White House employees otherwise.</p>
<p>So, what did the Trump White House have as rules (if that's the right word) <em>in writing</em> regarding mask wearing on WH premises?</p>
 | united states donald trump covid 19 virus public health | 0 |
62,028 | Why hasn't Russia or China come up with any system yet to bypass USD? | <ul>
<li><a href="https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3117925/china-urged-tap-rcep-trade-deal-future-digital-payments" rel="noreferrer">China urged to tap RCEP trade deal for future digital payments system as US sanctions loom</a></li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p>China should consider using digital technology to develop an alternative to the SWIFT financial payments system as a way of insulating itself from being cut off from the US-dominated financial messaging service, according to Liu Xiaochun, deputy dean of the Shanghai New Finance Research Institute.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, my question is: why hasn't either Russia or China done that already?</p>
<p><strong>already</strong> is the keyword here as Russia is dealing with US sanctions for years now. And, China is dealing with US hostility from the start of Trump's presidency which signals that China is no longer safe from possible large scale US sanctions.</p>
 | united states economy russian federation china sanctions | 1 |
62,030 | What are the main criteria used by the European Commission to compute the COVID-19 vaccines to be received by the member state? | <p>I have recently seen an interview with <a href="https://headlinesmania.com/romaniaeng/first-appointment-to-vlad-voiculescus-team-andreea-moldovan-one-of-romanias-leading-epidemiologists-will-be-the-state-secretary-for-the-ministry-of-health/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a Romanian State Secretary at Health Ministr</a>y about the COVID-19 vaccination. The interview touched on the sensitive point of insufficient vaccine doses and the reporters asked about how the actual doses Romania receives are actually computed.</p>
<p>There was no direct answer, but an educated guess that the algorithm is not clear and most certainly is heavily influenced by member state population size and infection incidence rate. This last factor is particularly sensitive for Romania, due to a rather small amount of tests being performed.</p>
<p>This document <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/vaccination/docs/2020_strategies_deployment_en.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">suggests that the population size is the major (only?) factor</a>, but the final distribution is not clear:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Agreements contain a provision on the equal distribution of vaccine
doses to the Member States, which will ensure that <strong>each country
receives doses based on a pro-rata population distribution key</strong>, unless
otherwise agreed between the participating Member States in the
course of implementation of the Advance Purchase Agreements</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Is the European Commission algorithm (used to compute vaccine doses to be received by each country) public?</p>
<p>A very similar question was posted <a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2020-006337_EN.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a> (thanks Hulk for providing this reference).</p>
 | covid 19 virus european commission | 1 |
62,033 | According to political scientists, what, if anything, are the benefits of election polling to a liberal democracy? | <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy</a></p>
<p>About 3 months and a million news-years ago, the pollsters and election analysts were taking a kicking for not predicting the US elections accurately enough. Biden won the presidency by a smaller margin than predicted, and the Democrats lost seats in the House when they were projected to gain them, and lost gubernatorial and statehouse elections that they were projected to win. They also apparently lost the Senate, which they were thought likely to retake by at least a majority of 2 or 3.</p>
<p>The predictions look a bit better in retrospect than they did just after the 2020 election. As we know the Democrats have now just grasped the Senate majority by winning two run-off races, but this wasn't thought likely at the time. Biden did emerge as the winner, by a convincing popular vote margin.</p>
<p>In one of the FiveThirtyEight politics podcasts, the analyst Nate Silver defended election analysts, and by extension pollsters by saying:</p>
<ol>
<li>The polls and analyses correctly identified Biden as the winner. Hardly any (maybe none) of the polls showed Trump as the winner.</li>
<li>Biden's vote lead over Trump was within the margin of error.</li>
<li>It's not reasonable to expect polls months in advance to predict the result with great precision - respondents change their minds, they can't go and vote because of an emergency, and so on. The polls immediately before the election were the most accurate, and they are the ones which should be given most weight when deciding if the polls were accurate or not.</li>
</ol>
<p>You can quibble with some of this - for instance a correct prediction months in advance of the event predicted is much more valuable than one only a few days before. But none of it establishes the case for polls per se, only the case that the polls we have are acceptable if we do want polls.</p>
<p>Silver also said that polls are valuable because they tell political parties what policies are popular. There's something to be said for this, but it's not a good justification for the existence of election polls, because</p>
<ol>
<li><p>This is issue polling, not election polling.</p>
</li>
<li><p>You could argue that parties would still need election polling to see if their policies had the desired effect of increasing their support, but that's an argument for private polling. There wouldn't be any reason for news organisations to pay pollsters a lot of money to conduct election polls which anyone can read, which is what they do.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Liberal democracies have existed for longer than scientific polling. There was no scientific polling until the 1936 election in the USA. There wasn't any polling until the 1945 election in the UK. Other polities, including France, Czechoslovakia, Canada, Australia, and others got on fine without polling for decades. Turnout in elections was higher back then than it is now, which casts doubt on the suggestion that polls help political parties to be more responsive to public opinion.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>To be sure, all those countries had defects from a liberal democratic point of view. Britain and France had large <em>de jure</em> empires and significant property qualifications for some of the pre-ww2 period. The USA had a medium-sized <em>de facto</em> empire and restrictions on the voting rights of black people. France and Czechoslovakia were both overwhelmed by a foreign invasion.</p>
<p>However, the point is no-one would say those defects were caused by a want of opinion polls.</p>
<p>So why should we bother having them at all? Why not just wait until the election is over, when you'll know for certain who won?</p>
 | democracy political theory polling | 0 |
62,035 | How unusual is a Vice President presiding over their own replacement in the Senate? | <p>Yesterday, new Vice President Kamala Harris presided over the swearing-in of 3 new Senators, including her own replacement. This required her to read a statement which had her own name in it, so she was referring to herself in the 3rd person. She even remarked at the time how weird that felt.</p>
<p>My question is: How weird <em>was</em> that? Harris may represent a lot of firsts in taking the office, first female, first black, first south-Asian VP, but she's hardly the first to have to vacate a Senate seat in order to assume the office. Is it normal for a new VP to preside over the swearing-in of their own replacement in the Senate (or the House for that matter)?</p>
<p>Does it have something to do with the party balance in the Senate? (I know that the 50/50 split is rather unusual.) i.e.: If there were one less or one more Democrat in the Senate, would McConnell or Schumer have taken that role? (In fact since this was the swearing-in ceremony for the new Senators, and Warnock and Ossoff were not technically in office until a few minutes after that, wouldn't the Republicans still be the majority party at that moment?</p>
 | united states senate vice president kamala harris | 1 |
62,039 | Did Biden make it earlier to the office? | <p>I've seen a video of him signing executive orders. Isn't he supposed to get to the office in March. As I remember Trump make it to the office in March. It seems everything has happened rapidly with Biden. Why so?</p>
 | united states president presidential election joe biden | 0 |
62,042 | Did the Founding Fathers consider creating something similar to the current filibuster? | <p>In the US Senate, the current filibuster rules mean that, with a few specific exceptions, all Senate business requires an effective 60-vote super-majority to pass. Many people treat this as an important and longstanding tradition, but as Brythan describes in their <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/10364/19301">excellent answer to another question on the filibuster</a>, the modern filibuster is an unintended artifact of the Senate rules and today's hyper-partisan environment:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>To summarize, the filibuster started as an accident of the Senate rules. It grew into a way for minorities to block contentious legislation. When it really gets in the way, the majority tends to reduce its power. And that's where we are now: a supermajority of sixty votes is required for legislation and important nominations.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Despite its unintentional creation, there are many who strongly defend it and consider it an important defense of the rights of the minority party. This made me wonder whether there was any discussion, particularly in the early days of the US, of creating a similar super-majority requirement for Congress.</p>
<p>Did the Founding Fathers, or similar early political figures in the US, consider creating something similar to the filibuster? Were there any discussions about this, or similar issues?</p>
<hr />
<p>To clarify, the question I'm trying to get at is whether the current role of the filibuster, namely preventing the majority party from exercising full control over the Senate, was a) overlooked, b) was considered unnecessary, or c) considered undesirable. Put another way, was the lack of a constitutionally protected role for the minority party in Senate business due to: 1) to desire for the Senate to be run by majority rule, 2) a belief that compromise would take place without any rules, or 3) it was simply overlooked.</p>
 | united states senate history senate rules filibuster | 1 |
62,047 | What differentiates Trotskyism from Marxism/Leninism? | <p>I understand that the split originated in a power struggle, but I'm more interested in the modern theoretical differences.</p>
<p>In the present day, there appears to be an ideological split between <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism" rel="noreferrer">Trotskyist</a> groups and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism" rel="noreferrer">Marxist-Leninist</a> groups. What do they agree on, and what do they disagree on?</p>
 | political theory socialism marxism leninism party discipline | 0 |
62,056 | How big is this customs-clearing fee that packages from the UK to the EU incur? | <p>The BBC has <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55757931" rel="noreferrer">an article</a> that lots of Germans are apparently refusing to accept packages they ordered from the UK once they are presented with the new customs clearing form/fee.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Since 1 January, lots of European customers have been presented with an unexpected customs invoice when signing for goods they've ordered from the UK. These new customs charges are a result of the new EU trade deal with the UK.</p>
<p>If you're in Germany and buying goods from the UK, you as the German customer are the importer bringing goods into the EU.</p>
<p>"You then have a courier company knocking on the door giving you a customs clearance invoice that you need to pay to receive your goods."</p>
<p>Many customers automatically reject the goods, refusing to pay the additional surcharges, leaving couriers to take them away.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The article then goes on to discuss fees that apply to returns too (although these are incurred by the company that the sent the package). The article does is a bit more concrete on the latter in terms of the overall fees that some retailers incurred, but it's not per customers' package as the retailers (at least the bigger ones) mostly ship these things back in bulk.</p>
<p>So, are there some estimates/figures on these initial delivery custom-clearing fees that make EU customers reject packages sent from the UK?</p>
 | united kingdom european union brexit trade borders | 1 |
62,070 | Is there a contingency if a power sharing agreement cannot be made? | <p>As I'm sure many people know, the Senate is currently in negotiations for a power sharing agreement in a 50/50 body. The main sticking point being a commitment over the filibuster. As I understand it, until the agreement is reached, committees remain under Republican control (i.e. they have more seats on committees).</p>
<p>Is there any mechanism that forces the Senate to reach an agreement? Could, hypothetically, the Republicans refuse to ratify an agreement, and remain in control of the committees, or is there some incentive to prevent that?</p>
 | united states senate senate rules filibuster | 1 |
62,072 | Why is it common for senators to not vote on cabinet confirmations? | <p>On January 20th, Avril Haines was Biden's first cabinet confirmation, <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/20/politics/avril-haines-confirmation-vote/index.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">receiving an 84-10 vote in the Senate</a>. Similarly, Biden's nominee for Defence Secretary <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biden-pentagon/u-s-senate-confirms-biden-nominee-austin-as-defense-secretary-idUSKBN29R204" rel="nofollow noreferrer">was confirmed in a 93-2 vote</a>. Why is it common for not every senator to cast a vote on such issues? I have searched but haven't found a reason why (I'd like to clarify that I am confident their reason for voting was not self-isolation reasons- that would be understandable). Is it because they are busy with constituency issues in their home state? Or other political reasons that they do not want to cast a yea or nay vote?</p>
 | united states senate cabinet nomination | 1 |
62,075 | Would alleged 3 weeks of talks between Biden and Iran violate Logan act? | <p>As per <a href="https://english.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2021/1/22/biden-administration-iran-already-in-talks-for-weeks-report" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Le Figaro (a French newspaper), Biden officials have been in talks with Iran for the past 3 weeks</a> - which means 3 weeks before inauguration.</p>
<p><strong>Would that violate the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Logan Act</a>?</strong> (assuming the reporting is correct, of course, which Iran denied).</p>
 | united states law foreign policy | 0 |
62,077 | Which senator largely singlehandedly defeated the repeal of the Logan Act? | <p>A long <a href="https://harvardjol.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2019/06/HLL203_crop.pdf" rel="noreferrer">article</a> on the Logan Act mentions this failed attempt to repeal it, during the Carter administration:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>After decades of deflecting Logan Act entreaties, an exasperated Department of Justice began pushing for its repeal. Congressman Paul Simon wrote to the Attorney General in 1978 to ask whether he wished to see the Logan Act excised in a pending recodification of federal criminal statutes. A
DOJ spokesman responded unequivocally that “the Department does support the repeal of the Logan Act.” It had in fact “supported” a recent repeal bill, “stated its opposition” to an amendment reinstating the Act, and in public testimony “again stated our belief that the Act should be repealed.” Importantly, the Department’s position was “based on policy considerations,” not constitutional misgivings. DOJ was perfectly willing to set aside these concerns by “some showing of need for the Act.” But
the Department could detect “no irreparable injury to the United States because of a failure to prosecute” Logan Act violators. [...]</p>
<p>DOJ evidently reached out to lobby key senators as well. Denouncing
the Logan Act as a useless archaism, Senator Edward Kennedy disclosed
that repeal had been “urged upon us by the Justice Department. . . . [T]hey
urged us to strike it.” Characterizing the Act as “one of the most antiquated provisions in the current code,” the Department had “asked Senator McClellan, Senator Hruska, and the rest of us to take it out.”</p>
<p>The repeal effort failed, due to the tenacity of a single U.S. senator. And so to the present day, administrations stammer out half-responses to
unwanted Logan Act inquiries.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Alas, the senator who is supposedly responsible for this feat (of defeating the repeal) is not named therein. So, who was that senator? (I'm guessing this involved a threat of filibuster.)</p>
 | united states law senate specific legislation | 1 |
62,080 | Interactive election results charts | <p>Is anyone aware of a site with interactive maps where the real-time results of the 2020 US presidential election results can be found?</p>
<p>I find many claims of there being some specific vote counts being reported at given times throughout counting. <strong>For example</strong>, I'm looking for a way to verify results such as what was reported in Georgia as of 11:00 PM ET on election night.</p>
<p><strong>Edit</strong> I want to see what the breakout was as the counting progressed, more in relation to as the total reported neared 100% vs. at a specific point in time.</p>
 | united states presidential election | 1 |
62,083 | Why does the 50–50 Senate need a new organizing resolution before Democrats can take control of committee chairmanships? | <p>Unlike the House of Representatives where its <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/2021/01/04/house-adopts-rules-package-for-117th-congress/" rel="noreferrer">"rules package"</a> expires at the end of each Congress, the Senate continues to operate on an existing organizing resolution from previous Congresses. This is due to the fact that the Senate is a "continuing body". From <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN10875.pdf" rel="noreferrer">this CRS report</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Because the Senate is a “continuing body,” its <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-113sdoc18/pdf/CDOC-113sdoc18.pdf" rel="noreferrer">standing rules</a> remain in force from Congress to Congress unless changed.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><em>Apparently</em>, the fact that the Senate's standing rules have remained unchanged from the previous Congress directly resulted in <a href="https://us.cnn.com/2021/01/22/politics/senate-power-sharing-schumer-mcconnell/index.html" rel="noreferrer">committees still being chaired by Republicans</a>, despite Democrats controlling the floor.</p>
<p><a href="https://us.cnn.com/2021/01/22/politics/senate-power-sharing-schumer-mcconnell/index.html" rel="noreferrer">CNN</a> notes that Republicans remain as committee chairmans because "the GOP was in the majority" in the last Congress.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Senate is operating on the organizing resolution from the last Congress, when the GOP was in the majority. Because of that, for instance, confirmation hearings for President Joe Biden's Cabinet picks this week are being chaired by Republicans.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Former Senate majority and minority leaders Tom Daschle and Trent Lott noted in <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/senate-mcconnell-schumer-democrats-republicans-split/2021/01/15/b73064e8-55ce-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html" rel="noreferrer">their joint Washington Post op-ed</a> that the Senate "needs an organizing resolution at the beginning of each new Congress". <strong>This appears to be at odds<sup>1</sup> with the idea that the Senate, being a "continuing body", can continue to operate on an existing organizing resolution from a previous Congress, as noted in my first paragraph above.</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p>First and foremost, the Senate needs an <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/06/senate.organization/" rel="noreferrer">organizing resolution</a> at the beginning of each new Congress. The body cannot operate without one. Especially when the membership divide between the two parties is narrow, the two leaders, along with their committee chairs and ranking members, must carefully determine the makeup and leadership of committees. In a sense, it’s akin to agreeing on ground rules before the start of a competition.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As such, the explanations given by CNN and in WaPo above explaining why the makeup of committees remains unchanged from the previous Congress due to a lack of a new organizing resolution seem to be incomplete to me. This is because the <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-113sdoc18/pdf/CDOC-113sdoc18.pdf" rel="noreferrer">latest organizing resolution</a> was <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-resolution/285" rel="noreferrer">passed on Nov 4, 2013</a> during the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/113th_United_States_Congress" rel="noreferrer">113th Congress</a>. The Democrats held the majority during that Congress which lasted until Jan 2015. <strong>When the Republicans took control of the Senate in the next Congress (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/114th_United_States_Congress" rel="noreferrer">114th Congress</a>), no new organizing resolution was passed and committee chairmanships appear to transition seamlessly from Democrats to Republicans.</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.rollcall.com/2020/12/31/opening-day-for-the-senate-wont-be-clean-break-from-the-old/" rel="noreferrer">Roll Call</a> somewhat pinpoints the problem:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>But the usual discussions about committee ratios may have to wait. Until majority control is determined, the Senate will continue to operate on its current organizing resolution. That is in contrast to the House, where the rules package expires at the end of each session and must be re-upped at the beginning of each new one.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<h2>My questions</h2>
<p>As such, I'm aware that the problem with the existing organizing resolution is likely caused by the unusual 50–50 Senate majority. So, my questions are:</p>
<ul>
<li>Exactly which part of the <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-113sdoc18/pdf/CDOC-113sdoc18.pdf" rel="noreferrer">existing Senate organizing resolution</a> is holding up the appointment of new committee chairmen in the new Congress.</li>
<li>In other words, why can't the Senate just stick with the <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-113sdoc18/pdf/CDOC-113sdoc18.pdf" rel="noreferrer">existing organizing resolution</a> (passed during the 113th Congress)?</li>
<li>Or am I entirely wrong and the Senate actually passes a new organizing resolution at the start of every Congress?</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<p><sup>1</sup>I'm aware that the definition of an "organizing resolution" in Daschle and Lott's op-ed may differ from what I assumed it to be. My idea of an "organizing resolution" is the <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-113sdoc18/pdf/CDOC-113sdoc18.pdf" rel="noreferrer">"Standing Rules of the Senate"</a>, which was last <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-resolution/285" rel="noreferrer">passed on Nov 4, 2013</a> during the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/113th_United_States_Congress" rel="noreferrer">113th Congress</a> and is <em>apparently</em> still in force.</p>
 | united states congress senate senate rules | 1 |
62,085 | Committee Chairmanship Appointments | <p>I had assumed there was some significance to Bernie Sanders becoming the Chair of the Budget Committee, but it appears to be an <a href="https://www.salon.com/2021/01/18/gop-nightmare-about-to-come-true-senate-budget-committee-chair-bernie-sanders_partner/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">automatic</a> assignment rather than a choice by the incoming administration.</p>
<p>What determines who becomes the chair of which Senate committee?</p>
 | united states senate senate rules | 1 |
62,088 | Can the US House/Congress impeach/convict a private citizen that hasn't held office? | <p>The current debate right now is whether or not the US Senate can hold an impeachment trial and potentially convict an ex-president who is now technically considered a private citizen. To be clear, the impeachment occurred during the presidency, but the trial will be held after his presidency. The speculated purpose is to prevent the ex-president from running for office ever again. I'll take it a step beyond: Could the house/senate impeach and convict any private citizen? I wasn't sure if there's specific language in the US constitution that describes that impeachment is reserved specifically for a sitting president, or if it's another case of "this is how it's historically been done but it's debatable."</p>
 | united states impeachment house of representatives | 1 |
62,092 | What happens if election fraud is found after a president is elected? | <p>A proportion of Donald Trump's supporters believe that the presidential election that has recently led to Joe Biden being sworn in was fraudulent. As I recall, numerous states, such as Arizona, are currently under pressure to audit their elections. Suppose that one such audit happens and finds very strong evidence of fraud that happened in favor of Joe Biden. What happens then? Has this ever happened before? If not, what do the laws say?</p>
<p>Note: The key part of this question is how the finding of fraud would affect a president that has already entered office.</p>
 | united states president presidential election law election fraud | 1 |
62,093 | Current status of a prospective 2017 EU fining of the UK for allowing undervalued Chinese imports | <p><a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-faces-e2-billion-eu-payment-for-china-fraud-trade/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">According to Politico in 2017</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Britain faces a potential €2 billion bill from Brussels after EU investigators found that U.K. authorities turned a blind eye to a massive fraud network that allowed ultra-cheap Chinese goods to flood into Europe.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Does anyone know what has happened to this?</p>
 | united kingdom european union trade | 1 |
62,097 | What is the Biden administration's position on the WHO investigation into the origins of coronavirus? | <p>Has the Biden administration expressed support of the World Health Organization investigating the origins of COVID-19 in China?</p>
<p>The Wikipedia article on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#World_Health_Organization_investigations" rel="nofollow noreferrer">WHO investigations</a> only mentions the views of the previous Trump administration, and searching for information about the Biden administration and the WHO gave results about the Biden administration's decision to make the US rejoin the WHO.</p>
 | united states china covid 19 virus joe biden who | 1 |
62,101 | Understanding the decision process in politics - How much knowledge does a politician need? | <p><strong>Edit:</strong> Thank you for your helpful comments. Based on them, I decided to modify my Question.</p>
<p>I am wondering how decisions are made in politics. In particular, what are the skills the politicians involved need to have for the creation of <em>policies</em>?</p>
<p>Following the example of the European commission (see <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/41442/how-to-review-the-decision-making-of-the-different-functions-of-the-european-uni">How to review the decision-making of the different functions of the European Union?</a>), the basic steps for creating a policy are:</p>
<ol>
<li>The current state of the system, its advantages and disadvantages are assessed.</li>
<li>Based on expert reports, the policy is created.</li>
<li>The policy is passed on to an external committee.</li>
</ol>
<p>From this perspective, politicians mainly need to be able to</p>
<ul>
<li>efficiently work in a team,</li>
<li>incorporate knowledge from various fields,</li>
<li>must be able to understand scientific arguments.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Questions</strong>: When it comes to creating a policy, what makes a politician different from any other profession where these 3 faculties are required? What are the difficulties a politician is facing when creating an agenda/policy?</p>
<p>I am happy to hear any comments on that. Any suggestions (books, articles, documentaries) on how I could deepen my understanding of the decision processes in politics, especially on how policies are created, are very welcome.</p>
 | decision making | 0 |
62,103 | Can the Chinese president be impeached? | <p>According to <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43361276" rel="noreferrer">this</a> article:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>China has approved the removal of the two-term limit on the
presidency, effectively allowing Xi Jinping to remain in power for
life.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'd like to know if there is a mechanism in China's Constitution that allows the removal of the president from office. If yes, under what conditions?</p>
 | constitution china impeachment chinese communist party | 1 |
62,105 | 100 million people vaccinated in 100 days? | <p><a href="https://nypost.com/2021/01/24/fauci-joe-bidens-100m-shots-does-not-mean-100m-people/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">article here</a></p>
<p>The Biden administration is trying to dampen expectations about the vaccine. But, the numbers still don't add up. If 100 million shots are administered, some of those shots will go to people who have gotten only one shot. Let's say that is 10 million. Then, the remaining 90 million shots will be distributed 2 shots each to 45 million people. That is not 67 million people vaccinated. The absolute maximum number of people that could be vaccinated with 100 million shots is 50 million. Where does the 67 million number come from? They do not intend to count people who were already vaccinated (two shots) or had one shot already before Biden was inaugurated, do they?</p>
<p>It seems like Tony Fauci is trying to clarify something about what the 100 million vaccines actually means, but he actually created more confusion to me.</p>
<p>I believe this is a political question because the handling of covid-19 and the vaccine has been a major political issue in the campaign and the debates, etc.</p>
 | united states covid 19 virus joe biden vaccine | 0 |
62,107 | Have OANN or Newsmax asked any questions (thus far) at the the press conferences of the Biden White House? | <p>I'm curious if these two organizations (OANN and Newsmax)--both <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/11/30/939030504/newsmax-rises-on-wave-of-resentment-toward-media-especially-fox-news" rel="nofollow noreferrer">known</a> for being more pro-Trump than even Fox News-- and both still part of the White House press corps <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_House_press_corps&oldid=1001782673#Current" rel="nofollow noreferrer">as far as I can tell</a> were present at Biden's administration press conferences. If so, have they asked any questions at those Biden WH press events thus far?</p>
<p>(There has been <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/oan-deletes-articles-about-dominion-voting-election-conspiracy-2021-1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">some reporting</a> that OANN has been removing some of their election-conspiracy-fraud claims from their website. It's a bit unclear if that was mainly because they want to avoid being sued by Dominion Systems or if they're trying to take a more conciliatory tone towards the Biden presidency now. So, I'm curious what kind of questions they asked, if any, at Biden WH press events.)</p>
 | united states president media joe biden | 1 |
62,109 | Who swears in the president if all of the sitting members of the Supreme Court are dead? | <p>The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is supposed to swear in president-elect of the United States. If there is no sitting Chief Justice, another member of the court would swear the president and vice-president in.</p>
<p>However, what if the entire court does not have any sitting members. Who swears in the president then? Ideally, the Senate would have to approve a new presidential nominee. But what if the entire court is killed in a tragic accident on their way to the new president's inauguration on the 20th of January?</p>
 | united states president senate supreme court inauguration | 1 |
62,114 | Why doesn't the UK Labour Party push for proportional representation? | <p>There is a consistent majority for liberal (progressive) parties in the UK, but they regularly cannibalise each other in the first-past-the-post voting system (see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_general_elections#Election_results" rel="noreferrer">Wikipedia</a> for details). The last four UK elections were won by the Conservatives yet in three of them the three principal liberal parties (Labour, Lib Dems, Greens) had more votes than the three principal conservative parties (Conservatives, UKIP, Brexit). So it would seem that proportional representation (PR) would lead to a higher probability of Labour-led (coalition) governments.</p>
<p>Yet while there is a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Campaign_for_Electoral_Reform" rel="noreferrer">campaign group</a> in the party, PR does not seem to be a commonly accepted position. Why is that?</p>
<p>Does Labour prefer to win less elections but then govern without a coalition, or<br />
does Labour hope to eventually absorb the (older) Liberal Democrats and the Greens?</p>
 | united kingdom voting systems labour party proportional representation | 0 |
62,118 | What's the difference between a 51 seat majority and a 50 seat + VP "majority"? | <p>The US Senate currently has a 50/50 split of Democratic (D) and Republican (R) caucus members. According to news reports, this has lead to "power sharing agreements" needing to be made between the Ds and Rs. Why is this necessary?</p>
<p>Since the vice president (VP) has tie breaking authority in the senate and supports Ds, why doesn't the VP simply break ties in favor of Ds so that the Ds have full power---making the power sharing agreement moot?</p>
 | united states senate senate rules vice president power | 0 |
62,122 | Are there any US politicians that want to reduce housing prices? | <p>Over the last year, the Federal Reserve has propping up the already historically high housing market <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-01/fed-s-mortgage-buying-spree-at-1-trillion-with-no-end-in-sight" rel="nofollow noreferrer">by purchasing/backing</a> trillions of dollars of mortgages, preventing a decline in house prices like in 2008.</p>
<p>This seems to be a largely bipartisan thing, with lots of support (even if only implicitly).</p>
<p>I'm not so much interested in debating the merits themselves, but rather understanding the political alignment.</p>
<p>Are there any U.S. politicians that vocally advocate for housing market costs going down instead of keeping them where they currently are?</p>
 | united states economy policy federal reserve housing | 0 |
62,143 | Have Democrats in favour of abolishing the filibuster said anything about what happens if Democrats were to lose control of the Senate in the future? | <p>Senator Joe Manchin has been <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/senators-urge-save-filibuster-237014" rel="nofollow noreferrer">consistently</a> <a href="https://www.manchin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/manchin-only-senator-to-vote-against-nuclear-option-in-2013-2017-and-today-" rel="nofollow noreferrer">opposed</a> <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/2020/11/09/joe-manchin-kills-dreams-of-expanding-supreme-court-eliminating-the-filibuster/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">to</a> abolishing the filibuster, noting that the filibuster provides for minority input.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I can assure you I will not vote to end the filibuster, because that would break the Senate. We’ve harmed the Senate enough with the nuclear option on the judges. We’re making lifetime appointments based on a simple majority. The minority should have input — that’s the whole purpose for the Senate. If you basically do away with the filibuster altogether for legislation, you won’t have the Senate. You’re a glorified House. And I will not do that.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>On the other hand, many progressive Democrats have consistently been in favour of abolishing the filibuster, with a <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/01/19/reconciliation-nuclear-strike-filibuster-progressive-memo-details-steps-biden-can" rel="nofollow noreferrer">memo from progressive organisations</a> highlighting the advantages of abolishing the filibusters, especially in getting Democrats' priorities passed.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Get rid of the filibuster.</strong> It would be far healthier, cleaner, and easier to explain politically to simply reform or get rid of the filibuster immediately, and proceed to pass Biden's agenda through regular order—including must-pass civil rights bills, climate solutions and statehood. A quick strike against the filibuster in January will set Biden up to shepherd his entire agenda through regular order, with full committee involvement and proper levels of oversight and transparency.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, while abolishing the filibuster means that Democrats can get their legislation passed more easily, it also opens the door <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/business/dealbook/republicans-unravel-dodd-frank-act.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">for</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-health-202/2017/05/31/the-health-202-why-republicans-won-t-go-nuclear-even-for-obamacare-repeal/592db7cfe9b69b2fb981dbfb/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Republicans</a> to repeal those Democratic legislation more easily should Democrats lose control of the Senate in the future. <strong>Have congressional Democrats in favour of abolishing the filibuster said anything about what happens / they would do if Democrats were to lose control of the Senate in the future?</strong></p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Note:</strong> I'm looking for public statements or opinions from congressional Democrats (incl. House Democrats) who have <em>expressed support</em> for abolishing the filibuster.</p>
 | united states congress senate democratic party filibuster | 0 |
62,156 | Why does H.R.335 not mention the nominee's name? | <p>To my understanding, <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr335ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr335ih.pdf" rel="noreferrer">H.R.335</a> which <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/335/actions" rel="noreferrer">became Public Law No: 117-1.</a> was a bill before the United States House of Representatives which would provide an exception to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/113" rel="noreferrer">10 U.S. Code § 113 (a)</a> in order to enable the confirmation of the nominee for the office of Secretary of Defense, General Lloyd Austin.</p>
<p>My question is on the wording of that particular bill:
Why does it not simply mention the nominee's name?</p>
<p>It seems to me to go to extreme lengths to limit the application of the exception without using the obvious solution: Limiting it to one particular individual.</p>
 | united states congress constitution military legislative process | 1 |
62,158 | What practical effect would a successful impeachment conviction of Joe Biden for his actions as Vice President have? | <h1>Background</h1>
<p>The same day President Joe Biden was inaugurated, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced <a href="https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Congresswoman_Marjorie_Taylor_Greene_Introduces_Articles_of_Impeachment_Against_President_Joe_Biden" rel="nofollow noreferrer">articles of impeachment</a> against him for his conduct as Vice President.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As Vice President, Joe Biden was the senior Obama Administration official overseeing anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine. Hence, any illegal activity involving corruption conducted by Hunter Biden within or in relation to Ukraine would fall under the purview of the Office of Vice President Biden and the Obama State Department’s anti-corruption efforts. In fact, many State Department officials within the Obama Administration repeatedly registered reservations about Hunter Biden’s role on the board of a corrupt company. Thus, any instances of corruption on behalf of Hunter Biden via his role as a board member of the Ukrainian-operated Burisma energy firm were intentionally not investigated or covered up.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Ignoring the fact that this is a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory" rel="nofollow noreferrer">conspiracy theory</a>, these articles seemed to be introduced after the office holder left office, which seems to go a step further than holding an impeachment trial after the person in question <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/61475/can-a-president-be-impeached-after-leaving-office/61490#61490">has left office</a>. In addition, the crucial difference that I am curious about is if the person under impeachment <em>is currently holding a different office</em> as opposed to no office, which was <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/61490/19306">William Belknap's situation</a>.</p>
<h1>Question</h1>
<p>If these articles received a majority vote and if the Senate voted 2/3rds to convict ex-Vice President Biden and then subsequently voted as a simple majority to prevent him from running for office again, that seems only to prevent him from running for re-election as opposed to removing him from his present office. Therefore, this leads to my question: What practical effect would these articles of impeachment against President Joe Biden have if successfully voted upon at each stage of the process?</p>
 | united states impeachment joe biden vice president | 1 |
62,159 | How did US Supreme court Justice John Roberts "let it be known" that he did not wish to preside over the 2nd presidential impeachment? | <p>NPR.org's <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/01/25/960389715/sen-patrick-leahy-to-preside-over-trumps-senate-impeachment-trial" rel="noreferrer">Sen. Patrick Leahy To Preside Over Trump's Senate Impeachment Trial</a> says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Chief Justice John Roberts presided over Trump's first impeachment trial, but now that Trump is a former president, Roberts is not constitutionally obligated to preside.</p>
<p>The Constitution says, "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside." And Roberts did that when Trump was tried last year. This time, however, <strong>the chief justice let it be known he did not want to preside now that Trump is no longer president. On Monday, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said Roberts would have no comment.</strong></p>
<p>It is unclear whether Senate leaders ever consulted Roberts. More likely, <strong>Roberts</strong>, who has tried mightily to keep the Supreme Court out of politics, <strong>headed them off at the pass and made his views clear.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Question:</strong> How exactly did Justice Roberts "let it be known", "head them off at the pass" and "make his views clear" that he did not wish to preside over the 2nd presidential impeachment of <a href="https://english.stackexchange.com/q/399555/217285">forty-five</a>? Was it really a question of <em>preference</em> or one of law?</p>
 | united states president supreme court impeachment | 0 |
62,163 | What is this section 179 that was referred to in the hearings on the S.84 authorizing the exception for Gen. Mattis to serve as Sec. Def? | <p>In the Senate committee hearings on granting the exception to Gen. Mattis to serve as Sec Def, Sen./Chairman McCain <a href="https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/17-03_01-12-17.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>before you is a copy of section 179 of the recently enacted continuing resolution that provides for expedited consideration of a specifically described bill. S. 84 is the qualifying legislation prescribed in section 179 as qualifying legislation. S. 84 is entitled to an expedited procedure that will enable the incoming President to nominate him, for the Senate to give advice and consent for General Mattis to serve as Secretary of Defense, hopefully on the evening of the upcoming inauguration day [...] In order to avail ourselves of the expedited procedure, the bill may not be amended.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What is that "section 179 of the recently enacted continuing resolution" saying exactly?</p>
 | united states senate | 1 |
62,170 | What is the minimum amount of votes needed in both Chambers of Congress to send an Admission to the Union resolution to the President? | <h1>Background</h1>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_Union" rel="noreferrer">Admission to the Union</a> in the United States seems to be a vaguely laid out procedure as described in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I could not find details on what the minimum vote threshold is needed in both houses to successfully send an Admission Resolution to the President's desk to sign. I have found an article on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_for_the_Admission_of_the_State_of_California" rel="noreferrer">California's admission</a>, but the votes tabulated there seem way beyond any minimum threshold.</p>
<h1>Question</h1>
<p>What is the vote threshold in both houses of congress to send an Admission to the Union resolution to the President?</p>
 | united states legislative process statehood | 1 |
Subsets and Splits