source_id
int64 1
4.64M
| question
stringlengths 0
28.4k
| response
stringlengths 0
28.8k
| metadata
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
23,912 | According to Wikipedia , there were many belligerents on the South Korean side involved in the war. This includes The UK, France, Australia, Canada, Greece and many, many others. Why, then, is there so much more hatred towards the US when other countries were a part of the war?
Was the hatred for the US spawned from that war, or has it been the US actions (sanctions etc) towards the DPRK over the years which has created the situation we are in now? Are other countries involved seen in the same light by the DPRK, as the US is? | While Alexander's points are correct and certainly do not help the USA win North Korean sympathies, I think that more than an historical view the answer lies in the current situation: USA is the only foreign power that still has troops stationed in South Korea. USA was the most powerful nation of the UN coalition. The advantage it had in the Korean war has only increased. The other major powers (UK, France) have lost or granted independence to most of the colonial possessions that helped them to project power in the area (Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, former Indochina comprising of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos), reducing their influence and making it less visible. As a consequence of the above, USA remains the most significant and involved foreign member of the "Western coalition". The six-party talks, for example, included Russia, China, North Korea, South Korea, Japan and USA. Of the latter: Pressuring South Korea into submission is not a viable tactic, specially while it has the support of the USA¹. Japan has a limited military so it is not much of a threat. Other members of the former UN coalition seem to be happy following the USA lead (there are no separate political initiatives coming from the UK, France or Australia). I have seen some different analysis behind NK politics, but the above points make the USA the prime target. For example: They want to invade South Korea and the USA presence is an additional obstacle. NK leadership thinks that threatening the USA will get it to retire its support to South Korea and leave the South Korean army without allies. They are honestly afraid of the USA and South Korea invading them, and want to have leverage to avoid that. They need a foreign threat to justify its military control of the population, and the USA gives the most terrifying threat. ¹ And @SoylentGray has a point that North Korea has not been ignoring South Korea: there have been artillery attacks across the border and there are strong suspicions that a NK submarine sunk a SK destroyer. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23912",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/16352/"
]
} |
23,978 | Many countries have laws that protect a suspect (or anyone else) from being forced to self-incrimination. For example USA have that codified in the fifth amendment and it's mentioned in the Miranda rights (before questioning a suspect). Perhaps it's even codified in international conventions. What is the rationale of such law? | As with many such rights, you should look to pre-modern Europe to understand the context in which such rights were introduced. At that time, without forensic evidence, the best chance of a conviction was a confession, and easiest way to get a confession would be to mistreat a prisoner. There was no police force so magistrates and judges would be greatly involved in the interrogation of suspects. A judge could interpret a suspect's behaviour during the interview in any way he wished. If the judge was prejudiced against the suspect, this would lead to miscarriages of justice. The fifth amendment of the US Constitution should be seen particularly in the context of the Star Chamber , which was a court in the UK. It was used to prosecute dissenters and Puritans. Those brought before the court were compelled to swear an oath, and if their answers were unsatisfactory (i.e. not matching the King's expectation) they would be convicted of perjury. Failing to answer would be a contempt of court. In the modern context, the question becomes, "why maintain the right to silence". In modern jurisdictions, it has become clear that confessions are unreliable , and so modern jurisprudence depends much more on forensic evidence. Removing the right to silence would put pressure on more innocent people to give a false confession. All this is bad justice. It's unfair to the suspect, and so it is unfair to the victim. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23978",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/10866/"
]
} |
23,982 | A question popped into my mind the other day concerning the two referenda concerning the European Union issued by the UK Government. The first took place on 5 June 1975 on whether the UK should stay in the European Community. The answer: yes The second took place on 23 June 2016 on whether the UK should leave the European Union. The answer: yes Concerning ages and voting statistics what proportion of those voting yes in the 1975 referendum also likely voted yes in the 2016 referendum? (i.e. did those who voted to stay in the EC also vote to leave the EU) | As with many such rights, you should look to pre-modern Europe to understand the context in which such rights were introduced. At that time, without forensic evidence, the best chance of a conviction was a confession, and easiest way to get a confession would be to mistreat a prisoner. There was no police force so magistrates and judges would be greatly involved in the interrogation of suspects. A judge could interpret a suspect's behaviour during the interview in any way he wished. If the judge was prejudiced against the suspect, this would lead to miscarriages of justice. The fifth amendment of the US Constitution should be seen particularly in the context of the Star Chamber , which was a court in the UK. It was used to prosecute dissenters and Puritans. Those brought before the court were compelled to swear an oath, and if their answers were unsatisfactory (i.e. not matching the King's expectation) they would be convicted of perjury. Failing to answer would be a contempt of court. In the modern context, the question becomes, "why maintain the right to silence". In modern jurisdictions, it has become clear that confessions are unreliable , and so modern jurisprudence depends much more on forensic evidence. Removing the right to silence would put pressure on more innocent people to give a false confession. All this is bad justice. It's unfair to the suspect, and so it is unfair to the victim. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23982",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/16399/"
]
} |
23,987 | In a recent rally in Pheonix, Arizona , Donald Trump threatened to shut down the government if that's what it would take to build his infamous Mexico border wall : "If we have to close down our government, we're building that wall," "We're going to have our wall. The American people voted for immigration control. We're going to get that wall." If Trump is the President, how can the government 'stop' him from building the wall? Does he not have the power, as President, to overrule the government? How will shutting the government down enable the Mexico border wall to be built? | Forcing a government shutdown doesn't get Trump any budget for anything. It's the threat of a government shutdown with which he hopes to force Congress to cooperate. A government shutdown happens when Congress and President can not agree on a budget plan. The result is that the executive branch of the US government is unable to provide most of its services, except the most essential ones. That's not just bad for the executive branch. It's bad for the whole country. It is a strategy of mutually assured destruction. In this situation both sides hope that the other will give in to prevent looking like the obstructionists who destroyed the whole country just because they couldn't have their way. Forcing government shutdowns was used quite often in the past to enforce political demands. The last one was in 2013 when the Republican-dominated Congress wanted to defund the Affordable Care Act. This situation was actually eerily similar: The President had an expensive pet project which was a major campaign promise for him, but the majority of Congress objected to it. So Congress tried to kill it by refusing funding. In the 2013 shutdown, the President won in the end. Congress gave up and passed a budget with funds allocated to the ACA. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23987",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/16328/"
]
} |
23,993 | North Korea's desire to acquire nuclear weapons is entirely understandable from both a practical perspective (more power) and a moral perspective (a deterrence tool in order to defend its own population). Therefore, it seems obvious that the best way to acquire them would be to simply go about it silently. By making threats and acting maniacal, the opposition against them would increase, and so would the probability of economical sanctions and militant reactions, and so would the support among the public masses of these sanctions and militant reactions, all of which hurts North Korea. So why are they acting like that? Why not just build their weapons in a non-threatening manner? If they did that, any opposition against them would be minor, or at least much less than what we are seeing now. | There are a few reasons I can think of why the DPRK would not want to keep their nuclear ambitions secret: Military Dictatorships are inherently unstable. Kim Jong-Un has almost as much to fear from his own family and generals as he does from anyone outside of North Korea. If he appears to be strong locally, there is much less chance for a coup. This is one of the reasons why the fairy tales that are popular among North Korean people are encouraged, though I imagine the number of true believers in the country is probably much less than what his regime would like. Having an external threat to point to can have a stabilizing effect by keeping those who may wish to depose him isolated out of fear. In prior times, signs of belligerence from North Korea was sometimes met with some form of international aid. If you give a bully your lunch money once, they're likely to try to take it again. When it comes to nuclear weapons, if you build some and no one knows about it then the concept of mutually assured destruction does you no good. It's not enough to have them, people must know that you have them and that you are willing to use them. The current American administration has been particularly bellicose against North Korea with its rhetoric. The regime may wish to deter a potential first strike by appearing strong, and reminding people that they could start something akin to World War III if they wanted. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23993",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/16903/"
]
} |
24,024 | Every time there's a terror attack in Europe, people will come out with messages such as "we are not scared". What is the point of these messages? Each individual human is very unlikely to be a victim of terror attack. It is much more likely that you, or one of your loved ones, dies of some other crime, or of a disease, or so on... yet you don't see these same people come out and say " we are not scared of you, mr. traffic accident !"? My point is, it just seems ... well obvious to not be scared of terror attacks. Take France for example. They often make messages like these .... but since 1970, only 400 people have died of terror attack. Assuming a population of circa 50 million over this period, the probability of having died in a terror attack is 0.0008 %. It is probably more likely to die from heart attack after watching a poor quality movie. | My point is, it just seems ... well obvious to not be scared of terror attacks. It might seem that way to you, but it still doesn't stop politicians from demanding and making policy based on fear of terrorism: There are demands for extended surveillance, justified with requiring these as tools for law enforcement to fight terrorism. There are demands for extended internet censorship, justified with preventing terrorists from using the internet as a recruiting tool. There are demands for stopping migration from Muslim countries, justified with the possibility that there could be terrorists among them. By stating that you are not afraid of terrorism, you are telling these politicians: "It's OK, nobody wants you to permanently sacrifice our freedom to give us a bit of temporary safety. Please abandon these plans, unless you have some other arguments for them. If you do, please focus the public debate on these arguments instead". | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24024",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
24,050 | The principal argument, to my knowledge, that Europe ought to take in refugees from Syria (and other war torn countries) is a moral one. The refugees are innocent victims of brutal wars, the progressives argue, and wealthy European countries have a moral imperative to accept them, house them, and meet their demands. I have yet to hear a Realpolitik reason why Europe ought to take in refugees. Is there such a reason? To make it absolutely and unequivocally clear what I'm asking: How exactly is it in the interest of the peoples of Europe to accept millions of culturally dissimilar refugees from the Middle East and Africa? For the peoples of Europe , do the benefits, if there are any, outweigh the risks? I am not asking why regulated, legal immigration in controlled quantities is in the interest of the host population. There are "realistic" arguments for this (e.g., compensating for declining birth rates, economic growth). Rather, I am referring strictly to the massive and rapid influx of asylum seekers who have came to Europe over the past two years in the so-called "refugee crisis". | First let's take a look at the definition of the word Realpolitik : Politics based on practical and material factors rather than on theoretical or ethical objectives Under that definition there are two possible reasons: Avoiding a situation where European soldiers/border guards shoot unarmed men, women and children Helping prevent further destabilization in Turkey, Libya and the Balkans due to the influx of refugees There are absolutely no other Realpolitik benefits in accepting refugees as compared to regular and fully controlled immigration routes. There are literally hundreds of millions of people who would like to immigrate to the EU, so the European governments can take their pick in finding the most talented/hard-working people for any imaginable position. Likewise the EU could easily follow America's refugee resettlement programs and accept a limited number of fully vetted refugees, in order to satisfy the moral question of helping people at war. If you look deeper into the current immigration crisis you will face the following truths: The European border is extremely long and extremely hard to police effectively. Even if the border guards do intercept someone along the way, it is generally difficult to send them back to where they came from, since this requires the cooperation of the neighboring countries. Before the Qaddafi regime collapsed a lot of this dirty work was carried out by Libya, for example. But right now Libya is in a state of civil war, so it's hard to cooperate effectively. Once someone has landed on European shores it becomes even more difficult to return them to their country of origin, at the very least because people can easily throw out their documents and completely hide their identity. Since you cannot realistically deport most people once they've landed on shore, the only way to effectively shut down the current borders is to construct a "reverse Iron Curtain ", where anyone attempting to enter the EU without authorization would face a harsh demonstration of lethal force from the border guards. The vast majority of Europeans (even the majority of anti-immigration parties members) are against any actions that may have parallels to the genocidal war crimes of Germany during World War II. And the use of lethal force against unarmed immigrants draws strong parallels to the horrors of Nazi policies - we generally accept that capital punishment is unacceptable regardless of the crime. Even if the EU somehow managed to completely halt the influx of refugees to it's own territory, they would simply end up in the surrounding countries. Turkey and others are already over-strained by the numbers they've had to accept and merely sending in foreign aid won't resolve all the tensions. Likewise nobody wants a situation where Turkey is using lethal force to expel refugees back to Syria, as that would pressure Europeans to intervene even more directly. Keeping the neighbors stable and open for trade is important for any country. Therefore the European governments are stuck in a difficult situation with no single, magical solution. Various actions are undertaken by European leaders, such as restricting NGO rescue operations , signing a new anti-immigration deal with Libya , sending immigrants back to Turkey , building a fence on the Schengen border, relocating immigrants within the EU, and so on. Whether or not they will be truly effective is an open question, however the basic problem of handling uncontrolled immigration will always remain on the table while operating within the constraints I've mentioned above. It should also be mentioned that Europe's leaders are very much acting in terms of Realpolitik despite what anti-immigration activists might have you believe or what the leaders themselves might say on TV . No country in Europe is making it easier for refugees to get to their territory and all of them are happy to deport people abroad whenever the circumstances allow for it. The only real difference between Japan (which is hailed as a homogeneous heaven by nationalistic parties) or Australia (known for its maritime border protection policies) and the EU is that European politicians maintain a facade of supporting the right to asylum. Otherwise their practical policies are very much alike . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24050",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
24,073 | How are governments dealing with the problem of foreign investors ratcheting up the cost of homes in countries like the USA, Canada, Japan, etc. What have/could countries done policy wise to deal with this? And how successful have their attempts to address the issue been? | First off your assumption needs to be addressed. Foreign investment does not, in itself, ratchet up the cost of homes. The actual problem is foreign investors who dry up the supply of properties by purchasing real estate abroad for investment purposes and sitting on them without renting them . As long as locals can keep buying or renting the properties owned by foreign investors it's no big deal. With this in mind, I'm aware of four policy tools: 1) Taxing property ownership. This can be done in various forms, and usually takes the form of a property tax. This is done in varying degrees in many countries. The administration that collects the tax can range from government to local municipality. Two main issues: you need reasonably good assessment of the property's value and, since it also affects locals, it can be seen as an unfair tax in that it may also affect (not necessarily well off) retirees who purchased their property when prices were much lower. France has a variation of this, where they tax wealth (i.e. all capital). If memory serves their newly elected president vowed to reform the wealth tax so it only applies to non-productive capital. 2) Tax foreign home buyers as part of the transaction when the buyer does not reside in the country. This was recently tried by British Columbia in an effort to fend off foreign investors who were depleting the Vancouver real estate market. It seems to have worked somewhat, but it apparently didn't stop the bubble . The more aggressive foreign buyers are still pouring money (though down to 3% of transactions vs 13% at its peak) into the market, at the side of local investors (which, let's get real, might be foreign-owned businesses or trusts set up to avoid the transaction tax). A variation of this is banning purchases by foreigners altogether, as described in SJuan's answer. The issue with both of these approaches is similar: you can work around the law by e.g. registering a local business and having the business buy the property. 3) Tax unoccupied properties. This is a straight-up tax on real estate investors that doubles as an extra tax on high net worth households that own secondary properties. (The latter obviously don't like it much.) To implement it, you basically tax properties that aren't occupied most of the time. For residential housing, you can define the latter as being someone's fiscal residence. It's murkier for commercial property. This is being tried in Victoria in Australia and in Vancouver BC. Amsterdam has an oh so slight variation, in that they're fining secondary owners who don't rent their property. The UK has a yet another variation of this, in that they tax secondary homes ; so does, if memory serves, the Netherlands at large. 4) Protect squatters. This is the most colorful option I'm aware of. Basically, a squatter that finds a property that has been left vacant for more than a certain duration and somehow manages to move in gets the same protection as a paying tenant and can stay until evicted through a court order. This is more or less how things worked in the Netherlands until a recent squatting ban . As to what works... Taxing property or net worth has little effect on housing prices if history is any indicator. Plus, it's technically just another tax, that affects the locals too - including retirees. I do not think taxing foreign buyers can work in the long term, because it's easy to overcome by e.g. creating a local business or colorful paperwork with local family members (e.g. you could give them a "loan" in exchange for pre-selling the property). Protecting squatters can seem outlandish, but it gives extreme incentives to keep homes bought as investments well maintained and occupied by tenants, all while driving secondary home owners out of hot markets. Taxing unoccupied homes has, to a lesser degree, more or less the same effects as protecting squatters. I'm not aware of any place where it's been around long enough to say what the correct tax level should be to keep speculators and secondary home owners out of hot markets. But in my opinion this is the only sane long-term option. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24073",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11787/"
]
} |
24,098 | Much of the criticism of Trump's pardon of former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio has centered on the idea that this shows a disrespect for the "rule of law". For instance, John McCain said (as reported in the LA Times ): The president has the authority to make this pardon, but doing so at this time undermines his claim for the respect of rule of law as Mr. Arpaio has shown no remorse for his actions. But couldn't that be said about practically any pardon? Theoretically, every prisoner was convicted of properly enacted laws and according to our accepted judicial processes. While I don't agree with this particular pardon, I don't see what makes it different from other pardons. In all cases, the President is essentially stating that he knows better than the courts and juries that convicted the individuals, or simply that he doesn't care what they said. Pardons are often done for political reasons, and that seems to be the likely justification for this one; it's very consistent with Trump's campaign promises regarding illegal immigration, since Arpaio was well known for being a fierce opponent of it. Pardoning Arpaio plays to Trump's base. It seems like this pardon is being singled out simply because so few politicians on either side of the aisle agree with it. But what does that have to do with the "rule of law"? And since the power to pardon is part of the Constitution, isn't it effectively included in the rule of law? How can exercising a legal power be a violation of the law? EDIT: I understand that many people think this pardon was inappropriate, and agree with them. My question is specifically about why "rule of law" is being mentioned in the arguments against it, since the law specifically allows it. | tl;dr : Arpaio was sentenced for violating a court order, which ordered him to stop violating the law. In this case, a presidential pardon takes away any recourse the judiciary has, thus circumventing the separation of powers and thus the rule of law. Few people claim that the pardon was illegal. What people mean by "rule of law" in this case is that it was against the unwritten, but well established, procedure of pardons and an attack against the separation of powers. Procedures and Reasons for Pardons Specifically , the pardon violated - not legally binding - procedures because: Trump did not consult anyone at the Justice Department Arpaio did not request a pardon Arpaio was not sentenced yet Additionally, the pardon is generally applied when one or more of these points apply: Facts of the case have changed The individual shows regret The individual served their sentence The sentence is seen as too harsh or unjust (compared to how it was seen when issued) None of those is the case here. Arpaio is proud of his racist and criminal behavior, and wasn't sentenced yet, so nothing has changed since his sentencing. Because of this, the pardon is perceived not as righting a previous wrong, or as mercy for a person showing regret, but as going over a judge. Separation of Powers and the rule of law In many democracies, state powers are separated into Legislative, Executive, and Judicial powers . Rule of law specifically means: the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by decisions of individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behaviour, including behaviour of government officials. While the pardon itself may have been legal, Trump circumvented the checks the judiciary could exercise over the executive (of which Arpaio was a part of). The law that prevented Arpaio from his illegal activities can be considered bypassed; It wasn't the law that governed, but Arpaio. Trumps pardon of him - without any sign of guilt or wrongdoing - is a support of Arpaio's ignorance of the law, and thus in conflict with the principal of rule of law. Martin Redish shows in the NYT why this pardon is an attack on the existing process, the separation of power, and thus the rule of law: This is uncharted territory. Yes, on its face the Constitution’s pardon power would seem unlimited. [...] But the Arpaio case is different: The sheriff was convicted of violating constitutional rights, in defiance of a court order involving racial profiling. Should the president indicate that he does not think Mr. Arpaio should be punished for that, he would signal that governmental agents who violate judicial injunctions are likely to be pardoned, even though their behavior violated constitutional rights, when their illegal actions are consistent with presidential policies. Many legal scholars argue that the only possible redress is impeachment — itself a politicized, drawn-out process. But there may be another route. If the pardon is challenged in court, we may discover that there are, in fact, limits to the president’s pardon power after all. [...] [I]f the president signals to government agents that there exists the likelihood of a pardon when they violate a judicial injunction that blocks his policies, he can all too easily circumvent the only effective means of enforcing constitutional restrictions on his behavior. Indeed, the president could even secretly promise a pardon to agents if they undertake illegal activity he desires. [...] [I]f the president can employ the pardon power to circumvent constitutional protections of liberty, there is very little left of the constitutional checks on presidential power. Noah Feldman argues the same on Bloomberg: This is the crime that Trump is suggesting he might pardon: willful defiance of a federal judge’s lawful order to enforce the Constitution. It’s one thing to pardon a criminal out of a sense of mercy or on the belief that he has paid his debt to society. It’s trickier when the president pardons someone who violated the law in pursuit of governmental policy [...] But it would be an altogether different matter if Trump pardoned Arpaio for willfully refusing to follow the Constitution and violating the rights of people inside the U.S. Such a pardon would reflect outright contempt for the judiciary, which convicted Arpaio for his resistance to its authority. Trump has questioned judges’ motives and decisions, but this would be a further, more radical step in his attack on the independent constitutional authority of Article III judges. An Arpaio pardon would express presidential contempt for the Constitution. [...] Fundamentally, pardoning Arpaio would also undermine the rule of law itself. Additional reasons for outrage and meaning for future investigations Most of the outrage is of course not (only) because of the contempt for the rule of law, but because this isn't the first time Trump has shown his support for racists and white supremacists. And even those that agree with Trumps endorsement of white supremacists might agree that Arpaio was not a very decent person by any definition. Paul Krugman argues along those lines in an opinion piece in the NYT. He also gives an overview over Arpaios conviction and how this pardon might affect future investigations (and thus again attack the rule of law): Joe Arpaio engaged in blatant racial discrimination. His officers systematically targeted Latinos, often arresting them on spurious charges and at least sometimes beating them up when they questioned those charges. [...] Once Latinos were arrested, bad things happened to them. Many were sent to Tent City, which Arpaio himself proudly called a “concentration camp,” [...] And when he received court orders to stop these practices, he simply ignored them, which led to his eventual conviction — after decades in office — for contempt of court [...] Arpaio is, of course, a white supremacist. [...] Trump’s motives are easy to understand. For one thing, Arpaio, with his racism and authoritarianism, really is his kind of guy. For another, the pardon is a signal to those who might be tempted to make deals with the special investigator as the Russia probe closes in on the White House: Don’t worry, I’ll protect you. [...] | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24098",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/13966/"
]
} |
24,124 | The US has several anti-ballistic missile systems in South Korea and I think some more in Japan, so why haven't they tried to shoot down the North Korean missiles, like the one that North Korea just shot over Japan? It seems to me that if a missile is flying towards a US ally with an unknown payload and unknown final destination, that the American military would want to shoot it down before it becomes a threat. If it is because they haven't had enough warning, then it seems like the US missile shields are total BS and wouldn't help in the event of actually needing them. | The US didn't intervene because Japan was perfectly able to intercept the missiles and chose to not do it. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/28/north-korea-fires-missile-japan Japan’s J-Alert warning system advised people across a large area of northern Japan to seek shelter. Japan’s self-defence forces did not attempt to shoot down the missile and there were no reports of damage from falling debris. The reason why Japan didn't intercept the missile was that they quickly measured its trajectory and concluded that it wouldn't hit them. I believe they preferred the missile to fall into the Pacific instead of having pieces of it raining on their cities. EDIT: In response to a comment below doubting Japan's ability to intercept missiles, here is information about missile interception country by country , emphasis on the relevant part : In 2016, the Japan Air Self Defense Force (JASDF), and also the Japan Ground Self Defense Force (JGSDF), initiated their 52nd year of annual live-fire missile launches at McGregor Range, New Mexico in Fort Bliss. The 2014 annual service practice of the PAC-3 Patriot missile demonstrated a 100 percent kill rate before a group which included the commanding generals of White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), and of the 32nd Army Air & Missile Defense Command (AAMDC). Every JASDF Patriot team participated in the annual exercise, which takes several months. Since 1998, when North Korea launched a Taepodong-1 missile over northern Japan, the Japanese have been jointly developing a new surface-to-air interceptor known as the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) with the US. So far tests have been successful, and there are planned 11 locations that the PAC-3 will be installed. A military spokesman[39] said that tests had been done on two sites, one of them a business park in central Tokyo, and Ichigaya – a site not far from the Imperial Palace. Along with the PAC-3, Japan has installed the US-developed Aegis ship-based anti-ballistic missile system, which was tested successfully on 18 December 2007. The missile was launched from a Japanese warship, in partnership with the US Missile Defense Agency and destroyed a mock target launched from the coast | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24124",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/16531/"
]
} |
24,143 | I am not extremely familiar with the intricacies of Marxist ideology but many of these articles seem to suggest that classical Communist ideology perceives the bourgeoisie as the 'real enemy of the proletariat', even though these political philosophies evolved when monarchy and the land-owning aristocracy was very much in greater dominance all over Europe including Russia. The Communist antagonism against the bourgeoisie continues to this day, including in the part of South India where I live [where Communism is a 'religion' for a significant section of the population, Marxist ideological education is widespread for interested individuals at local level, employee and trade unions are predominantly communist, and Communist governments regularly ascend to provincial rule through democratic elections. See ' update ' at the end of this question to read what Uncle said. ] Political changes mostly unrelated to communism have admittedly reduced the erstwhile aristocracy, all over the world including in India, to the status of 'rich or very rich citizens still owning substantial land, and having significant traditional influence but no political authority.' In most modern nations (excluding a few Communist states and dictatorships) the real political power is now wielded by elected representatives of the people, but Communism continues to be strongly antagonistic to the bourgeois class. The nearest explanation I could get (which does not fully explain the case) comes from the Wikipedia article on Bourgeoisie -- [ Bourgeoisie :] a sociologically defined class, especially in contemporary times, referring to people with a certain cultural and financial capital belonging to the middle or upper stratum of the middle class: [...] an affluent and often opulent stratum of the middle class (capitalist class) who stand opposite the proletariat class. In Marxist philosophy the bourgeoisie is the social class that came to own the means of production during modern industrialization and whose societal concerns are the value of property and the preservation of capital, to ensure the perpetuation of their economic supremacy in society. Note that between the period of the development of Marxist theory and the Russian Revolution, both the European monarchs and the land-owning aristocrats were still the real powers in society, in that they wielded traditional, political, legal, administrative and military authority, especially in the Russian Empire , while the bourgeoisie has never been more than a (very influential) economic powerhouse, and only relatively recently, since the Industrial revolution. Considering that classical communist ideology evolved in this political and social atmosphere, for what stated reasons (not a matter of opinion, remember) does classical communism consider the bourgeoisie -- even more than the aristocacy -- to be the real enemies of the People? (Note: I am a sociologist, not a political scientist; and 'Classical communism' as used here refers to the original Marxist theory that was put into practice in and after the Russian Revolution, as distinct from various re-interpretations of this ideology that have later been attempted all over the world.) Update : today I met an 82 year old 'uncle' (very close family friend) who belongs to the land-owning 'administrative upper caste' that used to ruthlessly enforce the traditional authority of the aristocracy in parts of South India right up until major political changes created the first elected Communist (provincial) government 60 years ago. Uncle said: I was 22 years old at the time and India has come a long way in these 60 years, but Communists, who were responsible for major socio-economic reforms in this region, still tend to accuse me of being bourgeoisie. I tell them that this is a very different world now -- I have no special privileges nor any feeling of caste- or class-superiority: I am no more bourgeoisie than you or OP! Class conflict will never end till there is capitalism in the world , the uncle said. | We can see that classical communism didn't perceive the aristocracy to be a threat or enemy, at least not as much as the bourgeoisie. The communist manifesto describes the aristocracy in 1848 as "ruined" by the bourgeoisie already: The feudal aristocracy was not the only class that was ruined by the bourgeoisie, not the only class whose conditions of existence pined and perished in the atmosphere of modern bourgeois society. We can see this idea in other socialist writings as well. Eduard Bernstein wrote the article The principles of communism 1847: Second, wherever big industries displaced manufacture, the bourgeoisie developed in wealth and power to the utmost and made itself the first class of the country. The result was that wherever this happened, the bourgeoisie took political power into its own hands and displaced the hitherto ruling classes, the aristocracy, the guildmasters, and their representative, the absolute monarchy. The bourgeoisie annihilated the power of the aristocracy Engels wrote in 1844: It is remarkable how greatly the upper classes of society, such as the Englishman calls “respectable people,” or “the better sort of people,” etc., have intellectually declined and lost their vigour in England. All energy, all activity, all substance are gone; the landed aristocracy goes hunting, the moneyed aristocracy makes entries in the ledger and at best dabbles in literature which is equally empty and insipid. In conditions of the working class in 1845 Engles states: This ruling class in England, as in all other civilised countries, is the bourgeoisie This question focuses on stated reasons as required by the question. Whether or not these are true is not relevant, but might be an interesting question at history.SE | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24143",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/16169/"
]
} |
24,148 | Most current estimates of the UK exit bill show that the sum is somewhere around 50 billion Euros. This is equivalent to 0.3% of the EU's yearly GDP, so it's pretty much a negligible sum for the EU governments taken altogether. So why is this payment such a huge deal to EU negotiators? Are they simply using it as a bargaining chip since the sum is somewhat more significant to the UK? | The sum is quite small compared to the EU GDP, but that is not what you should be comparing it to. It would make more sense to compare it to the EU budget (as there the additional money would gradually end up to). According to this website (in the left side infographic in the page) the EU budget in 2011 (a bit outdated) was 129.3 billion euros. Compared to it, 50 billion euros is quite a substantial amount. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24148",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
24,149 | Let's take Iceland as an example. They have only 338,000 people and their GDP was a mere $20 Billion USD in 2016. There are therefore several billionaires who are richer than the entire economic output of the country. What prevents rich foreign interests from funneling tens of millions of Euros to Icelandic elections in order to elect people who are conducive to their interests? Or perhaps it's already happening and all small countries are controlled by their larger neighbors? | In a small electorate, personal relationships are more important than media spending; and voters are likely to resent attempts at outside interference. An extreme example occurred in the 2008 general election on the island of Sark in the English Channel. Sark had a total electorate of only 474 people and elects a parliament of 28 members. The Barclay brothers , whose net worth at the time was approximately GBP 1.7 billion, live on a neighbouring island and attempted to promote candidates friendly to their interests. Their efforts were not successful : Seats were won by only 2 of the 9 candidates endorsed by the Barclays, and by 9 out of 12 candidates the Barclays had denounced as undesirable. The Barclay brothers subsequently attempted economic punishment of the islanders, which failed to secure the influence they wanted: When it became apparent that only about five candidates they had supported had been elected, the Barclay brothers announced that they were shutting down their businesses on Sark — hotels, shops, estate agents and building firms — leaving about 100 people, or a sixth of the population, out of work. The closures started almost immediately following the announcement. Diana Beaumont, the wife of Seigneur John Michael Beaumont, commented that "[the Barclay brothers] were the ones that started all this democracy business, now they don’t like it because they haven't won." The States of Jersey, sitting in session on 12 December 2008, resolved to send a message of support to its sister island of Sark. In January 2009, the Barclays quietly began reversing the shutdown process. Further attempts by the Barclays to assert greater control over Sark have also been unsuccessful, and they lost a legal battle with the island's government in 2014. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24149",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
24,157 | In a recent tweet , Trump said: The U.S. has been talking to North Korea, and paying them extortion
money, for 25 years. Talking is not the answer! But I don't get it, what does he mean with "extortion money"? | Extortion is a crime in which a criminal threatens to harm someone, unless they pay an amount of money: "Give me £1000, or you will get beaten up". In the Early 90s , North Korea indicated its withdrawal from the Nuclear non-poliferation treaty. This treaty allowed inspector to visit nuclear facilities to confirm that they weren't being used to develop Nuclear weapons. In 1994, the US and North Korea signed an agreement that North Korea would freeze operation and construction of nuclear reactors (that the US believed were actually intended for the production of plutonium), and in return the US would aid North Korea to build two new reactors that couldn't be used to create weapon grade plutonium. The US would also provide fuel oil as aid until the reactors were ready. A similar agreement was discussed at the 6 nation talks in 1997: NK stops developing nuclear technology, in return for energy aid This is an example of what Donald Trump means by "extortion": North Korea obtains aid in the form of fuel oil by agreeing not to develop nuclear technology. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24157",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/16248/"
]
} |
24,173 | The president is a busy person. What is the point of the president (currently Trump) taking time out of his busy schedule to pose for a few pictures in a city struck by disaster? | To express that he cares and is taking the emergency seriously. To see what the area's needs are first hand. Cynically, to garner votes. During Katrina, George W. Bush was criticized for not going sooner. During Sandy, Democrat Barack Obama was effusively praised by Republican New Jersey governor Chris Christie for Obama's show of support. It is possible for something to be the right thing to do, to give the impression of being the right thing to do, and to be the selfish thing to do all at the same time. People expect their elected representatives to pay attention when they are suffering. Donald Trump is going because it is expected of him. And maybe because he thinks it is helpful. Or even just to make people feel better. When the time comes to ask Congress to authorize funds, having been there gives more credence to what he will say. In and of itself, that may make it worth it. Perhaps the intelligent thing would be to have someone lower profile do this. But that wouldn't be nearly as emotionally satisfying to the victims. And politicians are far more subject to emotional than intellectual reactions. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24173",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
24,304 | Many experts propose that it is not practically possible (without engaging in war and endangering the lives of many civilians, in both US and ally territory) to prevent North Korea from building nuclear weapons. Given that, why does the US not just accept that, and attempt to mend relationships? Instead, we have Trump issuing threats and refusing any sort of diplomatic approach. What is the point of this, and why does the US not just accept the situation, when they can't do anything about it? | From the USA point of view there are two types of arguments. The first ones are those that state that the fewer nuclear capable countries there are, the better 1 : Fewer nuclear warheads at risk of being captured/sold to rogue actors. Non-nuclear countries are less of a worry if they become unstable. Every foreign country, no matter how friendly, is at the least a competitor. And countries that currently side with you may change their stance in the future. The less leverage other countries have, the better. For example, once WWII ended the USA stopped helping the development of UK nuclear weapons. The second part are the reasons for which North Korea may be viewed as a specially worrysome nuclear power are: It is certainly not friendly to the USA. It is technically in a state of war with one of USA's allies, and occasionally acts aggressively against it (including exchanging artillery fire). It has publicly conducted illegal actions in other countries 2 (kidnapped Japanese citizens, murder of Kim Jong Nam). It is a totalitarian regime, which means fewer controls preventing a single individual deciding to use the nuclear weapons. It has little foreign contact, which means both less leverage against it (has no foreign trade to lose if an embargo is placed) and less knowledge of its internal politics (what things are they interested in and which things they see as threatening). The North Korean weapon program is in breach of previous pacts to which the USA was party to. Additionally, internally it is very hard to sell to the public that the USA cannot impose its will in a tiny, backwards country in the Far East and that it has to begin talks without being able to dictate the terms. Politicians court the public favour by the use of grandstanding claims ("Our mighty army! The USA are an exceptional case!") which do not mix well with realpolitik . 1 And yes, you can claim that it is hypocritical for one of the nuclear superpowers to have this aim. Others can claim that, while this approach benefits the USA, it also benefits the rest of the world. We are looking at the reasons from the USA point of view . 2 Here again, the USA has done that, too. Did I tell you that these were the reasons from the USA point of view? | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24304",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/16903/"
]
} |
24,415 | With the destructive power of nuclear weapons, it's understandable the concerted effort by many world bodies to vigorously regulate and control the ownership of nuclear weapons. The NPT is one of such efforts. However, I came across this article and accompanying videos: That Time The Navy Blew Up 500 Tons of TNT Because It Wasn't Allowed to Use a Nuke It seems that nuclear weapons can easily be simulated by detonating large amounts of demolition-strength explosive. I'm sure even the poorest of countries can afford to put together megaton equivalents of nuclear and tactical nuclear weapons. So why is there so much emphasis and efforts spent on nuclear non-proliferation focused on nation states to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons when alternatives exists? Are our efforts misguided? | A single missile delivering a nuclear payload can wipe out a city. Needing to deliver hundreds or thousands of bombs or missiles to "simulate that" is a much more difficult proposition, in terms of delivery. I could, with fifty cases of aerosol deodorant spray and thousands of matches, replicate a flame thrower's output. That's a lot of work, effort, and any counter-measures that limit or impede that lengthy and large-scale process is going to thwart my ability to simulate it. With an actual flame-thrower, I can deliver that destruction with the simple press of a button, once. It is the ease of delivery of that scale of destructive capability that leads government to restrict my ability to purchase, own and use a flame-thrower, but not cans of deodorant spray. Once you add in factors of securing highly enriched/weaponized nuclear fuel from falling into other hands, accidents, what happens if a regime changes, if there is an economic collapse and waste can't be handled, etc etc etc and there is a lengthy list of reasons why one doesn't want just anyone to have that kind of conveniently delivered destructive capability. It's not just about whether, in total, that kind of destruction can be attained. To further dispute the premise, I'd say there is no nation that can match the destructive potential of the USA's nuclear arsenal with conventional weapons. You might be able to simulate a single bomb's capability, but you can't replicate the destructive potential that having a nuclear stockpile would represent. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24415",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/6974/"
]
} |
24,466 | I'm trying to understand some of the comments in the press that Democrats have gained leverage by the three-month extension tied to hurricane relief. This is what I don't understand - it seems to me they are just pushing off the date, so how does it give them more leverage to have the debt discussions three months from now versus right now? And how is it better vs pushing it off six months or a year? Is it because they can't make demands now without being seen as obstructing hurricane relief? | Because the Democrats are the minority in both houses of Congress and also lack control of the White House, they have extremely limited ability to push for any priorities they may have. The filibuster gives them some ability to prevent things they don’t want, but it’s imperfect and cannot be used to push for any policy, only to push against . So the only way the Democrats have available to enact policies they favor is to convince Republicans to allow it as part of their bills. Needless to say, Republicans aren’t going to do that often or easily. If Republicans were in complete agreement, in fact, it would never happen. Unfortunately for Republicans, however, they are not in complete agreement. On certain issues, there are enough Republicans on either side of the party who refuse to vote for the same thing. We saw this with healthcare: anything Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski were willing to vote for, the more conservative wing of the party (particularly in the House) would refuse. Anything that got those conservative votes, would alienate Collins and Murkowski—which is exactly what happened, and then Senator McCain provided the final nail in the coffin objecting to the entire process. 1 But healthcare did not give Democrats much opportunity to pass anything of their own. A few members of Congress did try to come up with a bipartisan bill, but (at least so far) that hasn’t gone anywhere, and it’s hard to imagine it ever will. Instead, Republicans simply moved on to something else: they could, and did, choose to just pass nothing . The debt ceiling is similar, but different in that one key way: on the debt ceiling, while the Republicans have similar problems getting votes from both sides of their party at the same time, passing nothing is not an option. If the debt ceiling is not raised, the US could be forced to default on some of its obligations. Note that the US federal government has never defaulted on a debt in its history. 2 The stability, reliability, and certainty of US government bonds forms a significant aspect of the global economy’s foundation. A default could very easily lead to a massive global financial meltdown. The Treasury Department would, no doubt, do what it could to avoid this, and, if forced to, might cancel contracts and similar where possible to avoid technically defaulting, but whether or not the markets would be comfortable with this is anyone’s guess—even these measures could be enough to cause calamity. And since Republicans control both chambers of Congress as well as the White House, that result would be largely seen as their fault. 3 That means that Republicans must pass something to raise the debt ceiling, and they have to do it even though certain members of their party will refuse to do so unless it is coupled with large spending cuts, and certain other members of their party will refuse to do it if those spending cuts are there. To make up for the members of their own party who refuse to vote for it, they need Democrat votes. And that gives the Democratic party the opportunity to ask for something in return. However, right now, raising the debt ceiling is tied to hurricane relief. If the Democrats try to use it as leverage now, they look really bad for trying to profit from tragedy. 4 So now would be a bad time to try to ask for anything. So instead, they passed it without “getting” anything in return—but only for three months, when you can be sure that they’ll be asking for things. That might be protection for the Dreamers, 5 shoring up the ACA, 6 preventing Republicans from going through with their planned tax cuts, 7 or ending the debt ceiling altogether. 8 Or something else entirely, depending on events between now and then and what comes up. The circumstances of this deal are also significant. The Democrats suggested this deal, and then got what they wanted from a Republican president who has a Republican Congress . Said Republican Congress really did not want this deal; their ideas included either keeping hurricane relief separate from the debt ceiling, and combining the raising of the debt ceiling with spending cuts (potentially eliminating the Democrat ability to filibuster since they could not block raising the debt ceiling), or else raise the debt ceiling for a lot longer, until after the 2018 elections (denying Democrats the tool for a long time, eliminating the debt ceiling as an issue during the 2018 campaign, and allowing Congress to deal with it the next time fresh off an election and relatively safe from concerns about the following election in 2020). Either of these options would have been really bad for Democrats. By securing the deal they did, they avoid having either of them and simultaneously get options for the future. That is a very large success for a party with as little real power as the Democrats currently have, and the narrative of that success may give the Democrats some momentum towards further success. 9 It was widely reported that many members of the House only voted for their bill on the assurance it would never become law but rather would be “fixed” in the Senate, and then the Senate turned around and tried to pass a bill again on the assurance it would never become law but would be “fixed” in a joint conference between both chambers. McCain had concerns that the conference would fail, the dummy bill would just be passed by the House as it was, and then signed into law, even though it was never meant to be law and, in his opinion (and the opinion of many others who did vote for it), had severe problems. Individual states have defaulted in the past, but never the federal government. This was quite an impressive feat when it was a fledgling nation with substantial war debts. Today, no one is impressed when the world’s greatest economy pays its bills—it’s assumed that this should just happen, because of course it should. Particularly since a huge chunk of that debt is money owed by America to America. The question of who would hold responsibility for a failure to raise the debt ceiling and a government default, posed as a hypothetical question, has received quite a bit of polling and a substantial majority say they would assign the blame squarely on the Republican party Note that “playing chicken” with the debt ceiling is also a very bad look. Failing to raise it could arguably be worse than not providing hurricane relief. Democrats claim some excuse in that 1. the Republicans control both chambers, so they should be able to pass an increase to the debt ceiling on their own, and 2. Republicans executed this sort of maneuver first, during the Obama administration. But personally, even as a staunch Democrat who will likely support any policy they choose to push using the debt ceiling as leverage, I still don’t like it. But because the debt ceiling is technical and abstract,
profiting off of hurricane relief looks worse. Dreamers are those brought illegally to the United States as children. President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) allowed Dreamers to avoid deportation under certain conditions; President Trump has signed an order to end this program in March. Protecting Dreamers is a Democrat priority,
though some Republicans are also interested in doing so, possibly including President Trump himself (his statements on the subject have been contradictory). Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. While any legislative changes to the ACA have thus far failed, the executive branch (President Trump and his administration) have been taking actions to limit the program. These actions have threatened the function and stability of the program as a whole, so Democrats may well be interested in trying to get the administration to handle the program less antagonistically, to prevent such instability. This could be either a deal made directly with Trump, or a provision in a law making the requirements on how the administration handles it more strict. Not coincidentally, the current plan is for such changes to be debated and, Republicans hope, passed sometime around the end of the year—the same time the debt ceiling will be coming back up. Democrats oppose this tax plan, seeing it as a giveaway to the rich that comes at the expense of the poor. For all the debt ceiling is a potent tool for Democrats right now, and for all they are in very short supply of workable tools, generally speaking Democrats are opposed to the debt ceiling. Historically, the debt ceiling was raised as a matter of course (there being no question that the country should pay its bills), but during the Obama administration Republicans turned it into an extremely dangerous fight that was held repeatedly, trying to tack their own goals onto it to force President Obama to sign them into law. You will notice that this is very similar to what Democrats might do with it now. Democrats (and, to be fair, many Republicans) objected to it then, and many still do. They may prefer to give up their leverage in order for this to stop being a risk the country takes. Particularly since by the time the three months are up, we will be getting into 2018 which is an election year—Democrats hope that they will do well in those elections, and if they do, it will be useful for them to not have the debt ceiling to worry about. The significance of “momentum” in politics is likely overstated, probably significantly, by pundits and the media. However, since Congress and the President pay attention to those pundits, these kinds of semi-fictitious narratives can turn real-ish. At any rate, while momentum may not really help as much as some people believe, it certainly seems unlikely to hurt. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24466",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/8845/"
]
} |
24,475 | One of the biggest challenges of Brexit is resolving the issue of the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. On one hand it is impossible for the UK to leave the Single Market while maintaining an open border with an EU member. On the other hand Ireland seems to be hard bent on avoiding border checks at land crossings, in order to avoid upsetting the peace process between Unionists and Nationalists. But why are Irish nationalists so hard bent on keeping the border open? What difference does it make to them, since Northern Ireland remains a part of the UK with or without a customs union? | For Irish Nationalists, the Irish state is composed of all 32 counties on the island of Ireland. The nationalist view is that 6 of these are currently occupied by the British (see Why don't Sinn Féin take their seats in the UK parliament? ), while 26 are governed from Dublin. The legitimacy of the Dublin government is a point of contention among nationalists, in part due to the first Dáil of the Irish Free State " ceding " the 6 counties which form Northern Ireland to the British (the counties were already under British rule, as was the whole of Ireland). A view amongst republican Irish is that the third Revolutionary Dáil of the Irish Republic is the last legitimate Dáil as it was the last to be elected as a result of an "all-Ireland" election. So to have a border control between the 6 counties in the North and the 26 in the South is as much a red line (for a nationalist) as if the French had demanded there be a border between Kent, Sussex and Surrey, and the rest of England, with those counties being part of France. No English Government would accept such a condition. The Nationalist point of view would see the Northern Irish border in the same way. For Loyalists and Unionists in Northern Ireland the question is more pragmatic. Northern Ireland is a small region, and it is easier and cheaper to trade with Ireland, than to ship stuff over to and from the rest of the UK. For the economic development of "Ulster" they want the border as open as possible. The open border is one thing that both Nationalists and Unionists agree on, for different reasons, and it is a key part of the Good Friday agreement. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24475",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
24,512 | Why are Weapon Restriction Laws, such as Gun Control Laws, considered liberal , while a lack of restrictions is considered conservative? In most cases, it appears that laws and policies which grant personal freedoms and ease restrictions are seen as liberal, while the opposing viewpoint of asserting heavier restrictions for some intended good is conservative. This is the pattern for many topics, including: abortion, gay rights, immigration, doctor-assisted suicide, etc. Yet, gun control politics (and other related issues of weapon ownership, self-defense, etc) are the opposite of this; liberal beliefs are about lowering the amount of weapons available to the individual and in overall society, while the conservative stance is about granting more freedom of ownership. Why do these stances not follow the same pattern? | Labels like "conservative" versus "liberal" or "left" versus "right" are often applied to larger-scale political movements, parties or ways of thinking, without every single detail being thrown into the mix. The labels mean different things in different environments anyway: what is called "right wing conservative capitalist" in some European countries might well be perceived as "left wing liberal communist" in the United states. In the case at hand, the point of view on gun laws simply seems to roughly follow the political distinctions of "liberal" versus "conservative" in the way that "conservative" politicians tend to not want to change the existing (perceived by many, liberal) gun laws. Not wanting to change them is indeed conservative, even if the laws themselves may be considered liberal. Of course, the distinction "liberal" versus "conservative" is a strange one. After all, a liberal idealist living in a liberal country would probably be conservative - meaning they don't want to change the status quo. It just goes to show how those labels get thrown at things, and once they stick, change their meaning. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24512",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/16148/"
]
} |
24,555 | Almost regularly there is news on this or that US (internet) company that must adapt its practices for European customers, since they tend to be too lax with regards to privacy protection according to EU regulations; while from the US perspective there is no problem. Why is this generally the case? Why do US citizens and companies tend to be less concerned about privacy with regards to their European counterparts? Is it due to some historical event? Or it simply "is" and there is no major drive to change the status quo? | It's not really a matter of privacy itself being taken more seriously in Europe. It's more a matter of a differing view in the proper role of government. In the U.S., at least traditionally, the proper role of the government has been seen to be more limited than in Europe. While this is perhaps somewhat less true today than 200 years ago, it has still been true to a large degree for the entire existence of the U.S. This includes less government limitations on what contracts private parties (whether individuals, private organizations, or businesses) are allowed to enter into with each other. Since government limitations on what data Internet companies can store on users (with the permission of the user) is inherently a limitation on what contracts private entities may enter into with each other, the U.S. has been more reluctant than Europe to create such limitations, just as it is with other limitations on private contracts (or private actions in general.) When it comes to privacy protection from the government, the situation is different. For example, even in a criminal case where all of the standards for a search warrant are met, you cannot be legally compelled to supply a password or encryption key in the U.S., while in Europe you can be so compelled. In the U.S., this is considered a violation of the 5th Amendment, which, among other things, says that you can't be forced to be a witness against yourself. (Edit: As Dan pointed out in the comments, apparently a circuit split now exists with regard to this in the U.S., so the issue will likely end up being addressed by the Supreme Court.) In addition to the protections granted in the 5th Amendment, the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. In general, this bans the government from searching or seizing without your consent any of your property or communications (or yourself) without a warrant showing that you've probably committed or are about to commit a specific crime and specifically describing what can be searched or seized (and this is interpreted by courts to only extend to things which could reasonably by construed to be likely to provide evidence of that specific crime.) | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24555",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7476/"
]
} |
24,589 | Looking at the map in the upper-right of this Wikipedia article , I see that Israel is the only country in the category "states presumed to have nuclear weapons": Israel is also widely known to have nuclear weapons,
though it maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity regarding this
(has not acknowledged it), and is not known definitively to have
conducted a nuclear test [...] According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's SIPRI Yearbook of 2014, Israel has approximately 80 nuclear warheads. All other states mentioned in the legend clearly have nuclear weapons regardless of their adherence to Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons . Question: Why does Israel prefers to be the only country to maintain ambiguity when it comes to nuclear weapons existence? | If it doesn't have any: It gets no benefit in denying it has any. If anything it could backfire in a Yes, Minister kind of way - "First rule in politics: never believe anything until it's officially denied." Nor does it get any benefit in boasting that it does - it would get caught naked should the truth ever come out. If it does have some: It gets no benefit in saying it doesn't, since that would be a lie and they could get called out if the truth came out. Nor does it get any benefit in saying it does, since others already assume it does already. Put another way, considering the deterrent effect is already in place, there's no good reason to let the world know they have (or don't have) nukes. (This is different from, say, the three nations with claims over Kashmir: all three made their nuclear might loud and clear to deter the other two from bullying them diplomatically or militarily.) | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24589",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
24,609 | Why don't they just ignore the EU laws such as 'right to be forgotten', or 'cookies laws', or 'privacy', or 'competition', or even collecting VAT. It's not like the EU will block the domain name. Google has done that with China when China ordered it to censor certain web site. Google decided it wasn't worth the trouble to be bullied by the Chinese government so it pulled out and ignored them . Google's China domain, Google.cn, now redirects to Google.com.hk. The new site reads, "Welcome to the new home of Google China search." The switch means Google is no longer censoring search results for its Chinese visitors. Whether Chinese Internet can actually access Google.com.hk is another matter. It may be blocked by the Chinese government. The move follows months of negotiations and threats between Google (GOOG) and the Chinese government. Why/when don't/will they do the same thing for the EU? | If the companies ignore the laws of the European Union (EU), then the EU can fine them. The United States (US) may refuse to collect on the fines, but even so, the example company is doing business in the EU. Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.fr, and Amazon.de collect money in the EU via credit cards. Those credit cards bill EU banks. The EU can of course prevent money from being taken out of EU banks. Similarly, Google, Facebook, etc. sell advertising to EU customers. Again, the EU can block that money from reaching them. And of course, those companies have operations in the EU. The EU could close those operations. In theory, a company could be 100% US with no EU income and ignore the EU rules. But such a company also has no need to provide service in the EU. Because if it can't sell products or advertising in the EU, why does it need to be there? Transnational corporate advertising? Hint: those companies do business in the EU and are accessible to EU sanctions. And of course, that's all assuming that the US does not collect on the fines. The US might collect the fine for the EU. After all, it may want to collect a fine against an EU company some day. In fact, there may already be treaties covering that exact issue. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24609",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/2430/"
]
} |
24,706 | As long as nuclear weapons exist and some countries possess them, other countries will also wish to possess them. This is unavoidable . Since we all want to avoid that, what stands in the way of some of the major countries of the world coming together (US, China, Russia, UK, France) and attempting to initiate a process with the ultimate goal of ridding the world of all nuclear weapons? Naturally, this would be a process which would require all countries' accept and transparency, but I don't think it will be that hard, since it's in literally everyone's best interest. | According to mutually assured destruction, you lose your insurance that other countries won't nuke you A commonly cited reason is the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) , which is similar to the prisoner's dilemma . From Wikipedia: The MAD doctrine assumes that each side has enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the other side and that either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate without fail with equal or greater force. The expected result is an immediate, irreversible escalation of hostilities resulting in both combatants' mutual, total, and assured destruction. [...] The doctrine further assumes that neither side will dare to launch a first strike because the other side would launch on warning (also called fail-deadly) or with surviving forces (a second strike), resulting in unacceptable losses for both parties. The pay-off of the MAD doctrine was and still is expected to be a tense but stable global peace. In other words, if one country with nuclear weapons launched them at another country with nuclear weapons, the other would retaliate and the end result is that both countries would be destroyed. Since having your country be destroyed is not in your interests, that means that nuclear weapons don't get fired. So now let's say that you are a country who is not on good terms with another country. If you remove your nuclear weapons, then other countries can fire nuclear weapons at you without fear of their country being destroyed. Thus a country following MAD may decide that removing their nuclear weapons is too big of a risk if other countries are allowed to keep theirs. The converse is that if another country removes their nuclear weapons, but you keep yours, then you have an advantage over them because you can threaten to nuke them without fear of your own country being destroyed, so those who have nuclear weapons tend to want to keep them. So why don't all countries just agree together to not use nuclear weapons? That's exactly the point of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), in which countries that had nuclear weapons before 1967 (referred to as nuclear-weapon states) pledge not to expand their use, and countries that did not have nuclear weapons before that time pledge not to create them. As of this writing, the NPT has been signed by 191 nation states. There are only five UN-recognized countries that have not signed it, and they include the only four countries that have nuclear weapons, but are not nuclear-weapon states recognized by this treaty. All of these countries declined to sign the NPT, except for North Korea which signed it, but withdrew in 2003. The book Avoiding the Tipping Point notes that while NPT hasn't removed all the nuclear weapons of the world, it has drastically limited their spread. At the time of the NPT's creation in 1968, there were estimates that within twenty years, 25-30 countries would have nuclear weapons. Today, only the four countries beyond the initial nuclear-weapon states have nuclear weapons. A stronger version of this treaty, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (a.k.a. Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty), does provide a legally binding commitment against the stockpiling or use of nuclear weapons. Countries with nuclear weapons that choose to sign it are given a timetable to completely disarm their nuclear weapons. It was passed on 7 July 2017 and will be open for signatures on 20 September 2017. It will enter legal force 90 days after the 50th country signs it. However, all current nuclear-weapon states and most NATO members (along with US allies Japan and Australia) have indicated that they do not plan to sign the Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty, with many stating it is because they believe that having nuclear weapons has maintained peace in the region for over fifty years due to MAD. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24706",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
24,740 | People often make the argument that healthcare cannot be considered a right because someone would be compelled to provide it for you. For example, from libertarianstandard.com : When supporters of the central coordination of the provision of healthcare by the state say that healthcare is a human right they mean that this right ought to place an obligation on everyone ... to act in such as way as to support everyone else’s health needs However, the Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to a speedy trial: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State ... Not only does this guarantee that your fellow citizens will be pressed into jury duty, but implies a judge, public defenders, and an entire court system to support the accused's rights.
Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment also guarantees an apparatus to support the issuing of warrants. What is the difference between the right to a speedy and public trial in the U.S. Constitution and the proposed right to healthcare? Also this question is coming from someone who doesn't know anything about politics or political theory beyond being a well-informed college graduate, so please, explain from the ground up. | One difference is that the trial (and, behind it, criminal prosecution and legal punishment) is something the state is organising for its own purpose in the first place. The right to a speedy trial is not a right to a trial or anything along those lines, it is a limitation on the conditions under which the state can apply punishment and restrict someone's freedom. From that perspective, the state does not have to provide anything but can always forgo prosecution. It's only if it does act that it has to do it in a specific manner. I am pretty sure most people put on trial would be perfectly happy if there was no trial (assuming they don't get punished without a trial either, of course). By contrast, when considering healthcare, it's not acting and letting people die from preventable causes that would be a violation of their rights. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24740",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/14234/"
]
} |
24,809 | For many years now Catalonia has been attempting to peacefully secede from Spain through a binding referendum. However the Spanish authorities are constantly undermining their efforts by not accepting the results of the vote or by arresting members of the Catalan government for violating the court's order against the referendum. But what if Catalonia were to attempt to leave through the use of force? Since it would mean that Spain is under attack, would it be possible for it to trigger Article 5 in order to call in assistance from other member states? | No, internal conflicts and secession attempts do not qualify as “armed attacks” under the North Atlantic Treaty (itself based on the UN charter, article 51, which only covers actions between states). The most obvious historical example is the Algerian War , in which Algeria – then a part of France and covered by the treaty, as explicitly acknowledged in article 6 – fought for its independence, without the involvement of the other NATO members. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24809",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
24,860 | According to this statement from Kim Jong-un , Now that Trump has denied the existence of and insulted me and my country in front of the eyes of the world and made the most ferocious declaration of a war in history that he would destroy the D.P.R.K. [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea], we will consider with seriousness exercising of a corresponding, highest level of hard-line countermeasure in history. (bold mine) What does Kim mean by “denied the existence of”? Does he mean that Trump said that North Korea doesn’t exist (which would seem odd)? | This is similar to China being recognized as THE China, and Taiwan being recognized as, well, something different. Mainland China always gets very upset when officials from Taiwan are met or dealt with, because they consider that nation to be illegitimate, in their official stance. Similarly, North Korea only enjoys limited recognition from the USA and a few other nations (to be clear, this means only the USA and a few other nations have relationships and recognition that are this limited with North Korea. Most of the world has a greater degree of recognition). The USA does not have any formal diplomatic relations or recognition of them as a legitimate regime, and while the United States haven't formally made declarations to that effect (that I'm aware of), they essentially deal with and treat South Korea as the legitimate government on that peninsula. Add to that somewhat schoolyard-ish name calling at the UN by President Trump, and one can see why North Korea feels that the USA does not acknowledge them as a nation-state. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24860",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/17051/"
]
} |
24,878 | As the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, there is debate as to whether the UK should remain in the EU Customs Union (or in a bilateral customs union with the EU, which I believe is almost the same in practice), or leave so that it can negotiate its own trade treaties. I can understand the arguments in favour of the UK leaving the EU Common Market if it does not want to guarantee the EU Four Freedoms, and I can see some people dislike the European Court of Justice having power to enforce EU law in the UK. But I don't understand the customs union bit. Presumably, a larger block like the EU should be able to negotiate better terms with other parties than a single country like the UK; both because it has more leverage, and because it has more access to experienced and skilled negotiators. But what could be the advantages for the UK to negotiate its own trade treaties, outside of the EU Customs Union? | The problem is that the EU has to satisfy demands from all member states. In particular, the UK isn't as protective as a few other member states. The EU may have been setting unreasonable tariffs to protect some non-UK industry, and in exchange got a worse deal in return. The UK on its own can make a deal that only needs to take into account British industry. A similar situation exists in reverse. The UK only needs to negotiate access to other markets for goods produced in the UK; UK exports are only a subset of EU exports. As an example, the EU as a whole exports a wide variety of foods. Food is an important discussion point on trade treaties, as many countries want to protect domestic agriculture. The EU may need to make concessions elsewhere in order to placate EU farmers. But the UK exports almost no food. In fact, the new British trade treaties may open up the British market for food imports, leaving EU farmers to compete with farmers from around the world on the British market. This might lead to lower food prices in British supermarkets. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24878",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/130/"
]
} |
24,884 | These days the heated disagreement between President Trump and NFL players is all over the online media. What's wrong with Kneeling and why does he want them not to kneel and why do they still do it? From where I belong we don't kneel to the anthem (for the record; we have to stand and persons in uniform have to salute) but if kneeling does happen in the US it does not look like something disrespectful towards the anthem. So what's wrong with it? | The answer to "what is wrong with kneeling" is symbolism . And more specifically, the question shouldn't be "what is wrong with kneeling" but instead "why do many people see it as wrong "; since there's no objective metrics of what's right or wrong, and the answer may very largely depend on one's ideological postulates. So, let's answer that second question - why do many people consider it wrong. First off, I'd like to clarify something which seems to confuse the question poster. It's not the "kneeling" as a physical act itself that is perceived as being wrong. It's more of " doing anything that is protesting the anthem ". Kneeling is merely a stand-in for "something OTHER than standard etiquette of standing with hand on heart" - and yes, I'm fully aware of the irony of "land of the free" imposing a unified unyielding standard of expressing patriotism. As such, such a normally-respectful gesture as kneeling (which originated in feudal knights showing respect to their liege), becomes an insult - wholly because of intent, not the form . (It's also worth noting that at this point some players decided to protest in far less respectful ways, including stretching for the game during the anthem , or deliberately not showing up on the field). Now, as to why it's perceived as insult: It's generally [1] considered that showing respect to one's country's national symbols (specifically, flag and anthem) is a show of respect for the country in general , as well as to people in the armed forces who risk their lives to protect the country. And conversely, it's seen that showing disrespect to a country's symbols is disrespecting the country (and, by extension, its citizens). At its root, this is why so many people (~50%) are utterly opposed to, for example, flag burning , despite the fact that there's a clear First Amendment point that flag burning is perfectly fine, being a form of political expression. [1] - Before people start spouting about "evil capitalism" and "white pride" and "evil Amerikkka" (because Trump is somehow involved), it's worth noting that the concept is NOT uniquely American, and exists in, for example, India , Mexico , and Jamaica , (random Google picks) in pretty much the same form. It also existed in former USSR and probably in the modern Russian federation. I'd be surprised if it does not exist in some form in most countries. As such, regardless for what motivated the NFL protests, a lot of people in US see taking the knee during the anthem as an explicit deliberate insult to the country . Some people consider that "wrong", regardless of what the protest is about. To quantify "a lot", let's look at the polls from 2016 (no 2017 numbers aside from one unscientific small poll that I could find): In one poll, which was conducted by Reuters, 72 percent of Americans said that they thought Kaepernick's behavior was unpatriotic. Another 61 percent said that they do not "support the stance Colin Kaepernick is taking and his decision not to stand during the national anthem." all American adults disapprove 54 - 38 percent of athletes refusing to stand during the National Anthem in protest of perceived police violence against the black community, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today . An extra special dose of insult comes from the fact that many people associate American Football with patriotism and the country, symbolically. I suspect the emotional effect would have been far less if it all happened at a real (Soccer) Football game. Interestingly, there does seem to be some actual blowback to the NFL because of this as per polling: “Are football fans voting with their TVs?” asks a new Rasmussen Reports survey. “As the NFL struggles to explain this season’s downturn in viewer ratings, 34 percent of American adults say they are less likely to watch an NFL game because of the growing number of protests by players on the field,” the poll reports, noting that 12 percent say they are more likely to watch, while half say the protests have no effect on their viewing decisions. P.S. As an additional, secondary issue, some people take umbrage at the idea that NFL players—whose multi-million dollar salaries are enabled both by the institutions of the USA and by millions of fans who are offended by the kneeling—are protesting "injustices". It's a lot easier to accept the protest from random Joe Schmoe rather than a multi-millionaire success story, regardless of what the protest is about (this is similar to how people earning $40K react to "sexism affects unequal salaries in Hollywood" protests from actresses being paid millions of dollars—it doesn't matter if they actually are paid less than male actors, or what the reasons are, it still seems utterly hypocritical to many average persons. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24884",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/6613/"
]
} |
25,010 | On the day of the Catalonian independence referendum, there were plenty of reports about Madrid's efforts to prevent the referendum from taking place, including large number of police shooting rubber bullets at voters and blocking entry to polling stations. Madrid, on the other hand, has declared earlier that the referendum is unconstitutional and thus invalid. Why would Madrid be so insistent on preventing the referendum from taking place, with the clear possibility of open conflict resulting from this, as opposed to simply declaring up front any outcome null and void because the Catalonian government lacks legal authority in the subject matter? If the Catalonian government still wants to spend money on a referendum which has no legal power, why is this such a big problem for the central government in Madrid? Note that this question is about the referendum itself , not about Catalonian independence per se. | By way of establishing some context, it's worth noting that this isn't just a squabble over which government has the authority to hold a referendum in Catalonia. The Madrid government's position is that not even it can grant independence, because the constitution directly prohibits it. Moreover, to amend the relevant article of the constitution would require super-majorities in both houses of parliament and a national referendum. Why would Madrid be so insistent on preventing the referendum from taking place, with the clear possibility of open conflict resulting from this, as opposed to simply declaring up front any outcome null and void because the Catalonian government lacks legal authority in the subject matter? There are a number of possible reasons, and only a very few politicians could tell you the rough weighting they have given to each, but among the relevant factors are: Whatever votes people manage to cast will be overwhelming in favour of independence because the pro-independence parties have been campaigning for people to go out and vote, and the anti-independence parties have been campaigning for people to stay at home. They can't claim that the referendum is illegal and illegitimate and at the same time ask people to vote. The legal argument that the ballot is invalid may be unassailable, but the political argument gets harder the more votes are counted. One of the prime functions of a government is to maintain the rule of law. To sit back and allow people to openly defy the highest court in the country when they have pre-notification of the date and method of their defiance would be a tremendous sign of weakness. Catalonia isn't the only region of Spain with an independence movement. Showing weakness before one would weaken the government in the face of Basque (and to a lesser extent Galician) separatism. Basque public opinion is particularly relevant because the minority government relies on a confidence-and-supply arrangement with one Basque party. The Catalan government spending public money illegally affects the whole country. Right at the moment the government is in negotiations to pass the budget, and the distribution of money between the autonomous regions has been one of the issues of conflict between Barcelona and Madrid over the past few years. It is probably fair to say that cracking down is according to the instincts of the governing party and plays well with their voters. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25010",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/6642/"
]
} |
25,034 | Why do some Catalans want to become independent? What has changed recently to increase their desire to be independent? I'd like to understand this situation, as I am currently completely ignorant about it. | What has changed lately to increase their desire to be independent? This isn't actually how separatism works. It's not that they want independence now more than they did, say, fifty years ago. It's that they think they can get independence now. Fifty years ago, they would have faced suppression by the military. The rest of Europe would have had difficulty intervening, as Europe wanted General Francisco Franco's support against the Soviet Union. Now they can point to European intervention in Libya as favoring their position. They can ask the rest of Europe to protect them from Spanish violence as Libyan rebels were protected from Libyan government violence. As to reasons why they want to be independent, they have a separate language and culture and a history of advocating separation. A previous question asked about policy differences between Catalonia and Spain . Beyond that, I can't say it better than Wikipedia : Following Franco's death in 1975, Catalan political parties concentrated on autonomy rather than independence. The modern independence movement began when the 2006 Statute of Autonomy , which had been agreed with the Spanish government and passed by a referendum in Catalonia, was challenged in the Spanish High Court of Justice , which ruled that some of the articles were unconstitutional, or were to be interpreted restrictively. Popular protest against the decision quickly turned into demands for independence. They were focused on autonomy rather than separation and had negotiated an agreement with the Spanish government. The agreement was rejected by a court case, which has led them to feel betrayed. If they can't get autonomy through agreements, they want it through separation. Of course, they probably also want to remain in the European Union (EU). So their separation from Spain would have less impact than other separations (e.g. India and Pakistan). There would still be free movement to and from Catalonia if both Catalonia and Spain were in the EU. Both would be subject to EU laws and share a common currency. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25034",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/15640/"
]
} |
25,076 | Fifty people were killed yesterday during a mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada. When is a mass shooting or killings considered domestic terrorism by the U.S. federal government? | There is no single official U.S. definition of terrorism. Rather, each agency or law has its own definition which may conflict with other definitions. Below are a few examples. Dept. of Justice According to the FBI website : There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). The Code of Federal Regulations codifies federal regulations. It is law, but not in quite the same way as statutes are. The regulation mentioned above is specific to the Department of Justice. 28 CFR Sec. 0.85 mirrors this language, saying terrorism "includes": the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives Therefore, for the Department of Justice, a mass shooting is not terrorism unless it promotes some political or social goal. Department of State However, federal law is inconsistent. For example, when describing the annual reporting requirements of the Department of State the law uses this definition of terrorism: the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; This is entirely different from the definition in the CFR. For example, any attack on military targets is never terrorism, and only subnational or clandestine groups can be terrorists. State Level Each state may also have their own definition. For example, the state of Kansas has this definition in law (formatting slightly altered from original): Terrorism is the commission of, the attempt to commit, the conspiracy to commit, or the criminal solicitation to commit any felony with the intent to: Intimidate or coerce the civilian population; influence government policy by intimidation or coercion; or affect the operation of any unit of government In Kansas, any felony can be considered terrorism under the right circumstances, not just violent ones! Unlike the federal definitions, it does not include the objective furthering a social cause, which is another significant difference. Conclusion There is not any singular definition of terrorism in the United States. Different agencies and different laws will have entirely different and contradictory definitions. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25076",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/17205/"
]
} |
25,108 | Most of the states in America have straight borders. Many appear to have been designed to be free from any curves or angles. Why were they designed like that? | The western united states came into being long after the eastern (states were added from east-to-west). As such, a bit more time/thought was put into getting them set up with their borders. In general, there's two types of borders: natural man-made/defined When the border is natural, such as a river, that's the easiest solution, as the river, though windy, is a pretty clear separation of land mass. When we have to make the borders ourselves, the easiest line to create is a straight one. As such, whenever possible, straight lines were used. In other words, the answer is: geometry For a much more detailed history of each state's borders, the History Channel created a series about this very topic: http://www.history.com/shows/how-the-states-got-their-shapes | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25108",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/17227/"
]
} |
25,133 | According to this article Saudi Arabia was (and still is for a little while) the only country that did not allow women to drive: Women in Saudi Arabia will be allowed to drive, the government
announced on Tuesday - ending their reign as the only nation in the
world where women were forbidden from getting behind the wheel of a
car . Limiting economic opportunities happens in many countries which include Jordan, Iran, Afghanistan and Yemen: About 155 countries have at least one law that limits women’s economic
opportunities, while 100 states put restrictions on the types of jobs
women can do and 18 allow husbands to dictate whether their wives can
work at all. Question: Why is Saudi Arabia the only country that had the restriction for driving? | Internal reasoning in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA): It's for women's benefit Sheikh Saleh bin Saad al-Lohaidan, a judicial adviser to an association of Gulf psychologists, recently told a Saudi website that "If a woman drives a car, not out of pure necessity, that could have negative physiological impacts as functional and physiological medical studies show that it automatically affects the ovaries and pushes the pelvis upwards. That is why we find those who regularly drive have children with clinical problems of varying degrees.” (quoted from "'Negative Physiological Impacts'? Why Saudi Women Aren't Allowed to Drive"@The Atlantic ) It also helps enforce the country's ban on women interacting with men who aren't part of their family: Driving is a direct extension of this type of religion-based segregation. As one Saudi man explained to a Christian Science Monitor reporter, “What would happen if a woman got in a car accident? Then she would be forced to deal with the male driver of the other car, a stranger, with no oversight ." Underlying reason 1: Wahhabism and gender separation KSA's social norms AND laws are based on Wahhabism . Part of those tenets are: a requirement that women's place is at home, taking care of home and raising children (not a uniquely Saudi or Wahhabbi idea, it was to one or another extent present in nearly 100% of pre-20th-century societies, from ancient Greeks to 19th century German Empire's " Kinder, Küche, Kirche "). But that has more weight and severity in Wahhabi branch of Islam as well as in middle-Eastern culture (separately from religion - most discussions of Middle East fail to appreciate the tribal cultural norms as separate but intertwined things from religion) . Religious based "modesty" requirement, which in Wahhabism takes the extreme form of a woman not being allowed to interact in any way shape or form with a non-close-relative male without a male guardian who is a relative. Obviously, driving would present a challenge or a violation to both of the above norms. Underlying reason 2: Oil A less explored reason has to do with KSA's oil-based economy. Michael L. Ross's work "Oil, Islam, And Women" in American Political Science Review (2008): 107--123: he argued that there is an inverse relationship between oil and women’s social and political opportunities. The Middle East’s dire record in women’s rights and equality, he argued, was not due to the legacy of Islamic culture, but is rather attributable to oil. He concluded that the idea that “development leads to equality” was not valid in all cases, but depended
on the type of development. Development that was dependent on oil and mineral
revenues allowed for the preservation of patriarchal norms, laws and institutions in a society. His study showed that similar impacts of oil on the status of women in oil-rich countries applied outside the Middle East in places like Nigeria, Russia and Chile. Ross’s research includes statistical data that show the existing relationship between oil and the impact on the work patterns of women and their opportunities for political representation. The data show that the emergence of the Saudi oil industry directly yielded a drop in the proportion of women in the labor force and decision-making authority, an apparent characteristic of Gulf societies. ( Ross's work as explained in "Women in Saudi Arabia Status, Rights, and Limitations" candidacy dissertation from UoW ) | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25133",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
25,143 | I have often wondered why there are so many bills that are massive and incredibly complex passed through the Legislative branch. Why are bills stacked together and mashed up with a variety sections altogether rather than passed separately as small, easy to understand bills? Doesn't it seem as though they could get more done that way, and have less influence from crooked lobbyists trying to pack big bills with their own two cents? I admit that I am not very well informed on this subject, but I just read Ronald Reagan's autobiography and I just felt like he made so many great points on this subject. I also read on Wikipedia that other Presidents, both Democrat and Republican have asked for the same thing. Presidents of the United States have repeatedly asked the Congress to give them a line-item veto power. According to Louis Fisher in The Politics of Shared Power, Ronald Reagan said to Congress in his 1986 State of the Union address, "Tonight I ask you to give me what forty-three governors have: Give me a line-item veto this year. Give me the authority to veto waste, and I'll take the responsibility, I'll make the cuts, I'll take the heat." Bill Clinton echoed the request in his State of the Union address in 1995. Doesn't it just seem like a good common sense idea, or am I missing something? | It's a good idea if you think the President should have much stronger powers than other branches, and that legislative compromise should be eliminated, as part of the system, altogether. As much as we hate the way legislation is bundled, it is, quite often the way to work compromise into the system. I don't vote for measure "A", but I want measure "B", which measure "A" proponents oppose. In both cases, our support for our causes outweighs the aversion for the others' proposal, so they get bundled together. If the President has the power to pick off just the pieces he doesn't like, it subverts the intent of the legislation, and, some may argue, basically allows the President to craft legislation (since vetoes are incredibly difficult to override), which is supposed to be the power of Congress. Congress is supposed to write the laws, the president approves them and is in charge of execution of those laws. The President is not supposed to be able to write laws, and this fine editing, some argue, basically gives him/her that power. If the party or parties not aligned with the President don't have veto-overriding majorities, then they know that anything they want stands a strong chance of being edited out, and then there's no reason for them to support or not obstruct items on the President or his party's agenda. Also, keep in mind, in general, this gives the President huge, specific, granular power over crafting budgets and legislation. Just as parties within Congress generally have to bargain and compromise, so do the different branches of government. This power greatly skews the balance of power. It's very easy to veto just a few items you don't like, but when the decision gets made on allowing your own desired initiatives to go through, but only if some opposition items are attached, then the use of the veto becomes much less frequent and only for "big deal" items. The norm is discussion and compromise when that is in place, which, probably, is what the Founders envisioned. On a more abstract scale, the Founders created what is supposed to be, on the surface of it, three co-equal branches of government in this system of checks and balances. The branch that is addressed first in the Constitution is the Legislative branch. Some Constitutional scholars argue that this is intentional, and the Founders wanted Congress to be "first among equals." Giving the President that much power and leverage would undermine that intent. Does Congress Want to Govern? | RealClearPolicy There's a reason why founding father James Madison called Congress "the first branch" of government...... It's no accident that the legislative branch is described in Article I of the Constitution, or that Article I is longer than the other six articles, combined. What is Congress? - Shmoop | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25143",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/13216/"
]
} |
25,290 | What is the Alt-Left and how different are they from the Far-Left or Ultra-Left?
Are they similar to the Alt-Right in any way? | The alt-left is not really a thing unless you live in Switzerland, where it is a political party . In the US, it's a term that got cooked up by the alt-right to describe their fantasized progressive equivalent. The problem, of course, is that there is no such thing . There's the oddball violent antifa , but where the aim of such would-be alt-left might be fighting intolerance or a better (re)distribution of wealth, that of the alt-right is white supremacy. Personally, I find it hard to accept that the two are equivalent. The alt-left is leaning far left, whereas the alt-right stands for everything the US fought against during the Civil War and World War II. The expression's history has a few interesting tidbits. Long story short, it seems to have appeared in Reddit alt-right groups. There is about zero reference to it in Google (except for the keyboard shortcut) prior to the last US presidential campaign. It got some uptake after a Vanity Fair article denouncing it as a problem. (There also were a few calls to embrace the term after the article.) It got much more serious uptake after Trump used the term in his "on both sides" commentary after Charlottesville. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25290",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/13415/"
]
} |
25,348 | From Wikipedia: There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities. I have read in other questions, answers and comments the default assumption that everyone knows that nationalism is evil, racist and sometimes a synonym for Nazism. Similar to Jingoism, it appears that Nationalism is equated with the worst of American Culture. I am a non-white naturalized citizen of the US, I have served in the Marine Corps and I have nothing but praise for the country that has enabled me to live a comfortable and important life. As a result I agree with the President's "America First" message, since I know that the other countries also believe that. I have no issue with the Wikipedia definition personally, but the label nationalism has been tainted. What makes Nationalism (as in "my nation is the best") bad? | There are various forms of "Nationalism", but one prevalent belief is that "My Nation is better than others". Racism can be broadly understood to be the belief that "My race is better than others". Given how close these ideas are, it isn't surprising that there are many nationalists who are also racist. This is particularly the case for the so-called "white nationalists" who believe that "white people" form a nation. Their nationalist beliefs are explicitly racist. This doesn't mean that all forms of Nationalism are necessarily racist. Some forms of Nationalism don't believe that "My nation is better" but instead "My nation should have its own government". Thus Nicola Sturgeon is a nationalist, but not a racist. On the other hand, the BNP in the UK is both Nationalist and Racist (According to BNP founder John Tyndall, "The BNP is a racial nationalist party which believes in Britain for the British, that is to say racial separatism.") The notion of "nation" as it applies to America is tricky. Nationalists in Europe are often opposed to immigration, but the majority of Americans are descended from immigrants. Nationalists, therefore, seek another way to distinguish "Us" from "them", and use race and language as a proxy for nation. And so especially in America are nationalists equated to racists, simply because many nationalists in America are racist. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25348",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12844/"
]
} |
25,401 | According to this article , the United States will leave UNESCO: The United States has formally notified the UN’s world heritage body
Unesco that it is withdrawing its membership of the organisation
citing “continuing anti-Israel bias”. The body is best known for its world heritage listings of outstanding cultural and natural sites but has often drawn the ire
of Israel and the Trump administration for a series of decisions,
including the listing of Hebron, a city in the southern part of the
occupied Palestinian territories, as a Palestinian world heritage
site. As mentioned in the article, UNESCO is mostly known for its cultural activities , not political ones. Also the motives are quite vague (anti-Israel bias). What other reasons for US leaving UNESCO organization might there be? | Disclaimer: This is written from an Israeli point of view, which USA seems to share. For understanding these countries' motives, this is the only relevant point of view. Since accepting Palestine as a member, UNESCO had taken a series of decisions which Israel sees as anti-Israeli. The main points that offend Israel are: Referring to the Holy places of Jerusalem as Muslim sites, disregarding their Jewish history. E.g. using the term " Haram al-Sharif " instead of " Temple Mount ". Considering Palestine, not Israel, as sovereign in Jerusalem and the West Bank. Referring to Israel as " the occupying power ". Claiming that Israel damages Muslim sites, claims Israel rejects. The executive board's 200th session decisions provides examples: ' Haram al-Sharif ' used as the only name for Temple Mount . All references to Israel take the form " Israel, the occupying Power ". Visits by Israelis to the Temple Mount are describes as " continuous storming of Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif by Israeli right-wing extremists and uniformed forces ". Claims that Israel damages holy sites, such as " Regrets the damage caused by the Israeli forces, especially since 23 August 2015, to the historic gates and windows of the al-Qibli Mosque ". USA, under Trump's administration, accepts Israel's position on this matter. Given that this organization attacks Israel, and serves as a political weapon instead of dealing with culture, The USA and Israel prefer to leave it. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25401",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
25,496 | I recently read a few news articles talking about a class action lawsuit against the DNC for cheating Bernie Sanders out of the primaries. Is there any truth to these claims that there were concerted efforts of Democratic politicians and the establishment to rig the primary for Hillary Clinton? If there is evidence that the DNC colluded against Bernie, why the heck would they do that? My reason for asking is just that I think Bernie would have been a better opponent than Hillary was in the election and I am confused about why the DNC would side with one candidate if they did, in fact, do so. One other article on Snopes had some info about all this too, but I don't feel like they provided any definitive answers that I was looking for. Here is the tweet that WikiLeaks sent out with a summary of the claims: | In short, because Democratic Party in USA is roughly split between two factions (I'll label them "progressive" and "establishment" just for the sake of labeling). FiveThirtyEight covered this split in great detail in the last couple of months (as well as a split in Republican party); but for the purposes of this question, Sanders represented the "progressive" wing and Clinton "established" wing. DNC leadership from what I understand is largely "established" wing and as such preferred Clinton to Sanders. Why? That could be for a variety of reasons: pragmatic politics (they could have thought that an establishment candidate has a better chance in general election, which is more or less the mainstream theory in Political Science since (e.g. Median Voter Theorem ) at the very least McGovern's drastic loss and a reason for DNC superdelegates). ideology. They simply agree with Clinton's ideas more than Sanders somewhat related, or correllated, tribalism - Sanders "isn't a real democrat!". As a reminder, he technically wasn't - he was a self-described Socialist (technically elected as Independent) as far as party membership in Congress. "Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do," ( from DNC email dump ) conservatism (as a psychological trait, not political philosophy). Sanders' brand of firebrand populism may not necessarily sit well with powerful establishment, who would prefer not to rock the boat too much as it could affect their own position. identity politics. Clinton was the female candidate, in the minds of some people preferable to any male candidate regardless of other considerations (ironically, those people would probably more naturally belong to progressive wing of DNC, but them's the breaks - I vaguely recall 538 reporting that something like 90% of women of color voted for Clinton). power politics. The Clintons represent a big power center; and people often support such power centers to benefit themselves. Or, people owed favors to Clintons, which is in the same general bucket. "her turn". While I'm unsure of how popular the concept was, there definitely people who felt that running strong in 2008 primaries "entitled" Clinton to a turn at the wheel. P.S. As an aside, the question's current phrasing makes an assumption that DNC prevented Sanders from getting the nomination. While this answer presents the plausible reasons for DNC to want to do so, I'm not actually aware of any ironclad proof that - despite some obvious efforts - DNC actually succeeded in that even assuming they uniformly wanted this (in other words, there needs to be tangible proof that without DNC efforts, Sanders would have won to make the assumption). 538 seems to have disagreed even early in the primaries . As well as much later . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25496",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/13216/"
]
} |
25,523 | Do separatist nations inherit any national debt? For example, given Spain has a debt level of £1.1 trillion at the time of writing, if Catalonia becomes an independent nation is there any legal burden of responsibility upon them to repay any of this debt themselves or does all the debt remain with "Spain"? | If the debt were to be transferred, it would be because of negotiations between Catalonia and Spain for Catalonia to take that debt on and at what level. It would seem reasonable to me for negotiators from Spain to ask for it, since supposedly the people of Catalonia might have contributed to it and since the Catalans are in essence asking Spain for something (to become independent and renounce their territorial claims). This all assumes, of course, that Spain would ever agree to sit down and negotiate such a break which seems highly doubtful. When the U.S. broke away from Britain much of the reasoning was because of Britain's war debt from the French and Indian War and how the Crown decided to pay for it (by taxing the Yankees). The colonies revolted, and the Treaty of Paris finalized American secession from her parent. There were provisions in the treaty related to recognizing lawful contracted (private) debts that were, in general, ignored. But the key point is that none of the debt the British government incurred was transferred to the former colonies because the Americans would not have agreed to it. So the general answer to your question is that no , debt does not transfer automatically when a state becomes independent. But whatever debt there may be would probably be a pretty contentious topic while negotiating independence, whether it occurs with or without a civil war. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25523",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/14439/"
]
} |
25,557 | The flag is a red star, in a yellow circle, in a green ring, on a red background. The photo is from a protest under the Polish presidential palace against legitimizing the Turkish president Recip Erdogan, organized by a left wing, out-of-parliament "Razem"("Together") party. Searching on flags.net didn't bring any results and I suspect it has to be an unofficial flag. There are two more photos available in the link, but I can't link to them due to low reputation. | It's the flag of the PKK, the Kurdistan Workers Party : They are in conflict with Turkey because of civil rights violations against Kurds, as well as a desire for a Kurdish nation. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25557",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/17565/"
]
} |
25,680 | How many Federal officials have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office unwillingly? To qualify a federal official must have been: impeached by the House convicted by the Senate then as a result removed from office against their will So Clinton, (who was acquitted by the senate), and Nixon, (who resigned), are excluded. I'm not just asking about presidents, I want to know about impeachment from any federal office. | Another source states : In all, the House of Representatives has impeached only 19 federal
officials, and the Senate has conducted formal impeachment trials with
seven acquittals, eight convictions, three dismissals and one
resignation (Nixon’s) with no further action. This is inaccurate as Nixon was never impeached in the first place. He resigned while the House was considering impeaching him. Two Presidents (Johnson and Clinton) were impeached but acquitted. Only two people other than a judge or a President were impeached. Secretary of War William W. Belknap was impeached for graft and
corruption, but acquitted after resigning on August 1, 1876. U.S. Senator from Tennessee William Blount who was impeached for
conspiring to assist Britain in capturing Spanish territory. In
Blount's case, the Senate refused to accept impeachment of a Senator
by the House of Representatives, instead expelling him from the
Senate on its own authority. Expelling vs Impeachment Art. I, § 5, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.", which is how the Senator was expelled. In contrast, impeachment is provided for in Art. II, § 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The impeachment process is in Art. I, §§ 3 (House impeachment) and 4 (Senate trial) and referred to in Art. III, § 2 (constitutional venue rules don't apply to impeachments). The other fifteen impeachments were all of judges and eight of those judges were convicted by the Senate (incidentally, seven of those eight judges were exclusively trial court judges as opposed to appellate judges). Four of them were acquitted following a trial in the Senate (one was a U.S. Supreme Court Justice acquitted on charges of being politically driven, two were trial court judges charged with abuse of power and one was a trial court judge charged with corruption). Three of the judges, all serving as trial court judges, resigned following their impeachment resulting in the dismissal of the cases before the Senate reached a verdict (one was charged with abuse of power, one with rape and obstruction of justice, and one with drunkenness). This source also notes that: And just like at the federal level, impeachment at the state level is
extremely rare. For example, the state of Illinois has impeached only
two officials in its entire history—a judge in 1832-33 and a governor
(Rod Blagojevich) in 2008-09. Thus, there have been eight people removed involuntarily from federal office via the impeachment process since the United States Constitution took effect in 1789. Wikipedia confirms the 19 impeachments and their resolutions discussing each one in turn. The eight removals were as follows: Judge John Pickering (District of New Hampshire) for drunkenness and unlawful rulings. Removed on March 12, 1804. Judge West Hughes Humphreys (Eastern, Middle, and Western Districts of Tennessee) for supporting the Confederacy. Removed and disqualified on June 26, 1862. (He actually served simultaneously as a Union judge and a Confederate judge.) Associate Justice Robert Wodrow Archbald (United States Commerce Court) and Judge (Third Circuit Court of Appeals) for improper acceptance of gifts from litigants and attorneys. Removed and disqualified on January 13, 1913. Judge Halsted L. Ritter (Southern District of Florida) for champerty, corruption, tax evasion, and practicing law while a judge. Removed on April 17, 1936. (Champerty means financing or purchasing someone else's lawsuit.) Judge Harry E. Claiborne (District of Nevada) for tax evasion. Removed on October 9, 1986. Judge Alcee Hastings (Southern District of Florida) for accepting a bribe, and committing perjury during the resulting investigation. Removed on October 20, 1989. Chief Judge Walter Nixon (Southern District of Mississippi) for perjury. Removed on November 3, 1989. Judge Thomas Porteous (Eastern District of Louisiana) for making false financial disclosures. Removed and disqualified on December 8, 2010. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25680",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/10751/"
]
} |
25,691 | Ronald Wilson Reagan , 40th President of the United States from 1981 to 1989, famously said : The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." What did he mean by that? Terrifying to whom, and why? I don't suppose he meant it literally. I suspect the answer is as relevant today as it was when he said this in 1986, so I think this question is more appropriate for Politics.SE than History.SE. | Reagan made the statement during The President's News Conference , and understanding the context of the event can help establish his meaning. It's worth mentioning that I've seen some indications that the saying wasn't coined by Reagan, but was in general use as far back as the 70s. I'd say he was referring to the belief (often held by conservative voters in the United States), that the government, in general, is incredibly inefficient in everything that they do. Sometimes to such a degree that their attempts to help end up actively harming instead. This was also suggested by Reagan during his 1981 Inaugural address . The view that Reagan was expressing tended to be a precursor to calls for smaller government, where an individual or private organization could complete an action more effectively than the government doing the same. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25691",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/130/"
]
} |
25,735 | The majority of countries in the world have implemented a Value Added Tax (VAT) - sometimes called a Goods and Services Tax (GST) - why hasn't the US? EDIT - I would assume that if a VAT were implemented it would replace sales tax and the like at least to some degree, not asking why we don't have another tax stacked on top of our current ones | Liberal/bipartisan arguments against a VAT : Most states already have sales taxes and value added taxes (VATs) are essentially a tax on sales. VATs are regressive, as they tax consumption rather than income and the poor consume a larger portion of their income. While businesses pay VAT to the government, they collect the money from their customers. Liberals prefer taxes that they can claim come from businesses and their owners to ones on employees and customers. Conservative/libertarian arguments against a VAT : A VAT reduces the value of savings, as part of the savings will be used to pay the VAT. A border-adjusted VAT is essentially a tax on imports, like a tariff. Countries with VATs tend to add them to existing taxes rather than replacing existing taxes with VATs. This leads to more taxes and spending. United States specific reasons: Sales taxes are state taxes but a state could not charge a border-adjusted VAT due to constitutional limitations (states can't tax imports from other states). It would have to be a federal tax. The non-border-adjusted version taxes exports from one state to another. Most states do not want to do that, as it puts their goods at a competitive disadvantage with other states. Since sales taxes are state taxes and VAT is a federal tax, it would be complicated to reduce the (state) sales tax while imposing a federal VAT. Adding a federal law to raise taxes for a state is politically difficult. The politician gets the blame for the tax increase but doesn't get the credit for the spending. Politicians prefer the reverse, where they get the credit and someone else takes the blame. Or at least want to get the credit as well as the blame. Donald Trump thinks that it is too complicated . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25735",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/16957/"
]
} |
25,743 | Having read Karl Marx, and seeing the 10 tenets of Communism, I find it hard to consider China as a Communist country. Just trying to stick to the 10 tenets. Abolition of private property, everything is public. Progressive Tax. Abolition of rights inheritance. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels. Centralization of all credit in the hands of the state. Communication and Transportation in the hands of the state. Factories and instruments of production owned by the state. Equal obligation of all to work. Abolition between distinction of town and country by equable distribution of population over land. Abolition of child labor; child rights to education; education combined with industrial production. I mean as I go down the list I only see China doing a few of these things, and blatantly doing the opposite in other ways. I know that these tenets aren't the end all be all of communism - but should be considered nonetheless. | First of all, for clarity, China never claimed to be communist . I have reviewed the full text of Chinese Constitution (both the China's Constitution of 1982 with Amendments through 2004 , as well as 2017 changes published by Xinhua ). It does not mention China being a Communist country anywhere. As a matter of fact, the only time the word "communis(m|t)" appears outside of the name of "Communist Party of China" is: Article 24 ... The state advocates the civic virtues of love for the motherland, for the people, for labor, for science and for socialism; it educates the people in patriotism, collectivism, internationalism and communism ... Here we merely see advocacy for communism. On the other hand, Chinese system is described formally as Socialist (NOT Communist); and merely based on Marxist ideas: Article 1 The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. The socialist system is the basic system of the People's Republic of China. As such, the answer to the title of your question is a resounding " NO " To reinforce that, let's review the main point of communism, as expressed in the same chapter of Communist Manifesto as 10 tenets: In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. This is patently false for China, as we see in its Constitution: Article 13 Citizens' lawful private property is inviolable. The State, in accordance with law, protects the rights of citizens to private property and to its inheritance . Second, I don't think you (nor, really, many Marxists - and, ironically, many anti-Marxists based on what I see in Google) correctly understand what the so-called "10 tenets" are. They are NOT, as is often claimed, a property of Communist society. Instead, they are possible steps that are needed in order to transition to one . This is clearly seen if read in context of preceding paragraphs of Communist Manifesto: The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production . These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable . (... list "10 tenets") Note also that, realistically speaking, this doesn't even apply to China, as China was not transitioning to Socialism/Communism as an advanced country as per Marx's understanding; and now that it is advanced, it's already Socialist and doesn't require this violent transition as per Marx. However, just for completeness, let's investigate how the 10 tenets apply to China: Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes . This is somewhat complicated in China, but largely TRUE . Wikipedia has a summary ,
but in short, all urban land is owned by the state and all rural land by either the state or the collectives. You may not buy land, but you may only have "Usufructuary rights" to it. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax . According to this nifty income tax table by KPMG , TRUE Highest bracket is 45% for incomes in excess of 80,000 RMB (about $11,600 USD): Abolition of all rights of inheritance. FALSE The right to inherit property is established in 1985 " Law of Succession of the People's Republic of China " Article 1 This Law is enacted pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China with a view to protecting the right of citizens to inherit private property. Detailed analysis in 1988 article "Inheritance Law of the People's Republic of China" by Anna M. Han of Santa Clara University School of Law Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. TRUE before 1954 and somewhat true before 1977 Largely FALSE since 1977 "Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission" Both periods were covered in detail in 2007 "Citizenship and Those Who Leave: The Politics of Emigration and Expatriation" edited by Nancy L. Green and Francois Weil, in the chapter " Overseas Chinese " The confiscation in early years was covered briefly in " Broken Promises: The Status of Expropriated
Property in the People's Republic of China "
published in Asian American Law Journal by Elaine Sit in January 1996, especially land ownership. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. TRUE initially. FALSE as of 2014 As per Financial Times in Dec 2016 : China’s banking regulator has revealed data for the first time on a group of five privately owned banks that Beijing approved in 2014 as part of a closely watched pilot programme . The group includes WeBank, backed by social media group Tencent Holdings, and MYBank, controlled by Ant Financial, the financial affiliate of ecommerce giant Alibaba Group. As a group, the five pilot banks had total assets of Rmb133bn ($19bn) by the end of September and profits of Rmb572m in the first three quarters of 2016, the regulator disclosed. That compares with Rmb217tn in banking assets for Chinese banks overall . If the group was a single institution, it would rank 18th among Chinese lenders by assets. The pilot went successfully enough that China approved more in 2016 : BEIJING - China's banking regulator on Tuesday gave approval to five new private banks, bringing the total number of private lenders to 16. ----- Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. Communication : as of 2017, TRUE for voice calls but FALSE for broadband communications. Transport : Largely TRUE for rail till 2000, but becoming less true since then. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan . OK, I didn't bother checking that one, partly because I'm not sure what the first part means. The last part (improvement of the soil) is only partly true, as there's private land use in both agriculture and industry - while land isn't owned, its use and improvement is not always as per common plan. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Unlike USSR which had a formal "parasitism" law, I have not been able to find one for China (though that may be a limitation of my knowledge than lack of such law). I obtained a confirmation of this via this Law.SE Q&A ; where the user answered with examples of "uneployment" payments in law, strongly implying that being unemployed is legal in PRC. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country . It's complicated . The answer to this would at best be a whole SE answer in itself, or a whole book at worst. Basically, the theory is that - at least under current leadership of Chairman Xi, the drive is to develop both; in practice there was a large migration from rural to industrial areas last 20 years. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c . TRUE on free education . TRUE on child labor, at least on paper ; but looks like often FALSE in reality . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25743",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/17646/"
]
} |
25,746 | In 2017 there were elections in several European developed countries: Austria, Germany, France and Nederlands. The popular vote for main nationalist party in each of them was as below: Austria - Freedom Party got 26% Germany - "In the 2017 German federal elections the AfD won 12.6% of the vote " France - "During the following parliamentary elections, the FN got 13.02% of the vote ..." Nederlands - Party for Freedom got 13% in 2017 Clearly, nationalists were significantly more successful in Austria. Question: Why did Austria's nationalist party (Freedom Party) got so many votes as compared to other nationalist parties? | First of all, for clarity, China never claimed to be communist . I have reviewed the full text of Chinese Constitution (both the China's Constitution of 1982 with Amendments through 2004 , as well as 2017 changes published by Xinhua ). It does not mention China being a Communist country anywhere. As a matter of fact, the only time the word "communis(m|t)" appears outside of the name of "Communist Party of China" is: Article 24 ... The state advocates the civic virtues of love for the motherland, for the people, for labor, for science and for socialism; it educates the people in patriotism, collectivism, internationalism and communism ... Here we merely see advocacy for communism. On the other hand, Chinese system is described formally as Socialist (NOT Communist); and merely based on Marxist ideas: Article 1 The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. The socialist system is the basic system of the People's Republic of China. As such, the answer to the title of your question is a resounding " NO " To reinforce that, let's review the main point of communism, as expressed in the same chapter of Communist Manifesto as 10 tenets: In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. This is patently false for China, as we see in its Constitution: Article 13 Citizens' lawful private property is inviolable. The State, in accordance with law, protects the rights of citizens to private property and to its inheritance . Second, I don't think you (nor, really, many Marxists - and, ironically, many anti-Marxists based on what I see in Google) correctly understand what the so-called "10 tenets" are. They are NOT, as is often claimed, a property of Communist society. Instead, they are possible steps that are needed in order to transition to one . This is clearly seen if read in context of preceding paragraphs of Communist Manifesto: The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production . These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable . (... list "10 tenets") Note also that, realistically speaking, this doesn't even apply to China, as China was not transitioning to Socialism/Communism as an advanced country as per Marx's understanding; and now that it is advanced, it's already Socialist and doesn't require this violent transition as per Marx. However, just for completeness, let's investigate how the 10 tenets apply to China: Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes . This is somewhat complicated in China, but largely TRUE . Wikipedia has a summary ,
but in short, all urban land is owned by the state and all rural land by either the state or the collectives. You may not buy land, but you may only have "Usufructuary rights" to it. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax . According to this nifty income tax table by KPMG , TRUE Highest bracket is 45% for incomes in excess of 80,000 RMB (about $11,600 USD): Abolition of all rights of inheritance. FALSE The right to inherit property is established in 1985 " Law of Succession of the People's Republic of China " Article 1 This Law is enacted pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China with a view to protecting the right of citizens to inherit private property. Detailed analysis in 1988 article "Inheritance Law of the People's Republic of China" by Anna M. Han of Santa Clara University School of Law Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. TRUE before 1954 and somewhat true before 1977 Largely FALSE since 1977 "Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission" Both periods were covered in detail in 2007 "Citizenship and Those Who Leave: The Politics of Emigration and Expatriation" edited by Nancy L. Green and Francois Weil, in the chapter " Overseas Chinese " The confiscation in early years was covered briefly in " Broken Promises: The Status of Expropriated
Property in the People's Republic of China "
published in Asian American Law Journal by Elaine Sit in January 1996, especially land ownership. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. TRUE initially. FALSE as of 2014 As per Financial Times in Dec 2016 : China’s banking regulator has revealed data for the first time on a group of five privately owned banks that Beijing approved in 2014 as part of a closely watched pilot programme . The group includes WeBank, backed by social media group Tencent Holdings, and MYBank, controlled by Ant Financial, the financial affiliate of ecommerce giant Alibaba Group. As a group, the five pilot banks had total assets of Rmb133bn ($19bn) by the end of September and profits of Rmb572m in the first three quarters of 2016, the regulator disclosed. That compares with Rmb217tn in banking assets for Chinese banks overall . If the group was a single institution, it would rank 18th among Chinese lenders by assets. The pilot went successfully enough that China approved more in 2016 : BEIJING - China's banking regulator on Tuesday gave approval to five new private banks, bringing the total number of private lenders to 16. ----- Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. Communication : as of 2017, TRUE for voice calls but FALSE for broadband communications. Transport : Largely TRUE for rail till 2000, but becoming less true since then. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan . OK, I didn't bother checking that one, partly because I'm not sure what the first part means. The last part (improvement of the soil) is only partly true, as there's private land use in both agriculture and industry - while land isn't owned, its use and improvement is not always as per common plan. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Unlike USSR which had a formal "parasitism" law, I have not been able to find one for China (though that may be a limitation of my knowledge than lack of such law). I obtained a confirmation of this via this Law.SE Q&A ; where the user answered with examples of "uneployment" payments in law, strongly implying that being unemployed is legal in PRC. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country . It's complicated . The answer to this would at best be a whole SE answer in itself, or a whole book at worst. Basically, the theory is that - at least under current leadership of Chairman Xi, the drive is to develop both; in practice there was a large migration from rural to industrial areas last 20 years. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c . TRUE on free education . TRUE on child labor, at least on paper ; but looks like often FALSE in reality . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25746",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
25,766 | Recently Saudi Arabia granted citizenship to a very advanced robot : A humanoid robot took the stage at the Future Investment Initiative
yesterday and had an amusing exchange with the host to the delight of
hundreds of delegates. Smartphones were held aloft as Sophia, a robot designed by Hong Kong
company Hanson Robotics, gave a presentation that demonstrated her
capacity for human expression. Sophia made global headlines when she was granted Saudi
citizenship , making the kingdom the first country in the world to
offer its citizenship to a robot . Being a citizen involves both rights and responsibilities, and (debatable) Sophia might be in trouble with some of her responsibilities. Question: Why would a country grant citizenship to a robot? | I think you have answered your own question (emphasis mine): Sophia made global headlines when she was granted Saudi citizenship, making the kingdom the first country in the world to offer its citizenship to a robot. Headlines? Check. Sounds cool? Check. No risk of actual damage? Check. Does not offend anybody? Check. Free publicity for an event inside the country? Check. This is just a publicity stunt. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25766",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
25,769 | It's very easy to look at the situation from the outside, declare the Catalan independence declaration illegal and say "that's that". However, inside Catalonia, the declaration was very popular amongst a significant portion of the population. In reaction, Madrid has declared the independence referendum illegal, suspended the government and removed key Catalonian government officials and civil servants from office. On the ground in Catalonia, how much are these orders being followed? Is it the opinion of the Catalonian people that they are still under Madrid's rule or that their independence was successful, so they don't need to obey Madrid anymore? Obviously, there will be people on both sides, since there were many Catalonians who wanted to remain part of Spain. Have the people removed from office complied, or are they still doing their jobs because they have the support of the locals? | It is weekend and most of the local administration is not working, so it is difficult to tell. And even on Monday, it will depend of what orders are issued. But so far: There have been some declarations by public employees (mainly from education and the regional public TV/Radio station network) about not recognizing Madrid orders. Regional police forces have stopped providing security details to the suspended government members . There are some exceptions due to security concerns (i.e., they get security as private citizens who could be at risk). The government member in charge of the regional police and the police chief have acknowledged their suspension and replacement , writting farewell messages. The former President of the Generalitat has refused acknowledging his dismisal . There has been some stirs since the regional TV network still introduced him as President in active. Some minor trade unions have announced 10 days of strike. Right now, they have cancelled the first one (October 30) and they say that they will "keep updating" about the other days... UPDATE: Some newspaper claimed that, according to unofficial declarations of the organizers, the objective of the strike would not be so much to effectively perform the strike all of those days 1 but to provide legal cover for workers to be free to leave their job (to attend protests, etc...) at specific moments. I lost the reference to link to it (so many news these days) but that makes way more sense than 10 continued days of strike with a previsible low attendance (again, due to 1 ). Some town halls have made declarations about not allowing the use of their facilities for the upcoming elections of December 21st. 1 I have been through several strikes in Spain and I can tell you that asking people to lose like half month of pay in a strike would be like asking them to throw themselves down a cliff. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25769",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11614/"
]
} |
25,796 | Recently the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. filed some charges. There was an indictment of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. Paul Manafort is a familiar name to me. But who is Rick Gates? CNN merely labels him as a "campaign official". What was his role or position in the Trump campaign? | As the following article perfectly fits your question, see: Julia Glum, Who is Rick Gates? Meet the Trump Adviser Indicted with Paul Manafort in Mueller Investigation , Newsweek, 30 October 2017 The following stems from the article above. Regarding the charges along with Paul Manafort (Trump former campaign manager), is facing charges for conspiracy against the U.S., conspiracy to launder money, failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts, being unregistered agents of a foreign principal, and making false statements. along with Manafort, accused of being unregistered agents of the government of Ukraine. he and Manafort made tens of millions of dollars but hid the payments from American authorities by laundering the money through companies and accounts in countries like Cyprus and the Seychelles. Gates transferred more than $3 million from the accounts to other accounts he controlled, the indictment says. More general a colleague of Manafort's who joined the Trump team in spring 2016, according to Politico. claims to have "over 15 years of international political, finance and business development experience working for multinational firms". claims to have "worked on several U.S. presidential campaigns". claims to have worked on "many international political campaigns in Europe and Africa". as part of the Trump campaign, he traveled with the real estate tycoon and helped manage day-to-day operations. jumped from job to job in Trump's orbit. shifted to the Republican National Committee when Trump fired Manafort last August. helped the president-elect get set up for inauguration. In January, headed to America First Policies, a nonprofit started by Trump advisers to support the White House's agenda. In March, quit after the Associated Press reported Manafort had collaborated with Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska to improve Russian President Vladimir Putin's status in the U.S. and Europe. et cetera et cetera ... it might be better to check the article itself. Further reading A series of new articles have sprung up recently. Here are just some: Ben Jacobs, Who is Rick Gates, Manafort's right-hand man and alleged partner in crime? , The Guardian, 30 October 2017. Veronica Stracqualursi, Who is Rick Gates, Paul Manafort's right-hand man facing indictment? , ABC News, 30 OCtober 2017. Cleve R. Wootson Jr., For decades, Rick Gates was Paul Manafort’s right-hand man. Now he’s his co-defendant , The Washington Post, 30 October 2017. Jeremy Herb and Liz Stark, Who is Rick Gates? , CNN Politics, 30 October 2017. Eileen Sullivan, Rick Gates, a Protégé of Paul Manafort, Is Indicted Alongside Him , The New York Times, 30 October 2017. Who are Paul Manafort and Rick Gates? , Reuters, 31 October 2017. Feel free to contribute to the English Wikipedia page started about this person on 30 October 2017. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25796",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/3169/"
]
} |
25,805 | I don't know how to label my economic belief system, and it's frustrating when getting into discussions with other people. I believe in Capital. I believe that people have a right to earn more than their neighbor. I believe in incentivizing people, and using capitalism in the workforce to do that. I believe in private property, but that rules/regulations should surround how people are able to use that property. However I also believe in democratizing the production of certain industries (food, water, shelter) - In other words, every basic human need should have a public option, or provided by the state. Now that doesn't mean that someone can't create a restaurant and be profitable. It just means that if a consumer wants to spend his expendable money on something nice (good food) they can, or they can go down to the state store and get some vegetables for free (paid for by taxes). Is there a name for this kind of ideology? Because if I say that I'm a socialist capitalist to people - they all seem to tilt their head like a dog responding to a whistle. | What you are describing is a Mixed Economy . Essentially the state takes over certain markets either through direct control or regulation while letting others be more free-market. Numerous economies ranging from the United States to Cuba fit into that model to varying degrees. Going further, the concept of a Universal Basic Income combined with state control of food and housing costs also fits. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25805",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/17646/"
]
} |
25,827 | It seems to me that what most people typically mean when they say "Trump colluded with Russia to win the election" is, quite simply, that Trump, or his campaign, knowingly met with some key people from Russia (who either were government officials, or had connections to government officials) and received help from these Russians in order to help Trump's campaign, and this particular "help" from the Russians was illicitly obtained by them in the first place (e.g. through hacking). However, all of the above is already proven . It is known that Donald Trump Jr. met with these officials in order to get dirt on Hillary. It has recently also become known that George Papadopoulos also met with Russian agents in order to get dirt on Hillary. In both these cases, the particular knowledge that Russia had on Hillary would, obviously, had to have been obtained illicitly by them (such as her private e-mails and what not). So my question is, if above is not what collusion actually means, then what does it mean? What is the Special Counsel actually expected to prove before this entire collusion-matter can be laid to rest? I just don't get it. It seems to me that collusion has already been proven? I mean, do we expect the Special Counsel to prove that Trump sat in a room with Putin and they were both laughing maniacally about how they were going to collude together? Obviously any collusion that would take place would take place in the form mentioned above, with meetings and exchange of information, but we already know that happened, so what else is there to prove? | You are correct that "collusion" is being used very loosely . There is no specific federal criminal statute that outlaws "collusion", for example ( except for an antitrust law not relevant here ). This NYTimes editorial argues that the term is a problem: The problem is that the focus on the term “collusion” has had the effect of implying precision where there is essentially none. Meeting the standard of “proof of collusion” isn’t a matter of meeting a technical definition or threshold — it is a matter of persuading enough people that what we’re seeing is collusion. It is, in other words, a political judgment and, as with all things political, is extraordinarily subjective and vulnerable to all sorts of manipulations. The fuzziness of the current discourse may not matter much to the F.B.I., whose investigation will surely adhere to the letter of the law — but it might matter a great deal for how its findings play in the court of public opinion. Some people appear to use it broadly, as a synonym of "cooperate"; others use it more strictly, closer to "participating in a proven criminal conspiracy". Still others probably wouldn't admit it was truly "collusion" even if they saw a literal contract signed by Trump and Putin. The problem is that we're talking about pretty wide range of possibilities in the Trump/Russia matter, many of them with very different bottom lines: Were members of the Trump campaign aware in advance of the hacked emails, or only after the fact? Did they actively coordinate with Wikileaks about the timing for releasing the emails? Did they know or care that Russia was involved in the email hack? Did some minor figures in Trump's campaign simply have some passing interactions with a few people associated with Russia , that ultimately came to nothing (as they are currently claiming)? Did members of the Trump campaign innocently but eagerly accept offers of damaging info on Clinton from people who happen to be from Russia? If so, is their claim that nothing ever came of it true? Or, did members of the Trump campaign enter into a wink-wink-nudge-nudge with Russian agents that Trump might be willing to consider reducing or dropping Russian sanctions in exchange for help getting elected? If so, was this known and approved by Trump himself? Was it coordinated by Sessions in his meetings with the Russian ambassador? Or was it the machinations only of long-gone people like Flynn? Would members of the campaign really keep this important information from their boss? Or, as the "dossier" claims, did Russia and Trump have an explicit quid-pro-quo to not only help elect Trump but to also give Trump a 19% stake in Russian oil company Rosneft in exchange for changing the party platform on Ukraine and for dropping Russian sanctions? Is it just coincidence that Rosneft sold 19.5% of its shares (worth $11 billion ) shortly after the election? Obviously, these aren't the only choices, nor do all of them necessarily mean that Trump (and/or Pence) were personally aware/involved, but they all involve some measure of "collusion". Some of these might involve broken laws (campaign finance laws, money laundering laws, criminal conspiracy laws, etc.), while others may not; but all have likely political fallout. Please note that it is absolutely possible for Trump to be impeached based on actions he took that weren't illegal. For example, Trump clearly had the power to fire Comey as director of the FBI, but many people view that action as an improper abuse of power and an attempted obstruction of justice (whether anything comes of that is still to be determined). In a similar way, a clear quid-pro-quo with Russia (election help in exchange for dropping sanctions) could be politically damaging enough to result in impeachment, even if it isn't clear that any laws were broken. Clearly the Trump administration is denying and minimizing as much as possible, but as so many of their past denials have proven false ("nobody involved in the campaign met with any Russians, ever!"), I don't give their denials much weight. Personally, I agree with you, that even the information that has been admitted by members of the Trump campaign (Trump Jr's emails, Papadopoulos' signed confession, etc.) clearly indicate we are somewhere among the bullets above. How exactly this all shakes out is still unclear. To answer your second question , Mueller was authorized to conduct an investigation into the following : Any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and any other matter within the scope of 28 C.F.R. 600.4(a). It also authorizes the Special Counsel to "prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters". This article describes what 28 C.F.R. 600.4(a) may mean: Section 600.(4)(a), which is referenced in Rosenstein’s order, would seemingly allow the special counsel to investigate efforts to obstruct the Russia-related investigation, since obstruction of justice is specifically enumerated as something a special counsel has authority to investigate. Note that "prosecuting federal crimes" isn't the only possible outcome of the investigation. As I discussed previously, Mueller could also uncover non-criminal "links and/or coordination" that are politically damaging enough to lead to impeachment. So, yes, I think based (only) on the Papadopoulos confession, we know that Mueller has found at least some "links and/or coordination", although the full scope is still undetermined. The indictments of Manafort and Gates, as they aren't (directly) linked to Russia, appear to be a result of "matters that arose directly from the investigation". It seems likely that much more is still to come as Mueller continues his work. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25827",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/17723/"
]
} |
25,844 | I know I've heard that racial discrimination when drawing district lines is unconstitutional. But where in the constitution does it say that, and are there other rules that gerrymandering has to follow to be constitutional or legal? | You are correct that "collusion" is being used very loosely . There is no specific federal criminal statute that outlaws "collusion", for example ( except for an antitrust law not relevant here ). This NYTimes editorial argues that the term is a problem: The problem is that the focus on the term “collusion” has had the effect of implying precision where there is essentially none. Meeting the standard of “proof of collusion” isn’t a matter of meeting a technical definition or threshold — it is a matter of persuading enough people that what we’re seeing is collusion. It is, in other words, a political judgment and, as with all things political, is extraordinarily subjective and vulnerable to all sorts of manipulations. The fuzziness of the current discourse may not matter much to the F.B.I., whose investigation will surely adhere to the letter of the law — but it might matter a great deal for how its findings play in the court of public opinion. Some people appear to use it broadly, as a synonym of "cooperate"; others use it more strictly, closer to "participating in a proven criminal conspiracy". Still others probably wouldn't admit it was truly "collusion" even if they saw a literal contract signed by Trump and Putin. The problem is that we're talking about pretty wide range of possibilities in the Trump/Russia matter, many of them with very different bottom lines: Were members of the Trump campaign aware in advance of the hacked emails, or only after the fact? Did they actively coordinate with Wikileaks about the timing for releasing the emails? Did they know or care that Russia was involved in the email hack? Did some minor figures in Trump's campaign simply have some passing interactions with a few people associated with Russia , that ultimately came to nothing (as they are currently claiming)? Did members of the Trump campaign innocently but eagerly accept offers of damaging info on Clinton from people who happen to be from Russia? If so, is their claim that nothing ever came of it true? Or, did members of the Trump campaign enter into a wink-wink-nudge-nudge with Russian agents that Trump might be willing to consider reducing or dropping Russian sanctions in exchange for help getting elected? If so, was this known and approved by Trump himself? Was it coordinated by Sessions in his meetings with the Russian ambassador? Or was it the machinations only of long-gone people like Flynn? Would members of the campaign really keep this important information from their boss? Or, as the "dossier" claims, did Russia and Trump have an explicit quid-pro-quo to not only help elect Trump but to also give Trump a 19% stake in Russian oil company Rosneft in exchange for changing the party platform on Ukraine and for dropping Russian sanctions? Is it just coincidence that Rosneft sold 19.5% of its shares (worth $11 billion ) shortly after the election? Obviously, these aren't the only choices, nor do all of them necessarily mean that Trump (and/or Pence) were personally aware/involved, but they all involve some measure of "collusion". Some of these might involve broken laws (campaign finance laws, money laundering laws, criminal conspiracy laws, etc.), while others may not; but all have likely political fallout. Please note that it is absolutely possible for Trump to be impeached based on actions he took that weren't illegal. For example, Trump clearly had the power to fire Comey as director of the FBI, but many people view that action as an improper abuse of power and an attempted obstruction of justice (whether anything comes of that is still to be determined). In a similar way, a clear quid-pro-quo with Russia (election help in exchange for dropping sanctions) could be politically damaging enough to result in impeachment, even if it isn't clear that any laws were broken. Clearly the Trump administration is denying and minimizing as much as possible, but as so many of their past denials have proven false ("nobody involved in the campaign met with any Russians, ever!"), I don't give their denials much weight. Personally, I agree with you, that even the information that has been admitted by members of the Trump campaign (Trump Jr's emails, Papadopoulos' signed confession, etc.) clearly indicate we are somewhere among the bullets above. How exactly this all shakes out is still unclear. To answer your second question , Mueller was authorized to conduct an investigation into the following : Any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and any other matter within the scope of 28 C.F.R. 600.4(a). It also authorizes the Special Counsel to "prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters". This article describes what 28 C.F.R. 600.4(a) may mean: Section 600.(4)(a), which is referenced in Rosenstein’s order, would seemingly allow the special counsel to investigate efforts to obstruct the Russia-related investigation, since obstruction of justice is specifically enumerated as something a special counsel has authority to investigate. Note that "prosecuting federal crimes" isn't the only possible outcome of the investigation. As I discussed previously, Mueller could also uncover non-criminal "links and/or coordination" that are politically damaging enough to lead to impeachment. So, yes, I think based (only) on the Papadopoulos confession, we know that Mueller has found at least some "links and/or coordination", although the full scope is still undetermined. The indictments of Manafort and Gates, as they aren't (directly) linked to Russia, appear to be a result of "matters that arose directly from the investigation". It seems likely that much more is still to come as Mueller continues his work. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25844",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/17646/"
]
} |
25,852 | I have two questions regarding monopolies in a capitalistic society: According to Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell, among other Chicago School economists, under purely market forces monopolies will naturally not be sustainable for long. When I'm trying to defend a libertarian state that does not interfere with the free market, monopolies will come up regularly as an example of something that the government will need to interfere with. How viable is the libertarian view that monopolies will naturally go away? All the examples of monopolies that I have found are created by the government, or at least aided by it in large ways. Are there any counterexamples? If not, why not? | As requested in comments, converting my own comments to a brief answer: First of all, there's no generic concept of " monopoly " and thus libertarian views on such will vary. The following aspects of monopolistic situations are distinct: 1. "Natural" monopolies Most frequent argument by proponents of antitrust and those using "monopoly" as argument against libertarian ideas are so-called "natural" monopolies. These are typically things like utility companies. " The Myth of Natural Monopoly " by Thomas J. DiLorenzo rebuts this view this in detail. In short, Nearly every case of "natural" monopoly known is merely a result of government interference - either direct one by granting exclusive rights or contracts; or indirect one by unre-pricing scarce public resources (e.g. right to place infrastructure in public spaces). 2. Monopolies of consumer choice If a company provides consumers with the product they universally prefer over their competitors (e.g. by price), this is not intrinsically a bad thing that needs to be rectified, since this situation does not lead to any of the tangible problems that are stated to arise out of monopoly. The moment they start abusing their monopoly by raising prices above what consumers find comfortable, they cease being in a position to be able to sustain that monopoly as a competitor can then enter the market. (not to even go into an innovation tangent - a competitor may simply come up with a better product that justifies higher price for consumers). 3. Monopolies that enforce their monopoly status by force. There are claims that Standard Oil did this. I'm not versed enough to be sure if those claims are true; but if they are such actions are contrary to libertarian principles of NAP and therefore would be prohibited regardless of monopoly-angle. Additional resources (sadly, youtube videos): Milton Friedman - Monopoly The Robber Barons and the Progressive Era by Tom Woods (Mises lecture) | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25852",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/17737/"
]
} |
25,871 | This one has been puzzling me. When I hear debates about climate change, very often it seems like the debate has been centered around whether or not it is caused by human activity. To me this aspect feels like a complete red herring. Presumably both sides would agree that if there is climate change, and if it would be sufficiently harmful (to the planet or to human activity, take your pick) then naturally we would try to reduce it. That's the case whether or not it was human-caused, all that matters is whether there's evidence of change, and whether enough people feel that the prospective/projected climate change we're seeing, would be harmful enough if we don't act globally to deliberately reduce the amount of heat trapped by the earth. As a (poor) analogy, arguing whether or not it's human-caused feels a bit like planning to develop real estate on a seaside clifftop which some specialists have said might suffer dangerous erosion in the next 70 years unless you put up some seawalls to prevent water action at the base of the cliff - and basing your view whether to build seawalls and other erosion defences upon whether or not there's proof that human activity would be the cause of any future erosion, rather than whether or not erosion is likely and if so how harmful it might be to your interests if nothing is done to reduce it. Put another way - who cares if it's human caused and why would that be relevant in the debate? We can agree if the earth were to retain heat to an extent that global temperatures slightly rise by a couple or so degrees, it would be harmful to us (whatever the cause of that rise). We can also agree that as a species, we have the ability to cause an increase or decrease to that retention of heat by our industrial and technical activities. So the question surely is whether there is good evidence it's a risk, how big the risk is, and whether the projected impact is likely and sufficient to undertake measures to offset it by reducing the earth's heat retention. That's classic cost/benefit/likelihood decision-making, and has no relation to any cause of any warming, which seems like a red herring. So why is the climate change debate so often framed in terms of human cause rather than whether or not it's actually happening or a risk? It's not like, were the same degree of projected climate change present but not human caused, the harm to us would be any different. Update/note: To be clear, I'm not asking for views whether or not climate change is true, if we have the ability to change it for good or bad, what evidence exists, whether people want or oppose change, or anything like that. I'm specifically looking at why the debate so often gets framed round a point that seems to be a red herring whatever the side one is on. | The reason is that if climate change would not be human-caused, then humans would not be able to prevent it by scaling down their greenhouse gas emissions. The chain of reasoning which is most supported by the scientific data we currently have available ( check earth science stackexchange for more information ) is: Our industry creates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses Those greenhouse gasses increase the global temperature That global temperature will cause severe economic damage in the future Therefore, in order to secure our future economy, we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, even if it's bad for the economy today. But when our industry would not be responsible for the raise in global temperature, that chain of reasoning would be irrelevant: The greenhouse gasses emitted by our industry only have a negligible impact on the world climate. Which would mean that reducing them would also have a negligible impact on the world climate. Which would mean that the economic damage caused by raising temperature is inevitable Which would lead to the conclusion that reducing our greenhouse gas production today would be a pointless endeavor which would restrict our economy today for no tangible benefit in the future. As you can see, the answer to the question about whether or not climate change is man-made has a direct impact on which policies should be enacted to solve this problem. There are people who have a direct business interest in preventing any policies which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because these would have a negative financial impact on them. There are also people who have ideological reasons for opposing government-imposed economy regulations. The best way to prevent these policies from being enacted is to cast doubt on the causality chain outlined above. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25871",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12228/"
]
} |
25,883 | I've thought about this before, but never heard any explanation as to how this works. My understanding of communism is: Everyone works. Everything is rationed out equally. Since there is no private property, everything is borrowed. So if you want to take a boat out on a lake for instance, you simply schedule a time that you can. Given this situation, and the fact that there's no private property - wouldn't currency be obsolete? I mean, maybe you'd need something to prove that you've worked a full time job or something - but if everything is public/shared/rented - what would the point of currency be? | Officially no; in some systems possibly yes; and in practice yes. By currency in the term of legal tender , a fully-communist system should not have currency for the reasons that you point out. That is how the system is designed. Private property is completely abolished. In some systems that are/were considered communist (depends who answers), the Soviet Union had and Venezuela and Cuba have currency. Some consider Venezuela socialist, not communist. Some consider Venezuela communist - whether we agree or disagree, it comes down to a person's view. Some consider Cuba communist . Still, some may disagree with these views that they are/are not socialist/communist and they both had/have currency. You can even buy old Soviet currency at some places. By currency in terms of an exchange of value , in practice, yes currency exists. If you know how to produce your own food, even if there's a shortage of food, you may be able to have more access to resources than others without their knowing it. Just like money is not evenly distributed in systems, skill isn't either. Skill is private property and this cannot be redistributed, especially when it's not known. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25883",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/17646/"
]
} |
25,957 | According to this document (page 3), US is an exception when it comes to total paid leave related to maternity (paid maternity leave + paid parental and home care leave available to mothers). The OECD countries average is about one year (55.2 weeks). According to Wikipedia , there seem to be some benefits associated with paid maternity leave: A Harvard report cited research showing paid maternity leave
“facilitates breastfeeding and reduces risk of infection”, but is not
associated with changes in immunization rate. This research also found
that countries with parental leave had lower infant mortality rates.
Returning to work within 12 weeks was also associated with less
regular medical checkups. Data from 16 European countries during the
period 1969-1994 revealed that the decrease of infant mortality rates
varied based on length of leave. A 10-week leave was associated with a
1-2% decrease; a 20-week leave with 2-4%; and 30 weeks with 7-9%.[44]
The United States, which does not have a paid parental leave law,
ranked 56th in the world in 2014 in terms of infant mortality rates,
with 6.17 deaths per every 1,000 children born. Question: Why is there no paid maternity leave in United States? (as opposed to the the vast majority of developed countries) | There are states which have paid maternity leave laws [1] , and many private employers do offer paid maternity leave. The question of why the United States does not have a universal paid maternity leave is complicated, as most political discussion are. A lot of it boils down to individual freedoms vs federal responsibility. In order for the federal government to pass a new law that restricts individual (including private business) rights, it generally needs to be shown that doing so fulfills a role of the federal government and that it does so using the least restrictive means. Additionally, enough members of congress have to be convinced that it is a necessary bill. This is difficult. There is a lot of disagreement between the amount of government involvement needed. For some additional information, consider H.R. 1022 - 115th Congress . This bill is only for federal employees, so the constitutional issue is reduced. But we still see extreme partisanship with only one Republican co-sponsor, even though there are a total of 75 co-sponsors. This partisanship makes it even more difficult for a bill to make it into law. Least Restrictive Means There seems to be an issue with the concept of "least restrictive means." The fifth amendment states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law, while the 10th says that any power not delegated to the federal government is reserved first to the people and then the states. A federal provision which mandates PTO of any kind comes into conflict with those provisions. We therefore have a conflict between law and constitution. Therefore a law which mandates paid maternity leave must (1) satisfy some interest of the federal government, as laid out by the constitution and (2) must do as little to conflict with the 5th and 10th amendments as possible. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25957",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
25,993 | This question is inspired by the discussion about lobbyism and free speech. There are two fundamental ideas in modern democracies that seem to contradict each other, while both being so fundamental that none could be severely restricted without burying the concept of a capitalistic democracy. The first one is "one man, one vote". Each citizen in a democracy should have the same influence on electing the government. Giving some people more than one vote (for example, on the base of taxes paid or educational level) is considered undemocratic. The second one is the freedom to accumulate wealth. While of course progressive tax rates exist, there is no upper limit as to how much money a single person may possess. It is considered a basic freedom to make as much money as one is able too (while, of course, adhering to the law). In principle, I am okay with both. But now there is a severe conflict between the two, given by lobbyism and the influence of money on the outcome of elections. (Note that while inspired by current events, this is not a Donald Trump thing, the phenomenon can be seen far beyond this case and the political stance of the respective candidates is irrelevant to the question.) If I have so much money that I can put pressure on the candidates running for election - by funding TV ads or political campaigns or by threatening not to do so - I exercise a power far beyond my own voting power. I am also not just representing a number of voters with the same goals. So, effectively my vote is worth much more than the vote of others, because giving my vote (and money) to another candidate is a much more powerful threat than some ordinary guy giving the vote to someone else. So through the backdoor, I have introduced a sort of census suffrage. Now what are the options? Accepting the situation as is. But in this case, I have a system where the rich effectively have much more voting power than the rest. Assuming (as a rough estimation) that wealth is proportional to voting power, this can lead to a situation where 1% of the population have 40% of the voting power. And this seems more like an aristocracy than a democracy. Severely restricting the accumulation of wealth. The communist solution, and not very effective in the past. Moreover, this has not prevented (and maybe even supported) the emergence of small powerful undemocratic groups. Putting restrictions to the usage of wealth in political situations. This solution is used in many western states, but is of course a violation of free speech and the possibility to exercise political influence at will. Are there any more options? None of them seem very appealing and none of them will support a truly free and democratic system. How can personal freedom to acquire wealth and having the same voting power for everyone coexist without one undermining the other? Edit for clarification: Voting power is not only about what I actually vote at the ballot box. When I go to my congressman and demand a certain behavior or else I will not vote for him the next time, I am also exerting voting power. The question mainly is about the strong correlation between wealth and this type of voting power. | Many countries adopt some variant of solution (3): Putting restrictions to the usage of wealth in political situations. This solution is used in many western states, but is of course a violation of free speech and the possibility to exercise political influence at will. The assumption "of course this is a violation of free speech" is not universally shared. USA US courts have recently taken a broad interpretation of the First Amendment, which holds that spending money is a form of "speech" and therefore has strong constitutional protection. As a result, there is little or no restriction on spending in US elections. Important caveats: Victory does not always go to the best funded campaign: In 2016 Clinton outspent Trump by approximately $500 million. It is possible that in the future, the US Supreme Court will take a less absolutist stance on political funding, opening the door to renewed attempts at campaign finance reform . United Kingdom The UK is a capitalist society with freedom of expression. A wealthy person is free to own one or more newspapers and use them to promote his or her views, and several billionaires do exactly that . On the other hand: The UK has very tight regulations for spending on election campaigns , with maximum spending limits on both individual races and the overall campaign. Broadcasting is also heavily regulated, with most political advertising disallowed, and strict rules for impartiality of election coverage . Germany Other countries take their own approaches. For example Germany has no limits on campaign spending, but also has strict rules on transparency, and generous public funding of political parties in order to level the playing field. Conclusion No right is absolute. A wealthy person has the right to spend money; but other citizens, individually or collectively, may decide certain things are not for sale. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25993",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/17279/"
]
} |
25,999 | I'm not super familiar with the intricacies of the various voting systems, so forgive me if I'm way off in an assumption I have. However, in all election formats I know of, voters are expected to vote for a person. Problems I see arising from this, at least in the U.S., include: Voters having to research candidates to see where they allegedly stand on various issues People needing to be voted in at all different levels, leading to lower voter turnout for non-presidential elections Limited selection pools from having to pick a person to be the candidate Voters not always having an option that perfectly matches their views Campaigns designed to attack their opponents rather than discuss issues Voting "against the other candidate" My naive view is that we could do away with the voting-for-people mentality and simply vote on the issues. Here's how I imagine it working: The ballot is a list of general issues (like Immigration or Abortion) that has been determined to possibly be of interest to any current voters Voters select how important they think each issue is and where their views on the matter are on a spectrum Candidates sign up for the opportunity to be the elected individual Closest matching candidate to voter opinion is the elected option This appears to solve the above issues like so: Voters likely already know where they stand on issues and have the option to mark one as "unimportant" or "unsure where I stand" Major election results can have all the general issues that could then be used to elect all levels of government. Smaller elections could also have more locally-minded issues Candidates wouldn't even need to be publicly view-able, and there could be any number signing up (even signing up for specific levels of government) Voters can vote 100% the way they think every time Attacking your "opponent" in this case is just discussing the issue Votes are spectrum-based, so it's not a simple "against" vote (and even if it was, your being against the other option is your view on the matter) I've searched around for examples, but I'm not sure what a good search term would be. I found this Wikipedia article , but that's not really what I had in mind. I also noticed this post , but I'm not looking for voters proposing and voting on laws/bills or anything that specific. Is there a name for this type of voting system? Are there any (current or past) examples of it in action? Note: While I'm open to critiques of this, they should probably be in a separate question or discussed in chat. | I'm not aware of any official name for what you're proposing (which basically combines referendum with candidate-matching). The closest - which isn't very close - I can think of is voting for party lists, with the party list being a secret before the election and you only know the party platform; in a multi-party state. However, there are major flaws in your system; the biggest one I notice being the following: There is no mechanism to vet that the candidates declaring to be of the opinion X actually have that opinion, and thus the system is trivially easy to game . The specific - and very likely - scenario of how elections in such a system would go is as follows: Polling finds that electorate cares most about two issues, cats vs dogs (with cat supporters polling 40% and dog supporters 60%); and the right to put patty above the cheese in a cheesburger (with the righteous cheese-down freedom lovers unfortunately losing in the public opinion polls 20/80%) Any candidate who wants to win (and trusts the polls) instantly puts down their own preferences as supporting dogs at 60% and rejecting cheese by 80%. Hence, the candidates that guessed the final election spread more accurately, will win. There is absolutely zero reason to suspect that any of those candidates actually hold those positions; and won't instead vote for a law that requires all hamburgers to be dog meat above cheese . Since you don't know who the candidates are before the election, there's no way to prevent this. Of course, normal elections suffer from this to a degree (any candidate lies when promising stuff) but as they aren't anonymous, they can at least be held accountable post-election, in a normal electoral fashion. Of course, since the system is also akin to referendums, you also have many of the flaws with "everything is a referendum" described in the linked P.SE question . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25999",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/9861/"
]
} |
26,003 | The National Rifle Association appears to be a very powerful lobby in the United States which seems to be very successful at preventing anti-gun legislation. Nevertheless, it would appear to be quite feasible for there to be a competing lobby operating at the level of the NRA to lobby Congress for more gun control legislation. A search for "anti NRA" reveals there are organizations opposed to NRA-style policies, but they aren't anywhere near as well-known or powerful. Why is that? Is it really that far-fetched that 5 million Americans would support anti-NRA-style lobbying with their wallets, to offset the 5 million members of the NRA? What has prevented the growth of an anti-gun lobby as powerful as the pro-gun NRA? | There definitely are organizations that are counter . Brady is nearly as famous. The reason it's not as seemingly effective is due to the fact that - due to political structure of the United States - it is far more work to pass sweeping arms control legislation: any efforts that are pro-2d-amendment automatically have the "this is what Constitution says" tailwinds, both political and legal; whereas any opposite efforts have the same exact head-winds. Additionally, most additional anti-2d-amendment measures require passing new legislation , whereas most opposing efforts require merely NOT passing it. Again, due to political structure of USA, it's easier to do the latter than the former on any topic (and becomes nearly insurmountable when Republicans control the Presidency thus requiring not just passing the legislation but also overcoming the veto). Having said that, I would also dispute the question's assertion that it's not effective. There's plenty of laws, especially on state level, with some states making it incredibly difficult to be armed (think CA, NY, IL, DC). It only seems like it's not very effective if your end game is full prohibition (and if your game is full freedom, vice versa, NRA seems like it's not very effective, for a change of perspective). | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26003",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/17870/"
]
} |
26,027 | This image is from when Barack Obama (the then serving president) thanked Reddit for helping protect the open internet. Thanks Redditors! Wish I could upvote every one of you for helping
keep the internet open and free! My question, if this was taken at face-value, and the President really wanted to force a private company to help him apply a blanket Upvote to everybody on Reddit, why could/can't he, and what would he have to do to accomplish this? I'm pretty sure this isn't allowed by Reddit's policies given it's a form of "vote cheating" (albeit the rules are oddly shaky for a blanket Upvote). I know realistically nothing about the extent of power a President has over the functions of a private company, so I was hoping someone could break down the various methods the President could go about giving an Upvote to every user on Reddit. I would prefer answers that avoided simply asking nicely (given not every President has had the same rapport with the company behind Reddit so lets assume they don't want this to happen) and instead focused on the steps and barriers the President would face before being provided with a hopefully enormous glorious green button. Or, if such an mandate is actually legally impossible given the checks and balances I've heard about. | A president has the power, under the general terms of Article 2, to instruct the various federal agencies how to act, and how to spend the money that they already have. Any such order is then subject to scrutiny by Congress and the SCOTUS. The ability of the President to instruct a private company is limited. In 1952, with a steel strike threatened, President Truman signed an order renationalising the steel mills. This was overturned by the Supreme Court ( Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer ), who ruled that even though the President had legitimate national security concerns (steel was essential for the Korean war effort), he lacked the authority to do so. The court decided that there are limits to what the constitution calls "executive power", and that seizing property is beyond that limit. In this case of upvoting all redditors, the president is not attempting to take complete control of a private company, but he is attempting to exert authority over a company to act in a way other than what they see as their best business practice. And the indication of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer is that the President lacks this power. However, the president would be free to create a Department of Reddit Upvoting and get federal employees to log onto Reddit and start upvoting everyone. That would be the President directing the executive how to act. Congress would be able to review this and prevent it by refusing to fund such a department, or simply overruling the order. The President also has various tools that he could use to put pressure on a private company. He can make business difficult for a company while "asking nicely": "Give a upvote to everyone and I won't send the IRS round to audit your books every Monday" but probably less crude. The president has a lot of soft power so a bit of carrot and stick might well be the best strategy. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26027",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/17897/"
]
} |
26,095 | A friend of mine posted on Facebook about her recent election in Pennsylvania. The results page showed a whole bunch of results that are really, really odd to me as an Australian: Justice of the Supreme Court Treasurer Coroner lots of district judges lots of school directors lots of tax collectors Most of the candidates are also listed with party affiliations. I've heard previously of people also voting for sheriffs or other police officials. What's going on? Why are these public servants being directly elected rather than appointed? Surely these elections make these roles hard in terms of stability. And why are they politicised? Shouldn't judges be non-partisan, or at least as much as possible? How do you ensure the candidates are qualified and competent? Why make these government officials waste their time campaigning? | What's going on? This is a leftover from earlier historical tradition, which had lots of lower-level democracy. For example, coroners being elected was a tradition not just from early days of USA, but actually from English common law : Electing a coroner is a holdover from medieval English common law, where the coroner's job was to determine how and when people had died in order to collect taxes. That system worked in early America, too. And in a lot of places, if the sheriff committed a crime, it was the coroner's job to make the arrest. Surely these elections make these roles hard in terms of stability. This assumes that "stability" is the goal. Often, the goal is accountability and responsiveness to the people that the public servant serves - which is much better achieved by election than either appointment or lifetime position. Look at it from risk standpoint. If you elect a bad person to the position, the downside is that you have a bad official for a couple of years, and can replace them with a good one next time having learned your lesson. If you have appointed bureaucrat in a position, that's forever, with virtually no recourse (yes you can vote against people who appointed, but due to diffusion, that's unlikely to succeed - that higher level election is likely to turn on much higher level issues). And why are they politicised? Shouldn't judges be non-partisan, or at least as much as possible? First, let's just agree that "non-politicized X" is a blatant fiction that doesn't exist in the real world. Everyone's politicized. Some people are better or worse at hiding their biases from others. Some people are better or worse at hiding their biases from themselves . But everyone has biases, especially political ones. As such, it's better to have someone whose biases are known and explored, than someone whose biases are hidden and unknown. Second, this allows people to practice checks and balances. If your legislature/executive is all Democrat controlled, the official positions will ALL be democrats, appointed by those politicians and always siding with them , due to both partisan reasons and personal "I owe you for the position" ones. If you get to elect local officials, you can at least elect ones independent of higher level politicians, who might hopefully check their power ("yes, Mr. Pro-Cat mayor, I know you want me to arrest all dog lovers in town. Tough luck, I'm not anti-dog, I ran for Sherriff on anti-squirrel platform"). As an ironic side note, back when US was created, people were actually idealistic enough to actually try and avoid factionalism (as partisanship was known back then) in politics. How do you ensure the candidates are qualified and competent? If you notice, these are all positions that are incredibly local. As such, the idea is that the candidates are well known to local community, and as such are pre-vetted - if not for their expertise then for their character. Which, incidentally, how "non politicized" side was supposed to have been ameliorated - the idea is to elect someone respected and with integrity who would at least try to do a good job. Additionally, what makes you think a local elected official is any better at vetting competence and qualifications of a candidate for official position than the voters? Elitist much? People in aggregate are rarely dumber than a random politician; AND don't have a habit of appointing corrupt officials under patronage, qualifications be damned. And ensuring qualifications isn't exactly rocket science: one coroner candidate says "I am more qualified because I finished forensics college degree from UPenn" in electoral materials, another says "I'm more qualified because I like cats". Bang, anyone but the most die hard cat lovers know who's qualified who's not of the two. Why make these government officials waste their time campaigning? Because that's how constituents get to know them and judge them. That's really how representative democracy works. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26095",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/4648/"
]
} |
26,113 | An article I saw on BBC News this morning was showing a clip where Theresa May accused Russia of creating fake news and photoshopped images during the United Kingdom general election last year. How would this benefit them (Russia) in any way? Related news article. | The fact that an entity is not directly running in an election does not mean in any way that it might not see as favourable, and thus prefer, an outcome over the other. Particularly it is mostly understood that a divided EU (starting with Brexit) is beneficial to the interests of Moscow: Crisis in the EU is a blessing for Moscow: Without the U.K. — one of the most vocal supporters of the EU’s sanctions regime against Russia — Russian officials say pressure on the Kremlin will be reduced, leading to significant foreign policy benefits. A weaker Europe is a weaker NATO: The disintegration of the EU could translate into a weakening of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, long regarded by Russia as a political and military threat. This means that they might have seen the Brexit side as favourable to them, and thus decided to support it, overtly or less so. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26113",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/16328/"
]
} |
26,145 | In this question, a person asks why it's so easy to ban Nazi symbols and so hard to ban communist symbols: Why is banning communism symbols so hard to achieve as opposed to banning of Nazi symbols? The implication being that communism and Nazism are comparable in their disdain. What is the reason for this idea that communism is evil or like Nazism and fascism and aims to kill people? Is it merely due to the propaganda during the Cold War? I find that doubtful, as that was quite a while ago. So, why do Americans still commonly have this opinion? | TL;DR: because communism did, in fact, kill people. Between 23 million (low estimate) and 100 million (high estimate) of them killed by regimes that collectively self-branded themselves as led by "communist" parties. The question contains two premises, both 100% false: That the only reason Communism is seen as evil is "because propaganda" and "because the people with that view are uneducated/stupid". Contrary to that, as the answer below shows, there's objective evidence leading people to consider Communism evil. That Communism is universally unpopular in the West, especially USA. Let's expand on both points: Is it merely due to the propaganda during the Cold War? I find that doubtful. That was so long ago, and the people who were subject to that propaganda are all old or dead now. So why have Americans and other westerners not smartened up by now and understood what Communism is? It's a nice theory that is fully contradicted by the fact that among the most anti-communist segments of population are those who know best - immigrants from "communist" (well, socialist) states. People from former USSR, refugees from Castro's Cuba, Venezuelans who escaped Chavez's regime - they are all far more anti-Communist than the average Westerner. Because: They know exactly what the reality of living in a "communist" society entails. They know their history. My grandmother was almost repressed because she happened to study genetics when Lysenko was in power. Many members of my extended family were repressed during Stalin's times. She also remembers "Doctor's Plot" (and the fact that Stalin missed out on getting rid most Soviet Jews by a few weeks when he died unexpectedly). Or, for less personalized history lessons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes http://victimsofcommunism.org/category/research/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism The editor of the latter book quantifies the answer for why communism should be considered as evil as nazism: Communist regimes have killed approximately 100 million people in contrast to the approximately 25 million victims of the Nazis So yes, people who "understood what Communism is" are actually the ones most anti-Communist. Secondly, Communism is actually pretty popular in the US/West, especially among millennials . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26145",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
26,180 | Why do some people in the British Parliament stand during the Prime Minister's Questions session? Who are they? Why do they stand during the speech? | Those are MPs who presumably can't find space to be seated on the (government in this case, since I recognise Iain Duncan Smith and Jeremy Hunt) benches. Over the years the number of constituencies in the UK has grown to 650, but the Victorian era Palace of Westminster debating chamber only has seating space for something like four hundred. In most cases this wouldn't actually matter, since it's relatively rare for all MPs to attend a particular debate, but given the date on that video, this was a day of debate over the EU withdrawal bill, so turnout was naturally high. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26180",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/18043/"
]
} |
26,225 | Taking a look at the following map of Europe highlighting NATO members , I saw a rather strange hole in the center. Switzerland, Austria & Liechtenstein are the only Central European countries that are not NATO members. Switzerland has a long tradition of neutrality (more than 200 years) and this can be a strong argument for not joining NATO. On the other hand, Austria was involved in both World Wars (as the Austro-Hungarian Empire in WW1) and, theoretically, it is placed closer to Russia than Spain or France. Question: Why is Austria virtually the single Central European country that has not joined NATO? | Short answer: it is not allowed to join NATO. By the end of WW2 Austria and Germany were occupied by the Allies. In 1955 Austria signed a treaty with the Allies , which - in essence - ended Allied occupation in return for a declaration of perpetual neutrality. This is the reason why there are foreign military bases in Germany (e.g. Ramstein Air Base of the US Air Force), but there are none in Austria, as the Allies left in 1955.
Part of the commitment to perpetual neutrality is the ban on joining military alliances, such as NATO. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26225",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
26,235 | In order to provide certainty for businesses and bureacrats, to a layman it appears practical for Britain to carry out trade talks with the European Union in parallel with the divorce talks. Yet the consistent message I hear through the news media is that progress must be made on the divorce talks before the trade talks can begin. The divorce issues that seem to have been most difficult over the last few months seem to have been: the rights of EU citizens living in the UK the land border between Ireland (the Republic of Ireland) and Northern Ireland the 'Brexit bill', the contribution that the UK will pay to the EU budget above its annual commitments to 2019 I have heard various sources, including the leading EU officials, and German government ministers, insist these divorce issues are agreed before trade talks begin. Meanwhile the British negotiators seem to accept this. Not only do I not know what the reason is, I don't even know whether the reason is political, a negotiating tactic by one or more party to the talks, technical (for some legal or bureaucratic reason), or logistical (such as appointing a sufficient number of officials to conduct multiple parallel negotiations.) In searching for the reason, I found a BBC article that says the Irish government has asked for progress on the land border before trade talks begin. But I haven't found any other solid, neutral analysis of the reason(s) that the talks are organized sequentially instead of in parallel. Update these related answers describes the content of the talks in 2017, but not the structure . | This might be described as an "eat your vegetables" strategy by the EU27. The three preliminary issues are not palatable to the UK government: It is reluctant to discuss the divorce bill. Paying any money at all to the EU will be unpopular, especially in the wake of false promises by the Leave campaign about money saved by Brexit. It is reluctant to guarantee the status of EU citizens in the UK. In part this is because of anti-immigration sentiment in the UK; it also has openly talked about using these citizens as a bargaining chip in subsequent trade negotiations. It is unwilling to offer guarantees of an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland; because this would require either remaining in the EU customs union, or establishing customs checks between NI and the rest of the UK. By contrast, the UK is very interested in successful trade talks with the rest of the EU. The future of key UK industries such as pharmaceuticals and banking will be heavily dependent on cooperation with the EU. If trade talks were ongoing, the UK might ignore the above three issues, or try to use them as leverage to gain more favourable trade terms. So, the EU27 insist on sufficient progress with the preliminary issues (vegetables) before moving on to the UK's preferred topic of trade (ice cream). The reason the EU27 can set the agenda in this way is twofold: They are much bigger than the UK, as discussed in relation to this question So far the EU27 governments are presenting a united front ; UK attempts to "divide and rule" have been notably unsuccessful. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26235",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/10122/"
]
} |
26,252 | (This is an attempt at a canonical question about an important distinction in US law and politics that is different than many other countries. It was suggested by this comment on another question . I'm looking for a "101-level primer" not a "law-review deep dive".) In the US, is there a clear division of responsibility between the kinds of laws that are passed by the US Congress, compared to the laws that are passed by state legislatures? (Or even smaller jurisdictions like county boards and city councils, for that matter?) Is this a widely understood and agreed-upon question? Or is it controversial? If state and federal law appear to contradict each other, how is that resolved? If a state law and a federal law create different (but not contradictory) regulations about something, how do they interact? For example, if my state's minimum wage is $9.50/hr but the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr, what is my effective minimum wage? | Division of Powers Between State and Federal Governments There are some powers that are reserved solely to the federal government, some that can only be exercised locally or by the states, and yet others which can be (and are) exercised by all of the above. Powers Reserved Solely to the National (Federal) Government Several powers are reserved by the U.S. Constitution exclusively to the national government (commonly called the 'federal' government.) Foreign relations, especially treaties Coining money Imposing duties on imports or exports Keeping troops or ships of war during peace time Engaging in war, unless actually invaded or in imminent danger These limitations on state governments are laid out in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States. Powers Reserved to the State and Local Governments The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (the last of the ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights ) says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. So, in theory, any power that isn't explicitly granted by the U.S. Constitution to the federal government is reserved to the states and not available to the federal government. The exception is when a power is not granted to the federal government and is explicitly banned by the Constitution to the state governments, in which case neither may exercise that power. The latter would include cases such as granting titles of nobility or making ex post facto laws, for example, which is not possible for any level of government in the U.S. In practice, however, this is more murky, as courts have occasionally allowed the federal government to exercise powers in all sorts of different things under incredibly broad interpretations of the Interstate Commerce Clause . This is why all sorts of federal laws and regulations will contain language similar to "when engaging in interstate commerce" or "for the purposes of engaging in interstate commerce," since the federal government technically has no Constitutional authority to regulate commerce within a state. For example, even federal drug laws are deemed to be authorized under the Commerce Clause, as they regulate commerce of the drugs. Courts have further ruled in many cases that trade within a state may be regulated where it's deemed necessary to regulate interstate trade. Powers Exercised at Both State and Federal Levels There are many areas where federal powers overlap state and/or local powers. Drug laws are again an example of this, as are many criminal laws. So long as the two do not disagree, both are applicable and cases could be prosecuted under either. The lack of a federal law does not ban a state (or even a city or county) from making a law, though the federal government could explicitly make a law banning states from making a law restricting something. For a more in-depth look at which government services are run and funded by which levels of government, see this answer on skeptics.SE . What if State and Federal Law Conflict? Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. So, if state and federal law disagree on a matter where the federal government has power to make that law, the federal law wins. Again, however, what happens in practice can be different. In the particular example of laws regarding marijuana, there is a federal law banning its possession or sale in most cases, but some states do not impose a state law against it. In these cases, state and local law enforcement normally would not make arrests on these crimes. Federal law enforcement still could, however, under the federal laws. But the executive branch of the federal government could decide (and, in this case, has decided) to not do this. Thus, it's still technically illegal in the entire U.S., but those laws are effectively not enforced in the states that have no law against it. The federal government could, however, decide to resume enforcing these laws any time it wanted to and the states would have little-to-no recourse to stop it from doing so, other than attempting to argue in court that federal drug laws aren't authorized under the Constitution in the first place. This would be a difficult case for the state to win in the current legal environment of broad interpretations of the Commerce Clause. Additionally, if a state law and a local law conflict, it is also usually the case that the state law will preempt the local one. Unlike the federal government, state governments are not constrained to the powers enumerated in the federal constitution. In general, the only way for a local law which contradicts a state law to stand in a challenge would be for the state law to be struck down, such as if it violated some provision of the federal constitution or of that state's constitution. Otherwise, the state law will preempt the local law. Who decides if they really conflict? If a state law or local law is thought to be in violation of a federal law or the federal Constitution, it can be challenged in court as such by someone who is deemed by the court to have standing to bring the case. The courts will then rule whether or not the state law violates the federal law and, if it does, the courts will strike down the state law. If the parties still disagree, they can appeal the decision to higher appeals courts, possibly all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the final say in this, as described in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. On the flip side, if the federal government creates a law that is thought to exceed its enumerated powers, someone with standing can challenge it in court. If the courts rule the federal law exceeds the power of the federal government, the federal law will be struck down. Again, one or more states could potentially themselves be the party with standing to bring the suit here. And again, rulings can be appealed through appellate courts, potentially up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which would have the final say as per Article III. Once the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on a matter of U.S. Constitutional law, the only ways to change it are either for the Supreme Court to overturn their decision in a later ruling on a different case or for the U.S. Constitution to be amended, according to the process set out in Article V . What if the State or Federal Law is More Restrictive than the Other? If a state law is more restrictive than a federal law, but does not contradict the federal law, then the more restrictive state law applies (and the same goes for local laws.) In the particular mentioned example of federal vs. state (vs. local) minimum wages, the most restrictive (highest) minimum wage in a given jurisdiction would apply. So, if the federal government has a $7.25/hr minimum wage, but the state government has as $10 minimum wage, the minimum legal wage in that state is $10. If a city in that state then decides to impose a $12 minimum wage, then the minimum wage inside that city is $12. Is the Division of Powers Settled or Controversial? Some parts are very unambiguous and settled (for example, no states are going to be coining money or declaring war any time soon,) but others remain quite controversial. In general, those who follow an originalist philosophy of legal interpretation tend to view the legal role of the federal government in a more limited manner than those who do not. Conservatives and, especially, libertarians tend to favor originalism, while liberals tend to favor loose constructionism . As a result, conservatives and libertarians typically take a more narrow view of the legal powers of the federal government than do liberals. The Commerce Clause One of the largest points of contention is, as previously alluded to, the meaning of the Commerce Clause . Loose constructionists (mostly liberals) tend to view the powers granted to the federal government by the commerce clause much more broadly than do originalists (mostly conservatives and libertarians.) A relatively recent example that highlights the disagreement in regards to the Commerce Clause was National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ( Wiki ). In this case, the federal mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty was challenged in court. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause here was divided 5-4. Four justices (from the liberal wing of the court) held that the mandate to purchase insurance counted as a regulation of commerce under the Commerce Clause. However, the majority of the court (the 5 more conservative justices) rejected that interpretation, ruling that the Commerce Clause can't be used to force someone to unwillingly engage in commerce, but rather only to regulate existing commerce. Ultimately, however, a majority of the court upheld the penalty by ruling that it was a tax and, thus, authorized by the taxation clause . This case also brings up an interesting example of the differences between federal powers and state powers. While, as the court ruled, the federal government has no power to force someone to engage in commerce, due to the lack of an enumerated constitutional power allowing it to do so, this limitation applies only to the federal government. On the other hand, nearly all, if not all, states already have laws requiring the purchase of automobile insurance and these laws are not set up as a tax. So, this is an example of a power that the state governments can wield, but not the federal government. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26252",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/10544/"
]
} |
26,280 | In the United States, to what extent do religious congregations advocate a political party, candidate, or political spectrum (liberal vs conservative)? The geological scope of my question is just the US and its territories. People's individual experiences with this here are welcome and will suit my needs should there not be a lot of formal studies or research. My specific questions are as follows: In the US how often does a minster/rabbi/cleric (etc) directly recommend a particular political party/candidate/spectrum to their congregation? If not direct are there more subtle and indirect techniques used to try to influence the congregation's political views? Examples of this would be highlighting what "evil" actions the undesirable side/party/candidate is undertaking, or brief statements such as "People like candidate Y has our interests in mind" or "people like candidate X are ruining our country"? Are there written or unwritten policies within any religion that cover questions 1 and 2? If so what are some examples? Do individual congregations tend to be comprised of one party/spectrum or is there ever a fair distribution of political parties/beliefs? When an individual is selecting a particular church/congregation/minister etc. (such as if the individual has just relocated to a new state) is the political side/spectrum of the congregation important in their selection process? If so how does the individual determine the side / spectrum of the congregation. | Division of Powers Between State and Federal Governments There are some powers that are reserved solely to the federal government, some that can only be exercised locally or by the states, and yet others which can be (and are) exercised by all of the above. Powers Reserved Solely to the National (Federal) Government Several powers are reserved by the U.S. Constitution exclusively to the national government (commonly called the 'federal' government.) Foreign relations, especially treaties Coining money Imposing duties on imports or exports Keeping troops or ships of war during peace time Engaging in war, unless actually invaded or in imminent danger These limitations on state governments are laid out in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States. Powers Reserved to the State and Local Governments The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (the last of the ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights ) says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. So, in theory, any power that isn't explicitly granted by the U.S. Constitution to the federal government is reserved to the states and not available to the federal government. The exception is when a power is not granted to the federal government and is explicitly banned by the Constitution to the state governments, in which case neither may exercise that power. The latter would include cases such as granting titles of nobility or making ex post facto laws, for example, which is not possible for any level of government in the U.S. In practice, however, this is more murky, as courts have occasionally allowed the federal government to exercise powers in all sorts of different things under incredibly broad interpretations of the Interstate Commerce Clause . This is why all sorts of federal laws and regulations will contain language similar to "when engaging in interstate commerce" or "for the purposes of engaging in interstate commerce," since the federal government technically has no Constitutional authority to regulate commerce within a state. For example, even federal drug laws are deemed to be authorized under the Commerce Clause, as they regulate commerce of the drugs. Courts have further ruled in many cases that trade within a state may be regulated where it's deemed necessary to regulate interstate trade. Powers Exercised at Both State and Federal Levels There are many areas where federal powers overlap state and/or local powers. Drug laws are again an example of this, as are many criminal laws. So long as the two do not disagree, both are applicable and cases could be prosecuted under either. The lack of a federal law does not ban a state (or even a city or county) from making a law, though the federal government could explicitly make a law banning states from making a law restricting something. For a more in-depth look at which government services are run and funded by which levels of government, see this answer on skeptics.SE . What if State and Federal Law Conflict? Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. So, if state and federal law disagree on a matter where the federal government has power to make that law, the federal law wins. Again, however, what happens in practice can be different. In the particular example of laws regarding marijuana, there is a federal law banning its possession or sale in most cases, but some states do not impose a state law against it. In these cases, state and local law enforcement normally would not make arrests on these crimes. Federal law enforcement still could, however, under the federal laws. But the executive branch of the federal government could decide (and, in this case, has decided) to not do this. Thus, it's still technically illegal in the entire U.S., but those laws are effectively not enforced in the states that have no law against it. The federal government could, however, decide to resume enforcing these laws any time it wanted to and the states would have little-to-no recourse to stop it from doing so, other than attempting to argue in court that federal drug laws aren't authorized under the Constitution in the first place. This would be a difficult case for the state to win in the current legal environment of broad interpretations of the Commerce Clause. Additionally, if a state law and a local law conflict, it is also usually the case that the state law will preempt the local one. Unlike the federal government, state governments are not constrained to the powers enumerated in the federal constitution. In general, the only way for a local law which contradicts a state law to stand in a challenge would be for the state law to be struck down, such as if it violated some provision of the federal constitution or of that state's constitution. Otherwise, the state law will preempt the local law. Who decides if they really conflict? If a state law or local law is thought to be in violation of a federal law or the federal Constitution, it can be challenged in court as such by someone who is deemed by the court to have standing to bring the case. The courts will then rule whether or not the state law violates the federal law and, if it does, the courts will strike down the state law. If the parties still disagree, they can appeal the decision to higher appeals courts, possibly all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the final say in this, as described in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. On the flip side, if the federal government creates a law that is thought to exceed its enumerated powers, someone with standing can challenge it in court. If the courts rule the federal law exceeds the power of the federal government, the federal law will be struck down. Again, one or more states could potentially themselves be the party with standing to bring the suit here. And again, rulings can be appealed through appellate courts, potentially up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which would have the final say as per Article III. Once the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on a matter of U.S. Constitutional law, the only ways to change it are either for the Supreme Court to overturn their decision in a later ruling on a different case or for the U.S. Constitution to be amended, according to the process set out in Article V . What if the State or Federal Law is More Restrictive than the Other? If a state law is more restrictive than a federal law, but does not contradict the federal law, then the more restrictive state law applies (and the same goes for local laws.) In the particular mentioned example of federal vs. state (vs. local) minimum wages, the most restrictive (highest) minimum wage in a given jurisdiction would apply. So, if the federal government has a $7.25/hr minimum wage, but the state government has as $10 minimum wage, the minimum legal wage in that state is $10. If a city in that state then decides to impose a $12 minimum wage, then the minimum wage inside that city is $12. Is the Division of Powers Settled or Controversial? Some parts are very unambiguous and settled (for example, no states are going to be coining money or declaring war any time soon,) but others remain quite controversial. In general, those who follow an originalist philosophy of legal interpretation tend to view the legal role of the federal government in a more limited manner than those who do not. Conservatives and, especially, libertarians tend to favor originalism, while liberals tend to favor loose constructionism . As a result, conservatives and libertarians typically take a more narrow view of the legal powers of the federal government than do liberals. The Commerce Clause One of the largest points of contention is, as previously alluded to, the meaning of the Commerce Clause . Loose constructionists (mostly liberals) tend to view the powers granted to the federal government by the commerce clause much more broadly than do originalists (mostly conservatives and libertarians.) A relatively recent example that highlights the disagreement in regards to the Commerce Clause was National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ( Wiki ). In this case, the federal mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty was challenged in court. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause here was divided 5-4. Four justices (from the liberal wing of the court) held that the mandate to purchase insurance counted as a regulation of commerce under the Commerce Clause. However, the majority of the court (the 5 more conservative justices) rejected that interpretation, ruling that the Commerce Clause can't be used to force someone to unwillingly engage in commerce, but rather only to regulate existing commerce. Ultimately, however, a majority of the court upheld the penalty by ruling that it was a tax and, thus, authorized by the taxation clause . This case also brings up an interesting example of the differences between federal powers and state powers. While, as the court ruled, the federal government has no power to force someone to engage in commerce, due to the lack of an enumerated constitutional power allowing it to do so, this limitation applies only to the federal government. On the other hand, nearly all, if not all, states already have laws requiring the purchase of automobile insurance and these laws are not set up as a tax. So, this is an example of a power that the state governments can wield, but not the federal government. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26280",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12836/"
]
} |
26,281 | According to this EU press release , EU strengthens right to the presumption of innocence: On 12 February 2016, the Council adopted a directive on the
strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and
the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings. According to the directive, member states will have to ensure that
suspects and accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty
under the law. This document highlights the main points from the press release. The one I am interested in is: Innocence until proven guilty: The new rules prohibit public
authorities and judicial decisions from making any public references
to guilt, before a person is proven guilty. There is now a common
definition across all Member States of what the presumption of
innocence is. During the last years, several Romanian officials (members of the Government, members of the Parliament) complained that are pressured by media and/or opposition to resign when National Anticorruption Directorate starts investigating them (NAD deals with major corruption only). One example is indicated in this article : Romanian Prime Minister Victor Ponta rejected calls for his
resignation on Friday after prosecutors named him in a criminal
investigation into forgery, money-laundering, conflict of interest and
tax evasion. Similarly to other cases, the President asked the PM to step down: President Klaus Iohannis, who defeated Ponta at the ballot box on an
anti-corruption platform, called on Ponta to resign over the
investigation, saying his position was untenable. Some politicians argued that, according to the aforementioned EU directive, no politician should be asked to resign unless proved guilty. Question: Does presumption of innocence work differently for politicians? Or it technically works the same, but they should generally resign due to other political rules? | In order to answer this question, I am going to quote the directive itself. All emphasis in the following quotes are mine. Section 11 reads: This Directive should apply only to criminal proceedings as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court of Justice), without prejudice to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. This Directive should not apply to civil proceedings or to administrative proceedings , including where the latter can lead to sanctions, such as proceedings relating to competition, trade, financial services, road traffic, tax or tax surcharges, and investigations by administrative authorities in relation to such proceedings. A government official stepping down from a position due to allegations which make them appear untrustworthy is not a criminal proceeding. So this directive does not apply. Section 16 reads: The presumption of innocence would be violated if public statements made by public authorities, or judicial decisions other than those on guilt, referred to a suspect or an accused person as being guilty, for as long as that person has not been proved guilty according to law. Such statements and judicial decisions should not reflect an opinion that that person is guilty. [...] Note that this only applies to public authorities and judicial decision, not to the private media. Press codices usually say that media should not refer to people as guilty until convicted. But press codices are usually voluntary guidelines, not strict laws. It also doesn't mean that media can not publish comments like "[Minister] must step down until the allegations of corruption against him were proven wrong" . That's within their freedom of speech rights. In fact section 19 of the directive makes clear that the freedom of media should not be restricted in order to implement this directive: Member States should take appropriate measures to ensure that, when they provide information to the media, public authorities do not refer to suspects or accused persons as being guilty for as long as such persons have not been proved guilty according to law. To that end, Member States should inform public authorities of the importance of having due regard to the presumption of innocence when providing or divulging information to the media. This should be without prejudice to national law protecting the freedom of press and other media . But as you can read here, this directive does explicitly apply to official press releases by the government. So now if a head of government wants a minister to resign, they may no longer say "I asked [Minister] to resign because we believe he is guilty of corruption" , they would have to say "I asked [Minister] to resign because the recent allegations of corruption have destroyed the public trust" . The phrasing is different, but the effect is the same. (Also, resigning from a post is, by definition, something the incumbent does willingly. The only way to force someone to resign is if you have some kind of leverage. Usually officials are asked to resign because the regular process to get rid of them would be more complicated for everyone and more humiliating for them.) But keep in mind that EU directives themselves are not laws. It is up to the member states to make laws which implement the goals of the directive. It is not uncommon for individual EU nations to overshoot the EU demands and make laws which go further than demanded by an EU directive. So individual EU countries implementing said directive with a local law which also protects government officials from having to step down in case of allegations not yet proven by a court of law is conceivable. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26281",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
26,289 | The typical argument, seen here , goes like this: Without net neutrality, cable companies could censor websites, favoring their own business partners. Typically, proponents of legislation point to some perceived injustice, and argue that new laws are needed to address it. But the very use of the subjunctive in the quotation ( could censor), suggests that this might be considered by its opponents as a solution in search of a problem. If so, why haven't they used that rhetorical tactic? Conversely, if such incidents have occurred, why don't the neutrality supporters cite them? | Yes, there was the case of Netflix and Comcast for example. The events were basically these: Comcast noticed that Netflix is responsible for a lot of traffic of their private internet customers. Comcast asked Netflix to pay for a better quality of service to their customers. They refused. Comcast started throttling Netflix. The bandwidth available between individual Comcast customers and Netflix got worse every month. Finally, Netflix caved in and paid the toll . This example showed the validity of a new business model for ISPs: Have online content providers pay ISPs for better access by their customers. This would make it extremely difficult for newcomers on the market to compete against competitors who can afford to pay the ISPs. Further, ISPs could decide to flat out reject such a deal with specific content providers for any reason they want. This could be ethical concerns or business interests. Speaking of business interests, there is another business practice which is questionable from a net neutrality point of view: The zero rating . There is currently a good example for this in Germany. Monthly data caps on mobile internet usage are usually quite low in Germany. That makes it really expensive to use music or video streaming on the go. The solution by German ISP T-Mobile? Pay just a little bit extra and streaming no longer affects your monthly data cap usage. But initially only if you used their streaming services. Under pressure from the Bundesnetzagentur (the regulatory body for data services in Germany) they caved in and offered the same zero rating for their main competitors on the media streaming market. But these are again unique deals which apply to specific competitors. Further, other ISPs in Germany (like Vodafone) have started to offer similar products. That means if anyone wants to offer a new streaming service, they would have to negotiate with all the ISPs (worldwide!) to also get a zero rating deal. This is a problem for small and specialized streaming startups who usually do not have the resources to do that. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26289",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/17999/"
]
} |
26,395 | According to this source , Poland will gradually forbid commerce on Sundays: Poland’s ruling party approved a law that will gradually impose a ban
on Sunday shopping, meeting the demand of its conservative Catholic
supporters with a measure that risks undermining economic growth and
hitting corporate profits and real-estate investors. According to this article , EU regulations deal more with ensuring weekly rest periods rather than ensuring a free Sunday: There are no specific EU regulations regarding weekend work. The 1993 Working Time Directive determined that the minimum weekly rest period ‘shall, in principle, include Sunday’. In 1996, however, the European Court of Justice annulled this provision by ruling that: the Council has failed to explain why Sunday, as a weekly rest day, is
more closely connected with the health and safety of workers than any
other day of the week. The 2003 Working Time Directive does not refer to any specific day in
relation to weekly rest periods or any other aspect of working time.
Article 2 of the European Social Charter says that Member States
should agree: to ensure a weekly rest period which shall, as far as
possible, coincide with the day recognised by tradition or custom in
the country or region concerned as a day of rest. From the economic point of view, this seems to have a negative effect upon tourism and those who can mostly work during the week-ends (e.g. students). Question: Why do some countries forbid working on Sunday rather than strictly regulating it? By strict regulation I am thinking about something resembling my own country's regulation, that can be summed up very roughly as: normal working schedule is 40h/week extended (on request by worker or company) working schedule can be up to 48h/week working on any week-end day is paid (almost) double (or a free day + normal payment) working on any public holiday is paid double and an extra free day So, working on Sundays is not forbidden, but companies cannot abuse it due to higher costs associated with it. | The requirement for rest on Sunday is religious in nature, and is not directly related to ensuring sufficient rest time for all workers. Specifically, most denominations of Christianity designate Sunday as a day of rest and prayer . The Law and Justice Party won elections in Poland in 2015 . It has campaigned heavily on its support for traditional Roman Catholic rules of behaviour, and as such it has proposed strict laws against doing business on Sunday. Although laws against Sunday trading are now uncommon in Western countries, they used to be much more widespread. For example in the UK, most shops were not permitted to open on Sunday until 1994 . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26395",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
26,430 | In a representative democracy, those elected pass laws for the country. If a political party had a majority in the relevant legislature(s), could that party use its majority to write a law that superseded all other laws? Could this new law do away with any further elections, free press, etc? If a 2/3 majority would be needed instead of a simple majority, could two parties team up to achieve the same thing? I'm a democrat (general sense) by the way! EDIT I've been asked whether the previous question 'What electoral mechanisms might prevent the rise of a demagogue?' solved my problem. In response, although the question is similar to mine, mine is broader, so I've decided to keep it. | Most democratic countries have a constitution which says how the state functions and what kinds of laws can and can not be made. Laws which contradict the constitution are usually declared invalid by a constitutional court. However, most democracies also have a process by which they can modify the constitution. This usually requires a larger majority than a simple law and might also have additional legislative hurdles like consent from additional political instances, a public referendum, prolonged waiting periods, and others. But if a party (or coalition of parties) have enough voting power and political clout to pass all these hurdles, they can sometimes do that. There are several examples, both in history and recently, of countries which made anti-democratic constitutional changes using ordinary democratic processes. Historic examples: The national-socialists gradually reforming Germany from a democracy to a dictatorship from 1930 to 1934 Recent examples: Poland making their constitutional court de-facto unable to act Turkey unifiying the position of head of state with that of head of government and no longer requiring the president to be non-partisan Why doesn't every government attempt this? Because democracy also has benefits. Losing power in a dictatorship usually means you will end up in exile or dead. When you lose a democratic election, you become opposition, spend the next couple years badmouthing the government (and they can't do anything about that because the constitution says you have freedom of speech) and try to get re-elected in the next election. And when you get too old for these power-games, you can retire with a life-long pension and don't need to be afraid of persecution, no matter who becomes your successor. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26430",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/17333/"
]
} |
26,446 | Is it possible for a UK citizen seek asylum in Democratic People's Republic of Korea ? They seem to have an embassy in London but I have not managed to find their web-site and any relevant information about the process. | Generally speaking you can always seek asylum, the question is what happens to you afterwards. For what it's worth, North Korea is not a party to the main UN Convention about refugees . So it's not clear whether it recognises the concept at all and it is under no obligation to provide protection to anybody. And even under a generous interpretation of the convention, mounting a credible claim as a British citizen sounds like a challenge anyway. Furthermore, you cannot usually effectively seek asylum in embassies, that's just not the way it works. What the relevant international law is about are displaced people who present themselves to an international border or cross it irregularly, their rights and what can be done after that. You will find a handful of recorded cases of people finding refuge in an embassy and perhaps a few hundreds or thousands of people being granted some sort of visa to travel to another country on the same basis but those are fringe cases and no country is under any obligation to provide protection to people through their embassy. In fact, even countries that have a generous attitude towards applications lodged on their territory, participate in UNHCR relocation programmes, etc. do not routinely entertain applications lodged in embassies (and I am talking here about legitimate applications from genuine refugees). | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26446",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
26,506 | I am a South African citizen and was involved in Scientology for some years. I have recently been watching Leah Remini's exposé documentary series on Scientology and I would like to get the Church of Scientology investigated for tax fraud, abuse, etc. Though the Church of Scientology is an international organisation, the biggest aspects of it are based in the U.S. and I feel that to effect any change, these investigations need to start in the U.S. Therefore, I want to contact someone in the U.S. government that has the power to initiate said investigations, but I'm not sure who to contact. I thought that I could perhaps contact a representative in California or Florida (where the largest organisations of Scientology exist) but they don't represent me and therefore wouldn't take me seriously. Also, I need a U.S. zip code to contact them. Does anyone have any suggestions as to who I could contact - a U.S. government representative - who might take me seriously in terms of what I have to say about Scientology? | You can write to Senators from those states or you can write to the president or the State department. who might take me seriously in terms of what I have to say about Scientology? My experience writing representatives, as a voter registered in the party of the representative, is that they don't take me especially seriously. They generally send me a form letter that doesn't actually address what I said. So I wouldn't recommend having high hopes about that. I doubt they take non-citizens more seriously than they take citizens. The Internal Revenue Service has a tip line . If you know of something that they did that was actively fraudulent in how they filed their taxes, you could report that. You might consider contacting Leah Remini through the producers of the documentary. They are more inclined to look for negative information about Scientology than other people. As such, they may be more interested in your story than a politician would be. And they have a louder voice available to them than you do. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26506",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/18507/"
]
} |
26,516 | Coming from the subcontinent I was raised to love and defend my country no matter what (e.g. in discussions always say that no matter what my country did not do anything wrong). I am now living in Germany. Because of its past the Germans are a bit sensitive with this topic. And here my eyes opened to the fact how dangerous or irrational nationalism can be. I know it is a powerful tool used by the government/establishment to control people in masses. Are there also other reasons for governments to encourage nationalism? What would it take for people (especially in my part of the world or even the US) to realize the concept of nationalism is flawed? UPDATE: the word patriotism was replaced with nationalism after reading most of the answers. The word nationalism is more appropriate for this question. | This is more sociology and even evolutionary biology than politics, in some way. Pretty much any un-cited statements in this answer are likely cited in one way or the other in Dawkins' "Selfish Gene". People (as in, the actual species of homo sapiens) evolved in a way that make their circle of caring very small - we mostly care about well-being of our own genetic family, which is usually a pretty small unit (unless you are Genghis Khan :). Beyond that, we are a social animal that is tribal , with the biggest social tribe our brains able to accommodate as a close social circle being in low 3 digits (I can dig up research, but IIRC it's something like 150 or 250 people tops). As such, people "naturally" don't perceive others outside their family/tribe as "mine", on nearly the same level. Therefore, in order to motivate people to be social on a larger scale - including sacrificing something up to and including your life for the benefit of the larger society and individuals in it - you need other forms of motivation. Typically, historically, there are three such motivations: Force . If you don't do what you ought to for the larger society, its rulers (or rather their enforcers) will go all enforceful on you, to make you pay your taxes, or go as a soldier to war, or follow the laws of the rulers. Leverage the above-mentioned familial/tribalism built in mechanisms, by subverting or diffusing them : Royalty used to marry off their kids to other royalty to cement diplomatic alliances. You may not care to defend a neighboring kingdom as is, but if your nephew rules it, it is in your interest to do so. In modern world, you try to social engineer people by faking these relationships - from "brothers" concept when referring to one another in many religions, to "comrade" salutation in socialist movements as the two obvious examples. Or, you can subvert the genetic influence that limits your caring about socialization to family/tribe, by overriding it with memetic influence . The last bullet point in #2 is the beginning of that. The concept of "nation" and "patriotism" is the end point of that - you create a memetic system that postulates as an axiom that "your social circle is the whole country". If it's sticky enough - either memetically or socially or both - you get the people right where you (as a ruler/society) need and want them, mentally. P.S. To address the "What would it take for people (especially in my part of the world or even the US) to realize the concept of patriotism is flawed?" sub-question: this is premised on the assumption that "the concept of patriotism is flawed" - which is debatable (and hard to debate either way since "flawed" isn't exactly well defined). However, one should take great care to not confuse the tool (patriotism) with the use of the tool (patriotism can be used to send Apollo 11 to the Moon or to lift millions out of poverty - or to send millions of young men to slaughter each other in the trenches of Europe). Nor, to confuse the concept of "patriotism" (I care about my "larger tribe" of a nation) with "chauvinism" - or whatever else negative "ism" - which entails disliking/being antagonistic to other nations and their people's. Just as you can be proud of your child for winning a sporting event without hating or wishing ill will on your child's competitors - as per the above write-up, both kinds of feelings are rooted in the same exact origins. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26516",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/14117/"
]
} |
26,535 | According to this article , Putin has signed two laws that further limit freedom of expression (law source): Two new laws in Russia jeopardize the privacy and security of internet
users and aim to further control Russians’ freedom of expression,
Human Rights Watch said today. The legislation, signed into law by
President Vladimir Putin on July 30, 2017, bans anonymous use of
online messenger applications and prohibits the use of software to
allow users to circumvent internet censorship. The new laws are part
of Russia’s widespread crackdown on online expression, in violation of
human rights law and democratic safeguards. This is not something new according to this article : Since 2012, the Russian authorities have intensified a crackdown on
freedom of expression, selectively casting certain kinds of criticism
of the government as threats to state security and public stability
and introducing significant restrictions to online expression and
invasive surveillance of online activity. While new restrictions on freedom of expression appear to target
political opposition or civic groups, they affect all Russians.
Curbing free speech denies a voice to anyone dissatisfied with the
ongoing economic crisis or even mildly critical of Russia’s foreign
policy. However, according to Telegraph , Putin seems to be a very popular leader, popularity that might be envied by other important leaders such as Donald Trump or Theresa May: Russian President Vladimir Putin is viewed favourably by a big
majority of his citizens, according to new research. A study conducted by the Pew Research Center shows that 87 per cent of
Russians have confidence in Putin’s ability to do the right thing on
world affairs. The immense support bestowed upon him is a notch higher than many
other politicians, making him one of the most popular leaders in the
world. Question: So, if the Russian regime is so popular, why does it need to invest into limiting freedom of expression? Those against it represent a rather small minority that does not seem to pose a serious danger to the current regime. | TL;DR: The answer to "why" is because limits on freedom of expression makes the regime less disliked (your question is confusing cause and effect - the popularity of the regime is a consequence of limits on free expression) and reduces both the effort required to stay in power and the likelihood that it falls out of power. It's as simple as that. Stratfor (pretty much any of their publications about USSR/Russia internal geopolitics would serve as citation) usually stresses that this is due to the combination of the following factors: Russia is - and has been since 17th or 18th century - a federated empire (loosely using the term, I'm open to a more precise technical term). It is extremely heterogeneous, especially ethnically (native Slav Russians are an overall 80% majority in RF but not in all regions; and were even smaller in USSR and Czarist empire, with total all Slavs only being 75%); but also ideologically. As such, there are very strong political centrifugal forces; which have succeeded in breaking the empire apart before (in 1917, and in 1991). Russia has unfavorable economic factors - the lack of inter-country navigation combined with out of date technological base combined with entrenched culture of corruption means far more relative expenses and greater friction in economic activity and far lower average standards of living (not exactly helped by 70 years of Socialism; but Russia was economically screwed over by the Czars for centuries before that; and by post-Soviet governments after that too). This means that the government can't easily buy the good will of the large percent of the populace with economic satisfaction, unless oil prices are booming - as happened in 1970s under Brezhnev or 2000s under Putin. These two factors combined means that Russia has to expend far more effort at keeping itself whole and its population in line, compared to, say, USA. Internal security and lack of political freedoms are two major levers towards that effort. They are among the major reasons Putin is so popular - nothing damaging to his regime is allowed to be known by the masses; and no popular opponents are allowed to gel to challenge him beyond a couple of tame ones. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26535",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
26,627 | An article in New York magazine indicates that While Republicans were manically outlining their plans to take from the poor to give to the Trumps, they also, accidentally, nullified all of their corporate donors’ favorite deductions. Specifically, it notes that The GOP had originally intended to abolish the [Alternative Minimum Tax]. But on Friday, with the clock running out — and money running short — Senate Republicans put the AMT back into their bill. Unfortunately for McConnell, they forgot to lower the AMT after doing so. This is a big problem. The Senate bill brings the normal corporate rate down to 20 percent — while leaving the alternative minimum rate at … 20 percent. The legislation would still allow corporations to claim a wide variety of tax credits and deductions — it just renders all them completely worthless. Companies can either take no deductions, and pay a 20 percent rate — or take lots of deductions … and pay a 20 percent rate. ( Emphasis from the original) This is followed by a quote from a Wall Street Journal article, which itself includes quotes from business people, indicating that this is a major mistake and a big problem. The article concludes by describing two major problems with the bill in this state: First and foremost, it means the Senate will almost certainly have to vote on a tax bill again before one goes into law. Previously, it looked as though Paul Ryan had enough votes in the House to pass the Senate bill as is. and The second implication is that McConnell is going to need new revenue. In all probability, Republicans are going to drop the alternative-minimum tax rate well below 20 percent. That will put the bill’s price tag over $1.5 trillion. So my question is, basically, is this reporting accurate? I haven’t seen this reported elsewhere, so I’m not exactly sure what to make of it. New York magazine certainly tries to make it seem like a pretty big deal, but the lack of other sources reporting it may indicate that they are either misinterpreting what took place, or overstating its significance. | The reporting on the senate bill still having the AMT set at 20% and the new corporate tax level being at 20% while the house bill removed the AMT is accurate . Corporations have been outspoken in their opposition to the 20% corporation tax with the 20% AMT as it would essentially remove the tax benefits currently available for R&D funding and other tax-deductible business operations. The House has voted to go to conference with the Senate on the bill, and the Senate is expected to do the same. Once this happens, lawmakers will nominate members from each house to join a conference committee who will negotiate and reconcile the differences in the bills to create a single bill, which a majority of those on the committee must approve for the bill to be finalized. Both houses will then vote again on the bill without amendment (the passing of which by both is all but a formality, as reneging at this stage would be political suicide) following which the bill will to go to the president. There are three places to go from here: The Senate version of this point is maintained, and any tax-deductible corporate spending is essentially non-tax deductible any more - though they'll have ample money to funnel that way given the tax cut - dashing a long-time GOP goal The House version of this point is maintained, and the effective tax rate of many corporations drops below 20% resulting in $40 billion more in lost revenue over the next decade , making it harder for fiscal hawks to stomach Some compromise of the two. My personal expectation: AMT is removed but base corporate tax rate set to 22%. This way the GOP gets their political win on AMT and the fiscal hawks can sleep a little better. Trump has stated he is open to this, in opposition to previous statements . As an important note (thanks Josh Caswell), the House bill does not comply with the Byrd rule (nor does it have to), whereas the Senate bill has to . However, the reconciled bill will have to comply with this rule which has to do with containing the costs of the bill, which is part of the reason why the House bill is less fiscally sound from a government revenues perspective and the Senate bill reintroduced the AMT at the 20% rate at the last second - searching for ways to contain costs. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26627",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/1608/"
]
} |
26,638 | Since the senate passed the tax bill this month that's left me confused. I try to look at both sides of partisan politics rather than joining one team and hating everything about the other. Now to understand whether this tax bill (which largely cut taxes for the rich) was something good for the country or not, I need to know if trickle down actually works. People on the Left swear it doesn't. But I'm looking for an objective, non partisan explanation of whether or not Trickle Down economics has been effective in the past. From what I understand it's been tried many times throughout history by now, as far back as the 1890s when it was called "horse and sparrow theory" according to Wikipedia, so it seems like we should have data to show whether or not it improves the economy. Is there any record of Trickle Down Economics improving the economy? | But I'm looking for an objective, non partisan explanation of whether or not Trickle Down economics has been effective in the past People debate whether economics is a hard or soft science, but I think it's fair to say that even if it's a hard science, conclusions can still differ and, at the end of the day, economic policy certainly can, and often is, partisan to some degree. All that said, there's a lot of economists that point out that trickle-down economics is not a real thing: We find that increasing the income share of the poor and the middle class actually increases growth while a rising income share of the top 20 percent results in lower growth—that is, when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down. -- Dabla-Norris et al., 2015 A recent book published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) supports the IMF study’s assertion that inequality suppresses economic growth. Both studies relied heavily on the Gini Coefficient, a measurement of income distribution in which a score of 0 represents a society in which all wealth is shared completely equally and a score of 1 a society in which all the wealth belongs to a single person (currently, the United States has a high Gini Coefficient of .4, falling only behind Chile, Mexico, and Turkey in this measurement of inequality for OECD countries.) The OECD study found that an increase in inequality on the Gini scale of two points corresponded to a 4.7% drop in GDP. -- Quartz More recently, there was this ad-hoc survey of executives during a talk by Gary Cohn (Trump's chief economic adviser) asking if they will take money gained from corporate tax cuts and re-invest (ie, "trickle them down"). The response was, to put it bluntly, underwhelming. And this article points out a key aspect: Trickle-down economics, in its pure form, was never tested. -- The Balance That last article points out some past situations where tax cuts claiming to be 'trickle down' policies were enacted in a time where we did see economic growth, there were side effects, and several other factors, so it's impossible to say that the tax cuts did what they were promised. As such, there is no proof that trickle-down economics works, though there is plenty of data showing that increasing the income gap isn't good for economies. Of course, that doesn't mean the theory isn't valid...it's just that we have never (and may never) be able to validate it. Ironically(?) if the current republican tax bill is passed into law, it may prove difficult for them to argue trickle down policy works as we currently have a growing economy. It'll be tough to show it works unless there is some level of exponential growth compared to the already upward trending current curve, and if it drops and/or the economy significantly slows, it'd put another black mark on arguments for that particular theory. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26638",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/18648/"
]
} |
26,657 | According to CNN , Trump has just recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital: President Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital on
Wednesday and announced plans to relocate the US Embassy there, a move
expected to inflame tensions in the region and unsettle the prospects
for peace. Wikipedia informs us that Jerusalem's status is quite unclear: There is significant disagreement in the international community on
the legal and diplomatic status of Jerusalem. Legal scholars
disagree on how to resolve the dispute under international law.
Many United Nations (UN) member states formally adhere to the United
Nations proposal that Jerusalem should have an international
status. Also, this seems to be opposing the legal position of the vast majority of states: The majority of UN member states and most international organisations
do not recognise Israel's ownership of East Jerusalem which occurred
after the 1967 Six-Day War, nor its 1980 Jerusalem Law proclamation,
which declared a "complete and united" Jerusalem as the capital of
Israel. Another CNN article explains about possible issues related to this decision: The final status of Jerusalem has always been one of the most
difficult and sensitive questions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
If the United States declares Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, it
would be seen as prejudging that question, deciding an issue that was
supposed to be left to negotiations and breaking with the
international consensus on the holy city. Question: What are the benefits for the US in declaring Jerusalem as Israel's capital?? | Rallying his base and making good on a campaign promise. Evangelical Christians in the US voice strong political support for Israel and this group overwhelmingly voted for Trump and was pivotal for his victory. This was a hard won constituency as Ted Cruz fashioned himself as champion of the Evangelicals during primaries and support was split between Cruz, Rubio, and Trump, and Trump has many moral foibles that could serve to put off Evangelicals. Trump needed to do something to keep them in his court and this is a low-hanging fruit as the only fallout is anger from foreign leaders, something Trump has shown he doesn't care much about (Paris Accord, German Trade, too many examples to list). This isn't just an Evangelical issue, the majority of republicans sympathize with Israel on the Israel/Palestine conflict, but this is a much more pertinent issue to Evangelicals because of the religious ramifications than it is to the broader republican base. The US gains nothing from this. It is true that Trump gains some goodwill from Israel as a result from this. What I mean is this action in and of itself doesn't translate into any tangible benefit for the U.S. as a country. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26657",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
26,665 | The title says it all. Imagine the candidate has some sort of medical restriction and can't leave his house. He or she can talk personally only with limited number of people. Can he entrust all the paperwork to his representative and run a presidential campaign from the Internet? I'm talking only about the campaign itself, not fulfilling president's duties after successful election. | Rallying his base and making good on a campaign promise. Evangelical Christians in the US voice strong political support for Israel and this group overwhelmingly voted for Trump and was pivotal for his victory. This was a hard won constituency as Ted Cruz fashioned himself as champion of the Evangelicals during primaries and support was split between Cruz, Rubio, and Trump, and Trump has many moral foibles that could serve to put off Evangelicals. Trump needed to do something to keep them in his court and this is a low-hanging fruit as the only fallout is anger from foreign leaders, something Trump has shown he doesn't care much about (Paris Accord, German Trade, too many examples to list). This isn't just an Evangelical issue, the majority of republicans sympathize with Israel on the Israel/Palestine conflict, but this is a much more pertinent issue to Evangelicals because of the religious ramifications than it is to the broader republican base. The US gains nothing from this. It is true that Trump gains some goodwill from Israel as a result from this. What I mean is this action in and of itself doesn't translate into any tangible benefit for the U.S. as a country. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26665",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/18661/"
]
} |
26,669 | I was reading some questions on this site, and I stumbled up this comment . I'll transcribe the relevant parts of it here in case it ever goes away: You could throw in something about how Hillary actually won the national popular vote and how the electoral college system is seriously broken. ... And, technically, the United States is a republic, and the electoral college isn't representative (low population states are favored). -- @barrycarter (emphasis added). Is this claim really true? Thinking through it logically, it would make sense that in a hypothetical situation where a state has only a single resident, clearly that persons vote is a lot more important that someone who lives in California. But since states with smaller population have less electoral votes, that should counter this affect. But I don't know how large this compensation is. Is it enough to fully counter the higher influence of lower population states? And if it's not, is the higher influence of low population areas relevant to the state or to regions within the state (such as counties)? And another thought occurs to me. Is the electoral college intended to give smaller states more influence? It wouldn't seem unusual to me if it was designed so that each state has a certain amount of influence regardless of population so that extremely large states can't exert their will over all of the other states. | Yes it does, but there's a specific reason for it. It's important from a historical context to understand that the framers of the Constitution had 3 major concerns in mind when they created the Electoral College, all of them talked about one way or another in the Federalist Papers: To prevent politics from devolving into political parties. It obviously failed utterly in that regard. In the original Constitution, the President and Vice President did not run together as a team. Electors cast one vote each. The hope was that if the two were from differing political ideologies, they would have to work together to get things done. After two miserable electoral crises happened in the Election of 1796 and 1800 , the 12th Amendment abolished that system. To prevent a populist from getting elected. Again, current evidence shows us that this is yet another failure. The Framers were worried about the "tyranny of the majority" as they called it. The Electoral College was supposed to be completely independent of the electorate, being able to override them if a completely unqualified candidate got the popular vote. What actually happened is that states began passing laws that pledged ALL their electoral votes to the popular winner in their state -- even if the split was narrow, thus creating the "winner-take-all" system we have now. To "handicap" large states so that small states could still have a voice. This is where your question becomes relevant. The Framers were concerned that the largest, most populous states would "crowd out" the voice of smaller states, such that they would never be able to participate in the elections process in any meaningful way. Indeed, if we look at America today, 54% of the U.S. population live in just 9 states: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, and North Carolina. The next 9 most populous states (Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Arizona, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Indiana) take you to 75% of the population. Basically, a straight popular vote would mean that just 20 states (give or take) would be deciding all presidential elections. If you lived in Montana or Wyoming, you may as well not even vote. The Electoral College forces candidates to care about states like Iowa where they normally wouldn't. To the point of your question, the system is set up so that smaller states get a small edge so they can still be competitive in an election against bigger ones. Can it be done better? Well that's a whole other question. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26669",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/10013/"
]
} |
26,724 | At the beginning of November, Romanian government approved significant fiscal changes : The Government passed the highly criticized measure of transferring
most social contributions from the employers to the employees Since most labor contracts are negotiated using the salary before taxes, a direct effect of these changes is smaller net income for most employees, unless the labor contract is renegotiated. According to this article , the Government tried to tackle this issue by forcing employers to renegotiate labor contracts: Initiating collective negotiations in companies where no collective
labor agreement has been concluded will be mandatory for the
implementation of the new amendments to the Tax Code, according to a
Government document. However, the document doesn’t provide separate sanctions for failure
to comply with this obligation. Side note: Some argued [citation needed] that forcing private companies to operate salary changes not related to minimum wage is not constitutional. This is just an example of a law or rule that does not specify the penalty/punishment for not obeying it and I feel there are many such examples all over the world. Question: What is the purpose of issuing laws without penalty? Why would someone consider obeying it if there is no penalty? | Question: What is the purpose of issuing laws without penalty? Why would someone consider obeying it if there is no penalty? Laws without penalties are actually rather common. Thinking of laws in the narrow frame of the criminal law model where if you do what the law prohibits there is a punishment in terms of a fine or incarceration ignores the fact that there are many other kinds of laws which are more subtle. To Clarify Standards For People Who Are Self-Motivated By Duty and Culture To Obey The Law One purpose of a law without a penalty is to establish and clarify proper conduct which is directed at a group of people (e.g. judges, law enforcement officers, civil servants, people who are civic minded) who see it as their business to follow and apply the law and do so out of a sense of duty. For example, there is no practical punishment for a judge who rules in favor of someone who the judge believes is lying and against someone who the judge believes is telling the truth by stating that the judge believes the liar is telling the truth. We trust the judge to be sincere in ruling on the evidence even if there is no practical way to prove that the judge really is sincere. And, usually judges do that, in part, because they have no reason to prefer breaking the law to not breaking the law, and in part, because they were carefully selected for their job for their integrity. Similarly, in the U.S., law enforcement officers are immune from civil or criminal liability for exercising discretion not to enforce the law even if they could easily have done so. But, in practice, overzealous law enforcement is a much bigger problem in real life than law enforcement officers who ignore crimes out of indifference. Again, their sense of duty and purpose in their career causes them to fulfill a socially accepted role. Cultural norms, rather than laws that one can be punished for violating lead to compliance. Laws against discrimination in hiring are a less pure case, but demonstrate the same idea in the private employment market. In practice, it is virtually impossible for an individual job applicant to prove discrimination in hiring for a job where there are a large number of applicants, and it is quite difficult to prove even for a public agency using "tester" applicants and statistical evidence in the absence of an outright admission of the employer that the employer is discriminating in hiring. But, laws prohibiting discrimination in hiring have nonetheless had a profound effect on the way employers act in hiring employees, because most employers have a general policy of obeying the law and because the law has changed the corporate culture and norms concerning what hiring practices are acceptable, in general. To Create A Right That Can Be Specifically Enforced Even If There Is No Penalty For Violating It In The Absence Of An Order To Comply Often, a law that doesn't have a "penalty" attached to it, can nonetheless be specifically enforced. Thus, while an employer might not face a fine or imprisonment for not renegotiating, a court might order an employer to renegotiate, or might declare that a contract that was not renegotiated is no longer enforceable on the part of the party that refused to enter into renegotiation talks. To Clarify The Legal Effect Of Language In Other Laws Or Contracts Or Of Particular Kinds Of Conduct Many laws are also passed that instead of having a "penalty" per se are used to interpret other laws or agreements or situations. For example, a law might state that you are married if you do X, Y and Z, and this allows people to know if they are governed by the laws applicable to married people, or the laws applicable to unmarried people. Or, a law might state that if you use certain words such as "or my successors and assigns" in language transferring property, that you have created a permanent and transferrable property right, while if you do not use that language, you have only created a temporary right of the person receiving the property to use it for the rest of their life that is not transferrable. These kinds of laws are sometimes known as "rules of the road" statutes where the exact form of the rule is less important than having a clear standard for classifying a situation as belonging to one legal category or another. A similar law would be the definition of a "minor" as, for example, someone who is eighteen years old as shown by their birth certificate. There are consequences to being a minor or not being a minor that are legally relevant, but they aren't necessarily "penalties" in the strict sense of the word. To Clarify Undefined Rights There is a law that says who inherits from someone who dies without a will, something that would otherwise be undefined. The law establishes rights and there may be legal consequences for disregarding those rights, but it isn't really a law with a penalty involved for violating it in the same way that there is for violating a penal law such as a law that establishes a penalty for drunk driving. To Facilitate Collective Action Another purpose of laws without penalties is to facilitate collective action. For example, suppose that you pass a law declaring that December 9, 2017 is National Donut Day, and there are no penalties or enforcement mechanisms of any kind associated with that law. It is still likely that the existence of that law will cause donut vendors across the nation to offer special deals and promotions of their donuts at the same time and will cause media outlets to discuss National Donut Day, even though there are no penalties involved, in a way that would not have happened if a law hadn't existed to coordinate the efforts of the people promoting donut awareness. To Influence Public Opinion And The Perceptions Of The Parties In the Romanian case, it nudges employers who don't want to be perceived as anti-labor to the point of even violating a law (even if the law has no penalty) to renegotiate because ignoring the law will impact the course of the negotiations as perceived by their labor counter-parties, and the reputation of the company. Ignoring the law will probably give rise to publicity and usually when you break a law, even if it has no penalty, the publicity consequences of breaking it are bad. XYZ Corp. violates national labor laws is not a headline that most CEOs want to see in the papers. To Relieve Someone Who Complies Of Obligations To Third-Parties That Would Otherwise Exist Another possible impact of a law, even without penalties, is to relieve someone subject to the law from any penalty for taking the actions that the law requires. For example, if a corporate officer renegotiated a labor contract that otherwise wasn't up for renegotiation on terms less favorable to the company in the absence of such a law, the shareholders might have the right to sue the company or its officers for the corporate officer's indifference to their interests. But, if the corporate officers were required by law to do so, even if there was no penalty for not doing so, the shareholders could probably not sue the corporate officer for cutting this kind of deal. Similarly, suppose that the law states that an employee has a right to help someone in a manner unrelated to his job in an emergency. This might define an ambiguity in an employment contract or deprive an employer of the ability to punish the employee for doing so, even if this is not exactly a penalty. For Political Symbolism Sometimes laws that are found to be unconstitutional or are substantively repealed are kept on the books for symbolic political purposes. For example, in Colorado, adultery is illegal and remains in the criminal code, but there is no penalty in the criminal code for violating that section of the criminal code, it is actually a crime in Colorado to bring a civil action alleging adultery, and adultery is not a ground for divorce or a factor that can be considered in a divorce proceeding. But, legislators felt that actually repealing the adultery law as opposed to retaining a statute that says it is illegal with no penalty, would appear to condone conduct that is overwhelmingly viewed as immoral, at least. The fact that adultery is illegal in Colorado also prevents it from becoming a protected right. For example, an employer could fire an employee for adultery, or refuse to hire or promote someone because they have committed adultery, without violating Colorado law. Also, this illegality of adultery, even without penalty, validates the fact that in a defamation action, a knowingly false statement that someone has committed adultery is actionable and can provide a basis for an award of money damages for harm to a person's reputation. Several U.S. states have kept laws establishing religious tests in their state constitutions, even though those provisions have been held to be unconstitutional and unenforceable, as a symbolic way to show support for the religious majority. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26724",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
26,794 | Vladimir Putin ordered pullout of Russian troops from Syria. Why such a decision? Russia had entered Syria to ensure that Bashar-Al-Assad remain in power and the West do not put a puppet in power?
It would have been logical to let the troops stay in Syria till Assad ensures stability in the volatile country | Surely, that has to do with the previous announcement of such withdrawal made as early as 2016. See, for example, this question . Also, such possibilty was actively discussed in Russian media, and by Russian officials in a couple of previous months (for example, here , here and here ). But, just as in 2016, Russia is definitely not going to withdraw all the troops from Syria. At the very least, the military bases in Tartus and Hmeymim are leased for another 49 years. The Kremlin's official site cites Putin's speech on that matter (the translation is mine): Here [in Syria] we've established and will make use on the permanent basis of the two basing points: Tartus and Hmeymim. And if the terrorists will ever raise their heads again, we shall strike such a blow they haven't even seen before. So this announcement should only result in decreasing in the number of Russian troops in Syria, which seems quite natural after the successful campaign of 2017. On 12/12/17 only the following units are ordered to leave Syria: 23 jets, 2 Ka-52 helicopters, a special forces squad, a mine clearing squad, military hospital and military police (see here ). | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26794",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/18778/"
]
} |
26,897 | By now it's completely obvious that the Korean peninsula won't be reuniting any time soon. It's also quite likely that the South wouldn't want a full reunification anyway given the enormous economic differences between the two countries. So why won't South Korea officially abandon their claim to the North of the peninsula? What benefit is there in maintaining the charade? | Simply because abandoning territorial claims will do nothing: It will neither eliminate the military threat of the "North" Korea, nor would it relax the tensions. It requires enormous amounts of legal work, including adopting amendments to the Constitution of Korea. This is why: Both governments claimed sovereignty over the whole Korea, however in a different manner: Constitution of Korea (Article 3) claims its sovereignty over entire Korean peninsula ; Constitution of "North" Korea (Article 1) claims its sovereignty over all Korean people . Article 2 talks about "the liberation of the homeland" (obviously, including the "Southern" Koreans) from "imperialist aggressors". There is no peace treaty signed yet (the 1953 Agreement deals with armistice only ); Retracting the territorial claims can be done on a mutual basis , probably as a part of Peace Treaty , when both sides to retract their claims; There are reasons to think that the DPRK is not going to keep its promise, should any be given. Most likely, adopting amendments to the cornerstone articles of the Constitution would require conducting a National referendum and convincing the majority of the citizens. We could safely assume that there is a powerful lobby against that: the Wikipedia article for Korean reunification contains some introductory links that indicate controversy in public opinion. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26897",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
26,905 | How could the free market limit the effects of net neutrality's repeal? Specifically, how will consumers' internet access be protected without government regulation? | Almost all high-speed broadband Internet service providers, except in high-density urban populations, have limited competition, if not full monopolies. A small start-up would have to build out their own infrastructure with no existing customer base, which isn't going to happen, in most cases. This is why so many people want to treat the providers like a utility. This is why hypothetical "free market" constructs do not apply. The best way to use "free market" principles or competition to ensure net neutrality is for citizens to demand their municipalities build their own high-speed infrastructure and sell the services as a municipal utility under a net-neutral format. Then there would be actual choice and competition, but if the competition comes from a non-profit government or quasi-government entity, then the claim is that it's socialism, not free market. As the physical infrastructure and regulatory environment currently exists, there is no free market with ISPs, practically speaking, so using something that does not exist is not a possibility. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26905",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/18833/"
]
} |
27,029 | Can things like infidelity, crime, or immoral behaviour make a heir ineligible for succession of the British throne? | There are a number of things that would make you legally ineligible to succeed to the throne, but infidelity, (normal) criminal activity and immoral behaviour aren't to be found on that list. So, what would make you legally inadmissable? The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 indicates that if you're within the top six in line to the throne and you marry without the Queen's permission, you're disqualified from holding the throne, as are any offspring that results. A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons next in
the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her
Majesty before marrying. ... The effect of a person’s failure to comply with subsection (1) is that
the person and the person’s descendants from the marriage are
disqualified from succeeding to the Crown. The original Act of Settlement 1701 says that you have to be a direct descendant of Princess Sophia. Adopted children are therefore ineligible . That the most Excellent Princess Sophia Electress and Dutchess Dowager of Hannover Daughter of the most Excellent Princess Elizabeth late Queen of Bohemia Daughter of our late Sovereign Lord King James the First of happy Memory be and is hereby declared to be the next in Succession in the Protestant Line to the Imperiall Crown and Dignity of the [said] Realms of England France and Ireland with the Dominions and Territories thereunto belonging after His Majesty and the Princess Ann of Denmark and in Default of Issue of the said Princess Ann and of His Majesty respectively and that from and after the Deceases of His said Majesty our now Sovereign Lord and of Her Royall Highness the Princess Ann of Denmark and for Default of Issue of the said Princess Ann and of His Majesty respectively the Crown and Regall Government of the said Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and of the Dominions thereunto belonging with the Royall State and Dignity of the said Realms and all Honours Stiles Titles Regalities Prerogatives Powers Jurisdictions and Authorities to the same belonging and appertaining shall be remain and continue to the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants Children born out of wedlock that are later legitimised are also excluded since the Legitimacy Act 1959 specifically excludes Succession to the Throne. It is hereby declared that nothing in this Act affects the Succession
to the Throne. Catholics are explictly disqualified by the original Act of Settlement 1701 . This includes former Catholics, even if they've converted to the Protestant faith. Anyone who converts to Catholicism is also disqualified. Provided always and it is hereby enacted That all and every Person and
Persons who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown by vertue of
the Limitation of this present Act and is are or shall be reconciled
to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome ... should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any regall Power Authority or Jurisdiction within the same. ibid A direct refusal to take the Coronation Oath would invalidate your accession . Presumably the crown would then be offered to the next eligible heir. every King and Queen of this Realm who shall come to and succeed in the Imperiall Crown of this Kingdom by vertue of this Act shall have the Coronation Oath administred to him her or them at their respective Coronations according to the Act of Parliament made in the First Year of the Reign of His Majesty and the said late Queen Mary intituted An Act for establishing the Coronation Oath and shall make subscribe and repeat the Declaration in the Act first above recited mentioned or referred to in the Manner and Form thereby prescribed ibid | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/18833/"
]
} |
27,115 | Looking at the map of countries that legalized prostitution one can see a paradox - Sweden seems to be one of the harsher countries in Europe, even though they're leading the world in terms of overall liberalism . Why is this the case? Is there something in Swedish culture that strongly disapproves of "sinful" entertainment? | There are of course general concerns regarding prostitution, like trafficking and bad social implications, different countries has reached different conclusions here. The thing with Sweden is that we have a strong culture, at least in regards of media, to search for injustices and oppression. Strongly connected to this is the common view that women in general are victims of male privilege and oppression, where for example phenomena like the #metoo campaign gain huge traction and is on the front page of news papers for months. In this context, the idea that women can be seen as a sexual commodity to be bought by men is often seen as a preposterous. The gender factor in regards of prostitution is also a contributing factor to why it is illegal to buy but not to sell sex in Sweden: Male buyers are seen as taking advantage of vulnerable and distressed women, while female prostitutes are seen as victims of male privilege and oppression. Simply put, prostitution is strongly looked down upon in Sweden specifically because we have strong feminist movements (in different flavors and types) while prostitution is seen as both symptomatic and reinforcing of a structural male oppression and sexualization of women. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/27115",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
27,123 | There will be presidential elections in Russia in March 2018. EU and USA do not considered Crimea as part of Russia, however citizens of that region (around 2 million people) will take part in that vote. Does it mean that the EU and USA can't legally consider those elections legitimate? | First of all, there's a difference between recognizing that Crimea is a Russian territory and recognizing that Crimean residents are Russian citizens. Taking up the Russian citizenship was voluntary and the EU or the US cannot dictate whether or not a given person can become a Russian citizen by choice . There are still hundreds of thousands of dual Ukrainian-Russian citizens in Crimea and thousands others who refused to become a Russian citizen in the first place. Likewise international organizations cannot object to countries giving out their citizenship to residents of a certain territory, like in the case of Austria giving out their passports to residents of South Tyrol . Second, there are even countries where non-citizens are eligible to vote for Parliament. E.g. in the UK you can participate in the general election (or stand as a candidate) if: To vote at the UK general election you must be registered to vote and: be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen And I haven't heard of anyone contesting the validity of British elections... So to answer your question: no , Russian elections of any kind do not become illegitimate simply because Crimean residents can participate in them. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/27123",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
27,166 | Senator Ted Cruz proposed an amendment to the recent tax reform bill to allow funds from 529 plans to be used for homeschooling 1 , but the Democrats voted against it and it did not make it into the final bill. I found that Cruz has said that Democrats opposed his amendment because ...the democrats hate homeschoolers. They hate that anyone gets out of centralized control, and so they filed an objection on procedural grounds and managed to get homeschoolers excluded. I think it was discriminatory, I think it was wrong, but homeschoolers unfortunately the democrats cut out of the legislation. So for 50 million school kids across the country, the provision allowing parents to save for public or private or religious or parochial schools, that's in there. But homeschoolers unfortunately the democrats succeeded in pulling them out, and that's frustrating and maddening, but nonetheless a big victory for kids across the country. However, I couldn't find a statement by any Democrat as to why they opposed the amendment. I know that Democrats generally oppose school voucher programs which have a similar function as Cruz's amendment, so is that why Democrats voted against Cruz's amendment? I also know that Democrats generally oppose tax cuts -- and Cruz's amendment reduces the taxes paid by homeschoolers -- so is that why Democrats opposed it? On the other hand, Democrats generally support policies that increase taxes with the goal of reducing educational expenses paid by students and their families (e.g. offering "free college" ); Cruz's amendment seems to be in line with the Democrats' goal of reducing educational expenses paid by students and their families. Why did Democrats oppose Ted Cruz's provision to allow funds from 529 plans to be used for homeschooling? 1 529 plans offer tax advantages for educational expenses. | Here is the statement from Senator Wyden (D-Oregon) regarding his opposition to the amendment: Mr. President, Senator Cruz's amendment expands tax
subsidies for upper income households to aid private or parochial
schools by allowing 529 account balances to spend up to $10,000 a year
on private or parochial school tuition and supplies. Colleagues, this is nothing less than a backdoor assault on the
public K-12 education system. The real goal seems to be to take more
and more children from the public schools and put them into private
schools and shrink the funds that would be available to the public
schools that give all of America's children the chance to get ahead. Members should oppose the amendment because it undermines America's
public education system. Source: Congressional Record from Dec 1, 2017 Unfortunately, there's no anchor tag to link directly to the relevant portion, so you'll have to use your browser's find function with a portion of the quote to find it if you want to read it in the original source. Note that Democrats opposed the entire amendment, not only the part for homeschoolers. That said, while Democrats have traditionally opposed all non-public schools, most have been more opposed to homeschooling than to private schools. The reason that only the homeschooling portion of the amendment was blocked was because Democrats invoked a technicality in Senate rules that allowed them to block that portion, but would not have allowed them to block the other portions. Here are a couple of news articles describing the parliamentary procedure used to strip out the homeschooling portion in more detail: San Antonio Express-News: Democrats challenge Cruz's homeschool provision Wall Street Journal: Cruz Provision on 529 Plan for Homeschoolers Falls Out of Bill | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/27166",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7387/"
]
} |
27,259 | On May 2, 2011, Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed by US Special Forces during an early morning (approximately mid-afternoon on May 1 in the United States) raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The body of Osama Bin Laden was buried at sea, according to U.S. officials. What was the reason for the non-recovery of the body? Also, why was the option of capture off the table? Wouldn't this just cause more doubt? | Kill versus capture If they had captured Osama bin Laden, what would they have done with him? Barack Obama opposed the Guantanamo Bay facility, so they would have had to keep him on United States soil. Where? If captured, he would have been tried, convicted, and executed. So not kill versus capture but kill then versus later. His trial would have been an obvious target and excuse for retaliation. His trial would have kept him in the news, encouraging more attacks. He was perceived as dangerous at the moment that he was shot. Source When the commandos reach Bin Laden’s room on the third floor, an AK-47 and a Makarov pistol are seen in arm’s reach of Bin Laden. While there have been times and circumstances when the US military has taken prisoners intentionally, that's not really their job. Burial at sea If he had been buried on land, his grave would be a landmark. Supporters might use it as a rallying point or symbol. Opponents might vandalize it. No grave makes it harder to focus on a location. Obama's words in a 60 Minutes interview : "It was a joint decision. We thought it was important to think through ahead of time how we would dispose of the body if he were killed in the compound," says the president. Note that this also indicates that it was not guaranteed that bin Laden be killed at the compound. Capture was on the table. Published photos Ick. Who wants to see that? Another thing to make people mad. Obama said in the interview: It is important for us to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence. As a propaganda tool. You know, that's not who we are. You know, we don't trot out this stuff as trophies. You know, the fact of the matter is this was somebody who was deserving of the justice that he received. And I think-- Americans and people around the world are glad that he's gone. But we don't need to spike the football. And I think that given the graphic nature of these photos, it would create some national security risk. Summary Apparently they felt that the risks of a capture were worse than the risks of a death. So the mission parameters were such that they shot him rather than attempt a capture. Although apparently there were some circumstances in which he would have been captured, the reaction to the actual circumstances erred on the side of safety for the raiding party. Once he was dead, they seem to have focused on not making him any more of a martyr than he already was. That was more important than proving his death. Obama, from the same interview: You know, the truth is that and we -- we're monitoring worldwide reaction. There's no doubt that Bin Laden is dead. Certainly there's no doubt among al Qaeda members that he is dead. And so we don't think that a photograph in and of itself is going to make any difference. There are going be some folks who deny it. The fact of the matter is, you will not see bin Laden walking on this Earth again. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/27259",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/8793/"
]
} |
27,262 | According to this article Norway's prison system is very effective when compared to the one in US: incarceration rate - 75 / 100K compared to 707 / 100K in US recidivism rate - 20% compared to more than 75% in US (re-arrested within five years) Also, according to this skeptics question and answer , sending someone to prison is rather costly (the same order of magnitude as going to a top university). Clearly, there are cultural difference that might favor Norway when it comes to prison system, but I think there are also political factors. Question: Why does the US prison system seem so ineffective when compared to prison systems in other developed countries? | There are several things at play that cause the US prison system to look pretty crummy in comparison to several other countries. General societal hostility toward ex-convicts(Likely the most significant factor): Outside of a few states that have 'banned the box' , many convicts have enormous difficulty finding work, finding a place to rent. Even if they find work, it's almost always going to be hovering around minimum wage. Faced with that ongoing discrimination, it's not really hard to imagine them turning back to crime to support themselves. It's actually more surprising that recidivism is only hovering in the 70s, rather than closer to 100%. Cultural: Gang culture has infected our society https://www.colorado.edu/today/2017/03/22/gang-membership-seldom-originates-prison-new-study-suggests , and doesn't look as though it's going away any time soon. When a portion of your population glorifies violence, money, and is hostile to any form of authority, you're going to have a portion of population that will be exceptionally difficult to properly integrate into society (lack of integration almost inevitably leads to crime). Perverse economic incentives: Incarceration has become big business, from prison unions protecting lucrative jobs, to companies being given monopolies within the prison system(Until the FCC stepped in, there were instances of charging over $1 a minute for calls). Even more perversely, the money being earmarked toward rehabilitation and diversion programs has started to spawn less than effective private entities to take that money(much in the same way the huge infusion of money into higher education caused questionable institutions to pop into existence to consume that surplus). A reverse of privacy sensibilities: In most other industrialized countries, there is an acceptance of government intrusion of privacy, but other citizens snooping into your past is taboo, and made difficult by things such as 'the right to be forgotten' in the EU. With the advent of social media, and pervasive background checks, it's nearly impossible for someone with a record to move on from their past. There never really is a point where a former criminal can just move on, and behave like any other citizen. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/27262",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
27,282 | The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is, as far as I know, a fully government-subsidized British TV channel. Does that not make it an arm of the British government? While some may point to its independence, the same is claimed for the US judiciary system. Yet no one claims that its independence makes the US judiciary something other than a branch of the government. The BBC is an entity which was founded by the British government, which is funded by the British government, and which at times (most notably during WWII) was a propaganda arm of the government. Since the Russian channel RT (formerly " Russia Today ") was recently asked to register as a foreign agent, because it is owned by the Russian government, shouldn't the same be requested of the BBC? Is there any distinction? While it may be tempting to point to the fact that Russia is at odds (to put it mildly) with the US and GB is an ally, I don't think that British agents (of other branches of the GB government) are excused from registering as foreign agents. So what's different about BBC? | The relevant US law is the Foreign Agents Registration Act , which covers agents who act "at the order, request, or under the direction or control" of a foreign power. Therefore, institutional and editorial independence is the key. If the UK Prime Minister tells (say) an employee of MI6 or the Foreign Office to do something, that person is required to either do it or resign. This is not so for the BBC . Even during the Second World War , the BBC maintained its editorial independence; this was a deliberate policy, as it was believed the BBC would be more trusted if it was seen to be independent rather than a direct mouthpiece for government. Instead of comparing the BBC to agencies under direct government control, a better analogy would be a university. British universities receive most of their funding from central government; but the Prime Minister is unable to sack university professors at will, and the mere fact of being a professor at (say) Oxford University does not make a person an agent of the British government in any meaningful sense. Of course, both the BBC and Oxford University are part of the British establishment, and for cultural reasons will tend to reflect the establishment consensus; but that is a different matter from being agencies under the control of the government of the day. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/27282",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/13162/"
]
} |
27,325 | As per Wikipedia : As of 1 January 2017, Mauritian citizens had visa-free or visa on arrival access to 131 countries and territories, ranking the Mauritian passport 33rd in terms of travel freedom according to the Henley visa restrictions index. As of December 2017, Grenada, Serbia, Seychelles and Mauritius are the only countries whose citizens may travel without a visa to China, Russia and the Schengen Area. Mauritius does not have the bargaining power of European Union, it is not a superpower, it does not play an important role in global politics. What gives it the edge? I know about visa reciprocity, but Mauritius needs some bargaining power. | For many countries, the decision to allow visa free travel is based on the likelihood of abuse of the immigration system. In the case of Mauritius, the judgement is that Mauritian citizens do not represent a significant risk of overstaying. Mauritius has a stable democratic government and a successful economy, so Mauritian citizens are happy to return home. On the other hand, Mauritius is not so rich that it feels the need to protect itself from immigration. It is happy to allow visa free travel to encourage the tourist industry. Mauritius has a diverse population, with links to the UK, France (former colonial rulers), India and China (significant demographics). It has good relations with the superpowers and has benefited from this. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/27325",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/15403/"
]
} |
27,338 | I heard a prominent university professor say on the radio the other day that we shouldn’t worry about North Korea going nuclear, because Pakistan and India both went nuclear peacefully - is this an accurate comparison? Why or why not? It seems to me that there are many differences between DPRK and Pakistan and India, both in terms of their internal politics and in terms of their relationships to the US... | It is important to understand the vast geopolitical differences between the two situations of India and Pakistan developing nuclear weapons and North Korea developing nuclear weapons. India/Pakistan Nuclear Development Following Indian defeat in the Sino-Indian War , India decided that it needed some unconventional arms - nukes - to counter China's stronger conventional war resources and deter China from engaging in similar future conflict. The USSR was more than happy to provide resources for this nuclear development, having earlier tried to bring India into the Asian Collective Security System , which was an effort by the USSR to balance against Chinese influence in the region. Thus India conducted its first nuclear test, "Smiling Buddha" , in 1974. Pakistan, which has been at odds with India since the two countries were created, especially concerning border disputes in the Kashmir region , was understandably frightened by its neighbor acquiring nuclear weapons and wanted its own for deterrence against potential Indian aggression. China was more than happy to help to counterbalance Indian influence, so in 1998, Pakistan conducted its first nuclear test. So the important takeaway from this is that both India and Pakistan developed their nukes for defensive purposes, with support from great powers trying to balance against each other for influence in the region. Both maintain a No First Use policy. North Korean Nuclear Development After Japan surrendered in WWII, the Korean peninsula, formerly under Imperial Japanese control, was split between the US (South Korea) and USSR (North Korea). When the Cold War got underway, tensions flared. The Soviets provided some research-based aid in nuclear development, as did China later on ( source ), but after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, they had to turn to more clandestine means of advancing their program. There have been allegations against Pakistan, Libya, Ukraine, and others in helping the DPRK develop their weapons. (See the link above.) During the Cold War, the US had placed nukes in South Korea, but withdrew them in 1991 . Compare this to the first North Korean nuclear test being far later in 2006 . The DPRK has continually stated that its nuclear program is for self-defense . Any opinions about the validity of this statement or North Korean nuclear ambitions are subject to the unknowable motives of Kim Jong Un. Similarities and Differences Similarities: India, Pakistan, and the DPRK are non-signatories of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons . Differences: Indian and Pakistani nuclear arms were developed for reasons of self-defense, and they demonstrate this by maintaining a "No First Use" policy. India and Pakistan received ample support from great powers attempting to balance influence in their region, whereas a sizable portion of North Korean development was purely pursued independently, with aid coming from clandestine sources. Differences between countries that are pertinent to the nuclear issue: India and Pakistan are democracies, which for a variety of reasons which I believe to be outside the scope of this question, greatly decreases the chance of the decision being made to use nuclear arms. North Korea is a hereditary dictatorship, a system in which the head of state is less accountable to their people. North Korea is considered to be a rogue state and has little in the way of ties to other countries, and thus has less to lose by being aggressive. India and Pakistan by contrast have heavy economic and diplomatic ties around the world, which would be forfeit in the case of nuclear aggression on either side. In the end the greatest difference between the countries is that India and Pakistan demonstrably use their nuclear arms for deterrence, while North Korea uses theirs in combination with an unstable dictator (or at least, a dictator who believes it is to his advantage to appear unstable) to garner concessions from the world in what one could call blackmail. Whether this posturing has been beneficial to the DPRK in light of recent sanctions, especially those from China, upon whom the DPRK relies greatly and perhaps wouldn't have suspected of opposing them so strongly, is up for debate. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/27338",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/19100/"
]
} |
27,361 | Can the president order the construction of a wall in the southern border just by himself, such as with an executive order? What kind of approval does he need to initiate construction of such a wall? | The main problem is getting the money from congress. The US executive has a budget plan which is made by Congress. This budget plan says how much money the President is allowed to spend for what purpose. Building a border fortification requires labor and material, and unless Trump can somehow find a way to get someone else to pay for it ( good luck with that ), these must be paid from the federal budget allocated for this purpose. Fortunately for Trump Congress decided last year to allocate $1.6 billion to improving border fortifications . Unfortunately this is still short of the $2.6 billion the Department of Homeland Security requested for this purpose . If the Trump administration can somehow finance the construction, there might still be some minor local problems to solve. For example there are some environmental concerns . Improved border fortification doesn't just prevent people from migrating but also blocks the natural migration paths for animals. Environmental protection groups might go to court over this. Also, the building plans might interfere with local property rights. The US government can't just build fortifications on land owned by private people. When the owner doesn't want to sell, the government would have to try to acquire the land with eminent domain power. But when the owners are willing to put up a fight, this might require a lengthy lawsuit. At least one group is planning to exploit this to oppose Trump's border wall project. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/27361",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/19122/"
]
} |
27,410 | As Assange gets citizenship to Ecuador and becomes an official diplomat of the country, I'm wondering if there is any precedent for the UK to arrest him in that capacity for alleged transgressions that took place prior to assuming the post? | If the UK had accepted Ecuador's request to make Mr Assange an officially accredited diplomat , he would been immediately entitled to protection under the Vienna Convention , to which the UK is a ratified signatory . Specifically he would have enjoyed Article 29 which explicitly forbids the arrest of a diplomat. The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be
liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall
treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to
prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity. This is also considered a part of UK law, in relation to the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 , specifically article 2.5; Articles 35, 36 and 40 shall be construed as granting any privilege or
immunity which they [The Vienna Convention] require to be granted. Given his chequered past, it's likely that the Ecuadorians envisaged that the UK would accept their proposal (allowing him to leave their embassy unhindered), then immediately exercise their rights under Article 9 of the Vienna Convention to declare him persona non grata and ask him to leave the country. The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its
decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any
member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or
that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable.
In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either
recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the
mission. Instead, the UK exercised its rights (under the same article) and simply declared his appointment not acceptable. As to whether the pre-planned arrest of an accredited diplomat has occurred on British soil, the answer is that such a thing hasn't occurred for several hundred years. The last case appears to have been in 1717 with the arrest of Karl (or Carl) Gyllenborg , the Swedish Ambassador. His papers and person were seized when it became clear that he was part of a conspiracy against the Crown and he was imprisoned for five months before he was permitted to leave the country. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/27410",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/1659/"
]
} |
27,426 | As mentioned in an answer to this question , the UK refused to declare Julian Assange an Ecuadorean diplomat, presumably as it would allow him to leave the Ecuadorean embassy and the UK without being subject to arrest (thanks to the provisions of the 1961 Vienna convention on Diplomatic Relations ). However, Article 27 of that convention (on diplomatic communications) also states: 1.The receiving State shall permit and protect free communication on the part of the mission for all official purposes. In communicating
with the Government and the other missions and consulates of the
sending State, wherever situated, the mission may employ all
appropriate means, including diplomatic couriers and messages in code
or cipher.... 5.The diplomatic courier, who shall be provided with an official document indicating his status and the number of packages constituting
the diplomatic bag, shall be protected by the receiving State in the
performance of his functions. He shall enjoy person inviolability and
shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. 6.The sending State or the mission may designate diplomatic couriers ad hoc. In such cases the provisions of paragraph 5 of this article
shall also apply, except that the immunities therein mentioned shall
cease to apply when such a courier has delivered to the consignee the
diplomatic bag in his charge. Couldn't the Ecuadorean ambassador get Mr. Assange out of the UK simply by handing him a plane ticket, a letter for the Ecuadorean Government, and an official document naming him an ad-hoc courier for the delivery of that letter? | No. International treaties do not have force of law. The actual statute that has force of law in the relevant jurusdiction, i.e. the U.K. where the U.K. police would be acting, is The Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 . This imports parts of the Vienna Convention into law, the parts that are explicitly given in the schedule to the Act, and makes several modifications (mostly translating terms from terminology used in the Convention to terminology used in U.K. law) and additions along the way. The most interesting additions here are: the idea that the Sovereign can, by dint of an Order In Council laid before Parliament, withdraw immunities and privileges as xe sees proper from "such persons as connected with" the diplomatic mission, as stated in § 3 of the Act; and the idea that the Secretary of State gets to provide conclusive evidence for settling any questions of whether someone is entitled to privileges, as stated in § 4 of the Act. So whilst Ecuador could assign Assange courier status, the U.K. could, under its own law, in response (or even proactively) determine that that was not "proper", promptly have an Order In Council declaring the privileged courier status withdrawn, and have the Secretary Of State conclusively certify that loss of courier status. This is not a violation of the law. It is not even a violation of the terms of the convention, which does not require that any choice of couriers be allowed by receiving states any more than it requires that receiving states allow any choice of heads of missions. To put it another way: The law grants privileges to diplomatic couriers, but it does not guarantee that anyone at all can get diplomatic courier status. ad hoc is not ad libitum . Indeed, although it had not been abused enough by the time of the 1961 Convention for states to consider it worthwhile explicitly laying out that the rules about personae non gratae could be applied to diplomatic couriers, even though it was generally considered that they could, later draft articles from the International Law Commission explicitly dealt with this subject, clearly supporting the notion that the U.K. can follow U.K. law in this way and proactively or immediately deny Assange diplomatic courier status. These articles were instigated precisely because some states were seeing diplomatic bags and diplomatic courier statuses being abused. Here are Article 11 and Article 12 of a 1989 set of articles drafted by the International Law Commission, addressing this point and clearly indicating the way that the wind blows on this issue: Article 11. End of the functions of the diplomatic courier The functions of the diplomatic courier come to an end, inter alia, upon: (a) […]; (b) […]; (c) notification by the receiving State to the sending State that, in accordance with paragraph 2 of article 12, it ceases to recognize him as a diplomatic courier. Article 12. The diplomatic courier declared persona non grata or not acceptable 1. The receiving State may, at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the diplomatic courier is persona non grata or not acceptable. […] Observe that that very same text from article 12 is article 9 of the 1961 Vienna Convention. It is not just "some mail", either. It is a diplomatic bag , which is a communication of a particular nature. Its nature raises another political consideration that militates against this idea: It would not be politically astute of Ecuador to entrust state secret communications to someone known for the practice of leaking them . Further reading Eileen Denza (2016). "Diplomatic Couriers". Diplomatic Law: Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations . Oxford commentaries on international law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198703969. pp. 208–211. International Law Commission (1989). " Draft articles on the Status of the Diplomatic Courier and the Diplomatic Bag not accompanied by Diplomatic Courier and Draft Optional Protocols thereto, with commentaries ". Yearbook of the International Law Commission . United Nations. Dapo Akande (2012-08-17). The Julian Assange Affair: May the UK Terminate the Diplomatic Status of Ecuador’s Embassy? . Web log of the European Journal of International Law . Biswanath Sen (1988). "Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges". A Diplomat's Handbook of International Law and Practice . 3rd Edition. Martinus Nijhoff. ISBN 9789024736478. . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/27426",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/15898/"
]
} |
27,483 | According to reports in various media, Germany recently held a near-unanimous vote to create a post of anti-Semitism commissioner. While I'm aware of criticism of the post (mostly, for being a token gesture that isn't likely to be effective), I'm curious as to why the Left Party abstained from the vote? It was the only one - even the right wing AfD was onboard (for their own reasons, but still on board). | According to this newspaper article , it was for procedural reasons only. The motion was brought forward jointly by the Conservative (CDU/CSU), Social Democrat (SPD), Liberal (FDP) and Green groups. The Left group would have liked to formally co-sponsor the motion, too, but was excluded upon the Conservatives’ request. This due to the Conservatives’ policy of “no cooperation with extremist parties” (in their view, the Left and the AfD). From the article (my translation): The Left in particular considers this an affront. “I recommended that my group abstain”, Bundestag vice president Petra Pau of the Left tells taz [the newspaper]. They would likely have supported the motion if the other groups had allowed her group to weigh in on it, says Pau. “We were past that point already. I hope we can return to how it was handled during the previous legislative period.” | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/27483",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/115/"
]
} |
27,544 | Taking Trump out of the issue, Democrats have largely been united in their opposition to building a wall on the border with Mexico (with a notable half-measure in 2006 ). It became quite the negotiating point when they agreed to fund the wall for DACA citizenship in budget negotiations before the Jan 2018 shutdown, but saw no agreement from Republican lawmakers. . What are their main objections to a border wall? Note that fence and wall are synonymous for our purposes here. Moderator Notice: This question explicitly asks for the positions of the Democratic Party of the United States. Any answers which do not reference official publications by Democratic politicians will likely get deleted. | It's not clear to me that Democrats are opposed to border-wall construction ( your one source suggests they are fine with border walls/fences where necessary), so much as they opposed to some of the plans for full-border walls that have been put forth so far. Recently, in response to reports that the spending bill would include funding for a border wall, 5 Democratic senators released a letter voicing concerns over the cost, the effectiveness, and the legal issues of constructing it. We are also concerned with reports that there may be an effort to include funding for a very expensive new wall along the southern border with Mexico and a “deportation force.” According to non-partisan experts, the proposed new border wall could cost as much as $25 million per mile and raises considerable issues that have not been resolved by the Congress or the Department of Homeland Security. First, many experts believe that such a border wall will not work. Second, there is real concern that the Administration, put simply, has no plan to build the border wall. For example, the Administration has not detailed how to 1) use eminent domain and other procedures to acquire land from private landowners and Native American tribes, 2) design the wall, 3) locate the wall, 4) construct the wall, and 5) require Mexico to pay for the wall given the President’s clear and repeated promises that he would force Mexico to do so. Finally, there are objections to the construction of a wall from Democratic and Republican members of Congress that represent border states. Given these and other concerns, we believe it would be inappropriate to insist on the inclusion of such funding in a must-pass appropriations bill that is needed for the Republican majority in control of the Congress to avert a government shutdown so early in President Trump’s Administration. [...] Senator Charles Schumer Senator Richard Durbin Senator Patty Murray Senator Debbie Stabenow Senator Patrick Leahy Based on this letter, it appears their main objections to a full border wall are currently the cost-benefit ratio and the legal issues of taking land from Americans to build it on; objections that may not be unique to Democrats. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/27544",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12027/"
]
} |
27,573 | From what I've read (and please correct me if I'm wrong), Devin Nunes has created a memo that he wants to release but can't, for purposes that I do not know. What's in the memo is extremely important , supposedly, and condemning of the FBI and surveillance methods. I'm not entirely sure how it's related to the Mueller investigation (if it is) nor why Nunes couldn't release it himself (is it classified? I haven't seen anything to suggest it is). I'm adding a CNN video where Adam Schiff references the memo: Memo alleges FBI Abuses | The "Nunes Memo" is a 4-page document based on Republican congressman Devin Nunes' investigation that alleges that top FBI officials acted illegally to gain FISA warrants to conduct surveillance on the Donald Trump campaign. It is unclear what it says because it has not been released, supposedly because it reveals classified information about sources and methods that the FBI uses that might put those sources in danger or at least render them useless. Some Republicans (not all) allege that it is "bigger than Watergate" and will bring the FBI down, resulting in prison for several top officials. Others think that is way overblown . It possibly alleges that the FBI unethically (or illegally) used a source who was also on the Hillary Clinton campaign. What is likely (and this is just my opinion) is that the FBI got a warrant to conduct surveillance on a Trump campaign official (Paul Manafort, Carter Page, or Michael Flynn), as plenty of them were engaged in questionable business activity with high-level Russian officials, and that this led to something else being found. Ultimately, we will not know until the memos get released, which he can do himself (although it may be a bit risky to go around customary channels) or get the President to do. At the moment of writing, he has not even shown it to the Justice Department, so who knows. It is worth pointing out that, regardless of the potential veracity of its claims, this is entirely a partisan document. It was created in the House Intelligence Committee without input or consultation with the Democratic members of the committee, so the discussion of it once released is likely to be highly partisan. Nunes, a former Trump campaign advisor, you might remember, was the person behind the claim that Obama "wiretapped" the Trump campaign , so this is likely an extension of that. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/27573",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/13458/"
]
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.