US President Donald Trump has announced a package of measures to counteract the economic effects of the new coronavirus. On Monday, he urged Congress to draft a bill that would, inter alia, include tax relief for workers and loans for small businesses. Aid should also be considered for people who are paid hourly wages for whom particular hardship arises in the event of a loss of work due to an illness.

Political Action to Protect Those Economically Impacted by Coronavirus

On Tuesday, the president held talks with members of Congress and stated that meetings with airlines, cruise operators, and the hotel industry were also being planned, as these industries were particularly affected by the current crisis caused by the virus.

On Wednesday, Speaker Pelosi announced legislation aiming to protect Americans who have been infected. The legislation would include provisions for hourly workers who would be particularly hard hit if forced to self-quarantine, as well as provisions to ensure that employers could not punish workers for sick days caused by the coronavirus. Among other things, this should a combination of paid sick leave and unemployment insurance, as well as health-related protective measures such as provisions against price reductions and widespread free tests.

The previous week, Congress had already provided $ 8.3 billion in emergency funds to alleviate the issues associated with the coronavirus. These focused primarily on the immediate health concerns associated with the growing epidemic. Key provisions in this package included efforts to expand public health research, promote the production and distribution of test kits, and accelerate the diagnostic process.

This week’s bill aims to focus on the economic implications as more schools drop classes, companies cut annual conferences, airlines cut flights, and travelers and workers choose to stay at home. A deciding vote on Pelosi’s bill is expected for the early weekend. President Trump then needs to sign the bill.

National Emergency Declaration Frees Up Major FEMA Funding

Moreover, on Wednesday afternoon, it was announced that Senate Minority Leader Schumer and other senators had sent a letter to President Trump, urging him to declare the national emergency due to the virus. Today on March 14 Trump finally agreed, which allows the Federal Emergency Management Agency to use more than $ 50 billion from the Disaster Relief Fund to assist the local government in responding to the coronavirus.

The spreading coronavirus and a crash on the international oil markets had also caused the American stock market to collapse on Monday. The Dow Jones Industrial fell to its lowest level since the beginning of last year. In the past two weeks, the Dow had already lost almost eleven percent – burdened above all by the impending consequences of the coronavirus for the global economy. America’s Treasury Secretary Mnuchin said they would use whatever means are available to protect the American economy from the effects of the coronavirus. However, the situation was not comparable to the one in the financial crisis, he said, assuring the United States had the most resilient economy in the world.

Meanwhile, the number of infections in the US has skyrocketed in the past few days. The CDC health authority had initially spoken of 423 infections and 19 deaths from the virus on Monday. CDC chief Robert Redfield said in the appearance with Trump, the number is now more than 500 cases of infection. The development puts Trump’s government under increasing pressure to act. The president had tried to calm the population in recent days and argued that the situation was sometimes exaggerated. The general risk of infection in the United States is low, and the country is well prepared.

Vice President Mike Pence, who coordinates government efforts around the virus, also said on Monday that the general population’s risk of getting infected remains low. Older people and people with previous illnesses are particularly at risk. At the same time,Pence admitted that the country had to prepare for further infections.

L'articolo President Trump Promises Major Coronavirus Economic Relief Package proviene da InsideOver.

The US Senate voted in favour of a bipartisan measure that would limit US President Donald Trump’s authority to start military operations against Iran.

Bipartisan Effort to Restrict Trump’s War Powers

The resolution was authored by Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. He asserted that the President must win approval from Congress before engaging in future military action against Tehran. In a devastating blow to Trump, eight Republicans sided with the Democrats on Wednesday on a procedural motion to force a vote on the issue as early as Thursday, according to the Associated Press.

Both Trump and his supporters have argued that the legislation sends a signal of weakness to Iran and other potential adversaries.

However, Kaine and his supporters said the measure was not targeted at Trump or his presidency, but instead characterised them as a significant reassertion of congressional power to declare war.

Which Republicans Supported the Resolution?

The legislation had the support of GOP senators like Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who supports the President’s foreign policy towards Iran, but also believes that Congress cannot escape its constitutional responsibility to act on issues of war and peace.

Although Kaine’s measure had cross-party support, it is understandable why the President and his supporters believe this bill is targeted at his presidency. The Democratic Senator was Hillary Clinton’s running mate in the 2016 US Presidential Election, and many in his party opposed Trump’s order to kill Iranian General Qassem Soleimani last month.

This is why the Senate’s Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, opposed the bill because he believes that it sends the wrong message to the US’s allies.

No Guarantee Resolution Will Become Law

There is no guarantee that the legislation will become law yet. Now that it has passed the Senate, the House of Representatives could take up the former chamber’s resolution later this month.

Also, if Trump vetoes the resolution, it would require two-thirds of both chambers to overturn the President’s veto.

All US presidents since George W. Bush have enjoyed an expansion in executive authority to declare war following 9/11. According to Chris Edelson, assistant professor at American University’s School of Public Affairs, Congress has struggled to challenge any sitting president who has overstepped the limits of their emergency powers.

During 2011, Congress failed to challenge Barack Obama’s executive order to declare war on Libya, a conflict arguably as controversial as the 2003 Iraq War, and the former president’s decision to order attacks against ISIS was not thwarted by the legislature either.

This is why Kaine’s resolution is so radical because it could limit the executive’s authority to declare war for the first time in almost twenty years.

Expansion of Executive Authority is Nothing New

But as the American University argues, presidents pushing the limits of executive authority when it comes to national security is not entirely new. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, though he secured congressional authorisation to do so.

As another example, Harry Truman ordered the Secretary of Commerce to seize and control the country’s steel mills to produce weapons during the Korean War, which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional.

For those who believe that the legislature should have the final say to authorise the executive’s decision to declare war, Kaine’s legislation is a welcome move. However, at a time when the nature of war is changing and terrorist attacks are becoming more sophisticated, it could weaken Trump’s authority to act quickly if an individual or terrorist group poses an imminent threat to the US. This was the main reason why Bush was awarded those powers in 2001 and why no president has faced the prospect of being robbed of them until now.

Checks and balances are needed. Arguably⁠—the Bush administration went too far in its waterboarding of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay⁠—but with Iran becoming more threatening, this bill could not come at a worse time for the Trump administration or for American readiness to face national security threats.

L'articolo The Senate Has Decided To Restrict Trump’s War Powers proviene da InsideOver.

Following the impeachment of President Donald Trump in the US House of Representatives, a trial in the Senate will be held. The Democratic party’s issue: Republicans hold the majority and have already indicated that the procedure will be quickly settled in favor of the President.

There are not many precedents when it comes to the impeachment process. With the impeachment cases of Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1998 and Democratic President Andrew Johnson in 1868, there have only been two trials against a Commander-in-Chief in the Senate to date. However, both trials were conducted for weeks, and in both instances, Democratic Presidents faced a Republican majority in the Senate.

The US Senate’s Job According To The Constitution Is Clear

The Constitution lays out the Senate’s obligation to now conduct a quasi-trial against the accused. In such a process, the Senators act as jury members who ultimately come to a fair and non-partisan verdict. As such, the leadership of the Republican Senate will undoubtedly examine the deterrent example of President Johnson’s 1868 trial in preparation. The endless delays due to litigation led to considerable public fatigue and the process took almost a quarter of a year.

Andrew Johnson: A Key Precedent

Johnson had been charged with breaching the Tenure of Office Act, which was triggered by Johnson’s dismissal of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, who ought to have been protected by the act as mentioned above. With Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding, the GOP had the two-thirds majority required for Johnson’s impeachment.

However, several Republicans saved a Democratic President, who took office after the murder of Abraham Lincoln. In the end, a single vote for a 35-19 conviction for impeachment was missing, and Johnson continued to govern for the last nine months of his term.

However, the impeachment and the trial against President Johnson had a strong political impact on the balance between the legislative and executive branches of government. The non-dismissal made it clear that a President should not be dismissed due to being unpopular or a partisan target. In turn, it reduced the President’s influence on the public discourse and governance and promoted a system of government that President Woodrow Wilson would refer to as the “Congressional Government.” Nonetheless, in the end, Johnson had been damaged so severely that his party declined to grant him the presidential nominee for another term.

More Lessons From The Impeachment Trial Of Bill Clinton

In the Clinton case, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist opened the trial on January 7, 1999, less than three weeks after Clinton had been impeached in the House of Representatives. However, the first seven days were mainly spent on procedural issues, while the actual process that followed took almost four weeks.

For Clinton, just as for Trump now, two articles of impeachment were successfully voted on in the House. One for perjury and one on obstruction of justice. Both came as a result of the Lewinsky affair.

As with President Trump, Clinton’s removal from office was very unlikely. The hurdle of the two-thirds majority is simply a very high one and was chosen by the Founding Fathers on purpose. Compared to Trump, however, Clinton had the disadvantage that his party in the Senate was only a minority with 45 out of 100 seats. It meant that while Democrats were able to prevent a two-thirds majority and subsequent removal from office, it was the Republican’s prerogative to establish the process’ guidelines for everyone to adhere.

As a result, the Democrats were not able to block the prosecutor’s request to testify. On the other hand, Trump’s Republicans now have the power to keep unwanted witnesses out of the nimpeachment process. Chaired by Rehnquist, Clinton was acquitted of both articles of impeachment on February 12, as neither received the two-thirds majority required for the Senators present to be sentenced and removed from office⁠—in that case, 67. On Article 1, 45 Senators voted in favor while 55 voted for the acquittal, and 50 Senators voted in favor of Article 2 for the conviction and 50 for the acquittal.

This Impeachment Trial Is Unprecedented

The situation this time will be different than in the cases of Clinton or Johnson, as the impeached individual⁠—Trump⁠—will be judged by a jury of his very own party. Those who think that Senate Republicans could act as unbiased moral instance are sure to be disappointed. Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made this abundantly clear when he stated that he would cooperate with the White House legal team. The process the world will witness in 2020 will thus be a purely partisan one. Democrats will call it a broken system, in which a guilty person can get away with crimes whenever the partisan circumstances are in his favor, while Republicans will cast it as righteous defense of an innocent man.

L'articolo Imperfect Union: The Upcoming Senate Trial and the Constitution’s Limits proviene da InsideOver.

“With my signature today, you are witnessing the birth of the Space Force, and it is now officially the sixth branch of the United States Armed Forces,” said Trump at the Andrews Air Force base near Washington. Space was the newest military area of ​​operations.

And indeed, with President Trump’s signature under the 2020 defense budget, the path is clear for the creation of a new military unit, the first one since 1947. It is a significant success for Trump, who had campaigned for the formation of his Space Force. 

Trump has repeatedly called for space forces to be created. In August, he established a Spacecom military command for space. To found the actual Space Force, however, he needed Congress’ approval.

This month, amid all the impeachment shenanigans, Republicans and Democrats agreed in Congress to introduce Space Force by rebranding the existing Air Force Space Command.

Unlike the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marines or the Coast Guard, Space Force, just as the name indicates, will operate in a rather different area, i.e., space. The primary goal is to maintain the US’ hegemony in space, also because, according to Trump, it will become a new war front in the future. 

Space was a new war front, Trump said on Friday evening, making it clear that creating independent space forces was a big step. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper also said the Space Force’s mission is to defend US domination in space.

The United States Space Force will become an additional unit in the military alongside those mentioned above. However, it is directly linked to the Air Force and will be led by General Jay Raymond. 

“He will be the very first member of the Space Force,” said Trump. The commander – who reports to the head of the Air Force – has yet to be confirmed by the Senate. The current plan does not provide for additional soldiers for the “Space Force,” these will be recruited from the Air Force, altogether 16,000 soldiers and civilians. 

When Trump first communicated his plans for Space Force to the public last year, it was primarily ridiculed. Too expensive and irrelevant. A pure symbol. Even the Defense Department had reservations about the President’s plans.

However, it is now clear that space plays an essential role in defense and modern warfare, for example, through satellite-based technologies and weapon systems. Even NATO declared space an independent military area this year. While French President Macron even announced the establishment of a military space command in July.

The USA currently dominates space, but Russia and China are catching up and have already registered their claims. While the current plans for the US do not include science fiction scenarios of deploying soldiers into orbit, Space Force will protect US property in space, such as hundreds of satellites that are being utilized for communicating and for gathering intelligence.

The timing is no coincidence. US military experts have continued to warn about China’s and Russia’s advancements in what is called the military’s final frontier. 

Vice-President Pence even stated that Russia, as well as China, possessed airborne lasers and anti-satellite missiles that the US needed to counter. “The space environment has fundamentally changed in the last generation,” he said. “What was once peaceful and uncontested is now crowded and adversarial.”

All three states had tested weapons that have the capacity of destroying a satellite, according to research by the Secure World Foundation, which records military capabilities in space.

L'articolo The Final Frontier: President Trump Introduces Space Force proviene da InsideOver.

Being a state should not be an issue to be discussed in a democratic country. Not when it comes to Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States of America, not to be confused with the state of Washington, the first located on the east coast, the second north-west of America, on the Pacific coast and near the Canadian border.

It is not a difference so obvious even for the Americans, helped however by an acronym that for centuries indicates the federal district to which it belongs: the US Constitution provided for a federal district under the exclusive jurisdiction of the US Congress, and in the early Nineteenth century the District of Columbia Organic Act officially organized the District and placed the entire territory under the exclusive control of the federal government.

Two centuries ago the district included the counties of Washington and Alexandria, a referendum first and then a further Act abolished Washington County and donated Alexandria to the state of Virginia. This ensured that the City of Washington and the District of Columbia became one same entity, sharing its legal status.

Today Washington, D.C. covers an area of ​​177 square kilometres, although the metropolitan area is also developed on seven counties in the state of Maryland, five counties in Virginia and five autonomous cities of the same state.

A bit confusing for the city that houses the main institutions of the government of the United States, from the President to the Congress and the Supreme Court, as well as ministries, federal agencies and various international organizations.

So far so good, except that the capital of the United States does not benefit from the same rights as the rest of the country: “taxation without representation”, reads the message on most of the license plates in the district and that has become popular among over 700,000 residents, more than those in the states of Vermont and Wyoming.

So why a district and not a state? Among the aims of the Founding Fathers there was the will to ensure that the American capital remained autonomous and not under pressure from politics, but today the discussion is different. The politician who represents the District of Columbia at the House of Representatives, Eleanor Holmes Norton, has no permission to vote on the final passage of any legislation and therefore is of no importance in the Senate.

Despite the Section 8 of the first Article of the Constitution reading that “[the Congress has the power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States […],” it is not explicitly said that Washington, D.C. cannot become a State.

Only in 2019, was the historic hearing discussed at the US House of Representatives on the district’s statehood, the first hearing in 26 years. Legislation strongly supported by Norton that would grant the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House – the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 – was passed by the United States Senate on February 26, 2009. However, the legislation stalled in the House and failed to pass before the end of the 111th Congress.

Supporting the Democratic politician, also the mayor of Washington, D.C. Muriel Bowser, born and raised in the American capital and charge since 2014.

“True liberty demands that every resident has representation,” reads the website of the city government dedicated to the statehood action. The week of events and demonstrations that preceded the hearing started with hundreds of flags with 51 stars put up down Pennsylvania Avenue NW – between the White House and the Capitol – to emphasize the opinion of the Mayor Bowser’s office.

“And yes, we are indeed more brown and more liberal than some of you, but denying statehood would be unfair no matter who was affected. It would be unfair if we were conservatives from a rural district built around agriculture, or an industrial city in the heartland. This is America, and Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law, and that is why we are demanding statehood”. This is how the mayor boomed during the hearing referring to the law H.R. 51, proposed by Norton in the beginning of 2019, and which seems to have found enough cosponsors to nearly assure passage totalling to 218 voting cosponsors.

Back to November 2016, the citizens of Washington, D.C. had a chance to vote for the first time for statehood, casting ballots in favour of petitioning Congress to allow it to become the 51st American state and be represented in the US Congress. The referendum showed that 87 per cent of the district voters were overwhelmingly in favour of statehood, and only 13 per cent dissenting. But a Gallup survey published last June found that only 29 per cent of Americans as a whole support statehood, with 64 per cent opposing it.

Before the final decision of the Senate, if D.C. could not become a state, Washingtonians would continue to pay the same federal taxes as other American States do, without being represented and without the possibility of seeing an historic moment like this soon.

L'articolo Why Washington, D.C. Will Not Become the 51st US State proviene da InsideOver.