Justice Served In Detroit

By Tanner McCarron

On July 28^th of this past summer, Detroit became the largest city in American History to file for bankruptcy. The Detroit Free Press published a report investigating the causes to the fall of one of America’s great cities. The article lists reckless borrowing and staggering deficits as detrimental to the Motor City; however, the greatest cause of the city’s to ruining was not a financial deficit; rather, it was a deficit in leadership. Detroit’s mayors over the past several decades, were quick to beef up pensions and government benefits but failed to make the tough choices that were needed to secure the long term interests of the city.¹ Former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick epitomized this type of disastrous leadership that led Detroit from being the city of soul and cars, to being the city of unemployment and crime.

Kwame Kilpatrick served as mayor of Detroit from 2001-2008. His administration came to a scandalous end when explicit text messages revealed that he was having an extra-marital affair with his chief of staff.² Unfortunately, the affair was hardly the worst thing he did to the people of Detroit. During his tenure as mayor, he received bags of cash from city contractors worth up to tens of thousands of dollars; moreover, he frequently crisscrossed the country in private jets. He turned tax-exempt non-profit organizations into political slush funds and used his political position to commit bribery and extortion for his own financial gains.³ While he was lining his pockets, his city was becoming infested with crime, and the central driver of the local economy, the automotive industry, was balancing on the precipice of extinction.

On the October 10^th 2013, Kwame Kilpatrick was sentenced to 28 years in prison. He was found guilty on 24 counts and charged with running a “criminal enterprise” out of city hall, from which he steered more than 127 million dollars in government contracts to his friend Bobby Ferguson.⁴ Corruption cases of this magnitude typically reap a punishment of 15 years for the accused. However, due to Kilpatrick’s prior issues with the law, the judge ruled a 28-year sentence.  A variety of prior run-ins with the law weren’t raised in the trial, including: perjury, failure to pay restitution, and multiple probation violations. In his resignation speech Kilpatrick proclaimed, “Detroit, you done set me up for a comeback”. ⁵ Thankfully for the people of Detroit, a political comeback is no longer in the cards for Mr. Kilpatrick.

In the grand scheme of things, the amount of money that Kilpatrick cost the city of Detroit is only a fraction of the 18 billion dollar debt that led the city to bankruptcy court. The criminal acts of extortion and bribery that he committed were just as harmful to the city as the decisions his predecessors made by borrowing vast sums of money to cater to special interests, knowing full well that the city could not afford to pay back. Whether convicted of a crime or not, every mayor of Detroit is equally responsible for the current state of the city. Although not every mayor will be held accountable for his tenure as a mayor in court of law, on Thursday, October 10^th, Kwame Kilpatrick was.

Bibliography

Associated Press.  “ I’m ready to go: Ex – Detroit Mayor Kilpatrick sentenced

To 28 years in prison for corruption”.  Washingtonpost.com. 10 October 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ex-detroit-mayor-kilpatrick-who-put-city-hall-up-for-the-right-price-faces-prison-sentence/2013/10/10/cdfcc0e4-316a-11e3-ad00-ec4c6b31cbed_story.html.

Erick M.L, Schaefer Jim, Swickard Joe, Schmitt Ben. Kilpatrick to city: “ There’s

Another day for me”. Freep.com. 4 September 2008.  http://www.freep.com/article/20080904/NEWS01/309050001/Kilpatrick-city-There-s-another-day-me-.

Borney Nathan, Gallagher John. “How Detroit went boke: The answer may

May surprise you”. Freep.com. 15 September 2013. http://www.freep.com/interactive/article/20130915/NEWS01/130801004/Detroit-Bankruptcy-history-1950-debt-pension-revenue.

Fontaine, Smokey. “ Kwame Kilpatrick’s Scandalous Texts Messages

Revealed”.  Newsone.com. 13 March 2009.  http://newsone.com/128681/kwame-kilpatricks-scandalous-text-messages-revealed/.

Woods, Ashley. “ Kwame Kilpatrick Sentenced, Former Detroit Mayor Gets

28 Years in Prison on Corruption Charges”. Huffingtonpost.com. 10 October 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/kwame-kilpatrick-sentenced-prison-detroit-corruption_n_4066248.html.

The Government Shutdown: A Comparison to Athenian Political Structure

By Adam Schilt

As stated in the Constitution, Congress has a key duty to pass spending bills in order to fund the government.  The importance of this responsibility was emphasized on September 30^th, 2013, when most functions of the government shut down as a result of Congress not passing the spending bill by the end of their fiscal year, that evening.

The principal reason as to why the bill was not passed is that House Republicans were insistent on making cuts to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.  The act is not directly associated with the federal spending bill, but some Republicans chose to use it as leverage in order to garner enough votes to derail Obamacare.  The Republicans would like to add provisions to the spending bill that would defund the Affordable Care Act, a goal, which, in the minds of some in Congress, is worth undercutting the daily functioning of the government.

The Democratic led Senate and the Republican run House of Representatives are at odds thus far in the shutdown.  For example, the House proposed amendments to Obamacare on Monday, which the Senate immediately rejected.  Furthermore, in the overnight, the House voted in favor of more ill-fated anti-Obamacare amendments, which the Senate promptly shut down as well.  On October 2, President Obama then organized a meeting with the House and Senate leaders of both parties.  During this meeting, Obama made it clear that he was not willing to compromise or engage in give-and-take negotiations.  Finding a solution to the spending bill will have to come from the Executive and Legislative branches acting in unison, or waiting for political party to outlast the other in this stalemate.

An interesting comparison to draw from the current government shutdown to something more abstract, is the concept of spreading power among different parts of the government, an idea which dates as far back as the restructuring of Athenian politics during the 6^th century B.C.  The Reforms of Cleisthenes involved the reorganization of Athenian government operations.  Specifically, there was a Council of Five Hundred that comprised equal representatives of each of the ten tribes in Attica.  Every tribe had a tenth of the year to lead the Council.  This was done to help manage the large group, prevent an individual faction from gaining too much power, and also to discourage the use of bribery.  The system was remarkably successful and represents the early beginnings representative democracy, serving as a model for the United States.

The question we have to ask in reference to the Affordable Care Act and the government shutdown is how did this revolving door of power in the Council of Five Hundred allow for the government to function so smoothly?  The United States’ current system of elections every two years in the House and staggered elections occurring every two years for six-year terms in the Senate affords room for Congress to possess power for much longer than the Council of Five Hundred.  This leaves the potential for our politicians to take advantage of the security that their lengthy terms provide.  The protection provided by the lengthier terms leaves room for dysfunction, which can be seen right now in Congress.

Have We Moved Beyond Racism?

By Andrew Costello

“The question is whether the Act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements” (Supreme Court, 2013, 6). These words encapsulate the methodology of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down key components, principally Section 4, of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). Section 4 of the VRA set up both special jurisdictions for federal overview and the principal formula for determining said special jurisdictions among states according to where there has been a history of voting discrimination. Furthermore, Section 5, the main target of the Supreme Court’s decision, dictates that those special jurisdictions mentioned in the fourth section were required to have Federal preclearance when implementing any “change affecting voting” (DOJ, 2013). The changes mentioned in the decision refer to a variety of legislative tactics used to disenfranchise voters; for example, among practices that previously required clearance are gerrymandering, voter ID laws, and literacy tests all of which are used to specifically target minority voters.

Is the decision in Shelby Country v. Holder to strike down key provisions of the VRA truly necessary constitutionally, or even appropriate for the times in which we live? Throughout the explanation of his decision, Roberts emphasizes that “history did not end in 1965,” (Supreme Court, 2013, 24) espousing the idea that states should not be penalized for their past actions. “In assessing the ‘current need’ for a preclearance system that treats States differently” says Roberts, “history cannot be ignored” (Supreme Court, 2013, 24). The history, to which he is referring, is the fact that the situation for minority voters in states within the jurisdictions has greatly improved due to the VRA. Therefore, to Justice Roberts, the VRA is no longer necessary, but rather a blight on the “fundamental principle sovereignty” held among states (Supreme Court, 2013, 14). This would be a compelling argument, if it rested on facts and reason, two essential attributes in which Justice Roberts’ argument is completely lacking. Judge Richard A. Posner of the 7^th Circuit of Appeals in his review of Shelby noted that “there is no such principle;” furthermore, “apart from the spurious principle of equal sovereignty, all that the majority had on which to base its decision was tenderness for ‘states rights’” (Posner, 2013). According to Posner, Roberts and his conservative colleagues have made a figment of their imaginations the foundation of the debasement of the most important civil rights legislation ever.

With the principle idea of Roberts attack on the VRA discredited, the only thing left to ponder is if Roberts was actually correct in his assertion that the VRA is no longer needed, that racism is no longer an issue.  Justice Ginsburg feels that it is, expressing her bafflement the VRA’s gutting by saying, “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet” (Supreme Court, 2013, 64). Indeed, hours after the VRA was struck down, Texas enacted a harsh voter ID law. Thus, according to the evidence presented by facts and reason, racism is still alive and well in the United States, and still a problem in the special jurisdictions identified by the VRA. After the court’s decision, it will be interesting to see if state governments will make use of their newfound freedom. Unfortunately, I am sure that the Supreme Court will supply no guidance or aid in support of  “the perpetuation of racial entitlements” (Davidson, 2013) as Justice Scalia has so fondly called the rights protected by the now defunct VRA.

Bibliography

Davidson, Amy. "In Voting Rights, Scalia Sees a “Racial Entitlement”." The New Yorker. The New Yorker, 28 Feb. 2013. Web. 15 Sept. 2013.

"History of Federal Voting Rights Law." Civil Rights Division Home Page. The United States Department of Justice, n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2013.

Posner, Richard A. "Entry 16: The Voting Rights Act Ruling Is about the Conservative Imagination." Slate Magazine. Slate Magazine, 26 June 2013. Web. 15 Sept. 2013.

"Supreme Court Decision in Shelby County v. Holder." Supreme Court Decision in Shelby County v. Holder. Supreme Court of the United States, 25 June 2013. Web. 15 Sept. 2013.

Cannabis in the United States

By Elorm Sallah

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), marijuana in the United States “is the most commonly use illicit drug” with 17.4 million past-month users in 2010. And in 2012 it was reported by the NIDA that 78.6 percent of illicit users use marijuana, with 60.1 percent of users stating marijuana was the only drug that they used.¹

Although marijuana has a strong presence in many cultures in America, particularly adolescence, and young adults, efforts to prevent users has been strongly enforced since the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as well as President Nixon’s declaration of the “War on Drugs” in 1971, which is federal policies, and military efforts to prevent the use of illicit drugs within the United States.

As of 2013, only two states in the nation have legalized cannabis, Washington state, and Colorado, while many states which include California, Nevada, Oregon, Alaska, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island all have enacted both medical and decimalization laws with in the last 15 years.

In addition, numerous states that have either decriminalized marijuana possession laws, or have enacted medical cannabis laws, almost half of the states in the United States have no such laws or regulations, making users susceptible to severe fines, and possible jail time.

In 2009, Gil Kerlikowske, the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy clarified that the federal government will uphold their position of marijuana as being “dangerous and has no medical benefit.” ² Additionally in 2012, the Obama administration stated that it “steadfastly opposed legalization of marijuana and other drugs because legalization would increase the availability and use of the illicit drug, and pose significant health and safety risks.”³

According to the FBI, there have been nearly eight million cannabis arrests in the United States since 1993, and the majority of these arrests are possession – which does not include manufacturing or distributing marijuana.⁴ In 2008 alone, there were 847,864 persons arrested for marijuana possession, and of that number only 752,224 were charged with possession only. Marijuana accounts for nearly half of all drug arrests in the United States.⁴

In recent years, many prominent politicians have come out in favor of the legalization of marijuana or the reduction of penalties faced with possession of cannabis.  Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (R) is for some sort of federal legalization of the drug.  In an April 2012 interview for rawstory.com, he stated, “When we legalize marijuana, we’re going to take steps toward drug reform, which will start off with looking at drugs as a public health issue, rather than a legal issue.”⁵

In addition to legalizing marijuana usage based on recreational purposes, many political figures state that legalizing cannabis would lead to a reduction of cartel violence in Mexico and Central America. US officials state that 60 percent of Mexican cartel revenues come from marijuana that is sold in the United States, so with current legalization and future initiatives for the legalization, it is possible that the current drug cartel violence within Mexico can decrease, as there will be a greater legal availability of American grown marijuana.

¹ http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/marijuana-abuse/what-scope-marijuana-use-in-united-states

² http://www.komonews.com/news/local/52676987.html

³ http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/marijuanainfo

⁴ http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/arrests/index.html

⁵ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/20/former-nm-gov-gary-johnson-legalize-marijuana-to-reduce-violence/

⁶ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/20/former-nm-gov-gary-johnson-legalize-marijuana-to-reduce-violence/

What the Navy Yard Shooting Will Mean for Gun Control Reform

By Rosalba Gleijeses

Often a source of much contention in national policy debate, gun control legislation has been once again thrust into the limelight in the tragic aftermath of this week’s Navy Yard shooting. In the wake of the Newton massacre this past winter, a Senate bill was introduced that sought to establish more rigorous background checks in the purchase of firearms, ban the purchase of military-style rifles, and limit the size of ammunition magazines. Despite attempts to overrule a filibuster, the bill failed to pass in April. Ardently dismayed by Congress’s squandering of the bill, President Obama has since pledge to make control a priority. However, the issue has yet to resurface on the floor on Congress, which begs the question: will this issue quickly fade into legislative oblivion after the immediate shock and grief subside?

The answer seems dismal, if patterns perpetuate. After the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, gun control received a surge in media coverage.  Interest quickly dissolved when the issue no longer remained a legislative issue being addressed on the floor. The President’s statements prove influential in spiking media coverage, but only briefly, where this issue will likely remain untouched until violent tragedy strikes again. An unfortunate side effect of the waning media coverage is that many citizens are unaware or the current gun control legislation.

As of 2010, 40-45% of households in the US had at least one firearm. Roughly 67% of documented murders in the United States are committed with firearms. What are the current rules to regulate this? In 1976, Washington, DC passed a law that prohibited individuals from possessing handguns, while also requiring that all firearms in private home be kept unloaded and rendered temporarily inoperable, by means of disassembly or installation of a trigger law. In 2008, however, the US Supreme Court struck down the law as unconstitutional in a 5-4 ruling. Current federal law deems it illegal to import, manufacture, deal, or transport a firearm without a license to do so (64 USC 18). However, federal law does not require that an individual undergo a background check when transferring or selling a firearm within the same state. Are these means alone the extent of sufficient, constitutional gun control?

In the immediate aftermath of situations like those of Navy Yard, and all other mass shootings, the public ardently preaches the need for stricter gun control. But as with the trend of media coverage, this fervor softens as tragedies slip farther into the past. Alternatively, there are a considerable amount of Americans that would vehemently defend their Second Amendment rights. Unless another bill soon reaches the floor, this issue will remain addressed only when immediately apparent, an occasional captivating story with undulating media popularity.