USA & CANADA (851)
Latest News
Obama’s use of regulation to make environmental policy: not unusual and not illegal
Thursday, 11 June 2015 00:00 Written by theconversationIt’s a big few weeks at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA issued a regulation clarifying its authority to regulate bodies of water throughout the country. This week it issued an “endangerment finding,” a precursor to a regulation governing carbon emission from aircrafts. There is also a plan to raise fuel efficiency standards on trucks. And within the next week or two, the Supreme Court will issue a ruling regarding whether the EPA unreasonably refused to consider costs when issuing its recent standard on mercury emissions from power plants.
But while it is a big few weeks, it is not an unusual few weeks for the Obama Administration EPA. The mercury, aircraft emission and clean water regulations are all examples of major policy initiatives taken by the executive branch of the government during this administration.
President Obama said in 2014 that in the wake of Congressional gridlock, he would use his “pen and phone” to make policy without Congress. In no policy area (save perhaps immigration) has that been more evident than in environmental policy.
Common playbook
Not surprisingly, President Obama’s opponents have reacted strongly to the policy-making through regulation.
The clean water rule was described as an “egregious power grab.“ Republican senators unhappy with EPA attempts to regulate greenhouse gases have spoken of the need to “rein in” the executive branch.
However, two of the premises behind these attacks are at best questionable. The first is that the Obama Administration emphasis on regulation is unprecedented, and the other is that issuing regulations is an unchecked exercise of executive power.
The use of executive power by a president to get his wishes, particularly in a second term, is extremely common.
Every two-term president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has been confronted by a Congress with at least one house controlled by the opposition party in his second term. This severely constrains the ability of the president to affect domestic policy through legislation. As such, sometime around their second inauguration, presidents typically switch from a “legislative presidency” where they advocate for new laws in Congress, to an “administrative presidency” where they use their executive powers to enact their policy preferences.
Increasingly, that has meant using regulation as a policy tool. Statutes passed in the 1960s and 1970s gave the president considerable ability to set policy through regulation. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of this delegation of power to the president from Congress.
Hence, all presidents from Carter through Obama have issued hundreds of significant regulations, and presidents all pick up the pace of regulating as their time in office grows short.
Long and winding road
The second questionable idea behind cries of an imperial presidency is the thought that somehow it is easy to issue a regulation without public input. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
First, regulations must be issued pursuant to a statute passed by Congress. If parties burdened by a regulation think that the agency doesn’t have the right to issue the regulation, you can be certain that they will challenge the regulation in court. If you want to blame someone for regulations from the Obama Administration, blame the many Congresses that passed – and the many presidents that signed – statutes giving regulatory agencies their authorities.
The EPA “endangerment finding” is the first step toward regulating carbon emissions from airplanes. dsleeter_2000/flickr, CC BY-NC
Federal agencies (except in emergency conditions) must also accept and consider public comment before issuing a regulation.
While there is some debate over whether agencies adopt public comments (most research shows that they modify their regulations but rarely make wholesale changes) agencies are required to write responses to comments explaining why they did not make the changes requested. Otherwise commenters have grounds for a lawsuit.
When a regulation is finalized, the other two branches of government get another crack at it. Congress can pass a law to overturn the rule, although that law will need to be signed by the president or passed over his veto.
Enduring device
Any regulation of significance, particularly from the EPA, usually ends up as the subject of a lawsuit where judges can determine whether the action taken by the agency was arbitrary or capricious.
Supporters of regulation often bemoan how long it takes to complete the regulatory process. Much of this length comes from intents to make the process accountable to the public.
Click to enlarge
Once a regulation has run the gauntlet of the regulatory process and has been upheld by the courts, it is an enduring policy-making device.
Contrary to some perceptions, a new president cannot come in and reverse his or her predecessor’s regulations on day one. The new president could sign a law overturning a previous regulation, but that is also true of overturning a law that has been passed by an earlier Congress. Otherwise, the new president must begin a new regulatory process to overturn a regulation, and (s)he quickly learns that overturning a regulations is as hard as issuing one.
For dealing with climate change, the Obama Administration would have preferred a carbon tax or a “cap and trade system” to the regulatory solutions that will come out in the months ahead. But those would have required new laws from a Congress that is not very good at passing laws. The regulatory solutions are a second-best solution, but if they are upheld by the courts, they will be an enduring and significant one.
Author: Stuart Shapiro: Associate Professor and Director, Public Policy Program at Rutgers University
The article was originally published on The Conversation (www.conversation.com) and is republished with permission granted to www.oasesnews.com
credit link: http://theconversation.com/obamas-use-of-regulation-to-make-environmental-policy-not-unusual-and-not-illegal-42875 <img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/42875/count.gif" _cke_saved_src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/42875/count.gif" width="1" />
Published in USA & CANADA
Gates, College Dropout: Don’t Be Like Me -The New York Times
Wednesday, 03 June 2015 00:00 Written by Nigerianbulletin Bill Gates is something of a model for education skeptics. Mr. Gates — like Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg and Oprah Winfrey — dropped out of college. If they didn’t need a college degree, the skeptics suggest, maybe you don’t need one, either.
Mr. Gates has just published a blog post with something of a reply: Yes, you do need one.
“Although I dropped out of college and got lucky pursuing a career in software, getting a degree is a much surer path to success,” he writes.
“College graduates are more likely to find a rewarding job, earn higher income, and even, evidence shows, live healthier lives than if they didn’t have degrees. They also bring training and skills into America’s work force, helping our economy grow and stay competitive.”
He adds, “It’s just too bad that we’re not producing more of them.”
Click here to read more
SOURCE: #TheNewYorkTimes
Published in USA & CANADA
Tobacco companies ordered to pay $15B in damages
Wednesday, 03 June 2015 00:00 Written by cbcThree tobacco companies have been ordered to pay $15 billion in damages after losing a historic court case.
Judge Brian Riordan on Monday ruled in favour of two groups representing Quebec smokers, ordering Imperial Tobacco, Rothmans Benson & Hedges and JTI-MacDonald to pay for punitive and moral damages.
"It's a big day for victims of tobacco, who have been waiting for about 17 years for this decision. It was a long process — but arrived at the destination and it's a big victory," said Mario Bujold, executive director of the Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health.
The legal proceedings began in March 2012, 13 years after two class-action lawsuits were initiated by groups comprising about one million people. The lawsuits, which sought $27 billion in damages, were heard together in what was touted as the biggest civil case in Canadian history.
One suit, known as the Blais File, involves individuals who became seriously ill from smoking. The other, the Létourneau File, was launched by a group whose members say they are unable to quit smoking.
The groups alleged the companies:
- Failed to properly warn their customers about the dangers of smoking.
- Underestimated evidence relating to the harmful effects of tobacco.
- Engaged in unscrupulous marketing.
- Destroyed documents.
Payment distribution
The plaintiffs with cancer who began smoking before January 1976 will get $100,000 each. Those who first lit up after that date are entitled to $90,000.
Those with emphysema will receive $30,000 in moral damages if they began smoking before Jan. 1, 1976, and $24,000 if they started smoking after that date.
For the almost one million Quebec smokers who were unable to quit, the breakdown comes out to about $130 per person.
"I am so relieved with what has happened," Lise Blais, whose husband Jean-Yves Blais initiated one of the lawsuits, told a crowd at a news conference.
"Did you stop to think what a cigarette is? It destroys you — your health is totally destroyed," she said, holding up two photos of her late husband, who died in the summer of 2012 from lung cancer at the age of 68.
"He would be very happy. He is a winner. He likes to win — the same as I do," Blais said. "Seventeen years is long, but I had my hope that we were going to win — and we did," Blais said.
Bruce Johnston, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said tobacco companies "lied for 50 years."
"They lied to everyone … but they didn't just lie. They colluded to lie," he said.
Tobacco companies will appeal
JTI-Macdonald Corp. issued a statement minutes after the 4 p.m. ET ruling came down, saying it will appeal the judgment.
"The company strongly believes that the evidence presented at trial does not justify the court's conclusions," the statement said.
"Since the 1950s, Canadians have had a very high awareness of the health risks of smoking. That awareness has been reinforced by the health warnings printed on every legal cigarette package for more than 40 years."
Imperial Tobacco Canada said it was extremely disappointed and will also challenge the ruling.
"Today's judgment ignores the reality that both adult consumers and governments have known about the risks associated with smoking for decades, and seeks to relieve adult consumers of any responsibility for their actions," said Tamara Gitto, vice-president of Imperial Tobacco Canada.
"We believe there are strong grounds for appeal and we will continue to defend our rights as a legal company."
Gitto said a Gallup poll in 1963 confirmed that 96 per cent of Canadians were aware that smoking may cause lung cancer.
"Even though the judge expressly found that the public knew of the material risks associated with smoking for decades, he nonetheless holds Imperial Tobacco Canada and the two other tobacco manufacturers responsible."
Rothmans Benson & Hedges also announced it will appeal the Quebec Superior Court's decision.
In spite of an appeal, the judgment says that $1 billion must be paid out.
"The Court orders the provisional execution of the judgment notwithstanding appeal with respect to the initial deposit of one billion dollars of moral damages, plus all punitive damages awarded," said the 276-page ruling.
credit link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/tobacco-companies-ordered-to-pay-15b-in-damages-1.3095963
Published in USA & CANADA
US senators call for mandatory reporting of police killings
Wednesday, 03 June 2015 00:00 Written by theguardianPlan, announced one day after Guardian investigation, would force all US law enforcement agencies to report officer-involved killings to Department of Justice.
A plan to force all American law enforcement agencies to report killings by their officers was unveiled by US senators on Tuesday, a day after the Guardian published an investigation into the fatal use of force by police.
Senators Barbara Boxer of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey proposed legislation that would demand all states submit reports to the US Department of Justice that they said would bring “transparency and accountability to law enforcement agencies nationwide”.
“Too many members of the public and police officers are being killed, and we don’t have reliable statistics to track these tragic incidents,” Boxer said in a statement. “This bill will ensure that we know the full extent of the problem so we can save lives on all sides.”
Aides to the senators said their bill, the Police Reporting of Information, Data and Evidence (Pride) Act, would force mandatory reporting on the same data being collected by The Counted, a database published by the Guardian beginning this week.
The proposed legislation would see government officials collect information on the age, gender and race of anyone who was shot, injured, or killed in any way by law enforcement officer. The date, time, and precise location of the incident would also be collected.
The federal government does not currently collect a comprehensive record of people killed by police forces throughout the US. Instead, the FBI runs a voluntary program where law enforcement can chose to submit their count of “justifiable homicides” each year. This system has been continuously criticised.
The Guardian on Monday began publishing the most comprehensive map of police killings ever produced, based on precise street addresses of incidents.
The Boxer-Booker plan would also demand details of whether or not the person killed was armed with a weapon. The Guardian disclosed on Monday that 102 of 467 people who died at the hands of law enforcement so far this year were unarmed. Black people killed by police were twice as likely to have been unarmed as white people.
The Justice Department would also collect information on any violent actions against police officers. The plan would demand details of the type of force used against “the officer, the civilian, or both, including the types of weapons used”, according to the senators.
Booker said the first step needed to fix a problem was “understanding the extent of the problem you have”.
“Justice and accountability go hand in hand – but without reliable data it’s difficult to hold people accountable or create effective policies that change the status quo,” said Booker.
Booker said the proposal would ensure lawmakers had the information needed to make “good decisions and implement reform measures that are balanced, objective, and protect the lives of police officers and the public”.
Published in USA & CANADA
Popular News
A St. Louis policeman has sparked an investigation after firing…
The porn star at the heart of Donald Trump’s historic…
In honour of National Nursing Week May 6-12, consider asking…
The ruling arrives at a critical juncture, on the…
US Congress passes surveillance reform
Wednesday, 03 June 2015 00:00 Written by theguardian
Bulk collection of Americans’ phone records to end as US Senate passes USA Freedom Act
The US Senate on Tuesday passed a bill that would end the bulk collection of millions of Americans’ phone records, the most significant surveillance reform for decades and a direct result of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s revelations to the Guardian two years ago.
Senators voted 67-32 to pass the USA Freedom Act, which overwhelmingly cleared the House of Representatives last month and will now head to the White House for Barack Obama’s signature. The president praised the bill’s passage and said he would “work expeditiously to ensure our national security professionals again have the full set of vital tools they need to continue protecting the country”.
The passage of the USA Freedom Act paves the way for telecom companies to assume responsibility of the controversial phone records collection program, while also bringing to a close a short lapse in the broad NSA and FBI domestic spying authorities. Those powers expired with key provisions of the Patriot Act at 12.01am on Monday amid a showdown between defense hawks and civil liberties advocates.
The American Civil Liberties Union praised the passage of the USA Freedom Act as “a milestone” but pointed out that there were many more “intrusive and overbroad” surveillance powers yet untouched.
“This is the most important surveillance reform bill since 1978, and its passage is an indication that Americans are no longer willing to give the intelligence agencies a blank check. It’s a testament to the significance of the Snowden disclosures and also to the hard work of many principled legislators on both sides of the aisle,” Jameel Jaffer, the group’s deputy legal director, said in a statement.
The NSA, facing legal uncertainty after the Senate failed to pass the bill last month, shut down the bulk collection of US phone records at 8pm ET on Sunday 31 May. But since the bill calls for a grace period of six months to “transition” the program so the phone companies remain the repositories of metadata they generate, the dragnet is now set to relaunch just to be shut down again in December.
A senior administration official told the Guardian the NSA was facing “a restarting process”.
Oregon senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat on the intelligence committee who has railed against NSA surveillance for years, praised the breakthrough but said the work is far from complete.
“This is the only beginning. There is a lot more to do,” Wyden told reporters after the vote. “We’re going to have very vigorous debate about the flawed idea of the FBI director to require companies to build weaknesses into their products. We’re going to try to close the backdoor search loophole – this is part of the Fisa Act and is going to be increasingly important, because Americans are going to have their emails swept up increasingly as global communications systems begin to merge.”
He also pointed to a proposal in the House “to make sure government agencies don’t turn cell phones of Americans into tracking devices” as another target for NSA reformers.
In a particular blow to Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, and Richard Burr, the intelligence committee chairman, the Senate rejected a series of amendments that were designed to weaken the surveillance and transparency reforms contained in the USA Freedom Act.
McConnell and Burr had led the effort in recent weeks to reauthorize the Patriot Act in its current form, ignoring the will of their colleagues in the House and a majority of the American public.
Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for the Democratic leader, Harry Reid, criticized McConnell’s “toxic mix of poor planning, misguided bravado and stunning lack of communication with his fellow Republicans”.
“The most remarkable thing about the events of the past week is that they were utterly and completely avoidable, but Senator McConnell failed to heed the many warning signs that flashed bigger and brighter than the marquees on the Vegas strip,” Jentleson said in an email.
Despite support for the USA Freedom Act from the House, the Obama administration and the intelligence community, McConnell continued to fight changes to the Patriot Act and went from pushing a full renewal through 2020, to a short-term extension to avoid a lapse, to finally trying to water down the House bill. By the end of it all, the majority leader was left with no other option but to let the USA Freedom Act pass unamended.
McConnell, who is typically known for his calm and collected demeanor, defended his position in a forceful speech on the Senate floor.
The USA Freedom Act is “a resounding victory for those who currently plotted against our homeland”, he said. “It does not enhance the privacy protections of American citizens, and it surely undermines American security by taking one more tool from our war fighters, in my view, at exactly the wrong time.”
Last year, an independent analysis of hundreds of terrorism cases in the US concluded that the NSA’s collection of phone records has had no distinguishable impact on preventing acts of terrorism.
But McConnell accused the Obama administration’s record on foreign policy of undermining national security to make a last stand against reining in the government’s surveillance methods. In a rebuttal, Reid said McConnell was trying to “divert attention” from his own refusal to take up the NSA debate earlier while also dismissing the work of his Republican counterparts in the House.
“He is in effect criticizing the House of Representatives for passing this Fisa bill, to reauthorize it in a way that’s more meaningful to the American people and makes us more safe,” Reid said. “Is he criticizing the speaker for working hard to get this bill reauthorized in a fashion that the American people accept? I don’t think any of us … need a lecture on why we are less secure today than we were a few days ago.”
Among the amendments that failed were a measure that would weaken the USA Freedom Act’s establishment of a de facto privacy advocate to, in certain cases, argue against the government on behalf of privacy rights; an effort to allow the phone collection program to continue for a year instead of just six months, as proposed by the House bill; and another provision requiring the US intelligence chief to certify the implementation of the new phone-records regime.
During the surveillance battle, McConnell miscalculated the lengths to which his colleague from Kentucky, Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul, would go to block any renewal of the Patriot Act without reforms. Paul has made his longtime opposition to the NSA’s surveillance dragnet a key tenet of his 2016 campaign and followed through on his pledge to let the Patriot Act expire – although he voted against the USA Freedom Act on Tuesday, arguing that it does not go far enough.
Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, an independent who is challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s nomination in 2016, also voted against the bill for similar reasons.
“We must keep our country safe and protect ourselves from terrorists, but we can do that without undermining the constitutional and privacy rights which make us a free nation,” Sanders said in a statement. “This bill is an improvement over the USA Patriot Act but there are still too many opportunities for the government to collect information on innocent people.”
Other presidential candidates in the Senate were in different camps: Texas senator Ted Cruz supported the USA Freedom Act, of which he was a co-sponsor, while the Florida senator Marco Rubio opposed the bill, arguing instead for a full Patriot Act renewal.
New Mexico senator Martin Heinrich, another Democrat on the intelligence committee, praised the bill’s passage on Tuesday, saying: “Ben Franklin would have been proud of this outcome.”
The US government’s bulk collection program was first revealed two years ago by the Guardian, based on documents obtained from the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. A federal appeals court ruled the program illegal last month, all but ensuring its days were numbered.
Snowden hailed the movements in Congress and the courts as “without precedent” in an interview with the Guardian last month.
“The idea that they can lock us out and there will be no change is no longer tenable,” Snowden said. “Everyone accepts these programmes were not effective, did not keep us safe and, even if they did, represent an unacceptable degradation of our rights.”
Only recently have many lawmakers begun to give Snowden credit for kickstarting the debate. “It is clear we wouldn’t be here without that information,” Republican senator Jeff Flake told the Huffington Post.
For privacy advocates in Congress, the USA Freedom Act is just the beginning.
Libertarian-minded Republicans in the House, who are allies of Paul’s, said on Tuesday they will attempt to use a must-pass defense appropriations bill as a vehicle to advance more surveillance reforms. Their efforts will include blocking the NSA from undermining encryption and barring other law enforcement agencies from collecting US data in bulk.
Published in USA & CANADA
John Kerry breaks leg following bicycle accident
Sunday, 31 May 2015 00:00 Written by theeagleonlineKerry had conducted talks on Saturday in Geneva with Iranian Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, as part of ongoing efforts to forge a comprehensive agreement about Tehran’s disputed nuclear programme ahead of a June 30 deadline
The United States Secretary of State, John Kerry, was on Sunday in Geneva flown to a hospital with a broken leg following a bicycle accident in the French Alps.
The spokesman at the US mission in Geneva disclosed that the secretary had broken his leg.
Kerry’s Spokesman, John Kirby, also confirmed that 71-year-old Kerry was taken by helicopter to Geneva University Hospital, where he was conscious and in stable condition with a leg injury.
He said the accident occurred in Scionzier, a town near the border with Switzerland, around 9.40am.
Kirby said the secretary was attended to by a physician and paramedics travelling in his motorcade.
Kerry had conducted talks on Saturday in Geneva with Iranian Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, as part of ongoing efforts to forge a comprehensive agreement about Tehran’s disputed nuclear programme ahead of a June 30 deadline.
He had been due to fly to Madrid later on Sunday to meet with Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and King Felipe VI. on Tuesday.
Kerry was also scheduled to travel to Paris to hold talks with counterparts from the countries participating in the military coalition targeting the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria.
dpa/NAN.
Published in USA & CANADA
Solar plane departs from China to Hawaii
Sunday, 31 May 2015 00:00 Written by theeagleonline
Andre Borschberg, 62, team leaders of the Swiss-made solar-powered plane, Solar Impulse 2, said it departed from the eastern Chinese city of Nanjing on Sunday morning to fly across the Pacific.
Borschberg said the Solar Impulse 2’s departure from China to Hawaii at 2.40am on Sunday came more than a month after it landed in Nanjing on the night of April 21.
He said the plane delayed its originally planned departure from Nanjing on May 5 as its two pilots waited for the right weather conditions.
He said: “The journey from Nanjing to Hawaii is expected to take six days and six nights.
“This is the toughest segment in its round-the-world trip.
“When the plane crosses the ocean, I will be able to nap for 20 minutes at a time, the maximum amount of time the solar plane can navigate automatically.”
Bertrand Piccard, the plane’s other pilot, said the plane was being powered by more than 17,000 solar cells installed on its wings.
Piccard said the Solar Impulse 2 was circumnavigating the globe to promote green energy.
Piccard said the solar plane has been featured in a number of events during its stay in China to promote new energy and materials.
He explained that the plane has 12 scheduled stops in the around-the-world adventure.
Piccard said after reaching Hawaii, the solar-powered airplane would fly across the US and stop in Africa before finally reaching Abu Dhabi, where it took off on March 9.
Xinhua/NAN.
Published in USA & CANADA
Fifa Bans Arrested Officials Over Fraud Probe
Friday, 29 May 2015 00:00 Written by channelsTelevisionThe Ethics Committee of world football governing body, Fifa has banned 11 top officials including its executive members from all football-related activities.
The banned individuals are: Jeffrey Webb, Eduardo Li, Julio Rocha, Costas Takkas, Jack Warner.
Others are Eugenio Figueredo, Rafael Esquivel, José Maria Marin, Nicolás Leoz, Chuck Blazer and Daryll Warner.
These individuals were indicted and arrested on bribery and racketeering charges relating to the bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.
South Africa’s Sports Minister, Fikile Mbalula, has said that South Africa’s successful bid for the 2010 World Cup has not been tainted in any shape or form.
Mbalula was speaking a day after the game was plunged into turmoil following the arrest of senior Fifa officials on corruption charges.
He also said that all 2010 soccer World Cup funds are accounted for and audited.
Blatter Refuses To Quit
Meanwhile, Sepp Blatter refused to resign following a request from UEFA chief, Michel Platini, and then opened the 65th Fifa congress in Zurich.
The 79-year-old held an emergency meeting with key Fifa officials on Friday after world football’s governing body was subjected to yet more damaging corruption claims.
He then met Platini alone, at which point he was urged to quit, but refused and vowed to carry on with his mandate.
Blatter, who is seeking a fifth term as president appears to still have the support of the Confederation Of African Football as well as the Asian Football Confederation.
Published in USA & CANADA
