McConnell's shutdown and Trump's pocket veto

How is it possible that the refusal of the President to sign a bill — one that passed both the House and Senate — can (partially) shut down the government? 

Our government has a system of checks and balances. The Constitution gives the President 10 days to review a bill passed by the legislature. If he signs it, it becomes law; if he vetos it, Congress can vote to override that veto. If the President does nothing during that time, the bill becomes law without his signature. 

But there is a loophole. If Congress adjourns during those 10 days, then, if the President takes no action, the bill simply lapses. It does not become law, and since there was no veto to override, Congress cannot override this “pocket veto”. Hence the current shutdown. 

Events: 

Dec 6 -  Congress voted to delay action until after GHW Bush’s funeral. 

Dec 19 - Congress passed a bill that would keep the government open. Trump supposedly supported it. 

Dec 20 - Trump flip-flopped, after watching Fox and Friends, and announced he would not sign the bill after all.

Dec 22 - McConnell adjourned the Senate, making Trump’s refusal to sign into a pocket veto. 

By adjourning the Senate, McConnell converted Trump's refusal to sign into a pocket veto. This wiped out the previous negotiations and forced a return to square one. 

Although the House has new leadership, McConnell is still the Senate Majority leader, and he refuses to let any bills come to the floor for a vote unless it already has the support of the President. He is, in short, acting as the President’s agent rather than as the leader of a separate branch of government.

Trump was happy to claim responsibility for the shutdown, but I think history will point the finger at McConnell as the one responsible. He turned Trump's inaction into a pocket veto, and is now single-handedly ensuring that the shutdown endures. 

It is absurd that one person should have that power. A system of checks and balances demands that such stonewalling by one person can be overridden. (Note that control of the Senate (or House) by the majority party is not in the Constitution; in fact political parties are not granted any power.)  I suggest that it is completely consistent for members of Congress to be able to bring a bill to the floor, despite obstruction by the majority leader, by using a referendum or petition by ⅔ of the members of that Chamber.

So that’s how we got here. How can we mitigate the effects of a shutdown? For that matter, what exactly is a shutdown? 

A shutdown means that Congress hasn’t allocated the money for certain things, and so the government cannot spend money on them. The result is a partial shut down. Technically, that is ALL it means; there is no money. 

But some people interpret the idea of a shutdown in ways that make the problem worse. 

Having no money to pay for something is different from preventing action. But the government is forbidding anything that might be interpreted as work, even when people are willing to risk not being paid. For instance, NASA scientists were forbidden to attend the American Astronomical Society meeting, even if they were willing to foot the bill themselves. And some park rangers have said that they would have been willing to maintain a presence in Joshua Tree National Park that might have prevented the horrible vandalism there. But they were not permitted.  

It seems to me that if someone is willing to run the risk that they may not get paid or reimbursed, they should be allowed to continue their work. This especially applies to fields that are time-dependent and/or fueled by passion, such as scientific research or places where inaction causes real hardship. Such employees should not be actively prevented from doing their work, especially since such obstruction may waste more money than letting the work go forward. 

The government should also protect the employees who, though no fault of their own, are not being paid. Those called for jury duty, those who serve in the National Guard, or are volunteer firefighters or EMTs, all have legal protections against being penalized by their employers. A similar law could require forbearance by creditors towards those affected by a government shutdown. This involves little risk to the creditors, especially as wages are usually only delayed, not lost. 

Alternatively, a sort of unemployment (actually, furlough) insurance could be provided via a private insurance company, so that the administration of benefits does not depend on federal employees. This has the additional benefit of maintaining money flow, which will help maintain those who are not government employees but who depend on that community for their livelihood. 

Finally, federal employees often have clauses in their contract that prevent them from taking a second job. These clauses should be declared to be not in effect when there is a government shutdown. Confidentiality and security restrictions would still apply, but it is absurd to insist that someone not work at all, even in an unrelated field, when they are willing and able to do so.  

I believe that resistance to some of these common-sense measures stems from the idea that a government shutdown HAS to be painful, so that there is pressure for the negotiators to come to an agreement. I reject that as simple hostage-taking. 

Here is something to remember: NO ONE serving our government is the ENEMY of anyone else. Rivals, yes. Competitors, yes. But not enemies. Both sides -- all sides --  want the best for our country. They just have different visions of what "best" means. This is not grounds for demonization. We are not citizens of the Republican or Democratic Party; we are citizens of the United States of America. 

I recently heard a (Republican) Congressman say that the voters elected a mixed government, which means that the people WANT the parties to work together and compromise. Yes. 

Government is a collaborative enterprise, not a zero-sum game. 

Why we need an FBI investigation

Professor Christine Blasey Ford has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. The alleged assault occurred when they were both in high school, at a party.

"Washington Post reporter Emma Brown wrote: “She alleges that Kavanaugh — who played football and basketball at Georgetown Prep — held her down with the weight of his body and fumbled with her clothes, seemingly hindered by his intoxication. (Mark) Judge stood across the room, she said, and both boys were laughing ‘maniacally.’ She said she yelled, hoping that someone downstairs would hear her over the music, and Kavanaugh clapped his hand over her mouth to silence her.”'

Ford has offered to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but she has asked for an independent FBI investigation to be done first.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says that this is merely a delaying tactic; he says she can testify on Monday, have her say, Kavanaugh can answer, and the confirmation hearings can move forward. He doesn't seem to think this is a big thing, more of a political nuisance.

Those who already oppose Kavanaugh believe Professor Ford that he assaulted her, while those who support him believe it to be a smear job. 

This is EXACTLY why there should be an FBI investigation before going forward. Without an independent investigation, it is "he says, she says". 

But the questioners in the Senate Judiciary Committee are politicians, and they all have a political drum to beat. It is NOT like testifying before a grand jury, which aims to reveal the truth. Just because we use the same word - testify - doesn't mean we should confuse the two.  Testifying before the Committee is entering a shark tank, and McConnell is doing his best to throw chum in the water. 

"Why is this important?" you might ask. "It happened when he was a teenager. Back then, 'boys will be boys' was the way it was".  Well, it reveals character. But yes, people can change. 

But the MAIN reason it is vitally important is that Kavanaugh categorically denies the event. He doesn't say "I was just a kid, really drunk and out of control. I never did anything like that again. I didn't realize it was such a traumatic event for her, now that I know, I am so sorry".  That might be forgivable. But instead, Kavanaugh denies anything happened. If it DID happen, then he is lying and attempting a cover-up. That is NOT something that happened 30 years ago. Those are his actions NOW. 

There is no Court-related urgent reason to rush the confirmation through. The rush is purely the product of the politics of the upcoming election. As far as the Supreme Court itself is concerned, the consequences for delaying the confirmation are minimal. At least, they have been deemed minimal by the Majority party, which has allowed the seat to be vacant for well over a year. 

But if the event DID occur, and Kavanaugh is rushed through confirmation, then we will have given a lifetime appointment to a corrupt and lying man. 

If the event didn't occur, then steamrolling ahead with the confirmation will still leave the accusation standing, and no matter what is said in the hearing, Cavanaugh's name will forever have a cloud over it.  It would be to Cavanaugh's benefit to have an FBI investigation to clear his name. 

And if the investigation doesn't clear him, then the fact that he lied - his actions now, not when he was a teenager - will be vital to the deliberations of the Committee as they gauge his suitability to be a judge on the highest Court in the land. 

The legality of asylum

Asylum seekers are crossing the border legally.  When AG Sessions says "We will prosecute all those who cross illegally"  that DOES NOT apply to asylum seekers, under US Law.

Check out 8 US Code § 1158.  Asylum.

Section a. 1:
"Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum"

So they do NOT need to enter at a "designated port of arrival".
And they can ONLY apply once they have crossed the border.
ERGO: Asylum seekers are NOT crossing the border illegally.

As with many other places in the law, it's a matter of intent.

Intent is the difference between accidental wrongdoing and criminal action.

• If you pick up a box at the side of the road, thinking it is trash, you have not committed larceny or theft. You did not have the intent to deprive the rightful owner of the object.
• If you cause a death, but there was no intent to cause harm, it is not murder; it is negligent homicide or manslaughter.
• If you trip and fall, knocking someone else over, it is not assault and battery, even if the person you knocked over is seriously hurt.

What Jeff Sessions has done, in prosecuting all those who cross the border, is to assume that all the potential asylum seekers are lying. He is assuming that their cases are baseless, and furthermore, it appears that he is assuming that they have tried to enter the country before.

Entering without proper papers is a misdemeanor, usually not worth prosecuting (deportation is the penalty). Only if someone who has previously been deported tries to enter, giving false statements, does it rise to a felony which might incur imprisonment.

And Sessions is treating these people, who have not yet seen any sort of judge, as felons. Convicted ones, at that.