Legalize and Regulate: The Solution to the Unsolvable Drug Problem

(Source)   Legalizing recreational drug use, which is not morally wrong since its use does not directly harm anyone but the user, will benefit society as a whole by allowing for safer participation, less incarceration, and increased economic contributions through taxes. Since the passage of the 21st Amendment in 1933, which ended the nation’s prohibition on alcohol, the consumption of alcohol has been embraced by society overall. The government legalized alcohol and society widely accepted and consumed it, despite its proven immediate and long-term dangers. Thus, given its approach to alcohol use, the government should permit its constituents to decide what substances they put in their bodies.  Realistically, people will use drugs if they want to use drugs. I am not advocating for an entirely hands-off approach; rather, I argue that broadly legalizing drugs will allow lawmakers to hone in on the aspects of drug use that have raised concern for decades. Part 1: Legalization and Regulation Legal access to drugs does not necessarily equate to increased use and instead creates an opportunity for better oversight. Thus, legalizing all drugs will allow the government to regulate these substances more effectively by crafting targeted legislation, made in conjunction with scientific research, to [read more]

From Smallpox Blankets to COVID Ballots: Understanding the Pandemic as a Fundamental Threat to Native American Voters

(Source) Introduction At 5 million positive cases, COVID-19 continues to devastate people across the United States. Due to pre-existing social inequalities, communities of color remain the hardest hit. Among these communities, Native Americans are contracting and dying from the virus at unmatched rates. Federal, state, and local action to mitigate the spread throughout Indian Country has been slow and fallen short of expectations. For example, when the Seattle Indian Health Board expressed an urgent need for testing and medical supplies, the local King County Public Health Department’s shocking response was to send body bags and toe tags. Horrifying? Yes. Far from sensible? Not if you look at death rates for states with sizable tribal communities. Consider the case of New Mexico. While Native Americans make up 10% of the state’s population, as of May, tribal members make up 50% of local COVID-related deaths. As the country prepares for the November presidential election, all eyes should be on the federal government and the steps, or lack thereof, that the Trump administration has taken to ensure a healthy and safe election season. Historical Suppression & Contemporary Barriers Native American voters have long been disenfranchised and excluded from local, state, and federal elections. [read more]

Using COVID-19 as a Cover for Binding Regulatory Change: Title IX under Trump

(Source)   On August 14, 2020, colleges and universities will be required to comply with what is essentially an overhaul of the Title IX system as it has existed for over the last decade. Title IX has been revolutionary in combating sexual harassment and sexual abuse in schools, on sports teams, and in other educational programs. The commonly referenced “Title IX” is the ninth title in the Education Amendments Act of 1972, a federal civil rights law which states that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Since 1972, blatant pregnancy discrimination has been all but eradicated, the proportion of women earning college and professional degrees has consistently increased, and women have increasingly become college professors. Title IX is now largely seen as protection against sexual assault and harassment, a topic which has garnered much more national attention in recent years. Many, however, do not know where Title IX gets its power. Much of our present-day federal policy is determined by regulatory institutions within the executive branch or by the [read more]

Yes, Everything Has to Do with Race

(Source)   Have you ever heard someone exclaim, “why must we make everything about race?” Well, that is because it is. There is, at the very least, a hint of racism across every institution in society. And because it is generally not loud, it has been almost unspeakable since the Civil Rights era. Alas, indirect racism since Jim Crow has undergirded Black income, wealth, education, environmental, employment, criminal justice, and healthcare disparities. The ability for Black people such as Barack Obama to ascend to the top of the social ladder has convinced some people that racism is dead.  But to look solely at his achievements and ignore the current class stratification is ill-informed and shallow. Furthermore, it ignores that racism is at play, regardless of stature. To illustrate, during President Obama’s joint session of Congress, one Senator shouted, “you lie,” in the middle of his address. This type of unprecedented disrespect was happening in the backdrop of a Tea Party movement that drummed up the “birther” conspiracy, the most racist campaign against a president in US history. The reason why society ignored racism for so long is because nothing is racially discriminatory on its face. That is illegal. Under the [read more]

Violations Without Vindication: How the Supreme Court’s Decision in Nieves v. Bartlett Permits Retaliatory Arrests and Threatens to Undermine the Fight For Racial Equality

(Source) In May 2019, the Supreme Court handed down its decisions in Nieves v. Bartlett. For the most part, the decision flew under the radar, garnering little media attention (with some exceptions). However, this seemingly innocuous Supreme Court decision now threatens to undermine what has been described as “a defining moment in the future of American politics” and a “turning point against police brutality”—the George Floyd protests. As a general matter, the Constitution prevents the government from retaliating against an individual for exercising her constitutional rights. As a recent example, President Donald Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was released from prison after a judge determined Cohen’s house arrest was revoked as punishment for writing a tell-all book about Trump. Since Cohen had a First Amendment right to write a book about Trump, the government could not retaliate against him for writing it. Likewise, a police officer violates the First Amendment when she arrests an individual because she dislikes his speech—known as a retaliatory arrest. But what does it matter if the officer violates the First Amendment when there are no consequences? One incredibly important remedy is to sue the officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 allows victims of [read more]

“Nothing About Us, Without Us” Means Police Reform, Too

(Source)   Being Black and disabled is not a crime. We need to stop treating it like one. Thanks to Evita Nwosu-Sylvester for sources and further reading, and to Amanda Cirillo for review.  Disability remains the “missing word in media coverage of police violence.” Far from anecdotal episodes, the connection between disability and policing harm is undeniable.  More than one half of Black Americans with disabilities will be arrested by the time they reach their late twenties. According to a 2016 report by the Ruderman Family Foundation, up to half of all people killed by police have a disability. If you have an undiagnosed mental illness, you are 16 times more likely to be killed in a police encounter. If you are a juvenile or young adult with a disability, you are 13% more likely to be arrested than those without. Other data indicate that approximately a quarter of those killed by police are in a mental health crisis or were known by police to have a mental illness, in spite of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requiring reasonable modifications to policing where a disability is recognized. This is not just tragic; it is systemic. As reforms addressing police [read more]

The Machinery of Death: The Federal Death Penalty’s Reinstatement is Arbitrary, Capricious, Illegal, and Cruel

(Source)   Introduction In the early hours of July 14th, 2020, while most people were asleep or just starting their days, the Federal Government executed Daniel Lee Lewis, jumpstarting the return of federal executions. The federal government executed Mr. Lee despite myriad procedural and legal deficiencies. Mr. Lee was executed without a new warrant allowing the execution to occur on July 14th. His warrant listed July 13, 2020 as the execution date. Mr. Lee was strapped to the gurney for over four hours as last-minute legal issues were resolved but was pronounced dead less than an hour after his final legal issue was resolved. The loved ones of the victims publicly opposed his execution and were disregarded in their efforts to witness the execution without compromising their health in the midst of a global pandemic.  In many regards, Mr. Lee was a typical capital defendant. Prior to his conviction, his life was riddled with trauma, mental illness, and interactions with the juvenile detention centers. There was widespread consensus that his co-defendant was more culpable and Mr. Lee maintained his innocence in the murders through his last words. His trial had sentencing problems and concerns about ineffective assistance of counsel. When [read more]

How Reparations Could Have Ebbed The Disproportionate COVID-19 Deaths of Black People in Detroit

(Source)   Reparations are a form of compensatory justice that governments have instituted when aiming to make amends for prior wrongs. Historically, in order for a group to receive reparations from the government, an affected party must show harm, must prove that the government is the cause of that harm, and must show that the recipient is a direct victim or one’s descendent. Reparations can be symbolic in nature, representing the depths of regret that the nation has for its role in the institutionalized oppression of a people. Paying reparations for historical wrongs is not a novel concept. The United States granted reparations in 1988 for the harm inflicted on Japanese Americans from wrongful internment during World War II and to former owners of enslaved persons after emancipation. Additionally, West Germany paid reparations in 1952 to make amends for the Holocaust. Interestingly, these reparations were not paid with widespread public support—most Germans did not believe that the nation owed Jewish people any redress. In the United States, the most abhorrent act the nation inflicted on its people was the institution of slavery. Subsequent to this historical atrocity, the government continued to discriminate against Black people. For instance, immediately after those [read more]

Policing Property

  (Source) I. Property and Criminality In the first week after Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd in Minneapolis, the New York City Police Department arrested more than two thousand protesters in New York City. At least a quarter of those arrested were charged with burglary. Mayor Bill de Blasio distinguished between protesters and perceived opportunists, “doing things like looting for pure financial gain, pure criminal gain, nothing to do with protests whatsoever.”  The specter of the looter—lying in wait for the opportunity to take advantage of social upheaval—is connected to ideas about the latent criminality of unpropertied people. It has been used to justify the extensive surveillance of nonwhite communities, and protest movements calling account to injustice. “Law and order” has roots in the protection of property and in white supremacy. The conflation of Blackness and criminality is inextricably tied to the relationship between property and policing, distinguishing criminals from non-criminals. Racial categories emerge from the governance of property relative to those who have historically had none, who we therefore imagine “harbor criminal disregard for the propertied order.” Whiteness is a property, valuable insofar as categorically excluding Black people maintains it.  Maintaining property interests has always been central to the modern [read more]

Next on The Trump Show: Trump Exploits the Coronavirus to Ban Immigrants

(Source) While the United States and the world glues their attention to the historic protests for racial justice following the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, and the Trump Administration creates ever-growing casualties like exploding unemployment, rising death tolls, and public unrest, the cast of The Trump Show is drumming up a far more subdued spectacle behind the curtain. Using this historic moment as cover, the Administration has continued to move full-steam ahead towards dismantling the U.S. immigration system. On the heels of the Administration’s latest proclamations prohibiting travel for certain foreign nationals that have traveled to or been present in the People’s Republic of China, Iran, the Schengen Area of the European Union, the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland, and Brazil, President Trump, citing labor market conditions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, recently issued two significant Proclamations fundamentally altering the U.S. visa issuance process. In April, Trump signed Proclamation 10014, placing a “temporary” sixty-day ban on the issuance of certain new employment-based permits for lawful permanent residence (also known as green cards). And in June, Trump issued Proclamation 10052, extending the Proclamation 10014 bans until at least December 31, 2020 and issuing a new ban on foreign [read more]
1 4 5 6 7 8 20