Connect with us

National

Steve Marshall joins lawsuit to stop DACA

Sam Mattison

Published

on

A group of protestors on Goat Hill in September 2017 protest the Trump Adminstration's decision to end the DACA program. (Samuel Mattison/APR)

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall announced on Wednesday that he would get behind a seven-state coalition of state attorney generals that are currently suing the federal government to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

The program, which was originally put into place by President Barack Obama, protects immigrants who were brought to the country illegally while they were minors. Since that time, an estimated 800,000 people have registered for the program.

Many, however, have challenged the order’s legality and say that the executive branch should not be able to make broad changes to immigration laws without Congressional approval. Marshall cited this very reason in his decision to join the lawsuit.

“We are a nation of laws and when those laws are ignored by a branch of the federal government, as we have witnessed with the creation of DACA without Congressional approval, the proper response is to take legal action as our coalition of seven states has done,” Marshall  wrote in a press release announcing the decision.

Texas is leading the lawsuit with Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, and West Virginia signing on as co-plaintiffs.

Even if the lawsuit is unsuccessful, the future of DACA is uncertain.

President Trump’s administration announced last year that it would end the program. While the move was protested around the country, Trump used the program as a bargaining chip in negotiations for his agenda with an emphasis in his border wall with Mexico.

Public Service Announcement

Since that time, the program has been saved by several federal courts who ruled that the program would continue on the grounds that the Trump Administration could not explain why they thought the program was illegal.

The most recent ruling in April ruled that the program would stay in place and also accept new applicants.

As for a Congressional plan to deal with the DACA recipients, negotiations have seemed to have reached a stalemate. A similar stalemate derailed the DREAM Act, a bill similar to DACA, during Bush’s and Obama’s presidencies.

ADVERTISEMENT

In his most recent statement on the matter, President Trump blamed the Democrats for the failed negotiations and the president said that “DACA is dead” in an early April tweet.

Advertisement

Courts

Plaintiffs ask for panel of judges to reconsider ruling on Alabama voter ID law

Eddie Burkhalter

Published

on

(STOCK PHOTO)

Plaintiffs suing Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill alleging the state’s voter ID law discriminates against minorities on Monday asked a panel of judges to reconsider an appeals court decision that affirmed the law. 

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund on Monday filed a petition Monday asking that all of the judges on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reconsider the July 21 decision by a panel of three judges that fell 2-1 in favor of the state’s voter ID law. 

The 2011 law requires voters in Alabama to show a valid, government-issued photo ID to vote. The NAACP, Greater Birmingham Ministries and several minority voters sued, arguing that lawmakers knowingly crafted the law to prevent Black people and other minorities, who are less likely to have such photo IDs, from voting. 

The three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in its July 21 opinion found that the burden of Alabama’s voter ID law is minimal, and does not“violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution, nor does it violate the Voting Rights Act.”

Merrill has argued that the state’s voter ID law is meant to deter in-person voting fraud and that the state makes available mobile photo ID units able to provide voters with the necessary IDs.

District Judge Darrin Gayles in his dissenting opinion wrote that voter fraud in Alabama is rare, and that “while there have been some limited cases of absentee voter fraud, in-person voter fraud is virtually non-existent.”

Gayles wrote that Merrill presented evidence of just two instances of in-person voter fraud in Alabama’s history.

Public Service Announcement

“Despite the lack of in-person voter fraud, Secretary Merrill claims Alabama enacted the Photo ID Law to combat voter fraud and to restore confidence in elections — a dubious position in light of the facts,” Gayles wrote.

Gayles noted that former State Sen. Larry Dixon, R-Montgomery, before his retirement in 2010, sponsored similar voter ID bills.

“During this time, Senator Dixon made repeated comments linking photo identification legislation to race, including ‘the fact you don’t have to show an ID is very beneficial to the Black power structure and the rest of the Democrats’ and that voting without photo identification ‘benefits Black elected leaders, and that’s why they’re opposed to it,'” Gayles wrote in his dissenting opinion.

ADVERTISEMENT

“It is clear from the statements of the legislators who enacted Alabama’s photo ID law that they passed it for the unconstitutional purpose of discriminating against voters of color,” said LDF senior counsel Natasha Merle in a statement Monday. “As long as this law is intact, Black and Latinx Alabamians will continue to be disproportionately excluded from the state’s electoral process.”

Attorneys in the filing Monday told the court that “roughly 118,000 Alabamians lack qualifying photo ID, and Black and Latinx voters are twice as likely to lack qualifying ID as compared to white voters. Given this evidence, a trial was required to determine whether HB19 violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.”

Continue Reading

Congress

Jones: Trump executive orders are “more for show than actual help for the Americans people”

Brandon Moseley

Published

on

U.S. Sen. Doug Jones during a livestreamed press briefing. (OFFICE OF SEN. DOUG JONES/FACEBOOK)

Democratic Alabama Sen. Doug Jones had harsh words for recent executive orders that President Donald Trump signed in lieu of continuing to pursue a bipartisan legislative COVID relief package. Jones said that Trump’s executive orders extending coronavirus relief are “more for show than actual help for the American people.”

“While the President is attempting to give the appearance that he is leading the cavalry coming to the rescue of the American people, these executive orders are anything but that,” Jones said. “The executive order to extend the now-lapsed emergency unemployment assistance will cut benefits by $200 a week or more for Alabamians and asks states, whose budgets have already been burdened by the pandemic, to foot part of the bill. The payroll tax collection moratorium is a way for President Trump to follow through with his promise to defund Medicare and privatize social security by putting the solvency of these programs at risk while still leaving open the possibility that those taxes may need to be paid in a lump sum next year.”

“By signing these executive orders that are more for show than actual help for the American people, President Trump has confirmed that his administration has not acted in good faith and had no intention of reaching bipartisan agreement on legislation that would benefit all Americans,” Jones said. “The Senate, which absolutely should not have recessed without passing a relief package, needs to immediately return to Washington to pass legislation that provides adequate support for the Americans who are suffering as a result of this virus as well as our economy. We need to come to a bipartisan compromise that deals with the full slate of urgent issues facing our country: we need a national strategy for COVID testing and contact tracing, to extend federal eviction moratoriums, to provide much-needed funding for state and local governments, and to ensure schools have the resources they need to reopen safely — among so many other needs.”

Both parties wanted a fifth coronavirus aid package passed before Congress broke for August recess, but negotiations broke down between Democrats and the White House over the size of the aid package.

“It’s completely inexcusable that Mitch McConnell waited over two months after the House of Representatives passed the HEROES Act to begin negotiations on this relief package, knowing full well that many of the programs that Americans have relied on during this crisis would expire at the end of July,” Jones continued. “The failure to negotiate an adequate bipartisan deal speaks to a broader breakdown in leadership in Washington, and I strongly urge my colleagues to put partisanship aside to come together to pass a relief bill as soon as possible. Lives and livelihoods are at stake, and each day we spend arguing over politics is another day that our institution fails the American people.”

Some Democrats have threatened to challenge the president’s executive actions in court. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that Democrats would have a lot of explaining to do if they challenged the White House’s efforts to get enhanced unemployment benefits to Americans.

“We’ve cleared with the Office of Legal Counsel all these actions,” Mnuchin said on “Fox News Sunday.” “If the Democrats want to challenge us in court and hold up unemployment benefits to those hardworking Americans that are out of a job because of COVID, they’re going to have a lot of explaining to do.”

Public Service Announcement

The president’s executive actions would provide $400 in increased federal unemployment benefits, which is down $200 from the $600 enhancement that they were getting.

“We thought $400 was a fair compromise. We offered to continue to pay $600 while we negotiate, and the Democrats turned that down,” Mnuchin said.

The Democratic proposal that passed the House, the HEROES Act, would have added $3.4 trillion to the national debt.

ADVERTISEMENT

Jones is trailing Republican candidate Tommy Tuberville in the race for U.S. Senate according to a poll released last week.

Continue Reading

Congress

Brooks: Democratic relief proposals would make Americans more dependent on government

Brandon Moseley

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks

Congressman Mo Brooks, R-Alabama, on Thursday said on social media that Democrats believe that redistributing wealth and expanding government handouts will help them in the 2020 elections.

“Socialist Democrats want as many Americans as possible dependent on the government,” Brooks said. “They perceive that redistributing wealth and expanding government handouts will help Democrats tremendously in the 2020 elections. The more Americans voting for a living rather than working for a living, the better the Socialist Democrats’ election chances.”

Fox Business Channel commentator Stuart Varney shared similar views to Brooks.

“The left doesn’t want you to work for your money, they want you to be dependent on a government handout which they control,” Varney said. “This is economic fantasy land, wealth confiscation, trashes the constitution. Money printing on a massive scale invites inflation. Socialism really is dangerous to your financial health.”

“You can see where the left is headed: tax the rich, print money, make us all dependent on the government,” said Varney. “They want to salvage political power from a government-ordered shutdown.”

In 1980, the entire national debt was just $903 billion. Since then, federal spending, much of it mandatory spending, has ballooned the size of government and the national debt. The debt has now grown to $26.6 trillion.

This year’s budget deficit is nearly triple what the whole debt was back then and Congress is debating another coronavirus aid package that would be paid by deficit spending.

Public Service Announcement

One issue that Congress has been grappling with is how much money should the government give to people impacted by the coronavirus crisis.

Conservatives are concerned that borrowing more money for more and more aid will grow the debt while discouraging people from working.

“A possible consequence of a poorly targeted, expansive government stimulus package?” said Heritage Foundation Research Fellow in Economics, Budget and Entitlements Rachel Greszler. “If you continue excessively high payments, then you end up just trading a global health pandemic for a fiscal crisis.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“It’s neither fair nor helpful to tantalize unemployed workers with unemployment benefits equal to 150% or 200% of their usual earnings, because long-term unemployment leads to lower incomes and opportunities, as well as a decline in physical and mental health,” Greszler explained. “Policymakers should be focused on helping Americans get safely back to work, including granting new flexibilities to allow workplaces to adjust to the conditions of COVID-19.”

“Humans are hard-wired to be productive,” Greszler concluded. “They will be far better off if policymakers focus on enabling work opportunities—such as removing barriers to working, trading, innovating, and investing—than on incentivizing unemployment.”

Brooks is in his fifth term representing Alabama’s 5th Congressional District. He has no Democratic opponent in the Nov. 3 general election. Brooks previously served in the Alabama House of Representatives, the Madison County Commission and as a prosecutor.

Continue Reading

National

Chamber of Commerce stresses need for Congress to pass coronavirus aid

Brandon Moseley

Published

on

U.S. Capitol building (STOCK PHOTO)

The executive vice president and chief policy officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Neil Bradley, on Saturday expressed concerns that Congress still needs to pass a coronavirus aid package, even though President Donald Trump did issue executive orders on the economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic.

“While well-intentioned, today’s Executive Orders are no substitute for Congressional action,” Bradley said. “For schools to get the resources to safely reopen, for small businesses to receive aid to stay afloat, to remove the threat of frivolous lawsuits, for families and our economy to get the support this moment requires, Congress must act. There is no alternative to Congress legislating and no excuse for their inaction.”

Both Republicans and Democrats had wanted to pass an economic aid deal, but the two sides wildly disagreed on the size of the aid bill and what aid should be given. Republicans favored a $1 trillion aid bill, while House Democrats passed a $3.4 trillion package. The two sides failed to come to any compromise during a late Thursday night meeting at the White House.

On Saturday, President Trump responded by signing executive orders to extend unemployment benefits, suspend payroll taxes and offer federal eviction and student loan relief. The president announced the executive actions from his private club in Bedminster, New Jersey, where he was spending the weekend.

Critics question the constitutionality of the president’s unilateral actions and if the relief goes far enough.

The unemployed will continue to get enhanced compensation of an additional $400 a week. This is down from the $600 boost they had been receiving under the CARES Act, which expired Saturday. Also gone is the Small Business Administration loan program: the Payroll Protection Program. The PPP was very popular with the business community.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business organization representing companies of all sizes across every sector of the economy.

Public Service Announcement

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement