Washington, D.C. - August 30, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- A year after the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) became law, companies are availing themselves of the ability to protect their formulas, processes and other trade secrets in the federal courts. Introduced in the House by Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), the DTSA guards the trade secrets of U.S. companies—valued at roughly $5 trillion—which are often the target of economic espionage at the hands of foreign interests, including China.
According to the National Law Review and other publications, companies are turning to the DTSA for redress when competing firms or foreign governments steal their intellectual property.
“Last year, Republicans were able to produce the 114th Congress’ most significant piece of legislation protecting intellectual property rights, the Defend Trade Secrets Act. Innovation fuels our economy, and we can’t allow bad actors at home or abroad to appropriate the trade secrets of hardworking Americans.
“The Defend Trade Secrets Act is already protecting intellectual property rights against those who would undermine our economy, and I know that conservatives will continue to lead in this policy space,” said Collins.
The law created a uniform standard for the misappropriation of trade secrets and provides plaintiffs with a way to work across state and national boundaries through civil federal courts. The first verdict in a DTSA case, Dalmatia Import Group, Inc. v. FoodMatch, Inc. et al., awarded $500,000 in damages based on stolen trade secrets, and the number of DTSA cases is growing.
The Unpopular Truth
Wednesday, August 30, 2017
Congressman Cohen Introduces Amendments to Prohibit Federal Spending at Trump-Owned Hotels, Resorts, and other Trump-owned Businesses
Does it matter where Trump spends his leisure time? I seem to recall that Obama spent a LOT of time on the golf course. Are you saying he spent less money there? I wonder if he went to the Trump golf course...
Washington, D.C. - August 30, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Steve Cohen, who serves as the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, has introduced a series of 16 appropriations amendments to prohibit federal spending at Trump-owned hotels, resorts and other Trump-owned businesses. The amendments were offered to an upcoming appropriations package that is scheduled to be considered on the House floor in September.
“Congress should not allow the President to use his office to profit himself and his family,” said Congressman Cohen. “The President’s refusal to divest from his privately owned businesses creates a conflict of interest when steering federal spending to his resorts and other businesses.”
According to press reports, President Trump spent 40 of his 181 full days in office – approximately 22 percent of his days in office -- at a Trump-branded golf course. It has also been reported that the Secret Service has spent $73,000 on golf cart rentals at Trump properties.
“The President’s refusal to divest also continues to raise serious questions about his compliance with the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, which is a vital protection against foreign governments’ corrupting influence.” said Congressman Cohen.
The Foreign Emoluments Clause prohibits the President from accepting payments and other benefits from foreign governments without seeking and receiving Congressional authorization.
“The American people should have total confidence that the President is serving their interest, not his own financial enrichment. President Trump’s refusal to disclose information to Congress or seek Congress’s authorization for accepting profits from foreign governments stemming from his sprawling foreign financial interests is a brazen violation of the Constitution and a danger to our democracy.”
Specifically, Congressman Cohen offered 2 amendments to each of 8 upcoming appropriations bills for Fiscal Year 2018: Interior & Environment; Agriculture and Rural Development; Commerce, Justice, Science; Financial Services; Homeland Security; Labor, Health and Human Services, Education; State and Foreign Operations; and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development. Half of his amendments prohibit federal funds from being spent at Trump hotels and resorts. The other half of his amendments prohibit federal funds from being spent at Trump-owned businesses identified in his financial disclosures. A link to the text of these amendments will be posted when it becomes available.
Congressman Cohen offered similar amendments to an appropriations package that passed the House in July, however the Republican majority blocked them from being considered on the House floor.
Congressman Cohen is helping lead a lawsuit filed by nearly 200 Members of Congress against President Trump for allegedly violating the U.S. Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause.
Last week, Congressman Cohen announced he is drafting articles of impeachment for, among other things, potential violations of the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause.
Washington, D.C. - August 30, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Steve Cohen, who serves as the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, has introduced a series of 16 appropriations amendments to prohibit federal spending at Trump-owned hotels, resorts and other Trump-owned businesses. The amendments were offered to an upcoming appropriations package that is scheduled to be considered on the House floor in September.
“Congress should not allow the President to use his office to profit himself and his family,” said Congressman Cohen. “The President’s refusal to divest from his privately owned businesses creates a conflict of interest when steering federal spending to his resorts and other businesses.”
According to press reports, President Trump spent 40 of his 181 full days in office – approximately 22 percent of his days in office -- at a Trump-branded golf course. It has also been reported that the Secret Service has spent $73,000 on golf cart rentals at Trump properties.
“The President’s refusal to divest also continues to raise serious questions about his compliance with the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, which is a vital protection against foreign governments’ corrupting influence.” said Congressman Cohen.
The Foreign Emoluments Clause prohibits the President from accepting payments and other benefits from foreign governments without seeking and receiving Congressional authorization.
“The American people should have total confidence that the President is serving their interest, not his own financial enrichment. President Trump’s refusal to disclose information to Congress or seek Congress’s authorization for accepting profits from foreign governments stemming from his sprawling foreign financial interests is a brazen violation of the Constitution and a danger to our democracy.”
Specifically, Congressman Cohen offered 2 amendments to each of 8 upcoming appropriations bills for Fiscal Year 2018: Interior & Environment; Agriculture and Rural Development; Commerce, Justice, Science; Financial Services; Homeland Security; Labor, Health and Human Services, Education; State and Foreign Operations; and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development. Half of his amendments prohibit federal funds from being spent at Trump hotels and resorts. The other half of his amendments prohibit federal funds from being spent at Trump-owned businesses identified in his financial disclosures. A link to the text of these amendments will be posted when it becomes available.
Congressman Cohen offered similar amendments to an appropriations package that passed the House in July, however the Republican majority blocked them from being considered on the House floor.
Congressman Cohen is helping lead a lawsuit filed by nearly 200 Members of Congress against President Trump for allegedly violating the U.S. Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause.
Last week, Congressman Cohen announced he is drafting articles of impeachment for, among other things, potential violations of the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause.
National Parks
Washington, D.C. - August 30, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke recommended that President Trump change the borders of “a handful” of National Monuments. The Secretary did not publicly specify which monuments he is recommending be changed, but the recommendation comes after a White House ordered review of 27 National Monuments.
Below are statements and information from the newsmakers about this subject. (Please keep checking back to this page for updates!:
House Representative Judy Chu (D-CA, 27th):
“At the behest of oil companies eager to drill in protected lands, Donald Trump ordered a review of 27 of America’s most beloved national monuments. Now, after visiting just eight of them, Secretary Zinke is ignoring the outpouring of public support from 2.7 million Americans and recommending that an undetermined number be altered. The public deserves to see the complete list of recommendations that were sent to the White House. That he is not recommending any of the monuments be eliminated – as was intended at the start of the review – is an acknowledgement that these monuments all comport with the Antiquities Act. And so he is seeking to change them to cater to corporate interests instead.
“We invited Secretary Zinke to visit the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument to actually hear from the communities that support it. But instead, Zinke and Trump are choosing to listen to corporations and Washington lobbyists. Because of the utter lack of transparency, we do not know if the San Gabriels – which are supported by 80% of Angelenos – are among those to be altered.”
Below are statements and information from the newsmakers about this subject. (Please keep checking back to this page for updates!:
House Representative Judy Chu (D-CA, 27th):
“At the behest of oil companies eager to drill in protected lands, Donald Trump ordered a review of 27 of America’s most beloved national monuments. Now, after visiting just eight of them, Secretary Zinke is ignoring the outpouring of public support from 2.7 million Americans and recommending that an undetermined number be altered. The public deserves to see the complete list of recommendations that were sent to the White House. That he is not recommending any of the monuments be eliminated – as was intended at the start of the review – is an acknowledgement that these monuments all comport with the Antiquities Act. And so he is seeking to change them to cater to corporate interests instead.
“We invited Secretary Zinke to visit the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument to actually hear from the communities that support it. But instead, Zinke and Trump are choosing to listen to corporations and Washington lobbyists. Because of the utter lack of transparency, we do not know if the San Gabriels – which are supported by 80% of Angelenos – are among those to be altered.”
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Confederate Monuments
Washington, D.C. - August 29, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- U.S. Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) issued the following statement in response to the removal of Confederate statues at the University of Texas at Austin and across the nation:
"The campaign to remove Confederate monuments across the nation being forced upon us by radical leftists, academia, the mainstream media and the guardians of political correctness is shameful and wrong. Every American should oppose racism and extremism in all its forms. Taking down monuments and hiding our history serves no good purpose, which is why 62% of Americans oppose taking them down and think it's a politically correct mistake.
"We cannot—and must not—erase our history or judge our past leaders by today's standards. The people of Texas overwhelmingly supported the Confederacy in 1862. This historical fact cannot be changed nor hidden – and it shouldn't. It's a disservice to our citizens and our ancestors who helped create this great country we enjoy today. Where do these politically correct demands end? Do we now begin removing statues of George Washington because he was a slave holder over 200 years ago? Do we change the name of Fort Hood in Texas—the largest US Army base in the country—because it is named after Confederate General John Bell Hood?
"The absurdity has gotten so extreme that an Asian-American television sports commentator was recently relieved because his name was Robert Lee! I was informed that the reason Confederate statues have been taken down at UT in Austin is to protect them from vandalism by students. I would ask how they have stood for over a century unscathed all that time by the students! Vandalism is against the law and anyone who destroys public property should be prosecuted. I strongly disagree with these actions that revise our true history and divide our country at a time when we desperately need national unity. Let’s preserve our monuments and address the real problems of our nation."
Congresswoman Yvette D. Clarke announced a plan to remove Confederate monuments from military bases, by introducing “Honoring Real Patriots Act of 2017,” which would require the Department of Defense to change the name of any military installation or other property under its control currently named for individuals who fought against the United States during the Civil War or supported the Confederacy’s war efforts.
The legislation follows requests by Congresswoman Clarke and her colleagues in the Brooklyn Congressional delegation that the Department of the Army change the names of two streets at Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn that are now named for Confederate generals. New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, and other community leaders have since joined in calling for the name change. These requests have been refused by the Army.
“The time has come for the Army to remove from Fort Hamilton and other military installations the disgraced names of men who waged war against the United States to preserve the evil institution of slavery. Monuments to the Confederacy and its leaders have always represented white supremacy and a continuing attempt to deny the basic human rights of African Americans. As recent events in Charlottesville, Virginia, have made perfectly clear, these monuments are nothing more than symbols of white supremacy and a pretext for the violent imposition of an evil ideology that should never have persisted into the Twenty-First Century. For hundreds of thousands of Brooklyn residents, as well as troops stationed at Fort Hamilton who are prepared to fight for this nation, the monuments are an insult. It is clear that these symbols remain an inspiration to some who espouse white supremacist ideology to perpetuate acts of terror and violence on peaceful, law-abiding citizens of our nation. Across the United States, cities and states are removing such monuments as an act of reconciliation and respect for people whose humanity has too often been denied. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to dedicate themselves to the eradication of white supremacy, now and forever. The time for change is now.”
"The campaign to remove Confederate monuments across the nation being forced upon us by radical leftists, academia, the mainstream media and the guardians of political correctness is shameful and wrong. Every American should oppose racism and extremism in all its forms. Taking down monuments and hiding our history serves no good purpose, which is why 62% of Americans oppose taking them down and think it's a politically correct mistake.
"We cannot—and must not—erase our history or judge our past leaders by today's standards. The people of Texas overwhelmingly supported the Confederacy in 1862. This historical fact cannot be changed nor hidden – and it shouldn't. It's a disservice to our citizens and our ancestors who helped create this great country we enjoy today. Where do these politically correct demands end? Do we now begin removing statues of George Washington because he was a slave holder over 200 years ago? Do we change the name of Fort Hood in Texas—the largest US Army base in the country—because it is named after Confederate General John Bell Hood?
"The absurdity has gotten so extreme that an Asian-American television sports commentator was recently relieved because his name was Robert Lee! I was informed that the reason Confederate statues have been taken down at UT in Austin is to protect them from vandalism by students. I would ask how they have stood for over a century unscathed all that time by the students! Vandalism is against the law and anyone who destroys public property should be prosecuted. I strongly disagree with these actions that revise our true history and divide our country at a time when we desperately need national unity. Let’s preserve our monuments and address the real problems of our nation."
Congresswoman Yvette D. Clarke announced a plan to remove Confederate monuments from military bases, by introducing “Honoring Real Patriots Act of 2017,” which would require the Department of Defense to change the name of any military installation or other property under its control currently named for individuals who fought against the United States during the Civil War or supported the Confederacy’s war efforts.
The legislation follows requests by Congresswoman Clarke and her colleagues in the Brooklyn Congressional delegation that the Department of the Army change the names of two streets at Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn that are now named for Confederate generals. New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, and other community leaders have since joined in calling for the name change. These requests have been refused by the Army.
“The time has come for the Army to remove from Fort Hamilton and other military installations the disgraced names of men who waged war against the United States to preserve the evil institution of slavery. Monuments to the Confederacy and its leaders have always represented white supremacy and a continuing attempt to deny the basic human rights of African Americans. As recent events in Charlottesville, Virginia, have made perfectly clear, these monuments are nothing more than symbols of white supremacy and a pretext for the violent imposition of an evil ideology that should never have persisted into the Twenty-First Century. For hundreds of thousands of Brooklyn residents, as well as troops stationed at Fort Hamilton who are prepared to fight for this nation, the monuments are an insult. It is clear that these symbols remain an inspiration to some who espouse white supremacist ideology to perpetuate acts of terror and violence on peaceful, law-abiding citizens of our nation. Across the United States, cities and states are removing such monuments as an act of reconciliation and respect for people whose humanity has too often been denied. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to dedicate themselves to the eradication of white supremacy, now and forever. The time for change is now.”
D.C. REQUESTS EN BANC FEDERAL COURT HEARING ON SAF’S WRENN CCW CASE
by The Second Amendment Foundation
Bellevue, WA - August 29, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- The District of Columbia has filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court of Appeals requesting an en banc hearing in a case recently won by the Second Amendment Foundation that struck down the “good reason” requirement for obtaining a concealed carry permit.
The case is Wrenn v. District of Columbia.
“The Second Amendment Foundation expected the City of Washington, DC to file this appeal in an attempt to try to overturn our court victory that said their virtual ban on the right to carry a firearm for self-protection was unconstitutional,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.
SAF has been battling the city over this issue for some time. The city has strenuously resisted these legal efforts, arguing in its latest petition that the city is “unique” because of its dense population that includes “thousands of high-ranking federal officials and international diplomats.” But earlier this summer, the District Court of Appeals majority opinion is that the “good reason” restriction violates the Second Amendment rights of citizens living in the district.
“They have no intention of complying with any court decision that supports the right to keep and bear arms,” Gottlieb said. “It took the Heller decision to force them to allow a gun in your own home for self-defense. It took the Palmer decision, another SAF case, to force them to repeal their total ban on carry and now they are kicking and screaming about losing the Wrenn decision.”
Gottlieb maintains that even if the District is “unique,” the citizens living there still retain their right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. The city’s “good reason” requirement makes it far too easy to deny all but a few people their rights on the flimsy grounds that average citizens never have a good enough reason. The court recognized this problem and ruled against the District’s requirement, he noted.
“Municipal stubbornness cannot be allowed to outweigh the constitution,” Gottlieb said. “A civil right should not be subject to bureaucratic neurosis.”
Bellevue, WA - August 29, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- The District of Columbia has filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court of Appeals requesting an en banc hearing in a case recently won by the Second Amendment Foundation that struck down the “good reason” requirement for obtaining a concealed carry permit.
The case is Wrenn v. District of Columbia.
“The Second Amendment Foundation expected the City of Washington, DC to file this appeal in an attempt to try to overturn our court victory that said their virtual ban on the right to carry a firearm for self-protection was unconstitutional,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.
SAF has been battling the city over this issue for some time. The city has strenuously resisted these legal efforts, arguing in its latest petition that the city is “unique” because of its dense population that includes “thousands of high-ranking federal officials and international diplomats.” But earlier this summer, the District Court of Appeals majority opinion is that the “good reason” restriction violates the Second Amendment rights of citizens living in the district.
“They have no intention of complying with any court decision that supports the right to keep and bear arms,” Gottlieb said. “It took the Heller decision to force them to allow a gun in your own home for self-defense. It took the Palmer decision, another SAF case, to force them to repeal their total ban on carry and now they are kicking and screaming about losing the Wrenn decision.”
Gottlieb maintains that even if the District is “unique,” the citizens living there still retain their right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. The city’s “good reason” requirement makes it far too easy to deny all but a few people their rights on the flimsy grounds that average citizens never have a good enough reason. The court recognized this problem and ruled against the District’s requirement, he noted.
“Municipal stubbornness cannot be allowed to outweigh the constitution,” Gottlieb said. “A civil right should not be subject to bureaucratic neurosis.”
SOUTH DAKOTA SALES TAX CASE COULD LEAD TO SCOTUS REVIEW OF 1992 QUILL DECISION
by the Retail Industry Leaders Association
Washington, D.C. - August 29, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- The South Dakota Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in a case that could ultimately persuade the United States Supreme Court to revisit Quill Corp v. North Dakota, a 1992 decision that forbade states from requiring retailers without a physical presence to collect sales tax. In the twenty-five years since the decision, online commerce has exploded, and many policymakers have called for an end to the "loophole" that has given online sellers a distinct competitive advantage over brick and mortar stores.
"The artificial price advantage created by the United States Supreme Court and enjoyed by online-only sellers for two decades has created a significant market distortion, an inequity that has led to the shuttering of thousands of brick and mortar stores," said Retail Litigation Center President Deborah White. "The time has come to rectify this bias and restore basic free market competition."
The case heard today stems from a South Dakota statute passed in 2016 designed to challenge Quill directly. The law, passed overwhelmingly by the Legislature and signed by Governor Dennis Daugaard last spring, requires out-of-state retailers to collect and remit sales tax if they transact more than $100,000 of business in the state or more than 200 sales. The law was signed roughly one year after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy recognized in his concurring opinion in DMA v. Brohl that, "[t]he Internet has caused far-reaching systemic and structural changes in the economy" so that "a business may be present in a State in a meaningful way without that presence being physical in the traditional sense of the word." Noting the significant economic harms that were befalling state treasuries and local retailers, Justice Kennedy said that "it is unwise [for the US Supreme Court] to delay any longer a reconsideration of the Court's holding in Quill" and asked the "legal system [to] find an appropriate case for this Court to reexamine Quill."
State and local governments are as anxious as local retailers for a solution. As online sales have grown exponentially, states have experienced a significant erosion of their sales tax base. While many states have been successful tweaking nexus laws and enacting various sales and use tax compliance measures, no state has come close to fully recovering the revenues lost due to Quill. The combination of fewer storefronts and a deteriorating tax base has meant a slow decline in revenue for the 45 states and the District of Columbia that rely on sales tax revenues to fund state and local government operations. States have sought a solution from Congress for more than a dozen years, but despite multiple bill introductions by supportive members of both parties, these efforts have not led to legislation passing both Chambers of Congress.
"States have done virtually everything they can to solve this problem, but it's simply not enough," said White. "Congressional inaction means the only hope for retailers and the states is for the Supreme Court to revisit the Quill decision. This is an appropriate step since the U.S. Supreme Court created this distinction in the first place."
"We are hopeful that the South Dakota Supreme Court will quickly issue an opinion that explains to the federal court the harm the pre-Internet Quill decision has inflicted on both the states and local retailers," added White. "With a quick ruling, it's possible that the U.S. Supreme Court could choose this case to bring resolution to the states and merchant community during its October 2017 term."
RILA is the trade association of the world's largest and most innovative retail companies. RILA members include more than 200 retailers, product manufacturers, and service suppliers, which together account for more than $1.5 trillion in annual sales, millions of American jobs and more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing facilities and distribution centers domestically and abroad.
Washington, D.C. - August 29, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- The South Dakota Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in a case that could ultimately persuade the United States Supreme Court to revisit Quill Corp v. North Dakota, a 1992 decision that forbade states from requiring retailers without a physical presence to collect sales tax. In the twenty-five years since the decision, online commerce has exploded, and many policymakers have called for an end to the "loophole" that has given online sellers a distinct competitive advantage over brick and mortar stores.
"The artificial price advantage created by the United States Supreme Court and enjoyed by online-only sellers for two decades has created a significant market distortion, an inequity that has led to the shuttering of thousands of brick and mortar stores," said Retail Litigation Center President Deborah White. "The time has come to rectify this bias and restore basic free market competition."
The case heard today stems from a South Dakota statute passed in 2016 designed to challenge Quill directly. The law, passed overwhelmingly by the Legislature and signed by Governor Dennis Daugaard last spring, requires out-of-state retailers to collect and remit sales tax if they transact more than $100,000 of business in the state or more than 200 sales. The law was signed roughly one year after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy recognized in his concurring opinion in DMA v. Brohl that, "[t]he Internet has caused far-reaching systemic and structural changes in the economy" so that "a business may be present in a State in a meaningful way without that presence being physical in the traditional sense of the word." Noting the significant economic harms that were befalling state treasuries and local retailers, Justice Kennedy said that "it is unwise [for the US Supreme Court] to delay any longer a reconsideration of the Court's holding in Quill" and asked the "legal system [to] find an appropriate case for this Court to reexamine Quill."
State and local governments are as anxious as local retailers for a solution. As online sales have grown exponentially, states have experienced a significant erosion of their sales tax base. While many states have been successful tweaking nexus laws and enacting various sales and use tax compliance measures, no state has come close to fully recovering the revenues lost due to Quill. The combination of fewer storefronts and a deteriorating tax base has meant a slow decline in revenue for the 45 states and the District of Columbia that rely on sales tax revenues to fund state and local government operations. States have sought a solution from Congress for more than a dozen years, but despite multiple bill introductions by supportive members of both parties, these efforts have not led to legislation passing both Chambers of Congress.
"States have done virtually everything they can to solve this problem, but it's simply not enough," said White. "Congressional inaction means the only hope for retailers and the states is for the Supreme Court to revisit the Quill decision. This is an appropriate step since the U.S. Supreme Court created this distinction in the first place."
"We are hopeful that the South Dakota Supreme Court will quickly issue an opinion that explains to the federal court the harm the pre-Internet Quill decision has inflicted on both the states and local retailers," added White. "With a quick ruling, it's possible that the U.S. Supreme Court could choose this case to bring resolution to the states and merchant community during its October 2017 term."
RILA is the trade association of the world's largest and most innovative retail companies. RILA members include more than 200 retailers, product manufacturers, and service suppliers, which together account for more than $1.5 trillion in annual sales, millions of American jobs and more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing facilities and distribution centers domestically and abroad.
Voting
Washington, D.C. - August 29, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Marc Veasey, lead plaintiff in Veasey v. Abbott, released the following statement after U.S. District Judge Nelva Ramos ruled that the Texas voter ID law was enacted with the deliberate intent to discriminate against African American and Hispanic voters:
“Time and time again, our federal courts have ruled that the Texas voter ID law intentionally discriminates against Texas citizens in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution. As the lead plaintiff in Veasey v. Abbott, I am proud that we have so far successfully challenged and blocked these illegal efforts to restrict voting. It is time for Texas Republican leaders to end shameful efforts to hold power through voter suppression.”
Below are more statements and information regarding Voting (keep checking back for updates):
A Court Strikes Down Texas’s Voter ID Law For the Fifth Time
House Representative Joaquin Castro (D-TX, 20th):
"Once again, a federal court has found Texas' voter ID law to be discriminatory and in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Republican state leaders' transparent efforts to make it harder and less likely that some Texans will vote are disgraceful."
“Time and time again, our federal courts have ruled that the Texas voter ID law intentionally discriminates against Texas citizens in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution. As the lead plaintiff in Veasey v. Abbott, I am proud that we have so far successfully challenged and blocked these illegal efforts to restrict voting. It is time for Texas Republican leaders to end shameful efforts to hold power through voter suppression.”
Below are more statements and information regarding Voting (keep checking back for updates):
A Court Strikes Down Texas’s Voter ID Law For the Fifth Time
House Representative Joaquin Castro (D-TX, 20th):
"Once again, a federal court has found Texas' voter ID law to be discriminatory and in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Republican state leaders' transparent efforts to make it harder and less likely that some Texans will vote are disgraceful."
DACA Program
Washington, D.C. - August 29, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program provides temporary protection from removal and work authorization to young students and veterans who grew up in the United States if they register with the federal government, pay a fee, and pass a criminal background check. More than 47,000 individuals impacted by the program reside in the four counties Congressman Valadao represents.
Earlier this week, United States Congressman David G. Valadao (CA-21) joined with five colleagues to request support from President Donald J. Trump for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also known as DACA.
Congressman David G. Valadao stated, “It is clear our immigration system is in desperate need of reform and it is imperative Congress act to correct its severe shortcomings immediately. However, targeting individuals who were brought to America as children through no fault of their own is neither the way to repair our broken system nor the way to protect our nation." He continued, “Instead, by temporarily maintaining the protections of the DACA program, Congress can continue our work to repair our system, while allowing these young people to work and study without fear of deportation.”
Rep. Norma J. Torres (D-Pomona) issued the following statement in response to President Trump’s ongoing attacks against immigrant communities following reports that he intends to end the DACA program as early as this week:
“It is shocking that with all of the challenges facing our country, the President is continuing his incessant attacks on hard-working immigrants. This past Friday, with the eyes of the nation on Texas and Hurricane Harvey, the President pardoned former Sherriff Joe Arpaio, a man infamous for terrorizing immigrant communities and found guilty by the courts for racial profiling. Now, as thousands face catastrophic conditions in Texas, we are hearing reports that the President may bring an end to the DACA program in the coming days.
“Dreamers are brave young men and women who embody American values. They deserve certainty, compassion, and an opportunity to contribute to the only country many have ever known. They do not deserve to be the target of Trump’s latest anti-immigrant crusade.
“As an immigrant, as a Member of Congress, and as an American, I can assure the President that we are watching his every move. We will not be distracted, and we will not stand by while he rips apart our communities and places thousands of hard-working young people at risk. Far too much is at stake, not only for Dreamers, but for the very future of our country.”
More Statements and information regarding DACA:
House Representative Jeff Denham (R-CA, 10th):
“These young adults were brought to America as children through no fault of their own and know no other country to call home, and we must continue pressing for immigration reform that will provide them with a pathway to citizenship. We have violent criminals preying on our communities, and our resources should be going toward their deportation instead of being directed toward the young men and women protected through DACA, who are working toward a better future.”
Earlier this week, United States Congressman David G. Valadao (CA-21) joined with five colleagues to request support from President Donald J. Trump for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also known as DACA.
Congressman David G. Valadao stated, “It is clear our immigration system is in desperate need of reform and it is imperative Congress act to correct its severe shortcomings immediately. However, targeting individuals who were brought to America as children through no fault of their own is neither the way to repair our broken system nor the way to protect our nation." He continued, “Instead, by temporarily maintaining the protections of the DACA program, Congress can continue our work to repair our system, while allowing these young people to work and study without fear of deportation.”
Rep. Norma J. Torres (D-Pomona) issued the following statement in response to President Trump’s ongoing attacks against immigrant communities following reports that he intends to end the DACA program as early as this week:
“It is shocking that with all of the challenges facing our country, the President is continuing his incessant attacks on hard-working immigrants. This past Friday, with the eyes of the nation on Texas and Hurricane Harvey, the President pardoned former Sherriff Joe Arpaio, a man infamous for terrorizing immigrant communities and found guilty by the courts for racial profiling. Now, as thousands face catastrophic conditions in Texas, we are hearing reports that the President may bring an end to the DACA program in the coming days.
“Dreamers are brave young men and women who embody American values. They deserve certainty, compassion, and an opportunity to contribute to the only country many have ever known. They do not deserve to be the target of Trump’s latest anti-immigrant crusade.
“As an immigrant, as a Member of Congress, and as an American, I can assure the President that we are watching his every move. We will not be distracted, and we will not stand by while he rips apart our communities and places thousands of hard-working young people at risk. Far too much is at stake, not only for Dreamers, but for the very future of our country.”
More Statements and information regarding DACA:
House Representative Jeff Denham (R-CA, 10th):
“These young adults were brought to America as children through no fault of their own and know no other country to call home, and we must continue pressing for immigration reform that will provide them with a pathway to citizenship. We have violent criminals preying on our communities, and our resources should be going toward their deportation instead of being directed toward the young men and women protected through DACA, who are working toward a better future.”
Rapid DNA Act
Washington, D.C. - August 29, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- The bipartisan, bicameral Rapid DNA Act to help local law enforcement use new technology to speed up justice has been signed into law by President Donald Trump.
Traditional DNA analysis can take weeks, but Rapid DNA analysis permits processing of samples in about 90 minutes or less. The technology revolutionizes the way in which those arrested for crimes are enrolled in the criminal justice system; shortens the time required for their DNA to be linked to unsolved crimes; and speeds up innocent people’s exoneration.
The Rapid DNA Act will let local law enforcement agencies – under standards and guidelines established by the FBI – perform real-time DNA testing at the time of arrest within their own booking stations, comparing samples to profiles in the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).
The Rapid DNA Act was introduced in January by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and by Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Swalwell. It was supported by law enforcement organizations including the National Fraternal Order of Police, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major City Chiefs Association, National Association of Police Organizations, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and National District Attorneys Association, as well as by the Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations.
Pleasanton-based IntegenX Inc. is a global market leader for Rapid DNA human identification.
“Today marks a landmark day in more efficiently fighting crime and supporting law enforcement,” said Robert Schueren, President and CEO of IntegenX. “As a company in the 15th Congressional District, we’re grateful for the support and co-sponsorship from Congressman Swalwell.”
The Alameda County District Attorney’s Office has been a strong advocate of Rapid DNA technology to solve crimes and exonerate the wrongfully accused.
“Rapid DNA technology provides an exciting new way to identify or clear a suspect within 90 minutes instead of what now can take years,” said Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley. “Law enforcement agencies across the nation, and the people they serve, will be grateful for this bipartisan effort to make their work more efficient.”
In testimony before Congress last year, FBI Director James Comey said the authority in the bill would help law enforcement “change the world in a very, very exciting way” by enabling officials to know “near-instantly” whether a person in custody is connected with other crimes or is innocent of the suspected charge.
Below are statements and information regarding this ACT:
House Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA, 15th):
“This law’s enactment proves that, even in troubled political times, we can work together across the aisle to make Americans safer,” said Swalwell, who serves on the House Judiciary Committee. “This new law will help law enforcement agencies across the nation use a more powerful tool to protect and serve our communities, to clear the innocent, and to attain justice for victims.”
House Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA, 6th):
“I am extremely proud to see the bipartisan Rapid DNA Act, a product of the House Judiciary Committee, signed into law. While once taking days or weeks, DNA testing can now be completed in a matter of hours. However, a decades-old law prevents the use of Rapid DNA technology in many circumstances, which has created a growing backlog. The Rapid DNA Act remedies this problem so that police stations across the United States can use Rapid DNA technology to quickly identify violent suspects and free the innocent.
“I also want to thank Crime Subcommittee Chairman Sensenbrenner for his years of leadership on this important issue which is a significant component of the House Judiciary Committee’s ongoing efforts on criminal justice reform."
Traditional DNA analysis can take weeks, but Rapid DNA analysis permits processing of samples in about 90 minutes or less. The technology revolutionizes the way in which those arrested for crimes are enrolled in the criminal justice system; shortens the time required for their DNA to be linked to unsolved crimes; and speeds up innocent people’s exoneration.
The Rapid DNA Act will let local law enforcement agencies – under standards and guidelines established by the FBI – perform real-time DNA testing at the time of arrest within their own booking stations, comparing samples to profiles in the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).
The Rapid DNA Act was introduced in January by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and by Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Swalwell. It was supported by law enforcement organizations including the National Fraternal Order of Police, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major City Chiefs Association, National Association of Police Organizations, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and National District Attorneys Association, as well as by the Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations.
Pleasanton-based IntegenX Inc. is a global market leader for Rapid DNA human identification.
“Today marks a landmark day in more efficiently fighting crime and supporting law enforcement,” said Robert Schueren, President and CEO of IntegenX. “As a company in the 15th Congressional District, we’re grateful for the support and co-sponsorship from Congressman Swalwell.”
The Alameda County District Attorney’s Office has been a strong advocate of Rapid DNA technology to solve crimes and exonerate the wrongfully accused.
“Rapid DNA technology provides an exciting new way to identify or clear a suspect within 90 minutes instead of what now can take years,” said Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley. “Law enforcement agencies across the nation, and the people they serve, will be grateful for this bipartisan effort to make their work more efficient.”
In testimony before Congress last year, FBI Director James Comey said the authority in the bill would help law enforcement “change the world in a very, very exciting way” by enabling officials to know “near-instantly” whether a person in custody is connected with other crimes or is innocent of the suspected charge.
Below are statements and information regarding this ACT:
House Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA, 15th):
“This law’s enactment proves that, even in troubled political times, we can work together across the aisle to make Americans safer,” said Swalwell, who serves on the House Judiciary Committee. “This new law will help law enforcement agencies across the nation use a more powerful tool to protect and serve our communities, to clear the innocent, and to attain justice for victims.”
House Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA, 6th):
“I am extremely proud to see the bipartisan Rapid DNA Act, a product of the House Judiciary Committee, signed into law. While once taking days or weeks, DNA testing can now be completed in a matter of hours. However, a decades-old law prevents the use of Rapid DNA technology in many circumstances, which has created a growing backlog. The Rapid DNA Act remedies this problem so that police stations across the United States can use Rapid DNA technology to quickly identify violent suspects and free the innocent.
“I also want to thank Crime Subcommittee Chairman Sensenbrenner for his years of leadership on this important issue which is a significant component of the House Judiciary Committee’s ongoing efforts on criminal justice reform."
Sanctuary Cities
Washington, D.C. - August 29, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Fifty-three members of the United States House and Senate are calling out Attorney General Jeff Sessions for holding critical violence prevention funds used by American cities hostage to the Trump Administration’s extreme immigration agenda.
The Department of Justice has placed new and onerous conditions on local law enforcement’s access to federal funding through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne-JAG) program, forcing cities to choose between redirecting already scarce resources from local policing efforts to enforcing federal immigration laws. The lawmakers are demanding an explanation, including the statutory authority for the Department’s new conditions, which will hurt the ability of local governments to fight violent crime in their communities.
“These conditions are an unwarranted, coercive effort to leverage communities’ longstanding reliance on Byrne-JAG funds in furtherance of the Trump Administration’s mass-deportation agenda. By forcing local law enforcement to choose between redirecting resources from policing efforts to immigration enforcement or else sacrificing violence prevention funds that the Justice Department itself has described as “critical” and “necessary,” these new Byrne-JAG conditions will undermine the ability of local law enforcement agencies to combat gun violence in communities like Chicago and Baltimore,” the lawmakers wrote.
Below are statements and information concerning more about Sanctuary Cities (Keep checking back for updates):
The Department of Justice has placed new and onerous conditions on local law enforcement’s access to federal funding through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne-JAG) program, forcing cities to choose between redirecting already scarce resources from local policing efforts to enforcing federal immigration laws. The lawmakers are demanding an explanation, including the statutory authority for the Department’s new conditions, which will hurt the ability of local governments to fight violent crime in their communities.
“These conditions are an unwarranted, coercive effort to leverage communities’ longstanding reliance on Byrne-JAG funds in furtherance of the Trump Administration’s mass-deportation agenda. By forcing local law enforcement to choose between redirecting resources from policing efforts to immigration enforcement or else sacrificing violence prevention funds that the Justice Department itself has described as “critical” and “necessary,” these new Byrne-JAG conditions will undermine the ability of local law enforcement agencies to combat gun violence in communities like Chicago and Baltimore,” the lawmakers wrote.
Below are statements and information concerning more about Sanctuary Cities (Keep checking back for updates):
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)