November 5, 2016


News and Views


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-weighs-in-on-fbis-clinton-probe-we-dont-operate-on-leaks/

Obama weighs in on FBI's Clinton probe: "We don't operate on leaks"
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS November 2, 2016, 1:16 PM

SCREENSHOT/ -- “NOW THIS”


President Obama discussed the latest controversy stemming from the FBI’s disclosures in the ongoing investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server, seeming to criticize the agency’s director, James Comey, in a new interview published Wednesday.

“I do think that there is a norm that when there are investigations we don’t operate on innuendo, we don’t operate on incomplete information, we don’t operate on leaks,” the president told NowThis News, a social news outlet, during an interview taped Tuesday in Ohio. “We operate based on concrete decisions that are made.”

“When this was investigated thoroughly the last time,” he added, “the conclusion of the FBI, the conclusion of the Justice Department, the conclusion of repeated congressional investigations was that -- you know -- she has made some mistakes, but that there wasn’t anything there that was, you know, prosecutable.”

You can watch the interview on the “Now This” Twitter account:

We spoke with President Obama about the FBI's recent investigation into emails related to Hillary Clinton pic.twitter.com/3ivMp2TfVi

— NowThis (@nowthisnews) November 2, 2016
The president leveled the critique of the agency days after FBI chief Comey sent a letter to Congress informing various committee leaders that more emails were found that could be “pertinent” to the Clinton probe. Soon after, top Democrats piled on Comey, blasting the director for breaking Justice Department protocol by commenting on an ongoing investigation, while many Republicans praised him. At least one Republican, Senate Judiciary chair Chuck Grassley of Iowa, joined in the broadside over Comey’s “vague” letter. Former Republican Attorneys General Alberto Gonzales and Michael Mukasey also criticized Comey.

“Obviously it’s become a political controversy,” Mr. Obama said in his interview, and, he added, “I’ve made a very deliberate effort to make sure that I don’t look like I’m meddling in what are supposed to be independent processes for making these assessments.”

Addressing concerns about Clinton in light of the reopened FBI investigation, the president sought to assure voters that the controversy was just “being blown up” by partisanship.

“Hillary Clinton, having been in the arena for 30 years, oftentimes gets knocked around and people say crazy stuff about her and when she makes a mistake -- an honest mistake -- it ends up being blown up as if it’s just some crazy thing,” he said. “So I understand why if you are voting for the first time or even the second time, you know, all that noise coming at you, you think, oh, well, there’s something maybe, I should be worried about… [but] I wouldn’t be supporting her if I didn’t have absolute confidence in her integrity and her interest in making sure that young people have a better future.”

For the first time, the president also commented on the Dakota Access Pipeline, the 1,200-mile long oil line expected to run through four states. In recent weeks, police have clashed -- sometimes violently -- with protesters demonstrating against the potential environmental harm i could pose to the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.

“As a general rule, my view is that there is a way for us to accommodate sacred lands of Native Americans, and I think that right now the Army Corps is examining whether there are ways to reroute this pipeline,” the president said.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/thornton-law-firm-straw-donor-scheme-bonuses-boston-globe-spotlight/

Boston law firm accused of massive straw-donor scheme
CBS NEWS
November 2, 2016, 7:03 AM

Photograph -- ctm-1102-straw-donor-boston-law-firm-democrats-politics.jpg, Thornton Law Firm donated to Democrats running in some of this year’s most hotly contested races -- ones that could determine control of the U.S. Senate CBS NEWS


Hillary Clinton’s campaign is returning thousands of dollars in donations linked to what may be one of the largest straw-donor schemes ever uncovered.

A small law firm that has given money to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Harry Reid, President Obama and many others is accused of improperly funneling millions of dollars into Democratic Party coffers. The program was exposed by the Center for Responsive Politics and the same team of Boston Globe investigative reporters featured in the movie “Spotlight.”

The Thornton Law Firm has just 10 partners, but dollar for dollar, it’s one of the nation’s biggest political donors, reports CBS News correspondent Tony Dokoupil.

But according to the firm’s own documents – leaked by a whistleblower -- days or even hours after making these donations, partners received bonuses matching the amount they gave.

“Once the law firm knew that we had these records, they didn’t deny that this was the case,” said Scott Allen, Boston Globe’s Spotlight editor.

“If you give a donation and then somebody else reimburses you for that contribution, that is a clear violation of the spirit and the letter of the law at the state and federal levels,” Allen added.

Federal law limits partnerships, like the Thornton Law Firm, to a maximum donation of $2,700 per candidate. But campaign finance watchdogs say the firm used its individual partners as straw donors, allowing it to funnel money to campaigns well above that legal limit.

“Straw donor reimbursement systems are something both the FEC and the Department of Justice take very seriously, and people have gone to jail for this,” Center for Responsive Politics editorial director Viveca Novak said.

The Spotlight team and the Center for Responsive Politics looked at donations from three of the firm’s partners from 2010 to 2014. The trio and one of their wives gave $1.6 million, mostly to Democrats. Over the same period, they received $1.4 million back in bonuses.

A Thornton spokesman said the bonuses are legal because they came out of each partner’s ownership stake in the firm. In other words, they were paid with their own money.

In a statement, the firm said:

“We would like to make it clear that the Thornton law firm has complied with all applicable laws and regulations regarding campaign contributions. Ten years ago, it hired an outside law firm to review how it wanted to handle donations to politicians. It was given a legal opinion on how it should structure its program and then it hired an outside accountant to review and implement the program. It was a voluntary program which only involved equity partners and their own personal after-tax money to make donations.”

Through its employees, the firm gave to Democrats running in some of this year’s most hotly contested races -- ones that could determine control of the U.S. Senate.

Massachusetts Republicans are calling for an investigation.

“In the end, it’s about restoring integrity to a process that folks are already extremely wary of,” Massachusetts Republican Party chair Kirsten Hughes said.

Allen said he’s not “confident at all” that this is an isolated program at Thornton.

“We’ve had a number of parties coming forward to us saying, ‘Hey, they do this at our place too.’ So the issue is always, can you prove it?” Allen said.

CBS News has learned the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center will file a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission Wednesday.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has received nearly $130,000 from the firm since 2007, told the Boston Globe she will not return any money unless investigators find the donations were illegal.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_donor

Straw donor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A straw donor is a person who illegally uses another person's money to make a political contribution in their own name.[1] In the United States, making a political contribution in another person's name is illegal, as is agreeing to be the named donor with someone else's money.[2] For example, a straw donor may contribute to a political campaign before being reimbursed by another, who is using that person as a conduit to exceed the limits on campaign contributions under the laws of a jurisdiction.

In federal elections in the United States, straw donor schemes are illegal under 2 U.S.C. § 441f, which states:


No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution, and no person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person.[3]

This section was enacted as part of the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971



Everytime I hear one of those Republicans say that we need businessmen as president and congress members I want to scream. Nobody is dirtier than businessmen. Whenever I hear that the wealthy are better, more intelligent, more respectable than the common man, I laugh. How does anybody think they got all that money? You just can’t do that honestly unless you’re very, very lucky!



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/should-election-day-in-the-u-s-be-a-national-holiday/

Should Election Day in the U.S. be a national holiday?
By JONATHAN BERR MONEYWATCH
November 1, 2016, 5:30 AM

Play VIDEO -- We the Voters: Do you REALLY have a constitutional right to vote? : “October 26, 2016, 9:06 PM.”


Would making Election Day a holiday encourage more Americans to vote?

A group of more than 300 companies thinks so, and have pledged to give their employees time off on Nov. 8 to cast their ballots.

Hunter Walk, a partner in venture capital firm Homebrew, launched “The Take Election Day Off” movement this summer on Twitter to combat voter cynicism. Since then, it has attracted high-profile startups such as music service Spotify, payments processor Square and dating app Tinder, according to the website Take Election Day Off, among other participating employers.

Patagonia is going a step further by shuttering the outdoor apparel and gear maker’s corporate headquarters in Ventura, Calif., and its Reno, Nevada-based distribution and customer service office on Nov. 8, with workers getting paid for the day.

“During a time of catastrophic environmental crisis, when America needs strong leadership to confront the fundamental threat of climate change, voter turnout threatens to reach historic lows as people are turned off by the ugliness of politics,” said Patagonia CEO Rose Marcario in a statement.

Participating in U.S. elections is dismal compared with that in other industrialized countries. About 54 percent of eligible voters cast their ballots in the 2012 presidential contest between Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney, according to the Pew Research Center. By comparison, countries such as Sweden, Turkey and Belgium typically see turnout of at least 80 percent in national elections.

In the U.S., laws vary widely by state regarding to what extent employers must accommodate workers to exercise their right to vote. About 19 states require that workers be paid when they take time out to vote, while others don’t. According to Edward Yost, a spokesman for the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM), most businesses are willing to let workers leave early or come in late so they can make it to the polls.

A twist this year is the acrimony spilling over from the presidential contest into the workplace. According to an SHRM survey, 52 percent of organizations reported increased “political volatility” in 2016 compared with previous presidential campaigns, leading to increased tension, hostility and arguments among employees.

“Unfortunately, we are bombarded by the election] 24-7 at this point from every source possible. ... It’s hard for someone to turn it off when they walk into the workplace,” Yost said.


© 2016 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved.

72 Comments Share Tweet Stumble Email
Jonathan Berr
ON TWITTER»
Jonathan Berr is an award-winning journalist and podcaster based in New Jersey whose main focus is on business and economic issues.


I’m not sure how much having election day as a holiday would be a stimulus to better voter turnout, but perhaps if we had local group events such as a parade or parties centered around the counting of votes, or some other buildup of enthusiasm before election day, based on discussion of community issues among interested citizens, the impetus might possibly build up to a better turnout on election day.

I wish that city neighborhoods had more civic activity now, as there was when I was younger. When I lived at Dupont Circle in Washington DC in the ‘70s, there were some activities going on at a large grassy center of the traffic circle where activities ranging from young people taking in the sun, a drummers’ circle, workers eating their lunches, people throwing Frisbees for dogs to catch, political groups holding one on one sessions with bystanders over their issues of concern, and more. It was something like a fair. I never knew what would be happening there from one time to the next, but in the day-time it was safe. It was not, that I remember, a place where marijuana smoke was drifting on the air, either. I remember learning in school about the Chatauqua Movement of the late 1800s in which meetings would be held for the general public, which they attended for pleasure in order to discuss various issues of interest. In an atmosphere like that, community groups could meet with concerned members of the police forces to discuss improvements in the relations between them, for instance. Get to know each other! We could certainly use something like that.

I’m afraid that the apathy among voters is a generalized apathy about what is happening in the world. We’re all in front of our TVs or computers “vegging out.” Sadly, however, it seems to me that nobody shows much “interest” in anything anymore, especially some sort of mental and educational improvement. Years ago, I think I remember, laws were made against drinking in relation to polling places due to riotous behavior. There was even a problem with politicians paying alcoholics to vote for them by giving them alcohol. I’m afraid the same might be true today. I’m not sure the overall “quality” of voters has changed, dare I say? If some legislators want to try it, though, I’d be interested to watch what happens.

Some of the issues surrounding the vote are discussed in depth in the following several articles. It is this kind of issue that, in my opinion, is the real cause of voter apathy. I have hopes for Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders to put some issues forward strongly enough to “jump start” the public mind and move us toward progress.


THE RIGHT TO VOTE -- CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT?

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/23/voting_is_not_a_right/
The right to vote has always been a hallmark of U.S. democracy. But is it explicitly outlined in the Constitution? "We the Voters" finds out.


https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=We+the+Voters%3A+Do+you+REALLY+have+a+constitutional+right+to+vote%3F

Is the right to vote in the Constitution?

The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870: "Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.



http://www.salon.com/2013/05/23/voting_is_not_a_right/

THURSDAY, MAY 23, 2013 10:45 AM EDT
Voting is not a right
Iraq's new constitution has something America's doesn't: The right to vote. Republicans want to keep it that way
MICHAEL LIND

Is it time, at long last, for the citizens of the United States to enjoy the constitutional right to vote for the people who govern them?

Phrased in that way, the question may come as a shock. The U.S. has waged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified, at least in rhetoric, by the claim that people deserve the right to vote for their leaders. Most of us assume that the right to vote has long been enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Not according to the Supreme Court. In Bush v. Gore (2000), the Court ruled that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.” That’s right. Under federal law, according to the Supreme Court, if you are a citizen of the United States, you have a right to own a firearm that might conceivably be used in overthrowing the government. But you have no right to wield a vote that might be used to change the government by peaceful means.

FairVote, a nonprofit organization that leads the fight for electoral reform in the U.S., points out:

The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy. Yet most Americans do not realize that we do not have a constitutionally protected right to vote. While there are amendments to the U.S. Constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th), no affirmative right to vote exists.

VideoPolitical Backfires

And that’s just the beginning. While the Voting Rights Act eliminated overt disenfranchisement based on racial discrimination, state governments retain many tools that state politicians can use to disfranchise citizens, not only in state and local elections but also in federal elections. Among these tools are onerous voter registration requirements, like the photo ID laws being pushed by Republicans in many states to disenfranchise low-income Democratic voters. Then there are laws that make forfeiture of voting rights for certain classes of convicted criminals permanent, even after they have served their time and rejoined society with otherwise full rights. This form of disenfranchisement falls disproportionately on the white, black and Latino poor, not on white-collar criminals in the social elite. According to Bryan Stevenson, a professor of law at NYU, in another decade more citizens of Alabama may be disenfranchised by law than before the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965.

In an important essay for the journal Democracy, Jonathon Soros and Mark Schmitt of the Roosevelt Institute lend their voices to the growing chorus calling for putting the right to vote in the Constitution. Noting the perennial litigation caused by efforts to manipulate voting rights, they write:

Finally enshrining the right to vote in the Constitution would help resolve most of these cases in favor of voters. It would not make every limitation unconstitutional—it is the essential nature of voting, for instance, that there be a date certain by which votes must be cast in order to be counted—but it would ensure that these limitations are judged under the standard known as “strict scrutiny,” meaning that governments would have to show that the restrictions were carefully designed to address a compelling interest of the state. We would come to find that many familiar aspects of our current voting system would not meet this standard and access to the ballot could be extended to millions who are now actively or effectively disenfranchised.

Two members of the House of Representatives, Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., and Representative Keith Ellison, D-Minn., announced on May 13 that they would introduce an amendment to the federal Constitution guaranteeing the right to vote in America. Here is their proposed amendment:

SECTION 1: Every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.

SECTION 2: Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.

Who could oppose such a simple and straightforward amendment, guaranteeing a sacred right that most Americans assume is already in the Constitution? The Republican right could, and probably will.

For the foreseeable future the GOP will be controlled by aging non-Hispanic white conservative voters, who think the rising generations of Americans are too brown, too secular and too liberal. Because many of these aging white reactionaries don’t think of most future Americans as “us,” they and their conservative Republican representatives are carrying out a scorched-earth political strategy. The declinists of the White Right sense that they have lost the future, so they are doing what they can to delay their political downfall, while sabotaging the nation-state that the eventual victors will inherit.

In entitlements, the scorched-earth strategy means guaranteeing Social Security and Medicare for today’s middle-aged and elderly non-Hispanic white Republican voters, while using schemes like the plans of Paul Ryan to destroy social insurance for succeeding generations. In politics, the declining right’s scorched-earth strategy means using photo ID requirements, understaffed polling stations and other sleazy methods to deter younger and poorer Americans from wielding the vote to the detriment of gray-haired, middle-class viewers of Fox News.

At some point the declinist demographic will shrink to the point that it loses its power even within the neo-Confederate GOP and a new Republican Party more in tune with a changing America will arise. Until then, expect the Republican right to continue to prefer preventing many Americans from voting at all, rather than compete with the Democrats for their votes.

Even if a constitutional amendment is blocked, a campaign centered on a right to vote amendment can serve to bring attention to the issue and mobilize the forces opposing disenfranchisement in all its forms. In their Democracy article, Soros and Schmitt argue for the educational value of a campaign to amend the Constitution to enshrine the right to vote:

A Right to Vote Amendment would not supersede the many causes of the democracy movement, but it would give them a similar overarching mission, with the principle of full participation and universal suffrage at the forefront. …. Nothing would have to wait for the amendment to be ratified; all the steps toward a real universal right to vote could be pursued and enacted through legislation alongside the fight for the amendment.

The post-World War II constitutions of the former fascist nations Japan and Germany include the right to vote. Oh, and so do the new constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan. After a decade fighting wars in the name of democracy abroad, maybe we should consider building democracy at home for a change.

Michael Lind is the author of Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States and co-founder of the New America Foundation.



Who are FairVote? Go to website:

http://www.fairvote.org/about

About FairVote

FairVote is a non-partisan, 501(c)(3)h non-profit organization that seeks to make democracy fair, functional, and more representative. We research and propose common sense changes to strengthen our democracy and ensure all voices are heard and every vote counts in every election. Operating since 1992 and with a staff of more than 20 people in 2016, we work with scholars, civic leaders, policymakers, journalists and national, state, and local reform partners to advance fairer elections. In this section, you can read more about our story, our staff, upcoming employment opportunities and opportunities to support our work.

OUR STORY
STAFF AND LEADERSHIP
BOARD
MEDIA
ADVISORY COMMITTEES
FAIRVOTE PROJECTS
EMPLOYMENT & INTERNSHIPS
FINANCIALS
GIVING TO FAIRVOTE
EVENTS



What is a declinist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declinism

Declinism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Declinism is the belief that a society or institution is tending towards decline. Particularly, it is the predisposition, due to cognitive bias, particulary rosy retrospection, to view the past favourably and future negatively.[1][2]

American Declinism[edit]

The United States of America in particular has a history of predicting its own downfall, beginning with European settlement.[3] So called American Declinism has been a recurring topic in US politics since the 1950s. Below is a list of Declinist literature:[4]

Fareed Zakaria (2008). The Post American World. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 9780393062359.

Thomas L. Friedman; Michael Mandelbaum (2011). That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back. Macmillan. ISBN 9781429995115.

Edward Luce (2012). Time to Start Thinking: America in the Age of Descent. Grove Press. ISBN 9780802194619.



http://www.fairvote.org/right_to_vote_faq

Right to Vote FAQ
Right to Vote FAQ

I have never had a problem voting. Don’t we already have a right to vote?

American adults living in states typically can vote, but they do not have a federally protected right to vote enshrined in the Constitution. States protect the right to vote to different degrees based on the state’s constitutional language and statutes. The federal government traditionally only steps in to prevent certain broad abuses, such as denying the right to vote based on race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), or age (26th Amendment).

In most states, counties design their own ballots, pursue their own voter education, have their own policies for handling overseas ballots, hire and train their own poll workers, select polling place locations, and maintain their own voter registration lists. States have wide leeway in determining policies on absentee voting, polling hours and funding of elections. As a result, voters and potential voters have different experiences going through the registration and voting process depending on where they live. These differences can be even more pronounced in some local elections because of varying degrees of federal and state support.

States also currently have the power to explicitly limit the franchise. Current data shows states have chosen to deny nearly six million American citizens the right to vote because of felony convictions, including millions who have completely paid their debt to society. Some states even deny certain classes of overseas voters the right to vote.

Don’t citizens have a right to vote in presidential elections?

Not necessarily. Article II of the Constitution reads in part: “Each state shall appoint, such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors…” In other words, it is the state legislature and not the citizens of a particular state that determine which presidential candidate receives that state’s electoral votes. In the early decades of the country, several state legislatures actually appointed electors to the Electoral College, rather than hold popular elections in their state. In the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision, five justices declared, “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.” The Court went on to say that Florida’s legislature has the power to take that power away from the people at any time, regardless of the popular vote tally.

In addition, it took a constitutional amendment in 1961 to enable residents of Washington, D.C. to vote for president. But the millions of American citizens living in territories like Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam still cannot vote for president.

What administrative problems do we have with voting in the United States and how will a constitutional amendment help?

Without national standards, states are free to create their own voting policies and procedures, which can limit or restrict a citizen’s ability to vote. Only clear standards will ensure that every vote counts. States would be held accountable for running fair elections, and the federal government would be responsible for ensuring that funds were available to meet those high standards.

According to a study of the 2008 presidential election produced by the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2-4 million registered voters were “discouraged” from voting because of administrative hassles, such as long lines, voter identification, and problems obtaining an absentee ballot. The same study reports an estimated 9 million eligible people attempted to register but failed due to voter registration barriers like missed deadlines and changes of residence. A Constitutional Right to Vote will give Congress broad discretion in setting standards to ensure greater equality in election administration.

What groups of Americans would be protected by a right to vote amendment?

Legislation to establish a right to vote states that all American citizens who are of voting age have an individual right to vote “in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.” The federal government would protect this individual right to vote, thus making it more difficult for states or localities to disenfranchise groups or maintain procedures that make it unnecessarily difficult for citizens to vote. It would enfranchise all those who had been stripped of the right to vote due to a felony conviction and would pave the way for voters in Washington, D.C. to vote for a federal representative and Senators. In general, it would create more ways for individuals to ensure that their county and state use procedures that give citizens’ the ability to vote.

Will citizens in the territories (Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and Guam) be able to vote for president?

At present, residents of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam are all citizens of the U.S. They pay taxes and can be drafted into the military, but do not vote for president. While this amendment would not specifically give citizens of the territories the right to vote automatically, it does open the doorway for them to gain the ability to vote for president.

What about American Samoa?

Residents of American Samoa are not actually American citizens; they are nationals. Current legislation to establish a right to vote specifies that only American citizens would have a right to vote, so nationals would not be included.

Will non-citizens and 16-year-olds be able to vote?

Under this amendment the decision about expanding the franchise to non-citizens and 16- and 17-year-olds would remain within states’ jurisdiction.

Does the amendment get rid of the Electoral College?

The amendment does not specifically comment on the Electoral College. However, by declaring that every U.S. citizen has a constitutional right to vote, it does lay the groundwork for an argument against the Electoral College. But if the Electoral College remains, the amendment would bind state legislatures to appoint presidential electors based on the popular vote of the people.

How is this amendment different from the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)?

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 was a statute passed in response to the Florida election debacle and the systemic voting irregularities seen across the country after the 2000 presidential election. This act establishes some helpful standards. For example, it includes section on provisional ballots that allows a person to cast a vote if the person believes he or she is registered but does not appear on the voter register of that precinct. However, HAVA falls short because it does not set guidelines for how those provisional ballots should be counted.

Furthermore, the Act does nothing for the millions of Americans who are permanently disenfranchised in a dozen states because they are ex-felons. It does not prevent states from wrongly purging voters or engaging in other activities that limit the franchise. Fundamentally, it does not grant a right to vote. States still have the authority to direct electors to vote for a candidate of the legislature’s choice. A constitutionally protected right to vote is the only means to ensure that every American will be protected.

Does the amendment guarantee statehood for Washington, DC?
The Right to Vote Amendment does not specifically call for statehood for Washington, D.C. and its half million residents. However, the amendment does guarantee that all Americans who reside in our nation’s capital have a constitutionally protected individual right to vote, which could lead the way to full representation in Congress.

Is the right to vote a partisan issue?
No. The Supreme Court and many of our leaders from across the spectrum have affirmed the importance of the right to vote. Some may mistakenly believe that the amendment takes authority away from the states and moves it to the federal level, but in fact the amendment only ensures states meet certain clear standards in how they protect the right to vote. By ensuring that every American has an individual right to vote that is protected by the Constitution, this amendment establishes voting as an individual right, not just a privilege given by the states.



http://observer.com/2016/11/bernie-sanders-abandons-clinton-in-final-week/

Bernie Sanders Abandons Clinton in Final Week
Hillary’s free pass from populist primary rival has expired
By Michael Sainato • 11/02/16 1:30pm

Photograph -- Sen. Bernie Sanders. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Sen. Bernie Sanders has begun to revert to his anti-establishment self as the end of the presidential election draws nearer.

Supporters have balked at a Sanders, who supports Hillary Clinton, as she embodies the corruption and corporate influences that have transformed democracy in this country into an oligarchy. Sanders’ campaign events on behalf of Clinton have received poor attendance from supporters, especially in comparison to the rallies he held during his own campaign.

Rather than delay holding Clinton accountable to progressive ideals until she’s safely in the White House, Sanders has recently emphasized the importance of pushing her to do the right thing, as she can’t be trusted to do so otherwise. “This is not trust. We are not here to trust,” Sanders said in a recent interview with NowThis. “It is the very opposite of what I am saying, ‘oh, sit back, elect Clinton, and then trust.’ No, Mobilize. Educate. And if there are Democratic members of Congress, or if Clinton, when elected President does not go forward in doing the right thing, let them know how you feel about it.”

Sanders’ organization Our Revolution has started a petition for Clinton to oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline, in support of the Native Americans protesting the project.

Unsurprisingly, Clinton has remained silent on the issue, only recently issuing a scripted statement of neutrality after protesters camped out at her campaign headquarters. Sanders sent a letter to President Obama on October 28, pleading with him to intervene as he eventually did with the Keystone XL pipeline. Obama has approved two more new pipelines while attention is focused on the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Follow
Bernie Sanders ✔ @BernieSanders
Over and over the government has broken its promise to respect Native American sovereign rights. Now it's time for real change. #NoDAPL
3:50 PM - 28 Oct 2016
5,808 5,808 Retweets 10,389 10,389 likes

Sanders’ most recent Op-Eds have also shifted from explaining why someone should vote for Clinton, to what he and his supporters need to do the day after Election Day. He has stopped critiquing Donald Trump as much and has started to scold Hillary Clinton again.

“The leverage that I think I take into the Senate is taking on the entire Democratic Party establishment, and, you know, taking on a very powerful political organization with the Clinton people,” Sanders said in a recent interview with The Washington Post. “We won 22 states and 46 percent of the pledged delegates, 13.4 million votes…and a majority of the younger people, the future of the country…That gives me a lot of leverage, leverage that I intend to use.”

Sanders also cautioned that if Clinton appoints corrupt, pro-Wall Street administration officials, he will do everything in his power to fight those nominations. “I expect her to appoint people who will head agencies in a way that is consistent with the Democratic Party platform, and if not, I will do my best to oppose those nominees,” he added.

Though Sanders supporters have been relegated to apathy since he officially ended his presidential campaign at the Democratic National Convention, Sanders is beginning to show every intention of giving his supporters something to be excited about after Election Day. Clinton’s free pass from Sanders is over.



http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/11/dakota-access-pipeline-standing-rock-delay

Activists Say Dakota Access Pipeline Could Be Put on Hold for 30 Days
"It's the first glimmer of hope, of good news, that we've had out here for weeks—months."
WES ENZINNA
NOV. 4, 2016 6:30 PM

Photograph -- An anti-Dakota Access pipeline protester stands before a police line earlier this week. Wes Enzinna


Yesterday, Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Dave Archambault II and other tribal authorities met with the US Army Corps of Engineers at the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council Building in Fort Yates, North Dakota. According to activists and others in attendance, Colonel John W. Henderson, the head of the Army Corps of Engineers in North Dakota, agreed that the Corps will ask Energy Transfer Partners to halt construction of the Dakota Access pipeline for at least 30 days.

Dakota Access pipeline representatives have said they have between two and five days of work left before the pipeline reaches the Missouri River. Anti-pipeline protesters and "water protectors" say that laying the crude oil pipeline just upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux reservation will threaten its water supply. The pipeline is nearly 90 percent completed.

The company has not yet received an easement permit to dig under the river. According to Kandi Mossett, an organizer with the Indigenous Environmental Network, and others at yesterday's meeting, Henderson said he would wait at least 30 days until granting such an easement. If the Corps' Washington, DC, office grants the easement, Henderson reportedly said he would not sign it for 30 days.

A spokeswoman for the Corps said it is in ongoing deliberations with the Standing Rock Sioux and that yesterday's meeting was part of an ongoing process. She said the Corps will not make any decisions until the Department of the Army completes its own review. Right now, she said, the 30-day stay is only a proposal. (Energy Transfer Partners, Archambault, and the Standing Sioux Rock tribal office have not yet responded to requests for confirmation and further information.)

A delay, if it happens, could be a big win for anti-pipeline activists. "We're looking at anywhere from a month and a half to two and a half months of nothing. They have to sit there on their thumbs," says Mossett in a video she recorded today. "It's huge, this delay. It's the first glimmer of hope, of good news, that we've had out here for weeks—months."

Earlier this week, President Barack Obama suggested he would urge the Army Corps of Engineers to consider rerouting the Dakota Access pipeline. "We're monitoring this closely and I think, as a general rule, my view is that there's a way for us to accommodate sacred lands of Native Americans," Obama told Now This. "I think right now the Army Corps is examining whether there are ways to reroute this pipeline in a way."

In her video statement, Mossett said any discussion of rerouting the pipeline away from Native American land could stop the project. "A reroute, to this company, effectively kills the project because they won't be able to afford it. It will make it obsolete," she said. The 1,172-mile pipeline, set to run between North Dakota and Illinois, was planned to be completed by the end of this year.

Recounting the latest meeting between the Standing Rock Sioux and the Army Corps of Engineers, Mossett was visibly excited. "The feeling is like, oh my god, are we gonna win?"




http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-sanders-gets-fiery-in-call-for-oil-1478100406-htmlstory.html

Bernie Sanders gets fiery in call for oil pipeline constuction to stop
Sarah D. Wire
NOV. 2, 2016, 8:42 A.M.


CNN ✔ @CNN
"Damn right!" Bernie Sanders fired back when a someone in the crowd yelled "Stop the Dakota Pipeline!" http://cnn.it/2faFkTC
3:34 PM - 1 Nov 2016

Sen. Bernie Sanders weighed in on the path of the Dakota Access Pipeline during an impassioned moment at a rally for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton Tuesday

"Damn right!" Sanders (I-Vt.) shot back when an attendee interrupted his speech to yell "Stop the Dakota pipeline!”

The path of a 1,172-mile-long crude oil pipeline — which crosses under the Missouri River near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation and would pass through a burial ground and sacred site — has been a source of contention for the Native American community for years. Protests escalated recently with the large-scale arrest of activists who have been camped out at the construction site for months.

Sanders has long called for construction of the pipeline to end, including in an open letter to President Obama last week.

The Clinton campaign released a statement last week saying the Democrat thinks all voices and views should be considered in infrastructure projects.

Obama told NowThis news in an interview Monday that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is reviewing whether there are ways to reroute the pipeline, which is being built by a private company but is subject to federal approval.

Follow
NowThis ✔ @nowthisnews
EXCLUSIVE: @POTUS on Dakota Access Pipeline protests: “There's an obligation for authorities to show restraint"
11:32 PM - 1 Nov 2016
125 125 Retweets 122 122 likes