Only a few times in U.S. history has an attempt been made to remove a president from office. It is an uncommon act for Congress to undertake due to the extraordinary burden of proof necessary to prove wrongdoing. Article 2.4 of the Constitution of the United States spells out the circumstances for the articles of impeachment to be issued as: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
These terms are rather broad and unspecific. To clarify, legal scholar Ronald Arthur Lowry states four interpretations that lead to ways to remove a president from office.
Congressional Interpretation
Articles 1.2 and 1.3 of the Constitution grant powers to the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, to issues articles of impeachment. Congress has the ability to interpret the evidence and collectively decide if impeachment proceedings are necessary.
“The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given time in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office…” said Congressman Gerald Ford in 1970.
The last time this occurred was the attempted impeachment of John Tyler in 1842. He vetoed a bill and angered lawmakers who then attempted impeachment as retribution. The attempt failed.
In exploring ways to remove a president from office, this is the least common application of Article 2.4. The application of this interpretation would mean that the president is serving at the pleasure of Congress.
An Indictable Crime
The second view is based on the interpretation that Article 2.4 relates to an indictable crime that must be present. Article 3.2 section 3 confirms the idea that the Constitution views impeachment as a criminal offense and “the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by a jury.”
President Richard Nixon fell into this category and it is believed by U.S. politics expert Tom Murse that if it was not for Nixon’s resignation, he certainly would have been impeached because of indictable crimes relating to the Watergate scandal.
Misdemeanor
The third perspective is what many legal scholars deem the most applicable. The perspective is that when exploring ways to impeach, only a misdemeanor offense is necessary to initiate proceedings. The original wording of Article 2.4 was “treason, bribery, or corruption.”
Corruption was eventually removed and replaced with “high crimes and misdemeanors.” When the Constitution was ratified, the term misdemeanor had no criminal connotation. According to Lowry, that is what makes this the most popular application of Article 2.4.
Relating to the President’s Official Duties
The last interpretation states that no indictable crime needs to be present. The impeachable offense can be a “bad act or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simple maladministration.”
A successful impeachment has never occurred in the U.S., and Murse believes the reason for this is that it is a huge political undertaking for Congress. It needs to consider both the extraordinary burden of proof and the consequences that will come as a result of removing a democratically elected president.
However, it is through the above four interpretations that Congress can identify the ways to remove a president from office.
– Brian Faust
Photo: Flickr
What Are the Business Restrictions on Presidents?
On January 20, Donald Trump stepped into the world’s most powerful position — the President of the United States.
Even after his inauguration, his transition into the presidency has been met with a series of controversies, one of which is a public call for business restrictions on presidents. Outside politics, Trump remains a real estate and business mogul. The dealings of his business are not merely centralized in America, they reach into nations such as Azerbaijan, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Indonesia. Prior to his presidency, no one voiced alarm to this sprawling empire. Now, it is a hot topic and, for many, a deep concern.
Why is there such a concern?
The answer is twofold. Business ties could introduce both domestic and international conflicts of interest for the president. Domestically, real estate businesses flourish under money given from the banking industry. There is a frequent “mutual interest” in lax credit and lax regulation, which seemingly opposes Trump’s intention to void the 2010 Dodd-Frank reforms.
Internationally, the Washington Post has reported that foreign diplomats are setting their sights on Trump’s new Pennsylvania Avenue hotel in order to attain the president’s favor. Later down the road, business entanglements could sway the president’s mind one direction or another in regards to economic and foreign dealings.
Isn’t there a law that restricts this?
Technically, yes and no. Business restrictions on presidents are looser than one would think. The conflicts of interest laws apply to Congress but exempt the president and vice president. Regardless, presidents dating back to Jimmy Carter through to Obama have taken all precautions by separating themselves from their businesses. All have used blind trusts, in which a business is sold and an unknown, unrelated trustee reinvests the procured finances into assets the president is unaware of. In these cases, business restrictions on presidents have been self-imposed.
Will Trump use the blind trust?
Legally, he isn’t bound to use it. Trump currently plans to transition management of the Trump Organization to his sons and has already placed all investments and assets into a trust. Along with this, he and his daughter Ivanka have resigned from all positions within the Trump Organization.
Trump has also agreed that there will be no new deals between his business and foreign countries, and all domestic deals will undergo a strict and thorough vetting process. And while profit and loss information will still be available to Trump, it will only be for the company as a whole with no specifics.
Is this enough?
No president has carried a multimillion-dollar business portfolio into the Oval Office before, which makes it more difficult for Trump to use a blind trust. However, while there are no constitutional business restrictions on presidents, any corruption of power, such as bribery or accepting foreign gifts, could lead to legal prosecution. All in all, only time will tell.
– Brenna Yowell
Photo: Flickr
Economic Development: Reducing Poverty in Mauritius
Mauritius is an upper middle-income country with sugar, tourism, textiles and financial services mainly driving the economy. Many international entities, especially those interested in doing business with India, South Africa and China, are attracted to Mauritius.
While most Mauritians were employed in the agriculture or fishing industries at the time of independence, these industries now make up less than 10 percent of the labor force. The majority of Mauritians are now employed in construction and industry or restaurants and hotels. Other services also make up a large part of the labor force.
Mauritius has benefited greatly from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) passed by U.S. Congress in 2000. The AGOA allows duty-free exports to the U.S. market. Mauritius has increased exports to the U.S. by 40 percent from 2000-2014.
Like other developing nations, income inequality increased in Mauritius during the rapid industrialization. However, the government has established social welfare programs to eradicate poverty in Mauritius. This includes food stamps, social services, micro-financing to small businesses, female empowerment in the labor market and the ZEP program that seeks to raise primary school exam scores in underperforming schools. The government of Mauritius also provides Social Security for those over 60, free primary and secondary education and free healthcare.
Creoles of African descent are especially vulnerable to poverty in Mauritius. Mauritian creoles are descendants of slaves brought from Africa to Mauritius in the 18th and 19th centuries. Creoles have the weakest sense of identity out of all the Mauritian ethnic groups, as plantation owners intentionally mixed slaves from various ethnic groups together to eliminate any family ties, shared languages or any other forms of social organization.
Studies show that poverty occurs more often in households with a large number of dependent children, female-headed households, single-parent households and single person households.
In 2015 the government began developing the Marshall Plan to eradicate poverty in Mauritius. The plan will focus on:
– Cassie Lipp
Photo: Flickr
Education in Mali
The United Nations Seeks Greater Aid for Afghanistan
Those who qualify for humanitarian assistance in 2017 number at least 9.3 million—13 percent higher than last year and almost a third of its population. As Afghani people are displaced daily by the fighting between the Taliban and military groups, and thousands of refugees return from Pakistan and Iran, the government struggles to provide routine necessities for its people. A record of 8,397 civilians lost their lives due to the fighting in the first nine months of 2016, while another half a million people were displaced by last November. And so far, this trend is predicted to only grow.
But this wasn’t always the case. In fact, in 2014, it was believed that Afghanistan’s GDP would grow around 12 percent per year. This was prior to the international military force withdrawing from the country before it realized how fully Afghanistan’s economics depended on the foreign troops. Since 2002, foreign troops filled 800 bases, brought in hundreds of millions of dollars into their economy, and thus stood as Afghanistan’s single largest source of revenue. Their departure, then, was devastating. Annual GDP growth is now around one percent.
Afghan analyst Helena Malikyar wrote on the matter, “Projects attached to international aid – one of the largest sources of employment in the past decade – have for the most part shut down or placed in hibernation.”
The U.N.’s aid for Afghanistan, should it be received, will number 500 million dollars and will be given to the country’s 5.7 million most vulnerable population. Afghanistan currently carries malnutrition rates of about 15 percent in over a quarter of its provinces. Of the total 1.8 million people this affects, 1.3 million are children under the age of 5. Of the 9.3 million people in need of general aid, more than half are children. Not only facing malnutrition, the U.N. has reported abuse and exploitation, specifically through “forced marriage, sexual abuse and harmful child labor”.
While the U.N.’s aid for Afghanistan will assist a select group, it still will not be enough to end their plight. Until the Taliban’s insurgency ends and the economy is able to stand on its own, Afghanistan’s crisis must be watched carefully and tended to fervently.
– Brenna Yowell
Photo: Flickr
The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations
To combat this danger, a multinational coalition is needed. The formation of such a group — the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) — was announced at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year.
The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations is backed by the governments of Norway, India, Japan and Germany. These countries are partnering with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust to invest in vaccines to prevent diseases that have the potential to cause the next great epidemic.
Given the cost-efficiency of immunization programs, the development of vaccines is an effective component of epidemic preparation. With an initial fund of $460 million, CEPI will be well worth the investment. Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Lione lost approximately $1.6 billion in GDP in 2015 alone. A worldwide pandemic would be drastically more costly; the World Bank estimates a flu pandemic would cost $3 trillion globally.
The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations will initially focus on three viruses: MERS-CoV, Lassa and Nipah. These viruses are among the diseases identified by the World Health Organization that warrant prioritization. For each virus, CEPI hopes to develop at least two vaccines. This head start is critical, as vaccine development is a long, arduous process. On average, a vaccine takes about 10 years to reach the market, and epidemics take far less time to spread.
Although CEPI is a major step in the right direction, a more comprehensive strategy is necessary to control a potential pandemic. As shown by the Ebola outbreak, a global surveillance system is needed. In addition, vaccines cannot prevent all cases of disease; treatment development is also needed. The current members of CEPI have demonstrated admirable initiative in showing the world that everyone is a stakeholder concerning global health.
– Rebecca Yu
Photo: Flickr
Seven Surprising Stats About Poverty in Canada
As a wealthy country with an abundance of natural resources, it may come as a shock that Canada suffers greatly from poverty. Women and children are the two major groups affected by poverty in Canada, as a result of unemployment and other barriers that stand in the way of financial stability.
Poverty in Canada Facts
Poverty in Canada is a significant issue, but not one that is impossible to solve. Various organizations dedicated to addressing the problem have helped those who have experienced major setbacks return to normalcy, to the point where they can live sustainable lives and provide for their families.
– Mikaela Frigillana
Photo: Flickr
Camions of Care for Women and Education
Since the establishment of Camions of Care, the organization has facilitated the transmission of more than 27,000 period care packages to women globally. A 2013 United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) case study of menstrual hygiene in Burkina Faso and Niger emphasized challenges such as inadequate sanitation facilities, lack of knowledge regarding periods and the cultural impact of stigma regarding menstruation. Addressing these challenges is pivotal in establishing better practices for women’s hygiene. The study also cites that empowering women through education and personal support is imperative to improving local sanitation practices.
A journal published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS) also attributes poor knowledge of healthy menstruation practices to decreased school attendance among girls in Uganda.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) reinforces evidence that women and girls without access to satisfactory female hygiene facilities are more likely to miss school and work, and can be subject to higher rates of sexual assault. USAID also attributes improved sanitation facilities to promoting economic development, while also affording women “dignity, privacy and security.”
The non-profit organization also aids partners such as New Avenues for Youth, Central City Concern, Rose Haven, Free Hot Soup and Self Enhancement, Inc. and has impacted women across 19 states within the U.S. through foundations of “advocacy, youth leadership and service”. The Hasbro Community Action Hero Awards program has also recognized Okamoto’s homeless relief organization for exceptional commitment to advancing women’s health.
– Amber Bailey
Photo: Flickr
Kenya’s Energy Access: Speaking About Improvements
The recent push for Kenya’s energy access is part of the government’s goal to achieve universal energy access by 2020, a project known as the Last Mile Connectivity Project.
Development experts say that electricity plays a major role in improving many facets of life. Everything from education and agricultural productivity to employment opportunities can improve. Across the African continent, nearly 600 million people, or 70 percent of the population, do not have access to electricity. By reaching its goal, Kenya would become the first African country to achieve universal access to electricity.
To reach its goal, Kenya aims to move from 55 percent to a near universal access rate of 95 percent in just four more years. Such a leap took the U.S. nearly 26 years to accomplish.
Recent feats in energy access prove that Kenya is determined to fulfill its commitment, despite the far-fetched implications of the mission. The jump from 27 percent to 55 percent took Kenya a little more than three years; in the U.S., it took about eight years to increase access by a similar amount.
The next step in Kenya’s energy access plan is to ensure that 70 percent of Kenyans have electricity by the end of this year, hopefully translating to more productivity and an expansion in the job sector. The government’s strategy involves investing heavily, which has proved extremely effective as the government has already secured over $600 million from various international donors.
Kenya’s energy access initiative also acknowledges outside constraints that are keeping people from accessing electricity. The government reduced the connection charge by over 50 percent in the past year. Paying bills in installments is also now an available option. The adjustments in utility finances allow more citizens to realistically include paying for electricity in their budgets.
The Kenyan government’s commitment to achieving universal energy access by 2020 is looking more practical and obtainable than ever. Hopefully, the country will soon make history by achieving its intended goal.
– Mayan Derhy
Photo: Flickr
Three Reasons to Welcome Refugees
– Rebecca Yu
Photo: Flickr
Ways to Remove a President from Office
Only a few times in U.S. history has an attempt been made to remove a president from office. It is an uncommon act for Congress to undertake due to the extraordinary burden of proof necessary to prove wrongdoing. Article 2.4 of the Constitution of the United States spells out the circumstances for the articles of impeachment to be issued as: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
These terms are rather broad and unspecific. To clarify, legal scholar Ronald Arthur Lowry states four interpretations that lead to ways to remove a president from office.
Congressional Interpretation
Articles 1.2 and 1.3 of the Constitution grant powers to the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, to issues articles of impeachment. Congress has the ability to interpret the evidence and collectively decide if impeachment proceedings are necessary.
“The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given time in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office…” said Congressman Gerald Ford in 1970.
The last time this occurred was the attempted impeachment of John Tyler in 1842. He vetoed a bill and angered lawmakers who then attempted impeachment as retribution. The attempt failed.
In exploring ways to remove a president from office, this is the least common application of Article 2.4. The application of this interpretation would mean that the president is serving at the pleasure of Congress.
An Indictable Crime
The second view is based on the interpretation that Article 2.4 relates to an indictable crime that must be present. Article 3.2 section 3 confirms the idea that the Constitution views impeachment as a criminal offense and “the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by a jury.”
President Richard Nixon fell into this category and it is believed by U.S. politics expert Tom Murse that if it was not for Nixon’s resignation, he certainly would have been impeached because of indictable crimes relating to the Watergate scandal.
Misdemeanor
The third perspective is what many legal scholars deem the most applicable. The perspective is that when exploring ways to impeach, only a misdemeanor offense is necessary to initiate proceedings. The original wording of Article 2.4 was “treason, bribery, or corruption.”
Corruption was eventually removed and replaced with “high crimes and misdemeanors.” When the Constitution was ratified, the term misdemeanor had no criminal connotation. According to Lowry, that is what makes this the most popular application of Article 2.4.
Relating to the President’s Official Duties
The last interpretation states that no indictable crime needs to be present. The impeachable offense can be a “bad act or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simple maladministration.”
A successful impeachment has never occurred in the U.S., and Murse believes the reason for this is that it is a huge political undertaking for Congress. It needs to consider both the extraordinary burden of proof and the consequences that will come as a result of removing a democratically elected president.
However, it is through the above four interpretations that Congress can identify the ways to remove a president from office.
– Brian Faust
Photo: Flickr