U.S. Foreign Policy: Summary of July 7, 2009, President Barack Obama’s Speech at the New Economic School in Russia

In his speech at the New Economic School in Russia, President Barack Obama addressed similar themes that he spoke about in Egypt—reversing the spread of nuclear weapons and preventing their use, isolating and defeating violent extremists, explaining the United States’ interest in democratic governments that protect the rights of their people.

In describing the interest of the United States in democracy, the President mentioned some qualities that he viewed as important for a democratic government to possess:  freedom of speech and assembly, rule of law and equal administration of justice, independent media [Note: problems with the media in the United States was not mentioned.], and competitive elections.

At the New Economic School, the President discussed his views on Russia, and described his position on the issue of global prosperity and sovereignty.

Russia

The President stated his desire to see a strong, peaceful, and prosperous Russia.

Global Prosperity

Moreover, the President discussed the interest of the United States in the prosperity of the world. The President stated that no nation can serve as the sole engine of global growth. The President asserted that a properly regulated free market system is the greatest force for creating and distributing wealth. [In the United States, wealth is concentrated in the hands of a select few.]

The President noted that economic success depends on the rule of law and that people should not have to pay a bribe to do business or to get an education.

Sovereignty

The President noted that state sovereignty is the cornerstone of international order. The President explained that states have the right to choose their leaders, set secure borders, and establish their own foreign policy. The President asserted that these principles should apply to Georgia and Ukraine.

The President explained that the United States does not impose security arrangements on another country. The President stated that the North American Treaty Organization (NATO) imposes requirements for membership. The President noted that NATO should be seeking collaboration with Russia not confrontation. [Note:  Merely having NATO in close proximity to Russia could make trouble for Russia. Treaty signatories promise to “safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.”]

U.S. Foreign Policy: Summary of June 4, 2009, President Barack Obama’s Speech in Egypt

The essential idea was that challenges are shared among countries; therefore, the responses to them are also shared. The White House published the text of the President’s speech here.

[The election for the Presidency of Iran, who serves under the Supreme Leader, was on June 12, 2009.]

President Obama addressed four main areas in the speech:  violent extemism, Israel and Palestine, nuclear weapons, and democracy. [President Obama also discussed the matters of religious freedom, women’s rights, and economic development and opportunity briefly towards the end of the speech.]

Violent Extremism

The President stated that Afghanistan demonstrated the common goal of addressing violent extremism—opposing the killing of innocents. The United States has partnered with a coalition of 46 countries, the President explained, to address this goal.

In an aside, The President also mentioned that the questioning or justifying the events surrounding 9/11 is not supported by the facts:  Al-Queda killed 3000 people, the victims were innocents, and Al-Queda claimed credit for the attacks and state its intention to kill on a massive scale. [Note: It is unclear which person or persons are being referred to here.]

On Iraq, The President said that the world is better without Saddam Hussein, but events surrounding his removal from power have reminded the United States to use diplomacy and build international consensus.

Israel and Palestine

The President stated that the strong bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable because of cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

He also asserted that six million Jews were killed by the Third Reich. He continued that denying this is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. [Note: At the G-8 meeting in L’Aquila, Italy, the group announced its condemnation of statements of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denying the holocaust.]

The resolution of the problems between Israel and Palestine is two states with each population living in peace and security. [However, one has a full military and nuclear weaponry, the other does not.]

The President explained that the Palestinians must resist violence. He stated that shooting rockets at sleeping children or to blow up old women on a bus is neither a sign of courage nor power. [The damage created by Operation Cast Lead and other similar operations were not mentioned.]

The President attempted to compare the plight of the Palestinians with the struggles that Black Americans face. The President asserted that Black people won full and equal rights through the “peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding.” This statement is not completely accurate because the history of Palestinans in their land has a different context from the story of Black people in America. [I critiqued former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on a similar point. Perhaps it is best to avoid these type of comparisons]

In addition, the Palestinians must focus on what they can build, the President explained. The Palestinian Authority must develop the capacity to govern, Hamas must end violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Alternatively, the Israelis must acknowledge the Palestinian’s right to exist. The President noted that the United States does not have to accept the continued legitimacy of continued settlements. Israel, the President continued, has an obligation to ensure that the Palestinians can live and work and develop their society.

The Arab states were encouraged to do activities similar to what was being asked of the Palestinians.

Nuclear Weapons

On Iran, the President noted that the United States played a role in overthrowing a democratically elected Iranian government. He stated that Iran played a role in hostage taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians.

The President explained that the United States is prepared to move forward without preconditions, except on the issue of nuclear weapons. The President explained that his purpose is to prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. [However, one state already has nuclear weapons.]

The President acknowledged that some argue that some countries have nuclear weapons, while others do not. He stated that no one country should determine which nation has nuclear weapons. He also noted that Iran has the right to access peaceful nuclear power under the requirements of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (signatories).

Democracy

No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other. The President is committed to support governments that reflect the will of the people.

The characteristics of governance that the United States supports are the following—free speech, opportunity to choose government, rule of law, equal administration of justice, government that is transparent and does not steal from the people, and the freedom to live as you choose.

ACRI Ballot Initiative (Arizona): AZ Legislature Sends Initiative to the Secretary of State

The Arizona legislature has decided to send an initiative proposal from Ward Connerly to the Secretary of State.

The language of HCR 2019 is here. A previous move by Ward Connerly to get this proposal on the ballot through signatures failed.

It is unfortunate that a legislative item that can ill effect a portion of the population in Arizona is not fully researched and debated. Rather, it is placed on the ballot through a questionable strike all amendment process.

Post script:

Arizona Secretary of State

Ricci v. DeStefano: Court Determines Test Results Must Be Certified; Case Decided on Statutory Grounds, and Not on the Equal Protection Clause

This case’s result is not surprising. The pressure of having human expectations rejected was too strong to be ignored. The City of New Haven should have settled this case before reaching this point. After spending additional precious tax revenues to oppose the firefighters who brought the case, New Haven still has to certify the test results.

The Court ruled that it was impermissible for the city of New Haven, Connecticut, to refuse to certify the promotional test results without a strong basis in evidence that the test was deficient and that discarding the results is necessary to avoid violating the disparate impact provision of Title VII.

Post script:

A link to my previous post which explains the facts of the case when the case was at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals

A link to the slip opinion

Wardell (Ward) Connerly: Arizona Legislature Should Reject HCR 2019; Affected, Nonmajority Citizenry Must Contribute to Debate and Assent to Any Decision.

Wardell (Ward) Connerly  is attempting one of his campaigns to prohibit “racial preferences” in Arizona (search Ward Connerly in the search box for my previous posts). Instead this time he is attempting to go through the legislature (Republican controlled House and Senate) (the legislation’s number is HCR 2019). At first glance, this move seems to address one of my criticisms of Connerly’s proposal. But I also think that any opening of taking away rights from another requires the full contribution and assent of the affected groups (the non-White population). Given the population of Arizona, only one race could be said to be preferred—White. Because of this, this bill is unnecessary.

Arizona (population: 5,130,632 (2000 Census) [NOTE: high number of “some other race”])

Race	Percentage of population	Number
White	75.5%	3,873,611
Black	3.1	158,873
Native American	5.0	255,879
Asian	1.8	92,236

Connerly makes his usual “deep south” speech with a twist: an appeal to the desire of self-sufficiency. Essentially, he states that self-sufficiency is a good, and then follows that with a statement that Affirmative Action is a threat against self-sufficiency. Thus, Affirmative Action is bad (and if the reader should agree, then that reader should also support his prohibit “racial preferences” initiative).

Here is the quote:

“We can look at people’s needs, their income, their social condition rather than presuming as we do now that my brown skin means that I can’t compete with you, that you somehow, in your benevolence, give me something not on the basis of my accomplishment but on the basis of your generosity.”

Connerly’s arguments willfully ignore reality and are not believable. Connerly’s argument in favor of self-sufficiency only supports the current hegemonic power structure. Self- sufficiency only applies to those who control the governance, the industry, and the money flow in the society. There is only one group that possesses that power—Whites (due to its supermajority presence in the country) (The election of President Obama does not affect, but rather supports, this argument (see the selection of his staff)).

Because of Connerly’s own funding, his self-sufficiency argument is disingenuous.  Connerly,  for example, receives millions through his contributors (www.bigmoneyconnerly.org, produced by the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center (BISC)).

As Connerly demonstrates, the Horatio Alger story cannot exist because no one makes it in the world without the support of other people.  I wish the fantasy would go away into the rubbish bin.

The reader should read Connerly’s view of his racial status [New York Times article].

By society’s measure, he emerged black from the gene pool, a peculiar arithmetic that Ward Connerly insists he has never understood.

”One drop of blood does it,” he said, reviewing the computation: 25 percent black plus 37.5 percent Irish plus 25 percent French plus 12.5 percent Choctaw equals 100 percent black. ”I suppose I could claim to be Irish, but who wants to stand there and argue the point every time? So I’m black.”

Cocoa-brown skin is the product of his amalgamated ancestry. And however much a hindrance the color may have been in other endeavors, it now offers him a paradoxical advantage, for Mr. Connerly has become the nation’s most active opponent of racial preferences. His blackness, he agrees with some reluctance, grants many whites a kind of absolution, allowing them to protest affirmative action ”without having to feel like they appear racist.”

The linked article further erodes Connerly’s credibility on this subject.

H.R. 627: Credit Card Act, PL 111-24, Contains Provisions for Various Studies, Reports, and Legislative Amendments

The Congressional activity to pass the Credit CARD Act of 2009, P.L. 111-24, addresses issues related to personal credit card holders. In addition to this the Act contains a number of provisions that require reports (there are a few amendments to laws as well).

Many of the provisions were sponsored by Republicans.

I summarize the miscellaneous provisions below.

Credit CARD Act of 2009, P.L. 111-24.  Date of enactment: 5/22/09.

Title V—Miscellaneous Provisions

Title of provision	Responsible agency	Due date
Sec. 501  Report on Interchange Fees  [description]	Government Accountability Office (GAO)	180 days after enactment [11/16/09]
Sec. 502  Review of Consumer Credit Plans and Regulations [description]	Federal Reserve Board (FRB) (sec. 502(c)—federal banking agencies [sec 3 of the FDIA] and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)	Every two years [5/22/10]
Sec. 503 Stored Value [description], [description]	Treasury, Homeland Security	270 days after enactment [2/17/10 (approximately)]
Sec. 504  Procedure for Timely Settlement of Estates of Decedent Obligors [amendment to Truth in Lending Act, sec. 140A (new)] [description]	FRB
Sec. 505  Report to Congress on Reductions of Credit Card Limits Based on Certain Information as to Experience or Transactions of the Consumer [description]	FRB (in consultation with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), National Credit Union Administration Board (NCUA), and the FTC)	Before the end of the one-year period beginning on the date of enactment [5/21/10]
Sec. 506  Board Review of Small Business Credit Plans and Recommendations [description]	FRB	For the review, not later than nine months after the date of enactment [2/22/10] For the report, not later than 12 months after the date of enactment [5/22/10]
Sec. 507  Small Business Information Security Task Force [description]	Small Business Administration (SBA) and Homeland Security	For meeting minutes, not later than 60 days after Administrator receives the minutes, the Administrator submits the minutes to the House and Senate, the Administrator submits the minutes to the House and Senate For findings at the termination of the task force, not later than 90 days after Administrator receives the findings, the Administrator submits the findings to the House and Senate. The task force terminates at the end of fiscal year 2013 [9/30/13]
Sec. 508  Study and Report on Emergency PIN Technology	FTC (with the Justice Department, and the Secret Service)	Not later than nine months after the date of enactment [2/22/10]
Sec. 509  Study and Report on the Marketing of Products with Credit Offers [description]	GAO	Not later than 12/31/10
Sec. 510  Financial and Economic Literacy [description]	Department of Education and the Treasury (Office of Financial Education (with the President’s Council on Financial Literacy))	For report, not later than nine months after the date of enactment [2/22/10] For strategic plan, not later than six months after the date the report is submitted to Congress
Sec. 511  FTC Rulemaking on Mortgage Lending (amendment) [description]	FTC	Amendment effective 3/12/09
Sec. 512  Protecting Americans from Violent Crime [description] (represents findings of Congress)
Sec. 513  GAO Study and Report on Fluency in the English Language and Financial Literacy [description]	GAO	Not later than one year after the date of enactment [5/22/10]

House Report 111-92

S. Amdt. 1130

Supreme Court: Justices Breyer and Thomas Testify for the Supreme Court’s Appropriation Funding

Annually, the Supreme Court, along with other federal agencies that receive appropriations, testifies for its funding before Congress.

The hearing has served as a way to discuss administrative issues of concern between the two branches of government, with a caveat that the Congress, while exercising the power of the purse, is the stronger of the two.

It is good for this to happen.  While the judicial branch is independent, the judicial branch must always be institutionally reminded that the branch’s independence does not imply royalty.  Rather, the judiciary serves the citizens through the fair application of laws in the country.

Supreme Court Law Clerks

The hearing before the House Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government (Rep. Jose Serrano is the chairman of the subcommittee) included a discussion of the people selected to be law clerks for individual Supreme Court Justices.

The demographic composition of employees who are law clerks is a long-standing issue for Chairman Serrano.  The topic is particularly poignant as the Court renders decisions using idealized racial comity as a rationale for its decisions on affirmative action cases.  Meanwhile, the Court has difficulty answering a question about the composition of their law clerks.  Justices Stephen Breyer and Clarence Thomas, who testified for the Supreme Court at the hearing, stated that they are aware of the issue (an answer similar to that made in previous years).

Since law clerks are ultimately paid with taxpayer dollars, it is worth considering whether a group with largely homogeneous backgrounds and with predominately “elite” (that is, Harvard, Yale, Stanford) law school educations can truly be fair to all who come before the Court.  Remember that all citizens must live under the Court’s decisions and most citizens did not attend “elite” institutions.

Also, it seems that people that do not have these characteristics are essentially disqualified from being truly considered for a law clerk position.  There are approximately 1,162,124 (2008 number) attorneys and most of them do not attend the “elite” institutions.  Justice Antonin Scalia said as much at a recent speech at American University’s Washington College of Law.

Questions about the people who are filling these public positions should not be avoided because the topic is uncomfortable for some.  I commend Representative Serrano for asking this simple, yet extremely important, question that provides profound information to the public.

Cameras in the Courtroom

I may hold a minority view, but I think that C-SPAN camera access to the oral arguments is long overdue.  The Court’s objections to broadcasting of oral arguments through video camera only serve to thwart legitimate expectations of transparency and openness.  Citizens that do not live within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area will have to expend tremendous amounts of money to get to the Supreme Court for a chance to view an oral argument (the Court’s courtroom is small, and public seating is limited).  In addition, with the expansion of the Internet, there is an increased need for information.

It is encouraging that the Court has decided to provide oral argument transcripts.  The publication of the oral argument transcripts is a step in the right direction.

Supreme Court: For Law Clerk Positions, Only “Elite” Law School Grads (In General) Need Apply

It seems that only graduates of “elite” legal education institutions (Harvard, Yale, Stanford) can apply to be law clerks for Justice Antonin Scalia.  Justice  Scalia spoke at American University’s Washington College of Law in May 2009.

A student at the event asked what a student that does not go to an “elite” law school needs to do to be successful as a future practicing lawyer. Justice Scalia responded, “Just work hard and be very good.” Fair enough, I suppose.

But this advice is not at all sufficent for a non-”elite” law school graduate to be a candidate for a Supreme Court law clerk position in his chambers. Nothing trumps an “elite” law school diploma.

‘By and large’, he said, ‘I’m going to be picking from the law schools that basically are the hardest to get into. They admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest, O.K.?’

I figure he can pick who works with him as he pleases. However, the taxpayer (most of whom do not attend these “elite” institutions), through the Congress, controls the salaries paid to Justice Scalia and the other Justices because the Supreme Court is a federal government institution.

There is rampant elitism already present in the selection of the law clerks. This is one reason why I cannot  support a 50% salary increase for federal judges (search judiciary pay for my previous posts on this subject).

Over the last six years, the justices have hired about 220 law clerks. Almost half went to Harvard or Yale. Chicago, Stanford, Virginia and Columbia collectively accounted for 50 others. No one from Washington College of Law made the cut.

Open questions, what are lawyers who are not in this select group supposed to do to earn money? Why have so many law schools if only  a select few can succeed?

Post Script

Supreme Court Law Clerks

List of Supreme Court Law Clerks (click here)

Clerkship Notification Blog

Oath of Supreme Court Justices

The following is the oath that Supreme Court Justices take upon entering their office:

I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Issues a Report on the Reluctance of Multinational Corporations to Invest in Africa

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Baird Communications Management Consulting (Baird CMC) firm have issued a news release about a study that investigated the reasons why multinational corporations are hesitant about investing in Africa.

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development issued a report in 1999 which reached similar conclusions.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s news release identified 5 preventing multinational corporations from wanting to contribute foreign direct investment (FDI) in Africa:

• Rule of law — A strong consensus exists among the respondents that the rule of law does not prevail to the degree required to make Africa an attractive investment destination. This applies to corporate, societal, and criminal law.
• Attraction — Africa does not offer a sufficiently large middle class of consumers or show consistent economic growth that could promise a future market. Most African countries are small and have poor markets, and there are barriers to regional markets — such as taxes and the freedom of movement of people and goods. However, Africa does offer enormous natural resources and that is an attraction.

• Risks versus rewards– Given the currently perceived risks in Africa, the rewards have to be very high to make it worthwhile to invest. Presently, U.S. corporations say that there are very few visible promises of future returns high enough to justify significant interest in investing

• Supportive business framework–Transportation and communications infrastructure, trained or trainable human resources, and equitable trade and employment practices are insufficient to support corporate investment

• A welcoming environment– African countries are not doing a sufficient job of providing education and health services to the potential workforce, which makes the potential hire-able local insufficient to support investment.

Points to consider

The question is who should benefit from this investment. The reports, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the United Nations, suggest that the improvements suggested will be largely for the benefit of the multinational corporations.

Also, the desirable actions that the multinational corporations cite may conflict with the expectations of the population. This recently occurred in the United States. Recently, a rule of law argument was heard within the continental United States—the sanctity of contract. This argument was raised in the public’s opposition to the American International Group, Inc. (AIG) use of bailout funds to pay bonuses to traders unraveling AIG’s complex investment positions in derivatives. The public sought the return of the bonus money.

Ricci v. DeStefano: Supreme Court Has Provided Transcripts of the Oral Argument

The transcript of the oral argument is here.