Major Crimes and Major Inequality

Murder. Manslaughter. Rape. Assault with intent to commit murder. Arson. Burglary. Larceny.

The Major Crimes Act, passed in 1885, which removed Native American Tribes' ability to prosecute these seven crimes within the tribe. Since 1885, these crimes have been handled by Federal courts. This act curbed the sovereignty of Native American tribes, and today, results in longer sentences for Native Americans on reservations who commit these crimes.

For the most part, if you dear reader, committed a crime, you would end up in your state court. State court handles cases where someone has broken the state law, which covers most of the crimes you can think of committing. Robbery, assault, and yes, murder, are for the most part, prosecuted in state court. The crimes prosecuted in Federal court are mostly limited to crimes where someone violates the US Constitution, has a dispute or commits a crime across state lines (drug trafficking, for example), and cases where the United States is party (where the laws of the United States are being challenged).

Federal court is also used to prosecute these seven major crimes committed on Native American reservations. And unfortunately, these crimes, all prosecuted at the state level normally, often lead to longer sentences for Native Americans.

In South Dakota, assault prosecuted in state court receives an average sentence of 29 months. Native Americans prosecuted federally in South Dakota receive 47 months for assault. In New Mexico, my home state, the disparity is even greater. The average sentence for someone who commits assault on state land is 6 months. The average sentence for someone who commits assault on a reservation, and is prosecuted in Federal court is 54 months.

Not only are Native Americans being incarcerated at rates 38% higher than the national average, they are also serving longer sentences for the same crimes. Across the board, "state punishments for the same crimes tend to be lighter," says Ralph Erickson, a judge in North Dakota.

On top of all the injustices Native Americans face in this country, a law from 1885 is ensuring that they serve more time in prison than people who do not live on reservations. There has to be a way to ensure that people who commit crimes are sentenced at the same rates, no matter where they live, without compromising the sovereignty of reservations. Assault is terrible no matter where it is committed, but there is no logical reason that people on reservations should serve 54 months, when those not on reservations are only serving 6.

Balancing Act

There's a lot of moments from the Republican debate I could fact-check, dispute, and tear apart for my many blog readers (all 12 of you). But while there has be article after article about Marco Rubio's flip-flopping, Donald Trump's sexism, and the Christie/Paul debate, no one has written about the incredibly interesting and sexy issue of John Kasich and balancing the federal budget.

If you watched the debate, you may remember John Kasich, current governor of Ohio, touting numerous times that he balanced the federal budget. It's certainly correct that John Kasich was the Chairman of the Budget Committee in 1997, which was the last time we had a balanced Federal budget. It's true that this was the first time the United States had a balanced budget since 1970. It's true there was a Republican-controlled Congress at the time. And yes, it's true that Bill Clinton was the President the last time the Federal budget was balanced.

It's also true that the Federal government will probably never have a balanced budget again. President Obama won't be able to do it, Hillary Clinton won't be able to do it, and John Kasich won't be able to do it, no matter how much he likes to think he could.

This isn't because America isn't receiving enough taxes. It's not because we're spending too much on the military, or entitlement programs, or domestic programs. Yes, working to curb our spending may help, more taxes may help, but the budget wasn't balanced because of taxes and spending cuts. The budget was balanced because of a line-item veto.

A line-item veto is exactly what it sounds like. It allows executives to veto certain parts of the bill, while passing the bill as a whole. So if a Republican Congress included a provision to defund Planned Parenthood in the national budget, a president who had line-item veto power can veto that provision and pass the budget. Or, in more practical economic terms, a president can veto certain projects or programs in the budget, to cut out wasteful spending, but pass the budget as a whole.

You can imagine how this might help balance a budget. Instead of forcing all 535 members of Congress to renegotiate and pass a whole new budget, just to eliminate several pet projects, the president can just veto wasteful spending programs, or policy amendments that have nothing to do with the budget. It's an excellent tool for managing the budget, which is why many state governors have the ability to use a line-item veto.

The President, however, no longer has that power. For years, presidents had fought for the privilege of a line-item veto, and only in 1996 was legislation providing a line-item veto passed by Congress. President Clinton was able to implement it in 1997, which lead to his balanced budget in 1997.

But all good things must come to an end. In 1998, the Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 decision held that the line-item veto violated the "constitutional requirement that legislation be passed by both houses of Congress and presented in its entirety to the president for signature or veto." Lawmakers said they would try to find a constitutional way to pass the law, but so far, the line-item veto has never returned.

Could the budget be balanced without a line-item veto? Possibly, but I don't know for sure, as it has never been done before. Any presidential candidate who brags about being able to balance the budget needs to be asked how they plan to do it without a line-item veto. And John Kasich, specifically, should be asked how he plans to balance the budget again, now that there is no more line-item veto, and much of his past experience with a balanced budget is rendered useless.

The Iran Meal

Thanks to an unnamed acquaintance who runs @TheIranMeal on Twitter, I've been slowly learning more and more about the Iran Nuclear Deal. Is it complicated? Yes. Does making the deal about food help me understand? Absolutely. Am I going to now pass what I've learned about nuclear deals (and Persian food) onto you? You bet I am!
 

For those who don't know, or who are too overwhelmed by the massive amount of partisan opinion on the topic, The Iran Deal is an agreement between Iran, and countries in the P5+1 (the United States, the UK, France, China, Russia, Germany and the European Union) that will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. 

The deal accomplishes this by forcing Iran to reduce the number of centrifuges (used to enrich uranium, an essential component for a nuclear bomb) and reduce its current stockpile of enriched uranium by 98%. The deal will also compel Iran to redesign a reactor that could create weapons grade plutonium, blocking another pathway to a nuclear bomb. No enriched uranium, or enriched plutonium, and no technology to create it will make it much harder to create a nuclear weapon. Finally, Iran will submit to regular and robust inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency to hopefully ensure that the country isn't pursuing a covert pathway to a nuclear weapon.

All good things for the United States. But some people feel like we lost more than we gained. Iran gets to keep some weapons grade uranium stockpiled, and the restrictions in this deal will only be in place for ten years. Iran will also gain relief from the sanctions imposed on their country that were causing an economic crisis. The deal does not include, "anytime, anywhere" inspections, and Iran will receive notice before any international inspections, which leaves some people very skeptical. Some argue that by agreeing to this deal, which doesn't permanently prevent Iran from creating a nuclear weapon, the United States is granting legitimacy to a repressive regime, and aggravating key allies in the region.

One key ally is Israel. Some are concerned for the safety of Israel because of the Iran deal. Other believe that Iran will soon have a lot of money from the deal, which they will use to fund terrorist activities. Only one Senate Democrat has supported the deal so far, Senator Durbin (D-IL), though several Democrats in the House, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) support it strongly. Senators like Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are feeling pressure to choose between loyalty to the party, and the president, and support for constituents who do not think the deal goes far enough to prevent Iran from creating a nuclear weapon.

However, that may not matter at all. There's no set rules for how Congress approves international relations. Yes, a treaty has to be approved by two thirds of the Senate, but this isn't necessarily a treaty. An "executive agreement," used by President Roosevelt (Franklin, not Teddy) in the 1930s did not have to be approved by Congress, and is different from a treaty in name only.

The Iran deal falls somewhere in the middle of the two thirds Senate vote for a treaty, and the no thirds vote for an executive agreement. What Congress could do is pass a "resolution of disapproval" which would, some say, block the bill. Of course, President Obama has promised to veto any such bill, meaning that if a party wants to make this vote count, they will need a two thirds majority in both houses to override the veto.

I've only scratched the surface of The Iran Deal, and I haven't even begun to discuss the particulars of The Iran Meal (seriously it's a hilarious Twitter, and yours truly has even contributed a couple of tweets, despite knowing very little about the deal, and about Persian cuisine). Complicated foreign policy issues like this aren't something one can form an opinion about in a day, which is why I'm deciding to learn more about the deal before I raise my all important constituent voice one way or the other. If you have questions about the deal, leave them in the comments section! I'll respond with links to articles written by bloggers far more knowledgeable than myself!