Carlos Arredondo: Boston Marathon Attendee Came to Victims' Rescue

This post was written for PolicyMic and can be found here. 

“You watch the videos of the carnage and there are people running TOWARDS the destruction to help out.” – Patton Oswalt

Much has been written about Carlos Arredondo, "Boston’s Cowboy," who has been ubiquitous in photographs and videos from yesterday’s tragic terrorist attack. But his story deserves to be retold.

Born in Costa Rica, Carlos came to America a self-employed handyman. A father of two, his oldest son, Alexander, joined the Marines because he was "Too poor to go to college," his stepmother stated. In 2004 Alexander was killed in Iraq at 20 years of age. Distraught, Carlos and his wife became ardent peace activists. They wished to spare other families the tragedy that had befallen them. At present, 6,648Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the wars have taken lives at home, as well. In late 2011 his remaining son, Brian, who never fully recovered from the loss of his brother, committed suicide. While Brian never served in the military, the effect of war on families has been heavy during the past decade. Eighteen veterans a day commit suicide. Less is known about the families they leave behind. Facing yet another unimaginably tragic loss, Carlos and Melida re-directed their energies to the cause of suicide awareness, especially those which are military-related.

While Carlos is also a Red Cross volunteer, he was at the Boston Marathon Monday primarily to support John Mixon, who was running in Alexander’s honor. As soon as the bombs exploded, Carlos ran toward the victims to help in any way. He can be seen here (use discretion) applying a tourniquet technique in order to save a victim’s leg. In an interview where he is clearly in shock and still covered in the blood of those he saved, he describes his terrifying experience.

The story of Carlos Arredondo has been inextricably linked to political questions Americans have been wrestling with for years: immigration, education costs, war, mental health, and the recent cases of mass violence. Because of this, many of us can find a personal connection to the Arredondo family. We can all put ourselves in their shoes. This is why it is powerful.

But why it is important is because Carlos displays the amazing resiliency of the human spirit to keep fighting. He has not shied in the face of adversity and tragedy. Instead, he and Melida have worked for nearly a decade to try to make this world a safer place. And yesterday Carlos unflinchingly put himself in harm’s way to save the victims of senseless violence.

Soon our nation will go through yet another round of mourning, followed by finger-pointing and political deadlock. While this is going on here in Washington, remember the story of the Arredondo family. That same human resilience and heroism Carlos has shown runs through each and every one of us. Ask yourself, how can I make this world a better place? While you may feel small, every individual can have a part in mending the wounds of our society.

And trust me, we are going to need all the help we can get. 

What is an Executive Order And is It Constitutional?

This post was written for PolicMic and can be found here. 

The National Archives describes executive orders as “official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government.” These documents are largely constitutional and uncontroversial. Despite President Obama’s relatively infrequentuse of executive orders, they have become a salient topic lately, and thus warrant more explanation.

There are two relevant clauses in the U.S. Constitution regarding executive orders: Art. I Sec. 1 and Art. II Sec. 3. The first states, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” The second clause states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Or, put more simply, Congress makes the laws and the president enforces the laws.

Thus, the deeply-rooted American concept of "separation of powers" is what drives the controversy of executive orders. While the president cannot "legislate," he/she must be able to control his/her branch of the government: if Congress micromanaged the executive branch, that would encroach on presidential power, and thus violate the separation of powers as much as presidential legislation would. This is the constitutional tightrope that executive orders must walk: they cannot constitute "legislation," but must allow the president to effectively run the executive branch of the government so that he/she can ensure the laws are faithfully executed.

Executive orders began as informal administrative orders, but truly took on a new role under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who issued over 3,000 of them. In 1952 President Truman issued an executive order to seize domestic steel mills during the Korean War. This action was challenged at the Supreme Court asYoungstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the first major ruling on the topic (for a more nuanced and modern case on executive orders and separation of powers, see: INS v. Chadha). In Youngstown the Supreme Court held that there was no authority for the president to issue this order under the Constitution. Essentially, because there was no law on point for the president to execute, the action of authorizing the seizing domestic steel mills constituted legislation. Since this case presidents generally cite the laws they seek to execute or enforce when issuing their executive orders to be in compliance with the Youngstowndecision. It is important to note that since 9/11 the presidency has expanded in power — generally with the consent of Congress. This expansion of political and legal clout has given rise to reasonable concerns of the abuse of the executive order as a way to circumvent the legislative process.

While I am not asserting the legality of any particular executive order, I hope to have shown that the practice is one which has been exercised by every president and serves legitimate Constitutional goals. But like almost any governmental power, the possibility of abuse remains high. While we must remain wary, we must have proper historical and constitutional context, as well.

Obama Administration Claims Modest Success As War of Ideas Draws Down in Afghanistan

KABUL—Private First Class Alex “Sarte” McDonough has been in Afghanistan for over two years now, and says he is ready to go home to his online blog and a library of books in South Bend, Indiana.

“When you’re at home, as a philosopher you’re used to having the longest beard around and debating angsty young Nietzschians or Solipsists” PFC McDonough stated. “But out here, beard supremacy is never a guarantee, and the logical fallacies are thrown so quickly, it’s tough to handle them all as thoroughly as we’d like.”

PFC McDonough is part of the 102nd Philosopher’s Division, one of the many units sent to Afghanistan by the Obama Administration to fight the War of Ideas.

“This Administration is confident we have the best ideas in the world,” stated White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. “The drawdown is not a retreat or concession, but part of a greater realization that it’s time to have some ideas here at home.” Despite the reduction of philosopher deployment in Afghanistan, many critics have pointed to build-ups in places such as the Persian Gulf and North Africa. When asked about the geographic scope of the War of Ideas, Carney stated, “Make no mistake, we will send our brave thinkers anywhere American ideas are threatened. The president is not afraid to out-think any foe.”

Despite leaving the theatre of combat, for many like PFC McDonough, the war will not be easily forgotten. “I’ve heard stories from guys going back home—they’re not the same philosophers they once were,” McDonough stated. “We all come in thinking about the war experiences of Wittgenstein. But when we return, instead of solving all the problems of philosophy, we can’t even create proper syllogisms.”

McDonough thinks the war may have changed America as much as it has changed Afghanistan. “I know some philosophers out here who’ve already begun discussing the differences between a major and minor Jihad. If we bring these ideas home, why’d we fight in the first place?”

Are Obama’s Drones Coming For Americans?

This post was written for PolicyMic and can be found here.

Earlier this week, NBC News released a leaked Justice Department white paper which makes a legal case for drone strikes on Americans. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights have since denounced the document.

The white paper itself is 16 pages of unsurprising legal argumentation, echoing the reasoning that Obama administration lawyers, such as Eric Holder and Harold Koh, have been putting forth for years. Basically, it is a legal memo which says that the U.S. government can kill a U.S. citizen in a foreign country if:

1) the person is a senior leader of Al-Qaeda or an associated force,

2) an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the person poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the U.S.,

3) capturing the person is continuously infeasible, and

4) the operation to kill the person is conducted consistent with applicable laws of war.

These words bring forth obvious and important questions: who qualifies as a “high-level official,” what constitutes an imminent threat, and at any stage is another branch of government involved?

While these questions remain unanswered, the memo mentions the usual suspects of national security law: the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Mathews v. Eldridge, Ex Parte Quirin, etc. Thus, the arguments are not legally thin and are not wholly unfounded — which is perhaps most worrisome part of the memo.

The expanse of executive power in the field of national security can be traced back to Abraham Lincoln. And yet neither Bush nor Obama have shut down domestic newspapers (as Lincoln did) nor placed thousands of Americans in concentration camps based on no evidence whatsoever (as FDR did). However, one could reasonably argue that America has witnessed a new period of executive power in national security law since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The past two administrations — with due credit given to the generally complicit Congress and Supreme Court — have written executive orders, pushed through legislation, and successfully argued legal cases which has created an extensive body of national security law. At times, this is partially due to practicality (as you cannot have 100 senators conducting a war) and partially due to constitutional law (the president is the commander in chief). But the result is a new legal regime which is frighteningly deferential to the judgment and sole power of the executive branch.

While I don’t think Obama will send drones into U.S. airspace or to attack vacationing Americans abroad, I feel the legal determination presented in this white paper has gone far enough to threaten the constitutional protections of due process of U.S. citizens. Remember that no court convicted U.S. citizenAnwar al-Aulaqi of any crime; he had no opportunity to appeal the predator drones which eventually took his life while he was in Yemen.

As a country of laws, we must find a way to protect our liberties without giving them away in the process. 

GOP Vote Rigging 2013: Why the Republican Plan to Gerrymander the Electoral College Could Destroy Democracy

This is a post I wrote about electoral reform in the U.S. for PolicyMic which can be found here.

Electoral reform has crept into the fore of American politics again, as President Obama told the nation in his recent second inaugural address; "our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote." This statement was in reference to various changes in voting laws made and proposed throughout the country, primarily by Republicans, in preparation for Election Day back in November 2012.

Now that 2012 is over, about a week ago Republicans got started working on changes for 2016.

While both parties engage in shameless gerrymandering, Republicans have generally pursued two extra forms of electoral changes. First, they have sought to disenfranchise populations which reliably vote Democratic (minorities, college students, etc) by making voting requirements increasing and often unreasonably burdensome. Second, they have recently begun seeking to change the way states which often lean Democratic in president elections award their Electoral College votes.

Both types of changes present serious concerns to democracy. The first should be obvious — systematically creating disproportionate burdens on portions of the citizenry is inherently anti-democratic. On this point, former Secretary of State Colin Powell (R) recently stated, "the Republican Party should be a party that says, 'we want everybody to vote,' and make it easier for people to vote and give them a reason to vote for the party, and not to find ways to keep them from voting at all."

The second tactic — the change in the way individual states award Electoral College votes — is a bit subtler. At present, each state decides how to award their Electoral College votes. All states, save for the small Nebraska and Maine, presently engage in a "winner-take-all" system. Those two states award their vote by congressional district — and this is 'reform' being sought currently by Republicans across the country. While this may sound benign enough, the consequences could be deeply troubling. If Republicans in states like Virginia, California, or New York succeed — states that have gone blue in the national elections but have a lot of red in their legislatures — those states would also distribute their electoral votes by congressional district. What's the desired result? When a Republican wins a "red" state, the candidate would get all the votes. But when a Democrat wins one of these "blue" states, the candidate would only get a portion of the state's vote, leaving the Democrat to a sizeable disadvantage nationally.

While I have written elsewhere about the problems with the current system, Columbia University statistics and political science professor Andrew Gelman writes of the 2012 election, "Romney needed about 50.5% of the national two-party vote to have had a 50/50 chance of winning in the Electoral College." He notes that this is certainly a bias that should be fixed. However, Professor Gelman continues, "in contrast, the bias that would ensue if the electoral vote were conducted via congressional districts — that would be huge."

Electoral reform is often a dry, complicated subject. But make no mistake about its importance. Elections are the very processes by which We The People express our views, and as such require more attention from our generation. While our national (and many state) election laws are antiquated and in need of real reform, we must be vigilant of the consequences of those reforms. Concerns of fairness, accuracy and access should characterize electoral reform, not partisan maneuvering. That might smack of naiveté and idealism, but maybe it has to — our democracy depends on it.