|
|
Brian Schatz on Principles & Values |
We consider "issue-free campaigners" to be untrustworthy of holding elected office--the IFFY award means they are "iffy" officeholders. Just having a "vision" is not enough--voters need to know how the candidate will actually vote on key issues. Issue-free candidates run their campaigns by mouthing platitudes like "How 'bout them Cubs?" and claiming "I respect motherhood & apple pie!" That is an insult to their constituency--and voters should complain loudly and often. We already have--join us!
"Senator Brian Schatz isn't just a reliable vote for progressives in Washington, D.C., he takes it a step further and organizes other Senators to join him. Whether it's fighting on the front lines against climate change, defending a woman's right to choose, or expanding Social Security, Brian Schatz has proven he's a true progressive leader," Democracy for America's Executive Director says.
His term as the Makiki Tantalus state senator ends this year. People have called Schatz a rising star among Democrats, an environmentalist, and a breath of fresh air.
Others say he's too young. "There are plenty of 33-year olds that don't belong in the U.S. House, plenty of 75-year olds that don't belong in the U.S. House," Schatz said. "I don't think age is anything to do with it. it has more to do on what your values are, what your skills are, and what you bring to the table."
Press Release from 9 Senators: [Cory Booker and 13 co-sponsors] introduced legislation that would block a registry of people based on their religion, race, age, gender, ethnicity, national origin, or nationality. "Religious freedom and freedom from discrimination are fundamental rights central to the very idea of being an American," Sen. Booker said. "Forcing people to sign up for a registry based on their religion, race, or national origin does nothing to keep America secure. It does, however, undermine the freedom of religion guaranteed by our Constitution and promote the false notion that people of certain faiths and nationalities are inherently suspect. Our legislation would block Donald Trump and subsequent administrations from infringing on religious liberty by creating an immigration-related religious registry."
National origin-based immigration registry systems have proven ineffective at combatting terrorism and strengthening national security, but effective at instilling fear in certain communities. The George W. Bush-era National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), registered over 83,000 individuals from 24 Muslim-majority countries, but yielded zero terrorism convictions.
Opposing argument: (GovTrack.us's analysis of S.54): President Trump pledged during his campaign to institute a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration and Syrian refugees "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." He made good on much of that promise with an executive order suspending America's refugee admission program for 120 days and banning all entry from seven majority-Muslim countries for 90 days. Trump has defended a Muslim registry as necessary to national security. "They have to be [registered]. It's all about management. Our country has no management," he said when first proposing the idea in 2015. Trump reiterated his plans as president-elect in December.
Excerpts from Letter from 17 Senators to Trump Organization: The Trump Organization's continuing financial relationship with President Trump raises concerns about whether it is a pass-through for income that violates the Constitution's two Emoluments Clauses: Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 on foreign Emoluments; and Article II, Clause 7 on domestic Emoluments. Please answer the following questions to help Congress understand:
Legal Analysis: (Cato Institute, "Emoluments Clause vs. Trump Empire," 11/29/16): The wording of the Emoluments clause points one way to resolution: Congress can give consent, as it did in the early years of the Republic to presents received by Ben Franklin. It can decide what it is willing to live with in the way of Trump conflicts. If it misjudges public opinion, it will pay a political price at the next election.
FOIA argument: (ACLU Center for Democracy, "FOIA Request," 1/19/17): We filed our first Freedom of Information Act request of the Trump Era, seeking documents relating President Trump's conflicts of interest relating to his business connections. When Trump took the oath of office, he didn't take the steps necessary to ensure that he and his family's business interests comply with the Constitution. Some have even argued that upon taking the oath of office, the new president is already violating the Emoluments Clause.