Mediaboss Marketing

One of the programs slotted for elimination in the proposed federal budget released May 23 is the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). Sounds ominous . what is the Legal Services Corporation and why should it receive funding from the federal government? LSC was created by President Nixon as an integral part of our judicial system. LSC provides grant funding to more than 130 legal services organizations throughout the country. In Colorado, LSC provides annual grants to Colorado Legal Services (CLS) which in turn assists thousands of needy Coloradans with critical legal issues. Every year, CLS serves more than 10,000 Coloradans and receives 40 percent of its funding from LSC. CLS provides free, vital representation to indigent Coloradans, including:

- Civil legal assistance. In criminal cases that could result in jail time there is a constitutional right to a lawyer.

However, there is no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases which results in many unrepresented people in the courtrooms. Americans at risk of losing their children or homes and victims of unscrupulous companies or civil rights violations by the government require access to attorneys. CLS helps veterans, the disabled, the elderly and domestic violence victims. CLS is also uniquely qualified to provide highly specialized legal help in times of emergency, such as aiding Coloradans displaced during the 2013 floods in northern Colorado.

- CLS also acts as a hub for pro bono volunteer lawyers to donate their services to the needy. "Pro bono" does not mean free - someone must organize and train the many volunteer lawyers that help low and middle-income people. CLS provides support for attorneys that volunteer their time.

- CLS has been actively involved in a movement called "Access to Justice." Many states, including Colorado, have an Access to Justice Commission, a public/private partnership that works with the courts, businesses and the bar association to make the civil justice system more accessible to all. Results of this effort include the creation of self-help centers, plain language legal forms, incentives for attorneys to perform more pro bono and more. CLS also has a statewide website to provide necessary information, both for self-help and for attorneys willing to donate their time.

Some people mistakenly believe that LSC funds organizations that employ lawyers to carry out a subversive, liberal agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth. Restrictions implemented in 1996 prohibit LSC's attorneys from any political activity. Staff from LSC-funded organizations cannot engage in grassroots organizing, lobbying or class action litigation. LSC aggressively monitors all grantees to ensure that these restrictions are honored. LSC is a well-run nonprofit that recently received the best possible rating for FOIA compliance.

Guaranteeing access to justice for everyone is essential to a well-ordered democracy. If low and middle-income people are barred from our court system, they will no longer trust it and the foundation of our democracy is threatened. While LSC is not the only funding source for civil legal aid, it is the largest and defunding it will wreak chaos in the legal system. Courts are already overwhelmed by the abundance of litigation. If the indigent go unrepresented, court cases are delayed. Businesses and the government will suffer greater inefficiencies and pay higher costs as a result of a bogged-down judicial system.

In light of the potential harm that would befall our court system if LSC cannot continue with its vital work, the American Bar Association, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, 161 law school deans, 25 deans from Catholic law schools, leaders of more than 150 large law firms, general counsel from 185 companies, and many others have signed letters objecting to the proposed elimination of LSC.

Access to justice is not a Democratic or Republican issue; it is an American value. As the Honorable Learned Hand cautioned, "If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice."

-

Julie Reiskin is the executive director of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition and a Democrat who lives in Denver. She serves on the Legal Services Corporation board of directors as a client (nonattorney) representative. John Zakhem is a partner with Jackson Kelly law firm in Denver, chair of the Colorado Access to Justice Resources Committee and a Jefferson County Republican.

Originally posted here:
Loss of legal services would threaten foundations of democracy - Colorado Springs Gazette

NEW DELHI: In his 32nd edition of 'Mann ki Baat', Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Sunday welcomed the analyses being done in various media fora about the performance of his three-year-old government+ , saying "constructive criticism" strengthens the democracy.

He said some opinion polls and surveys have appreciated his government's work+ , some have supported it while some others have highlighted the drawbacks.

Appreciating this exercise being conducted over the last one month in the run-up to completion of his government's three years on May 26, he said he believes that in a democracy, the government should be answerable.

"Constructive criticism strengthens the democracy. For a lively democracy, such exercises are immensely important," the prime minister said in his monthly radio programme 'Mann Ki Baat'.

He noted that the surveys have assessed in detail his government's performance+ on all fronts and said it was a "great exercise".

The prime minister said he believes that in a democracy, a government must present its report card to the people.

"Three years back, you (people) had given me the responsibility of the 'pradhan sevak' (prime servant). There have been several surveys and opinion polls. I consider this entire exercise healthy," Modi said.

"I thank those who have given critical and important feedback.... I greatly value such exercises... It provides an opportunity to correct the weaknesses and the drawbacks that may be there," Modi said.

From the result of these surveys, the government can take lessons and move ahead, he added.

He also conveyed his greeting on the start of Ramzan to people across the world.

He also said that people give importance to prayer, spirituality and charity during Ramazan.

"India's cultural diversity is her strength. 125 crore Indians can take pride that people belonging from all communities of the world are present in India who reverberate the message of shanti (peace), ekta (unity) and sadbhavna (goodwill)," PM Modi said in his monthly radio show.

He said that in India, people practicing idol worship, people who did not follow idol worship, atheists and people believing in god are all living in peace and harmony.

"People from all over India were imprisoned in the cellular jail. Veer Savarkar's role in India's freedom movement cannot be forgotten. His book 'Mazi Janmathep' gives insights about his struggle for freedom when he was imprisoned in the cellular jail," he said while paying tribute to Veer Savarkar.

"Our ancestors conserved nature, we must show the same compassion towards future generations," he said.

"We shouldn't see this garbage as waste but wealth. And once we start doing that we would be able to find out several innovative ways of waste management," he said.

Lauding the "clean India" campaign, he said, "Swachhata has become a mass movement today. It has generated a spirit of competitiveness between the cities. Media too has played a vital role in furthering the message of cleanliness."

He also praised environmentalist Afroz Shah and his efforts towards cleaning Mumbai's dirtiest Versova's beach.

"I heartily congratulate Afroz Shah and his entire team for their efforts in cleaning Mumbai's Versova beach," Modi said in his 'Mann ki Baat' radio address.

He lauded the effort of Shah, saying that he started cleaning Versova in October 2015 and later it turned into a people's movement.

Versova beach has now been transformed into a clean and beautiful beach, he said.

See the rest here:
Mann Ki Baat: PM Modi talks about India's Independence struggle, clean India and waste management - Times of India

New York Times

Checking Democracy's Pulse New York Times American democracy remains healthy, but its health has worsened for the first time in recent history, according to a new survey of 1,126 political scientists. Three-quarters of respondents said the quality of United States democracy had declined in the ...

Follow this link:
Checking Democracy's Pulse - New York Times

By Anbal Prez-Lin By Anbal Prez-Lin May 26 at 6:00 AM

James B. Comeys controversial firing has prompted discussions about removing President Trump from office. Reps. Al Green (D-Tex.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) have called for the presidents impeachment. In the New York Times, Ross Douthat argued that the Cabinet should invoke the 25th Amendment and declare the president unable to discharge his duties. Others have been more cautious. Impeachment would stoke, not calm, political anger wrote Fred Hiatt in The Washington Post.

How would removing Trump from office affect U.S. democracy? Would it be an exemplary act of accountability or a thinly veiled coup against an elected leader? Would it prevent major damage to the republic or push the country into political instability?

[So what exactly counts as an impeachable offense?]

Political science research and other nations experiences suggest that, without a careful process backed by a broad national consensus, removing the president would only worsen the countrys polarization.

Lets look at other nations experiences

Over the past 12 months, weve seen two presidents impeached and ousted: Presidents Dilma Rousseff in Brazil and Park Geun-hye in South Korea. Since 1992, eight Latin American presidents have been removed from office by either impeachment or declaration of incapacity. And another may be on the way: Brazils new president,Michel Temer, charged with obstruction of justice, may become the next casualty in the coming weeks.

Analysts used to believe that only new democracies are prone to presidential interruptions a term used to cover impeachments, declarations of incapacity or anticipated resignations. Many are now reassessing this assumption. Other countries may yield important lessons for the United States.

As political scientist Keith Whittington explained here this week, evidence of high crimes is never sufficient to indict the president. Political scientists agree on the conditions leading to an impeachment: recurrent media scandals, a floundering economy, mass protests and the collapse of the presidents coalition in Congress. Recent research I conducted with John Polga-Hecimovich of the U.S. Naval Academy shows that some of the factors that drive presidential impeachments are the same that once prompted military coups in developing countries: the radicalization of elites, social unrest and economic recession.

[Trump told the Russians that firing Comey took the pressure off. This is what he should have said instead.]

There is less consensus, however, on the long-term consequences of an impeachment. On the optimistic side, Kathryn Hochstetler and David Samuels have argued that presidential systems recover from this trauma rapidly. Their study of 18 countries found that presidential interruptions do not set off further government instability or reduce popular support for democracy.

Less optimistically, Leiv Marsteintredet of the University of Oslo studied14 presidential interruptions, and found that some impeachments set offa longer period of political instability. When the president has clearly violated the constitution,impeachments are self-contained events. But when legislators remove the executive in response to broader issues, like failed policies or mass unrest, the presidents ouster tends to be just the opening act of a protracted political crisis.

What can we learn from all this?

To be an effective tool of democratic accountability, impeachment must meet two important conditions:

Proper process. Impeachment is a hybrid institution, in part legal trial and in part vote of no-confidence. Presidential constitutions require that legislators produce evidence of high crimes or maladministration to impeach the president (with a trial decided by the senate or by the supreme court, depending on the country). But the decision to impeach is ultimately driven by partisan politics. During a crisis, political passions can overcome attention to constitutional niceties. If a legislature uses shortcuts to remove a president, that can have nefarious consequences for democracy.

In 1997, for example, Ecuadorans took to the streets to demand the ouster of their unpopular president, Abdal Bucaram. The opposition in congress lacked the supermajority required to impeach the president, so it falsely invoked the Ecuadoran equivalent of the 25th Amendment and, by a simple majority, declared the president mentally incapacitated. Bucaram aptly nicknamed the madman left the country. But the wrong constitutional precedent had been set. Over the next decade, Ecuador ousted every elected president.

In a republic, form is substance.

Social consensus. Corrupt presidents can be and usually are shielded from impeachment by loyal supporters in congress. Most legislators, however, abandon the executive when their constituents agree on the severity of the presidents crime. Successful impeachment movements usually involve cross-class, cross-party mobilizations demanding executive accountability.

If a nation is politically polarized, therefore, rushed calls for impeachment may not be a great idea. The presidents supporters easily dismiss evidence of corruption or abuse of power as media manipulation. Without real consensus, much of the population will see the ouster of an elected executive as an illegitimate act. Legislative leaders faced this predicament after they removed Presidents Fernando Lugo of Paraguay in 2012 and Dilma Rousseff in Brazil last year. Important segments of the population saw those impeachments merely as soft coups.

Public support for an impeachment may take a while to build. In September 1973, a survey of urban voters in the Midwest showed that two-thirds of respondents found Richard Nixon guilty in the Watergate scandal, but only one-third supported his removal from office. Not surprisingly, more than 70 percent of those who acknowledged the presidents responsibility but rejected impeachment had voted for Nixon in 1972. Scholars debated at the time whether this pattern proved that voters were too rigid. But with time and information, voters changed their minds: Nixons approval dropped precipitously, from 67 percent in early 1973 to 24 percent in mid-1974.

Legislators considering the use of impeachment or the 25th Amendment must therefore focus on the need to achieve broad political agreements in Congress and beyond. Unfortunately, only 15percentof the political scientists surveyed by the Bright Line Watch project last February believed that, in elected branches of government in the United States, majorities act with restraint and reciprocity.

[A new expert survey finds warning signs for the state of American democracy]

The experience of other countries, however, yields a clear lesson: Only civil legislators, willing to follow proper process and able to build broad consensus, are able to repair the long-term damage created by an uncivil president.

Anbal Prez-Lin is professor of political science at the University of Pittsburgh and author of Presidential Impeachment and the New Political Instability in Latin America (Cambridge University Press, 2007). Follow him @aperezli.

This essay was produced in partnership withBrightLineWatch.org.

See more here:
How would removing Trump from office affect U.S. democracy? - The ... - Washington Post

LONDON As I strolled through Paris the other day, the air was warm, the sky was blue, and I felt like I was in the best of all possible worlds. As always, Paris looked elegant and exuded confidence and cheerfulness. France had just elected a clever, young, handsome, and brave new president, who seemed to match the citys ambience. Without much bad news to darken the day, I had every reason to walk with a spring in my step.

Of course, things could have been very different. It was just 18 months ago that a terrorist attack in Paris left 130 people dead and hundreds more injured. Last July in Nice, an attacker drove a truck through a Bastille Day crowd on the citys seafront promenade, killing 86. Not long after that, an assailant slit an elderly priests throat at a church in Normandy. And last month, just before the second round of the French presidential election, a policeman was gunned down on the Champs-lyses.

These wicked acts, stemming from a distorted interpretation of a great religion, did not stop French voters from electing Emmanuel Macron, a man who knows that vigilance requires us to respect all members of our community. To fight evil, we must reject exclusion and hate, and we must not blacken the reputation of a large segment of our society.

I was reminded of this lesson recently, on a taxi ride from central Paris to the Gare du Nord. The driver, after complaining about the competition from Uber (a familiar refrain from London taxi drivers, too), went on to denounce the world and everything in it. He claimed that globalization and mass immigration are destroying jobs, overwhelming public services, compromising French national identity, and breeding terrorists.

Needless to say, the driver had voted for Marine Le Pen although he did not look like what the National Front would call a pureblooded Frenchman. Of course, most of France voted the other way. And while the drivers grievances still have wide currency, they do not represent a coherent, fact-based approach to todays problems.

Britain faces its own terrorist threats, as we have seen yet again with the horrendous attack in Manchester, the northwestern city where my grandparents were head teachers, and where my father was born. So far, the death toll stands at 22, many of them children, making the attack on the Manchester Arena Britains worst encounter with terrorism since the London Underground bombings in July 2005, which killed 52. There have been similar but smaller-scale incidents since then. And, in previous decades, London and other cities (including Manchester in 1996) withstood attacks by Irish nationalist militants.

And yet Britons, like the French, have not panicked or responded in a knee-jerk fashion. We continue to prefer living in free and open societies, so we have always reacted with calm and measured resolve.

That resolve is one of the strengths of democracy. We will never hand the political agenda over to those who offer only simplistic slogans, crude arguments, and extreme policies. Those who want to pin their problems on the other as defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality will always be in the minority. Their goal is to close hearts and minds. They have no interest in understanding the causes of violence, or in developing effective ways to address them.

The good sense of democracies is based, in part, on the understanding that country matters more than party. In democracies, effective policymaking rests on compromise and reason. Those of us who live in democracies will not be terrorized into discarding our sense of balance and moderation, because we understand something profound about most societies: life always wins over death.

Although there is such a thing as original sin the wickedness that simmers, blows up, and scars young children and their family and friends there is also original virtue, which is always present after terrorist atrocities. It is manifested in the passers-by who stop to help; in the nurses and doctors who attend to the injured; and in those who search for the lost, offer families a bed for the night, or escort people home from the scene of a mass murder.

The people who plan and commit terrorist acts will probably never learn that theirs is a lost cause. Open societies will undoubtedly have to withstand further assaults in the future. But if one thing is clear, it is that terrorists cannot defeat democracy.

In France, voters just elected a new president out of hope, not despair; and in the UK, we will soon hold another free and fair election in June. Democracy will withstand attacks like the one in Manchester; and democratic citizens will respond with courage and generosity.

See more here:
Democracy Trumps Terrorism - Project Syndicate