Noncitizens registering and voting illegally is a real problem that compromises the integrity of our elections. Arizona is particularly affected because it has large populations of illegal immigrants, so they enacted a law requiring those registering to vote to provide proof of citizenship.

But the Supreme Court ruled yesterday against that Arizona law. Heritage Foundation legal expert Hans von Spakovsky explains:

In a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by six other justices…the Supreme Court said that Arizona must “accept and use” the federal mail-in voter registration form specified by the federal National Voter Registration Act (the Motor Voter law). Arizona’s requirement that proof of citizenship be submitted with the federal form is preempted.

While this was a step in the wrong direction, it was not a complete loss for supporters of honest elections. The decision was very narrowly focused and did not affect measures like Arizona’s voter ID law, which remains in force. Von Spakovsky explains a few other details the press overlooked: Continue Reading »

Chinafotopress/ZUMApress/Newscom

America should be concerned not just by what NSA leaker Edward Snowden has already revealed but by what he could give away in the future.

Snowden has fled to Hong Kong, where he says he enjoys free speech protections. But he may have miscalculated a bit: Hong Kong is part of China and under the authority of its communist government.

“What happens when NSA leaker extraordinaire Edward Snowden stops being a “guest” of Hong Kong and becomes a subject of a People’s Republic of China (PRC) Ministry of State Security interrogation?” Heritage Foundation expert Steven Bucci asks.

Especially since he revealed that the U.S. has been spying on Chinese computers, Snowden has become a very important asset to the Chinese government–and a liability for us.

“What information beyond the fact that we hack does this guy have that the Chinese could possibly get out of him?” Bucci asks. “This is a very, very dangerous thing.”

How do you think the US should respond to this threat?

Newscom

A Congressional hearing this week could determine whether the United States will abandon its bureaucratic controls on the export of liquefied natural gas.

Today, exporting LNG to another country is legal, but it requires approval by the Department of Energy. As with any bureaucratic process, this means long and costly delays, Heritage’s Bryan Riley explains.

Thanks to this unnecessary government involvement, LNG producers face major obstacles to exportation. This makes it easier for foreign energy companies other countries to swoop in and take opportunities that Americans could’ve had.

Other energy-producing countries are big fans of the restrictive U.S. policy. As American producers wait for DOE approval to export LNG, Canada is building a $16 billion terminal to export LNG to Japan and other countries.

Proposed new legislation, though, would remove these restrictions and allow American producers to export to Japan and our NATO allies. This is a good step, though a better one would be to remove all government restrictions on energy exports.

As Riley points out, “allowing those private producers to sell to anyone they want fits best with U.S. constitutional values.”

Do you think government should be able to curb free enterprise like this?

As the Senate debates a version of immigration reform that would grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and fail to secure the border, Heritage Foundation experts have proposed a principled, conservative alternative.

The Heritage’s step-by-step plan solves the critical problems of immigration and border security without the need for a costly, complex, “comprehensive” bill that grants amnesty to illegal immigrants.

The plan includes five major elements: Continue Reading »

The so-called “farm” bill, which doesn’t have much at all to do with farms, passed the Senate this week. Now it moves on to the House of Representatives, where Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has said he will vote for it.

Among other questionable provisions in the costly bill, more than 80 percent of the spending goes to food stamps, not farmers. It spends half again as much as the last farm bill, passed in 2008. It even taxes Christmas tree and rocks!

So why would anyone approve of this bloated trillion-dollar proposal?

For some time now, The Heritage Foundation has been highlighting the this bill and how it does not do what most people think it does.

Heritage’s Amy Payne puts it plainly: “Let’s be honest. This isn’t a ‘farm’ bill. It’s a food stamps-and-whatever-else-Congress-can-throw-in bill.”

Do you think the farm bill is a good idea as it stands? Or should Congress reconsider?

In 1765, legal scholar William Blackstone said it is “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” Today’s United States judicial system apparently disagrees.

Historically, criminal penalties were only used to punish behavior that is inarguably wrong, such as murder, theft, fraud, rape, and so forth.

But recently a disturbing trend has emerged — overcriminalization. That’s when government uses criminal law to solve every problem, to punish every mistake, and to compel compliance with regulatory objectives. Criminal penalties are now enforced against reasonable people who did not know what they were doing was wrong.

Take Abner Schoenwetter. He became a victim of overcriminalization after the federal government prosecuted him for violating a foreign country‘s wildlife regulations. Continue Reading »

Newscom

Americans have been frustrated with the country’s economic performance for quite a while now. But how can we improve economic policy when we don’t even know what we’re trying to improve?

Many decision makers and reporters use Gross Domestic Product as a measure for the economy. But Heritage Foundation expert Derek Scissors argues that GDP, which counts one year’s production, is a bad measure of economic health. Instead, he says, we should measure our national wealth. Continue Reading »

Liberals are quick to argue that Europe’s economic stagnation proves spending cuts hurt growth. Heritage Foundation economist Salim Furth, though, points to a counterexample.

While he cautions “against drawing too much from a single example,” he notes that:

From 1995 to 1998, fiscal consolidation was heavily on the spending side, and growth accelerated to a smoking 3.6 percent, and the deficit turned to a surplus.

The fact that growth was strongest right after spending cuts preponderated and weakest when taxes increased most is an excellent exhibit of the case for preferring spending cuts.

What do you think? Should we cut spending as a way to boost the economy?

“America is built on the principle of ‘ordered liberty,’ which seeks to maximize both security and freedom at the same time,” Heritage Foundation national security expert James Carafano writes on National Review Online. “The art of governance, then, is to establish rules that let the good guys get the bad guys without infringing on the freedom of the people.”

The latest front in this struggle between freedom and security is the recently-exposed National Security Agency electronic surveillance program, through which the government allegedly captures e-mail and other data transmitted online.

Getting the balance right between security and freedom is critical, Carafano argues. “There is no question it can be done right,” he says. “In the case of battling transnational terrorism, Washington has honed instruments such as the Patriot Act and the FISA courts to do just that.” Continue Reading »

By appointing Susan Rice as his National Security Advisor, President Obama proved his loyalty to his friends but also showed questionable concern for the real security threats facing the United States.

Rice was the President’s first choice to replace former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but her appointment was quickly shut down by the Senate, Heritage Foundation national security expert Steven Bucci writes.

Rice was the frontrunner to replace Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State until her credibility was destroyed over mishandling the truth of the terrorist murders of four Americans in Benghazi. She simply became radioactive and clearly would never pass Senate confirmation.

What was President Obama’s response to the Senate’s rejection? He appointed his friend to a position that didn’t require approval from anyone. Continue Reading »