What would you like The Heritage Foundation to do as negotiations continue?
What would you like The Heritage Foundation to do as negotiations continue?
Will the 2020 census include the question: “Are you a U.S. citizen?” A recent ruling by Judge Jesse Furman, an Obama appointee on the U.S. District Court of Southern New York, has thrown the matter into doubt.
Judge Furman ruled to drop the citizenship question from next year’s decennial census. In doing so, he disregarded the precedent for including the citizenship. This precedent has a history that dates back to 1820 and was continuously used from 1890 to 1950 on every census, and continues to this very day in the American Community Survey.
The decision threatens the integrity of our electoral system because the census count is used to determine the allocation of House seats and Electoral College votes. Moreover, Heritage Senior Fellow Mike Gonzalez reminds us that it is irrational to think that the census can ask questions on race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, and age, yet it cannot ask the only question that should matter to a color-blind, self-governing republic.
Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky joined Gonzalez in urging President Trump to take the issue all the way to the Supreme Court—and quickly. The deadline for finalizing the census form is this June. We are happy that the administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
It’s your support that allows Heritage experts to keep track of the legislative proposals—and the court rulings—that can preserve or destroy our American way of life. Thanks for helping us to do that.
What else can conservative movement do to prevent liberal judges from hijacking public policy?
Celebrating 15 years of school choice in the District of Columbia, Heritage had the honor of hosting Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to commemorate National School Choice Week. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, long championed by Heritage, has been a blessing for hundreds of District students and their families.
“The outcomes for students in D.C. have continued to improve, from the most underperforming district in the country to now one that is on a growth trajectory,” DeVos said Wednesday at The Heritage Foundation. She went on to urge Congress to implement stronger school choice programs for the future of the nation’s children.
Panelist Virginia Ford summarized the driving message by stating, “The President of the United States shouldn’t be the only one living in public housing that is able to send their children to private school.” School choice has allowed low-income students previously trapped in failing public schools to acquire a quality education elsewhere—an important step on the path out of poverty.
Today, over 50 percent of D.C. students go to schools they weren’t assigned to, and that’s good news. With your help, there will be more good news for students all across America who are being failed by costly public schools. Thanks to your support, Heritage is at the forefront of school choice and education.
With six states adopting Education Savings Accounts, should conservatives leave this in the hands of states, or should we pursue a federal bill on school choice?
Can the president declare a national emergency on the southern border to begin construction on a border wall? President Trump has expressed hesitancy to do so, dampening several days of heated media debate over whether such an action would be legitimate.
While the media gushed soundbites and hasty conclusions, John Malcolm, the Vice President for Heritage’s Institute for Constitutional Government, thoroughly explained why the current law does give the president this power.
Traditionally, Congress designates national emergencies, but some 136 statutes give the president extraordinary powers to do so. These are not mere temporary powers; 31 emergencies declared by former presidents remain in effect today.
If the president were to declare an emergency, it would surely be challenged in court. But, Malcolm concludes, the president does have a strong legal basis to act if he so chooses.
It’s people like John Malcolm who help Heritage cut through the false assertions and wild exaggerations to tell the truth about the law and the president’s authority. Thank you for enabling us to bring facts and clarity to the debate on border security.
Should the president declare a national emergency, or should he secure a deal with Congress first?
The liberals in the House of Representatives have proposed a troubling piece of legislation that could further compromise the freedom of parents and families to the detriment of their children. Emilie Kao, Director of our Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, took to The Daily Signal to warn of the so-called “Equality Act.”
Kao says that Speaker Pelosi has prioritized legislation that “would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, making hospitals and doctors across America vulnerable to costly litigation if they don’t follow the medical recommendations of the transgender movement.” Such legislation would force doctors and nurses who are treating children with gender dysphoria to administer hormones and possibly surgery, even if parents want less drastic remedies like counseling.
The overwhelming majority of children with gender dysphoria become comfortable with their bodies by adulthood. If Washington mandates irreversible physical “solutions” for what the American Psychological Association classifies as a mental illness, it could spell disaster for these poor children. It’s a horrifying example of government making a problem worse, by substituting its doctrinaire policy preferences for the informed and loving decision-making of parents and loved ones.
Because of your support, Heritage experts like Emilie Kao are able to monitor the liberals in Congress and warn you when bad ideas are coming down the pike. Thank you for giving us the resources to catch the bad ideas and stop them from becoming law.
How should conservatives engage on transgender issues?
The Founding Fathers recognized economic freedom as a cornerstone of free societies. And that fact was the subject of the most recent installment in Heritage’s speakers series, “Free Markets: The Ethical Economic Choice.
Determined to protect economic freedom, America’s founders “put it in writing.” It is manifest throughout the Constitution, in the contracts clause, the takings clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clauses, and elsewhere. Their desire to preserve limited government, private property, and freedom of commerce shines throughout the document.
This week, Heritage hosted Randy Barnett, the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at Georgetown University, to discuss the Constitution and economic freedom. Thank you for empowering us to tell the truth about our founding principles, and to retell the story about the freedoms protected by the United States Constitution.
What can we do to further protect economic freedom in 2019?
Speaker Pelosi has been out of power for a while, so when she takes power, she really takes power. This was evident in her changes to the House rules, as reported in The Daily Signal.
Heritage experts Justin Bogie, Romina Boccia, Adam Michel and Rachel Greszler chronicled how her new House rules will undermine the conservative reforms of the previous Congress, and tighten her grip on the people’s house. These changes include automatic debt-ceiling increases, not scoring bills for economic impact, and removing the requirement for a supermajority vote to raise your taxes. Pelosi’s new rules also enable the House to approve rolling back the 2017 tax cuts that are fueling the economy with a bare majority.
The House also reserves the power to sue the president of the United States. Speaker Boehner sued President Obama over The Affordable Care Act, but only after a Congressional resolution authorized it. Speaker Pelosi reserves the power to sue the president without explicit approval through a resolution, which will come into play if the president declares a national emergency to build a border wall and secure the border.
Additionally, the new rules make it harder for a member to “vacate the chair.” The new rule says, “A resolution causing a vacancy in the Office of Speaker shall not be privileged except if offered by direction of a party caucus or conference.’’ Translation: no one person can be the Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., of the 116th Congress, as individual members cannot stand up against the speaker as in previous congresses.
In the new majority’s Restoring Congress for the People report, Rep. Kilmer, D-Wash., boasts “In order to prevent the Speaker from being held hostage by a single Member, this package reforms the motion to vacate the chair to a more thoughtful process.” Unless Speaker Pelosi’s entire conference moves against her, it is doubtful that she could be removed, even if the Speaker of the House abuses her power. As of now, Speaker Pelosi can spend with impunity and behave however she wishes, as long there isn’t a majority of her party’s caucus to advance a motion to vacate.
Because of your support, we have the best minds in the conservative movement keeping an eye on the liberals in Congress and giving you regular updates about their attempts to ram through massive spending and regulation. Thank you for trusting us with that responsibility.
How do you think the new rules will impact the laws that pass in the House?
What number of vacant judgeships quantifies a judicial crisis? In 2012, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said that number was 35. In 2015, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said that number was 15. In 2016, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said it was 62. That number under President Trump? Somewhere north of 130—the current number of vacancies. As Heritage founder Dr. Ed Feulner notes in a recent Washington Times column, liberals in the Senate are content to “reject any end-of-the-year deal on judicial nominations, signaling they’ll toe a tougher line on court appointments amid heavy pressure from the left.”
Assembling an impressive collection of quotes, Dr. Feulner exposed senatorial hypocrisy on the subject of judicial obstruction. For example, in 2014, Sen. Leahy declared that such “obstruction is not worthy of the Senate, and the resulting judicial vacancies do great harm to the judicial system.” Leahy’s words are still true, regardless of who’s president.
Dr. Feulner has fought for decades to promote conservative values, and continues to work to assure that the judiciary works as the framers of the Constitution intended. Thank you for supporting Heritage as we hold elected officials accountable.
What should be done to see that President Trump’s nominees receive a fair and timely vote in the Senate?
As 2018 came to a close, Heritage expert James Jay Carafano scanned the horizon to see what 2019 will bring to the world stage. In a Fox News column, the vice president of the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy predicted the five major national security headlines you will see this year.
Carafano started with Israel, pointing out how their elections may lead to a day of reckoning for Hezbollah. He said that China would pull back its horns as it deals with a stumbling economy and seeks to ease trade tensions with the United States. He also predicts that, notwithstanding the president’s recent policy change regarding troops in Syria, the U.S. would stay in Afghanistan to address the Taliban.
He further forecasts that the administration will keep working with Mexico and Brazil to meet the humanitarian challenges wrought by a collapsing Venezuela. Finally, he foresees continuing disputes with Russia over nuclear weapons, specifically in regards to the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
The bottom line: foreign powers are holding their breath to see how the 2020 presidential election will shape American foreign policy. With experienced observers like James Jay Carafano, we can continue to inform policymakers in the conservative movement and beyond to create the best policy outcomes for the United States.
What do you think will be the biggest foreign policy challenge of 2019?
In a recent interview with Fox’s Harris Faulkner, President Trump cited Heritage Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky’s work in The Daily Signal. The piece addressed the popular liberal argument that claims President Trump conspired to violate campaign finance laws by giving money to Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford.
The President’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, pled guilty to tax evasion and financial fraud charges, but von Spakovsky takes issue with the notion that there were violations to campaign finance law, which were part of Cohen’s plea agreement.
As a former member of the Federal Election Commission, von Spakovsky notes that spending restrictions established by the Federal Election Campaign Act specifically do not apply to expenditures that would “exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”
Von Spakovsky also recalled that the Justice Department’s prosecution of similar charges against former Senator John Edwards resulted in acquittal. The claim that the President violated campaign laws doesn’t withstand scrutiny.
When you have the best legal minds analyzing the issues of our day, it’s possible to dismantle an attempt to use election laws as a weapon against the president. Thank you for giving us the resources to defend the truth and lay out the facts for all—even the President of the United States.
What should be done about the criminalization of politics, and the endless investigations against public officials?