First the 14th Amendment, then what? The 1st and 2nd? Trump should reconsider executive order
It was announced on Tuesday that President Donald Trump is considering ending birthright citizenship, a product of the 14th Amendment through an executive order. Trump is quoted in an Axios interview as saying, “It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t.” Exclusive: Trump plans to sign an executive order terminating birthright citizenship, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for “Axios on HBO.” pic.twitter.com/D2RE4N4OrJ — Axios (@axios) October 30, 2018 While I’m not a Constitutional law expert, I do know enough about American history, law and government to know that this move is something that no one should celebrate. Even those who oppose the rampant use of birthright citizenship by illegal aliens or want to see an end to the growing birth-tourism market, should understand that there’s a right way and a wrong way to address constitutional changes, or in this case, the challenges to existing language. The foundation of our nation rests on our Constitution. The two ways in which that document can be amended substantively is spelled out clearly in Article V. Article V The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. Ultimately any executive order by Trump would be challenged and go to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide. The role of the court however is to interpret laws, not to create or change them. Changing the widely held, historically used interpretation of the 14th Amendment would be to legislate from the bench which no one, regardless of party, should support from any level of the judicial branch. There is certainly good reason to revisit the 14th Amendment and the abuse of it but we should insist that Congress do that (here’s to looking at you Sen. Lindsay Graham). The president should insist that Congress do that. We’ll be hearing from a lot of experts in the coming hours and days. From the perspective of just an individual who values the sanctity of our Constitution and the rights that it protects — I urge people to look at this proposal, not for the policy implications, but for the practical ones. There’s a right and a wrong way to do things and the moment one side tries to exploit a potential workaround, it’s only a matter of time before the other side tries to do the same. Today it’s the 14th Amendment, but tomorrow it could be the 1st or the 2nd. Let us not get complacent in wanting to reach a goal without consideration of how we get there. I think this not about immigrants or immigration, illegal or illegal, but to me this is about protecting our foundation of our nation.
Donald Trump eyes changes to Barack Obama’s tax and Wall Street rules
The Trump administration embarked Friday on new efforts to study and possibly dismantle some of the tax and financial regulations established by former President Barack Obama. President Donald Trump will sign an executive order to review tax regulations set last year by his predecessor, as well as two memos to potentially reconsider major elements of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reforms passed in the wake of the Great Recession. The review of tax regulations could give greater leeway to companies looking to shelter income overseas, or simply seeking to reduce paperwork related to the enforcement of such regulations. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said a “significant” issue to be examined will be the crackdown by Obama on inversions, which are mergers that enable U.S. firms to relocate their headquarters overseas where tax rates are lower. The review could also touch on overlapping rules designed to stop foreign-based companies from shifting their U.S. profits abroad. Mnuchin said the goal of the executive order is to reduce the burden of time and money from complying with tax regulations. “The tax system is way too complicated and burdensome,” he said. The administration is also trying to pass tax reform that would reduce corporate rates and encourage businesses that have trillions of dollars stowed overseas to bring their profits back to the U.S. “We’re not going to do anything that makes U.S. businesses less competitive,” Mnuchin said. The two memos would focus on possible adjustments to the Dodd-Frank law, which was designed to stop banks from growing “too big to fail” and requiring public bailouts. One memo will order Mnuchin to review a component of the law that allows federal regulators to liquidate failing financial firms during an economic crisis if those companies are large enough that their collapse would pose a threat to the entire U.S. economy. The other memo will order the Treasury to review a process that designates which non-bank firms could threaten the financial system if they fail. Critics argue this process is costly and arbitrary. Both measures will be suspended while they’re under review. Mnuchin said taxpayers won’t be left on the hook. “Let me make it absolutely clear: President Trump is absolutely committed to make sure that taxpayers are not at risk for government bailouts of entities that are too big to fail,” he said. His report will explore if it would be better to liquidate troubled financial firms through a modified form of bankruptcy. Former Federal Reserve chair Ben Bernanke argued in a February blog post that there is no provision for the government to inject money into a failing firm as was done during the 2008 financial meltdown. This means that all losses would be borne by private investors. Also, Bernanke said his experience is that financial regulators are often better equipped to respond to these emergencies than bankruptcy judges. Mnuchin suggested Friday that it might be necessary to update bankruptcy laws to accommodate collapsing firms during an economic crisis. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Donald Trump targets visas program for highly skilled workers
President Donald Trump hopes to revive the economic populism that helped drive his election campaign on Tuesday, signing an order in politically important Wisconsin to tighten rules on technology companies bringing in highly skilled foreign workers. At a the headquarters of a big-name tool manufacturer, Trump is expected to sign an order aimed at curbing what his administration says are abuses in a visa program used by U.S. technology companies that harm American workers. Dubbed “Buy American, Hire American,” the directive follows a series of recent Trump reversals on economic policies. The president is to sign the directive at Snap-on Inc. in Kenosha, Wisconsin, a state he narrowly carried in November on the strength of support from white, working class voters. Trump currently has only a 41 percent approval rating in the state. He is targeting the H-1B visa program, which the White House says undercuts American workers by bringing in large numbers of cheaper, foreign workers, driving down wages. The tech industry has argued that the H-1B program is needed because it encourages students to stay in the U.S. after getting degrees in high-tech specialties — and companies can’t always find enough American workers with the skills they need. Trump has traveled to promote his agenda less than his recent predecessors. White House spokesman Sean Spicer said he wanted to visit “a company that builds American-made tools with American workers.” The new order would direct U.S. agencies to propose rules to prevent immigration fraud and abuse in the program. They would also be asked to offer changes so that H-1B visas are awarded to the “most-skilled or highest-paid applicants,” said administration officials who spoke only on the condition of anonymity despite the president’s frequent criticism of the use of anonymous sources. The officials said the order also seeks to strengthen requirements that American-made products be used in certain federal construction projects, as well as in various federal grant-funded transportation projects. The commerce secretary will review how to close loopholes in existing rules and provide recommendations to the president. The order specifically asks the secretary to review waivers of these rules in free-trade agreements. The waivers could be renegotiated or revoked if they are not benefiting the United States. Trump’s visit to Wisconsin takes him to the congressional district of House Speaker Paul Ryan, who won’t be joining the president because he’s on a congressional trip visiting NATO countries. Trump campaigned on populist promises to stand up to China, which he contended was manipulating its currency and stealing American jobs, and to eliminate the Export-Import bank, which he billed as wasteful subsidy. In a series of interviews last week, Trump reversed himself on both positions And while he has long pledged to support American goods and workers, his own business record is mixed. Many Trump-branded products, like clothing, are made overseas. And his businesses have hired foreign workers, including at his Palm Beach club Mar-a-Lago. During his campaign, Trump said at one point that he supported high-skilled visas, then he said he opposed the program. At one debate, he said: “It’s very bad for our workers and it’s unfair for our workers. And we should end it.” Potential changes could be administrative or legislative and could include higher fees for the visas, changing the wage scale for the program or other initiatives. Critics say the program has been hijacked by staffing companies that use the visas to recruit foreigners — often from India — who will work for less than Americans. The staffing companies then sell their services to corporate clients. Employers, including Walt Disney World and the University of California, San Francisco, have laid off tech employees and replaced them with H-1B visa holders. U.S. workers are sometimes asked to train their replacements to qualify for severance packages. Ronil Hira, a professor in public policy at Howard University and a critic of the H-1B program, said Trump’s planned order is “better than nothing.” But he added, “It’s not as aggressive as it needs to be.” Trump carried Wisconsin in November by under 23,000 votes — less than 1 percentage point — making him the first Republican to win the state since 1984. He campaigned on the promise of returning manufacturing jobs that have been lost in Upper Midwest states. Snap-on makes hand and power tools, diagnostics software, information and management systems, and shop equipment for use in various industries, including agriculture, the military and aviation. It has eight manufacturing sites in North America and employs about 11,000 people worldwide. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Donald Trump signs new travel ban targeting those seeking new visas
President Donald Trump on Monday signed a new version of his controversial travel ban, aiming to withstand court challenges while still barring new visas for citizens from six Muslim-majority countries and shutting down the U.S. refugee program. The revised travel order leaves Iraq off the list of banned countries but still affects would-be visitors from Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Libya. Trump privately signed the new order Monday while Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Attorney General Jeff Sessions formally unveiled the new edict. The low-key rollout was a contrast to the first version of the order, signed in a high-profile ceremony at the Pentagon’s Hall of Heroes as Secretary of Defense James Mattis stood by Trump’s side. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer was not scheduled to hold an on-camera briefing Monday either, leading to the appearance that the president was distancing himself from the order, which was a signature issue during his campaign and the first days of his presidency. The order also risks being overshadowed by unsubstantiated accusations the president made over the weekend that former President Barack Obama had ordered the wiretapping of his phone during the campaign. The original travel ban caused immediate panic and chaos at airports around the country as Homeland Security officials scrambled to interpret how it was to be implemented and travelers were detained before being sent back overseas or blocked from getting on airplanes abroad. The order quickly became the subject of several legal challenges and was ultimately put on hold last month by a federal judge in Washington state. That ruling was upheld by a federal appeals court. The revised order is narrower and specifies that a 90-day ban on people from the six countries does not apply to those who already have valid visas or people with U.S. green cards. The White House dropped Iraq from the list of targeted countries following pressure from the Pentagon and State Department, which had urged the White House to reconsider, given Iraq’s key role in fighting the Islamic State group. Syrian nationals are also no longer subjected to an indefinite ban, despite Trump’s instance as a candidate that Syrian refugees in particular posed a serious security threat to the United States. In a call with reporters Monday morning, senior officials from Homeland Security and Justice Department said the travel ban was necessary to allow the government to review what more can be done to properly vet would-be visitors and refugees. The officials said 300 people who arrived in the United States as refugees were currently under investigation as part of terrorism-related cases. The officials pointed to those cases as evidence of the need for the travel order, but refused repeated requests to address how many of those people were from the six banned countries or how long they have been in the United States. A fact sheet describing the new order circulated before the new order was announced cites negotiations that resulted in Iraq agreeing to “increase cooperation with the U.S. government on the vetting of its citizens applying for a visa to travel to the United States.” The mere existence of a fact sheet signaled that the White House was taking steps to improve the rollout of the reworked directive. The initial measure was hastily signed at the end of Trump’s first week in office, and the White House was roundly criticized for not providing lawmakers, Cabinet officials and others with information ahead of the signing. Trump administration officials say that even with the changes, the goal of the new order is the same as the first: keeping would-be terrorists out of the United States while the government reviews the vetting system for refugees and visa applicants from certain parts of the world. According to the fact sheet, the Department of Homeland Security will conduct a country-by-country review of the information the six targeted nations provide to the U.S. for visa and immigration decisions. Those countries will then have 50 days to comply with U.S. government requests to update or improve that information. Additionally, Trump’s order suspends the entire U.S. refugee program for 120 days, though refugees already formally scheduled for travel by the State Department will be allowed entry. When the suspension is lifted, the number of refugees allowed into the U.S. will be capped at 50,000 for fiscal year 2017. The new version also to removes language that would give priority to religious minorities. Critics had accused the administration of adding such language to help Christians get into the U.S. while excluding Muslims. “I think people will see six or seven major points about this executive order that do clarify who was covered,” said presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway in an interview with Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends.” She said the new order will not go into effect until March 16, despite earlier warnings from the president and his team that any delay in implementation would pose a national security risk, allowing dangerous people to flow into the country. Legal experts say the new order addresses some of the constitutional concerns raised by a federal appeals court about the initial ban, but leaves room for more legal challenges. “It’s much clearer about how it doesn’t apply to groups of immigrants with more clearly established constitutional rights,” said University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck. “That’s a really important step.” Removing language that would give priority to religious minorities helps address concerns that the initial ban was discriminatory, but its continued focus on Muslim-majority countries leaves the appearance that the order is a “Muslim ban,” Vladeck said. “There’s still going to be plenty of work for the courts to do,” he said. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Donald Trump executive order targets clean water rule, Alabamians react
President Donald Trump‘s latest executive order
Robert Bentley to create grocery tax task force
Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley will sign an executive order on Tuesday creating a group focused on reviewing the sales tax related to groceries. The Grocery Tax task force will take the information they gather and recommend to the Governor and the Legislature changes that ensure a fair and equitable tax while encouraging a healthier Alabama. Bentley briefly outlined plans for the task force during his annual State of the State address earlier this month. This year we will launch a new effort to help put money back into the pockets of Alabama families. Alabama is one of only four states with no tax break on groceries, placing a greater burden on low-income families and those on a fixed-income. A task force made up of experts from fields such as education, healthcare, taxation and revenue, and the economy will study the impact of removing the sales tax on food. The group will compare best practices from comparable states and deliver its recommendation to me this Fall. I want to remove the state tax on food. Every family in Alabama should be able to find a good job and feed their families without being overly taxed. “Ending the state grocery tax would boost the economy and help millions of Alabama families make ends meet. We’re glad the governor recognized the need for Alabama to untax groceries, and we hope lawmakers will move quickly to end this regressive tax once and for all,” Alabama Arise State Coordinator Kimble Forrister told al.com following the 2017 State of State address. Bentley will sign the order at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday in the Old House Chamber of the Alabama State Capitol.
Q&A: Untangling legal issues surrounding Donald Trump’s travel ban
A federal appeals court is considering whether to reinstate President Donald Trump‘s travel ban, but another aspect of his executive order is still in effect — a review of visa procedures to ensure they are strict enough. That review can happen whatever the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides. Knowing that could give the panel of three judges more reason to leave the ban on refugees and people from seven Muslim-majority countries with ties to terrorism on hold while the legal challenge by Washington state and Minnesota plays out. “Is there any reason to think there’s a real risk … if existing procedures weren’t allowed to stay in place while the administration, the new administration, conducts its review?” Judge Richard Clifton asked during a hearing Tuesday. The court said a ruling would come within days but that it would not be Wednesday. ___ WHAT WAS THE UPSHOT OF THE HEARING? Trying to divine how a court might rule from the questioning can be a fool’s errand, but some legal scholars who were willing to try said Washington state appeared to make enough of a case to keep the ban on ice, at least for now. The judges repeatedly asked Justice Department attorney August Flentje whether the government had any evidence that the travel ban was necessary or that keeping it on hold would harm national security. They expressed skepticism over his argument that the states don’t have standing to sue and over his assertion that the courts have little to no role in reviewing the president’s determinations concerning national security. Stephen Vladeck, professor at the University of Texas School of Law, wrote in an email that he was struck by “the government’s seeming inability to provide concrete evidence of why immigration from those countries threatens national security.” Washington state Solicitor General Noah Purcell also faced tough questioning from Clifton, who said he wasn’t necessarily buying the states’ argument that the ban was motivated by religious discrimination. The judge mentioned that the vast majority of Muslims live in countries that aren’t targeted by the ban. ___ MUSLIM DISCRIMINATION OR NOT? After being repeatedly asked, Flentje acknowledged that individuals could have standing to sue if the president tried to enforce a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. But, he said, that’s not all what’s happening here. Basing the order on travel from certain countries that have been linked to terrorism — whatever their religion — is a legitimate exercise of the president’s authority over national security, he argued. Purcell said it’s remarkable to have this much evidence of discriminatory intent this early in the case — including Trump’s campaign statements about a Muslim ban and adviser Rudy Giuliani‘s comments that he was asked to help devise a legal version of the Muslim ban. “There are statements that we’ve quoted in our complaint that are rather shocking evidence of intent to discriminate against Muslims,” Purcell said. Even if Trump’s executive order itself doesn’t single out Muslims, the order is unconstitutionally discriminatory if it was adopted with such intent, Purcell said. ___ WHAT ARE THE COURT’S OPTIONS? Purcell argued that the simplest course is to send the case back to U.S. District Judge James Robart for procedural reasons. The Seattle judge temporarily blocked the executive order last week while the states’ lawsuit works its way through the courts. The Washington state solicitor general said the appeals court could take up the merits of the case after Robart issues a further ruling. The Justice Department said the court could narrow the scope of Robart’s order, which it called too broad. Flentje suggested it could be limited to allow the president to ban travelers who don’t already have relationships with the United States, while allowing legal permanent residents, for example, to return to the U.S. from the seven countries. Purcell said that wouldn’t work. The government hasn’t shown that it could engineer a way to apply the ban so selectively, he said. Judge William Canby noted that Washington’s universities might want to invite foreign scholars to visit and that they might have no connection to the U.S. ___ WILL THE CASE END UP AT THE SUPREME COURT? There’s a good chance, but how and when is unclear. The Supreme Court has a vacancy, and there’s no chance Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch, will be confirmed in time to take part any consideration of the ban. Under the most optimistic timetable, Gorsuch would not be confirmed before early April. Senate Democrats are likely to question Gorsuch about his views on presidential power, both in light of the Trump order and Gorsuch’s writings expressing skepticism about some aspects of executive authority. The travel ban was set to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before the court takes up the issue. Furthermore, the administration could change the executive order, including changing its scope or duration. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Groups sue to block Donald Trump’s order on government regulations
Organizations opposing President Donald Trump‘s executive order to curb government regulations filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday seeking to block it. The president’s order was issued on Jan. 30 and required federal agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every new regulation proposed or issued. Trump had promised during his presidential run to place a moratorium on new federal regulations not compelled by Congress or public safety. Soon after his victory, he issued a video mapping out his first 100 days that included the 2-for-1 curb on government regulations. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It underscores the limits of governing through executive action as opponents turn to the courts to block implementation, just as they did with Trump’s travel ban. Former President Barack Obama faced similar roadblocks when his administration sought to expand overtime pay and block millions of people from deportation. The lawsuit contends that Trump’s order exceeds his constitutional authority and directs federal agencies to illegally repeal regulations needed to protect the health and safety of Americans and the environment. The organizations filing the lawsuit are Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, the Communications Workers of America and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The NRDC’s Rhea Suh said in announcing the lawsuit that new efforts to stop pollution don’t automatically make old efforts unnecessary. “This order imposes a false choice between clean air, clean water, safe food and other environmental safeguards,” Suh said. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Republicans in Congress have been supportive of the president’s calls for reduced regulation and have moved to repeal several of the final regulations issued during Obama’s presidency affecting the environment, education and financial disclosure. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Email insights: Auburn University tells students, faculty to stay in country
Alabama’s Auburn University is recommending its students and faculty stay in the country until further notice in reaction to President Donald Trump‘s Friday Executive Order on immigration. Auburn President Gogue and Provost Boosinger have issued a statement regarding the Executive Order on immigration. https://t.co/6WaEOzrelf — Auburn University (@AuburnU) January 30, 2017 Auburn President Jay Gogue and Provost Timothy Boosinger made the recommendation Monday morning in an email to the campus, noting that traveling internationally could result in denied re-entry back into the United States. “We also encourage international students, faculty and staff with questions about immigration or H-1B/green cards to contact the Office of International Programs at (334) 844-5001,” the Auburn officials said in their joint letter. Read the full statement below: Dear Auburn Family: President Trump on Friday issued an Executive Order regarding immigration that impacts our campus community. We are closely monitoring the situation and will promptly provide updated information as it becomes available and respond to your questions. We recommend that students, faculty, staff or dependents who might be affected refrain from travel outside of the United States until further notice as you may be denied reentry into the country. We also encourage international students, faculty and staff with questions about immigration or H-1B/green cards to contact the Office of International Programs at (334) 844-5001. The Association of Public & Land Grant Universities, of which Auburn is a member, is an advocacy group in Washington, DC. Please click here for its statement issued over the weekend. Auburn is an international university. Students, faculty and staff from all backgrounds strengthen our campus, and we remain committed to fostering an environment that upholds our values of inclusion and diversity. Jay Gogue, President Timothy Boosinger, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
Robert Bentley signs order creating Office of Minority Affairs
On Wednesday, Gov. Robert Bentley signed an Executive Order creating the Governor’s Office of Minority Affairs (GOMA). The newly formed office will look into issues facing women and minorities in the state. Specifically, the office will be tasked with: Conduct community outreach throughout the state to assess and address issues facing women and minorities Encourage public debate on issues affecting Alabama minority populations, including open access to public services and fair and equitable implementation of public policy Assess efforts by state agencies to assist women and minorities, promoting self-sufficiency through education and training Collaborate with business and industry representatives, the Alabama Workforce Council, higher education stakeholders and the Alabama Small Business Commission to facilitate identification of minority and women-owned businesses and to provide recommendations on how to better foster economic development opportunities for minority and women-owned businesses, with the goal of increasing the number of minority and women-owned businesses Advise the Governor concerning the coordination and administration of state programs serving minority populations Monitor existing legislation and programs designed to meet the needs of minorities Research and analyze all areas affecting the quality of life of minorities At the helm of the office will be Nichelle Nix, who noted during Wednesday’s press conference that it would be her goal to “ensure fairness and equality.” “I know we have a challenging road ahead of us,” Nix said. “I am resolute in my efforts to help the Governor… together we will lift every voice in the state of Alabama.” Most recently Nix has served as an attorney in the Governmental and Regulatory Affairs Division at Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. in Birmingham. She studied Political Science at Spellman College in Atlanta and earned her Master’s Degree in Public Health from Emory University. During the press conference, Bentley praised Nix for being a “great person” with “great credentials” and a vast array of training and experience. While all of the details are not worked out for funding the office, Bentley noted that it will fall under the governor’s office and be funded from there. Further details will emerge as those involved have a better idea of how many people will be employed by the office. “Alabama has a unique history in promoting civil rights for minorities, and the courage and boldness of our citizens is a testament to the principles on which our state and country were founded,” Bentley said in a news release. “The newly created Governor’s Office of Minority Affairs will be a great resource and a new perspective on addressing minority and women’s issues. My goal is to make Alabama stronger, and minorities and women are an important component of the Great State 2019 Plan.”
Richard Shelby slams Barack Obama over “misguided and dangerous” executive order
U.S. Senator Richard Shelby Tuesday called on President Barack Obama to reverse an executive order he claims is “misguided and dangerous” and has resulted in two unarmed, tracked armored vehicles being taken from the Calhoun County Sheriff’s Office last week. For over 20 years, under the federal government’s 10-33 program, the Department of Defense has distributed surplus military equipment and vehicles to local law enforcement across the county, including the Calhoun County sheriff’s department. Last Wednesday, the federal government forced Calhoun County sheriff Larry Amerson to return two 10-33 vehicles. According to a statement from the sheriff’s office, the vehicles were first obtained from the federal government after a mentally ill person shot three Anniston police officers in 2001 and other officers had no protection to remove the injured from the area. “Time and time again, President Obama abuses the authority of his office by making unilateral decisions through executive fiat,” explained Shelby. “From his attempts to grant executive amnesty to illegal immigrants and his plans to allow Syrian refugees to resettle in the United States, to his decision to take away vehicles from local law enforcement in Calhoun County, it is clear that this president is more interested in scoring political points than ensuring the safety of our citizens.” “We live in an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world, and we cannot allow President Obama to prioritize protecting those trying to do us harm over those trying to protect us. I will continue to fight against this flawed, irresponsible executive action that expands Washington’s influence in our communities and weakens local law enforcement’s ability to protect us.” Obama made the change to the long-standing policy and issued the executive order following civil unrest in Ferguson, MO after the shooting of teenager Michael Brown when local police deployed a number of military-style vehicles to defend against civilian protesters on the city streets. “We’ve seen how militarized gear can sometimes give people the feeling like there’s an occupying force,” President Obama explained. “As opposed to a force that’s part of the community that’s protecting them and serving them.” Obama believe that type of equipment “can alienate and intimidate residents and make them feel scared.”
