The Political Question Doctrine: Political Process, Elections, and Gerrymandering (Part 6)

"This Legal Sidebar is the sixth in a six-part series that discusses the Supreme Court’s political question doctrine, which instructs that federal courts should forbear from resolving questions when doing so would require the judiciary to make policy decisions, exercise discretion beyond its competency, or encroach on powers the Constitution vests in the legislative or executive branches. By limiting the range of cases federal courts can consider, the political question doctrine is intended to maintain the separation of powers and recognize the roles of the legislative and executive branches in interpreting the Constitution. Understanding the political question doctrine may assist Members of Congress in recognizing when actions of Congress or the executive branch would not be subject to judicial review. For additional background on this topic and citations to relevant sources, please see the Constitution of the UnitedStates, Analysis and Interpretation.

The Court in the modern era has applied the political question doctrine to some aspects of legislative regulation of elections, particularly in the area of partisan gerrymandering. Partisan gerrymandering is “the practice of dividing a geographic area into electoral districts, often of highly irregular shape, to give one political party an unfair advantage by diluting the opposition’s voting strength.” Government officials seeking to draw legislative districts to affect election results may adopt several different tactics. For instance, they may create districts containing different numbers of voters, effectively diluting the votes of individuals in more populous districts. In the alternative, legislators may create districts that contain equal numbers of voters but where boundaries are drawn to manipulate the concentration of voters in each district based on characteristics such as voters’ race or their political affiliation. The Supreme Court has held that equal protection challenges to race-based gerrymandering and one-person-one-vote claims based on unequal districts are justiciable. However, for decades the Court was unable to agree on an approach to challenges to partisan gerrymandering.

Unlike one-person-one-vote cases, a partisan gerrymandering case typically involves a voter in a district that is not malapportioned based on population but rather has been drawn to disadvantage one political party. In the words of the Supreme Court, in a political gerrymander, voters affiliated with a disfavored party are either (1) “packed” into a few districts—in effect conceding those districts by large margins and “wasting” votes that could help the disfavored party compete in other areas—or (2) “cracked” into small groups and spread across multiple districts so that they cannot achieve a majority in any one district. In these circumstances, plaintiffs cannot argue that their votes are inherently worth less than that of any other voter—rather, they must argue that the creation of a district that disfavors a particular political party violates the Constitution for other reasons.."
Supreme Court Political Doctrine (Pt. 6) 

The Political Question Doctrine: Congressional Governance and Impeachment as Political Questions (Part 5)

"This Legal Sidebar is the fifth in a six-part series that discusses the Supreme Court’s political question doctrine, which instructs that federal courts should forbear from resolving questions when doing so would require the judiciary to make policy decisions, exercise discretion beyond its competency, or encroach on powers the Constitution vests in the legislative or executive branches. By limiting the range of cases federal courts can consider, the political question doctrine is intended to maintain the separation of powers and recognize the roles of the legislative and executive branches in interpreting the Constitution. Understanding the political question doctrine may assist Members of Congress in recognizing when actions of Congress or the executive branch would not be subject to judicial review. For additional background on this topic and citations to relevant sources, please see the Constitution of the UnitedStates, Analysis and Interpretation.

The Supreme Court has applied the political question doctrine to cases involving the internal governance of Congress, though recent decisions have construed the doctrine narrowly in this context. In the preBaker case Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, plaintiffs challenging a tariff law contended that the law was invalid because a section of the bill passed by Congress was omitted from the final version of the law signed by the President. The Court concluded that it could not adjudicate this issue. Because of the “respect due to a co-ordinate branch of the government,” the Court had to take as “conclusive” the fact that the act was attested by the signatures of the presiding officers of the houses of Congress and approved by the President. Baker explained that Clark signified the need for “respect” to coequal branches and for “finality and certainty” about statutes. A few cases since Baker have added color to the concept of “respect” in this context.

For example, in Powell v. McCormack, an individual elected to the House of Representatives challenged a House resolution excluding him from his seat in Congress. Although the Member-elect met the age and citizenship requirements in Article I, Section 2, the House found that he had misrepresented travel expenses and made illegal salary payments to his wife. The defendants—Members and officers of the House—argued that the text of the Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 5, gave Congress exclusive authority to judge the qualifications of its own Members, so Congress could determine that the Member was unqualified. The Supreme Court held that the case could go forward and that the Member-elect was entitled to relief. On the question of justiciability, the Court explained that, despite the text the defendants cited from Article I, Section 5, there was no “textually demonstrable” commitment of this constitutional question to another branch. At most, the Constitution gave Congress the power to judge the “qualifications expressly set forth in the Constitution,” not the power to set new qualifications. Nor did the Court conclude that “the respect due co-ordinate branches” barred hearing the case, even though it was interpreting the Constitution “in a manner at variance with the construction given the document by another branch.” In the view of the Powell Court, constitutional conflicts with other branches were inevitable under the constitutional system and were no excuse for avoiding a case where there existed “judicially manageable standards” sufficient to judge the question..."
Supreme Court Political Doctrine (part 5) 

The Political Question Doctrine: Foreign Affairs as a Political Question (Part 4)

"This Legal Sidebar is the fourth in a six-part series that discusses the Supreme Court’s political question doctrine, which instructs that federal courts should forbear from resolving questions when doing so would require the judiciary to make policy decisions, exercise discretion beyond its competency, or encroach on powers the Constitution vests in the legislative or executive branches. By limiting the range of cases federal courts can consider, the political question doctrine is intended to maintain the separation of powers and recognize the roles of the legislative and executive branches in interpreting the Constitution. Understanding the political question doctrine may assist Members of Congress in recognizing when actions of Congress or the executive branch would not be subject to judicial review. For additional background on this topic and citations to relevant sources, please see the Constitution of the UnitedStates, Analysis and Interpretation.

One area where the political question doctrine has particular importance is in foreign affairs. In 1918, the Court wrote, “The conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative—‘the political’—departments of the government, and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.” However, despite that sweeping statement, as the Court recognized in Baker, not “every case or controversy which touches foreign relations lies beyond judicial cognizance;” rather, the Court analyzes each question on a case-by-case basis. For example, many pre-Baker cases concluded that the judiciary was bound to defer to the political branches on certain questions involving the validity of treaties or the recognition of foreign governments. The Baker court characterized those cases as ones in which “resolution of such issues frequently turn on standards that defy judicial application, . . . involve the exercise of a discretion demonstrably committed to the executive or legislature . . . [or] uniquely demand single-voiced statement of the Government’s views.”

The first major post-Baker case to consider these principles was the 1973 case Gilligan v. Morgan. In Gilligan, the Supreme Court declined to consider a claim that defective training of the Ohio National Guard had led to the violence that occurred at Kent State University three years earlier. The plaintiffs sought a “judicial evaluation of the appropriateness of the ‘training, weaponry and orders’ of the Ohio National Guard” and “continuing judicial surveillance” over the Guard to ensure compliance with any court-approved requirements. Although the case did not involve foreign policy, it raised related considerations. Recognizing that the case involved “[t]he complex, subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping and control of a military force,” the Court gave two reasons why the political question doctrine applied. First, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution gives the authority for “organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia” to Congress. Second, in concert with the explicit textual commitment of military supervision to a branch outside the judiciary, the Court recognized that the judicial branch was uniquely poorly suited to supervise this activity: “[I]t is difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence.” Following what Baker called the “impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion,” the Court concluded that the case involved a political question.."
Supreme Court Political Doctrine (Part 4) 

The Political Question Doctrine: The Doctrine in the Modern Era (Part 3)

"This Legal Sidebar is the third in a six-part series that discusses the Supreme Court’s political question doctrine, which instructs that federal courts should forbear from resolving questions when doing so would require the judiciary to make policy decisions, exercise discretion beyond its competency, or encroach on powers the Constitution vests in the legislative or executive branches. By limiting the range of cases federal courts can consider, the political question doctrine is intended to maintain the separation of powers and recognize the roles of the legislative and executive branches in interpreting the Constitution. Understanding the political question doctrine may assist Members of Congress in recognizing when actions of Congress or the executive branch would not be subject to judicial review. For additional background on this topic and citations to relevant sources, please see the Constitution of the UnitedStates, Analysis and Interpretation.

The Supreme Court began to develop its modern application of the political question doctrine in the 1939 case Coleman v. Miller. In Coleman, the Court addressed the Kansas legislature’s recent approval of the proposed Child Labor Amendment to the Constitution, which had been submitted to the states for ratification 13 years prior. Members of the Kansas legislature who had voted against the amendment petitioned for a writ of mandamus, seeking to revoke the approval. They raised certain procedural challenges to the ratification and argued that the passage of time had rendered Kansas’s approval of the amendment invalid. The opinion of the Court, authored by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, affirmed an opinion from the Supreme Court of Kansas denying the plaintiffs' petition. Chief Justice Hughes’s opinion explained that the “efficacy of ratifications by state legislature . . . should be regarded as a political question pertaining to the political departments.” The Court further clarified, citing Luther, that it was a question solely for Congress, and not for the courts, whether an amendment had been adopted within a “reasonable time.”

It was against this background that the Court decided Colegrove v. Green in 1946. By that time, movement of populations from rural to urban areas had led to severe “malapportionment” in state legislatures. Throughout the country, state legislative districts were drawn such that voters in rural areas had disproportionate power compared to their urban counterparts. State governments, made up of the representatives of those rural voters, were unwilling to fix this problem. As a result, voters in underrepresented districts turned to the courts and the Constitution for a remedy. In Colegrove, a sevenmember Court was presented with a constitutional challenge to an Illinois districting arrangement where plaintiffs were members of districts with much larger populations than other districts. The challenge was based in part on the Guarantee Clause, as well as on the Fourteenth Amendment. A plurality of three Justices joined an opinion by Justice Frankfurter, concluding that the Court lacked jurisdiction in light of the “peculiarly political nature” of the case. The plurality noted that under Article I, Section 4, of the Constitution, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for . . . Representative, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” Citing that provision, the plurality concluded that the authority to regulate state districting rested “exclusively” with Congress and that courts had no authority to enter this political thicket. The Colegrove plurality’s view of the political question doctrine, as the Supreme Court later recognized, “left pervasive malapportionment unchecked.”.."
Supreme Court Political Doctrine 

The Political Question Doctrine: Historical Background (Part 2)

"This Legal Sidebar is the second in a six-part series that discusses the Supreme Court’s political question doctrine, which instructs that federal courts should forbear from resolving questions when doing so would require the judiciary to make policy decisions, exercise discretion beyond its competency, or encroach on powers the Constitution vests in the legislative or executive branches. By limiting the range of cases federal courts can consider, the political question doctrine is intended to maintain the separation of powers and recognize the roles of the legislative and executive branches in interpreting the Constitution. Understanding the political question doctrine may assist Members of Congress in recognizing when actions of Congress or the executive branch would not be subject to judicial review. For additional background on this topic and citations to relevant sources, please see the Constitution of the UnitedStates, Analysis and Interpretation.

The political question doctrine has its origins in the foundational case for judicial review, Marbury v.Madison. Marbury involved a suit seeking to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver a signed commission to a newly appointed official, William Marbury. The commission had been signed by the previous Administration but not delivered. Following the change in presidential Administrations, Madison refused to deliver it. Among the issues presented in that case was whether the Court even had the authority to adjudicate the legality of Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission. That question, according to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion for the Court, turned on “the nature” of the government action in question. As the Court explained, “Questions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court.” Thus, if the act of an official is one in which the “executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear that their acts are only politically examinable.” However, if a “specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend on the performance of that duty,” then injured individuals have a right to resort to the courts. According to the Chief Justice, “[t]he power of nominating to the senate, and the power of appointing the person nominated” were political questions, and fundamentally unreviewable. By contrast, “if, for example, Mr. Marbury had taken the oaths of a magistrate, and proceeded to act as one; in consequence of which a suit had been instituted against him, in which his defense had depended on his being a magistrate, the validity of his appointment must have been determined by judicial authority.” Ultimately, the Court concluded that the question of whether to deliver Marbury’s commission was not a political one, as Marbury had a legal right in the appointment..."
Supreme Court Political Doctrine(Pt. 2) 

The Political Question Doctrine: An Introduction (Part 1)

"This Legal Sidebar is the first in a six-part series that discusses the Supreme Court’s political question doctrine, which instructs that federal courts should forbear from resolving questions when doing so would require the judiciary to make policy decisions, exercise discretion beyond its competency, or encroach on powers the Constitution vests in the legislative or executive branches. By limiting the range of cases federal courts can consider, the political question doctrine is intended to maintain the separation of powers and recognize the roles of the legislative and executive branches in interpreting the Constitution. Understanding the political question doctrine may assist Members of Congress in recognizing when actions of Congress or the executive branch would not be subject to judicial review. For additional background on this topic and citations to relevant sources, please see the Constitution of the United States, Analysis and Interpretation.

The political question doctrine limits the ability of the federal courts to hear constitutional questions even where other justiciability requirements—such as standing, ripeness, and mootness—are met. The Supreme Court has stated that, for purposes of Article III of the Constitution, “no justiciable ‘controversy’ exists when parties seek adjudication of a political question.” The term political question is a legal term of art that on its face gives little indication of what sorts of cases the doctrine bars federal courts from deciding. The phrase, which has its origins in Chief Justice Marshall’s landmark opinion in Marbury v. Madison, is potentially misleading, as federal courts deal with political issues, in the sense of controversial and government-related issues, all the time. Rather than referring generally to any such political issue, the term political question expresses the principle that some issues are either entrusted solely to another branch of government or beyond the competence of the judiciary to review. A finding that a matter qualifies as a political question divests federal courts of jurisdiction, meaning they lack the power to rule on the matter.."
Supreme Court Political Doctrine 

How Treasury Issues Debt

"The U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury), among other roles, manages the country’s debt. The primary objective of Treasury’s debt management strategy is to finance the government’s borrowing needs at the lowest cost over time. To accomplish this Treasury adheres to three principles: (1) to issue debt in a regular and predictable pattern, (2) to provide transparency in the decisionmaking process, and (3) to seek continuous improvements in the auction process.

Within the Treasury, the Office of Debt Management (ODM) makes all decisions related to debt issuance and the management of the United States debt portfolio. When federal spending exceeds revenues, the ODM directs the Bureau of the Fiscal Service to borrow the funds needed to finance government operations by selling securities to the public and government agencies through an auction process. The Bureau of the Fiscal Service manages the operational aspects of the issuance of Treasury securities, including the systems related to and the monitoring of security auctions.

During the mid-1970s, Treasury faced a period of rising nominal federal budget deficits and debt requiring unanticipated increases in issuances of securities. Up to that point, debt management was characterized by an ad-hoc, offering-by-offering survey of market participants. At that time, Treasury implemented a new debt management strategy that provided greater transparency and reduced the potential for market volatility. The resulting debt management process modernized the market for Treasury securities, realizing the benefits of predictability in an environment of large deficits. A reliance on auctions became a central part of the strategy’s increased focus on regular and predictable debt management. Most of the debt sold by the federal government is marketable, meaning that it can be resold on the secondary market. Currently, Treasury offers five types of marketable securities: Treasury bills, notes, bonds, inflation protected securities (TIPS), and floating rate notes (FRNs), sold in about 300 auctions per year. A small portion of debt held by the public and nearly all intragovernmental debt (debt held by government trust funds) is nonmarketable.

Investors examine several key factors when deciding whether they should purchase Treasury securities, including price, expected return, and risk. Treasury securities provide a known stream of income and offer greater liquidity than other types of fixed-income securities. Because they are also backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, they are often seen as one of the safest investments available, though investors are not totally immune from losses. Security prices are determined by investors according to the value of such characteristics in the context of the financial marketplace.."
Treasury Department Debt 

Stablecoins: Legal Issues and Regulatory Options (Part 1)

"In 2008, the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto released a white paper describing a peer-to-peer system of electronic cash. The product of that paper—Bitcoin—now boasts a market capitalization of roughly $600 billion. Other cryptocurrencies amount to more than $700 billion, bringing the overall crypto ecosystem in line with the GDPs of many large countries.

Despite this meteoric rise, cryptocurrencies have yet to exhibit a defining feature of cash: widespread useas a medium of exchange. One reason for that failure is volatility. Most cryptocurrencies have exhibited wild fluctuations that may make them unattractive instruments for day-to-day purchases of goods and services.

Enter stablecoins—cryptocurrencies whose value is pegged to a reference asset like the U.S. dollar. While stablecoin issuers attempt to maintain these pegs in different ways, most of the regulatory attention has focused on coins that are putatively backed with reserves of assets denominated in fiat currency. Often, those assets underwrite an issuer’s commitment to redeem its stablecoins for a fixed value upon demand.

That structure raises familiar risks. Like banks and money market mutual funds (MMFs)—the principal sources of private money—stablecoin issuers are vulnerable to runs if their customers lose faith in the adequacy of the assets backing their demandable liabilities. Unlike banks and MMFs, however, most stablecoin issuers are not subject to federal regulations and protections designed to instill faith in those liabilities, such as deposit insurance and portfolio restrictions.

Policymakers have taken notice. In November 2021, the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets recommended that Congress enact legislation limiting stablecoin issuance to insured depository institutions. Other commentators have advocated different regulatory strategies, ranging from a bespoke federal licensing regime to an outright ban on stablecoin issuance.

This Legal Sidebar—the first part of a two-part series—provides an overview of the existing regulatory framework governing stablecoins. The second part discusses proposals for legislative reform of that framework. Both parts focus on stablecoins that are ostensibly backed one-to-one with reserves of fiat-denominated assets. For a discussion of algorithmic stablecoins, which instead aim to maintain their pegs using algorithmically determined supply adjustments or arbitrage mechanisms involving other cryptocurrencies, see CRS Insight IN11928, Algorithmic Stablecoins and the TerraUSD Crash, by Paul Tierno, Andrew P. Scott, and Eva Su.
Stablecoins

Suicide Mortality in the United States, 2000–2020

"In 2020, suicide was the 12th leading cause of death for all ages in the United States, changing from the 10th leading cause in 2019 due to the emergence of COVID-19 deaths and increases in deaths from chronic liver disease and cirrhosis (1). As the second leading cause of death in people aged 10–34 and the fifth leading cause in people aged 35–54, suicide is a major contributor to premature mortality (1). Suicide rates increased from 2000 to 2018 (2–5), but recent data have shown declines between 2018 and 2020 (6,7). This report presents final suicide rates from 2000 through 2020, in total and by sex, age group, and means of suicide, using mortality data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS). This report updates a provisional 2020 report and a previous report with final data through 2019 (6,7)..."
Suicides 

Diabetes and Your Brain

"Here’s something that may blow your mind. Did you know that diabetes can affect your brain? Your brain is sensitive to the amount of glucose (sugar) it receives. Both high and low blood sugar can damage blood vessels in the brain. Learn how managing your blood sugar can help keep your body and brain healthy.

You probably know that keeping your blood sugar in your target range is key for managing diabetes and preventing complications like heart disease and vision loss. But did you know that episodes of high and low blood sugar can affect brain function? This is because your brain is sensitive to the amount of sugar it receives.

You can help prevent or delay problems by keeping your blood sugar as close to your target levels as possible. Learn about the connection between diabetes and the brain and how managing your blood sugar can help keep your brain and the rest of your body healthy.

The Connection Between Diabetes and the Brain

Your brain is your body’s command center. It’s made up of nerve cells that keep your body functioning—even while you sleep. It also controls how you feel, learn, and remember. And in order to do all this work, your brain uses sugar in your blood for energy. The brain is the most energy-demanding organ—needing half of all the sugar energy in the body to function properly.

If your blood sugar levels fall outside of your normal range, it can throw your command center off balance. In the same way that diabetes can cause nerve damage to your eyes, feet, and hands, it can also affect your brain by damaging nerves and blood vessels. This can lead to problems with memory and learning, mood shifts, weight gain, hormonal changes, and over time, other serious problems like Alzheimer’s disease. Since both high and low blood sugar levels can cause these harms, it’s especially important for people with diabetes to keep their blood sugar at target levels.

Hyperglycemia and the Brain

Because your brain relies on sugar for its energy source, you may think, “The more sugar I give it, the better off my brain will be.” But that couldn’t be further from the truth. Having frequent episodes of hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) can stress the brain. And because the effects of high blood sugar happen over time and aren’t obvious right away, many people don’t know that their brain is being affected.

High blood sugar over time damages blood vessels in the brain that carry oxygen-rich blood. When your brain receives too little blood, brain cells can die. This is called brain atrophy and can cause problems with memory and thinking and eventually can lead to vascular dementia..."
Diabetes and the brain 

Shingles Vaccination

"What Everyone Should Know about the Shingles Vaccine (Shingrix)

alert icon

Shingles vaccination is the only way to protect against shingles and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), the most common complication from shingles.

CDC recommends that adults 50 years and older get two doses of the shingles vaccine called Shingrix (recombinant zoster vaccine) to prevent shingles and the complications from the disease. Adults 19 years and older who have weakened immune systems because of disease or therapy should also get two doses of Shingrix, as they have a higher risk of getting shingles and related complications.

Your doctor or pharmacist can give you Shingrix as a shot in your upper arm.

Shingrix provides strong protection against shingles and PHN. In adults 50 years and older who have healthy immune systems, Shingrix is more than 90% effective at preventing shingles and PHN. Immunity stays strong for at least the first 7 years after vaccination. In adults with weakened immune systems, studies show that Shingrix is 68%-91% effective in preventing shingles, depending on the condition that affects the immune system.

Who Should Get Shingrix?

Adults 50 years and older should get two doses of Shingrix, separated by 2 to 6 months. Adults 19 years and older who have or will have weakened immune systems because of disease or therapy should also get two doses of Shingrix. If needed, people with weakened immune systems can get the second dose 1 to 2 months after the first.

You should get Shingrix even if in the past you:

• Had shingles
• Received Zostavax*
• Received varicella (chickenpox) vaccine

There is no maximum age for getting Shingrix.

If you had shingles in the past, Shingrix can help prevent future occurrences of the disease. There is no specific length of time that you need to wait after having shingles before you can receive Shingrix, but generally you should make sure the shingles rash has gone away before getting vaccinated.

Chickenpox and shingles are related because they are caused by the same virus (varicella-zoster virus). After a person recovers from chickenpox, the virus stays dormant (inactive) in the body. It can reactivate years later and cause shingles.

• You can get Shingrix whether or not you remember having had chickenpox in the past.
• More than 99% of Americans born on or before 1980 have had chickenpox, even if they don’t remember having the disease.
• Adults with weakened immune systems and no documented history of chickenpox disease, chickenpox vaccination, or shingles should talk to their healthcare provider, who can refer to the CDC Clinical Considerations for Use of Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (RZV, Shingrix) in Immunocompromised Adults Aged ≥19 Years | CDC and Chickenpox (Varicella) Vaccination | CDC for further guidance.

Shingrix is available in doctor’s offices and pharmacies..."
Shingles 

Reports show scammers cashing in on crypto craze

"From Super Bowl ads to Bitcoin ATMs, cryptocurrency seems to be everywhere lately. Although it’s yet to become a mainstream payment method, reports to the FTC show it’s an alarmingly common method for scammers to get peoples’ money. Since the start of 2021, more than 46,000 people have reported losing over $1 billion in crypto to scams^[1] – that’s about one out of every four dollars reported lost,^[2] more than any other payment method. The median individual reported loss? A whopping $2,600. The top cryptocurrencies people said they used to pay scammers were Bitcoin (70%), Tether (10%), and Ether (9%).^[3]  

Crypto has several features that are attractive to scammers, which may help to explain why the reported losses in 2021 were nearly sixty times what they were in 2018. There’s no bank or other centralized authority to flag suspicious transactions and attempt to stop fraud before it happens. Crypto transfers can’t be reversed – once the money’s gone, there’s no getting it back. And most people are still unfamiliar with how crypto works. These considerations are not unique to crypto transactions, but they all play into the hands of scammers.

Reports point to social media and crypto as a combustible combination for fraud. Nearly half the people who reported losing crypto to a scam since 2021 said it started with an ad, post, or message on a social media platform..."
Crypto fraud 

The Insurrection Bar to Holding Office: Appeals Court Issues Decision on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment

"On May 24, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision in Cawthorn v.Amalfi, a case involving Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment (Section 3). That constitutional provision bars certain people who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States from holding specified state and federal government offices. The specific question in the case was whether a Reconstruction-era statute granting amnesty to former Confederates barred application of Section 3 to persons who engage in any future rebellion or insurrection. The Fourth Circuit held that the 1872 statute did not have that effect and instead lifted the constitutional disqualification only for acts that had already occurred. The decision is relevant to Congress, both because Section 3 has been invoked against several legislators who allegedly participated in or supported the January 6, 2021, unrest at the Capitol and because the case raises broader constitutional considerations about what role state officials, federal courts, and Congress can play in determining the eligibility of congressional candidates.

Section 3 and the 1872 Amnesty Act

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides, in its entirety:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and VicePresident, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Ratified after the Civil War, Section 3 was intended to bar individuals who had held government office before the war and then sided with the Confederacy from holding certain state or federal offices. Section 3 was occasionally invoked against former Confederates during the Reconstruction Era, but the provision also sparked opposition. Some viewed it as overly harsh or ineffective; others objected to the practical burden it placed on Congress to consider removing the office-holding bar on an individual basis. In 1872, Congress enacted a statute known as the 1872 Amnesty Act, which provided:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), That all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.

The 1872 Amnesty Act granted broad amnesty to many people who would otherwise be barred from office under Section 3, but it did not apply to certain groups whose participation in the Confederacy was deemed particularly culpable. Congress later enacted additional legislation granting amnesty to some of the excluded officials..."
Insurrection Bar 

Wildfire Statistics

"Wildfires are unplanned fires, including lightning-caused fires, unauthorized human-caused fires, and escaped prescribed fire projects. States are responsible for responding to wildfires that begin on nonfederal (state, local, and private) lands, except for lands protected by federal agencies under cooperative agreements. The federal government is responsible for responding to wildfires that begin on federal lands. The Forest Service (FS)—within the U.S. Department of Agriculture—carries out wildfire management and response across the 193 million acres of the National Forest System (NFS). The Department of the Interior (DOI) manages wildfire response for more than 400 million acres of national parks, wildlife refuges and preserves, other public lands, and Indian reservations.

Wildfire statistics help to illustrate past U.S. wildfire activity. Nationwide data compiled by the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) indicate that the number of annual wildfires is variable but has decreased slightly over the last 30 years and the number of acres affected annually, while also variable, generally has increased (see Figure 1). Since 2000, an annual average of 70,072 wildfires has burned an annual average of 7.0 million acres. The acreage figure is more than double the average annual acreage burned in the 1990s (3.3 million acres), although a greater number of fires occurred annually in the 1990s (78,600 average).."
Wildfires 

Give a Dam

"This year marks the 133^rd anniversary of the dam breach that took the lives of more than 2,200 people and galvanized the nation to ensure such a tragic event could not happen again. On May 31, 1889, torrential rain and subsequent flooding caused the South Fork Dam to fail near Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Changes in ownership, lack of oversight, and unsound improvements increased the probability of a dam failure rather than prevent one. When the dam gave way, over 20 million tons of water caused a catastrophic torrent downstream. A 40-foot wave traveling 40 miles per hour crashed into Johnstown demolishing the town.

National Dam Safety Awareness Day was created in memoriam to encourage and promote individual and community responsibility for dam safety and provide information on what can be done to prevent future dam failures. Additionally, this day promotes the benefits dams offer to communities. May 31 serves as a reminder to perform inspections, take necessary precautions for climate change patterns, update emergency action and evacuation plans, and share dam safety information with the communities. Dam safety is a shared responsibility. Know your risk, know your role, know the benefits of dams and take action.

Be Dam Aware – learn more

• Dams provide many benefits including bringing water, power, flood control, recreation, and economic opportunities to communities. However, there are risks associated with dams, especially if a failure occurs.
• Be aware of dams in your area. Contact your local dam safety official for more information.
• Be prepared - Ask your city council for a copy of their Emergency Evacuation Plan and share with your neighbors..."
  South Fork Dam