Teachers in Tennessee will now carry guns with them along with books. Tennessee legislators passed a bill allowing teachers & school staff to carry concealed handguns on campus

Tennessee passes bill allowing teachers to carry guns in schools

While he was president, Donald Trump was known to destroy, tear up, remove and even flush White House documents down the toilet. He often eschewed the White House switchboard, using his own cellphone or those of his aides to communicate.

The practices, which have drawn fresh attention as a result of the House investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, have raised the question of whether Trump’s norm-breaking behavior was also a crime.

The House Oversight Committee said this week that Trump’s handling of documents appeared to constitute “serious violations” of the Presidential Records Act and announced an investigation of it.

The National Archives consulted the Justice Department about Trump’s record preservation practices after it discovered he had taken more than a dozen boxes of presidential files, including what it believes are classified documents, with him when he left office. The Washington Post reported that some of them were clearly marked “top secret.”

And his use of cellphones to conduct official business has led to large gaps in the official White House logs of his calls on Jan. 6, 2021, hampering investigators’ efforts to construct an accurate record of what he was doing during the riot. If he failed to preserve cellphone records and turn them over to the National Archives, that, too, could run afoul of the law.

Here’s what the Presidential Records Act is and why Trump’s behavior may have violated it.

Presidents don’t own their documents.

In 1978, after Watergate, Congress enacted the Presidential Records Act, which made a president’s documents the property of the United States, not his personal property, and laid out a process for ensuring that Congress and the public could eventually gain access to them.

It was aimed at preventing future presidents from doing what Richard M. Nixon wanted to after he resigned in disgrace, when he planned to destroy recordings that documented steps he and others took in response to the Watergate investigation.

The law requires that a president’s records be turned over to the National Archives once he leaves office and that they be made available to the public 12 years later — although certain entities, such as congressional investigators, can obtain them sooner.

The act excludes a president’s personal records — identified as those “of a purely private or nonpublic character” — from preservation requirements and grants a president a “high degree of discretion over what materials are to be preserved,” according to the Congressional Research Service.

It also provides a process for destroying records that typically includes seeking permission from the archivist of the United States, who may consult with Congress. There is no indication that Trump did so in the cases in question.

Trump openly flouted the requirements.

The House Oversight Committee has asked the National Archives to provide information regarding its communications with Trump’s team about 15 boxes of White House records discovered at Mar-a-Lago, his residence in Palm Beach, Florida, after he left office.

Trump had been loath to return the materials despite repeated efforts by the National Archives to obtain them, and at one point, the agency threatened to send a letter to Congress or the Justice Department if he continued to withhold the boxes, according to a person familiar with private discussions.

“If former President Trump was intentionally destroying records or hiding records from the National Archives — where they are legally required to be kept — he must be held accountable,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., chair of the oversight panel.

Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, said it appeared that Trump had violated the Presidential Records Act, given his penchant for ripping up documents.

“Any act of unauthorized destruction or unauthorized removal of records is contrary to law,” Aftergood said.

The question of Trump’s cellphone use is murkier. The act was written before the invention of email or cellphones, so it does not mention either. But given the purpose of the law — ensuring a complete record of presidential business — some experts believe Trump’s practices violated its spirit, if not its letter.

There are few consequences for Trump’s actions under the Presidential Records Act.

A flaw some experts see in the Presidential Records Act is its lack of a strong enforcement mechanism.

Under the law, the archivist has the “ultimate responsibility” for assuring the preservation and integrity of presidential records, Aftergood said.

“But the archives does not have its own police force and doesn’t have much investigative capability to speak of,” he said. “They can ask questions and they can write sternly worded letters. But the response depends on the White House or the president or the agency involved.”

Destroying documents could violate other laws.

Trump’s practice of ripping up documents could open him to additional criminal exposure, if the destruction of documents were part of an effort to impede an investigation.

“There could be liability under an obstruction statute, but the context and the facts would be critical there,” said David H. Laufman, a former Justice Department lawyer who oversaw the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

“If there’s some intent to destroy documents to preclude a government agency from carrying out its lawful function, there could be a conspiracy to defraud the United States,” Laufman said.

But he cautioned that the Justice Department is often reluctant to pursue prosecutions that have no historical precedent, and the agency has never charged a former president with the destruction or removal of records.

“In a case involving a former president, the burden should be particularly high for particular conduct that has not been the basis of prior enforcement action,” Laufman said.

Trump could face consequences for his handling of classified information.

Criminal codes, which carry jail time, prohibit conduct that “willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States” or “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys” government documents.

Samuel Berger, a national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, pleaded guilty in 2015 to a misdemeanor charge for removing classified material from a government archive.

Presidents have the power to decide what is classified and what is not — but only while they are in office.

“That could present a complicating factor for prosecutors in evaluating their likely success if they were to charge him or others with a crime,” Laufman said.

While he was president, Donald Trump was known to destroy, tear up, remove and even flush White House documents down the toilet. He often eschewed the White House switchboard, using his own cellphone or those of his aides to communicate.

While he was president, Donald Trump was known to destroy, tear up, remove and even flush White House documents down the toilet. He often eschewed the White House switchboard, using his own cellphone or those of his aides to communicate. The practices, which have drawn fresh attention as a result of the House investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, have raised the question of whether Trump’s norm-breaking behavior was also a crime. The House Oversight Committee said this week that Trump’s handling of documents appeared to constitute “serious violations” of the Presidential Records Act and announced an investigation of it. The National Archives consulted the Justice Department about Trump’s record preservation practices after it discovered he had taken more than a dozen boxes of presidential files, including what it believes are classified documents, with him when he left office. The Washington Post reported that some of them were clearly marked “top secret.” And his use of cellphones to conduct official business has led to large gaps in the official White House logs of his calls on Jan. 6, 2021, hampering investigators’ efforts to construct an accurate record of what he was doing during the riot. If he failed to preserve cellphone records and turn them over to the National Archives, that, too, could run afoul of the law. Here’s what the Presidential Records Act is and why Trump’s behavior may have violated it. Presidents don’t own their documents. In 1978, after Watergate, Congress enacted the Presidential Records Act, which made a president’s documents the property of the United States, not his personal property, and laid out a process for ensuring that Congress and the public could eventually gain access to them. It was aimed at preventing future presidents from doing what Richard M. Nixon wanted to after he resigned in disgrace, when he planned to destroy recordings that documented steps he and others took in response to the Watergate investigation. The law requires that a president’s records be turned over to the National Archives once he leaves office and that they be made available to the public 12 years later — although certain entities, such as congressional investigators, can obtain them sooner. The act excludes a president’s personal records — identified as those “of a purely private or nonpublic character” — from preservation requirements and grants a president a “high degree of discretion over what materials are to be preserved,” according to the Congressional Research Service. It also provides a process for destroying records that typically includes seeking permission from the archivist of the United States, who may consult with Congress. There is no indication that Trump did so in the cases in question. Trump openly flouted the requirements. The House Oversight Committee has asked the National Archives to provide information regarding its communications with Trump’s team about 15 boxes of White House records discovered at Mar-a-Lago, his residence in Palm Beach, Florida, after he left office. Trump had been loath to return the materials despite repeated efforts by the National Archives to obtain them, and at one point, the agency threatened to send a letter to Congress or the Justice Department if he continued to withhold the boxes, according to a person familiar with private discussions. “If former President Trump was intentionally destroying records or hiding records from the National Archives — where they are legally required to be kept — he must be held accountable,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., chair of the oversight panel. Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, said it appeared that Trump had violated the Presidential Records Act, given his penchant for ripping up documents. “Any act of unauthorized destruction or unauthorized removal of records is contrary to law,” Aftergood said. The question of Trump’s cellphone use is murkier. The act was written before the invention of email or cellphones, so it does not mention either. But given the purpose of the law — ensuring a complete record of presidential business — some experts believe Trump’s practices violated its spirit, if not its letter. There are few consequences for Trump’s actions under the Presidential Records Act. A flaw some experts see in the Presidential Records Act is its lack of a strong enforcement mechanism. Under the law, the archivist has the “ultimate responsibility” for assuring the preservation and integrity of presidential records, Aftergood said. “But the archives does not have its own police force and doesn’t have much investigative capability to speak of,” he said. “They can ask questions and they can write sternly worded letters. But the response depends on the White House or the president or the agency involved.” Destroying documents could violate other laws. Trump’s practice of ripping up documents could open him to additional criminal exposure, if the destruction of documents were part of an effort to impede an investigation. “There could be liability under an obstruction statute, but the context and the facts would be critical there,” said David H. Laufman, a former Justice Department lawyer who oversaw the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. “If there’s some intent to destroy documents to preclude a government agency from carrying out its lawful function, there could be a conspiracy to defraud the United States,” Laufman said. But he cautioned that the Justice Department is often reluctant to pursue prosecutions that have no historical precedent, and the agency has never charged a former president with the destruction or removal of records. “In a case involving a former president, the burden should be particularly high for particular conduct that has not been the basis of prior enforcement action,” Laufman said. Trump could face consequences for his handling of classified information. Criminal codes, which carry jail time, prohibit conduct that “willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States” or “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys” government documents. Samuel Berger, a national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, pleaded guilty in 2015 to a misdemeanor charge for removing classified material from a government archive. Presidents have the power to decide what is classified and what is not — but only while they are in office. “That could present a complicating factor for prosecutors in evaluating their likely success if they were to charge him or others with a crime,” Laufman said.

Trump flouted Presidential Records Law. Will he face consequences?

The United States has become the first country to pass a law that aims to protect human artefacts in space.

The law -- 'One Small Step to Protect Human Heritage in Space Act' -- was passed by the Congress on December 31. According to it, early remnants of human exploration in the space -- historic objects and traces from the first missions to the moon -- including Neil Armstrong’s boot print, are now protected by law.

The law was introduced to mark the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing, and it officially establishes a perimeter around Tranquility Base – the site of the Apollo 11 landing – as well as the five other lunar landing sites visited by various Apollo missions between 1969 and 1972.

According to UNILAD, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, who was responsible for introducing the Bill in the House said that the law aims to 'protect and preserve the historic and scientific value of US government lunar artifacts' at a time when the lunar surface is increasingly growing crowded with multiple space missions competing over each other.&nbsp;

When the bill was first introduced in the Senate in 2019 it only extended protection to Tranquility Base, the Apollo 11 landing site.

The objects covered by the new law include artefacts in six ‘keep out zones’, such as vehicles and equipment, remnants of experiments, and traces of human and robotic presence.

Robotic presence includes tracks and boot prints.

At least six different countries have plans to launch lunar missions, including the United States, which is aiming to return humans to the moon through NASA’s Artemis program by 2024.

The act also includes a non-binding suggestion that the executive branch should draft an international agreement that would hold other nations to the same promise.

The US is planning to send the first woman to Moon by 20254 through it's ambitious NASA's project the Artemis Project.

The United States has become the first country to pass a law that aims to protect human artefacts in space. The law -- 'One Small Step to Protect Human Heritage in Space Act' -- was passed by the Congress on December 31.

The United States has become the first country to pass a law that aims to protect human artefacts in space. The law -- 'One Small Step to Protect Human Heritage in Space Act' -- was passed by the Congress on December 31. According to it, early remnants of human exploration in the space -- historic objects and traces from the first missions to the moon -- including Neil Armstrong’s boot print, are now protected by law. The law was introduced to mark the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing, and it officially establishes a perimeter around Tranquility Base – the site of the Apollo 11 landing – as well as the five other lunar landing sites visited by various Apollo missions between 1969 and 1972. According to UNILAD, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, who was responsible for introducing the Bill in the House said that the law aims to 'protect and preserve the historic and scientific value of US government lunar artifacts' at a time when the lunar surface is increasingly growing crowded with multiple space missions competing over each other. When the bill was first introduced in the Senate in 2019 it only extended protection to Tranquility Base, the Apollo 11 landing site. The objects covered by the new law include artefacts in six ‘keep out zones’, such as vehicles and equipment, remnants of experiments, and traces of human and robotic presence. Robotic presence includes tracks and boot prints. At least six different countries have plans to launch lunar missions, including the United States, which is aiming to return humans to the moon through NASA’s Artemis program by 2024. The act also includes a non-binding suggestion that the executive branch should draft an international agreement that would hold other nations to the same promise. The US is planning to send the first woman to Moon by 20254 through it's ambitious NASA's project the Artemis Project.

Apollo sites on the Moon are now protected from future missions by US law

The Trump administration said on Thursday it plans to allow only 18,000 refugees to resettle in the United States in the 2020 fiscal year, the lowest number in the history of the modern refugee program.

In a move immediately decried by <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-border-crossings-plunge-but-immigration-raids-draw-fire-241783">immigrant</a> advocates as an affront to the nation's humanitarian commitments, the administration said it had to shift focus to processing a backlog of hundreds of thousands of asylum claims, most of which are filed by migrants from Central America crossing the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-treasurys-mnuchin-says-mexico-immigration-deal-fixes-problems-225469">US-Mexico border</a>.

"The current burdens on the US&nbsp;immigration system must be alleviated before it is again possible to resettle a large number of refugees," the State Department said in a statement.

At the same time, President Donald Trump issued an executive order saying his administration would seek the approval of state and local governments to resettle refugees in their communities, in a shift for a federally directed program.

Trump has made cutting immigration a centerpiece of his presidency.

One of his first acts after assuming office in January 2017 was to issue an order capping the maximum number of refugees that year at 50,000, less than half the number former President Barack Obama had set a few months earlier.

The proposed new number includes specific carve-outs for US&nbsp;national security and foreign policy interests, a senior administration official told reporters.

Of the proposed 18,000 spots, 4,000 would be reserved for Iraqis, 5,000 for those fleeing religious persecution and 1,500 for people from the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

That leaves 7,500, or roughly 40 per cent, for all others.

When reports began circulating about plans to dramatically cut resettlement, the administration faced public criticism from evangelical leaders who said an agenda supporting religious freedom around the world should go hand in hand with protection for persecuted refugees.

A senior administration official discussing the move on Thursday said that the specific allocation for religious minorities would be an improvement over previous years where broad allocations were made per region.

Dwindling program

The refugee cap was whittled down to 45,000 for 2018 and 30,000 for 2019, over the objections of senior officials in the Department of Defense, who view the program as crucial to rewarding and building allies in US&nbsp;military campaigns oversees.

Under US&nbsp;law, the president must consult Congress before finalizing the annual number of refugees it plans to accept but the determination is ultimately set by the White House.

The reduction comes at a time when there are nearly 71 million displaced people around the world, many of them refugees who have been waiting years in limbo for a chance at resettlement.

Beneficiaries of the US&nbsp;program are meant to include people whose lives are in danger for assisting the US&nbsp;military, orphaned children, and victims of female genital mutilation as well as many other fleeing civil strife and war.

Tens of thousands of refugees are in the pipeline for arrival to the United States, many with applications far along in the approval and vetting process.

But a drastic reduction in the overall numbers, as well as the allotments for particular groups, could mean many of them will likely miss the chance to come to the country in the 2020 fiscal year.

The senior administration official said refugee arrivals, which had been temporarily suspended pending the release of the new resettlement numbers, should resume on October 22.

While a short suspension is typical, the weeks-long halt has left many refugees who had already booked their flights stranded.

With the focus on the influx of migrants at the southern border, the administration has signed a series of bilateral deals in recent weeks that seek to push asylum seekers from Central America back to the region to apply for refuge in neighboring countries instead of in the United States.

Kevin McAleenan, acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement the current refugee proposal, with nearly 10 per cent of slots reserved for the northern triangle countries,&nbsp;offers people from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras "the opportunity to seek refugee status close to home, rather than embark on a dangerous and often futile journey."

Local say

The President's companion executive order also potentially limits the places where those that are accepted can be resettled.

In the order, he said refugees should only be placed where state and local governments agree to receive them.

"State and local governments are best positioned to know the resources and capacities they may or may not have available," the order said, "which maximizes the likelihood refugees placed in the area will become self-sufficient and free from long-term dependence on public assistance."

The administration said refugee resettlement was a drain on government resources but immigration experts said new arrivals, who come with a legal status, often quickly fill jobs and contribute to local tax revenues.

Mark Hetfield, chief executive of Jewish non-profit refugee assistance organization HIAS said the executive order was an attempt by Trump to "allow governors and mayors to imitate his own refugee ban, state by state and town by town."

The Trump administration said on Thursday it plans to allow only 18,000 refugees to resettle in the United States in the 2020 fiscal year, the lowest number in the history of the modern refugee program.

The Trump administration said on Thursday it plans to allow only 18,000 refugees to resettle in the United States in the 2020 fiscal year, the lowest number in the history of the modern refugee program. In a move immediately decried by immigrant advocates as an affront to the nation's humanitarian commitments, the administration said it had to shift focus to processing a backlog of hundreds of thousands of asylum claims, most of which are filed by migrants from Central America crossing the US-Mexico border. "The current burdens on the US immigration system must be alleviated before it is again possible to resettle a large number of refugees," the State Department said in a statement. At the same time, President Donald Trump issued an executive order saying his administration would seek the approval of state and local governments to resettle refugees in their communities, in a shift for a federally directed program. Trump has made cutting immigration a centerpiece of his presidency. One of his first acts after assuming office in January 2017 was to issue an order capping the maximum number of refugees that year at 50,000, less than half the number former President Barack Obama had set a few months earlier. The proposed new number includes specific carve-outs for US national security and foreign policy interests, a senior administration official told reporters. Of the proposed 18,000 spots, 4,000 would be reserved for Iraqis, 5,000 for those fleeing religious persecution and 1,500 for people from the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. That leaves 7,500, or roughly 40 per cent, for all others. When reports began circulating about plans to dramatically cut resettlement, the administration faced public criticism from evangelical leaders who said an agenda supporting religious freedom around the world should go hand in hand with protection for persecuted refugees. A senior administration official discussing the move on Thursday said that the specific allocation for religious minorities would be an improvement over previous years where broad allocations were made per region. Dwindling program The refugee cap was whittled down to 45,000 for 2018 and 30,000 for 2019, over the objections of senior officials in the Department of Defense, who view the program as crucial to rewarding and building allies in US military campaigns oversees. Under US law, the president must consult Congress before finalizing the annual number of refugees it plans to accept but the determination is ultimately set by the White House. The reduction comes at a time when there are nearly 71 million displaced people around the world, many of them refugees who have been waiting years in limbo for a chance at resettlement. Beneficiaries of the US program are meant to include people whose lives are in danger for assisting the US military, orphaned children, and victims of female genital mutilation as well as many other fleeing civil strife and war. Tens of thousands of refugees are in the pipeline for arrival to the United States, many with applications far along in the approval and vetting process. But a drastic reduction in the overall numbers, as well as the allotments for particular groups, could mean many of them will likely miss the chance to come to the country in the 2020 fiscal year. The senior administration official said refugee arrivals, which had been temporarily suspended pending the release of the new resettlement numbers, should resume on October 22. While a short suspension is typical, the weeks-long halt has left many refugees who had already booked their flights stranded. With the focus on the influx of migrants at the southern border, the administration has signed a series of bilateral deals in recent weeks that seek to push asylum seekers from Central America back to the region to apply for refuge in neighboring countries instead of in the United States. Kevin McAleenan, acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement the current refugee proposal, with nearly 10 per cent of slots reserved for the northern triangle countries, offers people from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras "the opportunity to seek refugee status close to home, rather than embark on a dangerous and often futile journey." Local say The President's companion executive order also potentially limits the places where those that are accepted can be resettled. In the order, he said refugees should only be placed where state and local governments agree to receive them. "State and local governments are best positioned to know the resources and capacities they may or may not have available," the order said, "which maximizes the likelihood refugees placed in the area will become self-sufficient and free from long-term dependence on public assistance." The administration said refugee resettlement was a drain on government resources but immigration experts said new arrivals, who come with a legal status, often quickly fill jobs and contribute to local tax revenues. Mark Hetfield, chief executive of Jewish non-profit refugee assistance organization HIAS said the executive order was an attempt by Trump to "allow governors and mayors to imitate his own refugee ban, state by state and town by town."

Trump administration plans to slash number of refugees for US resettlement

us-laws

Us Laws, News on Us Laws, stories on Us Laws, articles on Us Laws, Us Laws stories at Wion, Us Laws news, Us Laws latest news

us laws

Tennessee passes bill allowing teachers to carry guns in schools

Trump flouted Presidential Records Law. Will he face consequences?

Apollo sites on the Moon are now protected from future missions by US law

Trump administration plans to slash number of refugees for US resettlement