DOCSLIB.ORG

Beyond the Bully Pulpit: Presidential Speech in the Courts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

SHAW.TOPRINTER (DO NOT DELETE) 11/15/2017 3:32 AM Beyond the Bully Pulpit: Presidential Speech in the Courts Katherine Shaw* Abstract The President’s words play a unique role in American public life. No other figure speaks with the reach, range, or authority of the President. The President speaks to the entire population, about the full range of domestic and international issues we collectively confront, and on behalf of the country to the rest of the world. Speech is also a key tool of presidential governance: For at least a century, Presidents have used the bully pulpit to augment their existing constitutional and statutory authorities. But what sort of impact, if any, should presidential speech have in court, if that speech is plausibly related to the subject matter of a pending case? Curiously, neither judges nor scholars have grappled with that question in any sustained way, though citations to presidential speech appear with some frequency in judicial opinions. Some of the time, these citations are no more than passing references. Other times, presidential statements play a significant role in judicial assessments of the meaning, lawfulness, or constitutionality of either legislation or executive action. This Article is the first systematic examination of presidential speech in the courts. Drawing on a number of cases in both the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, I first identify the primary modes of judicial reliance on presidential speech. I next ask what light the law of evidence, principles of deference, and internal executive branch dynamics can shed on judicial treatment of presidential speech. I then turn to the normative, arguing that for a number of institutional reasons, it is for the most part inappropriate for a court *Associate Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Note—as an attorney in the White House Counsel’s Office from 2009 to 2011, I worked on several of the matters discussed in this Article, but everything here is drawn entirely from the public record. I’m grateful to Kate Andrias, Will Baude, Richard Briffault, Josh Chafetz, Zachary Clopton, Neal Devins, Ryan Doerfler, Bill Eskridge, Barry Friedman, Jonah Gelbach, Bishop Grewell, Michael Herz, Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum, Anita Krishnakumar, Rebecca Kysar, Maggie Lemos, Leah Litman, Peter Markowitz, Justin Murray, Luke Norris, Deborah Pearlstein, Michael Pollack, John Rappaport, Alex Stein, Nick Stephanopoulos, Jeffrey Tulis, Steve Vladeck, and Michael Waldman for helpful conversations and comments on earlier drafts, and to participants in workshops at Pace Law School, the University of Chicago Law School, the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Yale Law School, and Cornell Law School. Kate Giessel, Alexander Grass, Sophia Gurulé, Michael Lynch, and Lekha Menon provided excellent research assistance. SHAW.TOPRINTER (DO NOT DELETE) 11/15/2017 3:32 AM 72 Texas Law Review [Vol. 96:71 to give legal effect to presidential statements whose goals are political storytelling, civic interpretation, persuasion, and mobilization—not the articulation of considered legal positions. That general principle, however, is not absolute. Rather, in a subset of cases, a degree of judicial reliance on presidential speech is entirely appropriate. That subset includes cases in which presidential speech reflects a clear manifestation of intent to enter the legal arena, cases touching on foreign relations or national security, and cases in which government purpose constitutes an element of a legal test. In light of the rhetorical strategies of President Donald Trump, the question of the impact of presidential statements in the courts is quickly becoming a critical one. SHAW.TOPRINTER (DO NOT DELETE) 11/15/2017 3:32 AM 2017] Beyond the Bully Pulpit 73 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 73 I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 79 A. Presidential Speech: A Brief Historical Account ...................... 80 B. Presidential Speeches: An Institutional and Procedural Overview ................................................................................... 83 II. PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION, DIRECT PRESIDENTIAL ACTION, AND PRESIDENTIAL SPEECH IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS ................. 89 A. The President in Administrative Law ........................................ 89 B. Direct Presidential Action ......................................................... 93 C. Presidential Speech and the Legislative Process ....................... 97 III. PRESIDENTIAL SPEECH IN THE COURTS ................................................ 99 A. The Forms of Presidential Speech: A Taxonomy ...................... 99 1. Constitutional Power or Authority ........................................ 99 2. Statutory Meaning or Purpose ............................................ 103 3. Executive Action. ................................................................. 104 4. Statements with Direct Legal Effect. ................................... 110 5. Statements of Fact ............................................................... 114 B. Presidential Speech and Evidentiary Principles ...................... 118 C. Deference and Presidential Speech.......................................... 121 IV. PRESIDENTIAL SPEECH AND INTRA-EXECUTIVE DYNAMICS .............. 123 V. GUIDING PRINCIPLES ........................................................................... 129 A. Manifestation of Intent ............................................................ 129 B. Presidential Speech and Other Executive Branch Statements ................................................................................ 131 C. Presidential Speech in the Foreign Affairs and National Security Spheres ...................................................................... 134 D. Presidential Speech as Evidence of (Constitutionally Forbidden) Government Purpose............................................. 137 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 140 Introduction Presidential speech, “part theater and part political declaration,”1 is both a central feature of the contemporary presidency and a key tool of presidential governance. The President’s words are often designed to reach multiple audiences: Congress and the public; members of the federal bureaucracy and regulated industries; allies and adversaries. They may aim to inspire or to mobilize, to comfort or to condemn.2 1. PEGGY NOONAN, WHAT I SAW AT THE REVOLUTION: A POLITICAL LIFE IN THE REAGAN ERA 68 (1990). 2. In Mary Stuckey’s words, “The President has become the nation’s chief storyteller, its interpreter-in-chief. He tells us stories about ourselves, and in so doing he tells us what sort of people we are, how we are constituted as a community. We take from him not only our policies but our national self-identity.” MARY E. STUCKEY, THE PRESIDENT AS INTERPRETER-IN-CHIEF 1 (1991) SHAW.TOPRINTER (DO NOT DELETE) 11/15/2017 3:32 AM 74 Texas Law Review [Vol. 96:71 But what sort of impact, if any, should presidential speech have in court, if that speech is plausibly related to the subject matter of a pending case? Curiously, neither judges nor scholars have grappled with that question in any sustained way, though citations to presidential speech appear with some frequency in judicial opinions. Some of these citations are no more than passing references; at other times, presidential statements play a significant role in judicial assessments of the meaning, lawfulness, or constitutionality of either legislation or executive action. Public law scholars have considered the role of presidential rhetoric (as well as actual presidential involvement) in the formal legislative process, when it comes to both proposing and shaping legislation;3 such discussions typically approach presidential speech as a subset of legislative history, with its relevance subsumed within larger debates about the propriety of reliance on legislative history.4 And a rich body of administrative law literature questions the President’s ability to control the actions of executive branch agencies and officials, including through both direction and rhetorical appropriation of agency action.5 But, although presidential speech often appears in these debates, no sustained attention has yet been paid to the role of presidential statements, as a distinct category, in judicial fora. With or without scholarly attention, however, courts do incorporate presidential speech into their decisional processes, in sometimes surprising ways. A number of recent examples from the lower courts, which I’ll introduce briefly here and revisit in depth in Part III, help illustrate the scope of the phenomenon. In the first, a challenge to the Obama Administration’s (footnote omitted); see also CAROL GELDERMAN, ALL THE PRESIDENTS’ WORDS: THE BULLY PULPIT AND THE CREATION OF THE VIRTUAL PRESIDENCY 9 (1997) (“Speeches are the core of the modern presidency.”); MICHAEL WALDMAN, MY FELLOW AMERICANS xi (2003) (“[E]specially in the past century, Presidents have led with their words—using what Theodore Roosevelt called the ‘bully pulpit’ to inspire, rally, and unite the country.”). 3. E.g., Brett M. Kavanaugh, Fixing Statutory Interpretation, 129 HARV. L. REV. 2118, 2125 (2016) (reviewing ROBERT A. KATZMANN, JUDGING STATUTES (2014)). For a social science perspective that also investigates the role of rhetoric, see José D.
Recommended publications
  • Cnn Debate Live Stream

    Cnn Debate Live Stream

    Cnn debate live stream Continue Cutting cable is not too difficult if you are watching sports, in which case it is a nightmare. Huh989 over at Hackerspace wants to know: how do you stream sports, and sports packages are there worth it? Cable TV is insanely expensive, and with all the cheapest video services out there, it's easy to cut... MorePhoto Ed Yourdon.I have two things that, until recently, combined to reduce the quality of my life. These two things More Today is the final Republican debate before Super Tuesday-day a whopping twelve states and one U.S. territory will have either a primary or caucus. That's how to stream it online without cable. Before the general election, each state has its own primaries and caucuses, and today's Iowa caucuses ... Read more in the debate of the other five Republican presidential candidates: Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich. This is the last debate for Super Tuesday next week. On Tuesday, March 1, twelve states (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Virginia) and one U.S. territory (American Samoa) will hold either primary or caucuses. If you live in any of these areas, this is your last chance to watch the debate before it's time to help choose your candidate. The debate begins at 8:30 p.m. ET / 5:30 p.m. PT. Here's how you can stream it online: If you're a satellite radio subscriber, you can listen on SiriusXM Channel 115.
  • Cv-14-02052- Tuc-Rm (D

    Cv-14-02052- Tuc-Rm (D

    Derek E. Bambauer <[email protected]> 520.621.5411 1201 E. Speedway, Tucson AZ 85721 Teaching Experience University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, Tucson, AZ. Professor of Law (2013- present). • Associate Professor of Law (2012-2013). • Founder and faculty director, IP and Entrepreneurship Clinic. • Faculty advisor, Arizona Intellectual Property & Cyberlaw Society, Arizona Journal of Emerging Technologies. • Courses taught: Copyright Law, Cyberlaw, Introduction to Intellectual Property, Patent Law, Trade Secrets. Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, NY. Associate Professor of Law (2010 – 2012). • Assistant Professor of Law (2008-2010). • Voted Professor of the Year by students in 2008-2009. • Advisor / legal consultant, Brooklyn Law Incubator & Policy Clinic (BLIP). • Courses taught: Current Controversies in Intellectual Property, Information Privacy Law, Internet Law, Introduction to Intellectual Property, Patent Law, Trademark Law. Wayne State University Law School, Detroit, MI. Assistant Professor of Law (2006-2008). • Courses taught: Contracts, Copyright Law, Current Controversies in Intellectual Property, Trademark Law. Education Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA. J.D., magna cum laude (2004). • Student Research Fellow, OpenNet Initiative, Berkman Center for Internet & Society. • Researcher, Digital Media project, Berkman Center for Internet & Society. • Teaching Assistant, Professor Daniel Meltzer (Criminal Law). Harvard College, Cambridge, MA. B.A., History and Science, summa cum laude (1996). • Phi Beta Kappa. • National Science Scholar (National Science Foundation). • Graduated in 3 years (awarded Advanced Standing). 1 of 10 Derek E. Bambauer Fellowships Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA. Research Fellow (2004-2006). • Led team researching Internet filtering laws, technology, and practices by states worldwide. Analyzed empirical data from testing of countries’ filtering systems.
  • AMERICAN P VERSIGHT

    AMERICAN P VERSIGHT

    AMERICAN p VERSIGHT January11,2021 VIA ONLINE PORTAL DouglasHibbard Chief,InitialRequestStaff OfficeofInform ationPolicy DepartmentofJustice 441GStNW,6thFloor Washington,DC20530 ViaOnlinePortal Re: Expedited Freedom of Information Act Request DearFOIAOfficer: PursuanttotheFreedomof InformationAct(FOIA),5U.S.C.§552,andthe implem entingregulationsof youragency,Am ericanOversightmakesthefollowing requestforrecords. OnJanuary6,2021,PresidentTrumpinciteda mtoob attackCongresswhile mbers em werecertifyingtheelectionforPresident-electJoeBiden. 1 Theapparent insurrectionistsattackedtheCapitolBuilding,forcedtheirwaypastreportedly understaffedCapitolPolice,andultim atelydelayedtheCongressionalsessionbyforcing lawmakersandtheirstaffstoflee. 2 Fourpeoplediedduringthisassaultandafifth person,aCapitolPoliceofficer,diedthefollowingdayfrominjuriesincurredwhile engagingwithrioters. 3 Whilem ilitia mbers em roamedthehallsofCongress,Trum preportedlyfoughtagainst deployingtheD.C.NationalGuard, 4 andtheDefenseDepartm entreportedlyinitially 1 PressRelease,OfficeofSen.MittRom ney,Rom neyCondemInsurrectionatU.S. ns Capitol, Jan.6,2021, https://www.romney.senate.gov/rom ney-condem ns-insurrection- us-capitol. 2 RebeccaTan,etal., TrumpSupportersStormU.S.Capitol,WithOneWomanKilledand TearGasFired, Wash.Post(Jan.7,2021,12:30AM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trum p-supporters-storm -capitol- dc/2021/01/06/58afc0b8-504b-11eb-83e3-322644d82356 story.html. 3 EricLevenson, WhatWeKnowAboutthe5DeathsinthePro-TrumpMobthatStormedthe Capitol, CNN(Jan.8,2021,5:29PM),
  • Common Intellectual Heritage”: Federal and State Courts in Our Federal System

    Common Intellectual Heritage”: Federal and State Courts in Our Federal System

    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\91-5\NDL505.txt unknown Seq: 1 16-SEP-16 13:32 REVISING OUR “COMMON INTELLECTUAL HERITAGE”: FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS IN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM Judith Resnik* ABSTRACT This Essay pays tribute to Daniel Meltzer’s insight that, to the extent “lawyers have a common intellectual heritage, the federal courts are its primary source.” I do so by analyzing how that heritage is made and remade, as political forces press Congress to deploy federal courts to protect a wide array of interests and state courts absorb the bulk of litigation. The heritage that Meltzer celebrated and to which he contributed was the outcome of twenti- eth-century social movements that focused on the federal courts as hospitable venues, serving as vivid sources of rights and remedies. A competing heritage has since emerged, as the Supreme Court shaped new doctrines constricting judicial powers and rendering courts unavailable and unavailing. Despite the Court’s reluctance to welcome claimants, Congress continues to endow the fed- eral courts with new authority and significant funds. But what the federal government has thus far ignored are the needs of state courts, where 100 million cases are filed annually and states struggle to honor constitutional commitments to open courts and rights to counsel for criminal defendants. Once state courts come into focus, two other and competing understanding of courts come to the fore. One merits the term “enabling courts,” as judges aim to equip litigants with lawyers and resources for conflicts related to families, housing, and health. From “Civil Gideon” move- ments and self-help forms to drug and reentry courts, new initiatives underscore the goals of using courts to be responsive to social needs.
  • How White Supremacy Returned to Mainstream Politics

    How White Supremacy Returned to Mainstream Politics

    GETTY CORUM IMAGES/SAMUEL How White Supremacy Returned to Mainstream Politics By Simon Clark July 2020 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG How White Supremacy Returned to Mainstream Politics By Simon Clark July 2020 Contents 1 Introduction and summary 4 Tracing the origins of white supremacist ideas 13 How did this start, and how can it end? 16 Conclusion 17 About the author and acknowledgments 18 Endnotes Introduction and summary The United States is living through a moment of profound and positive change in attitudes toward race, with a large majority of citizens1 coming to grips with the deeply embedded historical legacy of racist structures and ideas. The recent protests and public reaction to George Floyd’s murder are a testament to many individu- als’ deep commitment to renewing the founding ideals of the republic. But there is another, more dangerous, side to this debate—one that seeks to rehabilitate toxic political notions of racial superiority, stokes fear of immigrants and minorities to inflame grievances for political ends, and attempts to build a notion of an embat- tled white majority which has to defend its power by any means necessary. These notions, once the preserve of fringe white nationalist groups, have increasingly infiltrated the mainstream of American political and cultural discussion, with poi- sonous results. For a starting point, one must look no further than President Donald Trump’s senior adviser for policy and chief speechwriter, Stephen Miller. In December 2019, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch published a cache of more than 900 emails2 Miller wrote to his contacts at Breitbart News before the 2016 presidential election.
  • If It's Broke, Fix It: Restoring Federal Government Ethics and Rule Of

    If It's Broke, Fix It: Restoring Federal Government Ethics and Rule Of

    If it’s Broke, Fix it Restoring Federal Government Ethics and Rule of Law Edited by Norman Eisen The editor and authors of this report are deeply grateful to several indi- viduals who were indispensable in its research and production. Colby Galliher is a Project and Research Assistant in the Governance Studies program of the Brookings Institution. Maya Gros and Kate Tandberg both worked as Interns in the Governance Studies program at Brookings. All three of them conducted essential fact-checking and proofreading of the text, standardized the citations, and managed the report’s production by coordinating with the authors and editor. IF IT’S BROKE, FIX IT 1 Table of Contents Editor’s Note: A New Day Dawns ................................................................................. 3 By Norman Eisen Introduction ........................................................................................................ 7 President Trump’s Profiteering .................................................................................. 10 By Virginia Canter Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................................... 12 By Walter Shaub Mandatory Divestitures ...................................................................................... 12 Blind-Managed Accounts .................................................................................... 12 Notification of Divestitures .................................................................................. 13 Discretionary Trusts
  • Doris Kearns Goodwin

    Doris Kearns Goodwin

    Connecting You with the World's Greatest Minds Doris Kearns Goodwin Doris Kearns Goodwin is a world-renowned presidential historian and Pulitzer Prize-winning author. Goodwin is the author of six critically acclaimed and New York Times best-selling books, including her most recent, The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism (November, 2013). Winner of the Carnegie Medal, The Bully Pulpit is a dynamic history of the first decade of the Progressive era, that tumultuous time when the nation was coming unseamed and reform was in the air. Steven Spielberg’s DreamWorks Studios has acquired the film and television rights to the book. Spielberg and Goodwin previously worked together on Lincoln, based in part on Goodwin’s award-winning Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, an epic tome that illuminates Lincoln's political genius, as the one-term congressman and prairie lawyer rises from obscurity to prevail over three gifted rivals of national reputation to become president. Team of Rivals was awarded the prestigious Lincoln Prize, the inaugural Book Prize for American History, and Goodwin in 2016 was the first historian to receive the Lincoln Leadership Prize from the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation. The film Lincoln grossed $275 million at the box office and earned 12 Academy Award® nominations, including an Academy Award for actor Daniel Day-Lewis for his portrayal of President Abraham Lincoln. Goodwin was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in history for No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II, and is the author of the best sellers Wait Till Next Year, Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream and The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys, which was adapted into an award-winning five-part TV miniseries.
  • April 9, 2020 the Honorable Henry J. Kerner Special Counsel U.S. Office of Special Counsel 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 218 Washing

    April 9, 2020 the Honorable Henry J. Kerner Special Counsel U.S. Office of Special Counsel 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 218 Washing

    April 9, 2020 The Honorable Henry J. Kerner Special Counsel U.S. Office of Special Counsel 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 218 Washington, DC 20036-4505 Re: OSC File No. HA-20-000136 (Jared Kushner) Dear Special Counsel Kerner: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”) respectfully requests that the Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”) reconsider its March 20, 2020, decision regarding Jared Kushner, who is both a Senior Advisor to the President and President Trump’s son-in-law. OSC concluded that Jared Kushner did not violate the Hatch Act during an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria; however, OSC’s conclusion did not flow from its findings of fact. Most troubling was OSC’s refusal to consider some of his remarks because, instead of airing them on television, CNN published them in an article—an approach to Hatch Act enforcement for which there is no basis in the law. OSC made three key findings but failed to consider two of them. First, OSC found that Mr. Kushner participated in the interview in his official capacity.1 Second, OSC found that some of his remarks were inappropriate for an employee appearing in an official capacity.2 Third, OSC found that Mr. Zakaria indicated the second segment of the interview was about President Trump’s campaign for reelection,3 which Mr. Kushner was running.4 However, OSC expressly declined to consider the remarks that it deemed inappropriate because CNN published them in an article instead of airing them on television.5 CNN aired other troubling remarks by Mr. Kushner on television, but OSC evaluated them as though they had not been made in the context of a discussion with Mr.
  • The Most Popular President? - the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies - Grand Va

    The Most Popular President? - the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies - Grand Va

    Grand Valley State University ScholarWorks@GVSU Features Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies 2-15-2005 The oM st Popular President? Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/features Recommended Citation "The osM t Popular President?" (2005). Features. Paper 115. http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/features/115 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies at ScholarWorks@GVSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Features by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@GVSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Most Popular President? - The Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies - Grand Va... Page 1 of 5 The Most Popular President? Abraham Lincoln on Bookshelves and the Web This weekend we celebrated the birthday of Abraham Lincoln -- perhaps the most popular subject among scholars, students, and enthusiasts of the presidency. In bookstores Lincoln has no rival. Not even FDR can compare -- in the past two years 15 books have been published about Lincoln to FDR's 10, which is amazing since that span included the 60th anniversaries of D-Day and Roosevelt's historic 4th term, and anticipated the anniversary of his death in office. Lincoln is also quite popular on the web, with sites devoted to the new Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, his birthplace, home, and papers. And he is popular in the press -- perhaps no deceased former president is more frequently incorporated into our daily news. Below, the Hauenstein Center has gathered recently written and forthcoming books about Lincoln, links to websites, and news and commentary written about Lincoln since the New Year.
  • General Management Plan, Sagamore

    General Management Plan, Sagamore

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2008 o TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 DEDICATION 2 SUPERINTENDENT’S NOTE 3 BACKGROUND 7 THE PARK 21 FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING 27 THE PLAN 29 OVERVIEW 31 MANAGING THE PARK’S RESOURCES 40 PROVIDING A POSITIVE VISITOR EXPERIENCE 48 IMPROVING PARK OPERATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS 52 PROJECTED COSTS 52 NEXT STEPS 53 APPENDICES 55 A: RECORD OF DECISIONS 64 B: PARK LEGISLATION 66 C: MANAGEMENT ZONING 69 D: SECTION 106 COMPLIANCE 71 E: LIST OF PREPARERS 2 o DEDICATION THE SAGAMORE HILL NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN IS DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF DR. JOHN ALLEN GABLE. DR. GABLE SERVED AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE THEODORE ROOSEVELT ASSOCIATION (TRA) FROM 1974 UNTIL HIS DEATH IN FEBRUARY 2005. DURING HIS TENURE WITH THE TRA, DR. GABLE WAS DEEPLY INVOLVED WITH THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF SAGAMORE HILL AND WAS ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE PARK’S PLANNING PROCESS AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH. WE APPRECIATED HIS CANDOR AND HIS WIT, HIS INTELLECT AND HIS COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE IN CONSIDERING THE FUTURE OF SAGAMORE HILL. 1 o NOTE FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT LTHOUGH I CAME TO SAGAMORE HILL LATE IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT FOR THE DIRECTION AND TONE THAT A IT SETS FOR THE COMING DECADES. THE PRIMARY AIM OF THIS PLAN IS TO ENHANCE THE OVERALL VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND, APPRECIATE, AND KNOW SAGAMORE HILL AS THE ROOSEVELTS THEMSELVES WOULD HAVE KNOWN IT WHILE THEY LIVED HERE.
  • Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services: Background and Issues for Congress

    Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services: Background and Issues for Congress

    Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services: Background and Issues for Congress Updated June 5, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R44321 SUMMARY R44321 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in June 5, 2019 the Armed Services: Background and Issues for Kristy N. Kamarck Congress Specialist in Military Manpower Under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the authority to raise and support armies; provide and maintain a navy; and provide for organizing, disciplining, and regulating them. Congress has used this authority to establish criteria and standards for individuals to be recruited, to advance through promotion, and to be separated or retired from military service. Throughout the history of the armed services, Congress has established some of these criteria based on demographic characteristics such as race, sex, and sexual orientation. In the past few decades there have been rapid changes to certain laws and policies regarding diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity – in particular towards women serving in combat arms occupational specialties, and the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals. Some of these changes remain contentious and face continuing legal challenges. Military manpower requirements derive from the National Military Strategy and are determined by the military services based on the workload and competencies required to deliver essential capabilities. Filling these capability needs, from combat medics to drone operators, often requires a wide range of backgrounds, skills and knowledge. To meet their recruiting mission, the military services draw from a demographically diverse pool of U.S. youth. Some have argued that military policies and programs that support diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity can enhance the services’ ability to attract, recruit and retain top talent.
  • UC Riverside UC Riverside Electronic Theses and Dissertations

    UC Riverside UC Riverside Electronic Theses and Dissertations

    UC Riverside UC Riverside Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Heretical Queers: Gay Participation in Anti-Gay Institutions Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1wp0j20r Author Radojcic, Natasha Publication Date 2015 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE Heretical Queers: Gay Participation in Anti-Gay Institutions A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology by Natasha Radojcic June 2015 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Katja Gunether, Chairperson Dr. Karen Pyke Dr. Ellen Reese Copyright by Natasha Radojcic 2015 The Dissertation of Natasha Radojcic is approved: Committee Chairperson University of California, Riverside ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Heretical Queers: Gay Participation in Anti-Gay Institutions by Natasha Radojcic Doctor of Philosophy, Graduate Program in Sociology University of California, Riverside, June 2015 Dr. Katja Guenther, Chairperson This dissertations examines gay participation in anti-gay institutions, notably the Roman Catholic Church and the Republican Party. Using a comparative ethnographic approach, I explore Dignity, a group for gay Roman Catholics, and the Log Cabin Republicans, a group for gay Republicans in order to understand how members cope with marginalization they encounter in both the Church/Republican Party and the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) Community. I demonstrate that participants in these groups are simultaneously members of dominant and subordinate populations that draw on their racial, gender, and class based privilege to deal with the marginalization they experience. Accordingly, this dissertation shows how systems of inequality are replicated within the LGBT Community and within the Roman Catholic Church and the Republican Party.