Texas Sen. Ted Cruzs 21 hour, 19 minute occupation of the United States Senate floor this week was not a true filibuster. His rambling talk did not halt any proceedings, and he had a definite time restriction. These two characteristics are what classify his address to the senate as simply a very long speech. That does not stop the word filibuster from being commonly used to describe this event. Cruz had a point to make, and his extraordinarily long speech focused attention on his disapproval of President Obamas health care law. Cruz said he would speak until I am no longer able to stand. Today the question is asked, What is a true filibuster? Historically, the United States Senate has been dealing with the proceedings-halting phenomenon for over 150 years. According to the United States Senate, a filibuster falls under the category of Senate powers and procedures. Filibuster finds its roots from the Dutch. It means having pirate or rebel-like behavior. In the 1800s, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew, their power to filibuster was taken away. The sheer numbers of representatives dictated that filibustering was impractical and disruptive. The smaller Senate kept its filibustering power, as it does today.
Can the United Nations Block U.S. Marijuana Legalization?
Such credibility determinations are left to the sentencing court. See United States v. Platte, 577 F.3d 387, 39293 (1st Cir.2009) (In conducting [a drug quantity calculation,] credibility determinations are part of the sentencing court’s basic armamentarium.). There was no clear error in the sentencing court’s drug quantity calculation. C. Term of Supervised Release The district court imposed a sentence of 151 months’ incarceration and a 10 year term of supervised release. In the course of the appellate proceedings, a question has arisen as to the basis for, and the propriety of, the term of supervised release to which RosarioOtero was sentenced. We affirm the district court’s judgment in all other respects, but in the interest of justice we will remand in light of this question. On remand, the district court is authorized to reduce the term of supervised release, should it find that the current term is insupportable in light of Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013). 2 III. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the sentence as to its term of incarceration; we remand the case to the district court for its further consideration of the term of supervised release.
UNITED STATES v. ROSARIO OTERO
could be a target, too. He tells Josh Rogin what the world needs to do to stop them. The Somali-based terrorist organization al-Shabab, which claimed credit for the devastating attack in Nairobi this week, is an international organization that could attack anywhere, including the United States, according to the president of Somalia. Civilians flee the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya during the terrorist attack on September 21, 2013. (Jonathan Kalan/AP ) Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud was in Washington this past weekend when a group of attackers stormed the Westgate shopping center in the Kenyan capital and took hostages in a siege that ultimately left at least 72 dead and 170 injured. Mohamud, who has been leading the fight to push al-Shabab from its territory inside Somalia since he became president last year, gave his take on the organization, its structure, its funding, and what the world needs to do to stop it in an interview this week with The Daily Beast. His main message was that al-Shabab is foreign-financed, filled with foreign fighters, and has wide international reach. Al-Shabab is not a Somali agenda, its an international agenda. Al-Shabab is working with an international capacity in terms of trading and financial resources, he said. Al-Shabab is more of an international problem than a Somali problem. It can happen here in the United States as it is now happening in Nairobi. U.S. intelligence officials disputed this assessment in interviews with The Daily Beast. On Monday, Rep.
Only to a small degree. The UN International Narcotics Control Board is the keeper of the drug treaties and regularly chastises governments that violate their commitments. This can be embarrassing in international diplomatic circles, but no nation has ever collapsed due to embarrassment. Because the International Narcotics Control Board has power over the production and transport of the legal medical supply of drugs it could in theory punish a country that legalized marijuana by imposing punitive controls on pain medications. But the international humanitarian outcry over such an action would be enormous. Further, the countries that produce the most opiate painkillers are not easy to push around (e.g., Australia, India, The United States). It is thus safe to assume that crimping the medical supply of drugs is a trigger that the Narcotics Control Board is not going to pull. 3. Does the entire UN drug treaty system need to be undone in order for countries to legalize recreational marijuana? No. Marijuana is just one of many psychoactive substances made illegal by the UN drug control treaties. Some drug legalization activists hope that if support for marijuana legalization grows internationally, it will require all UN drug treaties to be revised, thereby granting an opportunity to legalize cocaine, heroin and every other drug at the same time. This is a misreading both of international political sentiment and UN protocol. Even among nations with some sympathy towards marijuana legalization, there is minimal enthusiasm for allowing, say, the Phillip Morris corporation to sell cocaine legally throughout the world as it does cigarettes. If the price of changing UN treaties regarding marijuana is legalizing all drugs, many otherwise sympathetic nations will vigorously oppose the action.