Back in late 2018, President Trump requested  $5.7B from Congress to build a massive wall along the United States Southern Border - the purpose of which is to stop the flow of refugees, coming through Mexico from countries such as  Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.  

Congress refused to give him that much.  And as a consequence, Congress and the President could not come to a deal on government spending which ultimately led to the longest government shutdown of our history.  This shutdown affected thousands of American lives, including hundreds of thousands of federal government workers.  

Recall the 2016 presidential campaign.  A central promise that he made was that Mexico would pay for the border wall.  But since becoming president, all of his efforts have focused on using U.S. taxpayer money to finance this project.

To end the shutdown Congress compromised and approved $1.3B for the wall, which was still much less than the $5.7B Trump originally requested.  Trump reluctantly signed the Bill and then immediately declared a national emergency along the southern border.  

Once the President declares a national emergency, the declaration grants him special powers he otherwise wouldn’t have.  Under this declaration, Trump claimed the ability to redirect money from other programs into his wall.   ‘

What we have to ask is … Does declaring a national emergency like this open the floodgates for him and any other future presidents?

Our special guest is Andrew Boyle.  He is the Counsel in the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.  Prior to joining the Brennan Center, Mr. Boyle spent seven years prosecuting senior Khmer Rouge Leaders on behalf of the United Nations for War Crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.  He served in the trial chambers of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, where he worked on cases resulting from the 1994 Rwandan genocide.   

Mr. Boyle also previously completed a fellowship in the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program and clerked for the Honorable Helen N. White, in the Sixth Circuit of the US Court of Appeals.  

Back in late 2018, President Trump requested  $5.7B from Congress to build a massive wall along the United States Southern Border - the purpose of which is to stop the flow of refugees, coming through Mexico from countries such as  Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.  

Congress refused to give him that much.  And as a consequence, Congress and the President could not come to a deal on government spending which ultimately led to the longest government shutdown of our history.  This shutdown affected thousands of American lives, including hundreds of thousands of federal government workers.  

Recall the 2016 presidential campaign.  A central promise that he made was that Mexico would pay for the border wall.  But since becoming president, all of his efforts have focused on using U.S. taxpayer money to finance this project.

To end the shutdown Congress compromised and approved $1.3B for the wall, which was still much less than the $5.7B Trump originally requested.  Trump reluctantly signed the Bill and then immediately declared a national emergency along the southern border.  

Once the President declares a national emergency, the declaration grants him special powers he otherwise wouldn’t have.  Under this declaration, Trump claimed the ability to redirect money from other programs into his wall.   ‘

What we have to ask is … Does declaring a national emergency like this open the floodgates for him and any other future presidents?

Our special guest is Andrew Boyle.  He is the Counsel in the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.  Prior to joining the Brennan Center, Mr. Boyle spent seven years prosecuting senior Khmer Rouge Leaders on behalf of the United Nations for War Crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.  He served in the trial chambers of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, where he worked on cases resulting from the 1994 Rwandan genocide.   

Mr. Boyle also previously completed a fellowship in the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program and clerked for the Honorable Helen N. White, in the Sixth Circuit of the US Court of Appeals.  

The Constitution rests, in part, on the principles of both liberty and equality.  Liberty is the ability to live free from government interference.  It is the right to act independently within society.  Equality, by contrast, is the right to enjoy the same rights and opportunities as all others, and to be treated equally by the government.  These two principles—liberty and equality—are often in tension with each other.

Unlimited liberty often infringes on the rights and opportunities of others.  Government imposed equality sometimes hampers the liberty of individuals for the sake of society as a whole.  This inherent tension between liberty and equality in our Democracy is part of the American story.  

One defining feature of our Democracy is the peaceful transfer of power to the next generation.  Though labeled as peaceful, it's far from polite in practice.  The sheer size of the Baby Boomer generation and their seeming longevity aided by Social Security and Medicare, is taxing the capacity of the Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z young folks whose incomes are taxed to provide these benefits.  However, these are the young people who are also strapped with student debt of $1.52 trillion affecting over 44.2 million young people.  And our workplaces are often controlled by older leaders who don’t want to retire, or we are working in a disruptive gig economy that lacks stability, benefits, and a long term plan.  We are in the midst of a disruption that is once again exacerbating the tension between liberty and equality.  

In this episode of BANA, we'll be discussing what Eyck Freymann and Professor Niall Ferguson label as the Coming Generation War.  Published in the Atlantic, this is a fascinating article about the future of the United States.   

The Constitution rests, in part, on the principles of both liberty and equality.  Liberty is the ability to live free from government interference.  It is the right to act independently within society.  Equality, by contrast, is the right to enjoy the same rights and opportunities as all others, and to be treated equally by the government.  These two principles—liberty and equality—are often in tension with each other.

Unlimited liberty often infringes on the rights and opportunities of others.  Government imposed equality sometimes hampers the liberty of individuals for the sake of society as a whole.  This inherent tension between liberty and equality in our Democracy is part of the American story.  

One defining feature of our Democracy is the peaceful transfer of power to the next generation.  Though labeled as peaceful, it's far from polite in practice.  The sheer size of the Baby Boomer generation and their seeming longevity aided by Social Security and Medicare, is taxing the capacity of the Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z young folks whose incomes are taxed to provide these benefits.  However, these are the young people who are also strapped with student debt of $1.52 trillion affecting over 44.2 million young people.  And our workplaces are often controlled by older leaders who don’t want to retire, or we are working in a disruptive gig economy that lacks stability, benefits, and a long term plan.  We are in the midst of a disruption that is once again exacerbating the tension between liberty and equality.  

In this episode of BANA, we'll be discussing what Eyck Freymann and Professor Niall Ferguson label as the Coming Generation War.  Published in the Atlantic, this is a fascinating article about the future of the United States.   

In recent years there has been a shift in how our Country views criminal justice. 

Partly, but strongly, influenced by the deaths of Sandra Bland, Philando Castille, Kalief Browder and a number of other individuals, large segments of our Country are questioning the legitimacy of our justice system.  Some statistics - to add further discontent - show that the United States, locks up more people, per capita, than any other nation.  As a result of this, large segments of the United States are demanding reform.   

In response to these demands, progressive Criminal Justice reforms have emerged.  And along with these reforms have come a new breed of law enforcement official: the progressive prosecutor.   As an example, in St. Louis and Philadelphia, this movement has placed Wesley Bell (a former Public Defender) and Larry Krasner (a Civil Rights Lawyer), respectively, into the role of the head prosecutor.   

One would not be unreasonable to say that civil opinion on Criminal Justice has drastically shifted.  In the 80s and 90s, this progressive agenda was political suicide.  In 2019, it might be the only way to get into power in certain areas.   

But despite this shift, many people remain skeptical of the progressive prosecutor.  What, exactly, does it mean?  Some say that even the idea is a paradox.   

On June 25, 2019, Queens New York will effectively hold a referendum on this matter.  For the first time in twenty-eight years, Queens will elect a new District Attorney as a result of the departure and death of former Queens DA Richard Brown.   

In this episode of BANA, we welcome Mina Malik.  With deep and diverse experience in Criminal Justice, Mina explains what separates her from a crowded race of seven candidates.

After starting her career as a criminal investigator at the DC Public Defender Service, Mina then served as an Assistant District Attorney in the Queens DAs office for fifteen years.  Mina later was selected by the former Brooklyn District Attorney, the late Ken Thompson, to serve as his Special Counsel and helped Design Brooklyn’s Conviction Review Unit.  In addition to these roles, she also served as the Executive Director of the New York City Civilian Complain Review Board, the committee that overlooks the police department - most notably overseeing the disciplinary charges against the police officer involved in the death of Eric Garner.  Most recently, she also served as the Deputy Attorney General for the District of Columbia, and finally but not least, she is also a lecturer at Harvard Law School. 

In recent years there has been a shift in how our Country views criminal justice. 

Partly, but strongly, influenced by the deaths of Sandra Bland, Philando Castille, Kalief Browder and a number of other individuals, large segments of our Country are questioning the legitimacy of our justice system.  Some statistics - to add further discontent - show that the United States, locks up more people, per capita, than any other nation.  As a result of this, large segments of the United States are demanding reform.   

In response to these demands, progressive Criminal Justice reforms have emerged.  And along with these reforms have come a new breed of law enforcement official: the progressive prosecutor.   As an example, in St. Louis and Philadelphia, this movement has placed Wesley Bell (a former Public Defender) and Larry Krasner (a Civil Rights Lawyer), respectively, into the role of the head prosecutor.   

One would not be unreasonable to say that civil opinion on Criminal Justice has drastically shifted.  In the 80s and 90s, this progressive agenda was political suicide.  In 2019, it might be the only way to get into power in certain areas.   

But despite this shift, many people remain skeptical of the progressive prosecutor.  What, exactly, does it mean?  Some say that even the idea is a paradox.   

On June 25, 2019, Queens New York will effectively hold a referendum on this matter.  For the first time in twenty-eight years, Queens will elect a new District Attorney as a result of the departure and death of former Queens DA Richard Brown.   

In this episode of BANA, we welcome Mina Malik.  With deep and diverse experience in Criminal Justice, Mina explains what separates her from a crowded race of seven candidates.

After starting her career as a criminal investigator at the DC Public Defender Service, Mina then served as an Assistant District Attorney in the Queens DAs office for fifteen years.  Mina later was selected by the former Brooklyn District Attorney, the late Ken Thompson, to serve as his Special Counsel and helped Design Brooklyn’s Conviction Review Unit.  In addition to these roles, she also served as the Executive Director of the New York City Civilian Complain Review Board, the committee that overlooks the police department - most notably overseeing the disciplinary charges against the police officer involved in the death of Eric Garner.  Most recently, she also served as the Deputy Attorney General for the District of Columbia, and finally but not least, she is also a lecturer at Harvard Law School. 

In our current climate of heated political and racial debate, calls have been made to censor, and even punish, what is called 'hate speech.'  The difficulty, however, is defining it.  The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, but it is not an absolute right.  Screaming 'FIRE!' in a crowded theatre, as the classic example goes, is not protected under the First Amendment.  

Even though the First Amendment protects most speech, 'hate speech' has strained the barriers of the classic American right.  How should the law protect genuinely vulnerable individuals against hateful rhetoric from Neo Nazi's or other related groups?  How should college campuses treat speakers that oppose substantively the ideology of the student body? How have these 'hate speech' laws been weaponized against genuine movements for civil rights?  Why does a censored speaker become more popular after being banned?

In this episode, we got the wonderful opportunity to sit down with Constitutional Law expert and former ACLU President Nadine Strossen to understand the current state of Free Speech in America.  

Please make sure to subscribe to the podcast!

In our current climate of heated political and racial debate, calls have been made to censor, and even punish, what is called 'hate speech.'  The difficulty, however, is defining it.  The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, but it is not an absolute right.  Screaming 'FIRE!' in a crowded theatre, as the classic example goes, is not protected under the First Amendment.  

Even though the First Amendment protects most speech, 'hate speech' has strained the barriers of the classic American right.  How should the law protect genuinely vulnerable individuals against hateful rhetoric from Neo Nazi's or other related groups?  How should college campuses treat speakers that oppose substantively the ideology of the student body? How have these 'hate speech' laws been weaponized against genuine movements for civil rights?  Why does a censored speaker become more popular after being banned?

In this episode, we got the wonderful opportunity to sit down with Constitutional Law expert and former ACLU President Nadine Strossen to understand the current state of Free Speech in America.  

Please make sure to subscribe to the podcast!

In this post podcast session, Howard Dean discusses the upcoming millennial generation, important democratic lessons and the importance of voting responsibility.  

Make sure you subscribe to the BANA Podcast.  Follow us on Twitter and Instagram at @BANAPodcast
Follow host Jonathan Arias @JonArias1

In this post podcast session, Howard Dean discusses the upcoming millennial generation, important democratic lessons and the importance of voting responsibility.  

Make sure you subscribe to the BANA Podcast.  Follow us on Twitter and Instagram at @BANAPodcast
Follow host Jonathan Arias @JonArias1