House Democrats have introduced two resolutions in the current Congress to censure the President. Neither resolution is expected to advance.
But a new memo from the Congressional Research Service considers whether such resolutions are permissible in practice, and concludes: “It would appear that Congress may censure the President through a simple (one chamber) or concurrent (two chamber) resolution, or other non-binding measure, so long as the censure does not carry with it any legal consequence.” See The Constitutionality of Censuring the President, CRS Legal Sidebar, March 12, 2018.
Other new and updated publications from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
Threats to National Security Foiled? A Wrap Up of New Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum, CRS Legal Sidebar, March 12, 2018
Cybersecurity: Selected Issues for the 115th Congress, March 9, 2018
Defense Primer: U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM), CRS In Focus, March 6, 2018
Does Executive Privilege Apply to the Communications of a President-elect?, CRS Legal Sidebar, March 8, 2018
The United Kingdom: Background, Brexit, and Relations with the United States, updated March 12, 2018
Northern Ireland: Current Issues and Ongoing Challenges in the Peace Process, updated March 12, 2018
TPP Countries Sign New CPTPP Agreement without U.S. Participation, CRS Insight, March 9, 2018
We’re asking the U.S. government to release holds on Congressionally-appropriated funding for scientific research, education, and critical activities at the earliest possible time.
It is in the interests of the United States to appropriately protect information that needs to be protected while maintaining our participation in new discoveries to maintain our competitive advantage.
The question is not whether the capital exists (it does!), nor whether energy solutions are available (they are!), but whether we can align energy finance quickly enough to channel the right types of capital where and when it’s needed most.
Our analysis of federal AI governance across administrations shows that divergent compliance procedures and uneven institutional capacity challenge the government’s ability to deploy AI in ways that uphold public trust.