In 2015, an Affordable Care Act provision requiring large employers to offer health insurance to staff working more than 30 hours a week kicked into effect. Now, some part-time staff at Staples say management has become extra vigilant about limiting their hours.

Notice in a Staples store / Via Photo submitted to BuzzFeed News

Last year Alice*, 19, typically clocked anywhere from 25 hours to 40 hours a week at the Staples store where she works as a part-time staffer. The hours were great, she says, because she loves her co-workers and uses the job to help support her family.

She started working at Staples around the same time the office-supply chain was making headlines by forbidding its part-time employees from working more than 25 hours a week. The rules, rolled out in the lead-up to the Affordable Care Act, were seen by many staff members as an effort by the company to avoid paying benefits to "full-time" employees — classified under the law as anyone working more than 30 hours a week.

But for most of 2014, the rules didn't really affect Alice or her colleagues, who regularly exceeded the threshold and were still considered part-time. That all changed this year, though, as the employer mandate kicked in; if Staples doesn't pay benefits for people working more than 30 hours a week, it could face up to $3,000 in penalties per person.

Now, Alice is working far fewer hours — and if she clocks above 25, she may be fired.

A petition on Change.org last year urged Staples not to go ahead with a new policy limiting the number of hours that can be worked by part-timers.

Change.org / Via change.org

"Before January, it was a smack on the wrist if anyone went over 25 hours — they got an email scolding them saying, 'You went over 25, try not to do that,'" she told BuzzFeed News in an interview on the condition of anonymity, given she still works at the company. "But now it's become really serious...they've threatened to write up managers and every person that goes up over 25 hours."

Alice is one of five current and former part-time Staples employees who spoke with BuzzFeed News about the retailer's strict new policies this year, now that the Affordable Care Act provision requiring companies to offer health insurance plans to full-time employees has come into effect. Many others on a Staples employee subreddit corroborate these accounts, speaking of managers and associates getting written warnings and threats of termination for working even 10 minutes above the 25-hour weekly limit.

The employees who spoke with BuzzFeed News said they are now only scheduled up to 20 hours a week if they work in one of the worst-performing stores, and 23 hours a week at others. They all used to get more than 30 hours during good weeks. They said they are frequently told to leave early now, even if they're scheduled for additional hours. All told, it can result in $200 to $400 in lost wages per month for each employee. For these low-income workers, that's a lot of missed groceries, tanks of gas, utility payments, and, paradoxically, health care expenditures.

One employee shared the notice published above, which was recently posted in a Staples store. "Recent changes have necessitated a strong stance on part time associates going beyond 25 hours worked per week," it begins.

"Going forward, exceeding 25 hours will result in documentation for the associate. The first discrepancy will result in a note to file; following issues will result in written documentation up to and including termination. Exceeding 25 hours will also result in an immediate cut to your hours in order to preserve the integrity of 25 hour or less part time shifts."

The message goes on to point out that "associate overspending caused a $4 million dollar penalty last year." After noting that the new rule is "painful and affects each of you personally," it ends with: "I appreciate and value you."

In response to inquiries regarding the message and claims from employees, a Staples spokesperson told BuzzFeed News the company's policy on part-time worker hours "pre-dates the Affordable Care Act by many years." The policy has been in place for more than a decade, he said in an emailed statement, and "some managers may have reiterated the existing policy to our associates as part of our ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of our stores."

View Entire List ›

HRC’s Chad Griffin — who fought California’s Prop 8 — joins with DOMA-slayer Robbie Kaplan to describe the “animus” that they say is behind states’ marriage bans. The brief will be one of many amicus briefs to hit the Supreme Court in coming months.

Lawyer Roberta Kaplan, left, and her client, Edith Windsor of New York, participate in a news conference in front of the Supreme Court in Washington on March 27, 2013 after the court heard arguments in Windsor's challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act.

AP Carolyn Kaster

WASHINGTON — Two of the biggest figures in the battle for marriage equality are joining forces to give the Supreme Court their take on the marriage cases before the justices.

The Human Rights Campaign, headed since 2012 by Chad Griffin, is joining with Robbie Kaplan, who represented Edie Windsor in her challenge to DOMA, to submit an amicus curiae — or, friend of the court — brief to the justices in the marriage and marriage recognition ban cases out of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.

Kaplan and HRC are already joined by Windsor, the first of whom HRC hopes will be thousands of people across the country signing onto what the group is calling the "People's Brief." HRC is launching a campaign at its site to collect signatures for the brief over the next four weeks — a viral effort aimed at a court that still lacks online filing.

"When it comes to marriage equality, the Supreme Court has heard from business leaders and elected officials, faith leaders and even the President of the United States," HRC President Chad Griffin said in a statement. "But, until now, they've never heard from the fair-minded American majority who simply wants to see their LGBT friends and neighbors treated fairly and equally under the law."

Kaplan and HRC's Griffin haven't always been the closest of friends — although they certainly are both strong supporters of marriage equality. So, why did they team up now?

"The simple answer, of course, is that I was asked," Kaplan told BuzzFeed News on Monday afternoon. "HRC had this idea to capitalize on the power of modern technology in this way and to do an amicus brief that would be able to reach so many more people than has in the past, and I thought it was a great idea."

Additionally, from a legal perspective, Kaplan had been looking to talk with the justices — through one of the dozens and dozens of amicus briefs expected to be filed in the marriage cases — about animus.

"I very much wanted to write, for the court, an amicus brief on this principle that is so important to me of why things have changed so much, what's the reason for that, what's the significance of that legally, and how the court, in my view, both can and should fit that into existing constitutional doctrine" in addressing and striking down the bans, she said.

HRC and Griffin say they are excited about the partnership, the first of many efforts planned to push the discussion of the cases — hoping, eventually, to have the end result of pushing the justices — in the coming months.

"HRC is proud to work with Robbie because we both believe that the fair-minded American majority in support of marriage equality should have a voice at this historic moment," HRC President Chad Griffin told BuzzFeed News. "Robbie won a sweeping victory in Windsor, we're proud of what we accomplished in California with Perry, but ultimately this moment is about helping all gay and lesbian couples in all 50 states win a true, complete and lasting victory."

HRC President Chad Griffin addresses the media with the Proposition 8 plaintiffs and lawyer David Boies.

AP Images for HRC Kevin Wolf

Kaplan is joined on the brief by two prominent law professors of LGBT legal scholarship, Dale Carpenter of the University of Minnesota Law School and Steve Sanders of Indiana University Maurer School of Law. Kaplan said she asked them to join her on the brief because "they're the two leading scholars" on the animus question.

As for herself? "I just hope that the justices will appreciate the brief because I hope that they will think that it is a well-written brief that's persuasive, and that's my only goal," she said.

"Animus," as a legal doctrine, has confused courts, lawyers, and certainly the general public, Kaplan said, and she wants to use this brief — and HRC's public discussion of it — to help change that.

"You don't have to have hatred in your heart," Kaplan said in explaining what legal "animus" means, "but you have to have a misunderstanding or a failure to understand or appreciate that the gay couple who's living across the street from you are just the same as you are. It's that lack of understanding in this context, which I think explains what happens, and which gives the court, I think, a reason to hold that various statutes and constitutional amendments before it are unconstitutional."

The brief doesn't focus on two of the key arguments discussed throughout the legal proceedings on these bans: whether the bans violate the "fundamental right" to marriage under the constitution or whether claims of sexual orientation discrimination should be subjected to "heightened scrutiny" under the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

"I'm certainly not contending" that a fundamental rights decision or heightened scrutiny decision wouldn't make her happy, Kaplan said, "but this gives the court the analytical framework to decide the case in accordance with the decisions they've issued in this area." The fundamental rights and heightened scrutiny arguments will be out there in other briefs, Kaplan said. "We're just explaining how animus works, too."

Of course, Kaplan's also never written a brief intended to be signed by thousands of people — or more.

"In the Grutter case [about law school affirmative action policies], there was a brief filed by 13,600 law students — I think that number's right," Kaplan said, noting that the filing won't be unprecedented, although she and Griffin hope their number will end up being much higher. "I think the difference between that time and this time is that today we have the internet, so HRC has the ability to reach a lot more people than, frankly, anyone ever contemplated."

Kaplan does not, however, want this to be as easy as a person changing their Facebook profile picture to a red equal sign — HRC's big social media push during the 2013 Supreme Court marriage cases.

"They have to affirm that they have" read the brief, she said. "I don't want anyone to sign onto this brief unless they read it. I want to be very clear about that. No one should be signing onto this brief just because it's HRC or just because it's Robbie Kaplan or just because it's Steve Sanders or Dale Carpenter. They need to read it and make sure they agree with it."

View Entire List ›

In an amicus brief provided to BuzzFeed News, the Congressional Black Caucus invokes the Voting Rights Act in their challenge to Wisconsin’s voter ID law.

MILWAUKEE, WI - NOVEMBER 4: A man checks in at the city hall building where citizens cast their vote on election day November 4, 2014 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Getty Images Darren Hauck

WASHINGTON –– The Congressional Black Caucus on Tuesday submitted an amicus brief in the Wisconsin voter I.D. case, BuzzFeed News has learned.

The primary question before the Supreme Court is whether Wisconsin's voter I.D. law, touted in recent speeches by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a presidential hopeful, violates the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.

It is also expected to decide whether Wisconsin's voter I.D. laws are racially discriminatory.

"As lawmakers, members of the CBC are committed to ensuring that the Voting Rights Act continues to serve as a robust and meaningful vehicle for protecting access to the voting booth for all Americans," reads the brief, which was provided to BuzzFeed News. "Correspondingly, members of the CBC are committed to ensuring fidelity to the text, history and purpose of the Voting Rights Act."

Walker got some of the loudest applause in speech to the Iowa Freedom Summit last month when he addressed his state's voter ID law and defending his record as a conservative in a blue state. "And we believe it's important to protect the integrity ... of each and every vote cast. So we require in our state, by law, a photo I.D. to vote," he said. "We weren't afraid to go big and go bold. Maybe that's why I won the race for governor three times in the last four years. Three times mind you in a state that hasn't gone Republican for president since I was in high school more than 30 years ago."

The CBC has prioritized voting issues under leadership of North Carolina Rep. G.K. Butterfield, himself a former judge.

"Many of us led the fight to end the practice of voter disenfranchisement 50 years ago, and we cannot afford to standby and do nothing while historical advancements in equality and fairness are reversed with laws such as Wisconsin's discriminatory voting practice which, if allowed, will open the floodgates across the country to silence many American voices by making it increasingly harder for all citizens to vote and have a say in America's democratic process," Butterfield said in a statement.

"Politicians like Governor Scott Walker who advocate for such discriminatory laws claim that it addresses the 'growing threat' of voter fraud and will help protect our democracy from those who attempt to game the system," Rep. Gwen Moore of Wisconsin told BuzzFeed News. "But the 'growing threat' here isn't voter fraud. The real "growing threat" is voter suppression and the lawmakers behind it."

Some in the CBC, including Moore, have called Wisconsin the "Selma of the North," in terms of the direct impact the law has in disenfranchising voters, particularly in Milwaukee.

"You don't have to be a legal scholar to recognize that it is a dangerous time for American voters in Wisconsin and across our country," said Moore. "Wisconsin's voter ID law has nothing to do with stopping the fictitious threat of voter fraud and everything to do with making it harder for more eligible voters to register and vote."

A release by the CBC Tuesday urged justices to hear a case filed by the Advancement Project against Wisconsin's restrictive voter ID law.

The brief cites the "well-known history of minority voter disenfranchisement necessitated the introduction and passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965."

"It is undeniable that the VRA's accomplishments inspired hard-won, centuries-delayed public confidence in the legitimacy of the country's electoral system. With the VRA in place, minorities and non-minorities alike could have greater faith that election results genuinely reflected the will of the people—all of the people," the brief reads.

Social Security numbers, home addresses, and email addresses can be found in the former Florida governor’s eight years worth of emails. A spokesperson for Bush told BuzzFeed News that they are searching through the emails in an effort to correct the issue.

Rebecca Cook / Reuters

In the lead up to a likely 2016 presidential run, Jeb Bush made his eight years worth of emails as Florida governor public on a website set up by his political action committee, Right to Rise.

The emails, which span from 1999 to 2007, document Bush's time in the Florida governor's mansion. They also contain sensitive information about those who corresponded with Bush, including email and home addresses, social security numbers, and details of personal turmoil.

A spokesperson for Jeb Bush responded to a BuzzFeed News request for comment on the published emails, saying they asked the state of Florida to redact sensitive information from the emails in May of 2014.

"Last year, we requested the State specifically comply with Florida statute regarding exemptions and redactions," said Kristy Campbell. "

"We have redacted personal identifying information from two emails brought to our attention. We are doing an electronic search for any additional emails that may fall into this category and will do the same."

The potential violations of privacy contained in the archived emails were first reported by The Verge.

"In the spirit of transparency, I am posting the emails of my governorship here," reads a note from Bush on the website where the emails are publish. "Some are funny; some are serious; some I wrote in frustration. But they're all here so you can read them and make up your own mind."

In one public email, which has been redacted by BuzzFeed News, a man serving in the navy makes an appeal to Bush to have his mother pardoned or her record expunged. The email contains his mother's name and social security number.

s3.amazonaws.com

Another public email contains a resident's home and office phone numbers, mailing address, and personal email address.

View Entire List ›

The pro-Clinton groups are a delicate balance of money and power. On Monday, the uneasy alliance between former Obama and Clinton backers saw its first explosion — the big fundraising rift that must be repaired.

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

Around lunchtime last Thursday, a sense of relief rippled through the tight network of friends, staffers, and donors connected to David Brock, the man at the center of a coordinated, independent effort to elect Hillary Clinton.

For weeks, they'd been bracing for a New York Times story in the works: a critical A1 look at Brock's longtime fundraiser, Mary Pat Bonner, airing complaints that her firm is paid on commission, taking a cut of the donor money she nets for clients, which include a set of pro-Clinton entities founded by Brock.

When the piece ran, the reaction inside Brock's circle was unanimous: Bonner had emerged largely unscathed. There was no need to respond. The crisis was over.

But that changed four days later when questions about the origins of the Bonner story precipitated an unexpected, deep, and public splintering in the pro-Clinton operation. The rift revealed doubts about the trust between its most central players, namely the officials at Priorities USA Action, the high-dollar super PAC facing a massive task: raising an estimated $300 to $500 million.

On Monday afternoon, Brock resigned from the board of Priorities. In a letter to the co-chairs, Jim Messina and former Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Brock alleged that current and former officials from Priorities were responsible for pushing the story to the Times and waging an "orchestrated political hit job" against Bonner and the research groups that Brock heads, Media Matters and American Bridge.

Brock was placed on the board of Priorities one year ago, along with stakeholders from other groups, as a largely symbolic position, meant to project unity. The super PAC has never convened a full board meeting, one source said.

The central triad of outside Clinton groups — Priorities, American Bridge, and Ready for Hillary, a super PAC building a list of supporters — has worked in lockstep for most of the last year. But the letter, first published by Politico, is the latest example of a repeated claim among members of the pro-Clinton network: that Priorities has tried to wrest control of money and position, even at the expense of allies.

In interviews this week, people close to both sides described a frenzied weekend, as officials traded dozens of phone calls about the Bonner article. Some claimed that the story had "backfired" on current or former Priorities officials: It contained the admission that, in 2012, the super PAC had itself used fundraisers who took commission, upsetting one donor, Irwin Jacobs, according to the Times.

By Sunday, Brock told friends and colleagues he was "confident" Priorities played a role in pushing the story, according to three sources who spoke with him. Priorities officials still deny any involvement with the Times story.

But Brock only decided to resign on Monday after learning about what he believed was a second hit on his groups from Messina, the Priorities co-chair and former campaign manager for President Obama.

In a round of calls to fellow Priorities board members that afternoon, Brock said he had learned over the weekend that Messina and a donor Messina advises were leading an effort to get other donors to sign a pledge vowing not to contribute to groups who employ fundraisers working on commission.

Brock told board members he believed the attacks wouldn't stop unless he took public action, sources said. A Priorities official denied the Messina effort existed.

Jim Messina

Mandel Ngan / Getty

View Entire List ›

The ruling is one of the first to uphold the civil claims of Mexican citizens against U.S. border agents and the federal government.

Jesus Castro Romo

Brad Racino/ Investigative Newsource

WASHINGTON — A federal court has ordered the federal government to pay a Mexican man nearly half a million dollars after he was shot in the back by a Border Patrol agent in the Arizona desert.

In a Feb. 5 ruling, Federal District Court Judge James Soto ordered the $497,000 payment to Jesus Castro Romo, a Nogales, Sonora, resident who was shot by Customs and Border Protection Agent Abel Canales during a routine 2010 immigration stop in the desert.

The ruling is significant because federal courts have almost uniformly rejected civil claims against individual agents and the federal government over the dozens of CBP-related shootings during the Obama administration. Castro is one of only a handful of known survivors of such shootings.

Canales, who was later sent to federal prison for working with members of a Mexican drug cartel, originally told federal investigators that Castro was unarmed. But in later testimony, the former agent claimed the Mexican citizen was holding a rock and was verbally threatening him.

Judge Soto was unconvinced, noting the additions to Canales' original statements to investigators ultimately rendered his testimony unreliable. "Although much of the additional testimony is not strictly contradictory, it renders Canales' testimony less credible: Canales was given every opportunity to describe in detail the encounter with Castro — with counsel present — the day after the shooting," Soto wrote.

Soto also pointed to Canales' conviction on bribery and corruption charges as undermining his testimony.

Soto also challenged the CBP's longstanding policy that the potential for a migrant to throw a rock at an agent constitutes a threat dire enough to justify the use of deadly force. The CBP's use-of-force policies allow agents to open fire when threatened by almost any potential weapon.

But Soto wrote, "A rock is not as deadly an object as a gun and requires a greater degree of certainty that the object will be used than the threat or perceived threat of a gun."

Critics contend that the CPB's use-of-force policies have contributed to numerous killings along the border, and officials have begun to instate a series of modest reforms.

In his ruling, Soto requires the government to pay Castro for the injuries caused by the shooting, subsequent treatment and medication costs, pain and suffering, and loss of income over the course of the next 38 years. Those costs totaled $553,000, but the judge cut it by 10%, finding that Castro, who was in the act of illegally crossing the border, was 10% responsible for his injuries.

A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment.

Hawkish Republicans say they won’t place restrictions on the commander-in-chief, but Democrats and dovish Republicans want a strict timeline and limits on ground troops.

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) © is flanked by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) (L) and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) ®

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON— As the White House prepares to send language to Capitol Hill authorizing the use of force against ISIS, senators from both parties are saying significant changes need to be made in order for it to pass.

Hawkish Republicans say they'll refuse to vote for an Authorization for Use of Military Force that limits the president in anyway. Democrats and dovish Republicans won't vote for an AUMF without some limitations on ground troops and a strict timeline for an AUMF expiration.

How exactly something would pass Congress in the next couple months is now open question as the United States continues to strike ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

"I don't know the answer to that. We have not really taken a task like this on in a long, long time," said Minority Whip Dick Durbin, when asked how a bipartisan compromise would come about. "The last time we got close to it was the decision to invade Iraq. There was a lot of back and forth… I assume it starts in in the foreign relations committee but beyond that I assume it's going to be the subject for floor debate."

Durbin said the debate would "not be easy" but a lengthy debate may be necessary "to get it right."

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and legal counsel Neil Eggleston briefed senate Democrats on the emerging plan Tuesday afternoon during the caucus lunch. Final language from the White House is not expected until Wednesday or Thursday at the latest. Democratic Leader Harry Reid described the lunch as a "beginning of a discussion."

Democratic members are deeply concerned over four words, Durbin said. The White House AUMF would limit "enduring offensive ground operations" but defensive operations would be exempt.

"We're talking about the department of defense so there is hardly any military operation that cannot be characterized as defensive. Defensive operations are exempt, it would limit offensive operations," he said. "That's where we have to dig in."

Sen. Chris Murphy, an outspoken voice in the party for the need for a more restrictive AUMF said that he would need the ground troop language to change before he could support it.

"It seems to be a substantial change from the draft on the limitations on ground troops that came out of the foreign relations committee," he said.

Democratic senators did said they were happy to hear about certain elements the president planned to include -- a sunset of the 2002 Iraq AUMF and a 3-year authorization, meaning the next president would have to quickly re-evaluate a new AUMF upon taking office.

Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker, told reporters there would be many hearings and no "rush" to get something passed.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, told reporters he was briefed earlier Tuesday by the White House and specifically asked about the use of force against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad

"I asked a question, would the authorization of the use of military force allow us to engage Assad's forces if we sent a ground component into Syria and he tried to attack the people we trained and they said no," Graham said. "In my view unless you are allowed to do that we will fail. You will not defeat ISIL because the army you train to defeat ISIL will be made up of Syrians and they are going to turn on Assad. If you don't protect that army from an Assad air campaign they will fail. If you aren't willing to do that, don't send them in."

"I'm not going to vote for an AUMF that doesn't allow us to destroy ISIL," he added.

Likewise, Sen. John McCain said he would not vote for anything that constrained the president.

"If we don't like what the president does we have the power of the purse but the president is the commander in chief and we should not constrain his military actions," he said. "I want to give him the authority to do what he needs to do in the region."

Photograph by Jon Premosch for BuzzFeed News

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama said Tuesday he is heartbroken by the death of American hostage Kayla Jane Mueller, who had been held by ISIS for more than a year.

Obama, who said telling hostages' families that the U.S. won't pay ransom is "as tough as anything I do," also said that Mueller was one of the hostages the United States sought — and failed — to rescue in a raid in Syria last summer.

"She was an outstanding young woman and a great spirit — and I think that spirit will live on," Obama said in an interview with BuzzFeed News. "The more people learn about her, the more they appreciate what she stood for — and how it stands in contrast with the barbaric organization that held her captive."

Obama said his "immediate reaction was heartbreak" to the confirmation that Mueller, a 26-year-old aid worker from Arizona who was kidnapped in Syria, is dead.

Mueller

Handout / Reuters

The United States, unlike some European countries, has a blanket policy of refusing to pay ransom for hostages, a policy initially intended to discourage the financially motivated kidnapping that has become common from Mexico to the waters off Somalia. That policy has come under pressure with the rise of ideological terrorists like ISIS (which the White House refers to as ISIL), who see an advantage in gory, public murder, and President Obama last fall commissioned a sweeping review of U.S. hostage policy.

Obama objected to the suggestion that the United States had not done everything it could to free Mueller.

"I don't think it's accurate … to say that the United States government hasn't done everything we could," Obama said. "We devoted enormous resources and always devote enormous resources to freeing captives or hostages anywhere in the world."

"I deployed an entire operation — at significant risk — to rescue not only her but the other individuals who had been held, and probably missed them by a day or two, precisely because we had that commitment," Obama said, referring to what has been reported as a raid by Delta Force commandos on an oil refinery in northern Syria. His comment was the first official suggestion that the White House believed Mueller had been at the site of the raid.

"The one thing that we have held to is a policy of not paying ransoms with an organization like ISIL. And the reason is once we start doing that, not only are we financing their slaughter of innocent people and strengthening their organization, but we're actually making Americans even greater targets for future kidnappings," he said. Citizens of many European countries, including France, Germany, and Italy, have been freed after ransoms were paid.

Obama said he understood that hostages' families find that policy hard to accept.

"It's as tough as anything I do — having the conversation with parents who understandably want by any means necessary for their children to be safe," he said. "We will do everything we can short of providing an incentive for future Americans to be caught."

Obama signaled that the review — which National Security Advisor Susan Rice said last week would focus on "how we can support and be more responsive to the needs of the families" — will not include a re-evaluation of that principle.

"Just as a general rule, what we don't want to do is make other American citizens riper targets for the actions of organizations like this," Obama said in response to a question about the panel.

View Video ›

Facebook: video.php

“Him insulting the presidency and siding with the Republicans and coming in to give that talk to a joint session, I think it smacks of politics.”

w.soundcloud.com

Progressive Caucus co-chairman Rep. Raul Grijalva Monday called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's planned address to a joint session of Congress an "insult."

The Democrat from Arizona has previously said he will not attend the speech.

"Him insulting the presidency and siding with the Republicans and coming in to give that talk to a joint session, I think it smacks of politics," Grijalva said on Sirius XM's The Agena in a radio interview. "It smacks of convenience, his election is a week away in Israel. And I for one am not going to contribute to that insult. There's a protocol and Mr. Boehner is not in charge of foreign policy for this nation. The president is in charge of that and whether you like Obama or not, that's the process."

Grijalva said "it's up to every individual" to decide if they wanted to attend the speech.

"You've had colleagues like John Lewis, Mr. Conyers...I've heard of other names but I don't want to use them because, uh, at least those two are public say, 'I'm not attending.' And I that's an individual choice each member should make."

"Personally, I'm not attending, for myself, and that's not a Progressive Caucus position or are we whipping them to do that," he added. "I think each member has to. I've felt the prime minister's intrusion into 2012, in practically endorsing Romney in that election was again an interference in the internal politics of a nation."

The congressman cited the protocol followed by the Pope to set up an address to Congress later this year as evidence Netanyhu was breaking protocol by speaking to Congress without the president's approval.

"If it's good enough for the pope it should be good enough for the prime minister."

Photograph by Jon Premosch for BuzzFeed News

WASHINGTON — President Obama Tuesday welcomed the Supreme Court's signals that marriage equality is on the verge of becoming the law of the land, adding that he expected local Alabama officials resisting the shift to be swept aside by federal courts.

The Supreme Court Monday morning refused to put on hold a federal court ruling striking down Alabama’s ban on same-sex couples’ marriages while the ruling is appealed, with Justice Clarence Thomas making clear in a dissent that the court’s action would be seen as a sign the court will soon rule that the Constitution requires equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.

“My sense is that the Supreme Court is about to make a shift, one that I welcome, which is to recognize that — having hit a critical mass of states that have recognized same-sex marriage — it doesn't make sense for us to now have this patchwork system,” Obama said in an interview with BuzzFeed News. “It's time to recognize that under the equal protection clause of the United States [Constitution], same-sex couples should have the same rights as anybody else.”

Obama's comments came on the second day in which same-sex couples were marrying in Alabama, the 38th state to allow same-sex couples to marry.

While Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore has resisted the U.S. Supreme Court’s direction — going so far as to order probate judges on Feb. 8 not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — several judges began issuing licenses anyway Monday morning. Moore’s order, and several probate judges’ own views of the law or marriage, have kept more than half of the counties from issuing licenses, but same-sex couples are marrying in three of the state's four biggest counties — Jefferson, Madison, and Montgomery Counties. The fourth, Mobile County, is the subject of a Thursday hearing before the federal judge who has already ruled that the marriage ban is unconstitutional.

And while Moore doubled down Tuesday, telling Bloomberg Politics he would go to jail over the issue, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley distanced himself from Moore, telling the Associated Press that he is "trying to move this state forward" and "do[esn't] want Alabama to be seen as it was 50 years ago when a federal law was defied."

In the interview, Obama said comparisons to Alabama’s civil rights past — Gov. George Wallace infamously blocked the door of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama on June 11, 1963 — aren’t exact, but that the same legal principle is involved.

“I won't say it's a perfect analogy, but there's a core principle here that's at stake, which is we have a supremacy clause in our Constitution,” Obama said in response to a question about Wallace. “When federal law is in conflict with state law, federal law wins out.”

Obama also dismissed Moore’s attempts to foil the various federal courts’ moves, invoking Moore’s last high-profile clash with federal law over his efforts to bring a religious monument into the state supreme court building. That dispute ended with his removal from the bench.

“My recollection is that Judge Moore had a similar problem with a federal court ruling that you couldn't put a huge Ten Commandments statue in the middle of your courthouse and, ultimately, federal law was obeyed, and I think that the same thing will end up happening here,” Obama said. “I think that the courts at the federal level will have something to say to him.”

View Video ›

Facebook: video.php

Eight senior staffers at the New Organizing Institute resigned after calling for the firing of President Obama’s 2012 data director. They took much of the rest of the staff with them.

Executive Director of the New Organizing Institute (NOI) Ethan Roeder (left.)

NGP VAN / Via youtube.com

WASHINGTON — The New Organizing Institute, a progressive grassroots outfit responsible for training many of the Democratic party's digital organizers, has to be rebuilt from the ground up after a mass exodus of senior staff and employees Tuesday.

Frustrations over fundraising and the management style of Executive Director Ethan Roeder, the former top data guru for President Obama's presidential campaigns, led senior staffers to quit and several employees to follow them out the door after the nonprofit's board of directors refused to fire Roeder at the staff's request. Staff who left said that layoffs followed the mass resignation, but the board denies that.

Late Tuesday night it was unclear how many paid employees remain of the 20 or so staff at NOI, and most of the senior team left for good. It's a potentially crushing blow for the lefty group best known for its well-attended annual RootsCamp "unconference" that has become a focal point for progressive politics. Rootscamp often features speeches by top progressives, including a 2103 speech by Elizabeth Warren.

In an interview, NOI co-founder and board chair Judith Freeman said NOI will go on and promised new fundraising streams to dwindling coffers.

The events that would eventually lead to the mass exodus began Monday, when senior members of the leadership team gave the board an ultimatum in the form of a memo, according to multiple sources: either Roeder went, or they would. Staff expressed frustration about money woes that have mounted since August, when fundraising streams began to dry up.

That memo led to a chaotic Tuesday. Stories differ as to what exactly happened. Freeman said eight staffers signed the memo, and they were dismissed by the board. A staff source said seven signed the memo, seven more were "let go" and three resigned in protest. Multiple staff said resigning and dismissed staffers were told to turn in their equipment and leave the building immediately, leading to a sense of "shock" within the small progressive outfit.

One source said the tumult left NOI with four full time staffers, including Roeder. Freeman declined to name the number of employees left at NOI.

The board chair expressed confidence in Roeder and frustration in the staff that turned on him.

"They sent us a memo on Monday at six o'clock. And they had not reached out to us before. It's always a board's responsibility to oversee hire and fire and the executive director," Freeman said. "We took [the memo] seriously, but ultimately we feel confident in Ethan's leadership and it's very unfortunate that they proposed this as the only path forward."

Most former employees contacted by BuzzFeed News declined to comment on the record. Roeder and other board members directed requests for comment to Freeman. But in the tight-knit and relatively small world of progressive digital organizing, recriminations and accusations flowed quickly.

In an email to friends shared with BuzzFeed News by a recipient, NOI digital director Eric Ming accused the NOI leadership of endangering organization by sticking with Roeder.

"Decisions have been made that I and others believe to be harmful to this organization in both the present situation and the future. This is both in mission and fiscal future. NOI risks failing in our mission -- and failing the movement and community we serve," he wrote. "As a result of those decisions and leadership's unwillingness to change course, I -- along with a group of my colleagues -- have made the difficult choice to leave NOI."

Ming wrote that he was "heartbroken" by the day's events. Asked for further comment, Ming told BuzzFeed News in an email, "I think my email is where I'm at right now."

Shannon Turner, a software developer at NOI, wrote on her blog that she resigned after the senior staff left. She also called the decision "heartbreaking."

"I resigned because I no longer believe that NOI remains true to its values or mission," she wrote.

One person with knowledge of the fight that led staff to call for Roeder's ouster said staff were afraid he was running the group into the ground.

"A vast majority of people on staff had concerns about legal, financial, and staff mismanagement on the part of our executive director," the source said. Staff "were fired, one after another, over the course of the rest of the afternoon," after the senior team was dismissed, the source said. Freeman disputed the story that staff had been fired after the resignations.

In an age where money seems to no longer be an object in Democratic politics, NOI has struggled to keep its head above water. Former employees, partners, and progressive observers of NOI said it was well known that the institute was running out of money, in part due to a drying up of institutional donors and in part due to what one person said was a shift away from digital grassroots organizing as the "hot, new thing" in Democratic politics.

Freeman acknowledged the financial crunch but said new funding streams are coming online that will keep NOI afloat. She said new hires are already in the works, and that a plan to move forward will come as soon as next week.

Progressive groups and Democratic political campaigns have relied on NOI to provide basic training for dozens of operatives spread across the political landscape. On Tuesday night, they hoped Freeman's prediction that NOI could survive the week's turmoil would turn out to be the truth.

"NOI is an essential part of the progressive infrastructure and regardless of who is at the helm of this organization - if there wasn't an NOI we'd have to invent one," said Neil Sroka, top aide at Democracy for America, the progressive group formed from Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign. "NOI is a relative new young progressive startup. Every organization goes through growing pains."

Ruby Cramer contributed reporting.

The Obama administration sent Congress their draft AUMF Wednesday morning.

U.S. President Barack Obama walks towards Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House

Larry Downing / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration sent lawmakers their draft authorization for the use of military force against ISIS on Wednesday morning.

The debate over the AUMF will likely take months. Lawmakers from both parties told BuzzFeed News on Tuesday they'd need to see significant changes to the draft before approving it.

In a letter, President Obama said "existing statutes" are in place for the U.S to fight ISIS but he would like bipartisan approval that "would authorize
the continued use of military force to degrade and defeat ISIL."

The draft AUMF from the Obama administration:

“Very few that I talked to Craig trust this guy, our commander-in-chief, to prosecute a war in an appropriate fashion.”

Via Facebook: TXRandy14

Republican Rep. Randy Weber of Texas said Monday he doesn't know if President Obama has "got America's back." Weber expressed the sentiment in an interview with Family Research Council's Washington Watch radio program.

"I was at an Israeli function, uh, AIPAC function couple weekends ago," said Weber. "One of friend's there said, 'Congressman Weber, we're not sure the president has Israeli's back.' And I looked at him dead center Craig and said, 'friend, we're not sure he's got America's back.'"

The Texas lawmaker added earlier that "very few" people he talked to in Congress trusted President Obama to wage the war on the Islamic State in a proper way.

"Very few that I talked to Craig trust this guy, our commander-in-chief, to prosecute a war in an appropriate fashion. You know when you have someone that says that we are not at war with Islamic fanaticism and he wants to somehow justify that by dredging up things that are back in 1100, lets just say for example the crusades 1000, 1100."

w.soundcloud.com

Weber went further saying he "doesn't trust" President Obama to wage the war, which would complicate fighting the Islamic State.

"So we don't trust him to prosecute the war. Now we don't want to seem to be anti you know, anti—not to be in favor of fighting terrorism. We understand that this is a cancer that has got to be cut out and so we have to be very diligent about how we do this but again realizing that the president apparently thinks he is the smartest man in the world. He doesn't have to listen to his generals. He knows better than them? And so really it puts us in a quandary because really we want to go after this cancer and cut it out but then we remember who the commander-in-chief is."

Weber is best-know for tweeting that he was upset about President Obama not attending the Paris anti-terrorism march, using a strange analogy to Hitler invading France to make his point. He previously called President Obama the "Kommandant-In-Chef" in a tweet about the State of the Union last year. He misspelled chief as "chef"

View Entire List ›

“The country will be perfectly safe if we stop incessantly feeding the military industrial complex and military contractors with the billions upon billions in profits that they take out of taxpayers pockets each year…”

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida said Tuesday Democrats get accused of the "blood libel" of not supporting the troops if they don't cater to the military industrial complex.

"Well the president has fallen into this trap that many Democrats have fallen into where, uh, the president is afraid that if he doesn't cater to the military industrial complex and in particular the spying industrial complex -- which is taking a bigger and bigger part of our budget recently...the so-called black budget, the part that people aren't even allowed to see -- if he doesn't cater to them then he will be attacked as weak on defense, as supposedly leaving our country defenseless, and not supporting the troops -- which is this blood libel that gets casts to Democrats over and over again," Grayson said on SiriusXM's The Agenda Tuesday.

Grayson also said it is "unfortunate" that many have fallen into believing large military spending is inevitable.

"And it's unfortunate that so many of us have fallen for that trick and they succumb to the idea that it's all inevitable so you might as well go along for the ride. It's a mistake, the country will be perfectly safe if we stop incessantly feeding the military industrial complex and military contractors with the billions and billions in profits that they take out of taxpayers pockets each year...at the expense of our health, and our education, and our transportation, and our jobs."

Here's the audio of the radio interview:

w.soundcloud.com

The Smarter Sentencing Act is being reintroduced by a bipartisan coalition of conservative and liberal senators. Update: A White House official said the Obama administration “applauds” the effort.

Getty Images Andrew Burton

WASHINGTON — The White House and prominent Democratic senators have once again joined forces with the most prominent names in the Republican Party's libertarian wing to try and sell the law-and-order GOP on a bill that would reduce the mandatory-minimum sentences of nonviolent offenders currently serving time in federal prison.

On Wednesday, a bipartisan group of senators led by Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin and Utah Republican Mike Lee announced the reintroduction of the Smarter Sentencing Act, a bill that failed to move despite bipartisan support in the last Congress.

The White House, which has been a prominent supporter of reexamining the mandatory minimum sentences mostly created at the height of the drug war, praised the new effort.

"We applaud Sens. Lee and Durbin for their bipartisan work to move forward with criminal justice reform this year, as the president called on Congress to do in his State of the Union address," a White House official told BuzzFeed News in an email.

The official said the White House has yet to review the new Smarter Sentencing Act language, but that the administration has "every expectation" the new bill will mirror the old, which the official said the president "strongly supported" last year.

The bill would allow federal prisoners currently serving mandatory minimums, which largely affect drug offenses, to have their sentences reviewed by a judge and possibly reduced, in some cases dramatically.

Libertarian Republicans and liberal Democrats have joined forces to push back against mandatory minimums. Liberals most often support the change for social justice reasons, while conservatives have had great success pushing red state legislatures to reduce their prison populations by making the financial argument that fewer nonviolent offenders behind bars saves taxpayer money.

Democratic Sens. Durbin, Chris Coons of Delaware, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and Cory Booker of New Jersey are joining with Republican Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lee, and Ted Cruz of Texas in sponsoring the Smarter Sentencing Act, reflecting the unlikely political alliances that have formed over criminal justice in recent years.

But while liberals have, for the most part, been able to rally Democrats in Washington to their cause, libertarians have had a hard time getting law-and-order Republicans in D.C. with careers forged in the tough-on-crime years of the 1980s to get on board.

At the state level, these libertarian-minded conservatives have led a successful nationwide push to have sentencing laws reviewed and sentences reduced, starting in some of the reddest states like Texas. There's a hope among some conservatives that success will trickle up and influence Republicans at the national level still skeptical of reviewing drug sentencing, fearing that reduced penalties will bring back the high crime rates of the past. Newt Gingrich, who recently signed on with criminal justice advocacy effort led by former White House official Van Jones, told BuzzFeed News at a Washington event last month that Republican governors from red states that have made sweeping changes to their criminal justice systems will influence the D.C. GOP.

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa now chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee following the Republican takeover of the Senate. He expressed skepticism at changing mandatory minimum sentences just days after the election, a move that has mandatory minimum opponents in the activist community privately wary of the Smarter Sentencing Act's chances in the new Congress.

Molly Gill, government affairs counsel at Families Against Mandatory Minimums, told BuzzFeed News the reintroduction of the Smarter Sentencing Act should lead skeptics like Grassley to follow in the footsteps of his Republican colleagues who found a "win-win" situation in this issue.

"This is yet another sign that there is unprecedented bipartisan support and momentum for sentencing reform. Members of Congress are excited about working together on this because it's one of those rare win-win issues for both parties," she wrote in an email. "It's an un-missable opportunity to do something that would be good for Congress, for bipartisanship, and for taxpayers, the Justice Department, families, and communities."

This post was updated with comment from the White House.

“He filled out his ballot, it was handed off to the postal service, but we don’t know what happened to his ballot after that.”

Delaware County Board of Elections

Republican Gov. John Kasich of Ohio didn't vote in the 2008 presidential election, an open records request shows. Kasich's office told BuzzFeed News his ballot disappeared after it was given to the postal service.

"He had typically voted absentee and did so again in 2008," a spokesman said. "He filled out his ballot, it was handed off to the postal service, but we don't know what happened to his ballot after that."

BuzzFeed News submitted an open records request for his voting records with the Delaware County Board of Elections, where Kasich lived. The records show his wife, Karen, did vote in the 2008 election.

Here's the file:

Delaware County Board of Elections

Delaware County Board of Elections

View Entire List ›

The donors and fundraisers tell BuzzFeed News Hillary Clinton must set up a real and meaningful operation to reach Latino voters. Other wishes? A Latino vice presidential nominee.

Andrés W. López, a lawyer from Puerto Rico and Henry Muñoz, DNC Finance Chair, helped raise $32 million for President Obama in 2012.

Ricardo Pérez

A network of top Latino Democratic donors is warning early that Hillary Clinton must correct one of the big mistakes Democrats made in 2014: taking Latino voter turnout for granted.

Unlike the highly competitive Republican landscape, Clinton is expected to be the Democratic nominee — the question for Democratic donors then is less whether they'll support her, and instead, with how much money and what their priorities are. And when it comes to the growing base of Latino donors looking to make their mark, the answer is incorporating Latinos into a campaign in a real way, from the vice presidential selection to the on-the-ground outreach to voters.

"Hillary just needs to look at Colorado and Florida," said Andrés W. López, a lawyer from Puerto Rico and national co-chair of the Futuro Fund, referencing the losses of Charlie Crist and former Sen. Mark Udall. "They're prime examples of how you don't succeed. It's essentially squandering opportunity and neglecting the Latino community, doing the same basic things you did before, which is an endless source of frustration for us."

The Futuro Fund was one of the major Democratic fundraising success stories of 2012; led prominently by Eva Longoria and Henry Muñoz, the group raised $32 million for Barack Obama's reelection effort. López, one of the first major Latino donors to join Obama in 2007, individually raised millions which was folded into the Futuro Fund. That effort then begat the Latino Victory Project, a fundraising effort to increase Latino candidates in politics. (The group says they are nonpartisan and are looking for Republicans, but have only supported Democrats.) Muñoz, meanwhile, became the DNC's finance chairman.

The mistakes of last year for Democrats are clear, the donors say, and there were plenty of missed opportunities.

Ralph Patino, a Latino Victory Project board member from Miami, met then-Senator Obama in 2007 at a Marriott in Orlando. Enthralled by Obama, he immediately cut a $35,000 check. He later found out that donation put him in the top 1% of Latino donors in the country. In 2012, he bundled $1 million at his home one night for Obama.

Having worked closely with the Crist campaign, Patino said its inadequate Hispanic voter operation is a reason they lost a race that was decided by a razor-thin 60,000 votes.

"Charlie is a good friend," Patino told BuzzFeed News. "I told them we need to concentrate on the I-4 corridor, from the east to the west, from Orlando all the way across to Tampa. Let's get Eva Longoria involved, let's have rallies. Let's connect to Latinos."

He says the mistake was a common one: having a Latino outreach "appendage" rather than making it a fundamental part of the campaign.

"The guy they put in as the Latino outreach director was very lightweight, extremely lightweight," he said. "You have to have, from the ground up, a Latino organization within your election committee."

Sources close to the Latino Victory Project said that as the organization lays out its plans looking ahead to 2016, one major priority has emerged: pushing for a Latino vice presidential nominee.

The president of the Latino Victory Project, Cristóbal Alex, declined to comment.

Julián Castro, the former San Antonio mayor who Obama picked as his current Housing and Urban Development Secretary, is the one most often mentioned as someone Clinton might look at for the position after his keynote speech at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. It was Muñoz who pushed for Castro — whom he called the "future of the Democratic Party, the future of this country" — to give the speech.

But top Latino donors say it's about more than pushing Clinton to choose a Latino running mate.

"You want to always keep your eye on what will essentially be the most high-profile position in the land," López said. "My concern is sometimes we lose sight of the larger issue. We should spend time building a robust pipeline of people for other positions."

He said many like former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who have real power to effect change in the country, joined Obama's administration after spending time in Bill Clinton's administration.

Frank Sánchez, who served in the Clinton and Obama administrations, and bundled $500,000 in 2008 but did not fundraise in 2012 because he was part of the administration, said a Latino running mate would be great but it's not something he's personally pushing for.

"My sense is that if your interest is in having someone win, you don't impose those kinds of demands," he said. "We should give her latitude to pick who makes the most sense for the country and the ticket. Latino candidates should be in the mix though, a few should be on any shortlist."

The donors BuzzFeed News spoke with all echoed López in insisting that Clinton needs to have Latinos on staff, in her inner circle — and were she to win — in appointments and cabinet positions.

"It can't be one of these situations we've seen time and time again where everything is a general market strategy until some genius inside the war room figures out they should reach out to Latino voters and everybody is scurrying to translate haphazardly," said media strategist Freddy Balsera, an early Obama supporter and 2012 bundler who raised $500,000. "It has to be part of the conversation from day one."

Balsera was named in a December New York Times report after the Obama administration overturned a ban on a politically-connected Ecuadorian national entering the country. Her family donated to Democratic campaigns and Balsera employed her and sponsored her visa. The ban was overturned by the State Department, which was under Clinton at the time.

Manuel Sanchez, a Chicago lawyer, who helped raise $8 million for Obama in 2008 and was part of the Futuro Fund in 2012, said he was at the National Council of La Raza event in Obama's first term when he promised to focus on "immigration reform in his first 100 days." Despite Obama's executive actions to protect millions from deportation, he said Clinton can't make the same mistake of not making an immigration overhaul a priority.

"People don't forget that," he said.

"She needs to continue to push for some action on immigration, to say that it's been a disappointment is a gross understatement," Frank Sánchez added.

Balsera said "for a lot of Hispanics the immigration debate is about how accepting you are of this new community."

The donors didn't stop there, imagining a suite of positions Clinton could take along with immigration, including support for Obama's move to normalize relations with Cuba and Puerto Rican statehood, an issue close to the heart of López, who is from the island and frames it as "equality" for Puerto Ricans, which to him, means citizenship.

"I don't want to live in a place where an American can raise millions of dollars and can't vote," he said, noting that the 2020 Census may surprise many who think they know Florida's demographics.

"People are going to be in shock in about four years when it turns out Puerto Ricans outnumber Cubans in Florida," he said.

Gone are the days of 2004, Frank Sánchez says, when John Kerry and George W. Bush combined to spend only around $7 million on outreach to Hispanic voters.

"In 2008, Obama spent $22 million by himself," he said.

And López pointed to the big Clinton-world news this week, when infighting between Priorities USA and other pro-Clinton groups broke out in the public eye.

"There are no top-level Latino names. That's what we notice, not what everyone else is noticing," he said. "For the newer folks among us, it's about how do you change this? It's about getting inside the room with them and saying, 'What are you doing to reach Latinos?' That's the adult conversation that needs to happen with Hillary's folks, and it can't just be all white guys."

Manuel Sanchez broke down the importance of real-live Latinos having Clinton's ear.

"At minimum they bring the issue to the fore," he said, "it doesn't mean its going to carry the day but if you don't have the person in the room with the decision makers, in a tight inner circle, then it's very likely the issue will be ignored."

Mobile County is the largest county in Alabama that is not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. [Update: Mobile County is complying with the order.]

WASHINGTON — The federal judge who earlier struck down Alabama's ban on same-sex couples' marriages on Thursday extended her order to Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis, who has refused to marry same-sex couples in the county.

U.S. District Court Judge Callie Granade, who held a hearing on the matter Thursday afternoon, issued the order a few hours later.

"Probate Judge Don Davis is hereby ENJOINED from refusing to issue marriage licenses to plaintiffs due to the Alabama laws which prohibit same-sex marriage," Granade wrote.

In introducing the declaration that the marriage amendment and statute barring same-sex couples' marriages are unconstitutional, Granade noted that the court was "once again" making the declaration.

"If Plaintiffs take all steps that are required in the normal course of business as a prerequisite to issuing a marriage license to opposite-sex couples, Judge Davis may not deny them a license on the ground that Plaintiffs constitute same-sex couples or because it is prohibited by the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act or by any other Alabama law or Order pertaining to same-sex marriage," Granade wrote.

Mobile County was the only of the four largest counties in the state not to begin issuing licenses to same-sex couples after Granade's initial orders went into effect on Monday morning, Feb. 9.

Read the order:

The White House didn’t ask for the 2001 law to be ended. And there’s little support among Republicans to do so.

U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN)

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The 2001 law that the Obama administration is already using to justify military operations against in Iraq and Syria is unlikely to be repealed or even drastically changed, even as Congress debates a new authorization of force against ISIS.

Congress will now begin a potentially months-long debate over a White House proposal for authorizing the military operation — which did not include an end to the 2001 AUMF.

The White House is currently relying on that 2001 legislation to justify their now months long fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The White House proposal did call for a a repeal of the 2002 Iraq AUMF.

In a letter to Congress, Obama said he remained committed "to refine, and ultimately repeal, the 2001 AUMF" and the ISIS AUMF could serve as a model for that refinement — but at some point later down the road.

To make it more unlikely that Congress would revisit the issue Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee Bob Corker was non-committal about addressing it.

"I know there are people who wish to do that but I'm sure that during the process of the hearings there will be all kinds of things that are brought up," Corker said. "We're going to have a process, I think it's going to be a good process, let's let it work it's way through and then we see what we are."

Asked specifically if he felt the 2001 authorization should be revisited Corker said that "because of my role in all of this, I plan to conduct the hearings first."

But in the absence of repeal, Democrats are concerned that the administration could and would fall back on the 2001 law, should they believe a new AUMF be too limiting.

"It leaves in place indefinitely the blank check authority granted to the Executive in the 2001 AUMF. It makes little sense to place reasonable boundaries on the Executive's war powers against ISIL while leaving them unchecked elsewhere," Rep. Chris Van Hollen said in a statement.

Likewise, Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine told BuzzFeed News that he was concerned the administration could easily go back to using the 2001 AUMF if it remains on the books for too long. Kaine, who is one of the most vocal Democrats on the issue of war authorization, was open to supporting a new AUMF without the 2001 repeal as long as there was a "sense of urgency" to address it.

"I don't demand it be part of this [ISIS] AUMF but I do think it's important and the president has said on a number of occasions we have to take these steps. He really needs to engage with us on it, and it needs to get done before he leaves office," Kaine told BuzzFeed News. "He has often said he wants to do it, but he hasn't yet really pushed it so we have to start being serious about this."

But Republicans control both chambers of Congress now, and there seems to be little appetite among them for any kind of major restructuring of the 2001 AUMF.

"To eliminate it would need very careful review of the ramifications of that and I doubt Congress is willing to do unless they have confidence that a new resolution encompasses all that needs to be included," said Sen. Jeff Sessions.

Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican and likely 2016 presidential candidate, took it a step further calling the 2001 AUMF "the cornerstone of the war on terror" and was adamantly against changing or repealing it.

"It's critical," he said. "The enemy combatants held in Guantanamo are dependent on that, our continued operations against terrorists and the threat they pose around the world are as well."

“One of his many liberal fantasies he fulfilling in his last two years,” says King.

w.soundcloud.com

Republican Rep. Peter King of New York says that President Obama is using the remaining to years of his presidency to fulfill liberal fantasies, including finally "getting back at Israel" for not "accepting" what he called his "apology" tour to Arab countries at the beginning of his 2008 term.

"I think he has two years to go and he's right now fulfilling all of his liberal fantasies," King told AM970's John Grambling Show. "And whether is was closing Guantanamo, talking about global warming, implying that those of us who are concerned about terrorism are exaggerating for some partisan purpose, whether he can finally get back at Israel for the fact that they never accepted his apology tour to Iran and the Arab countries back in 2009. He's doing it. And he's basically saying 'to hell with everybody else.'"

The White House and Democrats have contended that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's upcoming speech to Congress is a violation of protocol which will politicize Israeli-American relations. House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to address Congress without first informing the White House or Democrats.

King likewise took aim at a claim from President Obama said during a interview with Vox in which described climate change as a greater threat than terrorism.

"To say that that is front center that that's more important than people being beheaded or burned to death. I mean, how can the president say if you look at what happened at 9/11, to say that potential danger from global warming is more important than saving the lives of those 3000 people that died on 9/11 and God knows how many more have been killed since. How many more can be killed. How devastating this is."