There is an interesting case out of Australia that will confirm the concerns of many parents over food for young children. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) brought a legal action against Heinz in June after reviewing a complaint by the Obesity Policy Coalition about the sugar content of the food. The Commission determined that the level of added sugar would qualify the food — which is sold as a “natural” and healthy choice — as a confectionary item like junk food. The focus is a product line called “Little Kids Shredz.”
Another controversy over free speech was triggered this week on social media by an academic expressing hateful views. Various people have called for San Diego State University Political Science Professor Jonathan Graubart to be fired after denouncing those wishing Sen. John McCain best wishes for his recovery. Graubart called McCain a “war criminal” and said that he was “annoyed” by all of the expressions of sympathy for his dire cancer prognosis. Others at the school supported and shared his views.
Below is column in USA Today on the widening number of ethical issues generated during the Trump Administration. I have been critical of some of the practices of the Trump Administration from nepotism to retroactive waivers to failures to divest. However, there should be equal concern and attention over some of the actions of Trump critics. It seems that the rising political passions are blinded both sides to core ethical principles and considerations.
Here is the column.
Baxley, Georgia was the scene of a deeply disturbing confrontation between two customers and a restaurant owner. Qwik Chik owner Jeanette Norris is shown being repeatedly punched by a woman whose male companion then slugged her teenage daughter. The suspects were identified by police as Nathaniel and Latasha Smith (right).
This weekend my column on the Trump pardon controversy ran in the Washington Post. (Notably, while the first title referenced a President pardoning himself, the later title referenced pardoning aides which was the thrust of the column). As I have stated in the press, I consider this one of the most difficult questions in the Constitution. I wrote that there is nothing in the Constitution that says that a president cannot self-pardon and that this was a very close and unresolved question. The same day, a column ran that said conclusively that the self-pardon are clearly and textually barred by the Constitution. That column was written by Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe, Minnesota Professor Richard Painter, and Brookings Institution fellow Norman Eisen. I must respectfully disagree despite my respect for the prior work of all three of these men. While I believe that it would have been better for the Framers to expressly bar self-pardons, they did not do so. What is left is a difficult interpretive question that is not answered by the arguments made in the column. Indeed, some of the arguments are challengeable on either a historical or legal basis. This is an issue that could easily go either way in the courts. In the meantime, President Trump this morning fueled greater speculation with a tweet referring to his “complete power to pardon.”
For an Administration that has long complained about the effort of “the deep state” to undermine President Trump, the most recent leak detailed in the Washington Post will confirm an openly hostile intent by people within the intelligence community. The Post published accounts of how Russia’s ambassador to Washington Sergey Kislyak told his superiors in Moscow that he discussed campaign-related matters with then Sen. Jeff Sessions during the 2016 presidential race. If true, the account would conflict with Sessions earlier denials.