Rumors are circulating that Republican Senators may organize two filibusters.
The first is a relatively straight forward one by Mitch McConnell from Kentucky. He believes that the Democratic leadership is going to introduce legislation cutting funding for the war and will organize a filibuster against it. In order for it succeed he needs the support of at least 40 Senators in order to prevent cloture.
The second is more interesting, at least the way I've heard it described. John McCain is threatening to filibuster minimum wage legislation. According to this story the goal is to cement his appeal to Republican Party activists. A separate story suggests that this is merely meant to delay activity on the Senate floor so that the non-binding resolutions now being introduced cannot make it to the floor for a vote.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
War Powers Continued...
One of benefits of a committee hearing is the testimony itself. Currently the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding hearings titled "Exercising Congress’s Constitutional Power to End a War," and its about just that. What are the Senate's constitutional powers to end the war in Iraq?
The White House argues that once a war resolution authorizing the use of force is passed, the president's constitutional power of commander in chief allows him to implement it in whatever manner he deems appropriate. But as outlined below, the Constitution gives Congress powers which seem on the surface to provide them opportunities to limit the president. Where does one start and the other begin. Our vague Constitution gives no specific guideline to determine this.
The hearings feature testimony by a variety of constitutional scholars who offer their thoughts. As I go through them I'll do my best to outline their arguments.
The White House argues that once a war resolution authorizing the use of force is passed, the president's constitutional power of commander in chief allows him to implement it in whatever manner he deems appropriate. But as outlined below, the Constitution gives Congress powers which seem on the surface to provide them opportunities to limit the president. Where does one start and the other begin. Our vague Constitution gives no specific guideline to determine this.
The hearings feature testimony by a variety of constitutional scholars who offer their thoughts. As I go through them I'll do my best to outline their arguments.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Frank Luntz
This link takes you to a critical appraisal of Frank Luntz--who has announced that he is leaving Washington following the Republican defeat of 2006, but he's a worthwhile person to come to understand if you want to know why politicians use the language they do.
2301 students should consider how words can frame issues and manipulate thought, 2302 students should consider how these efforts can assist Congressional agendas and elections.
You may also want to learn about his Democratic counterpart George Lakoff.
Both raise a disturbing question--are we in charge of our thought?
2301 students should consider how words can frame issues and manipulate thought, 2302 students should consider how these efforts can assist Congressional agendas and elections.
You may also want to learn about his Democratic counterpart George Lakoff.
Both raise a disturbing question--are we in charge of our thought?
Mike O'Day
ACC has a new rep in the Texas House. Mike O'Day won a special election to replace Glenda Dawson. We will be following his first session in Austin. Hopefully he'll grace us with a update now and then.
He has yet to receive a committee appointment and the only bill he has introduced is one "Honoring Renee McGuire of Pearland on being named Philanthropist of the Year by the Community Foundation of Brazoria County."
We'll keep up with him.
He has yet to receive a committee appointment and the only bill he has introduced is one "Honoring Renee McGuire of Pearland on being named Philanthropist of the Year by the Community Foundation of Brazoria County."
We'll keep up with him.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Robert Moses
Today's New York Times contains a story documenting the changing reputation of a man who used to head the city's parks commission from 1934-1960. His name was Robert Moses and though he was never elected to an office, he is more responsible for the current face of New York City than anyone else in recent history.
Because this involved the forced removal of thousand of citizens and the destruction of many old and established communities, assessments of his impact have been negative the past few decades. A book called The Power Broker was responsible for shaping the way that he has been judged, but now a handful of museum exhibits are raising the questiosn that without hos efforts to streamline transportation, create public parks and expand infrastructure, if New York City would not be going through its current boom.
This raises issues appropriate to both 2301 and 2302. One cannot argue that he made decisions in a democratic process, but it seems that much of what he did worked to the long term benefit of the people of NYC. He did so by consolidating his influence over the various political players in the region and imposing solutions to problems.
Democracies may be legitimate, but they can be indecisive.
It also reminds us that at root, cities are economic engines and decision making within them often serves that purpose primarily.
Because this involved the forced removal of thousand of citizens and the destruction of many old and established communities, assessments of his impact have been negative the past few decades. A book called The Power Broker was responsible for shaping the way that he has been judged, but now a handful of museum exhibits are raising the questiosn that without hos efforts to streamline transportation, create public parks and expand infrastructure, if New York City would not be going through its current boom.
This raises issues appropriate to both 2301 and 2302. One cannot argue that he made decisions in a democratic process, but it seems that much of what he did worked to the long term benefit of the people of NYC. He did so by consolidating his influence over the various political players in the region and imposing solutions to problems.
Democracies may be legitimate, but they can be indecisive.
It also reminds us that at root, cities are economic engines and decision making within them often serves that purpose primarily.
100 Hours
Since the Democrats first did it in 1933 following the landslide election of 1932, new majorities in Congress like to hit the ground running by passing a slew of laws very quickly. This is what brought us the first wave of the New Deal, or at least the part that would later be ruled unconstitutional. The Newt Gingrich led Republicans did it with the Contract with America in 1994.
In fact Lyndon Johnson, whose success was based on the quick introduction of the legislation that would become the Great Society, was said to have noted that a president's only chance at success was in the legislation he was able to pass in the first months of his presidency.
There is no way of knowing whether the first 100 hours of the Democratic majority in Congress will have historical merit, but it seems to have been an interesting ride.
In order to distinguish themselves from the previous--relatively inactive--Congress, the Democratic leadership promised to pass a slew of bills in the first 100 working hours, which seems to have worked out to a couple weeks, though I have yet to see a chronology. The best place to get actual information about the bills themselves and the process they went through to become law is on the website of the House Clerk's Office. The first 57 roll calls are found here.
Aong the bills passed were acts raisoing the minimum wage, allowign funding for stem cell research, implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices, reductions in student loan interest rates, and energy policy. They also got around to congradulating the Grand Valley State University Lakers for winning the 2006 NCAA Division II Football National Championship.
2302 students will be interested in how these measures passed so quickly, and how muzzeling the minority was central to ensuring that this all happened in 100 hours. It is also worth notign that the Senate and the President's veto pen lie in waiting, so nothing's a done deal, though both the Senate and the President will need to have good relationships with the House to get done what they would like.
Both 2302 and 2301 should note how it's the House that is acting so quickly, not the Senate or President. Neither institution is designed to act so quickly, it is a consequence of constitutional design. The stew has come to a boil, now it will simmer in the Senate.
2301 students will also want to take note of the characteristics of the bills passed by a more liberal House. They focus on issues pertaining more to equity rather than individual freedom, and they steer clear of the "moral values" agenda of the Republicans. It might be interesting to compare the items passed by the Republicans of 1994 with those just now passed. How things change.
But now checks and balances take over. Let's see what survives.
In fact Lyndon Johnson, whose success was based on the quick introduction of the legislation that would become the Great Society, was said to have noted that a president's only chance at success was in the legislation he was able to pass in the first months of his presidency.
There is no way of knowing whether the first 100 hours of the Democratic majority in Congress will have historical merit, but it seems to have been an interesting ride.
In order to distinguish themselves from the previous--relatively inactive--Congress, the Democratic leadership promised to pass a slew of bills in the first 100 working hours, which seems to have worked out to a couple weeks, though I have yet to see a chronology. The best place to get actual information about the bills themselves and the process they went through to become law is on the website of the House Clerk's Office. The first 57 roll calls are found here.
Aong the bills passed were acts raisoing the minimum wage, allowign funding for stem cell research, implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices, reductions in student loan interest rates, and energy policy. They also got around to congradulating the Grand Valley State University Lakers for winning the 2006 NCAA Division II Football National Championship.
2302 students will be interested in how these measures passed so quickly, and how muzzeling the minority was central to ensuring that this all happened in 100 hours. It is also worth notign that the Senate and the President's veto pen lie in waiting, so nothing's a done deal, though both the Senate and the President will need to have good relationships with the House to get done what they would like.
Both 2302 and 2301 should note how it's the House that is acting so quickly, not the Senate or President. Neither institution is designed to act so quickly, it is a consequence of constitutional design. The stew has come to a boil, now it will simmer in the Senate.
2301 students will also want to take note of the characteristics of the bills passed by a more liberal House. They focus on issues pertaining more to equity rather than individual freedom, and they steer clear of the "moral values" agenda of the Republicans. It might be interesting to compare the items passed by the Republicans of 1994 with those just now passed. How things change.
But now checks and balances take over. Let's see what survives.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
First Amendment Controversy
Some of you have been assigned later in the semester to summarize a very problematic Supreme Court decision concerning whether we are free to look at images that depict children in sexual situation--but do not involve actual children. They are either adult actors portraying children or computer generated images of them.
Here is a recent controversy taking the issue one step further. An actual child actress is plays a character who is raped, and the depiction is apparently graphic (I haven't seen it so I don't know).
Does this cross the line? Or is the severity--and unfortunate actuality--of child sexual abuse worth depicting? Does it matter if an actual child is involved?
I need feedback.
Here is a recent controversy taking the issue one step further. An actual child actress is plays a character who is raped, and the depiction is apparently graphic (I haven't seen it so I don't know).
Does this cross the line? Or is the severity--and unfortunate actuality--of child sexual abuse worth depicting? Does it matter if an actual child is involved?
I need feedback.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
So sorry...
Rick Perry makes nice with the same Democrats he tried to redistrict out of office not so long ago. Control of Congress does make a difference. Texas lost a lot of juice when the Republicans lost the majority.
White House Meltdown?
Libby accuses the White House of wanting him to take a fall for Karl Rove.
Stay tuned, this is going to be a lot of fun.
Stay tuned, this is going to be a lot of fun.
Monday, January 22, 2007
ouch
OK, whoever passed that stomach virus along to me last week was not playing fair. It's been a while since I've spent three solid days in my house, but it was nice seeing the types of things on TV at 4am. I think I'm back on my feet.
Thanks to those who are posting to the site--keep it up.
I plan on adding a few things later tonight about the Democrat's agenda and Rick Perry's meeting with Texas Democrats in Congress, but in the meantime you might be interested in chewing on this bio of Sayyid Qutb, on of the original leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood which led to Osama and the rest. He spent two year living in Colorado and was apparently disturbed by American decadence, which included fixations on sports and lawn care. Now those are two things worth fighting for.
Thanks to those who are posting to the site--keep it up.
I plan on adding a few things later tonight about the Democrat's agenda and Rick Perry's meeting with Texas Democrats in Congress, but in the meantime you might be interested in chewing on this bio of Sayyid Qutb, on of the original leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood which led to Osama and the rest. He spent two year living in Colorado and was apparently disturbed by American decadence, which included fixations on sports and lawn care. Now those are two things worth fighting for.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The Senate Judiciary Committee v The Attorney General
An immediate consequence of the takeover of Congress by the Democrats is going on as I write this post. Attorney General Gonzales is being made to answer a variety of questions related to how the Justice Department has carried out the laws passed by Congress. The fireworks are going off in the Senate Judiciary Committee. but they are likely to continue elsewhere.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Just too cool...
This may be the single greatest web site I've every stumbled across. It's the FBI's Freedom of Information Act Reading Room. In it you'll find (edited, yes) dosiers of thousands of Americans that the FBI trailed over its history. So far I've looked through Andy Warhol, Frank Sinatra, Tupac Sakur, and Cardinal Spellman. Check out Michael Spilotro's file. He's the guy that Joe Pesci played in Casino, the one who gets wacked with his brother in a field in Indiana. It's a guilty pleasure I admit.
Intimidation?
A telling apology was published in today's Washington Post. It was written by the Deputy Assistance Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, a man named Cully Stimson, who was attempting to put out a fire he started several days before when he criticized lawyers that were representing the detainees in Guantanamo Bay. He went so far as to suggest that the clients of the law firms they worked for consider changing firms.
Assuming that we believe that the availability of good defense counsel is a cornerstone of the American legal system, what are we to make of Mr. Stimson's comments? Was he speaking off the cuff or was he made to float an idea in the press to see what the reaction would be? The latter is not an unusual tactic. Mr. Stimson is a low ranking official and can be sacrificed if need be.
The reaction does not seem to be very positive, which explains his apology. But for our purposes the more pertinent question is, what exactly did he do wrong? When an executive official "goes public" and attempts to lessen the independence of the justice system by threatening (or attempting to threaten) participants in the process, the line separating exective and judicial powers is blurred. A judiciary controlled by the executive cannot serve the function it is meant to within the system of checks and balances. A too-powerful executive is an almost certain result.
Of course the silver lining may be that this attempt failed, demonstrating that the executive lacks the ability to actually intimidate the judiciary. That's part of the game as well.
Assuming that we believe that the availability of good defense counsel is a cornerstone of the American legal system, what are we to make of Mr. Stimson's comments? Was he speaking off the cuff or was he made to float an idea in the press to see what the reaction would be? The latter is not an unusual tactic. Mr. Stimson is a low ranking official and can be sacrificed if need be.
The reaction does not seem to be very positive, which explains his apology. But for our purposes the more pertinent question is, what exactly did he do wrong? When an executive official "goes public" and attempts to lessen the independence of the justice system by threatening (or attempting to threaten) participants in the process, the line separating exective and judicial powers is blurred. A judiciary controlled by the executive cannot serve the function it is meant to within the system of checks and balances. A too-powerful executive is an almost certain result.
Of course the silver lining may be that this attempt failed, demonstrating that the executive lacks the ability to actually intimidate the judiciary. That's part of the game as well.
Judicial Oversight?
In what appears to be a victory for checks and balances, the New York Times is reporting that the Bush Administration will abide by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and allow an independent court to oversee it's eavesdropping program.
Would this have happened if the 2006 election came out differently?
Would this have happened if the 2006 election came out differently?
Monday, January 15, 2007
More On Procedure
I should mention the recent failed attempt (by a vote of 30-1) of newly elected Texas Senator, and radio personality, Dan Patrick to change a long standing tradition in the Senate of requiring a 2/3rds vote in order for a bill to be considered on the Senate floor.
The purpose is to ensure that a degree of consensus exists on Senate bills by requiring a super-majority. This empowers a minority to defeat bills it objects to. Patrick argues that this is anti-democratic, which it is. Proponents argue that this is how minority rights can be protected in a majoritarian system.
The purpose is to ensure that a degree of consensus exists on Senate bills by requiring a super-majority. This empowers a minority to defeat bills it objects to. Patrick argues that this is anti-democratic, which it is. Proponents argue that this is how minority rights can be protected in a majoritarian system.
More on War Powers
At least two items are worth noting about the president's appearance on 60 Minutes last night.
The first is relatively mundane--the administration is using a popular network show to influence public opinion. Interestingly, one that has been the source of criticism during the 2004 election. Almost certainly there was a strategic choice to use this forum rather than a precitable one such as Fox.
The second, once again, is the constitutional issue concerning the balance between legislative and executive powers, which the president obviously want tipped in his favor.
Here's the key exchange:
PELLEY: Do you believe as commander-in-chief you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do?
BUSH: In this situation, I do, yeah. Now, I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I made my decision, and we're going forward.
The allegation is that the bill authorizing the use of force that was passed by Congress four years ago is Expect this claim to be debated repeatedly in the coming days. It may very well end up in the courts, because members of Congress can point out that certain clauses within the Constitution give them military powers as well.
Here are those powers:
[Congress has the power...]
- To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
- To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
- To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
- To provide and maintain a Navy;
- To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
- To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
This should be fun...
The first is relatively mundane--the administration is using a popular network show to influence public opinion. Interestingly, one that has been the source of criticism during the 2004 election. Almost certainly there was a strategic choice to use this forum rather than a precitable one such as Fox.
The second, once again, is the constitutional issue concerning the balance between legislative and executive powers, which the president obviously want tipped in his favor.
Here's the key exchange:
PELLEY: Do you believe as commander-in-chief you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do?
BUSH: In this situation, I do, yeah. Now, I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I made my decision, and we're going forward.
The allegation is that the bill authorizing the use of force that was passed by Congress four years ago is Expect this claim to be debated repeatedly in the coming days. It may very well end up in the courts, because members of Congress can point out that certain clauses within the Constitution give them military powers as well.
Here are those powers:
[Congress has the power...]
- To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
- To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
- To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
- To provide and maintain a Navy;
- To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
- To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
This should be fun...
Sunday, January 14, 2007
The President as Military King
Just in case you though I was making this up. Here a link to the Anti-Federalist Paper #74: The President as Military King.
Here's a quote: "Who can deny but the president general will be a king to all intents and purposes, and one of the most dangerous kind too-a king elected to command a standing army. Thus our laws are to be administered by this tyrant; for the whole, or at least the most important part of the executive department is put in his hands."
The argument is a bit extreme perhaps, but the current concerns of excessive executive power have precedent and cannot be considered unpatriotic.
Here's a quote: "Who can deny but the president general will be a king to all intents and purposes, and one of the most dangerous kind too-a king elected to command a standing army. Thus our laws are to be administered by this tyrant; for the whole, or at least the most important part of the executive department is put in his hands."
The argument is a bit extreme perhaps, but the current concerns of excessive executive power have precedent and cannot be considered unpatriotic.
On Procedure...
Just in case you thought something as simple as the manner in which a vote takes place is not consequential, consider the aborted attempt to take down Tom Craddick, the once and still Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives.
Unlike the United States House of Representatives, which is strongly organized around party lines, the Texas House has rules which allows for firm control by a well placed individual. The key mechanism is the fact that (1) votes for the Speakership are public and (2) the Speaker gets to select who gets on what committees and who chairs them. This puts rank and file members in a bind because they can be punished if they back the wrong candidate. Craddick has a reputation as someone who does not handle dissent very well, and has no qualms about punishing opponents. Since this makes House members nervous, they tend to be vague about who in fact they are going to vote for.
Nevertheless, an apparently autocratic leadership style led to a challenge to his leadership by two fellow Republicans, Brian McCall and Jim Pitts. Pitts was the eventual sole challenger, but his candidacy rested on a proposal that the votes for the Speaker be made public immediately. Pitts argued that either they be made public after committee assignemnts were made, or never. This obviously gives political cover to his supporters. Craddick supporters are arguing that member's constituents deserve to know immediately who their reps voted for, which may or may not be a good point, but Craddick certainly wants to know before making committee assignments or else he has no weapon to use to enforce support.
A move to have a secret ballot was defeated though, causing Pitts to withdraw his bid since there would be no cover for his supporters. Craddick was reelected overwhelmingly 121-27.
Only Democrats voted against him.
Now comes the fun part. Which commitee assignments will Pitts, McCall and the Democrats get?
Welcome to Texas politics.
Note: Though votes for the Speaker are public in the U.S. House, votes for party leader are secret, and held within the party caucus, which means that the leader of the majority party automatically becomes Speaker. And this is not an issue in either the Texas or U.S. since the head of each is elected by the general public.
Unlike the United States House of Representatives, which is strongly organized around party lines, the Texas House has rules which allows for firm control by a well placed individual. The key mechanism is the fact that (1) votes for the Speakership are public and (2) the Speaker gets to select who gets on what committees and who chairs them. This puts rank and file members in a bind because they can be punished if they back the wrong candidate. Craddick has a reputation as someone who does not handle dissent very well, and has no qualms about punishing opponents. Since this makes House members nervous, they tend to be vague about who in fact they are going to vote for.
Nevertheless, an apparently autocratic leadership style led to a challenge to his leadership by two fellow Republicans, Brian McCall and Jim Pitts. Pitts was the eventual sole challenger, but his candidacy rested on a proposal that the votes for the Speaker be made public immediately. Pitts argued that either they be made public after committee assignemnts were made, or never. This obviously gives political cover to his supporters. Craddick supporters are arguing that member's constituents deserve to know immediately who their reps voted for, which may or may not be a good point, but Craddick certainly wants to know before making committee assignments or else he has no weapon to use to enforce support.
A move to have a secret ballot was defeated though, causing Pitts to withdraw his bid since there would be no cover for his supporters. Craddick was reelected overwhelmingly 121-27.
Only Democrats voted against him.
Now comes the fun part. Which commitee assignments will Pitts, McCall and the Democrats get?
Welcome to Texas politics.
Note: Though votes for the Speaker are public in the U.S. House, votes for party leader are secret, and held within the party caucus, which means that the leader of the majority party automatically becomes Speaker. And this is not an issue in either the Texas or U.S. since the head of each is elected by the general public.
The Unitary Executive
Dahlia Lithwick expounds on a point I made below in a Washington Post story 1/14/07. My point pertained to the expansion of presidential power that, though not unique to the current administration, is being accelerated by it. Her story points out the means by which it is done. The detention of terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay, as well as that of Jose Padilla, have less to do with the merit of the cases than with the establishment of executive perogative in those areas.
Here's a key quote: "The president is as much a prisoner of Guantanamo Bay as the detainees are. Having gone nose to nose with Congress over his authority to craft stripped-down courts, guaranteed to produce guilty verdicts, Bush cannot call off the trials. The endgame in the war against terrorism isn't holding the line against terrorists. It's holding the line on hard-fought claims to limitless presidential authority."
In 2301 and 2302, when appropriate, we discuss controversies regarding the establishment of an executive headed by a single individual. The Anti-Federalist wanted to know what guarantees there would be that this position would not lead to the developkent of a military king? This was a natural state of affairs in their mind. Are we naive to think that it couldn;t happen here?
Here's a key quote: "The president is as much a prisoner of Guantanamo Bay as the detainees are. Having gone nose to nose with Congress over his authority to craft stripped-down courts, guaranteed to produce guilty verdicts, Bush cannot call off the trials. The endgame in the war against terrorism isn't holding the line against terrorists. It's holding the line on hard-fought claims to limitless presidential authority."
In 2301 and 2302, when appropriate, we discuss controversies regarding the establishment of an executive headed by a single individual. The Anti-Federalist wanted to know what guarantees there would be that this position would not lead to the developkent of a military king? This was a natural state of affairs in their mind. Are we naive to think that it couldn;t happen here?
oops...
I nelected to mention in my previous post about the problem created when society tolerantes the intolerant.
This problem has been especially difficult for countries like The Neatherlands which, due to high levels of tolerance, now find themselves populated by groups that do not share that value. The muder of Theo Van Gogh was a case in point--as are others.
This problem has been especially difficult for countries like The Neatherlands which, due to high levels of tolerance, now find themselves populated by groups that do not share that value. The muder of Theo Van Gogh was a case in point--as are others.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
check and balances in a time of war
Almost certainly the most compelling outcome of the recent election has been, and will continue to be, a renewed discussion concerning the relative powers of the two elected branches during a time of war--albeit one as undefinined as the war on terror.
This will provide us a good opportunity to explore a continued theme of both 2301 and 2302--the checks and balances designed to reinforce the system of separated powers. What are the roles of the separate branches and how are the powers of each meant to stymie the tyrannical impulses of the other?
The president had two factors in his favor that allowed him extraordinary executive power after 9/11, united public opinion and a Congress dominated by his own party (though control of the Senate was somewhat in flux until the 2002 elections). Critics suggest that he, and those around him, used this opportunity to forge a vision of executive power beyond what was intended by the founders of the country, supporters say that they increase in power was just the type of leadership the executive was intended to have during a time of crisis. (Read the Wikipedia enrty on Unitary Executive Theory, and this critique from FindLaw.com for background).
Neither factor is in his favor now.
Public opinion is now split. The support he had among his normal opposition (Democrats and liberals) evaporated long ago and his party lost control of both the House and Senate in the past election. Instead of a Congress willing to rubber stamp his actions, he is likely to face increased criticism as well as efforts to limit his power--or at least be held accountable for past decisions.
We will discuss the merit of this effort over the course of this semester. Critics will claim that it will weaken the ability of the president to provide the security necessary to protect the country from its enemies (which is his job of course) and supporters will argue that it will not, and that the current president is expanding presidential powers far beyond what was intended by the country's founders. The Constitution aims to prevent tyranny, not facilitate it.
Be prepared to discuss.
This will provide us a good opportunity to explore a continued theme of both 2301 and 2302--the checks and balances designed to reinforce the system of separated powers. What are the roles of the separate branches and how are the powers of each meant to stymie the tyrannical impulses of the other?
The president had two factors in his favor that allowed him extraordinary executive power after 9/11, united public opinion and a Congress dominated by his own party (though control of the Senate was somewhat in flux until the 2002 elections). Critics suggest that he, and those around him, used this opportunity to forge a vision of executive power beyond what was intended by the founders of the country, supporters say that they increase in power was just the type of leadership the executive was intended to have during a time of crisis. (Read the Wikipedia enrty on Unitary Executive Theory, and this critique from FindLaw.com for background).
Neither factor is in his favor now.
Public opinion is now split. The support he had among his normal opposition (Democrats and liberals) evaporated long ago and his party lost control of both the House and Senate in the past election. Instead of a Congress willing to rubber stamp his actions, he is likely to face increased criticism as well as efforts to limit his power--or at least be held accountable for past decisions.
We will discuss the merit of this effort over the course of this semester. Critics will claim that it will weaken the ability of the president to provide the security necessary to protect the country from its enemies (which is his job of course) and supporters will argue that it will not, and that the current president is expanding presidential powers far beyond what was intended by the country's founders. The Constitution aims to prevent tyranny, not facilitate it.
Be prepared to discuss.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
The New Semester
Back to the grind.
If you are a new student in my class, here's the blog where you get some extra credit if you make a significant contribution to the discussion.
Remember that our focus is on the relationship between current issues and events and the Constitution.
The intent, or at least an intent, of the founders was to create a document that regulates the "various and competing interests" in society.
To what degree is it up to the job?
The burdens of registration and other matters related to the new semester have caused me to fall behind in my postings, but I promise to catch up. There's much to be said regarding the President's speech about future operations in Iraq, the impact of Democrats in Congress, and the recent reelection Tom Craddick to the House Speakership in Texas among other items.
Back soon.
If you are a new student in my class, here's the blog where you get some extra credit if you make a significant contribution to the discussion.
Remember that our focus is on the relationship between current issues and events and the Constitution.
The intent, or at least an intent, of the founders was to create a document that regulates the "various and competing interests" in society.
To what degree is it up to the job?
The burdens of registration and other matters related to the new semester have caused me to fall behind in my postings, but I promise to catch up. There's much to be said regarding the President's speech about future operations in Iraq, the impact of Democrats in Congress, and the recent reelection Tom Craddick to the House Speakership in Texas among other items.
Back soon.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
The Tyranny of Tolerance
I've just now come across this phrase "the tyranny of tolerance" and was hoping to get some feedback about it.
It's the title of a recent book by a Missouri judge upset by the liberalizing trends he not only notices in the greater society, but feels are being unduly imposed on conservative individuals such as him. I've yet to read it (and to be honest there are several dozen books on my to read this before his), but the premise that tolerance can be tyrannous is compelling. In Federalist #10 Madison did suggest that pure democracies can be agents of tyranny--"tyrannies of the majority" we call them.
A significant level of tolerance is argued to be a key determinant in the degree to which a country can become a democracy. Perhaps a lack of tolerance is what is keeping Iraq from becoming a democracy. So what might the judge be complaining about?
It's the title of a recent book by a Missouri judge upset by the liberalizing trends he not only notices in the greater society, but feels are being unduly imposed on conservative individuals such as him. I've yet to read it (and to be honest there are several dozen books on my to read this before his), but the premise that tolerance can be tyrannous is compelling. In Federalist #10 Madison did suggest that pure democracies can be agents of tyranny--"tyrannies of the majority" we call them.
A significant level of tolerance is argued to be a key determinant in the degree to which a country can become a democracy. Perhaps a lack of tolerance is what is keeping Iraq from becoming a democracy. So what might the judge be complaining about?
Saturday, January 6, 2007
Ideology and Reality
I read an interesting sentence in a recent post in the New Republic online. It concerns the current state of neo-conservatism as opposed to that of it's founding era, during the hey-day of Irving Kristol and The Public Interest. In the opening manifesto, Kristol is quoted as stating: "The great danger to good government . . . is 'a prior commitment to ideology. ... For it is the nature of ideology to preconceive reality.' "
We recently discussed ideology in class, but not it's psychological role. To be a commited ideologue is to carry around a lens through which to perceive the world. It can be a useful mechanism for making quick decisions, but it can also lead one to see only what one wants to see, and ignore uncomfortable things--like reality.
We recently discussed ideology in class, but not it's psychological role. To be a commited ideologue is to carry around a lens through which to perceive the world. It can be a useful mechanism for making quick decisions, but it can also lead one to see only what one wants to see, and ignore uncomfortable things--like reality.
if men were angels...
As you can see, the title of this blog lasted about two days. Since I plan to use this as a forum to tied current governmental issues with those of the past, I thought it useful to use a quote from one of the Federalist Papers.
The previous title, "the weaker party," came from Federalist #10 and its point that direct democracies had no mechanism to protect the weaker party or the obnoxious indiviual from a majority that wished to persecute it. That worked well enough, but I think this phrase pulled form Federalist #51 is more helpful since its a reminder of why governments exist in the first place (or at least Locke's). "If men were angles no government would be necessary."
It's a constant reminder that it is pointless to complain about human imperfection, cruelty, and avarice, since they are reliably constant aspects of human affairs. The only real issue is how a governing system can contain them. I don't claim to have learned much in my years teaching government, but the one thing that continues to intrigue me is this procedural feature of the Constitution.
It ain't what you do, it's how you do it.
The previous title, "the weaker party," came from Federalist #10 and its point that direct democracies had no mechanism to protect the weaker party or the obnoxious indiviual from a majority that wished to persecute it. That worked well enough, but I think this phrase pulled form Federalist #51 is more helpful since its a reminder of why governments exist in the first place (or at least Locke's). "If men were angles no government would be necessary."
It's a constant reminder that it is pointless to complain about human imperfection, cruelty, and avarice, since they are reliably constant aspects of human affairs. The only real issue is how a governing system can contain them. I don't claim to have learned much in my years teaching government, but the one thing that continues to intrigue me is this procedural feature of the Constitution.
It ain't what you do, it's how you do it.
Path Dependency
A current story in The New Republic highlights a major theme in the LGS textbook: History Matters. The fancy term is "path dependency" which they define as "the idea that certain possibilities are made more or less likely because of the historical path take."
Here's the nutshell story, it involves the transition from the Nixon to the Ford Administration necessitated by Watergate:
"On a limousine ride from his Virginia home to the White House, Ford considers their list of candidates to lead the transition. The aides suggest Frank Carlucci, then undersecretary of health, education, and welfare. Their alternates include Deputy Defense Secretary William Clements and NATO Ambassador Donald Rumsfeld. In the blank space on the page, Ford writes in Rumsfeld's name. ...
What if Ford's pen had scrawled out a different name as the car crossed the Potomac? No transition-chief Rumsfeld means no Chief of Staff Rumsfeld. Which means no chance to tap an unknown Dick Cheney as his deputy, no chance for the men to form their lasting bond, no chance for Cheney to take over upon Rumsfeld's departure. And on and on down the road to Baghdad: No Chief of Staff Cheney means no Representative Cheney, which means no Defense Secretary Cheney, no vice-presidential selection team leader Cheney, and no Vice President Cheney to bring his old mentor back to Washington a couple of decades later."
The author might have gone back even further. What if events had not led to the decision to break into the Democrat's headquarters in the Watergate building?
Or if the burglars had not been caught? Apparently they were found out because a guard on duty noticed tape on an exterior door which prevented the door from locking. He followed his nose, found the men, and history began taking a turn.
One could also argue that an unstable, oil rich Middle East would have inevitable drawn us in, but in a different manner, with different players and perhaps different results.
Fun to think about over beer and pizza.
By the way, the person most noted for developing this idea to explain economic development is Douglass North and it won him a Nobel Prize.
Here's the nutshell story, it involves the transition from the Nixon to the Ford Administration necessitated by Watergate:
"On a limousine ride from his Virginia home to the White House, Ford considers their list of candidates to lead the transition. The aides suggest Frank Carlucci, then undersecretary of health, education, and welfare. Their alternates include Deputy Defense Secretary William Clements and NATO Ambassador Donald Rumsfeld. In the blank space on the page, Ford writes in Rumsfeld's name. ...
What if Ford's pen had scrawled out a different name as the car crossed the Potomac? No transition-chief Rumsfeld means no Chief of Staff Rumsfeld. Which means no chance to tap an unknown Dick Cheney as his deputy, no chance for the men to form their lasting bond, no chance for Cheney to take over upon Rumsfeld's departure. And on and on down the road to Baghdad: No Chief of Staff Cheney means no Representative Cheney, which means no Defense Secretary Cheney, no vice-presidential selection team leader Cheney, and no Vice President Cheney to bring his old mentor back to Washington a couple of decades later."
The author might have gone back even further. What if events had not led to the decision to break into the Democrat's headquarters in the Watergate building?
Or if the burglars had not been caught? Apparently they were found out because a guard on duty noticed tape on an exterior door which prevented the door from locking. He followed his nose, found the men, and history began taking a turn.
One could also argue that an unstable, oil rich Middle East would have inevitable drawn us in, but in a different manner, with different players and perhaps different results.
Fun to think about over beer and pizza.
By the way, the person most noted for developing this idea to explain economic development is Douglass North and it won him a Nobel Prize.
Thursday, January 4, 2007
The U.S. House Chuses a Speaker, Texas to Follow...
Constitutional positions are being filled on the national and state levels.
Section 2 of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, near the end, states that "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers." It doesn't state how, or even that the Speaker need be a member of the House. The Texas Constitution also creates a Speaker to provide over the Texas House in Section 9 of Article 3, but does stipulte that the Speaker be a member of the House.
The office was based on a similar position in the British House of Commons.
Though the Speaker of the House of Commons is a non-partisan moderator of debate, as parties developed in Congress, the position became politicized. We have Henry Clay to credit or blame for that development.
Section 2 of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, near the end, states that "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers." It doesn't state how, or even that the Speaker need be a member of the House. The Texas Constitution also creates a Speaker to provide over the Texas House in Section 9 of Article 3, but does stipulte that the Speaker be a member of the House.
The office was based on a similar position in the British House of Commons.
Though the Speaker of the House of Commons is a non-partisan moderator of debate, as parties developed in Congress, the position became politicized. We have Henry Clay to credit or blame for that development.
One More Time...
Not that you necessarily care, but I've tried using blogs as a teaching technique and it was moderately successful. I'm lazier than I like to admit though so I never got around to learning the technology that would make it truly useful.
Fortunately there are those industrious--and smart enough--to do so.
Thank you blogspotters.
So here goes. I am assuming that you have logged in because I have made you and have promised that this will be a tool we can use to discuss the constitutional issue underlying contemporary issues.
We'll have to see how it goes wont we?
Fortunately there are those industrious--and smart enough--to do so.
Thank you blogspotters.
So here goes. I am assuming that you have logged in because I have made you and have promised that this will be a tool we can use to discuss the constitutional issue underlying contemporary issues.
We'll have to see how it goes wont we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)