Saturday, March 31, 2007
Agenda Setting
What are we to make of this story?
Time Magazine puts possible losses in the war in Afghanistan on the cover of its editions across the world, except in the U.S. where the cover focuses on a story on celebrity photography.
Take 1: The media overlords do not want the American public thinking negative thoughts about the war.
Take 2: Celebrity photography sells more copies than depressing war stories.
Maybe both?
The first take illustrates the media's role as agenda setters. The classic quote is that the media cannot tell people how to think but can tell them what to think about, or in this case what not to think about.
The second points out that the media is/are a private business endeavor and that they only exist to the degree that they can earn their keep. Not what Jefferson had in mind, but hey. . .
Time Magazine puts possible losses in the war in Afghanistan on the cover of its editions across the world, except in the U.S. where the cover focuses on a story on celebrity photography.
Take 1: The media overlords do not want the American public thinking negative thoughts about the war.
Take 2: Celebrity photography sells more copies than depressing war stories.
Maybe both?
The first take illustrates the media's role as agenda setters. The classic quote is that the media cannot tell people how to think but can tell them what to think about, or in this case what not to think about.
The second points out that the media is/are a private business endeavor and that they only exist to the degree that they can earn their keep. Not what Jefferson had in mind, but hey. . .
Friday, March 30, 2007
The Lucifer Effect
More psychology.
A book called The Lucifer Effect is getting hyped at the moment. It concerns itself with an old story, the ability of "good" people to become"evil" if circumstances permit. The authors goes beyond the story and sets up the circumstances, with predictable results.
The war against terror is couched in terms of good and evil. Does this muddy the waters?
A book called The Lucifer Effect is getting hyped at the moment. It concerns itself with an old story, the ability of "good" people to become"evil" if circumstances permit. The authors goes beyond the story and sets up the circumstances, with predictable results.
The war against terror is couched in terms of good and evil. Does this muddy the waters?
Thursday, March 29, 2007
How reliable is eyewitness testimony?
Considering how much of the evidence introduced in trial courts is testimony based on memory, it's worth pondering how much one's memory in fact corresponds to what in fact actually happened.
Here a neuroscientist discusses how the brain restructures itself when memories are called up:
Maybe this is good news. You can have that happy childhood after all.
Here a neuroscientist discusses how the brain restructures itself when memories are called up:
Neuroscience now knows that every time we rememberWe don't remember what happened, we remember what we want to have happened.
our memories they are "reconsolidated," slyly remade
and reconfigured. The act of remembering requires protein
synthesis because we are literally remaking our past,
altering the cellular connections that define the
original memory trace.
Maybe this is good news. You can have that happy childhood after all.
What?
Apparently New York City has been flirting with the idea of stricting photography in public spaces.
Is photography protected by the Constitution? Free Speech? Press? A bit of both?
Is photography protected by the Constitution? Free Speech? Press? A bit of both?
TV v. Print
In 2301 we're set to cover the media. What has always interested me is the degree to which that same people can come to different conclusions about a person or event based on whether they get the info from television or a newspaper.
Althouse has a soul searching take on how the same statement from Hillary Clinton seemed liberal when she heard it on television and conservative when she read it in a newspaper.
Recall the stories about the Nixon-Kennedy debates and how radio listeners thought Nixon won and TV viewers thought Kennedy won.
Add to the mix people's attitudes about the famous split coffee case. Cursory TV info leads one to side with McDonalds, the fuller info one gets from print sources make the plaintiff sounds more reasonable.
Why do we process info, and come to the conclusions the way we do? How much control do we have over our own thoughts?
Althouse has a soul searching take on how the same statement from Hillary Clinton seemed liberal when she heard it on television and conservative when she read it in a newspaper.
Recall the stories about the Nixon-Kennedy debates and how radio listeners thought Nixon won and TV viewers thought Kennedy won.
Add to the mix people's attitudes about the famous split coffee case. Cursory TV info leads one to side with McDonalds, the fuller info one gets from print sources make the plaintiff sounds more reasonable.
Why do we process info, and come to the conclusions the way we do? How much control do we have over our own thoughts?
CC's and the Texas Legislature
According to the most recent update by the Texas Community College Teacher's Association, these are the top legislative issues for community colleges:
- Employee health insurance: specifically the amount that the state picks up. Budget hawks want it cut, employees don't
- The level of state funding: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board sets a recommended level of funding, which the state never comes close to meeting. Not meeting the full level of funding means that property taxes and student tuition pay the rest, which some argue is appropriate, but others say prices student's out of college. The governor had recommended fully funding community colleges, but support still exists for funding them at a lower level.
- A trial project whereby three community colleges had been authorized to provide 4 year degree has been judged a success leading some to believe that these program could be expanded.
- Nebulous, in my mind at least, proposals for streamlining secondary, community colleges, and universities continue to be floated around. Many of these are couched in the "Closing the Gaps" initiative designed to lessen the achievement gap between students of different ethnic groups.
- The high costs of textbooks is being addressed in a variety of bills. Some attempt to limit the frequency of the new editions offered, and the tendency of textbooks to be bundled with additional superfluous material. A move seems underway to persuade instructors to use open source material, freely available on the web as text material.
Click here for a full list of the bills tracked by TCCTA.
- Employee health insurance: specifically the amount that the state picks up. Budget hawks want it cut, employees don't
- The level of state funding: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board sets a recommended level of funding, which the state never comes close to meeting. Not meeting the full level of funding means that property taxes and student tuition pay the rest, which some argue is appropriate, but others say prices student's out of college. The governor had recommended fully funding community colleges, but support still exists for funding them at a lower level.
- A trial project whereby three community colleges had been authorized to provide 4 year degree has been judged a success leading some to believe that these program could be expanded.
- Nebulous, in my mind at least, proposals for streamlining secondary, community colleges, and universities continue to be floated around. Many of these are couched in the "Closing the Gaps" initiative designed to lessen the achievement gap between students of different ethnic groups.
- The high costs of textbooks is being addressed in a variety of bills. Some attempt to limit the frequency of the new editions offered, and the tendency of textbooks to be bundled with additional superfluous material. A move seems underway to persuade instructors to use open source material, freely available on the web as text material.
Click here for a full list of the bills tracked by TCCTA.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
House Party
Many thanks to Tammy for inviting me, and Davon Ruiz's class to her home for the National John Edwards House Party.
There were about 30 of us and we watched a nicely produced video for Edwards and participated in a national conference call which unfortunately consisted of a ten minute talk by the ex-Senator--which repeated the themes of the video--and three questions which he briefly answered before he had to leave to catch a flight.
Nothing against the Senator, but the consensus was that this was a bit lame. If you have, as he alleged, thousands of participants around the country included in the call you should spend more time with them. You can get a later flight.
Tammy is considerign taking a leadership role in the local Edwards campaign and would love to have volunteers. If you live in the Friendswood, Texas area contact her.
I'll keep my eye open for similar events and opportunities from other candidates. If you are in the Houston area and have anything to suggest, drop me a line.
There were about 30 of us and we watched a nicely produced video for Edwards and participated in a national conference call which unfortunately consisted of a ten minute talk by the ex-Senator--which repeated the themes of the video--and three questions which he briefly answered before he had to leave to catch a flight.
Nothing against the Senator, but the consensus was that this was a bit lame. If you have, as he alleged, thousands of participants around the country included in the call you should spend more time with them. You can get a later flight.
Tammy is considerign taking a leadership role in the local Edwards campaign and would love to have volunteers. If you live in the Friendswood, Texas area contact her.
I'll keep my eye open for similar events and opportunities from other candidates. If you are in the Houston area and have anything to suggest, drop me a line.
City Agenda Items
Recent issues of concern to Manvel:
- the annual financial report
- the depth of underground cables and pipes
- the timing of the red light on Highway 6 and 288
- the condition of local bridges
Not sexy, but relevant.
- the annual financial report
- the depth of underground cables and pipes
- the timing of the red light on Highway 6 and 288
- the condition of local bridges
Not sexy, but relevant.
Local Elections
As much fun as national politics can be, local politics always have a greater practical impact on our lives. Alvin, Manvel, Friendswood, and other cities (including Houston) have elections set for May 12th.
ACC will sponsor separate forums for the Manvel and Alvin races, but we'll do out best to cover as many as we can.
ACC will sponsor separate forums for the Manvel and Alvin races, but we'll do out best to cover as many as we can.
Manvel and the Beast
More than Alvin, soon to be not-so-tiny Manvel has had to adjust to being in the path of Houston's continued growth. Recent meetings have been held in the city to determine how residents can affect that growth so that it does not decrease their quality of life. The recent Vision Planning meeting provided such an opportunity, though it remains to be seen how much local input will affect growth.
Here's a power point presentation from 2006 outlining the anticipated projects, some of which may have a major impact on ACC.
Whether and how to managing growth is a key issue cities have to grapple with early if they want to have an impact. So much of what Manvel will become seems affected by decisions outside its borders--what types of subdivisions and shoppinig centers will be build for example. The struggle of residents to control this growth will be an important story to follow for some time.
Here's a power point presentation from 2006 outlining the anticipated projects, some of which may have a major impact on ACC.
Whether and how to managing growth is a key issue cities have to grapple with early if they want to have an impact. So much of what Manvel will become seems affected by decisions outside its borders--what types of subdivisions and shoppinig centers will be build for example. The struggle of residents to control this growth will be an important story to follow for some time.
How might the courts handle attorneygate?
2302 students should read the following Slate article on the relationship between executive privilege and Congress' investogative powers.
It attempts to clarify the constitutional issues at stake and the competing virtues of presidents' obtaining good advice and Congress' abilitty to ensure that that advice is not criminal in nature. The courts will ultimately determine the balance between the two, so the article gives us an idea about how the courts may decide the issue.
2301 students will benefit from the discussion of checks and balances.
It attempts to clarify the constitutional issues at stake and the competing virtues of presidents' obtaining good advice and Congress' abilitty to ensure that that advice is not criminal in nature. The courts will ultimately determine the balance between the two, so the article gives us an idea about how the courts may decide the issue.
2301 students will benefit from the discussion of checks and balances.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
A Modest Proposal
Dan Patrick wants to pay women to not have abortions.
What do you think? Ethical? Practical? Effective?
All or none of the above?
What do you think? Ethical? Practical? Effective?
All or none of the above?
The I - word
Foreign Policy, a noted journal, has included an article outlining the case for the impeachment of George Bush.
It was written by a former member of Congress, Elizabeth Holtzman, who served during Watergate. She's sung this tune before, so perhaps she's simply on a crusade, but the argument deserves a listen.
Ultimately, she points out, an impeachment is a political decision, but he claims that the President has refuse to assent to the laws of Congress enough times to warrant removal from office.
Is she off base?
It was written by a former member of Congress, Elizabeth Holtzman, who served during Watergate. She's sung this tune before, so perhaps she's simply on a crusade, but the argument deserves a listen.
Ultimately, she points out, an impeachment is a political decision, but he claims that the President has refuse to assent to the laws of Congress enough times to warrant removal from office.
Is she off base?
300 - What's the Message?
I've yet to see 300, and probably won't until it's on HBO, but I'm confused about what message the movie is trying to send and how this impacts debate about current public policy in the Middle East.
As you may know, the story centers on the ability of a small handful of Spartans to defeat a larger Persian force by enticing it to commit forces to taking over a small pass in the Greek mountains.
Are the producers telling us that small committed forces can defeat larger invading forces if they encourage them to make bad decisions?
Sound familiar? If you've ever wanted to know what the phrase "those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it" means, here you go.
As you may know, the story centers on the ability of a small handful of Spartans to defeat a larger Persian force by enticing it to commit forces to taking over a small pass in the Greek mountains.
Are the producers telling us that small committed forces can defeat larger invading forces if they encourage them to make bad decisions?
Sound familiar? If you've ever wanted to know what the phrase "those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it" means, here you go.
Friday, March 23, 2007
On Citizen Soldiers and Mercenaries
I tend not to be an alarmist, but the following post raises troubling questions regarding the direction our defense apparatus may be headed. It focuses on concerns about the increased political strength of private armies like Blackwater, but reaches into broader concerns.
It fits with the previous topic regarding privatizing prisons, but here the consequences could be much more severe.
For background info, this is a mercenary, this is a citizen-soldier.
It fits with the previous topic regarding privatizing prisons, but here the consequences could be much more severe.
For background info, this is a mercenary, this is a citizen-soldier.
Private v. Public Sector
Who should run corrections and detention facilities.
Governments can be inefficient, but free market efficiencies can be brutal.
Here's a Chron editorial slamming the privately run Hutto Federal Detention Center. A snippet:
Governments can be inefficient, but free market efficiencies can be brutal.
Here's a Chron editorial slamming the privately run Hutto Federal Detention Center. A snippet:
The children at the T. Don Hutto Residential Center inIn a recent visit, a U.S. Consgressman gave a more upbeat assessment of the conditions, but it raises an important issue. How do we care for the children of illegal immigrants? Is it our responsibility to care for them as we might care for our own children or does their status put them in a secondary position?
Taylor, 35 miles northeast of Austin, live in cells; they
wear uniforms and receive inadequate medical and
educational services, are often cold and hungry, separated
from their parents as punishment, and until recently
received one hour of schooling per day and rarely played
outside. They are guilty of no crimes, and endanger no
one. Their parents, who are incarcerated here because
they are seeking asylum after fleeing such circumstances
as war, torture, political persecution and rape, or are
accused of violating civil immigration laws, have committed
no crimes.
Texas and the 14th
Texas Legislators seem anxious to pick a fight with the 14th Amendment's citizenship guarantee. HB 28, if passed, will deny services to the children of illegal aliens, even if they were born in the U.S. and are therefore U.S. citizens.
One way to interpret this is that Texas wants to deny services to U.S. citizens.
The intent is to further raise awareness of what some people see as a glitch in the 14th Amendment. The citizenship guarantee was designed to ensure that the recently freed slaves were lawfully recognized as U.S. citizens, a claim rejected by the Dred Scott decision.
The LA Times story above makes an interesting point. Texas at one point was very welcoming, or at least not hostile, to immigrant be they legal or illegal. The Legislature did not pay that much attention to the issue.
Not any more. What gives?
One way to interpret this is that Texas wants to deny services to U.S. citizens.
The intent is to further raise awareness of what some people see as a glitch in the 14th Amendment. The citizenship guarantee was designed to ensure that the recently freed slaves were lawfully recognized as U.S. citizens, a claim rejected by the Dred Scott decision.
The LA Times story above makes an interesting point. Texas at one point was very welcoming, or at least not hostile, to immigrant be they legal or illegal. The Legislature did not pay that much attention to the issue.
Not any more. What gives?
John Yoo
John Yoo is an interesting guy, much reviled by some. He was responsible for developing arguments supporting further expansions of presidential power, the unitary executive it is called. He was also responsible for the memos justifying the use of torture, though it's use has been rejected by previous presidents--notably Washington.
The blogs have been on him recently for the logic he has used in further justifying torture. Here's Slate's; here's Balkinization's.
His premise is that war powers imply the power to kill, a greater power which includes within it all lesser powers, including the power to torture, which though it may make you wish you were dead, doesn't kill you.
The above writers take him on. We'll review in class.
The blogs have been on him recently for the logic he has used in further justifying torture. Here's Slate's; here's Balkinization's.
His premise is that war powers imply the power to kill, a greater power which includes within it all lesser powers, including the power to torture, which though it may make you wish you were dead, doesn't kill you.
The above writers take him on. We'll review in class.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
You are the next Geraldo!
Would you like to help online investigative journalists comb through the thousands of pages related to the attorney firings (excuse me--attorneygate) released by the White House to the House Judiciary Committee?
You say you'd like to, but don't know how?
Well follow this link, scroll to the bottom right and look under "what's new."
Enjoy.
You say you'd like to, but don't know how?
Well follow this link, scroll to the bottom right and look under "what's new."
Enjoy.
From Bloggers to Journalists
The evolution of internet content continues.
Blogs are attempting to go beyond simple commentary to full on reporting of events. Sometime ago, talkingpointsmemo--one of the first liberal blogs--started a new site where they invite readers to contribute actual news, and even hired a couple of reporters on its own.
Assignment Zero, sponsored by Wired, is doing the same.
The times keep on a-changing.
Blogs are attempting to go beyond simple commentary to full on reporting of events. Sometime ago, talkingpointsmemo--one of the first liberal blogs--started a new site where they invite readers to contribute actual news, and even hired a couple of reporters on its own.
Assignment Zero, sponsored by Wired, is doing the same.
The times keep on a-changing.
Freedom and Authority
The dark side of Giuliani for many, myself among them, has been the hint of authoritarianism in how he governs. The Daily Dish has a recent post with a link to a discussion of his in 1994 on the relationship between freedom and authority.
What do we make of the following sentence?
Does this mean that freedom is about the willingness to not be free? Does it suggest that if one chooses to exercise freedom, then perhaps one has demonstrated that they are not worthy of freedom? Is authority an end in itself that precedes freedom? That has it's own merit apart from what it provides for the governed?
Perhaps Mr. Giuliani would deny that. He might suggest that freedom, properly considered, includes the willingness to curb one's behavior in certain ways that may be damaging to others, or to the permanent interests of the community. But though some of these restraints may be obvious (not raping, murdering or stealing), others may not (criticizing government, using intoxicants, getting a divorce or being homosexual, or Mormon). A key dilemma of government is determining what restraints are properly imposed by government, and where it needs to mind its own business. And since governmental decisions are sanctioned by majorities, this is akin to determining what a majority cannot do to a minority.
Madison seems prescient. It always comes down to the violence of majority coalitions and what can be done to protect the weaker party.
And what about this lawful authority? In a democracy, lawful authority rests with the people. The law enforcement apparatus, the bureaucratic organization that is the police department or any other entity given the ability to use physical force, is an expression of the consent of the people--the governed.
We should always be concerned when the interests of those organizations take a life of their own and their interests diverge from those of the people. This is what separates the authoritarian regime from the democratic. I trust that Mr. Giuliana understands the difference.
What do we make of the following sentence?
Freedom is about the willingness of every single human
being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion
about what you do.
Does this mean that freedom is about the willingness to not be free? Does it suggest that if one chooses to exercise freedom, then perhaps one has demonstrated that they are not worthy of freedom? Is authority an end in itself that precedes freedom? That has it's own merit apart from what it provides for the governed?
Perhaps Mr. Giuliani would deny that. He might suggest that freedom, properly considered, includes the willingness to curb one's behavior in certain ways that may be damaging to others, or to the permanent interests of the community. But though some of these restraints may be obvious (not raping, murdering or stealing), others may not (criticizing government, using intoxicants, getting a divorce or being homosexual, or Mormon). A key dilemma of government is determining what restraints are properly imposed by government, and where it needs to mind its own business. And since governmental decisions are sanctioned by majorities, this is akin to determining what a majority cannot do to a minority.
Madison seems prescient. It always comes down to the violence of majority coalitions and what can be done to protect the weaker party.
And what about this lawful authority? In a democracy, lawful authority rests with the people. The law enforcement apparatus, the bureaucratic organization that is the police department or any other entity given the ability to use physical force, is an expression of the consent of the people--the governed.
We should always be concerned when the interests of those organizations take a life of their own and their interests diverge from those of the people. This is what separates the authoritarian regime from the democratic. I trust that Mr. Giuliana understands the difference.
Interviews
If you are interested in following the special election in Houston to fill the vacancy left by Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, check out this link. I has mp3's of interview with the various candidates.
Check!
Though the Texas governor lacks powers over the Texas government that the president has over the U.S. government, the governor has always had one key advantage. When he or she vetoes laws, the legisture cannot immediately overturn the vetoes, because they are out of session. The best they can do is wait until the meet again in a year and half--when they generally have other things to worry about. Presidential vetoes can be responded to quickly because Congress is in session more or less permanently.
Not any more.
A large majority of the House has passed an amendment to the Texas Constitution that will allow the legislature to meet in special session after the governor vetoes bills in order to vote to override them.
The Senate bill has enough sponsors to pass it by an equally large margin. It will still have to be passed by the Texas public in a special election.
Did the governor bring this on himself? In the past he has vetoed large numbers of bills, and upset a good number of people in the state. Add this to the controversy over the immunization executive order and the opportunity is created for opponents to find common ground against him.
Would we be talking about this otherwise? Anyone know?
Not any more.
A large majority of the House has passed an amendment to the Texas Constitution that will allow the legislature to meet in special session after the governor vetoes bills in order to vote to override them.
The Senate bill has enough sponsors to pass it by an equally large margin. It will still have to be passed by the Texas public in a special election.
Did the governor bring this on himself? In the past he has vetoed large numbers of bills, and upset a good number of people in the state. Add this to the controversy over the immunization executive order and the opportunity is created for opponents to find common ground against him.
Would we be talking about this otherwise? Anyone know?
Some Good News for W
If there is a silver lining for the president behind the significant clouds that have accumulated recently, it's that Congress' approval ratings have dipped to pre-election levels. Gallup is not sure why, but it may have encouraged Bush to take the aggressive stance he took regarding the investigation of the attorney firings.
And is it too early (or ridiculous) to call this attorneygate?
And is it too early (or ridiculous) to call this attorneygate?
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
No longer anomymous
This is disappointing.
The guy who made the big sister ad has been identified and it's a democratic operative with ties to the Barack Obama campaign. I was hoping it was a pimply faced teenager working in his or her parents attic.
No such luck. Maybe next time.
Here's a quote from the culprit:
The guy who made the big sister ad has been identified and it's a democratic operative with ties to the Barack Obama campaign. I was hoping it was a pimply faced teenager working in his or her parents attic.
No such luck. Maybe next time.
Here's a quote from the culprit:
This ad was not the first citizen ad, and it will not be the
last. The game has changed.
Big Sister
The first major anonymous attack ad has surfaced on YouTube. The Washington Post is reporting that it has aired more than any official ad.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
MyPolitics
MySpace is adapting itself to more fully become a political tool. Read up on it here.
It promises to be a more effective way to reach out to the pesy 18-24 year old crowd. Another sign that the web is continuing to transform politics.
I may have to break down and use the MySpace page I set up for this class. I'm a bit nervous about it since it can get salacious, but now I have a good excuse to go forward.
It promises to be a more effective way to reach out to the pesy 18-24 year old crowd. Another sign that the web is continuing to transform politics.
I may have to break down and use the MySpace page I set up for this class. I'm a bit nervous about it since it can get salacious, but now I have a good excuse to go forward.
Stand Off
President Bush will not let top aides (ie., Karl Rove) testify under oath about the firing of the attorneys.
Good move? He sounds strong, which people like, but could this be interpreted as him trying to cover something up?
Prediction: Subpoenas will be issued, executive privilege will be asserted, and a court battle will begin. Expext this to be in the Supreme Court by mid-summer.
Good move? He sounds strong, which people like, but could this be interpreted as him trying to cover something up?
Prediction: Subpoenas will be issued, executive privilege will be asserted, and a court battle will begin. Expext this to be in the Supreme Court by mid-summer.
94-2
That was the vote today in the Senate revoking last year's change in how U.S. Attorneys replacements are appointed. Instead of being able to serve indefinitely without Senate approval, they will serve for 120 days.
This is a set back for Bush's effort to have more control over the Justice Department.
And it is veto proof. Now it goes to the House.
This is a set back for Bush's effort to have more control over the Justice Department.
And it is veto proof. Now it goes to the House.
Scalia Speaks...
...and complains about the increasingly contentious battles Supreme Court nominees are likely to face in the future. They will not be judged on their merits, but rather by whether they agree with those making the choice of nominee.
And what's so wrong about having mini-constitutional conventions from time to time? The nomination process is a perfect time for citizens to revisit the Constitution and argue about what works and doesn't. It's mostly sound and fury, but it's deliberation about the proper role of government and I'm all for that.
"It's crazy," he said. "It's like having a mini-constitutionalI'm no Supreme Court historian, and will defer to those who are, but my understanding is that presidents have always choosen--or tried to choose--justices who share their judicial philosophies.
convention every time you pick a Supreme Court justice."
And what's so wrong about having mini-constitutional conventions from time to time? The nomination process is a perfect time for citizens to revisit the Constitution and argue about what works and doesn't. It's mostly sound and fury, but it's deliberation about the proper role of government and I'm all for that.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Cavemen's Crib
Did anyone else know that this website was out there?
It lets you check out the apartment of the Geico caveman.
He lives better than I do.
It lets you check out the apartment of the Geico caveman.
He lives better than I do.
Drugs are bad hmmmm-kay?
While we were discussing the DC gun control case in class today, the Supreme Court was considering arguments about whether school administrators erred in 2002 when they suspended a student for waving a 15 foot banner during a televised school event that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."
The case, Morse v. Frederick asks whether a school's interest in discouraging drug use trump a student's free speech rights?
Read the transcript of the oral argument here.
Morse's brief can be found here.
Frederick's brief can be found here.
The case, Morse v. Frederick asks whether a school's interest in discouraging drug use trump a student's free speech rights?
Read the transcript of the oral argument here.
Morse's brief can be found here.
Frederick's brief can be found here.
Seems to be a Done Deal
This story claims that the White House is already looking for a replacement for Attorney General Gonzales and offers a few names.
He is losing support among Republicans, which is what really counts. The article suggests that:
He is losing support among Republicans, which is what really counts. The article suggests that:
A main reason Gonzales is finding few friends even among
Republicans is that he has long been regarded with suspicion
by conservatives who have questioned his ideological purity.
In the past, these conservatives warned the White House
against nominating him for the Supreme Court. Now
they're using the controversy over the firing of eight federal
prosecutors to take out their pent-up frustrations with how
he has handled his leadership at Justice and how the White
House has treated Congress.
The President's famous commitment to those loyal to him might turn out to be an Achille's Heel. A pity really. It's an endearing trait.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
The Pleasure of the President
I had no idea what legs the fired district attorney controversy would sprout, but Democrats in Congress seem to be smelling blood and even a few Republicans are calling for Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to step down. Newsweek has the latest. I'm betting that a head or two will have to fall. Congress is threatening to use its subpoena power to force members of the Bush Administration to testify on the matter under oath.
For our purpose, the key story is what it tells us about the relationship between the president and the bureaucracy. United States Attorneys are said to work at the pleasure of the president meaning that if he wants them out, they go. Supporters of President Bush argue that he is not unique in wanting to clear house and bring in his own crew, one loyal to him and his vision of how laws ought to be carried out.
But loyalty can create problems if competence is judged in terms of politics. These firings, critics suggest, were meant to remove those deemed insufficiently political.
This is the danger of service at the pleasure of the president. During the era of patronage, there was no pretense that one's job was anything other than a favor, that one was then expected to support the ruling party by implementing laws in a political manner, and that continuation in that job would be based on anything other than how much political support one had in fact offered.
The chief goal of civil service reform was to professionalize the bureaucracy and remove it from these political pressures. Professional lawyers within the Justice Department were key to this effort. Yet, since they serve at the pleasure of the president--a phrase which has become a bit of a mantra recently--there is always the danger that politcal pressures can creep into the office. In fact, the Attorney General himself has claimed that he serves at the pleasure of the president as well, but that's up for debate since he heads a department established by Congress and had to be confirmed by the Senate before he could hold his office. This is why he is subject to testify before Congress. This is a system of checks and balances and congressional oversight is a key component of those checks.
The precise balance is constantly subject to adjustment based on whatever controversies might be topical. Which is where we are today.
More to come.
For our purpose, the key story is what it tells us about the relationship between the president and the bureaucracy. United States Attorneys are said to work at the pleasure of the president meaning that if he wants them out, they go. Supporters of President Bush argue that he is not unique in wanting to clear house and bring in his own crew, one loyal to him and his vision of how laws ought to be carried out.
But loyalty can create problems if competence is judged in terms of politics. These firings, critics suggest, were meant to remove those deemed insufficiently political.
This is the danger of service at the pleasure of the president. During the era of patronage, there was no pretense that one's job was anything other than a favor, that one was then expected to support the ruling party by implementing laws in a political manner, and that continuation in that job would be based on anything other than how much political support one had in fact offered.
The chief goal of civil service reform was to professionalize the bureaucracy and remove it from these political pressures. Professional lawyers within the Justice Department were key to this effort. Yet, since they serve at the pleasure of the president--a phrase which has become a bit of a mantra recently--there is always the danger that politcal pressures can creep into the office. In fact, the Attorney General himself has claimed that he serves at the pleasure of the president as well, but that's up for debate since he heads a department established by Congress and had to be confirmed by the Senate before he could hold his office. This is why he is subject to testify before Congress. This is a system of checks and balances and congressional oversight is a key component of those checks.
The precise balance is constantly subject to adjustment based on whatever controversies might be topical. Which is where we are today.
More to come.
Political Consequences
There are few political laws with the weight of the laws of physics, but it may be appropriate to state that for every judicial action there is a political reaction.
It was true for Roe v. Wade and Plessy v. Ferguson and the Dred Scott decision and it may well be the case for the gun control decision, at least according to George Will.
It was true for Roe v. Wade and Plessy v. Ferguson and the Dred Scott decision and it may well be the case for the gun control decision, at least according to George Will.
Test Case
Fascinating article in today's Washington Post about Robert A. Levy, the non-gun owning, wealthy resident of Naples, Florida (and lawyer and fellow at the Cato Institute) who funded and organized the law suit against the D.C.' s gun control laws.
This is a classic example of a test case, much in the vein of Brown v. Board of Ed. and Griswold v. Conn. Levy thought it up and pushed it forward under the guise of D.C. residents.
Here's a key part of the article:
Does this make anyone uncomfortable? Uneasy?
Is this not judicial activism, and if successful, doesn't it vindicate recent efforts to use the courts to change public policy? After all, a right often pits a minority against a majority--often a local or state majority--and an individual liberty guaranteed by the Constitution is a legitimate subject for the courts, even if it negates that actions of democratically attuned local authorities.
There are of course two ways to look at this: substantively and procedurally. The proceduralist looks at how policy is established while one who is only interested in the substantive outcome looks to the end result, no matter how it was attained. This raises a dilemma for gun rights activists who are concerned about the increasing power of the courts. Though this victory may be substantively appealing, does it increase the procedural power of the court in a manner which may come back to haunt them?
This is a classic example of a test case, much in the vein of Brown v. Board of Ed. and Griswold v. Conn. Levy thought it up and pushed it forward under the guise of D.C. residents.
Here's a key part of the article:
Before they filed the lawsuit in February 2003, arguingNotice the care that goes into selecting the plaintiffs. This points out that this really isn't their case, it's Levy's. So why does he do it? The story goes on to state that Levy's motivation has less to do with gon controal than with civil liberties:
that the city's gun statute violates the Second Amendment's
language on the right to bear arms, Levy and Clark M.
Neily III, a public-interest lawyer, spent months carefully
assembling a cast of plaintiffs, Levy said.
"We wanted gender diversity," he said. "We wanted racial
diversity, economic diversity, age diversity." The plaintiffs
had to be D.C. residents who believed fervently in gun rights
and wanted loaded weapons in their homes for self-defense.
And they had to be respectable.
"No Looney Tunes," Levy said. "You know, you don't want
the guy who just signed up for the militia. And no criminal
records. You want law-abiding citizens."
He and Neily worked the phones. "We called all our contacts
in the legal community," Levy said. "We looked at the
newspapers: Who was writing on the subject? Who was sending
letters to the editor about gun laws?" They scoured the city.
"Friends lead you to other friends, and you just keep talking
and talking to people, until finally you have your clients."
They found dozens of likely plaintiffs, Levy said. They
went with three men and three women, from their mid-20s
to early 60s, four of them white and two black. They found
a mortgage broker from Georgetown and a neighborhood
activist in a crime-scarred area of Northeast Washington.
They also lined up a communications lawyer, a government
office worker and a courthouse security guard. In their
disparate walks of life, the six shared an eagerness to
arm themselves.
Levy knew only one of them: Tom G. Palmer, 50,
a Cato colleague who is gay.
What matters most to him is whether the statute unjustlyMy question is whether it is appropriate for a resident of one state to engineer an attack on a statute in another region of the country--not another state in this case because this is in Washington D.C.
infringes on personal liberties. He doesn't dispute that
"reasonable" gun controls are permissible under the Second
Amendment. But the District's law amounts to "an outright
prohibition," Levy said, and "that offends my constitutional
sensibilities."
Does this make anyone uncomfortable? Uneasy?
Is this not judicial activism, and if successful, doesn't it vindicate recent efforts to use the courts to change public policy? After all, a right often pits a minority against a majority--often a local or state majority--and an individual liberty guaranteed by the Constitution is a legitimate subject for the courts, even if it negates that actions of democratically attuned local authorities.
There are of course two ways to look at this: substantively and procedurally. The proceduralist looks at how policy is established while one who is only interested in the substantive outcome looks to the end result, no matter how it was attained. This raises a dilemma for gun rights activists who are concerned about the increasing power of the courts. Though this victory may be substantively appealing, does it increase the procedural power of the court in a manner which may come back to haunt them?
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Risen from the Dead: The Second Amendment
The Supreme Court hasn't weighed in much on the Second Amendment, but that's going to change soon due to a successful challenge of D.C.'s gun control policy in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (which is regarded as stepping stone to the Supreme Court). Their decision is certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court and equally certain to be accepted for review.
Background:
Washington D.C. has a notorious crime problem and has in the past been called America's Murder Capital. In 1976, in order to reduce crime, the city enacted strong anti-gun ordinances that banned all guns in the city that were not purchased in 1976 or before and requiring that guns in homes be kept disassembled. The law has apparently been ineffective, but supporters contend that gun crime would be greater if the law was repealed.
The case, Parker v. the District of Columbia, was initiated by several citizens of D.C. who wanted to have guns available for self protection. They argued that the law violates their Second Amendment Rights.
Which is where things get interesting because there is no clear precedent for interpreting the Second Amendment and its confusing opening clause "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...".
Does the right to own and possess a gun exist apart from this stipulation? One may well argue that since we don't have militias anymore, and the military supplies arms to its troops, the Second Amendment is anachronistic and has no application in today's society. But it can also be pointed out that people have been allowed to possess guns for many reasons (hunting, sport, and colleting among them) since the country's founding creating a precedent for interpreting the law as applying to non-militia contexts.
We simply don't know what the clause means, but the Supreme Court will be abel to clear this matter up for us.
But wait, there's more. A related issue touches on whether Second Amendment Rights are absolute. Speech rights aren't. One can be punished for using one's freedom of speech in a manner that violates public order or infringes on the rights of others. Does a greater interest in reducing crime (a legitimate public good) also allow gun rights to be compromised?
Again, the S.C. will help us find out.
Depending on how the S.C. chooses to rule, their decision could impact gun control legislation across the country--but only if they choose to rule broadly. They could, and often do, make decisions that apply narrowly to the specific issue in the case before them and resist the urge to set policy for the entire country. But they may make an exception here, who knows?
Worth noting:
Among those supporting the appellants were many state's Attorney Generals, including our very own Greg Abbott, The National Rifle Association (no suprise) and the Congress of Racial Equality.
Other Attorney Generals lined up with the city as did the Brady Center.
Background:
Washington D.C. has a notorious crime problem and has in the past been called America's Murder Capital. In 1976, in order to reduce crime, the city enacted strong anti-gun ordinances that banned all guns in the city that were not purchased in 1976 or before and requiring that guns in homes be kept disassembled. The law has apparently been ineffective, but supporters contend that gun crime would be greater if the law was repealed.
The case, Parker v. the District of Columbia, was initiated by several citizens of D.C. who wanted to have guns available for self protection. They argued that the law violates their Second Amendment Rights.
Which is where things get interesting because there is no clear precedent for interpreting the Second Amendment and its confusing opening clause "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...".
Does the right to own and possess a gun exist apart from this stipulation? One may well argue that since we don't have militias anymore, and the military supplies arms to its troops, the Second Amendment is anachronistic and has no application in today's society. But it can also be pointed out that people have been allowed to possess guns for many reasons (hunting, sport, and colleting among them) since the country's founding creating a precedent for interpreting the law as applying to non-militia contexts.
We simply don't know what the clause means, but the Supreme Court will be abel to clear this matter up for us.
But wait, there's more. A related issue touches on whether Second Amendment Rights are absolute. Speech rights aren't. One can be punished for using one's freedom of speech in a manner that violates public order or infringes on the rights of others. Does a greater interest in reducing crime (a legitimate public good) also allow gun rights to be compromised?
Again, the S.C. will help us find out.
Depending on how the S.C. chooses to rule, their decision could impact gun control legislation across the country--but only if they choose to rule broadly. They could, and often do, make decisions that apply narrowly to the specific issue in the case before them and resist the urge to set policy for the entire country. But they may make an exception here, who knows?
Worth noting:
Among those supporting the appellants were many state's Attorney Generals, including our very own Greg Abbott, The National Rifle Association (no suprise) and the Congress of Racial Equality.
Other Attorney Generals lined up with the city as did the Brady Center.
Spring Break...
...is about over and I'm curious (within limits) about what exactly you did.
I imagine that more than a few of you work and have responsibilities that keep your feet on the ground, but some don't. So how did you occupy your time? Maybe you got some of my written assignments out of the way--not holding my breath.
Anyone willing to stick their necks out and say that this is a wasted week that should be spent in class? You can post anonymously if you wish.
I test drove cars with my (and for) wife and bought and assembled a huge new couch from IKEA. I have about a hundred pounds of cardboard to tie up before the trashman gets here Monday.
Big time fun.
I imagine that more than a few of you work and have responsibilities that keep your feet on the ground, but some don't. So how did you occupy your time? Maybe you got some of my written assignments out of the way--not holding my breath.
Anyone willing to stick their necks out and say that this is a wasted week that should be spent in class? You can post anonymously if you wish.
I test drove cars with my (and for) wife and bought and assembled a huge new couch from IKEA. I have about a hundred pounds of cardboard to tie up before the trashman gets here Monday.
Big time fun.
Friday, March 9, 2007
About that Speech
Here is WaPo coverage of the speech that Karl Rove gave at the Clinton Presidential Library.
As tends to occur at this point in every second term presidency, speculation centers on a president's legacy--even though everyone in the administration denies that this is a concern.
After claiming that every president builds on the administrative achievements of their predecessors, Rove makes the following argument about what may be Bush's most enduring influence:
We'll stay on this subject.
As tends to occur at this point in every second term presidency, speculation centers on a president's legacy--even though everyone in the administration denies that this is a concern.
After claiming that every president builds on the administrative achievements of their predecessors, Rove makes the following argument about what may be Bush's most enduring influence:
He said that the biggest Bush legacy will be what he terms the "Bush doctrine."Critics weigh in however and claim that his legacy will be marked more by increased polarization in politics.
It "says if you train a terrorist, harbor a terrorist, feed a terrorist, you
will be treated like a terrorist yourself. And then the corollary of that, which
is that we will not wait until dangers fully materialize before taking action."
We'll stay on this subject.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Gates Speaks
Bill Gates testified today before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee that today's schools are not preparing American students to adequately compete in the information based economy of the future.
There's a reason why American firms have setting up shop in China and India.
There's a reason why American firms have setting up shop in China and India.
Hell Freezes Over, Part II
Karl Rove is scheduled to speak tomorrow at the Clinton Presidential Library.
Why I like Juries
There on the front page of the New York Times you see photos of three key players in the Libby trial.
-Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor
-Dick Cheney, the defendant's boss
-Dennis Collins, the jury foreman
Where else can you see a private citizen lined up as an equal with high powered people like Fitzgerald and Cheney? Did I say equal? He and his fellow jurors were able to evaluate the arguments of the prosecutor and pass judgement on the defendant. Sounds like more than an equal.
A group of private citizens were able to check the power of the White House.
-Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor
-Dick Cheney, the defendant's boss
-Dennis Collins, the jury foreman
Where else can you see a private citizen lined up as an equal with high powered people like Fitzgerald and Cheney? Did I say equal? He and his fellow jurors were able to evaluate the arguments of the prosecutor and pass judgement on the defendant. Sounds like more than an equal.
A group of private citizens were able to check the power of the White House.
Libby, Libby, Libby
It's been a while since I've posted on the Scotter Libby trial, but now that guilty verdicts have been issued, it's appropriate to weigh in again and discuss it's implications for executive power. If you want to refresh your memory of the case go to this link in Slate. It contains links to the various articles they published regarding the case.
Recall that Mr. Libby was the Vice President's Chief of Staff, and he seems to have been involved in efforts to discredit an early critic of the allegations that were used to persuade people to support the invasion of Iraq. One aspect of these efforts involved the revelation that the wife of the critic was a covert CIA agent, which is illegal. Mr. Libby was found guilty of lying about what happened to a special prosecutor. At the moment there seems to be no effort to investigate the breaking of the actual law, which is upsetting to some, but not to those who see this case as overblown.
Here are some of the related issues worth pondering:
-Considering that the administration effectively outed a covert CIA agent for political reasons, what might this do for relationships between the White House and the bureaucracy? Will CIA agents be less trusting of the White House?
-Since the bulk of the testimony came from members of the media who were compelled to testify, and some of these individuals seemed to willing to be manipulated by White House officials, how willing will members of the media be to cover similar issues in the future?
-Is the special prosecutor too loose a cannon?
-Did the prosecutor focus on the right people, and if not, why not?
Recall that Mr. Libby was the Vice President's Chief of Staff, and he seems to have been involved in efforts to discredit an early critic of the allegations that were used to persuade people to support the invasion of Iraq. One aspect of these efforts involved the revelation that the wife of the critic was a covert CIA agent, which is illegal. Mr. Libby was found guilty of lying about what happened to a special prosecutor. At the moment there seems to be no effort to investigate the breaking of the actual law, which is upsetting to some, but not to those who see this case as overblown.
Here are some of the related issues worth pondering:
-Considering that the administration effectively outed a covert CIA agent for political reasons, what might this do for relationships between the White House and the bureaucracy? Will CIA agents be less trusting of the White House?
-Since the bulk of the testimony came from members of the media who were compelled to testify, and some of these individuals seemed to willing to be manipulated by White House officials, how willing will members of the media be to cover similar issues in the future?
-Is the special prosecutor too loose a cannon?
-Did the prosecutor focus on the right people, and if not, why not?
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
The Fired Attorneys Testify
The promised hearings regarding why eight U.S. Attorneys were fired last year begins to day in the House and the Senate.
Aside from the merits of this dispute, increasing attention is being paid to changes that Congress approved in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act last year (read the DoJ coverage here). This Slate article provides background, but apparently Congress was unaware that tucked deep inside the bill were provisions removing the Senate's ability to confirm the appointment of attorneys.
Executive control of the Justice Department was thereby expanded without the knowledge of the legislative or judicial branches. This seems to confirm the points we have been discussing in class concerning the increase in presidential popwers over the past several decades, which seems to have been accelerating since W Bush has been in office.
A few things are worth considering.
-Is it appropriate for the chief executive to have full control over the Justice Department--or any executive department for that matter? He is "chief" executive after all.
-Is it dangerous for the president to have full control of the Justice Department. Is congressional and judicial oversight necessary in order to prevent tyranny?
-Is it dangerous if the president does not have full control over the Justice Department? Will we more vulnerable to bad guys if Congress can slow down the law enforcement process?
-Is a president likely to politicize the judiciary? Hire attorneys who will only attack his political enemies?
-Was Congress derelict in its duty by not beign fully aware of what they were voting on?
-Is this likely to emerge as a political issue in 2008 and beyond?
-etc, etc, etc . . .
Aside from the merits of this dispute, increasing attention is being paid to changes that Congress approved in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act last year (read the DoJ coverage here). This Slate article provides background, but apparently Congress was unaware that tucked deep inside the bill were provisions removing the Senate's ability to confirm the appointment of attorneys.
Executive control of the Justice Department was thereby expanded without the knowledge of the legislative or judicial branches. This seems to confirm the points we have been discussing in class concerning the increase in presidential popwers over the past several decades, which seems to have been accelerating since W Bush has been in office.
A few things are worth considering.
-Is it appropriate for the chief executive to have full control over the Justice Department--or any executive department for that matter? He is "chief" executive after all.
-Is it dangerous for the president to have full control of the Justice Department. Is congressional and judicial oversight necessary in order to prevent tyranny?
-Is it dangerous if the president does not have full control over the Justice Department? Will we more vulnerable to bad guys if Congress can slow down the law enforcement process?
-Is a president likely to politicize the judiciary? Hire attorneys who will only attack his political enemies?
-Was Congress derelict in its duty by not beign fully aware of what they were voting on?
-Is this likely to emerge as a political issue in 2008 and beyond?
-etc, etc, etc . . .
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Giuliani and the Republican Party Platform
In 2301 we have been discussing the problems that the two major U.S. parties face in keeping consistent positions on issues. Republicans are having to face the uncomfortable reality that candidate that currently seems most competitive has different positions than the party on two of the most important issues to the party faithful: abortion and gay rights.
Maybe things change down the line, but do party identifiers stick to their principles and risk losing, or do they compromise principles in the hopes of winning?
This is a classic dilemma.
What to do? What to do?
Maybe things change down the line, but do party identifiers stick to their principles and risk losing, or do they compromise principles in the hopes of winning?
This is a classic dilemma.
What to do? What to do?
WaPo on the Rise of Lobbying
Today the Washington Post begins an online video series on the rise of lobbying. Aside form any merit the series itself will have, its a further indication of how the sophistication of the web is transforming newspapers and television. Network and cable outfits have print versions available on line and newspapers return the favor by having video content on their sites.
Is there any useful distinction between the two anymore?
Is there any useful distinction between the two anymore?
Saturday, March 3, 2007
A Public Service Announcement
We will soon (after spring break) be dwelving further into ideology--at least my 2301 classes will. It'll be useful to bring up a few things that have fallen out regarding Ann Coulter's comments regarding John Edwards at the Conservative Political Action Conference yesterday.
Suffice to say that her comments would not be out of place among 8th graders.
First, it is interesting to note that this seems to be something the blogosphere, but not the mainstream media, cares about. Take that how you will.
But of special interest are criticisms levied by more serious conservatives who are worried that the newer generation lacks any understanding of the principles the movement is based on. For them, conservatism seems little more than focused hatred on a handful of people who are alleged to be liberal. Here's a cover story from the American Conservative bemoaning the trend, but it is worth considering whether this is simply the way things go.
When liberalism was in ascendancy there certainly came a moment when its supporters lost track of what the liberalism stood for and instead merely supported it because the movement's political strength provided them with material advantages--jobs etc... (Remember that during the disputes surrounding the country's founding that each side argued that the other carried less about principle than about self-interest).
Now it appears that conservatism has come to that point and perhaps the pendulum will begin its inevitable swing leftward.
To summarize thoughts by one of the bloggers in question, young conservatives ought to look less to Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter for their thoughts and ideas and more to those of the modern movement's founders: Richard Weaver, Robert Nisbet, and Russell Kirk.
Maybe then take look at the work of Edmund Burke.
Suffice to say that her comments would not be out of place among 8th graders.
First, it is interesting to note that this seems to be something the blogosphere, but not the mainstream media, cares about. Take that how you will.
But of special interest are criticisms levied by more serious conservatives who are worried that the newer generation lacks any understanding of the principles the movement is based on. For them, conservatism seems little more than focused hatred on a handful of people who are alleged to be liberal. Here's a cover story from the American Conservative bemoaning the trend, but it is worth considering whether this is simply the way things go.
When liberalism was in ascendancy there certainly came a moment when its supporters lost track of what the liberalism stood for and instead merely supported it because the movement's political strength provided them with material advantages--jobs etc... (Remember that during the disputes surrounding the country's founding that each side argued that the other carried less about principle than about self-interest).
Now it appears that conservatism has come to that point and perhaps the pendulum will begin its inevitable swing leftward.
To summarize thoughts by one of the bloggers in question, young conservatives ought to look less to Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter for their thoughts and ideas and more to those of the modern movement's founders: Richard Weaver, Robert Nisbet, and Russell Kirk.
Maybe then take look at the work of Edmund Burke.
Gov v. Market
One of the stories I have been remiss in not covering is the controversy concerning JetBlue and the way it handled its passengers who were stuck 10 hours on a plane in clear view of the airport due to snow conditions.
The airline promised to treat its passengers better, but some want Congress to pass a "Passenger Bill of Rights" in order to guarantee better treatment.
At root, this is a question concerning the proper relationship between freedom (in this case the ability of airlines and passengers to conduct their own affairs as they see fit) and coercion (government stepping in and mandating certain behaviors that are unlikely to happen voluntarily). Can the free market correct itself or does government have to step in?
Here's a link to an open thread on the Washington Post where readers discuss this question.
It's worth pondering because it is the central question in the American governing system--how are the unalienable rights best secured? Did JetBlue (with federal governing authority behind it) violate liberty? Or might the PBoR violate JetBlue's?
The airline promised to treat its passengers better, but some want Congress to pass a "Passenger Bill of Rights" in order to guarantee better treatment.
At root, this is a question concerning the proper relationship between freedom (in this case the ability of airlines and passengers to conduct their own affairs as they see fit) and coercion (government stepping in and mandating certain behaviors that are unlikely to happen voluntarily). Can the free market correct itself or does government have to step in?
Here's a link to an open thread on the Washington Post where readers discuss this question.
It's worth pondering because it is the central question in the American governing system--how are the unalienable rights best secured? Did JetBlue (with federal governing authority behind it) violate liberty? Or might the PBoR violate JetBlue's?
The Ghost of Strom Thurmond...
...rears its head twice this week.
It turns out that his ancestors owned Al Sharpton's ancestor's.
And it seems that Vice President Cheney was carried in and out of Pakistan and Afghanistan in the belly of a plane called the Spirit of Strom Thurmond.
Faux Pax?
2301 students should recall that Strom Thurmond helped spur the South's transition from one party domination to Republican control.
It turns out that his ancestors owned Al Sharpton's ancestor's.
And it seems that Vice President Cheney was carried in and out of Pakistan and Afghanistan in the belly of a plane called the Spirit of Strom Thurmond.
Faux Pax?
2301 students should recall that Strom Thurmond helped spur the South's transition from one party domination to Republican control.
Good Cop Bad Cop
Interesting consequence of divided government:
Apparently both President Bush and Vice President Cheney have taken to warning Pakistan, the Iraq government and others that if they don't shape up, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress will cut their funding.
Just wait until your mother gets home and you'll be in real trouble!
Apparently both President Bush and Vice President Cheney have taken to warning Pakistan, the Iraq government and others that if they don't shape up, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress will cut their funding.
Just wait until your mother gets home and you'll be in real trouble!
About those firings...
The Washington Post has more information regarding the firings of the attorneys that will testify before Congress next week.
The White House claims they were not working hard enough to carry out the president's policies. This points to a classic dispute between the presidency, Congress and the bureaucracy. Each has its own ideas concerning the implementation of public policy and the turf to make it happen, which leads to conflict.
There are constitutional issues at stake here as well. Who controls the bureaucracy? The president, due to his constitutional role as chief executive, or the legislature since they established the laws that the bureaucracy implements as well as the appropriations that fund that implementation?
Politics underlies this conflict also. Is the White House complaint based on policy or politics. The former is permitted, the latter is not.
The White House claims they were not working hard enough to carry out the president's policies. This points to a classic dispute between the presidency, Congress and the bureaucracy. Each has its own ideas concerning the implementation of public policy and the turf to make it happen, which leads to conflict.
There are constitutional issues at stake here as well. Who controls the bureaucracy? The president, due to his constitutional role as chief executive, or the legislature since they established the laws that the bureaucracy implements as well as the appropriations that fund that implementation?
Politics underlies this conflict also. Is the White House complaint based on policy or politics. The former is permitted, the latter is not.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Still More Oversight
This time its the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and it concerns the firing of eight attorneys in the Justice Department. Democrats want to know if it was for political, not performance, reasons.
Et Tu Wiki?
I had no idea, but apparently I have been sending you biased information by linking to pages from Wikipedia. We all know that the infomration can be factually suspect because it is produced by readers. I link anyway because the better articles themselves link to worthy outside sources, but apparently the antire site is part of the liberally biased media.
To the rescue comes Conservapedia with, one assumes, fair and balanced definitions of words and terms and such like.
We can all rest easier now.
To the rescue comes Conservapedia with, one assumes, fair and balanced definitions of words and terms and such like.
We can all rest easier now.
From Leslie Bryant:
I've posted this comment a bit late (my apologies) but one of your fellow students has questions about the wisom of the surge. Can you help out?
It was brought to my attention that the President, George Bush, is proposing a bill to send 21,500 more United States troops to the war zone in Iraq. I disagree with the passing of this bill. Is sending that many more troops over there just another one of Bush’s ways of attempting to comfort Americans and soothe their fears of this war or does he actually think that this may help us to further ourselves and win this war. The war in Iraq has been in effect for about four years now and still it seems that we have gotten pretty much no where. It doesn’t seem to make much sense to send over thousands more of our young America to something that seems to consistently only be ending the deaths of many young Americans.
The very unpopular war has led to the deaths of over three thousand United States troops and is blamed for the “GOP losses in the November 7th elections that handed control of Congress to the Democrats.” The Senate’s debate on the new resolution by the President is set to begin next week. The House floor debate is set for February 12th, 2007.
It is just so hard for me to agree to send over more and more troops when it seems like all we are getting out of this war so far is a higher death toll. What needs to be decided is whether sending over more troops will help America to advance in the war or whether it is our lack of a sufficient strategy in the war. Is our sole purpose and strategy to simply outnumber the enemy, or will it honestly help us in the war against Iraq?
It just seems that more and more everyday we are slowly losing the war in Iraq and that we keep on losing the lives of those brave enough to go out there and fight for their country. I do not have much of a background on the war in Iraq and the dispersion of troops, but in my mind I just cannot fathom the idea of throwing thousands of more troops in the fire like that. It seems that what the President should do is go in and in a round-about way observe, if at all possible, and then hold a meeting of some sort discussing what was observed and if in fact sending in more troops to Iraq is the answer to our problems.
Also by sending such a significant amount, could this possibly “clutter” the war zone and cause more of a problem than it would be actually solving the solution? Is George Bush solely sending the troops over to solidify continuous funding for the war and the troops? I guess my main question is asking whether or not George Bush does in fact have the best interest of our troops at heart and not just money and priorities first?
It was brought to my attention that the President, George Bush, is proposing a bill to send 21,500 more United States troops to the war zone in Iraq. I disagree with the passing of this bill. Is sending that many more troops over there just another one of Bush’s ways of attempting to comfort Americans and soothe their fears of this war or does he actually think that this may help us to further ourselves and win this war. The war in Iraq has been in effect for about four years now and still it seems that we have gotten pretty much no where. It doesn’t seem to make much sense to send over thousands more of our young America to something that seems to consistently only be ending the deaths of many young Americans.
The very unpopular war has led to the deaths of over three thousand United States troops and is blamed for the “GOP losses in the November 7th elections that handed control of Congress to the Democrats.” The Senate’s debate on the new resolution by the President is set to begin next week. The House floor debate is set for February 12th, 2007.
It is just so hard for me to agree to send over more and more troops when it seems like all we are getting out of this war so far is a higher death toll. What needs to be decided is whether sending over more troops will help America to advance in the war or whether it is our lack of a sufficient strategy in the war. Is our sole purpose and strategy to simply outnumber the enemy, or will it honestly help us in the war against Iraq?
It just seems that more and more everyday we are slowly losing the war in Iraq and that we keep on losing the lives of those brave enough to go out there and fight for their country. I do not have much of a background on the war in Iraq and the dispersion of troops, but in my mind I just cannot fathom the idea of throwing thousands of more troops in the fire like that. It seems that what the President should do is go in and in a round-about way observe, if at all possible, and then hold a meeting of some sort discussing what was observed and if in fact sending in more troops to Iraq is the answer to our problems.
Also by sending such a significant amount, could this possibly “clutter” the war zone and cause more of a problem than it would be actually solving the solution? Is George Bush solely sending the troops over to solidify continuous funding for the war and the troops? I guess my main question is asking whether or not George Bush does in fact have the best interest of our troops at heart and not just money and priorities first?
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Red Light Cameras and the Constitution
Thanks To Jessica White for bringing up this story in class.
Do the red light cameras in Houston violate constitutional rights and if so, what rights do they violate?
This question relates to the subject matter of both 2301 and 2302. In 2301 we will be discussing the appropriate limits of governmental power (civil liberities) and where they might be found (either specifically written in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or seen in the broader reaches of the concept of "unalienable rights"). In 2302 we will discuss how appellate judges--most notably members of the Supreme Court--interpret constitutional language.
Two traffic lawyers in Houston claim that the cameras violate the principle of taxation without representation, which suggests that they see the policy not as a traffic safety issue, but as a revenue issue (in 2301 we will discuss the concept of framing when we cover public opinion).
Having yet to dwelve fully into this, I think that if this is defined as a traffic safety issue, then there really are no rights issues in play. Driving is considered a privilege not a right and the greater interest of society in having safe roads--which includes ensuring that people stop at red lights--outweighs an individuals' claim to drive as they choose, or to protest a means for enforcing the law. This is a more complex issue than I'm giving it credit for however. Legitimate questions have been raised in the past regarding the constitutionality of enforcing speed limits with cameras and sending tickets to the registered user (how do we know that that was the driver?) and the use of road blocks to enforce compliance.
But since this is defined in terms of taxation, who knows how it will go? Here are some posts (one and two) from other sources which describe this effort. Apparently this has been going on a while.
Do the red light cameras in Houston violate constitutional rights and if so, what rights do they violate?
This question relates to the subject matter of both 2301 and 2302. In 2301 we will be discussing the appropriate limits of governmental power (civil liberities) and where they might be found (either specifically written in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or seen in the broader reaches of the concept of "unalienable rights"). In 2302 we will discuss how appellate judges--most notably members of the Supreme Court--interpret constitutional language.
Two traffic lawyers in Houston claim that the cameras violate the principle of taxation without representation, which suggests that they see the policy not as a traffic safety issue, but as a revenue issue (in 2301 we will discuss the concept of framing when we cover public opinion).
Having yet to dwelve fully into this, I think that if this is defined as a traffic safety issue, then there really are no rights issues in play. Driving is considered a privilege not a right and the greater interest of society in having safe roads--which includes ensuring that people stop at red lights--outweighs an individuals' claim to drive as they choose, or to protest a means for enforcing the law. This is a more complex issue than I'm giving it credit for however. Legitimate questions have been raised in the past regarding the constitutionality of enforcing speed limits with cameras and sending tickets to the registered user (how do we know that that was the driver?) and the use of road blocks to enforce compliance.
But since this is defined in terms of taxation, who knows how it will go? Here are some posts (one and two) from other sources which describe this effort. Apparently this has been going on a while.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)