Saturday, January 31, 2009
Is Rush Limbaugh the De Facto Leader of the Republican Party?
One of the problems with being the party that does not hold the presidency is that you are not sure who your leader is. That makes cohesion difficult. Power struggles generally do not allow for effective consensus. When W was president, it was not clear who headed the Democratic Party, but it tended to someone who held elected office -- Al Gore, John Kerry -- or the head of the national party organization.
No one argued that a talk show host headed the party, but no liberal commentator has the muscle of Rush Limbaugh. He has apparently been leading the fight against Obama's proposals, which have caused some to argue that he is not the leader of the party. He is the one determining what direction the party should head. Is this healthy for the party? Or for the republic in general?
Here are some provocative links:
- Rush Limbaugh Officially Republican Party Leader :: WRAL.com.
- Think Progress » McCain To Obama: Leave Limbaugh Alone!.
- House GOP member to Rush: Back off - Jonathan Martin - Politico.com.
- Limbaugh Cracks the Whip, and Republicans Get in Line - First 100 ....
My personal opinion is that Limbaugh is part of a process, articulated in posts below, driving the party further to the right and away from the mainstream. This could further marginalize the party, especially if the economy seems to react favorably to the stimulus package. The Limbaugh conservatives are a strong part of the party, but not enough to win elections.
2301: It might be worth discussing whether he represents a use of the media that helps or hurts the democratic republic.
2302: What does his influence say about the ability of the Republican minority in Congress to set the party's agenda?
No one argued that a talk show host headed the party, but no liberal commentator has the muscle of Rush Limbaugh. He has apparently been leading the fight against Obama's proposals, which have caused some to argue that he is not the leader of the party. He is the one determining what direction the party should head. Is this healthy for the party? Or for the republic in general?
Here are some provocative links:
- Rush Limbaugh Officially Republican Party Leader :: WRAL.com.
- Think Progress » McCain To Obama: Leave Limbaugh Alone!.
- House GOP member to Rush: Back off - Jonathan Martin - Politico.com.
- Limbaugh Cracks the Whip, and Republicans Get in Line - First 100 ....
My personal opinion is that Limbaugh is part of a process, articulated in posts below, driving the party further to the right and away from the mainstream. This could further marginalize the party, especially if the economy seems to react favorably to the stimulus package. The Limbaugh conservatives are a strong part of the party, but not enough to win elections.
2301: It might be worth discussing whether he represents a use of the media that helps or hurts the democratic republic.
2302: What does his influence say about the ability of the Republican minority in Congress to set the party's agenda?
What is Stimulus For? Why Should Government Get Involved in the Market Place?
Someone, thankfully, in one of my classes fessed up to not knowing what the stimulus bill was about and how government could stimulate the economy. I'm sure he or she was not the only one unsure about this (this is why we tell you that there are no dumb questions, we need to know the level of knowledge you have in order to effectively communicate ideas to you).
With that in mind here is a brief overview of what the issue is about. Bear in mind that I am not an economist, but even economists disagree about all of this.
During the Great Depression, policymakers struggled with what to do. How does a government get itself out of a depression? Should the economy be left alone -- to the peril of the general population -- or should it intervene, and if so how?
Prior to the Great Depression laissez-faire ruled. Little if anything, was done to address a slumping economy, but with the 1932 election -- which followed the onset of the depression -- ideas (particularly those developed by John Maynard Keynes) emerged that held that a focus on stimulating demand would help the economy rebound. This meant government spending more than it took in, but focusing spending projects that would put money in people's pockets. Generally these are public works projects, but they could be all sorts of things. This was, in a sense, what the New Deal was all about.
The idea was that when government funds a project -- no matter how trivial -- the people involved in that project would not only earn money, but would spend that money in the local economy. Government may pay me to dig a ditch, and I use that money to pay my mortgage, buy groceries and clothes, and maybe see a movie. So the money I earned helps out the bank, the grocer, the shop I bought my clothes and the owner of the movie theater. They can then stay in business -- spend their money as they choose -- and continue to hire or retain workers who can then spend their money in the local economy.
So when government spends money to stimulate the economy, it intends to inject money in the economy that will circulate in the community. The theory is that this stimulus will help the economy, and the general population, survive until the economic system picks itself up and can begin to create its own jobs.
There are arguments against this theory, and nuances that are worth further discussion, including suggestions that these policies create more problems than they solve and that other governmental activities are more effective in helping the economy, but I'll hold them off to another day. Again this is a very simple explanation of what a stimulus package is supposed to do. Corrections and comments are welcomed of course.
Here are further links which should be helpful:
- Encyclopedia of Economics: Keynesian Economics.
- Wikipedia: Keynesian Economics.
With that in mind here is a brief overview of what the issue is about. Bear in mind that I am not an economist, but even economists disagree about all of this.
During the Great Depression, policymakers struggled with what to do. How does a government get itself out of a depression? Should the economy be left alone -- to the peril of the general population -- or should it intervene, and if so how?
Prior to the Great Depression laissez-faire ruled. Little if anything, was done to address a slumping economy, but with the 1932 election -- which followed the onset of the depression -- ideas (particularly those developed by John Maynard Keynes) emerged that held that a focus on stimulating demand would help the economy rebound. This meant government spending more than it took in, but focusing spending projects that would put money in people's pockets. Generally these are public works projects, but they could be all sorts of things. This was, in a sense, what the New Deal was all about.
The idea was that when government funds a project -- no matter how trivial -- the people involved in that project would not only earn money, but would spend that money in the local economy. Government may pay me to dig a ditch, and I use that money to pay my mortgage, buy groceries and clothes, and maybe see a movie. So the money I earned helps out the bank, the grocer, the shop I bought my clothes and the owner of the movie theater. They can then stay in business -- spend their money as they choose -- and continue to hire or retain workers who can then spend their money in the local economy.
So when government spends money to stimulate the economy, it intends to inject money in the economy that will circulate in the community. The theory is that this stimulus will help the economy, and the general population, survive until the economic system picks itself up and can begin to create its own jobs.
There are arguments against this theory, and nuances that are worth further discussion, including suggestions that these policies create more problems than they solve and that other governmental activities are more effective in helping the economy, but I'll hold them off to another day. Again this is a very simple explanation of what a stimulus package is supposed to do. Corrections and comments are welcomed of course.
Here are further links which should be helpful:
- Encyclopedia of Economics: Keynesian Economics.
- Wikipedia: Keynesian Economics.
Overturning the Exclusionary Rule
The New York Times reports that the Supreme Court is close to overturning Mapp v. Ohio, the 1961 court case that established the exclusionary rule, which states that evidence obtained by police against a criminal defendant in violation of 4th Amendment guidelines must be excluded from court:
The United States takes a distinctive approach to the exclusionary rule, requiring automatic suppression of physical evidence in some kinds of cases. That means, in theory at least, that relatively minor police misconduct can result in the suppression of conclusive evidence of terrible crimes.
In essence, the dispute lies in whether society is endangered more by criminal defendants -- who may actually be guilty of the crime they are accused of -- being set free, or police departments that are can search any one at any time for any reason.
This issue stems from the court's decision in a recent case Herring v. the United States, where:
an Alabama man, Bennie D. Herring, was arrested on officers’ mistaken belief that he was subject to an outstanding arrest warrant — was sloppy recordkeeping in a police database rather than a mistake by an officer on the scene.
For me, the fascinating part is that the current dispute has been built up over time.
In 1983, a young lawyer in the Reagan White House was hard at work on what he called in a memorandum “the campaign to amend or abolish the exclusionary rule” — the principle that evidence obtained by police misconduct cannot be used against a defendant.
The Reagan administration’s attacks on the exclusionary rule — a barrage of speeches, opinion articles, litigation and proposed legislation — never gained much traction. But now that young lawyer, John G. Roberts Jr., is chief justice of the United States.
This month, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority in Herring v. United States, a 5-to-4 decision, took a big step toward the goal he had discussed a quarter-century before. Taking aim at one of the towering legacies of the Warren Court, its landmark 1961 decision applying the exclusionary rule to the states, the chief justice’s majority opinion established for the first time that unlawful police conduct should not require the suppression of evidence if all that was involved was isolated carelessness. That was a significant step in itself. More important yet, it suggested that the exclusionary rule itself might be at risk.
This illustrates the fact that the political process is full of various movements and goals that take years to bring to fruition. This is little different than other efforts to change legal precedent going back to the Warren Court. Many critics argue that Brown v. Board of Ed. was overturned recently. Free speech protections and the separation of church and state among them. In many ways this has been the handiwork of the groups of lawyers and professors who created the Federalist Society years back, and helped influence Reagan's appointments to the judiciary, appointments which are bearing fruits to this day. The major goal of course would be overturning Roe v. Wade.
Considering the state of the political landscape at the moment, and the fact that its has been drifting leftwards in the past two electoral cycles and may continue in that direction for the next few, these current effort may well come to a head. The next handful of appointments to the federal judiciary will not be made by either a conservative Republican or a centrist Democrat. The window of opportunity for the conservative movement on the court may be closing, so they need to make their moves now.
But these victories might also help the liberal opposition. Consider that the conservative movement built its strength for three and four decades partly on opposing key decisions of the Warren Court. If they make the same decisions now, they will hand viable galvanizing issues to the opposition.
This is probably unavoidable. Its how politics swings back and forth.
The United States takes a distinctive approach to the exclusionary rule, requiring automatic suppression of physical evidence in some kinds of cases. That means, in theory at least, that relatively minor police misconduct can result in the suppression of conclusive evidence of terrible crimes.
In essence, the dispute lies in whether society is endangered more by criminal defendants -- who may actually be guilty of the crime they are accused of -- being set free, or police departments that are can search any one at any time for any reason.
This issue stems from the court's decision in a recent case Herring v. the United States, where:
an Alabama man, Bennie D. Herring, was arrested on officers’ mistaken belief that he was subject to an outstanding arrest warrant — was sloppy recordkeeping in a police database rather than a mistake by an officer on the scene.
For me, the fascinating part is that the current dispute has been built up over time.
In 1983, a young lawyer in the Reagan White House was hard at work on what he called in a memorandum “the campaign to amend or abolish the exclusionary rule” — the principle that evidence obtained by police misconduct cannot be used against a defendant.
The Reagan administration’s attacks on the exclusionary rule — a barrage of speeches, opinion articles, litigation and proposed legislation — never gained much traction. But now that young lawyer, John G. Roberts Jr., is chief justice of the United States.
This month, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority in Herring v. United States, a 5-to-4 decision, took a big step toward the goal he had discussed a quarter-century before. Taking aim at one of the towering legacies of the Warren Court, its landmark 1961 decision applying the exclusionary rule to the states, the chief justice’s majority opinion established for the first time that unlawful police conduct should not require the suppression of evidence if all that was involved was isolated carelessness. That was a significant step in itself. More important yet, it suggested that the exclusionary rule itself might be at risk.
This illustrates the fact that the political process is full of various movements and goals that take years to bring to fruition. This is little different than other efforts to change legal precedent going back to the Warren Court. Many critics argue that Brown v. Board of Ed. was overturned recently. Free speech protections and the separation of church and state among them. In many ways this has been the handiwork of the groups of lawyers and professors who created the Federalist Society years back, and helped influence Reagan's appointments to the judiciary, appointments which are bearing fruits to this day. The major goal of course would be overturning Roe v. Wade.
Considering the state of the political landscape at the moment, and the fact that its has been drifting leftwards in the past two electoral cycles and may continue in that direction for the next few, these current effort may well come to a head. The next handful of appointments to the federal judiciary will not be made by either a conservative Republican or a centrist Democrat. The window of opportunity for the conservative movement on the court may be closing, so they need to make their moves now.
But these victories might also help the liberal opposition. Consider that the conservative movement built its strength for three and four decades partly on opposing key decisions of the Warren Court. If they make the same decisions now, they will hand viable galvanizing issues to the opposition.
This is probably unavoidable. Its how politics swings back and forth.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
A Blue Nation?
According to the Gallup Poll, more people identify themselves as Republicans than Democrats in only seven states.
Transparency in the White House
The Obama Administration has promised to be transparent, which means that they will make their decisions public. They have promised, for example to post all non-emergency legislation online before Obama signs it in order to gather comments from the public.
Apparently they didn't do this for the Ledbetter bill signed today and this guy is upset about it.
As a point of comparison, here's a list of some secret memos from the Bush Administration that have been made public recently. Secrecy was then considered to be an essential way to act effectively. Perhaps, but it invites abuse.
Which way should the president err?
Apparently they didn't do this for the Ledbetter bill signed today and this guy is upset about it.
As a point of comparison, here's a list of some secret memos from the Bush Administration that have been made public recently. Secrecy was then considered to be an essential way to act effectively. Perhaps, but it invites abuse.
Which way should the president err?
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act
The first major piece of legislation of the Obama Administration has been signed and it overturns a decision made by the Supreme Court last year. This an interesting example of a check and balance not written in the Constitution, but facilitated by its design.
In the court case, Ledbetter's lawsuit claiming gender discrimination in pay was denied because 5 out of 9 justices argued that she filed the lawsuit later than the time allowed in Equal Pay Act. They contended that the 180 day limit ended when she received her first pay check. That was when she should have noticed the pay disparity and repoprted it. The dissenters held that the deadline was refreshed everytime she received a pay check. Civil rights violations are not a one time phenomenon, but recur.
The opinion of the justices is moot now however because the law now explicitly states that the statue of limitations is renewed every time a a unique discriminatory act--like the act of giving someone a pay check--occurs.
For my 2301 classes: here's a webpage that contains political dialogue about the issue. In a superficial sense, this pits the liberal civil rights, women's equity crowd against the conservative leave business alone crowd.
For my 2302 classes: here's the path the bill took on its way to becoming law.
In the court case, Ledbetter's lawsuit claiming gender discrimination in pay was denied because 5 out of 9 justices argued that she filed the lawsuit later than the time allowed in Equal Pay Act. They contended that the 180 day limit ended when she received her first pay check. That was when she should have noticed the pay disparity and repoprted it. The dissenters held that the deadline was refreshed everytime she received a pay check. Civil rights violations are not a one time phenomenon, but recur.
The opinion of the justices is moot now however because the law now explicitly states that the statue of limitations is renewed every time a a unique discriminatory act--like the act of giving someone a pay check--occurs.
For my 2301 classes: here's a webpage that contains political dialogue about the issue. In a superficial sense, this pits the liberal civil rights, women's equity crowd against the conservative leave business alone crowd.
For my 2302 classes: here's the path the bill took on its way to becoming law.
Politics and the Stimulus Package
Analysts wonder whether the Republican Party's united opposition to the stimulus bill in the House is a calculated (and perhaps miscalculated) effort to position themselves as the party of responsibility if the economy does not pick up in the near future:
Eight days after Barack Obama took office as a "change" president, House Republicans have made a huge political gamble that could set the tone for the next election cycle.
In unanimously opposing the massive spending bill that Obama says is crucial to reviving the economy, they signaled they are not cowed by his November win or his calls for a new era of bipartisanship. Obama's popularity will slacken, they say, and even it doesn't voters will reward a party that makes principled stands for restrained spending and bigger tax cuts.
Democratic officials think Republicans are misreading Americans' hunger for action. And if they are right, the GOP could face a third round of election setbacks next year.
Part of the Republicans' complaint is that the stimulus package includes support for liberal causes, which they argue will do nothing to stimulate the economy:
Republicans' biggest complaint is that the package is loaded with items that they say seem more likely to promote liberal agendas than to stimulate the economy in the short run. They include $1 billion for the Census Bureau and money to combat Avian flu and help people stop smoking.
With such items being highlighted, "it's becoming an easier 'no' vote for all us," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in an interview Thursday.
Many Republican lawmakers feel they were stampeded into voting last fall for a $700 billion financial bailout measure that proved unpopular with voters and of questionable benefit, Graham said. They worry that the stimulus bill might have a similar fate.
"Who wants to own an $850 billion increase in the national debt," Graham said, "not knowing whether it will work?"
The obvious problem for them is that if does work, they will have nothing substantive to run on in 2010. And even if it doesn't there's no reason to assume that a majority of the American public will accept the inevitable argument that the stimulus failed because of their unwillingness to tackle the problem seriously.
While they are at it, Obama is playing it calm and steady and almost certainly hoping to convince the vital moderate center of America that he is making bold but sensible decisions, if he wins, then this segment of the population--the one's that may have cast their tentative first vote for a Democrat in a generation this past November--might fully jump to his camp. Playing above politics is the best political game of them all.
It's a Hail Mary pass in my opinion. They are gambling it all on the first vote. It'll be fun to watch, assuming we survive it all.
Eight days after Barack Obama took office as a "change" president, House Republicans have made a huge political gamble that could set the tone for the next election cycle.
In unanimously opposing the massive spending bill that Obama says is crucial to reviving the economy, they signaled they are not cowed by his November win or his calls for a new era of bipartisanship. Obama's popularity will slacken, they say, and even it doesn't voters will reward a party that makes principled stands for restrained spending and bigger tax cuts.
Democratic officials think Republicans are misreading Americans' hunger for action. And if they are right, the GOP could face a third round of election setbacks next year.
Part of the Republicans' complaint is that the stimulus package includes support for liberal causes, which they argue will do nothing to stimulate the economy:
Republicans' biggest complaint is that the package is loaded with items that they say seem more likely to promote liberal agendas than to stimulate the economy in the short run. They include $1 billion for the Census Bureau and money to combat Avian flu and help people stop smoking.
With such items being highlighted, "it's becoming an easier 'no' vote for all us," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in an interview Thursday.
Many Republican lawmakers feel they were stampeded into voting last fall for a $700 billion financial bailout measure that proved unpopular with voters and of questionable benefit, Graham said. They worry that the stimulus bill might have a similar fate.
"Who wants to own an $850 billion increase in the national debt," Graham said, "not knowing whether it will work?"
The obvious problem for them is that if does work, they will have nothing substantive to run on in 2010. And even if it doesn't there's no reason to assume that a majority of the American public will accept the inevitable argument that the stimulus failed because of their unwillingness to tackle the problem seriously.
While they are at it, Obama is playing it calm and steady and almost certainly hoping to convince the vital moderate center of America that he is making bold but sensible decisions, if he wins, then this segment of the population--the one's that may have cast their tentative first vote for a Democrat in a generation this past November--might fully jump to his camp. Playing above politics is the best political game of them all.
It's a Hail Mary pass in my opinion. They are gambling it all on the first vote. It'll be fun to watch, assuming we survive it all.
Extra Credit for Week Three
You get five extra points on week three's work (whether you are a lecture or internet student) if you can tell me who occupies the following positions, and how you can contact these people:
U.S. president
U.S. vice president
Speaker of U.S. House
Majority Leader of U.S. Senate
Minority Leader of U.S. Senate
Your U.S. House Representative
The two U.S. Senators from Texas
Texas Governor
Texas Lt. Governor
Speaker of Texas House
Your Texas House Representative
Your Texas Senator
The Mayor of your city (tell me the city)
A member of your city’s city council
Your County Judge
U.S. president
U.S. vice president
Speaker of U.S. House
Majority Leader of U.S. Senate
Minority Leader of U.S. Senate
Your U.S. House Representative
The two U.S. Senators from Texas
Texas Governor
Texas Lt. Governor
Speaker of Texas House
Your Texas House Representative
Your Texas Senator
The Mayor of your city (tell me the city)
A member of your city’s city council
Your County Judge
Alvin City Charter Changes
And now for some local news, The Alvin Sun Advertiser reports that the Alvin City Council is considering changes to its city charter:
The Alvin City Council received the proposed Charter revisions from the review Committee, with those changes going on the ballot for citizens to review in May.
The Charter requires a review of itself every four years.
...
Following nine meetings of the Commission, a Public Forum to review the findings of the Commission and to receive comments from the public was held on Nov. 10, 2008.
The Commission has come forth with four changes to the Alvin City Charter. These recommendations will appear on the May 9 ballot.
The proposed changes are
1. That recall initiatives must state the reason for the recall
2. The Ethics Provision of the Charter be cleaned up.
3. An allowance that economic development ordinances be included int he charter
4. A redefinition of "disaster."
The Alvin City Council received the proposed Charter revisions from the review Committee, with those changes going on the ballot for citizens to review in May.
The Charter requires a review of itself every four years.
...
Following nine meetings of the Commission, a Public Forum to review the findings of the Commission and to receive comments from the public was held on Nov. 10, 2008.
The Commission has come forth with four changes to the Alvin City Charter. These recommendations will appear on the May 9 ballot.
The proposed changes are
1. That recall initiatives must state the reason for the recall
2. The Ethics Provision of the Charter be cleaned up.
3. An allowance that economic development ordinances be included int he charter
4. A redefinition of "disaster."
Meet Eric Kantor
He is the Republican Representative of Virginia's 7th House District, and is also the Republican's whip in the House of Representatives.
His job is to make sure that all Republicans vote together. CQ Politics says he passed his first test.
His job is to make sure that all Republicans vote together. CQ Politics says he passed his first test.
Details on the Stimulus Bill Passed in the House
From Market Watch:
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday approved an $819 billion economic stimulus package. The bill includes $275 billion in tax cuts, $523 billion in direct spending, and other provisions. The bill, passed 244-188 on a straight party-line vote, would cut taxes for individuals and businesses, provide billions of dollars for infrastructure projects, help states balance their budgets, and provide relief to millions of people who've lost their jobs or homes. Read more on the House passage of the stimulus bill.
Here are the chief provisions of the bill:
Tax cuts
Payroll-tax holiday: $99 billion
Expanded earned-income tax credit: $25 billion
Tuition tax credit: $10 billion
Business expensing tax breaks: $90 billion
Renewable-energy tax credit: $20 billion
Relief
Expanded unemployment insurance: $42 billion
Health insurance for unemployed: $40 billion
Expanded food stamps: $20 billion
Housing assistance: $11 billion
Supplemental Security Income payments: $4 billion
Welfare: $3 billion
Infrastructure
Highways: $30 billion
School renovation: $20 billion
Health information technology: $17 billion
Transportation projects: $16 billion
Water projects: $8.4 billion
Military and V.A. construction: $7 billion
Accelerated deployment of broadband: $5.6 billion
Help for state and local governments
Medicaid cost sharing: $87 billion
State grants: $79 billion
State and local bond tax credit: $42 billion
Community development: $5 billion
Rural development: $4 billion
Energy efficiency
Federal energy-efficiency projects: $22 billion
Energy-efficiency grants: $18.5 billion
Smart electric grid: $11 billion
Renewable-energy loan guarantees: $8 billion
Human capital
Education programs: $29 billion
Pell grants: $18 billion
Job training: $4.6 billion
Scientific research: $3 billion
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday approved an $819 billion economic stimulus package. The bill includes $275 billion in tax cuts, $523 billion in direct spending, and other provisions. The bill, passed 244-188 on a straight party-line vote, would cut taxes for individuals and businesses, provide billions of dollars for infrastructure projects, help states balance their budgets, and provide relief to millions of people who've lost their jobs or homes. Read more on the House passage of the stimulus bill.
Here are the chief provisions of the bill:
Tax cuts
Payroll-tax holiday: $99 billion
Expanded earned-income tax credit: $25 billion
Tuition tax credit: $10 billion
Business expensing tax breaks: $90 billion
Renewable-energy tax credit: $20 billion
Relief
Expanded unemployment insurance: $42 billion
Health insurance for unemployed: $40 billion
Expanded food stamps: $20 billion
Housing assistance: $11 billion
Supplemental Security Income payments: $4 billion
Welfare: $3 billion
Infrastructure
Highways: $30 billion
School renovation: $20 billion
Health information technology: $17 billion
Transportation projects: $16 billion
Water projects: $8.4 billion
Military and V.A. construction: $7 billion
Accelerated deployment of broadband: $5.6 billion
Help for state and local governments
Medicaid cost sharing: $87 billion
State grants: $79 billion
State and local bond tax credit: $42 billion
Community development: $5 billion
Rural development: $4 billion
Energy efficiency
Federal energy-efficiency projects: $22 billion
Energy-efficiency grants: $18.5 billion
Smart electric grid: $11 billion
Renewable-energy loan guarantees: $8 billion
Human capital
Education programs: $29 billion
Pell grants: $18 billion
Job training: $4.6 billion
Scientific research: $3 billion
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Obama and Congress
Already two signs that his will be an unusual presidency.
Tuesday: He meets with Republicans in the House and Senate to discuss the stimulus bill
Wednesday: He has a cocktail party for leaders of both parties (including those who voted against the bill) at the White House to mark passage of the bill in the House.
Tuesday: He meets with Republicans in the House and Senate to discuss the stimulus bill
Wednesday: He has a cocktail party for leaders of both parties (including those who voted against the bill) at the White House to mark passage of the bill in the House.
Stimulus Bill Passes the House
Background from:
- The New York Times.
- USA Today.
- Yahoo News.
No Republican voted for the bill. Now its the Senate's turn, and since they are going to pass a different bill, a conference committee where the bill will be modified drastically. If the conference report passes both chambers, it becomes law.
- The New York Times.
- USA Today.
- Yahoo News.
No Republican voted for the bill. Now its the Senate's turn, and since they are going to pass a different bill, a conference committee where the bill will be modified drastically. If the conference report passes both chambers, it becomes law.
Is There No Room for Moderates in the Republican Party?
Charlie Cook worries that the Republican Party is lurching further to the right, making it less, not more, competitive:
One can look at the American electorate like a football field. Most voters are fairly centrist, sitting between the 35-yard lines. Democrats are on the left end of the field; Republicans on the right. The theoretical center for each party is roughly the 25-yard line on its side.
The Republican Party dropped from parity in terms of party identification four years ago and now is about 8 percentage points below the Democratic Party. The GOP has narrowed its base and moved to the right. The defections from the GOP have been among its least conservative members. Thus, the center of the Republican Party has moved to the right, between the 15- and 20-yard lines.
This shift means that GOP primaries have become more conservative, putting pressure on incumbents to chart a more rightward course than they would otherwise take. And it means that GOP primaries, particularly in open-seat races, will be even more likely than in the past to nominate ideologues. The party's contraction and rightward movement have become self-perpetuating, and will continue to be until something breaks the cycle.
One can look at the American electorate like a football field. Most voters are fairly centrist, sitting between the 35-yard lines. Democrats are on the left end of the field; Republicans on the right. The theoretical center for each party is roughly the 25-yard line on its side.
The Republican Party dropped from parity in terms of party identification four years ago and now is about 8 percentage points below the Democratic Party. The GOP has narrowed its base and moved to the right. The defections from the GOP have been among its least conservative members. Thus, the center of the Republican Party has moved to the right, between the 15- and 20-yard lines.
This shift means that GOP primaries have become more conservative, putting pressure on incumbents to chart a more rightward course than they would otherwise take. And it means that GOP primaries, particularly in open-seat races, will be even more likely than in the past to nominate ideologues. The party's contraction and rightward movement have become self-perpetuating, and will continue to be until something breaks the cycle.
The Rules Committee and the Stimulus Bill
From CQ Politics:
Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz., sees the $816 billion economic stimulus bill as an opportunity to freeze lawmakers’ pay.
Rep. John Adler , a freshman Democrat from New Jersey, wants the government to send $500 in assistance to retired seniors and disabled veterans.
Arizona Republican Jeff Flake just wants to ensure taxpayer dollars aren’t being spent on duck ponds, museums, skate or dog parks, equestrian centers, ski hills, historic homes, ice rinks, “splash” playgrounds or speaker systems — items of arguable stimulative value.
Their brainchildren are just three of the 206 amendments members of the House filed this week with the gate-keeping Rules Committee, which determines which of them will get a vote on the House floor.
Most of the amendments were headed for the legislative dust bin when the Rules Committee met for a marathon hearing Tuesday in a cramped committee room on the third floor of the Capitol.
Only 11 amendments, Democratic, Republican and bipartisan, were ultimately designated for floor votes, not including a handful of provisions that were combined into a single amendment that will be absorbed into the text of the bill when the House votes to adopt the rule governing floor debate on Wednesday.
Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz., sees the $816 billion economic stimulus bill as an opportunity to freeze lawmakers’ pay.
Rep. John Adler , a freshman Democrat from New Jersey, wants the government to send $500 in assistance to retired seniors and disabled veterans.
Arizona Republican Jeff Flake just wants to ensure taxpayer dollars aren’t being spent on duck ponds, museums, skate or dog parks, equestrian centers, ski hills, historic homes, ice rinks, “splash” playgrounds or speaker systems — items of arguable stimulative value.
Their brainchildren are just three of the 206 amendments members of the House filed this week with the gate-keeping Rules Committee, which determines which of them will get a vote on the House floor.
Most of the amendments were headed for the legislative dust bin when the Rules Committee met for a marathon hearing Tuesday in a cramped committee room on the third floor of the Capitol.
Only 11 amendments, Democratic, Republican and bipartisan, were ultimately designated for floor votes, not including a handful of provisions that were combined into a single amendment that will be absorbed into the text of the bill when the House votes to adopt the rule governing floor debate on Wednesday.
Robert Filmer and Baby Grace
As we've discussed in 2301, John Locke's Second Treatise was a response to Robert Filmer's justification for the Divine Rights of Kings. Filmer based his theory partly on the idea that a father's absolute power over his children justifies a king's absolute power over his subjects (kings being considered the father of their people). This absolute power includes power over life and death. Parents commonly possessed such power over children.
So here's a discussion question: Would Filmer support the prosecution of the parents of Baby Grace? Were they in fact free to punish her as they saw fit even if the punishment lead to her death? Would he think that government is justified in what it is doing? If we disagree, what is the basis of our disagreement?
So here's a discussion question: Would Filmer support the prosecution of the parents of Baby Grace? Were they in fact free to punish her as they saw fit even if the punishment lead to her death? Would he think that government is justified in what it is doing? If we disagree, what is the basis of our disagreement?
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The Stimulus Plan and Education
The New York Times tells us that the current stimulus plan would boost spending on education.
Culture Wars
Next week in 2301 we will discuss Federalist #10 and how it accounts for the problems that the interplay of interests pose in a free society. We will try to think of this in terms of the current interests that exist in the U.S, Texas and the local community.
Peter Beinart raises a point worth pondering. Over the past decades, the culture wars have been a divisive force in American politics. In addition to conflicts over the economy and foreign affairs, these have divided the population based on values questions that come to fruition over issues like gay marriage, abortion and civil rights. He suggests that part of Obama's success is that he stays away from these cultural issues. Further, Obama seem to be able to stay away from them because the American public seem to be less interested in them.
This doesn't mean that he is ignoring them, just downplaying them by trying to make concessions, even if they are superficial, to social conservatives who are driven by these issues. Thus the invitation of Rick Warren to speak at his inaugural. He concludes that if he is successful in driving cultural issues down, and expanding his coalition, his brand of liberalism could dominate politics for some time.
Peter Beinart raises a point worth pondering. Over the past decades, the culture wars have been a divisive force in American politics. In addition to conflicts over the economy and foreign affairs, these have divided the population based on values questions that come to fruition over issues like gay marriage, abortion and civil rights. He suggests that part of Obama's success is that he stays away from these cultural issues. Further, Obama seem to be able to stay away from them because the American public seem to be less interested in them.
This doesn't mean that he is ignoring them, just downplaying them by trying to make concessions, even if they are superficial, to social conservatives who are driven by these issues. Thus the invitation of Rick Warren to speak at his inaugural. He concludes that if he is successful in driving cultural issues down, and expanding his coalition, his brand of liberalism could dominate politics for some time.
January 2009 Supreme Court Rulings
The American Constitution Society notes that five unanimous rulings were issued by the Supreme Court recently. Does this suggest less ideology on the court?
One of the cases was Crawford v. Nashville which protects workers who report cases of sexual harrassment.
One of the cases was Crawford v. Nashville which protects workers who report cases of sexual harrassment.
Texas State of the State 2009
Rick Perry gave the State of the State address today in Austin
Find the text here.
For coverage, click on this: Perry urges lawmakers to freeze tuition, enact tax reform
Find the text here.
For coverage, click on this: Perry urges lawmakers to freeze tuition, enact tax reform
Tracking Obama
Plenty of websites are now following the actions of the president and determining how many campaign promises he is keeping. Obama has also launched efforts to use the web to continue rallying support for his proposals.
This is another example of how the web is changing government. I'll link to these soon.
This is another example of how the web is changing government. I'll link to these soon.
Texas House Rules Resolution Released
This comes from Quorum Report:
From the resolution:
Government Reform is merged into State Affairs, Judiciary is merged into Civil Jurisprudence, Law Enforcement is merged into Criminal Jurisprudence and Law Enforcement, Local Government Ways and Means is merged into Ways and Means, and Pensions and Investments is merged into Financial Services and Pensions. One committee, Regulated Industries, was eliminated and its duties distributed to five different committees. One new committee was created – Technology and Workforce Training.
The entire Resolution can be found here.
Each new session of the Texas Legislature -- and the U.S. Congress as well -- begins with consideration of the rules it will adhere.
From the resolution:
Government Reform is merged into State Affairs, Judiciary is merged into Civil Jurisprudence, Law Enforcement is merged into Criminal Jurisprudence and Law Enforcement, Local Government Ways and Means is merged into Ways and Means, and Pensions and Investments is merged into Financial Services and Pensions. One committee, Regulated Industries, was eliminated and its duties distributed to five different committees. One new committee was created – Technology and Workforce Training.
The entire Resolution can be found here.
Each new session of the Texas Legislature -- and the U.S. Congress as well -- begins with consideration of the rules it will adhere.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Redrawing Houston's City Council Districts
Now that Houston's population has exceeded 2.1 million, it has to add two new city council districts, but a dispute exist whether this should be done now, or after the next census. No one knows exactly where the new residents live, or their ethnicity. From the Chron:
Houston has had more than 2.1 million people since 2006, according to population estimates the city has been using in official documents. To create new districts and change boundaries, however, the city would have to use detailed population estimates for specific tracts of land, city officials said. Though demographers are assumed to estimate the overall city population accurately, the only accurate tract-level data would have to come from the 2000 Census.
Redrawing district lines now would, in effect, be based on almost 10-year-old data, said Jerry Wood, a former city planner and redistricting expert. He noted that the city went through redistricting in 1982 and 1985, based on dated census figures. The estimates used those years were shown to be wrong in the 1990 Census, Wood said.
That possibility, and any lawsuit that could stem from it, led City Attorney Arturo Michel and Chief Administrative Officer Anthony Hall to advise the mayor against redistricting now.
“I have no doubt that our actual population exceeds the threshold number, but there are substantial legal issues about whether federal law allows us to draw districts based on guesses about where people live,” White said.
“Obviously, when we do this, it’s going to be a contentious issue, no matter when we do it,” added City Councilman Ron Green. “So, we want to make sure we do the best possible job, and the only way to do that is if you have the most reliable data.”
Redistricting advocates hearken back to 1979, when the city was under fire from the Justice Department for an election process that was unfair to minorities. As part of a settlement, officials said, the city created nine single-member council districts and five at-large seats. It also agreed to add two districts once the city crossed the 2.1 million threshold.
Houston has had more than 2.1 million people since 2006, according to population estimates the city has been using in official documents. To create new districts and change boundaries, however, the city would have to use detailed population estimates for specific tracts of land, city officials said. Though demographers are assumed to estimate the overall city population accurately, the only accurate tract-level data would have to come from the 2000 Census.
Redrawing district lines now would, in effect, be based on almost 10-year-old data, said Jerry Wood, a former city planner and redistricting expert. He noted that the city went through redistricting in 1982 and 1985, based on dated census figures. The estimates used those years were shown to be wrong in the 1990 Census, Wood said.
That possibility, and any lawsuit that could stem from it, led City Attorney Arturo Michel and Chief Administrative Officer Anthony Hall to advise the mayor against redistricting now.
“I have no doubt that our actual population exceeds the threshold number, but there are substantial legal issues about whether federal law allows us to draw districts based on guesses about where people live,” White said.
“Obviously, when we do this, it’s going to be a contentious issue, no matter when we do it,” added City Councilman Ron Green. “So, we want to make sure we do the best possible job, and the only way to do that is if you have the most reliable data.”
Redistricting advocates hearken back to 1979, when the city was under fire from the Justice Department for an election process that was unfair to minorities. As part of a settlement, officials said, the city created nine single-member council districts and five at-large seats. It also agreed to add two districts once the city crossed the 2.1 million threshold.
Crisis, Opportunity, and Galveston, Texas
Here's some back and forth on the future of Galveston post - Ike: Texas Sparkle wants gambling, which has been promoted by others in the past, but might have legs now that Galveston is losing revenue from other sources.
The comments include some worries about the impact of casinos and a "sin" economy in general-- mixed at best in other places -- but Galveston has a colorful history that includes gambling among many other things. Comparisons to post Katrina New Orleans abound. Some think Galveston should try to diversify, but I think its past time to admit that Galveston will be a tourist based town from now on. The city should accept and make the best of it.
We'll see whether the legislature -- especially the social conservatives -- is warm to casino gambling idea this spring.
In a related, and very negative note, The Texas Observer wonders whether Galveston city fathers are using the damage caused by Ike to try to kick out Galveston's poorer, meaning African American, population. Little effort has been made to rebuild the public housing damaged by the storm. The same thing has been happening in New Orleans.
The comments include some worries about the impact of casinos and a "sin" economy in general-- mixed at best in other places -- but Galveston has a colorful history that includes gambling among many other things. Comparisons to post Katrina New Orleans abound. Some think Galveston should try to diversify, but I think its past time to admit that Galveston will be a tourist based town from now on. The city should accept and make the best of it.
We'll see whether the legislature -- especially the social conservatives -- is warm to casino gambling idea this spring.
In a related, and very negative note, The Texas Observer wonders whether Galveston city fathers are using the damage caused by Ike to try to kick out Galveston's poorer, meaning African American, population. Little effort has been made to rebuild the public housing damaged by the storm. The same thing has been happening in New Orleans.
The Stimulus Package: The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act
Here's a great opportunity for 2302 students to learn the billmaking process on the national level. We will follow the current stimulus bill -- The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act -- as it works its way through each chamber and back to Obama's desk for a signature.
Here's some text from Slate.com's Today's Papers to get us going:
The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times lead with, while the New York Times reefers, Barack Obama offering details of his economic stimulus plan. Obama said Saturday that the Democrats' package would protect unemployed workers from losing health care; help students pay for college; lower taxes and energy costs; and modernize roads, schools, and utilities. Republicans counter that it contains too much wasteful spending and too little in the way of tax cuts.
All of the papers allow the politicians to dominate the debate over the stimulus, with the NYT and WP (which is not a fan of the package) featuring House Minority Leader John Boehner's predictable criticism. "We cannot borrow and spend our way back to prosperity," he said (for the first time in eight years). Obama, meanwhile, employed the politics of fear, warning that without his plan "a bad situation could become dramatically worse."
Here are some relevant links:
- Wikipedia: The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.
- Open Congress.
- The White House Proposal.
- The House Committee on Financial Services.
- The Senate Finance Committee.
Here's some text from Slate.com's Today's Papers to get us going:
The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times lead with, while the New York Times reefers, Barack Obama offering details of his economic stimulus plan. Obama said Saturday that the Democrats' package would protect unemployed workers from losing health care; help students pay for college; lower taxes and energy costs; and modernize roads, schools, and utilities. Republicans counter that it contains too much wasteful spending and too little in the way of tax cuts.
All of the papers allow the politicians to dominate the debate over the stimulus, with the NYT and WP (which is not a fan of the package) featuring House Minority Leader John Boehner's predictable criticism. "We cannot borrow and spend our way back to prosperity," he said (for the first time in eight years). Obama, meanwhile, employed the politics of fear, warning that without his plan "a bad situation could become dramatically worse."
Here are some relevant links:
- Wikipedia: The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.
- Open Congress.
- The White House Proposal.
- The House Committee on Financial Services.
- The Senate Finance Committee.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Eminent Domain in Texas
Rick Perry supports a constitutional amendment in Texas restricting eminent domain.
Iron Triangling
I know you are all concerned that the people who recently post positions due to President Bush having to leave office will land on your feet. Well then this item will lift your spirits. It comes from a press release from the Texas Association of Business.
Austin – TAB is pleased to announce that Sandy Kress will join the organization, leading its public education lobbying efforts during the 81st Texas Legislature.
Kress served as a senior adviser to President George W. Bush on education, and is the former President of the Board of Trustees of the Dallas Public Schools.
“When it comes to education, Sandy is simply the best in the business,” said TAB President Bill Hammond. “His commitment to improving the lives of our children and the architecture of our public school system is unwavering. We are thrilled to have him on board this session.”
Kress formerly served on the Education Commission of the States, and he currently serves as counsel to the Governor's Business Council. He is also a Life Member of the Board of Directors of the Texas Business & Education Coalition.
Kress has an extensive background in tackling the toughest challenges facing Texas public schools. Mr. Kress was appointed by then-Lt. Governor Bob Bullock to the Educational Economic Policy Center and the interim committee to study the Texas Education Agency. In 2007, Mr. Kress was appointed by Governor Rick Perry to serve on the Select Committee on Public School Accountability, which is tasked with thoroughly reviewing the public school accountability system. Also, in 2007, Perry appointed Kress as Chairman of the Commission for a College Ready Texas, which issues recommendations to promote greater college and work readiness among Texas high school graduates.
No word on specific responsibilities, but with that background Kress will probably be able to make many doors open for the TAB.
Austin – TAB is pleased to announce that Sandy Kress will join the organization, leading its public education lobbying efforts during the 81st Texas Legislature.
Kress served as a senior adviser to President George W. Bush on education, and is the former President of the Board of Trustees of the Dallas Public Schools.
“When it comes to education, Sandy is simply the best in the business,” said TAB President Bill Hammond. “His commitment to improving the lives of our children and the architecture of our public school system is unwavering. We are thrilled to have him on board this session.”
Kress formerly served on the Education Commission of the States, and he currently serves as counsel to the Governor's Business Council. He is also a Life Member of the Board of Directors of the Texas Business & Education Coalition.
Kress has an extensive background in tackling the toughest challenges facing Texas public schools. Mr. Kress was appointed by then-Lt. Governor Bob Bullock to the Educational Economic Policy Center and the interim committee to study the Texas Education Agency. In 2007, Mr. Kress was appointed by Governor Rick Perry to serve on the Select Committee on Public School Accountability, which is tasked with thoroughly reviewing the public school accountability system. Also, in 2007, Perry appointed Kress as Chairman of the Commission for a College Ready Texas, which issues recommendations to promote greater college and work readiness among Texas high school graduates.
No word on specific responsibilities, but with that background Kress will probably be able to make many doors open for the TAB.
SBOE Vote
Drum roll please.....
The SBOE voted ( in a preliminary vote, the final vote apparently does not happen until March) 8-7 to change the requirement that "weaknesses" in the theory of evolution to one that calls for studying the "sufficiency or insufficiency" of the theory.
The SBOE voted ( in a preliminary vote, the final vote apparently does not happen until March) 8-7 to change the requirement that "weaknesses" in the theory of evolution to one that calls for studying the "sufficiency or insufficiency" of the theory.
This is Why it is Important to Respect Seniority
From Texas Politics:
Some State Board of Education members reacted angrily Wednesday after board Chairman Don McLeroy ignored seniority in appointing committees.
"This is a real slap on the face," said Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi, who has been on the board since the mid 1980s.
Berlanga landed on the school initiatives committee instead of getting either of her two preferences - instruction or the school finance/Permanent School Fund committee.
"I'm not sure that I should even come to the meetings," Berlanga said. "I am very disappointed. You are doing an injustice to the people we serve and an injustice to the children. You might as well put me on the basket-weaving committee because that's what you have done."
Patricia Hardy, R-Fort Worth, complained that at least four board members did not get any of their first two choices in committee appointments.
The process lacked integrity, she told McLeroy: "You have made a mockery of this whole thing."
State Board of Education members fight and feud over most major matters that come before them.
McLeroy did not try to justify the committee appointments.
Geraldine "Tincy" Miller, R-Dallas, another long-time board member chastised McLeroy for ignoring seniority rules in appointing the committees.
Miller said she was "very disappointed" in what she described as "in-the-face democracy."
Some State Board of Education members reacted angrily Wednesday after board Chairman Don McLeroy ignored seniority in appointing committees.
"This is a real slap on the face," said Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi, who has been on the board since the mid 1980s.
Berlanga landed on the school initiatives committee instead of getting either of her two preferences - instruction or the school finance/Permanent School Fund committee.
"I'm not sure that I should even come to the meetings," Berlanga said. "I am very disappointed. You are doing an injustice to the people we serve and an injustice to the children. You might as well put me on the basket-weaving committee because that's what you have done."
Patricia Hardy, R-Fort Worth, complained that at least four board members did not get any of their first two choices in committee appointments.
The process lacked integrity, she told McLeroy: "You have made a mockery of this whole thing."
State Board of Education members fight and feud over most major matters that come before them.
McLeroy did not try to justify the committee appointments.
Geraldine "Tincy" Miller, R-Dallas, another long-time board member chastised McLeroy for ignoring seniority rules in appointing the committees.
Miller said she was "very disappointed" in what she described as "in-the-face democracy."
Thursday, January 22, 2009
SBOE Debates Science Curriculum
A terrific political showdown is going on in Austin where the State Board of Education is debating whether a requirement that "strengths and weaknesses" in the theory of evolution be discussed both in textbooks and in classes be changed and students be required to "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations."
Links:
- Testimony begins on science standards, evolution
- Texas school board will vote on a pros-and-cons approach to ...
- The entry titled "State board of ed to vote on evolution today."
Links:
- Testimony begins on science standards, evolution
- Texas school board will vote on a pros-and-cons approach to ...
- The entry titled "State board of ed to vote on evolution today."
SBOE
This is a great time to start following Texas' State Board of Education, the institution responsible for setting K-12 policy in the state.
Following last year's election, the board's 15 members are evenly divided between social conservatives and moderate-liberals, with a slight edge going to the former. Harvey Kronberg reports that they are using this advantage to stack committee assignments in their favor, punishing dissenters:
Prepare yourself for an inside baseball lesson on the power struggle that continues on the State Board of Education between conservatives and their moderates-liberal brethren on the elected 15-member board.
To mix our metaphors here, conservatives now hold all the cards on the SBOE. In this numbers game, 7 of the 15 members can be counted as safe conservative votes, with one Democratic votes, in particular, often falling to their side during close calls. The one wild card in this equation is former Chair Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, who was burned two years ago by conservatives during committee assignments and is now no longer a lock on tight votes over controversial issues.
Know how hyped up House members are right now about committee assignments? Well, to a lesser degree, it’s the same at the State Board of Education. Power and control on the SBOE is demonstrated in two ways: committee assignments and the ability to appoint teachers to curriculum review committees.
Following last year's election, the board's 15 members are evenly divided between social conservatives and moderate-liberals, with a slight edge going to the former. Harvey Kronberg reports that they are using this advantage to stack committee assignments in their favor, punishing dissenters:
Prepare yourself for an inside baseball lesson on the power struggle that continues on the State Board of Education between conservatives and their moderates-liberal brethren on the elected 15-member board.
To mix our metaphors here, conservatives now hold all the cards on the SBOE. In this numbers game, 7 of the 15 members can be counted as safe conservative votes, with one Democratic votes, in particular, often falling to their side during close calls. The one wild card in this equation is former Chair Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, who was burned two years ago by conservatives during committee assignments and is now no longer a lock on tight votes over controversial issues.
Know how hyped up House members are right now about committee assignments? Well, to a lesser degree, it’s the same at the State Board of Education. Power and control on the SBOE is demonstrated in two ways: committee assignments and the ability to appoint teachers to curriculum review committees.
Great Gossip: Cornyn 2012
Capitol Annex claims that John Cornyn's complaints about Hillary Clinton's nomination for Secretary of State (though he ultimately voted for her) was a calculated ploy to maneuver himself for a presidential run in 2012:
U.S. Senator John Cornyn’s actions to hold hostage Sen. Hillary Clinton’s confirmation as Secretary of State weren’t just the random act of an ultra-conservative lawmaker out for more information from the Clinton Foundation.
In fact, they were likely the first salvo in Cornyn’s likely bid for the White House in 2012.
As his party attempts to rise from the ashes of the last two election cycles and gravitates ever rightward, there is a lot of buzz about the junior senator from Texas.
Cornyn will likely deny any such ambitions, but rumors of other Republicans encouraging him to make a run and of a run by him being seriously discussed have made it to us from the cooridors of Washington, D.C., Austin, and San Antonio.
Of course, Cornyn would be a complete disaster as a presidential candidate, but he’s a rightwing conservative that is still fairly new to the national scene, and that seems to be what his party is looking for these days.
I agree with the final assessment of his chances. I don;t think we will see another Texan in the White House for a long time. And social conservatives in general have driven away past allies, which makes it less likely that the Republican Party will make another its nominee. Unlikely, but not impossible.
U.S. Senator John Cornyn’s actions to hold hostage Sen. Hillary Clinton’s confirmation as Secretary of State weren’t just the random act of an ultra-conservative lawmaker out for more information from the Clinton Foundation.
In fact, they were likely the first salvo in Cornyn’s likely bid for the White House in 2012.
As his party attempts to rise from the ashes of the last two election cycles and gravitates ever rightward, there is a lot of buzz about the junior senator from Texas.
Cornyn will likely deny any such ambitions, but rumors of other Republicans encouraging him to make a run and of a run by him being seriously discussed have made it to us from the cooridors of Washington, D.C., Austin, and San Antonio.
Of course, Cornyn would be a complete disaster as a presidential candidate, but he’s a rightwing conservative that is still fairly new to the national scene, and that seems to be what his party is looking for these days.
I agree with the final assessment of his chances. I don;t think we will see another Texan in the White House for a long time. And social conservatives in general have driven away past allies, which makes it less likely that the Republican Party will make another its nominee. Unlikely, but not impossible.
Oath or Affirmation
The Constitution states that a president, among others, most take an oath or affirmation prior to taking office. Clearly there's a distinction between the two, or it wouldn't be phrased as it is.
What is an oath? One source claims that it is "A declaration made according to law, before a competent tribunal or officer, to tell the truth; or it is the act of one who, when lawfully required to tell the truth, takes God to witness that what he says is true. It is a religious act by which the party invokes God not only to witness the truth and sincerity of his promise but also to avenge his imposture or violated faith, or in other words to punish his perjury if he shall be guilty of it."
Clearly an oath has a religious component to it, an appeal to a higher--divine--authority.
What is an affirmation? From wikipedia: "In law, an affirmation is a solemn declaration allowed to those who conscientiously object to taking an oath. An affirmation has exactly the same legal effect as an oath, but is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath. In some jurisdictions, it may only be given if such a reason is provided."
An affirmation seems to be an option for non-religious people. Something legally the same as an oath, but secular in nature.
It seems clear that the Constitution gives people the option to be religious or non-religious. I wonder if anyone in American history has taken an affirmation rather than an oath to hold public office? We do tend to state the people take oaths, not affirmations. Does public opinion push candidates in the direction of religiosity? What would we make of a candidate who choose to make an affirmation and refuse to take an oath?
Let's discuss this in class.
What is an oath? One source claims that it is "A declaration made according to law, before a competent tribunal or officer, to tell the truth; or it is the act of one who, when lawfully required to tell the truth, takes God to witness that what he says is true. It is a religious act by which the party invokes God not only to witness the truth and sincerity of his promise but also to avenge his imposture or violated faith, or in other words to punish his perjury if he shall be guilty of it."
Clearly an oath has a religious component to it, an appeal to a higher--divine--authority.
What is an affirmation? From wikipedia: "In law, an affirmation is a solemn declaration allowed to those who conscientiously object to taking an oath. An affirmation has exactly the same legal effect as an oath, but is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath. In some jurisdictions, it may only be given if such a reason is provided."
An affirmation seems to be an option for non-religious people. Something legally the same as an oath, but secular in nature.
It seems clear that the Constitution gives people the option to be religious or non-religious. I wonder if anyone in American history has taken an affirmation rather than an oath to hold public office? We do tend to state the people take oaths, not affirmations. Does public opinion push candidates in the direction of religiosity? What would we make of a candidate who choose to make an affirmation and refuse to take an oath?
Let's discuss this in class.
The Oath is Retaken
Due to the well noted flub of the oath of office on inauguration day (in front of a few billion people) John Roberts and Barack Obama had a do-ever Wednesday just to be sure. You'd think a couple of Harvard Law types could get it right the first time. He is third president to do so.
This was done out of "an abundance of caution" since the conspiracy theorists have started to claim that he was not really president and that this all part of a plot to undermine the union, or the Obama Presidency or both.
Conspiracies aside, there's an interesting question regarding whether the do-over was necessary. The body of the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1, the last bit) states that:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''
This makes it seem that the oath or affirmation is neceesary, Section 1 of the 20th Amendment (which changes the day that the president is sworn in) states this:
The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
It doesn't say anything about an oath or affirmation. Does it mean that it is no longer legally required? That it's just a neat ceremony to kick off a presidency? Or does it leave the requirement in place? How might this be interpreted by the courts? To further complicate the matter, remember that the Chief Justice is a member of the court that has the final say over the oath's requirement.
As fun as it might be to figure this things oath, there seem to be more pressing concerns on the governmental agenda. So its perhaps best it was done over.
This was done out of "an abundance of caution" since the conspiracy theorists have started to claim that he was not really president and that this all part of a plot to undermine the union, or the Obama Presidency or both.
Conspiracies aside, there's an interesting question regarding whether the do-over was necessary. The body of the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1, the last bit) states that:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''
This makes it seem that the oath or affirmation is neceesary, Section 1 of the 20th Amendment (which changes the day that the president is sworn in) states this:
The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
It doesn't say anything about an oath or affirmation. Does it mean that it is no longer legally required? That it's just a neat ceremony to kick off a presidency? Or does it leave the requirement in place? How might this be interpreted by the courts? To further complicate the matter, remember that the Chief Justice is a member of the court that has the final say over the oath's requirement.
As fun as it might be to figure this things oath, there seem to be more pressing concerns on the governmental agenda. So its perhaps best it was done over.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Confirmation Hearings
One of the checks and balances is outlined in Article 2, Section 2 which states that the president shall appoint the officers of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. That almost never means advice, only consent, which is usually but not always offered.
Here are few links with background on the process--at least the committee hearings--the current nominations are going through:
For Secretary of State: Hillary Clinton. Hearings in the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.
For Attorney General: Eric Holder. Hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
For Transportation Secretary: Ray LaHood. Hearings in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.
Here are few links with background on the process--at least the committee hearings--the current nominations are going through:
For Secretary of State: Hillary Clinton. Hearings in the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.
For Attorney General: Eric Holder. Hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
For Transportation Secretary: Ray LaHood. Hearings in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Obama, Roberts and the Harvard Law Review
Here's a neat connection: Barack Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts - the man who swore him in today - both served on the Harvard Law Review, as president and managing editor respectively. An impressive list of people are also alumni.
Here's the question: is the success of past members of the review because they are capable and smart (I assume that's the case) or because of the connections that come with the position?
Here's the question: is the success of past members of the review because they are capable and smart (I assume that's the case) or because of the connections that come with the position?
Following the Inauguration
Well spend today paying attention to the inauguration--these things don't happen often, so why not?
Here's the official site, which promises streaming video.
Here's a link to the Avalon Project's page on past inauguration addresses.
Here's the official site, which promises streaming video.
Here's a link to the Avalon Project's page on past inauguration addresses.
Monday, January 19, 2009
On Article II
Here's a great read from the Atlantic.
Was the design of the executive branch the founder's greatest mistake? Garret Epps makes a great case that it was and that a Constitutional convention would be required to correct it.
The problems begins with the fact that Washington's intimidating presence (it was assumed he'd have the job) prevented the participants from spending enough time properly considering what the office should look like.
Even when Washington remained silent, his presence shaped the debate. When, on June 1, James Wilson suggested that the executive power be lodged in a single person, no one spoke up in response. The silence went on until Benjamin Franklin finally suggested a debate; the debate itself proceeded awkwardly for a little while, and was then put off for another day.
Many of the conversations about presidential authority were similarly awkward, and tended to be indirect. Later interpreters have found the original debates on the presidency, in the words of former Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, “almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh.”
The resulting vagueness has allowed too many presidents, the bad ones in addition to the good, to expand the powers of the office and run roughshod over the other institutions and over the preferences of the population.
2302 students should expect to go over this essay in class when we cover the presidency.
Was the design of the executive branch the founder's greatest mistake? Garret Epps makes a great case that it was and that a Constitutional convention would be required to correct it.
The problems begins with the fact that Washington's intimidating presence (it was assumed he'd have the job) prevented the participants from spending enough time properly considering what the office should look like.
Even when Washington remained silent, his presence shaped the debate. When, on June 1, James Wilson suggested that the executive power be lodged in a single person, no one spoke up in response. The silence went on until Benjamin Franklin finally suggested a debate; the debate itself proceeded awkwardly for a little while, and was then put off for another day.
Many of the conversations about presidential authority were similarly awkward, and tended to be indirect. Later interpreters have found the original debates on the presidency, in the words of former Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, “almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh.”
The resulting vagueness has allowed too many presidents, the bad ones in addition to the good, to expand the powers of the office and run roughshod over the other institutions and over the preferences of the population.
2302 students should expect to go over this essay in class when we cover the presidency.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Libel in Tulsa
When we cover civil liberties, we touch on the limits of freedom, including one of the limits of press freedom: libel. An unusual example is in the news. Unusual because one newspaper is suing another.
Slate reports on a lawsuit between the major daily paper in Tulsa, The Tulsa World, and its weekly alternative, Urban Tulsa. The weekly questioned the daily's circulation figures and the are now being sued by it:
According to the World's news story, the suit—which I have not seen—alleges that the Bates column falsely claims "that the World had misled advertisers about the newspaper's circulation." World Publisher Robert E. Lorton III tells the World's reporter, "When a firm purportedly in the news business makes a claim that we have misled our advertisers, they call into question our integrity, and we cannot and will not let that stand." According to the World article, the suit—which, remember, I have not seen—says that Urban Tulsa knowingly published the false information in an attempt to "gain commercial advantage."
Lorton could be absolutely right, except here's what Bates actually wrote:
The steep drop between the paid consultant's March 2005 [circulation] count and the March 2006 ABC numbers suggest that the World was inflating its circulation by as much as 20 percent.
Apparently enough wiggle room exists in both the terminology, and in how circulation numbers are tabulated, to make a libel case difficult to win. Slate argues that the lawsuit is a very bad idea:
My unsolicited advice to Bates and Urban Tulsa: Call a press conference, pass out party hats, and say that you welcome the World's suit! Tell the Tulsa press corps you're dying to use the power of discovery to dig deeply into the World's circulation numbers to determine precisely how accurate its audits have been over the last 20 years. Oh, and make sure to enlist one of the World's big, regular advertisers as your ally. They'll be very interested in getting a close-up of the paper's circulation numbers.
Slate reports on a lawsuit between the major daily paper in Tulsa, The Tulsa World, and its weekly alternative, Urban Tulsa. The weekly questioned the daily's circulation figures and the are now being sued by it:
According to the World's news story, the suit—which I have not seen—alleges that the Bates column falsely claims "that the World had misled advertisers about the newspaper's circulation." World Publisher Robert E. Lorton III tells the World's reporter, "When a firm purportedly in the news business makes a claim that we have misled our advertisers, they call into question our integrity, and we cannot and will not let that stand." According to the World article, the suit—which, remember, I have not seen—says that Urban Tulsa knowingly published the false information in an attempt to "gain commercial advantage."
Lorton could be absolutely right, except here's what Bates actually wrote:
The steep drop between the paid consultant's March 2005 [circulation] count and the March 2006 ABC numbers suggest that the World was inflating its circulation by as much as 20 percent.
Apparently enough wiggle room exists in both the terminology, and in how circulation numbers are tabulated, to make a libel case difficult to win. Slate argues that the lawsuit is a very bad idea:
My unsolicited advice to Bates and Urban Tulsa: Call a press conference, pass out party hats, and say that you welcome the World's suit! Tell the Tulsa press corps you're dying to use the power of discovery to dig deeply into the World's circulation numbers to determine precisely how accurate its audits have been over the last 20 years. Oh, and make sure to enlist one of the World's big, regular advertisers as your ally. They'll be very interested in getting a close-up of the paper's circulation numbers.
Friday, January 16, 2009
John Mortimer 1923 - 2009
I confess that I had never heard of this person before, but John Mortimer appears to have been one of the more interesting and influential proponents of civil liberties in British history.
He was both a defense lawyer--later a judge--and a prolific writer. As a writer he chafed against Britain's strict censorship laws, while as a lawyer he was in a position to do something about it:
Not only did his writing capture the essential humanity of the legal system, Mortimer himself appeared in many key cases concerned with civil liberty and alleged obscenity, often encapsulating important points in a very direct and arresting way.
He was opposed to the incursions on freedom of expression that the state was apt to attempt in the 1960s and 1970s. “The attitude of censorship,” he wrote, ” depends on the assumption that there is a superior type of person qualified to tell the rest of us what it is good for us to read”.
He noted, in the context of obscenity trials, that it was oddly anomalous that while murder was illegal it wasn’t a crime to write about it, whereas sex was legal but to write about it could be a crime.
Various of his jewels of legal wisdom came from his father, Clifford, who was also a barrister. Speaking of cross-examination, for example, Mortimer notes a precept of his father’s that it can be done politely and without hostility “the art of cross-examination is not the art of examining crossly”.
One of his aphorisms should be a lesson for the modern world. Mortimer observed that in a multiculutural society with varied secular and religious beliefs, “tolerance demands that no one group may be allowed to impose its moral views, however strongly held, upon another”.
Mortimer’s sanguinity of spirit, wit and extraordinarily powerful and funny storytelling have helped shape modern social ideas about what is good and bad in the law.
He was both a defense lawyer--later a judge--and a prolific writer. As a writer he chafed against Britain's strict censorship laws, while as a lawyer he was in a position to do something about it:
Not only did his writing capture the essential humanity of the legal system, Mortimer himself appeared in many key cases concerned with civil liberty and alleged obscenity, often encapsulating important points in a very direct and arresting way.
He was opposed to the incursions on freedom of expression that the state was apt to attempt in the 1960s and 1970s. “The attitude of censorship,” he wrote, ” depends on the assumption that there is a superior type of person qualified to tell the rest of us what it is good for us to read”.
He noted, in the context of obscenity trials, that it was oddly anomalous that while murder was illegal it wasn’t a crime to write about it, whereas sex was legal but to write about it could be a crime.
Various of his jewels of legal wisdom came from his father, Clifford, who was also a barrister. Speaking of cross-examination, for example, Mortimer notes a precept of his father’s that it can be done politely and without hostility “the art of cross-examination is not the art of examining crossly”.
One of his aphorisms should be a lesson for the modern world. Mortimer observed that in a multiculutural society with varied secular and religious beliefs, “tolerance demands that no one group may be allowed to impose its moral views, however strongly held, upon another”.
Mortimer’s sanguinity of spirit, wit and extraordinarily powerful and funny storytelling have helped shape modern social ideas about what is good and bad in the law.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Age Discrimination Revisited: How Old is Tool Old to Raise a Grandkid?
We've discussed age discrimination in terms of driving, and suggested that maybe driving tests for older drivers may not be found to violate the equal protection clause, but here's a story regarding a 50ish couple that wishes to raise their grandson even though a judge (who seems to be a jerk in my opinion) thinks they are too old and that the child is better off in foster care. Is this couple being treated unequally?
‘Hi, Pa!” exclaimed 2-year-old Rafael Sierra as he ran toward his step-grandfather’s outstretched arms.
Arnold Del Bosque scooped up the beaming boy while gripping plastic bags stuffed with toys. Arnold’s wife, Yolanda, took their younger grandchild, 1-year-old Luis, into her arms, already laden with a Playskool “Busy Gears” set and two Happy Meals.
It wasn’t Christmas. It was visitation day last Friday at the Child Protective Services office on Chimney Rock.
For Arnold and Yolanda, regaining the right recently to visit the grandchildren they’d raised since infancy was their first win in a painful custody battle.
Last week came another.
Juvenile Court Judge John Phillips, who ordered the boys removed from the Del Bosques’ La Porte home last year after remarking in court that the 50-something grandparents were too old to raise them, recused himself from the case.
But he didn’t go quietly.
...
‘Hi, Pa!” exclaimed 2-year-old Rafael Sierra as he ran toward his step-grandfather’s outstretched arms.
Arnold Del Bosque scooped up the beaming boy while gripping plastic bags stuffed with toys. Arnold’s wife, Yolanda, took their younger grandchild, 1-year-old Luis, into her arms, already laden with a Playskool “Busy Gears” set and two Happy Meals.
It wasn’t Christmas. It was visitation day last Friday at the Child Protective Services office on Chimney Rock.
For Arnold and Yolanda, regaining the right recently to visit the grandchildren they’d raised since infancy was their first win in a painful custody battle.
Last week came another.
Juvenile Court Judge John Phillips, who ordered the boys removed from the Del Bosques’ La Porte home last year after remarking in court that the 50-something grandparents were too old to raise them, recused himself from the case.
But he didn’t go quietly.
...
The Growing Democratic Coalition
Yet another article arguing that demographic changes advantage the Democratic Party:
To grasp how powerfully demographic change is reshaping the political landscape try this thought experiment about the 2008 election.
Start by considering the electorate's six broadest demographic groups -- white voters with at least a four-year college degree; white voters without a college degree; African-Americans; Hispanics; Asians; and other minorities.
Now posit that each of those groups voted for Barack Obama or John McCain in exactly the same proportions as it actually did. Then imagine that each group represented the share of the electorate that it did in 1992. If each of these groups voted as it did in 2008 but constituted the same share of the electorate as in 1992, McCain would have won. Comfortably.
That's because Obama's best groups are much larger today than in 1992. From 1992 to 2008, the share of the vote cast by African-Americans jumped from 8 percent to 13 percent. For
Hispanics the share soared from 2 percent to 9 percent; for Asians and other minorities combined, from 2 percent to 5 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage of the vote cast by well-educated whites remained unchanged at 35 percent. The big losers were blue-collar whites -- those without college degrees -- whose share plummeted from 53 percent in 1992 to just 39 percent now.
That's a threat to the GOP because those culturally conservative, working-class whites are today its most reliable voters. McCain won 58 percent of them, and Obama just 40 percent.
Obama, by contrast, won 95 percent of African-Americans, 67 percent of Hispanics, 66 percent of other minorities, 62 percent of Asians, and 47 percent of college-educated whites. Apply those results to the 1992 share of the vote for all six groups, and McCain beats Obama, 50.2 percent to 47.9 percent.
To grasp how powerfully demographic change is reshaping the political landscape try this thought experiment about the 2008 election.
Start by considering the electorate's six broadest demographic groups -- white voters with at least a four-year college degree; white voters without a college degree; African-Americans; Hispanics; Asians; and other minorities.
Now posit that each of those groups voted for Barack Obama or John McCain in exactly the same proportions as it actually did. Then imagine that each group represented the share of the electorate that it did in 1992. If each of these groups voted as it did in 2008 but constituted the same share of the electorate as in 1992, McCain would have won. Comfortably.
That's because Obama's best groups are much larger today than in 1992. From 1992 to 2008, the share of the vote cast by African-Americans jumped from 8 percent to 13 percent. For
Hispanics the share soared from 2 percent to 9 percent; for Asians and other minorities combined, from 2 percent to 5 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage of the vote cast by well-educated whites remained unchanged at 35 percent. The big losers were blue-collar whites -- those without college degrees -- whose share plummeted from 53 percent in 1992 to just 39 percent now.
That's a threat to the GOP because those culturally conservative, working-class whites are today its most reliable voters. McCain won 58 percent of them, and Obama just 40 percent.
Obama, by contrast, won 95 percent of African-Americans, 67 percent of Hispanics, 66 percent of other minorities, 62 percent of Asians, and 47 percent of college-educated whites. Apply those results to the 1992 share of the vote for all six groups, and McCain beats Obama, 50.2 percent to 47.9 percent.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Overturning Bush Bureaucratic Rules
From the NYT:
Democrats are hoping to roll back a series of regulations issued late in the Bush administration that weaken environmental protections and other restrictions.
Potential targets include regulations allowing concealed weapons in some national parks and forbidding medical facilities that get federal money from discriminating against doctors and nurses who refuse, on religious grounds, to assist with abortions.
“Congress is going to have to roll up its sleeves and review these midnight regulations,” Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said in an interview, “because it’s clear that they are part of a desire for the administration, as it heads out the door, to put some ideological trophies on the wall.”
Mr. Wyden, the chairman of a subcommittee on natural resources, said he was focusing on a series of recently issued environmental rules. Among them are measures relaxing protections for endangered species, allowing uranium mining near the Grand Canyon, and making it easier for coal companies to dump mining debris in nearby streams and valleys.
Democrats are hoping to roll back a series of regulations issued late in the Bush administration that weaken environmental protections and other restrictions.
Potential targets include regulations allowing concealed weapons in some national parks and forbidding medical facilities that get federal money from discriminating against doctors and nurses who refuse, on religious grounds, to assist with abortions.
“Congress is going to have to roll up its sleeves and review these midnight regulations,” Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said in an interview, “because it’s clear that they are part of a desire for the administration, as it heads out the door, to put some ideological trophies on the wall.”
Mr. Wyden, the chairman of a subcommittee on natural resources, said he was focusing on a series of recently issued environmental rules. Among them are measures relaxing protections for endangered species, allowing uranium mining near the Grand Canyon, and making it easier for coal companies to dump mining debris in nearby streams and valleys.
The Two Thirds Rule Challenged
For decades the Texas Senate has had rules in place which require a two thirds vote in order to consider bills on the Senate floor.
From the Legislative Reference Library: Senate rules ... [state] that a bill, joint resolution, or resolution affecting state policy may be considered out of its regular calendar order if two-thirds of the members present vote to suspend the regular order of business.
For almost half a century, blocker bills have routinely been placed at the top of the Senate's Daily Calendar, which in effect forces a suspension of the regular order of business on every bill. Blocker bills are bills that are introduced and passed out of committee as early as possible in a legislative session in order that they may occupy the first positions on the calendar. They are not intended to be worthy of serious consideration or passage. The sole purpose of a blocker bill is to ensure that at least two-thirds of the membership have an interest in debating a measure before it can come to the floor. Bills that do not enjoy substantial support cannot not make it past the blocker bill.
Though it has been set aside on rare occasions, this practice -- known as the "two-thirds rule" -- has been an honored tradition in the Senate. Among other things, it is generally acknowledged that the Senate's two-thirds rule fosters civility, a willingness to compromise, and a spirit of bipartisanship.
Conveniently enough for Democrats, they hold just over one third of the seats on the Senate (r=19, D=12), meaning that they are in a position to block any legislation they want. In order to pass preferred legislation -- most notably a voter ID bill -- Senate Republicans are attempting to rescind the rule, at least for this one bill.
Democrats are crying foul. Critics argue that this effort will destroy the decorum that normally exists in the chamber.
Background:
- The Chron.
- Dallas Morning News.
- El Paso Online.
- Capitol Annex.
- Austin American-Statesman.
From the Legislative Reference Library: Senate rules ... [state] that a bill, joint resolution, or resolution affecting state policy may be considered out of its regular calendar order if two-thirds of the members present vote to suspend the regular order of business.
For almost half a century, blocker bills have routinely been placed at the top of the Senate's Daily Calendar, which in effect forces a suspension of the regular order of business on every bill. Blocker bills are bills that are introduced and passed out of committee as early as possible in a legislative session in order that they may occupy the first positions on the calendar. They are not intended to be worthy of serious consideration or passage. The sole purpose of a blocker bill is to ensure that at least two-thirds of the membership have an interest in debating a measure before it can come to the floor. Bills that do not enjoy substantial support cannot not make it past the blocker bill.
Though it has been set aside on rare occasions, this practice -- known as the "two-thirds rule" -- has been an honored tradition in the Senate. Among other things, it is generally acknowledged that the Senate's two-thirds rule fosters civility, a willingness to compromise, and a spirit of bipartisanship.
Conveniently enough for Democrats, they hold just over one third of the seats on the Senate (r=19, D=12), meaning that they are in a position to block any legislation they want. In order to pass preferred legislation -- most notably a voter ID bill -- Senate Republicans are attempting to rescind the rule, at least for this one bill.
Democrats are crying foul. Critics argue that this effort will destroy the decorum that normally exists in the chamber.
Background:
- The Chron.
- Dallas Morning News.
- El Paso Online.
- Capitol Annex.
- Austin American-Statesman.
The Exclusionary Rule as of 2009
The NYT reports on the Supreme Court decision in Herring v. the United States -- a 5 - 4 decision -- which they tell us provides a further exception to the exclusionary rule, demonstrating the continued rightward tilt of the court:
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that evidence obtained from an unlawful arrest based on careless record keeping by the police may be used against a criminal defendant.
The 5-to-4 decision revealed competing conceptions of the exclusionary rule, which requires the suppression of some evidence obtained through police misconduct, and suggested that the court’s commitment to the rule is fragile.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said that the exclusion of evidence should be a last resort and that judges should use a sliding scale in deciding whether particular misconduct by the police warrants suppressing the evidence they found.
...
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the dissenters, argued for “a more majestic conception” of the exclusionary rule, and a more categorical one.
The rule requires more than a cost-benefit calculus to deter police misconduct, Justice Ginsburg wrote. It also protects defendants’ rights, she said, and prevents judicial complicity in “official lawlessness.”
The case began when methamphetamines and a gun were found after Bennie D. Herring, an Alabama man, was arrested based on police officers’ mistaken belief that he was subject to an outstanding arrest warrant.
That belief was based on incorrect information in the computer files of a neighboring county’s police department. The warrant had been withdrawn, but the database had not been updated.
Calling the error “isolated negligence attenuated from the arrest,” Chief Justice Roberts said the lower courts had been correct in allowing the jury in Mr. Herring’s case to consider the evidence. He was convicted and sentenced to 27 months in prison.
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that evidence obtained from an unlawful arrest based on careless record keeping by the police may be used against a criminal defendant.
The 5-to-4 decision revealed competing conceptions of the exclusionary rule, which requires the suppression of some evidence obtained through police misconduct, and suggested that the court’s commitment to the rule is fragile.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said that the exclusion of evidence should be a last resort and that judges should use a sliding scale in deciding whether particular misconduct by the police warrants suppressing the evidence they found.
...
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the dissenters, argued for “a more majestic conception” of the exclusionary rule, and a more categorical one.
The rule requires more than a cost-benefit calculus to deter police misconduct, Justice Ginsburg wrote. It also protects defendants’ rights, she said, and prevents judicial complicity in “official lawlessness.”
The case began when methamphetamines and a gun were found after Bennie D. Herring, an Alabama man, was arrested based on police officers’ mistaken belief that he was subject to an outstanding arrest warrant.
That belief was based on incorrect information in the computer files of a neighboring county’s police department. The warrant had been withdrawn, but the database had not been updated.
Calling the error “isolated negligence attenuated from the arrest,” Chief Justice Roberts said the lower courts had been correct in allowing the jury in Mr. Herring’s case to consider the evidence. He was convicted and sentenced to 27 months in prison.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Issues Facing Texas
The Chron argues that the following issues will top the Texas Legislature's agenda:
_STATE BUDGET: It's the only piece of legislation lawmakers must pass before they adjourn June 1. Comptroller Susan Combs says state revenue will drop about $9 billion in the coming two-year budget cycle.
_HURRICANE IKE: The financial fallout from the Category 2 hurricane that hit southeast Texas will take a toll on the state budget and play a large part in attempts to update the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association. Legislators also will consider whether to supply money to a disaster account they created in 2007 but never funded.
_COLLEGE TUITION: Some lawmakers want to temporarily freeze tuition at state universities, but higher education leaders warn that could disrupt their budgets.
_TOP 10 PERCENT: The state policy granting automatic college admission to those in the top 10 percent of their high school class will be on the table again. The University of Texas says the policy prevents it from having a say in which freshmen are admitted, but proponents say the policy promotes diversity and is working well.
_STEROID TESTING: A $6 million high school steroid testing program put in place in 2007 is up for debate. Lawmakers will decide whether to keep it, scale it down or eliminate it.
_TRANSPORTATION: Gov. Rick Perry's vision of building roads to relieve traffic congestion will continue to be a leading item, as it was last session. Lawmakers are looking closely at public-private construction partnerships and whether to change the oversight of the Texas Department of Transportation. Perry says his proposed road network dubbed the Trans-Texas Corridor is dead, but some toll road projects will press on as planned.
_GAMBLING: Casino gambling advocates are expected to make another push to bring Las Vegas-style gaming to Texas, possibly as an attempt to revitalize hurricane-ravaged Galveston. Texas Indian tribes also will try anew to authorize limited casinos on their land.
_SMOKING: Citing health concerns, a bipartisan group of legislators will attempt to establish a ban on smoking in public places.
_ABORTION: Abortion opponents will try to pass legislation requiring doctors to make ultrasound images of a fetus available to a woman for viewing before she has an abortion. Anti-abortion activists also want to make "Choose Life" specialty license plates available.
_DINOSAUR: A 60-foot-long extinct vegetarian, the pleurocoelus, is currently the official state dinosaur. One lawmaker want to change it to the paluxysaurus, a reptile researchers believe was unique to Texas.
Here's input from The Dallas Morning News.
_STATE BUDGET: It's the only piece of legislation lawmakers must pass before they adjourn June 1. Comptroller Susan Combs says state revenue will drop about $9 billion in the coming two-year budget cycle.
_HURRICANE IKE: The financial fallout from the Category 2 hurricane that hit southeast Texas will take a toll on the state budget and play a large part in attempts to update the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association. Legislators also will consider whether to supply money to a disaster account they created in 2007 but never funded.
_COLLEGE TUITION: Some lawmakers want to temporarily freeze tuition at state universities, but higher education leaders warn that could disrupt their budgets.
_TOP 10 PERCENT: The state policy granting automatic college admission to those in the top 10 percent of their high school class will be on the table again. The University of Texas says the policy prevents it from having a say in which freshmen are admitted, but proponents say the policy promotes diversity and is working well.
_STEROID TESTING: A $6 million high school steroid testing program put in place in 2007 is up for debate. Lawmakers will decide whether to keep it, scale it down or eliminate it.
_TRANSPORTATION: Gov. Rick Perry's vision of building roads to relieve traffic congestion will continue to be a leading item, as it was last session. Lawmakers are looking closely at public-private construction partnerships and whether to change the oversight of the Texas Department of Transportation. Perry says his proposed road network dubbed the Trans-Texas Corridor is dead, but some toll road projects will press on as planned.
_GAMBLING: Casino gambling advocates are expected to make another push to bring Las Vegas-style gaming to Texas, possibly as an attempt to revitalize hurricane-ravaged Galveston. Texas Indian tribes also will try anew to authorize limited casinos on their land.
_SMOKING: Citing health concerns, a bipartisan group of legislators will attempt to establish a ban on smoking in public places.
_ABORTION: Abortion opponents will try to pass legislation requiring doctors to make ultrasound images of a fetus available to a woman for viewing before she has an abortion. Anti-abortion activists also want to make "Choose Life" specialty license plates available.
_DINOSAUR: A 60-foot-long extinct vegetarian, the pleurocoelus, is currently the official state dinosaur. One lawmaker want to change it to the paluxysaurus, a reptile researchers believe was unique to Texas.
Here's input from The Dallas Morning News.
The 81st Legislature Opens
And people seems hopeful that it will be civil.
Coverage by
- The Chron.
- Capitol Annex.
- The Dallas Morning News.
- Highlights from the Chron.
Coverage by
- The Chron.
- Capitol Annex.
- The Dallas Morning News.
- Highlights from the Chron.
The Texas Budget Estimate 2010-2011
The Chron reports on the projected $9.1 billion shortfall in the states' biennial budget:
Saying Texas can’t escape the turmoil of the national economy, Comptroller Susan Combs told lawmakers Monday they’ll have $9.1 billion less to spend as they work to pay for services over the next two years.
“Texas might have sidestepped a slight or moderate downturn in the national economy, but the effects of what may become the worst national recession in many decades will be too large to avoid.
“The state is not immune to the economic forces wreaking havoc in other sections of the country,” Combs said in report to legislators, who convene today for the start of the 2009 session.
Combs called her forecast, which determines how much lawmakers can spend on the state budget, “decidedly cautious” given continuing tumult in the national economy, auto industry, housing and financial markets.
The shortfall is expected to force legislators to trim their agenda. Goals for higher education and healthcare may be pushed off to the side. Estimates have been revised in the past. Comptrollers have a habit of being pessimistic prior to the start of legislative sessions, but no one is predicting a healthy economy in 2009, so this estimate may not change that much.
To see the report yourself, click here.
Saying Texas can’t escape the turmoil of the national economy, Comptroller Susan Combs told lawmakers Monday they’ll have $9.1 billion less to spend as they work to pay for services over the next two years.
“Texas might have sidestepped a slight or moderate downturn in the national economy, but the effects of what may become the worst national recession in many decades will be too large to avoid.
“The state is not immune to the economic forces wreaking havoc in other sections of the country,” Combs said in report to legislators, who convene today for the start of the 2009 session.
Combs called her forecast, which determines how much lawmakers can spend on the state budget, “decidedly cautious” given continuing tumult in the national economy, auto industry, housing and financial markets.
The shortfall is expected to force legislators to trim their agenda. Goals for higher education and healthcare may be pushed off to the side. Estimates have been revised in the past. Comptrollers have a habit of being pessimistic prior to the start of legislative sessions, but no one is predicting a healthy economy in 2009, so this estimate may not change that much.
To see the report yourself, click here.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
The 111th Congress Convenes
This happened on Tuesday January 6th, but I was still sitting at the pool bar in Cancun so I'm just now getting to it. This is the 111th time that Congress has convened since the ratification of the Constitution (click here for information on the First Congress).
The first order of business for the House was to select its Speaker, which as is customary was the leader of the majority party, which happens to be Nancy Pelosi. The minority party nominated its leader, John Boehner, who came in second.
In the Senate, the president of the Senate--who also happens to be the Vice President in the Executive Branch, counted the electoral votes and discovered that one of the Senators from the previous Congress, a man with the unlikely name of Barack Hussein Obama, was elected president. Who knew?
The Senate is still somewhat in flux, and will not have all its members seated for a while. I'll fill in details about the strange case of Roland Burris later.
The first order of business for the House was to select its Speaker, which as is customary was the leader of the majority party, which happens to be Nancy Pelosi. The minority party nominated its leader, John Boehner, who came in second.
In the Senate, the president of the Senate--who also happens to be the Vice President in the Executive Branch, counted the electoral votes and discovered that one of the Senators from the previous Congress, a man with the unlikely name of Barack Hussein Obama, was elected president. Who knew?
The Senate is still somewhat in flux, and will not have all its members seated for a while. I'll fill in details about the strange case of Roland Burris later.
Meet Joe Straus -- Speaker of the Texas House
Perhaps the biggest piece of news out of Texas while we were on our break was the defeat of Tom Craddick to continue as Texas' Speaker of the House. Craddick's iron rule eventually led enough of his precious supporters--or House members he had been able to intimidate--to vote against him.
Straus is a Republican who represents San Antonio, meaning that he will be the first Speaker in decades who represents an urban district. This marks a significant change that will affect not only the process in the House (members are expected to have more input on bills and floor procedure are expected to be more open) but the agenda of the House as well (education, transportation and health care). He is also the first practicing Jew to be Speaker.
Here are links to news articles on the election and on Straus in general:
- Background on the Craddick's problems during the last session.
- Interview with Texas Monthly.
- The Joe Straus Era Begins.
- Straus' Record is Moderate and Independent.
- Governor Perry Supports Straus.
- Google Search for Texas Speaker Joe Straus.
Straus is a Republican who represents San Antonio, meaning that he will be the first Speaker in decades who represents an urban district. This marks a significant change that will affect not only the process in the House (members are expected to have more input on bills and floor procedure are expected to be more open) but the agenda of the House as well (education, transportation and health care). He is also the first practicing Jew to be Speaker.
Here are links to news articles on the election and on Straus in general:
- Background on the Craddick's problems during the last session.
- Interview with Texas Monthly.
- The Joe Straus Era Begins.
- Straus' Record is Moderate and Independent.
- Governor Perry Supports Straus.
- Google Search for Texas Speaker Joe Straus.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Back on Track
The break's over. I'll start posting news items for the coming semester soon.
If you're taking me again this spring, keep your subscription active, if not, here's your chance to unsubscribe. You're invited to stay involved with the discussions though. I hope you do.
K
If you're taking me again this spring, keep your subscription active, if not, here's your chance to unsubscribe. You're invited to stay involved with the discussions though. I hope you do.
K
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)