I've added a link below--under the tab networks--to LittleSis which calls itself the involuntary Facebook of powerful Americans. It claims to detail the connections that powerful Americans with each other and with governmental agencies, and Congress.
It's worth a look. Should be a great way to help connect the dots among the interests that tend to determine the direction of public policy.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Racial Voting Gap Closing
The times they are a-changing:
The long-standing gap between blacks and whites in voter participation evaporated in the presidential election last year, according to an analysis released Thursday. Black, Hispanic and Asian voters made up nearly a quarter of the electorate, setting a record.
The long-standing gap between blacks and whites in voter participation evaporated in the presidential election last year, according to an analysis released Thursday. Black, Hispanic and Asian voters made up nearly a quarter of the electorate, setting a record.
Rebound to Come?
Given that a lot of people have pulled money out of the stock market because they are not sure it has hit bottom, there's a lot of cash being held that could be pumped into the economy quickly.
Sumner Redstone wonders if we might have hit that bottom and whether we are in store for a bull market:
The U.S. economy shrank by a surprisingly steep 6.1 percent in the first quarter, hit by a record plunge in the business inventories and exports, but various investors also read signs of recovery in the report.
"I think we're in the beginning of a bull market. When a bull market begins, nine months later the economy turns around," said the media mogul at the Milken Institute, who said he felt like he had the vital statistics of 20 year old.
"It was always tough, but today we are in the throes of something we have never seen in our history. It's clear in recent times the market is looking for a bottom."
"The news was extremely bad on the GDP and the market went up. In a bull market, the market ignores bad news. Today, we ignored extremely bad news," Redstone said in a Q&A session with CNN's Larry King.
Sumner Redstone wonders if we might have hit that bottom and whether we are in store for a bull market:
The U.S. economy shrank by a surprisingly steep 6.1 percent in the first quarter, hit by a record plunge in the business inventories and exports, but various investors also read signs of recovery in the report.
"I think we're in the beginning of a bull market. When a bull market begins, nine months later the economy turns around," said the media mogul at the Milken Institute, who said he felt like he had the vital statistics of 20 year old.
"It was always tough, but today we are in the throes of something we have never seen in our history. It's clear in recent times the market is looking for a bottom."
"The news was extremely bad on the GDP and the market went up. In a bull market, the market ignores bad news. Today, we ignored extremely bad news," Redstone said in a Q&A session with CNN's Larry King.
!#@$
By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court states that the FCC can fine broadcasters for fleeting expletives uttered by those on camera.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is Challenged in the Supreme Court
Since the 1960s, any redistricting or voting practices in states that had a history of racial segregation has had to be precleared by a panel of federal judges. This includes Texas.
This practice has been challenged, and was argued yesterday before the Supreme Court. It provides another opportunity for the Supreme Court, which has suddenly become the bastion of conservatism at the federal level, to make a significant shift in public policy.
The question for the court seems to be, given recent successes of black candidates for office, whether the law is still necessary. Institutional racism may be a thing of the past. But perhaps electoral success is a sign that the law is working, and if overturned prematurely, current successes might be rolled back.
Given that the law was reauthorized very recently by a large margin in Congress, this also raises questions about whether the judiciary should defer to Congress in this manner, or actively overturn its laws.
The case is Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder.
Listen to the oral argument here.
This practice has been challenged, and was argued yesterday before the Supreme Court. It provides another opportunity for the Supreme Court, which has suddenly become the bastion of conservatism at the federal level, to make a significant shift in public policy.
The question for the court seems to be, given recent successes of black candidates for office, whether the law is still necessary. Institutional racism may be a thing of the past. But perhaps electoral success is a sign that the law is working, and if overturned prematurely, current successes might be rolled back.
Given that the law was reauthorized very recently by a large margin in Congress, this also raises questions about whether the judiciary should defer to Congress in this manner, or actively overturn its laws.
The case is Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder.
Listen to the oral argument here.
Party Realignment
David Greenberg places Specter's defection in historical context, as part of a trend begun in the 1960s where liberal Republicans began leaving the party:
Historically, Specter's move is best understood as the signal event in the next stage of what the journalist Ronald Brownstein has called "The Great Sorting Out"—a gradual but massive sorting of voters and elected officials that has brought their partisan affiliation into close alignment with their ideology. In The Second Civil War (2007), Brownstein showed how over the last four decades "conservatives" have increasingly become Republicans and "liberals" increasingly Democratic—turning these once-motley coalitions into relatively uniform ideological vehicles. In 1970, 35 percent of Democrats called themselves liberal and 26 percent called themselves conservative. By 2000, 52 percent were liberal, only 17 percent conservative. The GOP saw a mirror-image change. The mere 9 percent of Republicans who called themselves liberal in 1970 dwindled to 6 percent in 2000; the 63 percent conservative portion grew to 77 percent.
It's a story that's been part of the discussion of party transformation since I began teaching in the mid 1990s.
Historically, Specter's move is best understood as the signal event in the next stage of what the journalist Ronald Brownstein has called "The Great Sorting Out"—a gradual but massive sorting of voters and elected officials that has brought their partisan affiliation into close alignment with their ideology. In The Second Civil War (2007), Brownstein showed how over the last four decades "conservatives" have increasingly become Republicans and "liberals" increasingly Democratic—turning these once-motley coalitions into relatively uniform ideological vehicles. In 1970, 35 percent of Democrats called themselves liberal and 26 percent called themselves conservative. By 2000, 52 percent were liberal, only 17 percent conservative. The GOP saw a mirror-image change. The mere 9 percent of Republicans who called themselves liberal in 1970 dwindled to 6 percent in 2000; the 63 percent conservative portion grew to 77 percent.
It's a story that's been part of the discussion of party transformation since I began teaching in the mid 1990s.
100 Days
Here are a variety of stories evaluating Obama's first 100 days in office:
- Wired Magazine likes his decisions on science, but not on privacy and copyright policy.
- WaPo highlights where Obama differs from Bush. They also speculate on the near future.
- U.S. News and World Report outlines how Obama has attempted to reconcile religious conservatives and secular liberals.
- The Huffington Post likes his ambitious agenda.
- The UPI reminds us that the economy is still untamed after 100 days.
- FoxNews sees life in the economy, but wonders if it is really due to the stimulus.
- CBS News likes his social policy, not necessarily policy on Afghanistan.
- The New Republic contrasts Obama with FDR (see a chronology of FDR's first 100 days here).
There's much more, send me links to whatever you've been reading.
- Wired Magazine likes his decisions on science, but not on privacy and copyright policy.
- WaPo highlights where Obama differs from Bush. They also speculate on the near future.
- U.S. News and World Report outlines how Obama has attempted to reconcile religious conservatives and secular liberals.
- The Huffington Post likes his ambitious agenda.
- The UPI reminds us that the economy is still untamed after 100 days.
- FoxNews sees life in the economy, but wonders if it is really due to the stimulus.
- CBS News likes his social policy, not necessarily policy on Afghanistan.
- The New Republic contrasts Obama with FDR (see a chronology of FDR's first 100 days here).
There's much more, send me links to whatever you've been reading.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Street Level Politics
Literally.
From the Chron comes a claim that the cohesion of cities often comes down to street layouts, and that there is a conflict between what is good for the residents of a subdivision and the city at large:
Streets, with rare exceptions, aren't very sexy. Yet, they are the basic building blocks of cities, and if they don't work well, nothing else is likely to work well, either.
Blogger Andrew Burleson applies this principle to my colleague Bradley Olson's story about a controversial partial street closure. Burleson's pitch for an "urban network" illustrates how a desire for privacy (no cut-through traffic!) doesn't always promote healthy neighborhoods.
From the Chron comes a claim that the cohesion of cities often comes down to street layouts, and that there is a conflict between what is good for the residents of a subdivision and the city at large:
Streets, with rare exceptions, aren't very sexy. Yet, they are the basic building blocks of cities, and if they don't work well, nothing else is likely to work well, either.
Blogger Andrew Burleson applies this principle to my colleague Bradley Olson's story about a controversial partial street closure. Burleson's pitch for an "urban network" illustrates how a desire for privacy (no cut-through traffic!) doesn't always promote healthy neighborhoods.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
The Party of the South
That's what Daily Kos calls the Republican Party today.
When Nixon engineered the southern strategy to lure disaffected southern whites to the Republican Party in the mid-1960s did he know that these new Republicans would eventually take the party over and push moderates out?
When Nixon engineered the southern strategy to lure disaffected southern whites to the Republican Party in the mid-1960s did he know that these new Republicans would eventually take the party over and push moderates out?
Bombshell
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter switches parties:
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania said on Tuesday he would switch to the Democratic party, presenting Democrats with a possible 60th vote and the power to break Senate filibusters as they try to advance the Obama administration’s new agenda.
In a statement issued about noon as the Capitol was digesting the stunning turn of events, Mr. Specter said he had concluded that his party had moved too far to the right, a fact demonstrated by the migration of 200,000 Pennsylvania Republicans to the Democratic Party.
“I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans,” Mr. Specter said, acknowledging that his decision was certain to disappoint colleagues and supporters.
If Al Franken prevails in his ongoing court case in Minnesota and Mr. Specter begins caucusing with Democrats, Democrats would have 60 votes and the ability to deny Republicans the chance to stall legislation. Mr. Specter was one of only three Republicans to support President Obama’s economic recovery legislation.
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania said on Tuesday he would switch to the Democratic party, presenting Democrats with a possible 60th vote and the power to break Senate filibusters as they try to advance the Obama administration’s new agenda.
In a statement issued about noon as the Capitol was digesting the stunning turn of events, Mr. Specter said he had concluded that his party had moved too far to the right, a fact demonstrated by the migration of 200,000 Pennsylvania Republicans to the Democratic Party.
“I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans,” Mr. Specter said, acknowledging that his decision was certain to disappoint colleagues and supporters.
If Al Franken prevails in his ongoing court case in Minnesota and Mr. Specter begins caucusing with Democrats, Democrats would have 60 votes and the ability to deny Republicans the chance to stall legislation. Mr. Specter was one of only three Republicans to support President Obama’s economic recovery legislation.
More Restrictions on the Rights of Criminal Defendants
Thanks to Michael for pointing out concerns raised by some about Obama's support for overturning Michigan v. Jackson.
From WaPo:
The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present. The decision applies even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.
Anything police learn through such questioning may not be used against the defendant at trial. The opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time.
ScotusBlog also has background on the dispute as well as links to amibus briefs with arguments on either side.
The government’s amicus brief can be found here. Siding with a group of states that had argued earlier that the Jackson precedent was no longer necessary to protect the rights of suspects in police custody, Solicitor General Elena Kagan made the same point. The U.S. brief said that the ruling is not needed “given the purposes of the Sixth Amendment and the existence of other strong protections against coercion.”
The brief continued: “Although the Sixth Amendment affords criminal defendants a right to counsel at certain critical pre-trial stages, the Amendment should not prevent a criminal defendant from waiving that right and answering questions from police following assertion of that right at arraignment. Jackson serves no real purpose and fits poorly with this Court’s recent precedent; although the decision only occasionally prevents federal prosecutors from obtaining appropriate convictions, even that cost outweighs the decision’s meager benefits.”
Perhaps the most surprising thing about the Obama Administration so far has been its willingness to continue whittling away at defendant's rights, a trend that has been ongoing for almost three decades:
While President Barack Obama has reversed many policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, the defendants' rights case is another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.
Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid releasing information in lawsuits and limiting the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them.
The ACLU has been especially disappointed so far. Which makes me wonder whether there's a political calculation here. Is he attempting to minimize the ability of a Republican challenger in 2012 to argue that he is soft on crime?
From WaPo:
The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present. The decision applies even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.
Anything police learn through such questioning may not be used against the defendant at trial. The opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time.
ScotusBlog also has background on the dispute as well as links to amibus briefs with arguments on either side.
The government’s amicus brief can be found here. Siding with a group of states that had argued earlier that the Jackson precedent was no longer necessary to protect the rights of suspects in police custody, Solicitor General Elena Kagan made the same point. The U.S. brief said that the ruling is not needed “given the purposes of the Sixth Amendment and the existence of other strong protections against coercion.”
The brief continued: “Although the Sixth Amendment affords criminal defendants a right to counsel at certain critical pre-trial stages, the Amendment should not prevent a criminal defendant from waiving that right and answering questions from police following assertion of that right at arraignment. Jackson serves no real purpose and fits poorly with this Court’s recent precedent; although the decision only occasionally prevents federal prosecutors from obtaining appropriate convictions, even that cost outweighs the decision’s meager benefits.”
Perhaps the most surprising thing about the Obama Administration so far has been its willingness to continue whittling away at defendant's rights, a trend that has been ongoing for almost three decades:
While President Barack Obama has reversed many policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, the defendants' rights case is another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.
Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid releasing information in lawsuits and limiting the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them.
The ACLU has been especially disappointed so far. Which makes me wonder whether there's a political calculation here. Is he attempting to minimize the ability of a Republican challenger in 2012 to argue that he is soft on crime?
Monday, April 27, 2009
Smaller and More Conservative
That seems to describe the current Republican Party. A WaPo poll found that 21% of respondents identified themselves as Republican, while 35% called themselves Democrats and 38% independents. The Obama Presidency is believed to be angering their far right base and they are in turn negating efforts of party leaders (elites) to modify the party on social issues. The struggle to define the Republican Party following two straight electoral defeats continues.
This may put the Republicans where Democrats were in 1968. The common factor in both cases? An unpopular president from Texas left office. There's a book in this I swear.
This may put the Republicans where Democrats were in 1968. The common factor in both cases? An unpopular president from Texas left office. There's a book in this I swear.
Candidate Cheney
Ross Douthat argues strongly in favor of the marketplace ideas, and of elections as the appropriate vehicle for the discussion of ideas. Had Cheney decided to run for president, and received the nomination of his party, we would have had the debate on torture that we are missing today:
. . . the argument isn’t going away. It will be with us as long as the threat of terrorism endures. And where the Bush administration’s interrogation programs are concerned, we’ve heard too much to just “look forward,” as the president would have us do. We need to hear more: What was done and who approved it, and what intelligence we really gleaned from it. Not so that we can prosecute – unless the Democratic Party has taken leave of its senses – but so that we can learn, and pass judgment, and struggle toward consensus.
Here Dick Cheney, prodded by the ironies of history into demanding greater disclosure about programs he once sought to keep completely secret, has an important role to play. He wants to defend his record; let him defend it. And let the country judge.
But better if this debate had happened during the campaign season. And better, perhaps, if Cheney himself had been there to have it out.
Another role for elections in a democracy
. . . the argument isn’t going away. It will be with us as long as the threat of terrorism endures. And where the Bush administration’s interrogation programs are concerned, we’ve heard too much to just “look forward,” as the president would have us do. We need to hear more: What was done and who approved it, and what intelligence we really gleaned from it. Not so that we can prosecute – unless the Democratic Party has taken leave of its senses – but so that we can learn, and pass judgment, and struggle toward consensus.
Here Dick Cheney, prodded by the ironies of history into demanding greater disclosure about programs he once sought to keep completely secret, has an important role to play. He wants to defend his record; let him defend it. And let the country judge.
But better if this debate had happened during the campaign season. And better, perhaps, if Cheney himself had been there to have it out.
Another role for elections in a democracy
Attention: Spring 2009 16 Week Internet Students
The final questions are now posted on the syllabus.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Democratic Ignorance
Here is a reactions to Peggy Noonan's suggestion that the public look away from certain things, like torture. Again, a suggestion that certain items be off the table in the marketplace of ideas.
Not to beat a dead horse, but this is a perfect example of the idea that we as a society may agree in the abstract about certain things, such as transparency, but disagree when we discuss concrete examples of that abstract principle.
Not to beat a dead horse, but this is a perfect example of the idea that we as a society may agree in the abstract about certain things, such as transparency, but disagree when we discuss concrete examples of that abstract principle.
Business v. Residents in the Leg.
From Texas Politics:
It was a rock 'em sock 'em battle of businesses versus residential property rights in the Senate today as Harris County senators voted against Sen. Mario Gallegos' bill to ban trucks weighing 26,000 pounds or more from parking in certain subdivisions....
It was a rock 'em sock 'em battle of businesses versus residential property rights in the Senate today as Harris County senators voted against Sen. Mario Gallegos' bill to ban trucks weighing 26,000 pounds or more from parking in certain subdivisions....
Friday, April 24, 2009
Obama Coalition Expanding?
Maybe. The shift appears to be among blue-collar voters and business owners:
Especially notable is Obama's position among several high-status occupational groups not traditionally part of the Democratic coalition. Although the major lobbying groups for small business usually align with Republicans, the poll found that 58 percent of the self-employed approve of Obama's performance. He receives a 55 percent approval rating from "knowledge workers" -- college-educated professionals, such as engineers, consultants, and lawyers. Obama's approval stands at 53 percent among the swells in the corner office, the people who identified themselves as senior business managers. That's high for a Democrat.
Those positive early reviews underscore Obama's opportunity to build an unusually expansive electoral coalition. Arguably, the past generation's most important political trend has been the class inversion in the two parties' support. Since the 1960s, Republicans have gained enormous ground among blue-collar white voters, many of them conservative on cultural and national security issues, who once anchored the Democratic coalition. Since the 1980s, Democrats have advanced among well-educated and affluent voters who are fiscally moderate but lean left on the same social and foreign-policy issues that have moved blue-collar families toward the GOP.
In the 2008 election, Obama struggled with blue-collar whites but extended the Democratic inroads upscale. This new survey shows him improving his position since then with both camps and further loosening the Republican grip on well-off groups that soured on George W. Bush. But it also pinpoints where Obama's agenda could strain his ties to those upscale voters.
Especially notable is Obama's position among several high-status occupational groups not traditionally part of the Democratic coalition. Although the major lobbying groups for small business usually align with Republicans, the poll found that 58 percent of the self-employed approve of Obama's performance. He receives a 55 percent approval rating from "knowledge workers" -- college-educated professionals, such as engineers, consultants, and lawyers. Obama's approval stands at 53 percent among the swells in the corner office, the people who identified themselves as senior business managers. That's high for a Democrat.
Those positive early reviews underscore Obama's opportunity to build an unusually expansive electoral coalition. Arguably, the past generation's most important political trend has been the class inversion in the two parties' support. Since the 1960s, Republicans have gained enormous ground among blue-collar white voters, many of them conservative on cultural and national security issues, who once anchored the Democratic coalition. Since the 1980s, Democrats have advanced among well-educated and affluent voters who are fiscally moderate but lean left on the same social and foreign-policy issues that have moved blue-collar families toward the GOP.
In the 2008 election, Obama struggled with blue-collar whites but extended the Democratic inroads upscale. This new survey shows him improving his position since then with both camps and further loosening the Republican grip on well-off groups that soured on George W. Bush. But it also pinpoints where Obama's agenda could strain his ties to those upscale voters.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The DOJ and the Obama Administration
Here's a terrific response, from Zarik, to a Plum Line post that points out the relationship that should exist between the Department of Justice and the Presidential Admnistration. Does the president control the Justice Department, or is the Attorney General independent? The current dispute regarding what to do about the torture engaged in by the previous administration turns oout to be a teachable moment involving the limits of presidential--though not necessarily executive--power:
Let’s be clear on one thing. As Greenwald so astutely pointed out yesterday, this has nothing to do with Obama. Obama didn’t release anything. Obama didn’t “leave the door open” to prosecutions. This is the Justice Department. We’ve been so blinded by Alberto Gonzalez carrying out Bush’s brand of law that we’ve forgotten that the DOJ is supposed to operate and be independent of the Executive. Holder released the memos, Holder will do what he wants (or he should!) regardless of what Obama thinks. Obama can give his recommendation but it means nothing. Obama could strongly discourage him from prosecuting but again, it means nothing.
The reason why you’ve seen Obama and the people that actually have to listen to him (Rahm, Axelrod, Gibbs, et al)do all this shuffling in the past week is to appear to be against prosecutions at first and then seem to “soften ever so slightly” but still be generally wary of them.
That way, when Holder throws the hammer down on everyone (which is what SHOULD happen if everything goes right) Obama won’t be sucked into this because he’ll be able to say “Well, look, as you saw I was against going this far, but it’s the Department of Justice’s decision.” The media will try to say “But Mr President, the Atty General is supposed to listen to you” and THEN Obama can fire back at them with a teaching moment for everyone, telling them “Actually, he’s not, he’s supposed to be independent of me.”
The guy’s an expert on the Constitution, he knows what he’s doing. But again, let’s give credit where credit’s due — DOJ and Holder. Trials should and will happen, and the way it’s gone down so far, Obama can stay out of it. I think this will be the last you hear him talk about it.
Does this mitigate arguments that Obama is continuing to expand presidential power? By yielding to Holder he seems to be cutting against the theory of the unitary executive. Again, this doesn't mean that executive power in general is being limited, just presidential control of executive power.
Is this good or bad?
Let’s be clear on one thing. As Greenwald so astutely pointed out yesterday, this has nothing to do with Obama. Obama didn’t release anything. Obama didn’t “leave the door open” to prosecutions. This is the Justice Department. We’ve been so blinded by Alberto Gonzalez carrying out Bush’s brand of law that we’ve forgotten that the DOJ is supposed to operate and be independent of the Executive. Holder released the memos, Holder will do what he wants (or he should!) regardless of what Obama thinks. Obama can give his recommendation but it means nothing. Obama could strongly discourage him from prosecuting but again, it means nothing.
The reason why you’ve seen Obama and the people that actually have to listen to him (Rahm, Axelrod, Gibbs, et al)do all this shuffling in the past week is to appear to be against prosecutions at first and then seem to “soften ever so slightly” but still be generally wary of them.
That way, when Holder throws the hammer down on everyone (which is what SHOULD happen if everything goes right) Obama won’t be sucked into this because he’ll be able to say “Well, look, as you saw I was against going this far, but it’s the Department of Justice’s decision.” The media will try to say “But Mr President, the Atty General is supposed to listen to you” and THEN Obama can fire back at them with a teaching moment for everyone, telling them “Actually, he’s not, he’s supposed to be independent of me.”
The guy’s an expert on the Constitution, he knows what he’s doing. But again, let’s give credit where credit’s due — DOJ and Holder. Trials should and will happen, and the way it’s gone down so far, Obama can stay out of it. I think this will be the last you hear him talk about it.
Does this mitigate arguments that Obama is continuing to expand presidential power? By yielding to Holder he seems to be cutting against the theory of the unitary executive. Again, this doesn't mean that executive power in general is being limited, just presidential control of executive power.
Is this good or bad?
Torture and the Marketplace of Ideas
While discussing the marketplace ideas in my 2301 classes, and the related question regarding whether certain topics should be off the table, a debate was ignited over releasing the memos covering just how torture policy was carried out in recent years.
Some wonder whether it is appropriate to even discuss this at all, which suggests that some believe that torture -- whether it should be done, how it should be done and how effective it might be -- should not be part of the marketplace of ideas.
Here's what I think is a neat summary of the dilemma:
Had the torture debate been fully engaged when the Bush team was making the decisions it made in 2001-02, I think it is plausible that the political process would have produced a consensus that would have been far more sympathetic to the Bush position than the present day consensus appears to be. At a minimum, it would have made it impossible for Congressional Democrats to claim, as they implausibly do now, that despite all the briefings they received they just can't remember coming down one way or the other on the issue.
The Bush team erred by not grounding the policy more firmly in the bedrock of the political process that the Framers identified for contentious issues -- namely, in involving Congress and the public -- and, instead, by relying on the penumbra of the Commander-in-chief clause. We non-lawyers have learned one thing from the abortion debate: The penumbra is a lousy place to park contentious issues.
I predict that, for better or worse, the political framework will be the decisive one going forward. At this point, debates about the legal or ethical arguments are probably impossibly entangled with political questions. And, should the larger worm turn -- should the terrorists succeed in launching another attack on the United States -- then I would not be surprised to see the political debate shift dramatically again.
At the center of this debate, it seems to me, is the question whether American can sensible and effectively discuss certain issues. Another question of course is whether elected leaders want to public to discuss certain things. How much of what government does ought to be secret?
Some wonder whether it is appropriate to even discuss this at all, which suggests that some believe that torture -- whether it should be done, how it should be done and how effective it might be -- should not be part of the marketplace of ideas.
Here's what I think is a neat summary of the dilemma:
Had the torture debate been fully engaged when the Bush team was making the decisions it made in 2001-02, I think it is plausible that the political process would have produced a consensus that would have been far more sympathetic to the Bush position than the present day consensus appears to be. At a minimum, it would have made it impossible for Congressional Democrats to claim, as they implausibly do now, that despite all the briefings they received they just can't remember coming down one way or the other on the issue.
The Bush team erred by not grounding the policy more firmly in the bedrock of the political process that the Framers identified for contentious issues -- namely, in involving Congress and the public -- and, instead, by relying on the penumbra of the Commander-in-chief clause. We non-lawyers have learned one thing from the abortion debate: The penumbra is a lousy place to park contentious issues.
I predict that, for better or worse, the political framework will be the decisive one going forward. At this point, debates about the legal or ethical arguments are probably impossibly entangled with political questions. And, should the larger worm turn -- should the terrorists succeed in launching another attack on the United States -- then I would not be surprised to see the political debate shift dramatically again.
At the center of this debate, it seems to me, is the question whether American can sensible and effectively discuss certain issues. Another question of course is whether elected leaders want to public to discuss certain things. How much of what government does ought to be secret?
Monday, April 20, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
This Week in 2301
Again for 16 week classes: we're covering interest groups and will try to work in a discussion of the tea parties.
This Week in 2302
My 16 week 2302 classes will begin wrapping up our discussion of the judiciary this week. I want us to get comfortable with how the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means. Was the document meant to be interpreted strictly or loosely? This is an important point since it determines how certain disputes are resolved.
Since secession has been in the news recently, it's useful to revisit Texas v. White, the case argued in 1869 which decided that not only can states not secede form the union, they did not actually secede during the Civil War.
We will also look at Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the case decided last year which determined that a law which required voters to show a photo ID did not impose an undue burden on voters and reflected a legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud. This is an appropriate topic for us to cover since a voter ID bill is still winding its way through the Texas Legislature.
Neither case was unanimous so we will be able to explore conflicts among justices.
Since secession has been in the news recently, it's useful to revisit Texas v. White, the case argued in 1869 which decided that not only can states not secede form the union, they did not actually secede during the Civil War.
We will also look at Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the case decided last year which determined that a law which required voters to show a photo ID did not impose an undue burden on voters and reflected a legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud. This is an appropriate topic for us to cover since a voter ID bill is still winding its way through the Texas Legislature.
Neither case was unanimous so we will be able to explore conflicts among justices.
Is the Anti-Gay Marriage Movement Dying?
Maybe.
For my 2301 classes, file this under generational change in public opinion and AstroTurf lobbying.
For my 2301 classes, file this under generational change in public opinion and AstroTurf lobbying.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Data: Donor State and Recipient States
Here's a list of which states contribute most in federal taxes and which receive the most.
Top five recipients (excluding DC):
1-Virginia
2-Maryland
3-Missouri
4-Alabama
5-Mississippi
Top five donors:
1-California
2-New Jersey
3-New York
4-Illinois
5-Michigan
Texas is 7th in the list of donor states
Top five recipients (excluding DC):
1-Virginia
2-Maryland
3-Missouri
4-Alabama
5-Mississippi
Top five donors:
1-California
2-New Jersey
3-New York
4-Illinois
5-Michigan
Texas is 7th in the list of donor states
Friday, April 17, 2009
Independents and the Tea Parties
This post contradicts the one made below regarding the potential strength of the tea party movement. Dylan Loewe sees reason to believe that the tea parties might further isolate the Republican Party from independents. Since independents tend to determine which party wins and loses elections, this could be bad news for Republicans in 2010:
...the number of voters who identify themselves as Republican is at its lowest point in decades, and nearly every poll shows a dramatic divergence of opinion between self-identifying Republicans and self-identifying Independents. The fight for the "middle voter" has been fought and won by the Democrats, who are consistently viewed as more capable on substantive policy issues than Republicans. A recent Gallup poll showed that 71 percent of voters trust Obama on the economy. That number is built on a strong coalition of Democratic and Independent voters. 97 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of Independents expressed confidence in Obama's handling of the economy, compared to only 38 percent of Republicans. On an issue as critically important to voters as the economy, a 30 point divide in viewpoints between Republicans and Independents spells serious trouble going forward.
If the GOP has any hope of being competitive in the 2010 midterms, it had better figure out a way to appeal to Independents again. But if Republicans had any intention of reconnecting with those voters, this week's headlines don't give any indication.
During the much-panned Republican "tea party" protests, aimed at high taxes (and also wasteful spending and also socialism and also Obama's secret Muslim roots and also his fake birth certificate and also a few other things one might write on a poster board), Texas Governor Rick Perry threatened to secede. Tom Delay defended him - and secession. So did Rush Limbaugh. Republicans touted the protests as an impressive showing of conservative online organizing. But their success in numbers belies a serious problem.
There's still plenty of time for things to turn around, but campaign donations are already looking better for Democrats. This an early sign that things are not turning around for the GOP.
...the number of voters who identify themselves as Republican is at its lowest point in decades, and nearly every poll shows a dramatic divergence of opinion between self-identifying Republicans and self-identifying Independents. The fight for the "middle voter" has been fought and won by the Democrats, who are consistently viewed as more capable on substantive policy issues than Republicans. A recent Gallup poll showed that 71 percent of voters trust Obama on the economy. That number is built on a strong coalition of Democratic and Independent voters. 97 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of Independents expressed confidence in Obama's handling of the economy, compared to only 38 percent of Republicans. On an issue as critically important to voters as the economy, a 30 point divide in viewpoints between Republicans and Independents spells serious trouble going forward.
If the GOP has any hope of being competitive in the 2010 midterms, it had better figure out a way to appeal to Independents again. But if Republicans had any intention of reconnecting with those voters, this week's headlines don't give any indication.
During the much-panned Republican "tea party" protests, aimed at high taxes (and also wasteful spending and also socialism and also Obama's secret Muslim roots and also his fake birth certificate and also a few other things one might write on a poster board), Texas Governor Rick Perry threatened to secede. Tom Delay defended him - and secession. So did Rush Limbaugh. Republicans touted the protests as an impressive showing of conservative online organizing. But their success in numbers belies a serious problem.
There's still plenty of time for things to turn around, but campaign donations are already looking better for Democrats. This an early sign that things are not turning around for the GOP.
Obama Will not Prosecute CIA "Interrogators"
Again from Today's Papers:
The Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Washington Post lead with the Justice Department documents released by the Obama administration that provide the most detailed accounting to date of the harsh interrogation tactics used by the Central Intelligence Agency during the Bush administration, as well as the legal reasoning to back them up. At the same time, the administration made it clear that CIA officers who followed the guidelines would not be prosecuted. The four memos, one from 2002 and three from 2005, spell out in painstaking detail the techniques that could be used to get information from prisoners.
Some groups, the ACLU most notably, are upset about the refusal to prosecute lower level CIA officials, but isn't this a way for Obama to solidify not only support from the CIA rank and file, but to guarantee that they follow his directives? If they are prosecuted, doesn't it make it more likely that orders will be second guessed habitually?
The Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Washington Post lead with the Justice Department documents released by the Obama administration that provide the most detailed accounting to date of the harsh interrogation tactics used by the Central Intelligence Agency during the Bush administration, as well as the legal reasoning to back them up. At the same time, the administration made it clear that CIA officers who followed the guidelines would not be prosecuted. The four memos, one from 2002 and three from 2005, spell out in painstaking detail the techniques that could be used to get information from prisoners.
Some groups, the ACLU most notably, are upset about the refusal to prosecute lower level CIA officials, but isn't this a way for Obama to solidify not only support from the CIA rank and file, but to guarantee that they follow his directives? If they are prosecuted, doesn't it make it more likely that orders will be second guessed habitually?
Don't Dismiss those Tea Parties
From Today's Papers:
The WP's Eugene Robinson writes that while it's way too easy to make fun of this week's "tea party" protesters, it would be a mistake to ignore them. It is certainly difficult to take the protesters seriously, particularly when a majority of the country seems willing to support Obama. But polls also show that people don't like the fact that so much government money is going to the banks, and Robinson says these poll numbers contain "a quiet warning." Once the economy begins to come back from the brink, Wall Street will be the first to show gains. But unemployment will remain high, meaning that the "mad-as-hell faction may thrive and multiply." This us vs. them narrative "is out there waiting to be exploited by anyone clever enough to fashion a sophisticated populist critique of the Obama administration's policies."
As I mentioned to one of your fellow students, I predict that some of the same people who made a killing making deals which came close to wrecking the economy will also make a killing when the economy rebounds. Imagine the tea parties then.
The WP's Eugene Robinson writes that while it's way too easy to make fun of this week's "tea party" protesters, it would be a mistake to ignore them. It is certainly difficult to take the protesters seriously, particularly when a majority of the country seems willing to support Obama. But polls also show that people don't like the fact that so much government money is going to the banks, and Robinson says these poll numbers contain "a quiet warning." Once the economy begins to come back from the brink, Wall Street will be the first to show gains. But unemployment will remain high, meaning that the "mad-as-hell faction may thrive and multiply." This us vs. them narrative "is out there waiting to be exploited by anyone clever enough to fashion a sophisticated populist critique of the Obama administration's policies."
As I mentioned to one of your fellow students, I predict that some of the same people who made a killing making deals which came close to wrecking the economy will also make a killing when the economy rebounds. Imagine the tea parties then.
Reports on Extremism
The Department of Homeland Security has released separate reports this year regarding first left wing and now right wing terrorism. Secretary Napolitano has drawn heat from some on the right for her concern that disaffected veterans might be prone to lash out at the government. She responds by mentioning her involvement with the prosecution of the last disaffected veteran to do so.
It's worth noting that the left wing report was the product of the DHS under the Bush Administration and the right wing report under the Obama Administration. One one hand we could argue that each side is trying to tar the other as unruly extremists, but on the other hand, is it not unreasonable to believe that left wing groups are more likely to strike against a conservative administration and vice versa?
It's worth noting that the left wing report was the product of the DHS under the Bush Administration and the right wing report under the Obama Administration. One one hand we could argue that each side is trying to tar the other as unruly extremists, but on the other hand, is it not unreasonable to believe that left wing groups are more likely to strike against a conservative administration and vice versa?
Only 18% of Texans Want to Secede
Is this good news or bad news? This info comes from a terrific Rasmussen Report on the political opinions of Texans.
My 2301's are transitioning out of discussing public opinion, but this is a worthy addition to the subject and will be covered in future classes.
A couple of paragraphs from the reports summary:
The underlying views of Texans about government are generally similar to those in the rest of the nation. By a 73% to 11% margin, Texans trust the collective judgment of the American people more than the judgment of political leaders.
By a 62% to 21% margin, voters in Perry’s state believe that big business and big government typically work together against the interests of consumers and investors. And, by a 63% to 24% margin, Texans view the federal government itself as a special interest group.
We are populist generally, though also business friendly so I'm interested in what drives the answer to the question above about business and politics being in cahoots against the little guy. Not that I don't agree with the sentiment, I simply wonder if there is a change goign on in the relentlessly pro-business mindset in Texas. Is the economic slide finally having an impact on attitudes in the state?
The report also states that almost a third of Texans believe the state has the right to secede from the union, but low levels of knowledge about most things in the general public hardly makes headlines anymore so that's not a surprising finding.
I wondering whether the attention our governor's secession remarks is getting nationally will cloud how the public thinks of the tea parties. General opposition to government can be manifested in many ways, some are more likely to be taken seriously than others. Concerns over a growing deficit and the best way to handle a financial crisis are legitimate concerns, secession is not.
I expect that Democrats will push Rick Perry to the forefront of the tea party movement as much as they can and Republicans will try to change the subject. The end game (spin) is generally the most important part of any public relations campaign, so this will be interesting to watch. I'm beginning to think that Republicans may have made a tactical mistake, and allowed their concerns to be further parodied as extreme and unreasonable. Compare this to Obama's calm demeanor.
Who knows how this will play out though. Ideas?
My 2301's are transitioning out of discussing public opinion, but this is a worthy addition to the subject and will be covered in future classes.
A couple of paragraphs from the reports summary:
The underlying views of Texans about government are generally similar to those in the rest of the nation. By a 73% to 11% margin, Texans trust the collective judgment of the American people more than the judgment of political leaders.
By a 62% to 21% margin, voters in Perry’s state believe that big business and big government typically work together against the interests of consumers and investors. And, by a 63% to 24% margin, Texans view the federal government itself as a special interest group.
We are populist generally, though also business friendly so I'm interested in what drives the answer to the question above about business and politics being in cahoots against the little guy. Not that I don't agree with the sentiment, I simply wonder if there is a change goign on in the relentlessly pro-business mindset in Texas. Is the economic slide finally having an impact on attitudes in the state?
The report also states that almost a third of Texans believe the state has the right to secede from the union, but low levels of knowledge about most things in the general public hardly makes headlines anymore so that's not a surprising finding.
I wondering whether the attention our governor's secession remarks is getting nationally will cloud how the public thinks of the tea parties. General opposition to government can be manifested in many ways, some are more likely to be taken seriously than others. Concerns over a growing deficit and the best way to handle a financial crisis are legitimate concerns, secession is not.
I expect that Democrats will push Rick Perry to the forefront of the tea party movement as much as they can and Republicans will try to change the subject. The end game (spin) is generally the most important part of any public relations campaign, so this will be interesting to watch. I'm beginning to think that Republicans may have made a tactical mistake, and allowed their concerns to be further parodied as extreme and unreasonable. Compare this to Obama's calm demeanor.
Who knows how this will play out though. Ideas?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Judith Krug, RIP
Considering this week's discussion of the marketplace of ideas, her passing is especially pertinent. Krug helped solidify first amendment rights by fighting the banning of books:
As the American Library Association’s official proponent of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech since the 1960s, Ms. Krug (pronounced kroog) fought the banning of books, including “Huckleberry Finn,” “Mein Kampf,” “Little Black Sambo,” “Catcher in the Rye” and sex manuals. In 1982, she helped found Banned Books Week, an annual event that includes authors reading from prohibited books.
She also fought for the inclusion of literature on library shelves that she herself found offensive, like “The Blue Book” of the ultraconservative John Birch Society. The book is a transcript of a two-day monologue by Robert Welch at the founding meeting of the society in 1958.
“My personal proclivities have nothing to do with how I react as a librarian,” Ms. Krug said in an interview with The New York Times in 1972. “Library service in this country should be based on the concept of intellectual freedom, of providing all pertinent information so a reader can make decisions for himself.”
As the American Library Association’s official proponent of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech since the 1960s, Ms. Krug (pronounced kroog) fought the banning of books, including “Huckleberry Finn,” “Mein Kampf,” “Little Black Sambo,” “Catcher in the Rye” and sex manuals. In 1982, she helped found Banned Books Week, an annual event that includes authors reading from prohibited books.
She also fought for the inclusion of literature on library shelves that she herself found offensive, like “The Blue Book” of the ultraconservative John Birch Society. The book is a transcript of a two-day monologue by Robert Welch at the founding meeting of the society in 1958.
“My personal proclivities have nothing to do with how I react as a librarian,” Ms. Krug said in an interview with The New York Times in 1972. “Library service in this country should be based on the concept of intellectual freedom, of providing all pertinent information so a reader can make decisions for himself.”
Secession!!!!
Perhaps this is due to Texas' unique history, but from time to time some of our fellow Texans start talking about secession. This time that group includes out governor. The talk tends to occur during periods of time when the state's influence on national affairs is waning, like when Democrats dominate national office. It happened during the Carter and Clinton years, so why not now?
There seems to be a general sense that secession is a possibility. Thanks to Susan for sending me a copy of a email which has apparently floated around for some time, you can see versions here, and here, and here, and here. I'm sure its all over the place.
The problem is that there is no such thing as the Texas-American Annexation Treaty of 1848. Texas, as history buffs will recall, was annexed in 1845. The treaty signed then dealt mostly with the status that the Republic of Texas had accumulated, and said nothing about secession. The congressional resolution which authorized Texas' entry into the union did stipulate that Texas could divide into five states, but again nothing about secession.
An 1869 Supreme Court case not only stated that Texas could not seceed, but that it did not actually seceed when it entered the Confederation.
There seems to be a general sense that secession is a possibility. Thanks to Susan for sending me a copy of a email which has apparently floated around for some time, you can see versions here, and here, and here, and here. I'm sure its all over the place.
The problem is that there is no such thing as the Texas-American Annexation Treaty of 1848. Texas, as history buffs will recall, was annexed in 1845. The treaty signed then dealt mostly with the status that the Republic of Texas had accumulated, and said nothing about secession. The congressional resolution which authorized Texas' entry into the union did stipulate that Texas could divide into five states, but again nothing about secession.
An 1869 Supreme Court case not only stated that Texas could not seceed, but that it did not actually seceed when it entered the Confederation.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
More Than Just the Opposition
Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty wants the Republican Party to do more than just oppose Obama and the Democrats:
Mr. Pawlenty is clearly frustrated with how his party has so far played the role of loyal opposition. “Our strategy can’t be just pointing out the negatives of President Obama’s agenda,” he said. “We have to have our own agenda and our own ideas. I think the party has done an okay — but not great — job of responding to the president.”
Still, through it all, Mr. Pawlenty said he did not think Republicans had to change their substantive views. The shift, he suggested, should be not in what the party talks about, but in how it talks about it.
“I think, for Republicans, it has to be about staying true to our values and principles, but more effectively applying those to the emerging issues of our time,” he said. “I know that sounds simplistic, but it is the blocking and tackling of how you get things done.”
Still no specifics. My assumption is that the party will wait until they see how the stimulus bill and other Obama proposals fare before they offer their own ideas.
Mr. Pawlenty is clearly frustrated with how his party has so far played the role of loyal opposition. “Our strategy can’t be just pointing out the negatives of President Obama’s agenda,” he said. “We have to have our own agenda and our own ideas. I think the party has done an okay — but not great — job of responding to the president.”
Still, through it all, Mr. Pawlenty said he did not think Republicans had to change their substantive views. The shift, he suggested, should be not in what the party talks about, but in how it talks about it.
“I think, for Republicans, it has to be about staying true to our values and principles, but more effectively applying those to the emerging issues of our time,” he said. “I know that sounds simplistic, but it is the blocking and tackling of how you get things done.”
Still no specifics. My assumption is that the party will wait until they see how the stimulus bill and other Obama proposals fare before they offer their own ideas.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The Financial Sector Controls American Government
So says Simon Johnson, and their control is not only at the root of the current financial crisis, but will limit the ability of the national government to solve it.
He states that there is little different between this crisis and those he saw as an employee of the International Monetary Fund involving third and second world economies. But these economies were not supported by financial institutions with the political strength Wall Street has in DC. Government has less leverage to do what is necessary to solve the problem, namely temporarily nationalize troubled banks and break them into smaller pieces.
Choice quote: "If it is too big to fail, it is too big to exist."
This is one of a series of analyses coming out which attempt to explain the steps that brought us where we are.
He states that there is little different between this crisis and those he saw as an employee of the International Monetary Fund involving third and second world economies. But these economies were not supported by financial institutions with the political strength Wall Street has in DC. Government has less leverage to do what is necessary to solve the problem, namely temporarily nationalize troubled banks and break them into smaller pieces.
Choice quote: "If it is too big to fail, it is too big to exist."
This is one of a series of analyses coming out which attempt to explain the steps that brought us where we are.
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Tea Parties and Interest Groups
Paul Krugman sees interest group influence behind the Tea Parties:
Last but not least: it turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News.
Last but not least: it turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News.
The Right to Conscience and Public Order
If you are taking 2301 with me, consider this Stanley Fish article mandatory reading. It touches on the concept of the right of conscience and the ability of individuals to not just think for themselves, but to act on these beliefs, especially if those actions puts one in conflict with the law.
It concerns Obama's repeal of the Provider Refusal Rule, which had allowed doctors and others from performing certain functions (like filing out a birth control prescriptions if you are a pharmacist) if they had moral opposition to doing so.
Why shouldn't you be free from doing certain things if you were morally opposed, as an individual, to those things? What rights does society, acting through its government, have in limiting this individual freedom?
Fish reaches back to Thomas Hobbes, who Fish claims held:
As I take it, the shared conscience, as enshrined in various public and private entities, must take precedence over individual consciences because it provides for the steadiness necessary to civil society. Individual will is arbitrary and capricious.
This even applies to religious objections:
The last part especially is pretty radical. In case you didn't get it, the Supreme Court in 1870 basically stated that the rules of civil society are superior to religious doctrine. If a law is neutral to religion--does not single one for punishment or special status--it takes priority.
Agree? Disagree?
It concerns Obama's repeal of the Provider Refusal Rule, which had allowed doctors and others from performing certain functions (like filing out a birth control prescriptions if you are a pharmacist) if they had moral opposition to doing so.
Why shouldn't you be free from doing certain things if you were morally opposed, as an individual, to those things? What rights does society, acting through its government, have in limiting this individual freedom?
Fish reaches back to Thomas Hobbes, who Fish claims held:
that if one gets to prefer one’s own internal judgments to the judgments of authorized external bodies (legislatures, courts, professional associations), the result will be the undermining of public order and the substitution of personal whim for general decorums: “. . . because the Law is the public Conscience . . . in such diversity as there is of private Consciences, which are but private opinions, the Commonwealth must needs be distracted, and no man dare to obey the Sovereign Power farther than it shall seem good in his own eyes.”
As I take it, the shared conscience, as enshrined in various public and private entities, must take precedence over individual consciences because it provides for the steadiness necessary to civil society. Individual will is arbitrary and capricious.
This even applies to religious objections:
“As citizens, we should all be concerned when freedoms that are enshrined in the constitution (e.g. freedom of conscience and religion) are blithely swept away” (Susan Martinuk, Calgary Herald).
But while these freedoms may be enshrined in the constitution, they have not fared so well when they have come in conflict with laws passed with an eye toward maintaining order and predictability. In a series of cases stretching from Reynolds v. United States (1878) to Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court has ruled that when the personal imperatives of one’s religion or morality lead to actions in violation of generally applicable laws — laws not promulgated with the intention of affronting anyone’s conscience — the violations will not be allowed and will certainly not be celebrated; for, says the court in Reynolds, “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”
But while these freedoms may be enshrined in the constitution, they have not fared so well when they have come in conflict with laws passed with an eye toward maintaining order and predictability. In a series of cases stretching from Reynolds v. United States (1878) to Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court has ruled that when the personal imperatives of one’s religion or morality lead to actions in violation of generally applicable laws — laws not promulgated with the intention of affronting anyone’s conscience — the violations will not be allowed and will certainly not be celebrated; for, says the court in Reynolds, “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”
The last part especially is pretty radical. In case you didn't get it, the Supreme Court in 1870 basically stated that the rules of civil society are superior to religious doctrine. If a law is neutral to religion--does not single one for punishment or special status--it takes priority.
Agree? Disagree?
Tort Reform and Judicial Activism in Texas
Tort reform is once again in the news in Texas thanks to Entergy v. Summers, a case where a Texas appellate court ruled that a worker injured in an accident in an electric generating plant, cannot sue that plant because he worked for a general contractor doing work on the site, not directly for the corporation which owned the plant.
If understand the ruling correctly, a majority on the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the plant was acting as its own contractor, so could not be sued for negligence by the injured employee. Some members of the legislature who were involved in drafting the law governing this decision argue that the court went beyond its jurisdiction in making its decision. From the Austin Chronicle:
Sen. Kirk Watson of Austin echoed that, saying, "The Court reached a result that the Legislature has rejected over and over again. The Legislature has avoided reducing and has, instead, worked to assure worker protections and also make sure employers keep a commitment to safety."
"Non-substantive re-codifications of statutes are a constitutionally mandated duty of the Legislature ... specifically meant to NOT change the intent of law," said Brownsville Sen. Eddie Lucio in a statement. "In the Entergy decision, the Texas Supreme Court has violated the separation of powers in this state using judicial activism to write law."
Since we're heading into a discussion of interest groups in 2301, tort reform is a perfect example of an issue which divides business and labor. On one side of the issue is the business backed Texans for Lawsuit Reform, and on the other the AFL-CIO. In 2302, we've touched on the problems posed by an elected judiciary. Critics argue that since all the current members of the Texas Supreme Court are Republicans supported by the business community, their judgements will be biased against the interests of labor. Supporters generally point out that the Texas Supreme Court was equally biased against business interests and in favor of lawsuit plaintiffs when they were all Democrats elected with the support of trial lawyers.
So to tie 2301 and 2302 together, does interest group involvement in judicial elections undermine judicial independence?
If understand the ruling correctly, a majority on the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the plant was acting as its own contractor, so could not be sued for negligence by the injured employee. Some members of the legislature who were involved in drafting the law governing this decision argue that the court went beyond its jurisdiction in making its decision. From the Austin Chronicle:
Sen. Kirk Watson of Austin echoed that, saying, "The Court reached a result that the Legislature has rejected over and over again. The Legislature has avoided reducing and has, instead, worked to assure worker protections and also make sure employers keep a commitment to safety."
"Non-substantive re-codifications of statutes are a constitutionally mandated duty of the Legislature ... specifically meant to NOT change the intent of law," said Brownsville Sen. Eddie Lucio in a statement. "In the Entergy decision, the Texas Supreme Court has violated the separation of powers in this state using judicial activism to write law."
Since we're heading into a discussion of interest groups in 2301, tort reform is a perfect example of an issue which divides business and labor. On one side of the issue is the business backed Texans for Lawsuit Reform, and on the other the AFL-CIO. In 2302, we've touched on the problems posed by an elected judiciary. Critics argue that since all the current members of the Texas Supreme Court are Republicans supported by the business community, their judgements will be biased against the interests of labor. Supporters generally point out that the Texas Supreme Court was equally biased against business interests and in favor of lawsuit plaintiffs when they were all Democrats elected with the support of trial lawyers.
So to tie 2301 and 2302 together, does interest group involvement in judicial elections undermine judicial independence?
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Et Tu Obama?
Some supporters of the Bush Administrations efforts to expand executive power argued that Obama would likely continue the trend. Power, once gained, is seldom given up. Bruce Fein sees evidence that this is the case. Many of the arguments made by the Bush Administration regarding the ability of enemy combatants to challenge their detentions (state secrets arguments mostly) are being made again.
The arguments have been rejected by the judiciary however: Last week, in the case Fadi al Maqaleh, United States District Judge John D. Bates denied that President Obama could make suspected "enemy combatants" disappear into the Bagram Theater Internment Facility at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan without an opportunity for exoneration.
Students should note the use of two passages in the Federalist Papers arguing why the rule of law should still apply in these cases:
First: In the Bagram Prison litigation, Judge Bates summoned the observation of Alexander Hamilton writing in The Federalist 84: "[C]onfinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government." Accordingly, he held that enemy combatant detainees at Bagram who were captured outside Afghanistan and who were not Afghan citizens could challenge the constitutionality of their detentions in federal courts through writs of habeas corpus.
Second: The Bagram procedures are descendents of the Spanish Inquisition. The executive branch decrees that "enemy combatant" status justifies detention, enforces the decree through executive detentions, and decides whether its enforcement decisions are correct. That combination was what the Founding Fathers decried as the "very definition of tyranny" in The Federalist 47. In addition, the incriminating evidence and accusers are secret. And the judges are military persons the detainee is accused of hoping to kill, which probably compromises their putative impartiality.
The point of a constitution is to prevent an arbitrary, tyrannical government from emerging. Wars, especially perpetual wars like the war on terror promises to be, provide great opportunities for their emergence. In my 2302 classes we have covered the concept of judicial independence. Here we an see a great example of why the concept is necessary.
The arguments have been rejected by the judiciary however: Last week, in the case Fadi al Maqaleh, United States District Judge John D. Bates denied that President Obama could make suspected "enemy combatants" disappear into the Bagram Theater Internment Facility at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan without an opportunity for exoneration.
Students should note the use of two passages in the Federalist Papers arguing why the rule of law should still apply in these cases:
First: In the Bagram Prison litigation, Judge Bates summoned the observation of Alexander Hamilton writing in The Federalist 84: "[C]onfinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government." Accordingly, he held that enemy combatant detainees at Bagram who were captured outside Afghanistan and who were not Afghan citizens could challenge the constitutionality of their detentions in federal courts through writs of habeas corpus.
Second: The Bagram procedures are descendents of the Spanish Inquisition. The executive branch decrees that "enemy combatant" status justifies detention, enforces the decree through executive detentions, and decides whether its enforcement decisions are correct. That combination was what the Founding Fathers decried as the "very definition of tyranny" in The Federalist 47. In addition, the incriminating evidence and accusers are secret. And the judges are military persons the detainee is accused of hoping to kill, which probably compromises their putative impartiality.
The point of a constitution is to prevent an arbitrary, tyrannical government from emerging. Wars, especially perpetual wars like the war on terror promises to be, provide great opportunities for their emergence. In my 2302 classes we have covered the concept of judicial independence. Here we an see a great example of why the concept is necessary.
Nothing New Under the Sun, Continued ...
Below I linked to a story comparing the current problem with toxic assets with Hamilton's struggle with devalued currency in the early years of the republic.
Here's a link to a story about one of our first national run-ins with pirates.
Here's a link to a story about one of our first national run-ins with pirates.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Tea Parties
At the heart of public opinion lie opinion leaders. These are individuals who help portions of the public who are inclined to certain beliefs to crystalize those beliefs. They also help justify those beliefs so people feel more comfortable sharing them. If successful, otherwise latent movements can grow in influence.
The recent rise of tea parties seems a great recent example. This video clip shows a guy helping a crowd to clarify their position regarding Obama and recent changes in governmental policy -- sort of anyway. Judging from the back and forth regarding burning college books, I'm beginning to believe that the movement could spill off in unforeseen directions. It could get ugly.
The recent rise of tea parties seems a great recent example. This video clip shows a guy helping a crowd to clarify their position regarding Obama and recent changes in governmental policy -- sort of anyway. Judging from the back and forth regarding burning college books, I'm beginning to believe that the movement could spill off in unforeseen directions. It could get ugly.
The Consent of the Governed?
American government is based on the principle of the consent of the governed, but in a diverse competitive democracy, not everyone consents to everything governments do. One of the virtues of a two year electoral cycle is that those who do not consent to the politics of the moment can focus on a relatively quick opportunity to try to change things.
This assumes that they are willing to wait. Charles Blow might be being a bit paranoid, but I'd like my students to read this over and tell me what you think. He argues that as a consequence of the recent election, conservatives:
. . . feel isolated, angry, betrayed and besieged. And some of their “leaders” seem to be trying to mold them into militias. For some, their disaffection has hardened into something more dark and dangerous. They’re talking about a revolution.
Some simply lace their unscrupulous screeds with loaded language about the fall of the Republic. We have to “rise up” and “take back our country.” Others have been much more explicit.
For example, Chuck Norris, the preeminent black belt and prospective Red Shirt, wrote earlier this month on the conservative blog WorldNetDaily: “How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?”
Are they right to be worried? Is this a correct response (assuming Blow is correct in his assumption)? Considering they are threatening violence against a duly elected president, are they guilty of edition? Or perhaps this is a healthy way to blow off steam?
This assumes that they are willing to wait. Charles Blow might be being a bit paranoid, but I'd like my students to read this over and tell me what you think. He argues that as a consequence of the recent election, conservatives:
. . . feel isolated, angry, betrayed and besieged. And some of their “leaders” seem to be trying to mold them into militias. For some, their disaffection has hardened into something more dark and dangerous. They’re talking about a revolution.
Some simply lace their unscrupulous screeds with loaded language about the fall of the Republic. We have to “rise up” and “take back our country.” Others have been much more explicit.
For example, Chuck Norris, the preeminent black belt and prospective Red Shirt, wrote earlier this month on the conservative blog WorldNetDaily: “How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?”
Are they right to be worried? Is this a correct response (assuming Blow is correct in his assumption)? Considering they are threatening violence against a duly elected president, are they guilty of edition? Or perhaps this is a healthy way to blow off steam?
Does the Word "Socialism" Mean Anything?
Not among the American public. Though public opinion polls are collecting information about the public's attitudes towards the economy and whether they prefer capitalism, socialism, or a free market, there are reasons to believe that people have no consistent understanding of what these terms mean.
I've asked these questions in class before and found that "socialism" general equates to "bad things that Obama is going to do as president."
While my students consider the nature of public opinion in America, it is worth considering whether people have enough background about basic facts to form well founded opinions, rather than superficial off the cuff responses to questions, or repetitions of comments heard elsewhere.
My 2301's should consider the post linked to above required reading.
I've asked these questions in class before and found that "socialism" general equates to "bad things that Obama is going to do as president."
While my students consider the nature of public opinion in America, it is worth considering whether people have enough background about basic facts to form well founded opinions, rather than superficial off the cuff responses to questions, or repetitions of comments heard elsewhere.
My 2301's should consider the post linked to above required reading.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Conflicting Interests over Gambling in Texas
As my 2301 classes begin to cover interest groups, it might be worth pondering the various interests at issue over proposals to approve casino gambling in the state:
Gambling interests have pressed for casinos in Texas for several legislative sessions, but they’ve always hit road blocks in this conservative state. This year may be no different, in part because Texas legislators aren’t desperate for new money sources.
High-profile lawmakers from both parties are behind the casino effort. What could be their undoing is a back-room fight between race track owners and resort casino backers who can’t agree on how licenses and locations would be decided.
Those who want casinos say Texans are already gambling, but they’re going to out-of-state casinos. Gambling proponents want to keep that cash in Texas and use some of the casino taxes on needs like college scholarships and road building.
“We have loads and loads of buses going across the state lines, airplanes filled with constituents of yours and mine going to Las Vegas,” said Rep. Chente Quintanilla, an El Paso Democrat.
Opponents, including the Baptist Christian Life Commission, argue that casinos suck money out of local economies and don’t produce the economic benefits they promise.
“The casino industry is making big, untenable promises of revenue to the state,” said Suzii Paynter, director of the Christian Life Commission. The commission, which contends casinos profit off of gambling addiction, has maintained a visible presence at the Capitol this spring lobbying against gambling measures.
Gambling interests have pressed for casinos in Texas for several legislative sessions, but they’ve always hit road blocks in this conservative state. This year may be no different, in part because Texas legislators aren’t desperate for new money sources.
High-profile lawmakers from both parties are behind the casino effort. What could be their undoing is a back-room fight between race track owners and resort casino backers who can’t agree on how licenses and locations would be decided.
Those who want casinos say Texans are already gambling, but they’re going to out-of-state casinos. Gambling proponents want to keep that cash in Texas and use some of the casino taxes on needs like college scholarships and road building.
“We have loads and loads of buses going across the state lines, airplanes filled with constituents of yours and mine going to Las Vegas,” said Rep. Chente Quintanilla, an El Paso Democrat.
Opponents, including the Baptist Christian Life Commission, argue that casinos suck money out of local economies and don’t produce the economic benefits they promise.
“The casino industry is making big, untenable promises of revenue to the state,” said Suzii Paynter, director of the Christian Life Commission. The commission, which contends casinos profit off of gambling addiction, has maintained a visible presence at the Capitol this spring lobbying against gambling measures.
Texas Gerrymandering
One of the goals of gerrymandering is for the majority to pack as many of the other side into as few districts as possible. According to a new study, Texas Republicans have succeeded in doing it:
A majority of the state's congressional districts -- 20 of the 32 -- give the GOP an edge of at least 10 percentage points in electoral contests, Cook found. Only one of those -- the 17th district, which includes Waco and Aggieland, is currently represented by a Democrat (Chet Edwards).
How heavily weighted are Texas districts? Four of the ten most Republican districts in the country are in the Lone Star State. Those reps are: Clarendon's Mac Thornberry (#2), Midland's Mike Conaway (#3), Lubbock's Randy Neugebauer (#5) and The Woodlands' Kevin Brady (#7).
Texas Democrats are packed into five overwhelmingly Democratic districts, all represented by minorities.
Just eight Texas districts are "swing districts" -- with neither party having a built-in electoral edge of more than 8 percentage points. And seven of those eight districts are represented by Democrats, meaning that there is more opportunity for Republicans to pick up Texas congressional seats than Democrats (setting incumbency aside).
A majority of the state's congressional districts -- 20 of the 32 -- give the GOP an edge of at least 10 percentage points in electoral contests, Cook found. Only one of those -- the 17th district, which includes Waco and Aggieland, is currently represented by a Democrat (Chet Edwards).
How heavily weighted are Texas districts? Four of the ten most Republican districts in the country are in the Lone Star State. Those reps are: Clarendon's Mac Thornberry (#2), Midland's Mike Conaway (#3), Lubbock's Randy Neugebauer (#5) and The Woodlands' Kevin Brady (#7).
Texas Democrats are packed into five overwhelmingly Democratic districts, all represented by minorities.
Just eight Texas districts are "swing districts" -- with neither party having a built-in electoral edge of more than 8 percentage points. And seven of those eight districts are represented by Democrats, meaning that there is more opportunity for Republicans to pick up Texas congressional seats than Democrats (setting incumbency aside).
Nuisance Laws
The Chron calls them a regulatory silver bullet which allows cities, especially Houston, the ability to regulate activities that might otherwise be out of reach:
Houston Mayor Bill White said the city’s “market-oriented” land-use system — also known as a lack of zoning — means that “use of nuisance laws becomes more important in making sure that somebody’s use of their land does not unreasonably interfere with their neighbor’s property rights.”
White said the city’s use of nuisance litigation in the coming year may or may not increase depending on whether certain businesses decide to change their tunes. He acknowledged that recent successes in this area, aided by some pro-bono work from private law firms, have helped reduce pollution and close sex-related businesses near neighborhoods that had been magnets for crime.
Nuisance laws go back centuries and long have functioned as a tool of governments and private land owners to haul into court those they believe are using their property in a way that infringes on rights of others.
Still, the laws, which have local and state components, largely have been subsumed in modern times with the advent of zoning and other forms of regulation, said Matthew Festa, a South Texas College of Law property land use professor.
Houston Mayor Bill White said the city’s “market-oriented” land-use system — also known as a lack of zoning — means that “use of nuisance laws becomes more important in making sure that somebody’s use of their land does not unreasonably interfere with their neighbor’s property rights.”
White said the city’s use of nuisance litigation in the coming year may or may not increase depending on whether certain businesses decide to change their tunes. He acknowledged that recent successes in this area, aided by some pro-bono work from private law firms, have helped reduce pollution and close sex-related businesses near neighborhoods that had been magnets for crime.
Nuisance laws go back centuries and long have functioned as a tool of governments and private land owners to haul into court those they believe are using their property in a way that infringes on rights of others.
Still, the laws, which have local and state components, largely have been subsumed in modern times with the advent of zoning and other forms of regulation, said Matthew Festa, a South Texas College of Law property land use professor.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The Latest On Same Sex Marriage
From Today's Papers:
The New York Times leads with the Vermont Legislature overriding a veto to a bill that legalizes same-sex marriage. It marked the first time that a state legalized same-sex marriage through its legislature rather than the courts, and made Vermont the fourth state to recognize the unions. It marked the second victory in less than a week for proponents of marriage equality—the Iowa Supreme Court legalized marriage between partners of the same sex last Friday—and many are hoping others states could soon follow suit.
The New York Times leads with the Vermont Legislature overriding a veto to a bill that legalizes same-sex marriage. It marked the first time that a state legalized same-sex marriage through its legislature rather than the courts, and made Vermont the fourth state to recognize the unions. It marked the second victory in less than a week for proponents of marriage equality—the Iowa Supreme Court legalized marriage between partners of the same sex last Friday—and many are hoping others states could soon follow suit.
More Falsified Evidence
Considering the Stevens case below, are the floodgates now open?
More checks and balances, and guarantees of due process.
More checks and balances, and guarantees of due process.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Gates Releases Defense Budget
And members of Congress are not happy about it. He proposes terminating weapons systems he deems unnecessary. The problem is that some of these systems are made in the districts of powerful members of Congress whose political careers are perhaps dependent on preserving the jobs associated with them:
In unveiling his new priorities for the Pentagon, Gates acknowledged that he would probably face opposition from lawmakers eager to protect jobs in their districts. "My hope is that members of Congress will rise above parochial interests and consider what is in the best interest of the nation as a whole," he said.
Gates demanded unprecedented secrecy when developing the budget over the past six weeks. Senior generals throughout the department were required to sign non-disclosure agreements. In order to prevent leaks, Gates won special permission from the president to withhold his decisions from the White House's Office of Management and Budget until after the budget proposal was formally announced. "We wanted to ensure that the changes were presented in full context," a senior Pentagon official said.
The initial response on Capitol Hill was restrained, reflecting Gates's credibility among Republicans, the president's popularity and the fact that the midterm congressional elections are still 18 months away. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) called the Gates plan "a good-faith effort." But he also asserted Congress's authority over how defense money is spent. "The buck stops with Congress," Skelton said in a statement.
The cuts will undoubtedly be painful for communities such as Marietta, Ga., where about 2,000 Lockheed Martin workers assemble the F-22. The program employs about 25,000 people around the country, said Rep. Tom Price (R), whose Georgia district includes the Lockheed Martin plant. "This decision will not only cost thousands of jobs at a critical time, it is detrimental to the country's national defense capabilities," Price said. "The president's priorities are deeply flawed."
Similarly, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) bemoaned the decision to stop building F-22s. "This would result in the loss of thousands of jobs in Connecticut," he said.
In unveiling his new priorities for the Pentagon, Gates acknowledged that he would probably face opposition from lawmakers eager to protect jobs in their districts. "My hope is that members of Congress will rise above parochial interests and consider what is in the best interest of the nation as a whole," he said.
Gates demanded unprecedented secrecy when developing the budget over the past six weeks. Senior generals throughout the department were required to sign non-disclosure agreements. In order to prevent leaks, Gates won special permission from the president to withhold his decisions from the White House's Office of Management and Budget until after the budget proposal was formally announced. "We wanted to ensure that the changes were presented in full context," a senior Pentagon official said.
The initial response on Capitol Hill was restrained, reflecting Gates's credibility among Republicans, the president's popularity and the fact that the midterm congressional elections are still 18 months away. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) called the Gates plan "a good-faith effort." But he also asserted Congress's authority over how defense money is spent. "The buck stops with Congress," Skelton said in a statement.
The cuts will undoubtedly be painful for communities such as Marietta, Ga., where about 2,000 Lockheed Martin workers assemble the F-22. The program employs about 25,000 people around the country, said Rep. Tom Price (R), whose Georgia district includes the Lockheed Martin plant. "This decision will not only cost thousands of jobs at a critical time, it is detrimental to the country's national defense capabilities," Price said. "The president's priorities are deeply flawed."
Similarly, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) bemoaned the decision to stop building F-22s. "This would result in the loss of thousands of jobs in Connecticut," he said.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Is Conventional Wisdom .. Wise?
Experts are taking a pounding these days. They've been wrong on a number of important matters over the past few decades, including being surprised by the sudden economic collapse. Jacob Weisberg wonders what else they are wrong about.
Considering that these people can help set the policy agenda and tend to be opinion leaders, this is a significant question. You should note carefully the disdain which dissenters are treated prior to being proven right.
Considering that these people can help set the policy agenda and tend to be opinion leaders, this is a significant question. You should note carefully the disdain which dissenters are treated prior to being proven right.
Concealed Weapons on Campus
Dennis Bonnen and Randy Weber are sponsoring the bill.
So tell me, are you planning bringing guns to class if you can? Does this mean I have to be nicer to everyone?
So tell me, are you planning bringing guns to class if you can? Does this mean I have to be nicer to everyone?
Guest Blogger: Michael Bourque
Take it away Michael:
Send along comments, or a post, to my alvin email.
You would think that a president that was once taught about constitutional law would know better than to try and pass laws and policies that are in direct violation of that same constitution.
First just to be clear here’s Obama’s bio from wikipedia, or his bio on the official White House page.
Both of them state that he taught it on college level.
Now, the stuff that’s going on, the first items are the AIG bonuses that everyone went crazy over. I’m not saying that they were right to give the money to AIG without some stipulations. But I was smack disgusted that they would try to extort it back from them by using threats to do something that is so against the Constitution. Please read both. And if you’re anything like me, you’ll want to know just what some of those terms are, and here’s an outside source. Bill of attainder ex post facto law.
Next, we go on to Forced Voluntary Service for our children, or younger siblings, or even some of us. HR 1388, better know as the Jegund Bill, passed in Congress last week, on March 18th. I’m sure you have read the same constitution that I did and I specifically remember the Thirteenth Amendment Section 1, where it said the part that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude”. It seems that this bill is a gross violation of that, and unless Congress amended the Constitution to get rid of the Thirteenth Amendment that I didn’t hear about, then it can’t be enforced. Also, just so you have an idea on how this and other projects like this will impact the bottom line for us as a country, here's the projected national debt for the next several years.
His people are going against it as well. Giving D.C. a vote in the Congress would violate Article I, Section 2 and Article I, Section 3. Just the fact that we had to have the Twenty-Third amendment could be considered a violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. The seat of government was only supposed to be ten square miles. Why only that small you might ask. I don’t believe that the Founding Fathers expected anyone to stay permanently in D.C. (even Washington didn’t stay there year round) I think they viewed it as a place of work for the government and they would leave there and go back to their homes in the states they were from. But as government became bigger and year round more people stayed to profit from those people who were staying the whole year, each year. It became a permanent residence for some people. It would be like you living in the same building you work in, instead of going home.
Last item on the list, the President wants to have more
Last item on the list, the President wants to have more power for the Executive branch and cut out the judicial part of the law. It’s one thing to go to the courts and state your case for why you need to do something against a citizen as the government as our last President did. It seems that the current President wants to just skip that part.
To me it seems that the only thing he learned from teaching the Constitution is that he can violate it anyway he wants and most citizens are too ill informed to know the difference. Even before this class, I kept a copy of the Constitution in my house. I find it very interesting to think about what the Founding Fathers were thinking about when they wrote out these words. And what they were trying to leave us, the future of their dreams.
To me it seems that the only thing he learned from teaching the Constitution is that he can violate it anyway he wants and most citizens are too ill informed to know the difference. Even before this class, I kept a copy of the Constitution in my house. I find it very interesting to think about what the Founding Fathers were thinking about when they wrote out these words. And what they were trying to leave us, the future of their dreams.
Send along comments, or a post, to my alvin email.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Interstate Crime, Economic Crisis and Government Building
I'm always attentive to stories which point out how criminals actions which cross state or national borders lead to national or international institutions to combat them. The following story about murders committed by long haul truck drivers is one.
We can also put the recent G-20 meetings where international regulations on the financial system were proposed is another.
My hunch is that in the current environment, crime and crisis -- both economic and military -- precede the establishment of governing institutions.
We can also put the recent G-20 meetings where international regulations on the financial system were proposed is another.
My hunch is that in the current environment, crime and crisis -- both economic and military -- precede the establishment of governing institutions.
Instant Communication and the Violence of Factions
When we cover Federalist #10, I like to consider whether Madison's theory still holds water since he relied so much on the size of the republic to slow down the flow of information among the population. A sudden spontaneous urge to form and act act against an unpopular minority cannot occur because different people will receive a piece of information at different times.
Not everyone will be angry, upset and prone to lash out at the same time. In addition, the diverse points of view that exist in society will make it less likely that everyone will react in the same way. Times have changed however.
The spontaneous communication we are accustomed to removes this impediment, but the size of the country can still make coordinated action difficult. This is not the case with financial decisions which can be make spontaneously due to sudden impulses. David Brooks says the following about the factors leading to the current housing crisis:
To me, the most interesting factor is the way instant communications lead to unconscious conformity. You’d think that with thousands of ideas flowing at light speed around the world, you’d get a diversity of viewpoints and expectations that would balance one another out. Instead, global communications seem to have led people in the financial subculture to adopt homogenous viewpoints. They made the same one-way bets at the same time.
What this tells me is that the speed at which we can make and implement decisions has negated one of the advantages that a diverse republic is supposed to provide for decision making in a society. What to do about it? I have no idea at the moment, but the answer probably lies in developing some institutional method that slows down the process in order for diverse points of view to impact collective decisions.
Not everyone will be angry, upset and prone to lash out at the same time. In addition, the diverse points of view that exist in society will make it less likely that everyone will react in the same way. Times have changed however.
The spontaneous communication we are accustomed to removes this impediment, but the size of the country can still make coordinated action difficult. This is not the case with financial decisions which can be make spontaneously due to sudden impulses. David Brooks says the following about the factors leading to the current housing crisis:
To me, the most interesting factor is the way instant communications lead to unconscious conformity. You’d think that with thousands of ideas flowing at light speed around the world, you’d get a diversity of viewpoints and expectations that would balance one another out. Instead, global communications seem to have led people in the financial subculture to adopt homogenous viewpoints. They made the same one-way bets at the same time.
What this tells me is that the speed at which we can make and implement decisions has negated one of the advantages that a diverse republic is supposed to provide for decision making in a society. What to do about it? I have no idea at the moment, but the answer probably lies in developing some institutional method that slows down the process in order for diverse points of view to impact collective decisions.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Steven's Conviction Dropped
Attorney General Holder blames prosecutorial misconduct.
During the corruption trial of former Alaska senator Ted Stevens, federal prosecutors were chastised by a judge for letting a witness leave town. They got in trouble for submitting erroneous evidence and were reprimanded for failing to turn over key witness statements. An FBI agent has since complained about the prosecution team's alleged misconduct.
Yesterday, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that he had had enough. The Justice Department asked U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to drop the case after learning that prosecutors had failed to turn over notes that contradicted testimony from their key witness.
The discovery by a fresh team of lawyers and their acknowledgment that the material should have been shared with Stevens's defense team led Holder, a former public corruption prosecutor, to conclude that the department's biggest public corruption case in a decade could not be salvaged.
Holder's decision invites tough new scrutiny of a unit that polices corrupt officials, and it could foreshadow a shakeup in the way the government prosecutes those crimes, according to lawyers who work on such cases.
If the government withholds evidence from the defendant, it violates the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. Steven's right to the due process of the law was ignored. One wonders if the defendant had not been an ex U.S. Senator if this would have been brought up. It's why its good to be able to afford effective lawyers. With that in mind, does this outcome make you more or less confident in the national criminal justice system?
During the corruption trial of former Alaska senator Ted Stevens, federal prosecutors were chastised by a judge for letting a witness leave town. They got in trouble for submitting erroneous evidence and were reprimanded for failing to turn over key witness statements. An FBI agent has since complained about the prosecution team's alleged misconduct.
Yesterday, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that he had had enough. The Justice Department asked U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to drop the case after learning that prosecutors had failed to turn over notes that contradicted testimony from their key witness.
The discovery by a fresh team of lawyers and their acknowledgment that the material should have been shared with Stevens's defense team led Holder, a former public corruption prosecutor, to conclude that the department's biggest public corruption case in a decade could not be salvaged.
Holder's decision invites tough new scrutiny of a unit that polices corrupt officials, and it could foreshadow a shakeup in the way the government prosecutes those crimes, according to lawyers who work on such cases.
If the government withholds evidence from the defendant, it violates the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. Steven's right to the due process of the law was ignored. One wonders if the defendant had not been an ex U.S. Senator if this would have been brought up. It's why its good to be able to afford effective lawyers. With that in mind, does this outcome make you more or less confident in the national criminal justice system?
Stay Behinds?
Seymour Hersch thinks ex-VP Cheney left "stay behinds" in the bureaucracy in order to serve as his eyes and ears on the Obama Administration. From what I've read, Cheney seems to be as adroit a player in bureaucratic maneuvering as has ever existed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)