From the National Journal:
Can the conservative base of the Republican Party peacefully coexist with independents and enable the GOP to return to power? That is a question that Democratic pollsters Stan Greenberg and Karl Agne posed in a recent Democracy Corps study of conservative Republicans in the South and independent voters in the North.
Greenberg and Agne organized two focus groups in the Atlanta area with middle-aged white voters who identified themselves as strong Republicans and who cast ballots for both GOP presidential nominee John McCain and a Republican congressional candidate in 2008. Based on those discussions, the pollsters concluded that conservative GOP base voters do not oppose Obama because of race but because they are deeply suspicious and fearful that he intends to impose a socialist government on the country. This view is compounded by "an almost siege-like mentality," Greenberg and Agne said, against the mainstream media and popular culture. By contrast, when Agne interviewed white, middle-aged, non-college-educated swing voters in Cleveland, he found that although they were still skeptical of Obama, they nonetheless hoped he might be able to achieve some of his goals.
. . .
Republican pollster Whit Ayres said he read the Democracy Corps study and thought it "very interesting," but he discounted it, including its suggestion that the anxious Right on display in the Atlanta focus groups is the dominant faction in the GOP. "They tend to be the loudest and most intense Republicans," he said, "but they're not the largest group of Republicans, just like Democratic activists in the blogosphere are not the largest group of Democrats."
Ayres said that his polling with Resurgent Republic, a GOP research group that seeks to shape the public debate just as Democracy Corps does, has found that on a range of issues from the economy to terrorist investigations to health care, independents hold views that are more Republican than Democratic.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Party ID: 10/27/09
The latest compilation from pollster.com:
All U.S. Adults
Independents: 37.9%
Democrats: 33.7%
Republicans: 21.4%
All U.S. Adults
Independents: 37.9%
Democrats: 33.7%
Republicans: 21.4%
The Treasury Department and Goldman-Sachs Continued
The latest in an ongoing story, from Bloomberg:
Some of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s closest aides, none of whom faced Senate confirmation, earned millions of dollars a year working for Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc. and other Wall Street firms, according to financial disclosure forms.
....
As part of Geithner’s kitchen cabinet, Sperling and Sachs wield influence behind the scenes at the Treasury Department, where they help oversee the $700 billion banking rescue and craft executive pay rules and the revamp of financial regulations. Yet they haven’t faced the public scrutiny given to Senate-confirmed appointees, nor are they compelled to testify in Congress to defend or explain the Treasury’s policies.
“These people are incredibly smart, they’re incredibly talented and they bring knowledge,” said Bill Brown, a visiting professor at Duke University School of Law and former managing director at Morgan Stanley. “The risk is they will further exacerbate the problem of our regulators identifying with Wall Street.”
Some of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s closest aides, none of whom faced Senate confirmation, earned millions of dollars a year working for Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc. and other Wall Street firms, according to financial disclosure forms.
....
As part of Geithner’s kitchen cabinet, Sperling and Sachs wield influence behind the scenes at the Treasury Department, where they help oversee the $700 billion banking rescue and craft executive pay rules and the revamp of financial regulations. Yet they haven’t faced the public scrutiny given to Senate-confirmed appointees, nor are they compelled to testify in Congress to defend or explain the Treasury’s policies.
“These people are incredibly smart, they’re incredibly talented and they bring knowledge,” said Bill Brown, a visiting professor at Duke University School of Law and former managing director at Morgan Stanley. “The risk is they will further exacerbate the problem of our regulators identifying with Wall Street.”
Health Care Reform Update: 10/27/09
From The National Journal:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced today that the full Senate health care bill will include a public option with an opt-out provision for individual states. Reid said he was only one or two votes shy of the 60 needed to block a filibuster.
"The public option with an opt-out is the one that's fair," Reid said at an afternoon press conference.
The announcement comes after two weeks of deliberation to combine the bills passed by the Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committees.
Reid said that while he still did not have 60 votes, he was optimistic that support would come. Some moderate Democrats, among them Ben Nelson of Nebraska, have not warmed to the idea.
"I believe that as soon as we get the bill back from the [Congressional Budget Office] and people have a chance to look at it, I believe we will clearly have the support of my caucus to move forward with it," Reid said.
Reid also rejected the "trigger" option floated by Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine, who is the only Republican to vote for a health care bill so far. However, Reid did say the final bill would include a co-op from the Finance bill.
The Senate Bills:
- S1679: Affordable Health Choices Act
- S1796: America's Healthy Future Act
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced today that the full Senate health care bill will include a public option with an opt-out provision for individual states. Reid said he was only one or two votes shy of the 60 needed to block a filibuster.
"The public option with an opt-out is the one that's fair," Reid said at an afternoon press conference.
The announcement comes after two weeks of deliberation to combine the bills passed by the Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committees.
Reid said that while he still did not have 60 votes, he was optimistic that support would come. Some moderate Democrats, among them Ben Nelson of Nebraska, have not warmed to the idea.
"I believe that as soon as we get the bill back from the [Congressional Budget Office] and people have a chance to look at it, I believe we will clearly have the support of my caucus to move forward with it," Reid said.
Reid also rejected the "trigger" option floated by Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine, who is the only Republican to vote for a health care bill so far. However, Reid did say the final bill would include a co-op from the Finance bill.
The Senate Bills:
- S1679: Affordable Health Choices Act
- S1796: America's Healthy Future Act
Free Speech and Suicide
Testing the limits of free speech:
A Faribault nurse who authorities say visited Internet suicide chat rooms and encouraging depressed people to kill themselves is under investigation in at least two deaths and could face criminal charges that could test the limits of the First Amendment.
Investigators said William Melchert-Dinkel, 47, feigned compassion for those he chatted with, while offering step-by-step instructions on how to take their lives.
“Most important is the placement of the noose on the neck ... Knot behind the left ear and rope across the carotid is very important for instant unconciousness and death,” he allegedly wrote in one Web chat.
He is under investigation in the suicides of Mark Drybrough, 32, who hanged himself at his home in Coventry, England, in 2005, and Nadia Kajouji, an 18-year-old from Brampton, Ontario, who drowned in 2008 in a river in Ottawa, where she was studying at Carleton University.
- Analysis from the First Amendment Center.
A Faribault nurse who authorities say visited Internet suicide chat rooms and encouraging depressed people to kill themselves is under investigation in at least two deaths and could face criminal charges that could test the limits of the First Amendment.
Investigators said William Melchert-Dinkel, 47, feigned compassion for those he chatted with, while offering step-by-step instructions on how to take their lives.
“Most important is the placement of the noose on the neck ... Knot behind the left ear and rope across the carotid is very important for instant unconciousness and death,” he allegedly wrote in one Web chat.
He is under investigation in the suicides of Mark Drybrough, 32, who hanged himself at his home in Coventry, England, in 2005, and Nadia Kajouji, an 18-year-old from Brampton, Ontario, who drowned in 2008 in a river in Ottawa, where she was studying at Carleton University.
- Analysis from the First Amendment Center.
The Harris County-Houston Sports Authority Needs Funds
For 2301.
File this under single purpose local government financing:
Harris County taxpayers may have to inject up to $7 million a year into the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority for the next two years due to a financial crisis sparked by the souring of bonds used to build Minute Maid Park, Reliant Stadium and the Toyota Center.
Facing balloon payments on $117 million in variable-rate bonds, the authority now is obliged to pay off the debt in five years instead of 23 years. That would require $24 million a year — a figure that, together with more than $30 million in additional obligations, would push the authority to the brink of insolvency.
This appears to be a further consequence of the recent financial crisis.
For further info about the HCHSA, and related news and history:
- Official website.
- Sports authority ties could get sticky for Houston mayoral candidate Gene Locke
- Make Way for McLane
- Sports Afield
- "I Didn't Create This Mess ..."
File this under single purpose local government financing:
Harris County taxpayers may have to inject up to $7 million a year into the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority for the next two years due to a financial crisis sparked by the souring of bonds used to build Minute Maid Park, Reliant Stadium and the Toyota Center.
Facing balloon payments on $117 million in variable-rate bonds, the authority now is obliged to pay off the debt in five years instead of 23 years. That would require $24 million a year — a figure that, together with more than $30 million in additional obligations, would push the authority to the brink of insolvency.
This appears to be a further consequence of the recent financial crisis.
For further info about the HCHSA, and related news and history:
- Official website.
- Sports authority ties could get sticky for Houston mayoral candidate Gene Locke
- Make Way for McLane
- Sports Afield
- "I Didn't Create This Mess ..."
Monday, October 26, 2009
The First Amendment v. Campaign Regulations
The Supreme Court has been veering towards eliminating most restrictions on campaign finance. This illustrates a variety of subjects we've covered in both 2301 and 2302.
From the National Journal:
For years, First Amendment champions have argued that all campaign finance rules tread on free speech and that American elections should be completely deregulated.
It's a sweeping premise that Congress has long rejected in favor of ever-tighter political money limits. But thanks to a sharp right turn in the judiciary, from the Supreme Court on down, those who favor a world without rules may be about to get their wish.
The Supreme Court appears poised to reverse a century-old ban on direct campaign expenditures by corporations large and small. A federal appeals court has rejected Federal Election Commission rules that restrict spending by non-party political groups, such as so-called 527 organizations -- a move that the FEC is prepared to let stand. And two other cases challenging the existing limits on soft (unregulated) money and on independent campaign expenditures are wending their way up to the Supreme Court . . .
Relevant topics include:
- Checks and Balances - the Supreme Court seems set to over turn legislation dating back 100 years (The Tillman Act of 1970)
- Civil Liberties - how do we define free speech? do corporations have free speech rights?
- Interest group influence on the democratic process - can democracy survive a public sector dominated by corporate interests
- Judicial Activism - is the Supreme Court acting within its proper boundaries or is it aggressively imposing its view of proper public policy on the other institutions.
From the National Journal:
For years, First Amendment champions have argued that all campaign finance rules tread on free speech and that American elections should be completely deregulated.
It's a sweeping premise that Congress has long rejected in favor of ever-tighter political money limits. But thanks to a sharp right turn in the judiciary, from the Supreme Court on down, those who favor a world without rules may be about to get their wish.
The Supreme Court appears poised to reverse a century-old ban on direct campaign expenditures by corporations large and small. A federal appeals court has rejected Federal Election Commission rules that restrict spending by non-party political groups, such as so-called 527 organizations -- a move that the FEC is prepared to let stand. And two other cases challenging the existing limits on soft (unregulated) money and on independent campaign expenditures are wending their way up to the Supreme Court . . .
Relevant topics include:
- Checks and Balances - the Supreme Court seems set to over turn legislation dating back 100 years (The Tillman Act of 1970)
- Civil Liberties - how do we define free speech? do corporations have free speech rights?
- Interest group influence on the democratic process - can democracy survive a public sector dominated by corporate interests
- Judicial Activism - is the Supreme Court acting within its proper boundaries or is it aggressively imposing its view of proper public policy on the other institutions.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Health Insurance Industry Has Antitrust Protection
I had no idea.
The exemption was established in 1945 in the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which "gives states the authority to regulate the 'business of insurance' without interference from federal regulation, unless federal law specifically provides otherwise." The act, interestingly enough, was a response to a Supreme Court ruling that held that insurance is not "commerce."
A bill has been introduced to remove this exception: H.R.3596: Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009.
More Info:
- Pelosi pushing forward with robust public option -- House Dems may ...
- House Panel Approves Bill Curbing Insurers' Antitrust Exemption
- BIG “I” SAYS INSURANCE ANTITRUST EXEMPTION IMPORTANT TO POLICYHOLDERS
The exemption was established in 1945 in the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which "gives states the authority to regulate the 'business of insurance' without interference from federal regulation, unless federal law specifically provides otherwise." The act, interestingly enough, was a response to a Supreme Court ruling that held that insurance is not "commerce."
A bill has been introduced to remove this exception: H.R.3596: Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009.
More Info:
- Pelosi pushing forward with robust public option -- House Dems may ...
- House Panel Approves Bill Curbing Insurers' Antitrust Exemption
- BIG “I” SAYS INSURANCE ANTITRUST EXEMPTION IMPORTANT TO POLICYHOLDERS
White House Counsel in Trouble?
A member of the White House Staff, White House Counsel Gregory Craig, may have to prove his loyalty to the president and fall on his sword.
From the NYT:
As President Obama’s top lawyer, Mr. Craig has been at the center of thorny decisions on closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and revising interrogation and detention policies, problems that have bedeviled the new administration and generated fierce battles inside and outside the White House. And for months now, he has endured a spate of speculation in print and around the White House about whether he is on the way out.
. . .
It is a classic and not particularly savory Washington story. When an administration stumbles, whispers begin and fingers point in search of someone to blame. At a certain point, assumptions can become self-fulfilling, and an official in the cross hairs finds it harder to do the job. In Mr. Craig’s case, friends said he was unfairly being made a scapegoat for decisions supported across the administration.
- Wikipedia: White House Counsel.
Responsibilities: The Office of Counsel to the President was created in 1943, and is responsible for advising on all legal aspects of policy questions, legal issues arising in connection with the President's decision to sign or veto legislation, ethical questions, financial disclosures, and conflicts of interest during employment and post employment. The Counsel's Office also helps define the line between official and political activities, oversees executive appointments and judicial selection, handles Presidential pardons, reviews legislation and Presidential statements, and handles lawsuits against the President in his role as President, as well as serving as the White House contact for the Department of Justice.
From the NYT:
As President Obama’s top lawyer, Mr. Craig has been at the center of thorny decisions on closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and revising interrogation and detention policies, problems that have bedeviled the new administration and generated fierce battles inside and outside the White House. And for months now, he has endured a spate of speculation in print and around the White House about whether he is on the way out.
. . .
It is a classic and not particularly savory Washington story. When an administration stumbles, whispers begin and fingers point in search of someone to blame. At a certain point, assumptions can become self-fulfilling, and an official in the cross hairs finds it harder to do the job. In Mr. Craig’s case, friends said he was unfairly being made a scapegoat for decisions supported across the administration.
- Wikipedia: White House Counsel.
Responsibilities: The Office of Counsel to the President was created in 1943, and is responsible for advising on all legal aspects of policy questions, legal issues arising in connection with the President's decision to sign or veto legislation, ethical questions, financial disclosures, and conflicts of interest during employment and post employment. The Counsel's Office also helps define the line between official and political activities, oversees executive appointments and judicial selection, handles Presidential pardons, reviews legislation and Presidential statements, and handles lawsuits against the President in his role as President, as well as serving as the White House contact for the Department of Justice.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Press' Tradition of Independence
Obama's Office of Communication made a tactical decision to take on Fox News. Whether this is a good idea or not I don't know, but in a brief piece supporting the decision Jacob Weisberg makes an interesting point about the uniqueness of the American press:
What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups. Media independence is a 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken root in Europe or many other countries that do have free press. The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has implemented at Fox is un-American, so much so that he has little choice but go on denying what he's doing as he does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes journalistic fair play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no longer deserves equal time.
We'll discuss this more in 2301 when we cover the media.
What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups. Media independence is a 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken root in Europe or many other countries that do have free press. The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has implemented at Fox is un-American, so much so that he has little choice but go on denying what he's doing as he does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes journalistic fair play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no longer deserves equal time.
We'll discuss this more in 2301 when we cover the media.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
The Holy Trinity: Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JPMorgan
Frank Rich argues that little has been done to reform the financial system which continues to enjoy the fruits of the bailout:
The first stab at corrective legislation emerging from Barney Frank’s Financial Services Committee in the House is porous. While unregulated derivatives remain the biggest potential systemic threat to the world’s economy, Frank said that “the great majority” of businesses that use derivatives would not be covered under his committee’s much-amended bill. It’s also an open question whether the administration’s proposed consumer agency to protect Americans from mortgage and credit-card outrages will survive the banking lobby’s attempts to eviscerate it. As that bill stands now, more than 98 percent of America’s banks — mainly community banks, representing 20 percent of deposits — would be shielded from the new agency’s supervision.
If it’s too early to pronounce these embryonic efforts at financial reform a failure, it’s hard to muster great hope. As the economics commentator Jeff Madrick points out in The New York Review of Books, the American public is still owed “a clear account of the financial events of the last two years and of who, if anyone, is seriously to blame.” Without that, there will be neither the comprehensive policy framework nor the political will to change anything.
The only investigation in town is a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission created by Congress in May. It is still hiring staff. Its 10 members are dispersed throughout the country, and, according to a spokeswoman, have contemplated only a half-dozen public sessions over the next year. Such a panel, led by the former California state treasurer Phil Angelides, seems highly unlikely to match Congress’s Depression-era Pecora commission. That investigation was driven by a prosecutor whose relentless fact-finding riveted the country and gave birth to the Securities and Exchange Commission, among other New Deal reforms. Last week, we learned that the current S.E.C. has hired a former Goldman hand as the chief operating officer of its enforcement unit.
As with similar reform efforts, the collective strength of the affected interests make the efforts difficult. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JPMorgan may be the tail that wags the dog. This fits comfortably with our discussion of agency capture and iron triangles.
The first stab at corrective legislation emerging from Barney Frank’s Financial Services Committee in the House is porous. While unregulated derivatives remain the biggest potential systemic threat to the world’s economy, Frank said that “the great majority” of businesses that use derivatives would not be covered under his committee’s much-amended bill. It’s also an open question whether the administration’s proposed consumer agency to protect Americans from mortgage and credit-card outrages will survive the banking lobby’s attempts to eviscerate it. As that bill stands now, more than 98 percent of America’s banks — mainly community banks, representing 20 percent of deposits — would be shielded from the new agency’s supervision.
If it’s too early to pronounce these embryonic efforts at financial reform a failure, it’s hard to muster great hope. As the economics commentator Jeff Madrick points out in The New York Review of Books, the American public is still owed “a clear account of the financial events of the last two years and of who, if anyone, is seriously to blame.” Without that, there will be neither the comprehensive policy framework nor the political will to change anything.
The only investigation in town is a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission created by Congress in May. It is still hiring staff. Its 10 members are dispersed throughout the country, and, according to a spokeswoman, have contemplated only a half-dozen public sessions over the next year. Such a panel, led by the former California state treasurer Phil Angelides, seems highly unlikely to match Congress’s Depression-era Pecora commission. That investigation was driven by a prosecutor whose relentless fact-finding riveted the country and gave birth to the Securities and Exchange Commission, among other New Deal reforms. Last week, we learned that the current S.E.C. has hired a former Goldman hand as the chief operating officer of its enforcement unit.
As with similar reform efforts, the collective strength of the affected interests make the efforts difficult. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JPMorgan may be the tail that wags the dog. This fits comfortably with our discussion of agency capture and iron triangles.
Interest Groups Split Over Energy Bill
From the NYT:
As the Senate prepares to tackle global warming, the nation’s energy producers, once united, are battling one another over policy decisions worth hundreds of billions of dollars in coming decades.
Producers of natural gas are battling their erstwhile allies, the oil companies. Electrical utilities are fighting among themselves over the use of coal versus wind power or other renewable energy. Coal companies are battling natural gas firms over which should be used to produce electricity. And the renewable power industry is elbowing for advantage against all of them.
...
As the Senate prepares to tackle global warming, the nation’s energy producers, once united, are battling one another over policy decisions worth hundreds of billions of dollars in coming decades.
Producers of natural gas are battling their erstwhile allies, the oil companies. Electrical utilities are fighting among themselves over the use of coal versus wind power or other renewable energy. Coal companies are battling natural gas firms over which should be used to produce electricity. And the renewable power industry is elbowing for advantage against all of them.
...
The DARPA Arm
While putting notes together for this week's 2302 review of contemporary executive branch issues (I want to look at health care) I stumbled across a feature on the VA Health Administration's website about the "Darpa Arm," an advanced prosthetic arm funded and developed by the agency.
Prosthetic research has been spurred by an unexpected result of improved battlefield medical care. Previously, soldiers with severe injuries which did not cause immediate death would often die of blood loss or infections. This is less the case, but it means that more soldiers survive with lost limbs. This can obviously create problems with their ability to fit back into society. Advanced research in prosthetics could make this transition easier.
I thought it might be appropriate to mention this agency since many of the current technological items we enjoy today (including the internet) originally developed as DARPA projects. Current research, which in addition to prosthetics includes robotics, advanced batteries and alternative energy, will certainly provide the basis for future mass market products.
- Website: DARPA.
- Wikipedia: DARPA.
- Wikipedia: DARPA Grand Challenge.
- VA Research Currents.
- WAPO Story.
Prosthetic research has been spurred by an unexpected result of improved battlefield medical care. Previously, soldiers with severe injuries which did not cause immediate death would often die of blood loss or infections. This is less the case, but it means that more soldiers survive with lost limbs. This can obviously create problems with their ability to fit back into society. Advanced research in prosthetics could make this transition easier.
I thought it might be appropriate to mention this agency since many of the current technological items we enjoy today (including the internet) originally developed as DARPA projects. Current research, which in addition to prosthetics includes robotics, advanced batteries and alternative energy, will certainly provide the basis for future mass market products.
- Website: DARPA.
- Wikipedia: DARPA.
- Wikipedia: DARPA Grand Challenge.
- VA Research Currents.
- WAPO Story.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Party Fault Lines
Fault lines seem to be opening up in both political parties.
For Democrats its the empathy wing vs. the tightfisted discipline wing.
For Republicans its the tea party wing vs the current leadership.
For Democrats its the empathy wing vs. the tightfisted discipline wing.
For Republicans its the tea party wing vs the current leadership.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Proposed Texas Constitutional Amendments - 2009
In a few weeks Texans will vote on a series of constitutional amendments. I want to review these in class soon.
Here are a few links with info on the bills:
- Legislative Reference Library.
- Texas Legislative Council.
Here is the list of proposed amendments with links to Scott Hochberg's website for analysis.
Proposition 1: Allowing cities and counties to issue bonds for improvements around military bases.
Proposition 2: Prohibiting property tax appraisals of homes from being based on the property's potential use as a business.
Proposition 3: Providing for uniform statewide enforcement of property tax appraisal standards.
Proposition 4: Establishing a permanent fund for the advancement of Texas public research universities.
Proposition 5: Allowing neighboring counties to share appraisal review boards.
Proposition 6: Allowing the Veterans' Land Board to reissue bonds that had been previously paid off.
Proposition 7: Removing the provision that prevents officeholders from serving in the Texas State Guard.
Proposition 8: Allowing state funds to be used for federal veterans hospitals.
Proposition 9: Placing provisions of the Texas Open Beaches Act in the Constitution.
Proposition 10: Extending the terms of Emergency Services District boards to four years.
Proposition 11: Placing restrictions on the use of eminent domain in the Constitution.
Here are a few links with info on the bills:
- Legislative Reference Library.
- Texas Legislative Council.
Here is the list of proposed amendments with links to Scott Hochberg's website for analysis.
Proposition 1: Allowing cities and counties to issue bonds for improvements around military bases.
Proposition 2: Prohibiting property tax appraisals of homes from being based on the property's potential use as a business.
Proposition 3: Providing for uniform statewide enforcement of property tax appraisal standards.
Proposition 4: Establishing a permanent fund for the advancement of Texas public research universities.
Proposition 5: Allowing neighboring counties to share appraisal review boards.
Proposition 6: Allowing the Veterans' Land Board to reissue bonds that had been previously paid off.
Proposition 7: Removing the provision that prevents officeholders from serving in the Texas State Guard.
Proposition 8: Allowing state funds to be used for federal veterans hospitals.
Proposition 9: Placing provisions of the Texas Open Beaches Act in the Constitution.
Proposition 10: Extending the terms of Emergency Services District boards to four years.
Proposition 11: Placing restrictions on the use of eminent domain in the Constitution.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Interest Groups Limit Extent of Health Care Reform
This story shouldn't be a surprise to my 2301 students after the time we spent discussing Federalist #10, demosclerosis, and the consequence of entrenched special interests.
From the NYT:
As the health care debate moves to the floor of Congress, most of the serious proposals to fulfill President Obama’s original vow to curb costs have fallen victim to organized interests and parochial politics.
. . .
Most economists’ favorite idea for slowing the growth of health care spending was ending the income tax exemption for employer-paid health insurance to make lower-cost plans more attractive. But that would hurt workers with big benefit plans, and a labor-union lobbying blitz helped kill that idea by the Fourth of July.
Lobbying by doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, meanwhile, dimmed the prospects of various proposals to cut into their incomes, including allowing government negotiation of Medicare drug prices and creating a government insurer with the muscle to lower fee payments.
“The lobbyists are winning,” said Representative Jim Cooper, a conservative Tennessee Democrat who teaches health policy.
From the NYT:
As the health care debate moves to the floor of Congress, most of the serious proposals to fulfill President Obama’s original vow to curb costs have fallen victim to organized interests and parochial politics.
. . .
Most economists’ favorite idea for slowing the growth of health care spending was ending the income tax exemption for employer-paid health insurance to make lower-cost plans more attractive. But that would hurt workers with big benefit plans, and a labor-union lobbying blitz helped kill that idea by the Fourth of July.
Lobbying by doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, meanwhile, dimmed the prospects of various proposals to cut into their incomes, including allowing government negotiation of Medicare drug prices and creating a government insurer with the muscle to lower fee payments.
“The lobbyists are winning,” said Representative Jim Cooper, a conservative Tennessee Democrat who teaches health policy.
State Sovereign Immunity
We'll conclude this week's 2301 lecture with a discussion of state sovereign immunity, a controversial topic which holds that states are sovereign entities and are immune from being sued unless they agree to it. This includes the national government allowing citizens from a state suing that state in a national court -- which is the way laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are enforced.
Here are useful links:
- Wikipedia: Sovereign Immunity in the United States.
- US Supreme Court Center: State Sovereign Immunity.
- Wikipedia: The Eleventh Amendment.
- State Sovereign Immunity and Protection of Intellectual Property.
- Oyez: Alden v. Maine.
Here are useful links:
- Wikipedia: Sovereign Immunity in the United States.
- US Supreme Court Center: State Sovereign Immunity.
- Wikipedia: The Eleventh Amendment.
- State Sovereign Immunity and Protection of Intellectual Property.
- Oyez: Alden v. Maine.
Federalism and the Commerce Clause
Here's a long post on some material to cover before we take the 2301 quiz on federalism this week. I pulled all of this from oyez.org. These are the basic facts about five cases involving congressional claims that the commerce clause authorizes legislation in the following areas:
- collective bargaining
- agriculture production
- gun possession in school zomes
- civil suits for gender based violence
- punishment for drug possession
Some were permitted, some were not.
NLRB v Jones
Facts of the Case: With the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, Congress determined that labor-management disputes were directly related to the flow of interstate commerce and, thus, could be regulated by the national government. In this case, the National Labor Relations Board charged the Jones & Laughlin Steel Co. with discriminating against employees who were union members.
Question: Was the Act consistent with the Commerce Clause?
Conclusion: Yes. The Court held that the Act was narrowly constructed so as to regulate industrial activities which had the potential to restrict interstate commerce. The justices abandoned their claim that labor relations had only an indirect effect on commerce. Since the ability of employees to engage in collective bargaining (one activity protected by the Act) is "an essential condition of industrial peace," the national government was justified in penalizing corporations engaging in interstate commerce which "refuse to confer and negotiate" with their workers.
Wickard v Filburn
Facts of the Case: Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. He was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres under a Department of Agriculture directive which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He claimed that he wanted the wheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Filburn was penalized. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use.
Question: Is the amendment subjecting Filburn to acreage restrictions in violation of the Constitution because Congress has no power to regulate activities local in nature?
Conclusion: According to Filburn, the act regulated production and consumption, which are local in character. The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
Lopez v US
Facts of the Case: Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows...is a school zone." Lopez was found guilty following a bench trial and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release.
Question: Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?
Conclusion: Yes. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity.
Morrison v. US
Facts of the Case: In 1994, while enrolled at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech), Christy Brzonkala alleged that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, both students and varsity football players at Virginia Tech, raped her. In 1995, Brzonkala filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech's Sexual Assault Policy. After a hearing, Morrison was found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to immediate suspension for two semesters. Crawford was not punished. A second hearing again found Morrison guilty. After an appeal through the university's administrative system, Morrison's punishment was set aside, as it was found to be "excessive." Ultimately, Brzonkala dropped out of the university. Brzonkala then sued Morrison, Crawford, and Virginia Tech in Federal District Court, alleging that Morrison's and Crawford's attack violated 42 USC section 13981, part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which provides a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence. Morrison and Crawford moved to dismiss Brzonkala's suit on the ground that section 13981's civil remedy was unconstitutional. In dismissing the complaint, the District Court found that that Congress lacked authority to enact section 13981 under either the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, which Congress had explicitly identified as the sources of federal authority for it. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Question: Does Congress have the authority to enact the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 under either the Commerce Clause or Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion: No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that Congress lacked the authority to enact a statute under the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment since the statute did not regulate an activity that substantially affected interstate commerce nor did it redress harm caused by the state. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that [i]f the allegations here are true, no civilized system of justice could fail to provide [Brzonkala] a remedy for the conduct of...Morrison. But under our federal system that remedy must be provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and not by the United States." Dissenting, Justice Stephen G. Breyer argued that the majority opinion "illustrates the difficulty of finding a workable judicial Commerce Clause touchstone." Additionally, Justice David H. Souter, dissenting, noted that VAWA contained a "mountain of data assembled by Congress...showing the effects of violence against women on interstate commerce."
Gonzalez v Raich
Facts of the Case: In 1996 California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medical use. California's law conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which banned possession of marijuana. After the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized doctor-prescribed marijuana from a patient's home, a group of medical marijuana users sued the DEA and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal district court.
The medical marijuana users argued the Controlled Substances Act - which Congress passed using its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce - exceeded Congress' commerce clause power. The district court ruled against the group. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ruled the CSA unconstitutional as it applied to intrastate (within a state) medical marijuana use. Relying on two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that narrowed Congress' commerce clause power - U.S. v. Lopez (1995) and U.S. v. Morrison (2000) - the Ninth Circuit ruled using medical marijuana did not "substantially affect" interstate commerce and therefore could not be regulated by Congress.
Question: Does the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801) exceed Congress' power under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use?
Conclusion: No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly established" Congress' commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market. The majority distinguished the case from Lopez and Morrison. In those cases, statutes regulated non-economic activity and fell entirely outside Congress' commerce power; in this case, the Court was asked to strike down a particular application of a valid statutory scheme.
- collective bargaining
- agriculture production
- gun possession in school zomes
- civil suits for gender based violence
- punishment for drug possession
Some were permitted, some were not.
NLRB v Jones
Facts of the Case: With the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, Congress determined that labor-management disputes were directly related to the flow of interstate commerce and, thus, could be regulated by the national government. In this case, the National Labor Relations Board charged the Jones & Laughlin Steel Co. with discriminating against employees who were union members.
Question: Was the Act consistent with the Commerce Clause?
Conclusion: Yes. The Court held that the Act was narrowly constructed so as to regulate industrial activities which had the potential to restrict interstate commerce. The justices abandoned their claim that labor relations had only an indirect effect on commerce. Since the ability of employees to engage in collective bargaining (one activity protected by the Act) is "an essential condition of industrial peace," the national government was justified in penalizing corporations engaging in interstate commerce which "refuse to confer and negotiate" with their workers.
Wickard v Filburn
Facts of the Case: Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. He was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres under a Department of Agriculture directive which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He claimed that he wanted the wheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Filburn was penalized. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use.
Question: Is the amendment subjecting Filburn to acreage restrictions in violation of the Constitution because Congress has no power to regulate activities local in nature?
Conclusion: According to Filburn, the act regulated production and consumption, which are local in character. The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
Lopez v US
Facts of the Case: Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows...is a school zone." Lopez was found guilty following a bench trial and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release.
Question: Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?
Conclusion: Yes. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity.
Morrison v. US
Facts of the Case: In 1994, while enrolled at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech), Christy Brzonkala alleged that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, both students and varsity football players at Virginia Tech, raped her. In 1995, Brzonkala filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech's Sexual Assault Policy. After a hearing, Morrison was found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to immediate suspension for two semesters. Crawford was not punished. A second hearing again found Morrison guilty. After an appeal through the university's administrative system, Morrison's punishment was set aside, as it was found to be "excessive." Ultimately, Brzonkala dropped out of the university. Brzonkala then sued Morrison, Crawford, and Virginia Tech in Federal District Court, alleging that Morrison's and Crawford's attack violated 42 USC section 13981, part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which provides a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence. Morrison and Crawford moved to dismiss Brzonkala's suit on the ground that section 13981's civil remedy was unconstitutional. In dismissing the complaint, the District Court found that that Congress lacked authority to enact section 13981 under either the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, which Congress had explicitly identified as the sources of federal authority for it. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Question: Does Congress have the authority to enact the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 under either the Commerce Clause or Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion: No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that Congress lacked the authority to enact a statute under the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment since the statute did not regulate an activity that substantially affected interstate commerce nor did it redress harm caused by the state. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that [i]f the allegations here are true, no civilized system of justice could fail to provide [Brzonkala] a remedy for the conduct of...Morrison. But under our federal system that remedy must be provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and not by the United States." Dissenting, Justice Stephen G. Breyer argued that the majority opinion "illustrates the difficulty of finding a workable judicial Commerce Clause touchstone." Additionally, Justice David H. Souter, dissenting, noted that VAWA contained a "mountain of data assembled by Congress...showing the effects of violence against women on interstate commerce."
Gonzalez v Raich
Facts of the Case: In 1996 California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medical use. California's law conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which banned possession of marijuana. After the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized doctor-prescribed marijuana from a patient's home, a group of medical marijuana users sued the DEA and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal district court.
The medical marijuana users argued the Controlled Substances Act - which Congress passed using its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce - exceeded Congress' commerce clause power. The district court ruled against the group. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ruled the CSA unconstitutional as it applied to intrastate (within a state) medical marijuana use. Relying on two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that narrowed Congress' commerce clause power - U.S. v. Lopez (1995) and U.S. v. Morrison (2000) - the Ninth Circuit ruled using medical marijuana did not "substantially affect" interstate commerce and therefore could not be regulated by Congress.
Question: Does the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801) exceed Congress' power under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use?
Conclusion: No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly established" Congress' commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market. The majority distinguished the case from Lopez and Morrison. In those cases, statutes regulated non-economic activity and fell entirely outside Congress' commerce power; in this case, the Court was asked to strike down a particular application of a valid statutory scheme.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Julius Genackowski and the FCC
Slate Magazine has a positive profile of FCC chair Julius Genackowski, the first FCC chair with a background in Silicon Valley.
As with most executive agencies, the FCC is accused from time to time of being captured by the interests it is meant to regulate. Genackowski's background may lead us to wonder whether internet providers have enough clout to dominate the agency to the degree that television networks once did.
- Wikipedia: Julius Genackowski.
- Website: FCC.
- Deconstructing Julius: A conversation with FCC Chairman Genachowski
- Open Secrets: Contributions by computer and internet providers.
As with most executive agencies, the FCC is accused from time to time of being captured by the interests it is meant to regulate. Genackowski's background may lead us to wonder whether internet providers have enough clout to dominate the agency to the degree that television networks once did.
- Wikipedia: Julius Genackowski.
- Website: FCC.
- Deconstructing Julius: A conversation with FCC Chairman Genachowski
- Open Secrets: Contributions by computer and internet providers.
McChrystal's Memo and Civilian Control of the Military
Here's commentary about a recently leaked memo by General McChrystal that includes a discussion of the responsibilities of military leaders in a civilian controlled military:
The principle of civilian control means that once the competent civilian authorities have made a binding decision, military leaders are obligated to support it and carry it out. If they cannot in good conscience do so, they should resign. The principle does not mean that military leaders are barred from publicly expressing their best judgment as to the strategy and tactics best suited to the problem at hand before the civilian authorities have made their decision.
....
The principle of civilian control means that once the competent civilian authorities have made a binding decision, military leaders are obligated to support it and carry it out. If they cannot in good conscience do so, they should resign. The principle does not mean that military leaders are barred from publicly expressing their best judgment as to the strategy and tactics best suited to the problem at hand before the civilian authorities have made their decision.
....
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Age Discrimination: Gross v. FBL Financial Services
Members of Congress are attempting to reverse the results of a Supreme Court ruling on age discrimination. The case is Gross v. FBL Financial Services.
The proposed legislation is a response to the Supreme Court’s June 2009 ruling in Gross v. FBL Financial Services that plaintiffs claiming disparate treatment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act must show that age was the determining factor in the alleged discrimination, rather than just one of several factors.
“The Gross decision established a far higher standard of proof for age than for other forms of discrimination, without any rationale or justification,” Harkin said. Leahy said the 5-4 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas was evidence of an “activist Supreme Court.”
Under the proposed legislation, the burden would be on the employer to show it complied with the law once a plaintiff shows age discrimination was a “motivating factor” behind an employment decision.
We will cover this in 2301 when we hit civil rights. and the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
The proposed legislation is a response to the Supreme Court’s June 2009 ruling in Gross v. FBL Financial Services that plaintiffs claiming disparate treatment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act must show that age was the determining factor in the alleged discrimination, rather than just one of several factors.
“The Gross decision established a far higher standard of proof for age than for other forms of discrimination, without any rationale or justification,” Harkin said. Leahy said the 5-4 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas was evidence of an “activist Supreme Court.”
Under the proposed legislation, the burden would be on the employer to show it complied with the law once a plaintiff shows age discrimination was a “motivating factor” behind an employment decision.
We will cover this in 2301 when we hit civil rights. and the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
The EPA and GreenHouse Gas Regulations
Not all policy is set by Congress. Once an executive agency is established, it has discretion -- within limits ultimately defined by the Supreme Court -- to set policy as well. Sometimes it does so when Congress refuses to act on a particular issue. Such seems to be the case with proposals to regulate greenhouse gases.
- NYT story.
- EPA proposes curbs on industrial greenhouse gases -- latimes.com
- Website: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- Wikipedia: EPA.
- Wikipedia: Rulemaking.
Agencies are granted rulemaking authority which gives them a degree of discretion in how they implement the law passed by Congress and given to them to implement. Their doing so is actually advantageous to members of Congress because it allows them to avoid making unpopular, but potentially necessary, decisions.
- NYT story.
- EPA proposes curbs on industrial greenhouse gases -- latimes.com
- Website: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- Wikipedia: EPA.
- Wikipedia: Rulemaking.
Agencies are granted rulemaking authority which gives them a degree of discretion in how they implement the law passed by Congress and given to them to implement. Their doing so is actually advantageous to members of Congress because it allows them to avoid making unpopular, but potentially necessary, decisions.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Federalism and Financial Services
I stumbled across the following article from the Heritage Foundation a moment ago:
Federalism and Financial Services
It's worth a quick read because it analyses how the Constitutional framework impacts the regulation of the financial services industry. It provides terrific background, but it's an ironic read since it argues in favor of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, the depression era bill which separated the banking, securities and insurance businesses.
The act was indeed repealed, but that has been argued by many to have led to the careless financial moves that led to the current economic collapse. It's a bit like watching a train before the wreck.
Federalism and Financial Services
It's worth a quick read because it analyses how the Constitutional framework impacts the regulation of the financial services industry. It provides terrific background, but it's an ironic read since it argues in favor of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, the depression era bill which separated the banking, securities and insurance businesses.
The act was indeed repealed, but that has been argued by many to have led to the careless financial moves that led to the current economic collapse. It's a bit like watching a train before the wreck.
Are Dog Fighting Videos Protected Speech?
The Supreme Court heard arguments today in United States v Stevens. The issue presented before the court:
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 48’s ban on knowingly selling depictions of animal cruelty with the intention of placing those depictions in interstate commerce for commercial gain violates the First Amendment.
- The Docket.
- The Oral Argument.
- US Code.
- LAT coverage.
- First Amendment Center.
- NYT coverage.
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 48’s ban on knowingly selling depictions of animal cruelty with the intention of placing those depictions in interstate commerce for commercial gain violates the First Amendment.
- The Docket.
- The Oral Argument.
- US Code.
- LAT coverage.
- First Amendment Center.
- NYT coverage.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Faith Healing, Child Protection and the First Amendment
Here are a couple of stories to add to our discussion of the limits of the free exercise clause:
- Prayer Trumps Medicine in Decision over Child Death
- Parents in prayer death get probation, some jail - Yahoo! News
In one, parents are not punished for the death of a child when they prayed rather than call doctors to save her. In the other, the parents were punished. These cases came from different states, which may help explain the different outcomes. They are the verdicts in trial courts. The case that ended in a conviction is going to be appealed. Here is an old case involving an appelate decision from California:
- Court Decides Christian Scientist Can Be Tried in Her Child's ...
There appears to be no national ruling that establishes a common rule that covers all such cases. As far as I know the Supreme Court has yet to rule on such a case.
- Prayer Trumps Medicine in Decision over Child Death
- Parents in prayer death get probation, some jail - Yahoo! News
In one, parents are not punished for the death of a child when they prayed rather than call doctors to save her. In the other, the parents were punished. These cases came from different states, which may help explain the different outcomes. They are the verdicts in trial courts. The case that ended in a conviction is going to be appealed. Here is an old case involving an appelate decision from California:
- Court Decides Christian Scientist Can Be Tried in Her Child's ...
There appears to be no national ruling that establishes a common rule that covers all such cases. As far as I know the Supreme Court has yet to rule on such a case.
The National Security Council
Some recent news involving the National Security Council:
- A Call To Duty, Changes To Obama's National Security Staff
- Take the Obama War Council Quiz
- President Petraeus?
- A Call To Duty, Changes To Obama's National Security Staff
- Take the Obama War Council Quiz
- President Petraeus?
The Council of Economic Advisers
For 2302, some info about presidential advising as we wade into the executive branch:
- Measures may have staved off collapse
- 'Mr. President, This Is Your Holy S*** Moment'
- How to spin the stimulus
- Measures may have staved off collapse
- 'Mr. President, This Is Your Holy S*** Moment'
- How to spin the stimulus
Texas Forensic Science Commission
A state bureaucratic agency in the news recently:
- Website: Texas Forensic Science Commission
- Relevant Legal Code: Texas Code of Criminal Procedure - Article 38.01. Texas Forensic ...
- Current controversy: Two Texans sent to death row by bad science
- Current controversy: Texas: Governor Fires Chairman of Forensic Science Committee
- Website: Texas Forensic Science Commission
- Relevant Legal Code: Texas Code of Criminal Procedure - Article 38.01. Texas Forensic ...
- Current controversy: Two Texans sent to death row by bad science
- Current controversy: Texas: Governor Fires Chairman of Forensic Science Committee
Monday, October 5, 2009
The Supreme Court Term Begins
Relevant stories:
- NYT.
- Time: Five Supreme Court Cases to Watch This Term
- ScotusBlog: Thoughts on this Term and the Next
- NYT.
- Time: Five Supreme Court Cases to Watch This Term
- ScotusBlog: Thoughts on this Term and the Next
Gay Divorce in Texas
Can gay couples married elsewhere, be divorced in Texas? A Dallas judge says yes, but seems to want to mostly pick a constitutional fight with Section 32 of the Texas Bill of Rights.
- NYT.
- NYT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)