Thursday, June 30, 2011
Is the Debt Ceiling Unconstitutional?
It's possible. Click here also.
The denial of a raise in the debt ceiling may violate the following language in the 14th Amendment:
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Bruce Bartlett and Garrett Epps have been raising this issue:
Bartlett argues that the potential consequences of a debt default amount to a threat to national security and might justify such action:
. . . it’s worth remembering that the debt limit is statutory law, which is trumped by the Constitution which has a little known provision that relates to this issue. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment says, “The validity of the public debt of the United States…shall not be questioned.” This could easily justify the sort of extraordinary presidential action to avoid default that I am suggesting.
And the Supreme Court might be deferential to the president:
Given that the Supreme Court in recent years has been unusually deferential to executive prerogatives –I feel certain President Obama would be on firm constitutional ground should he challenge the debt limit in order to prevent a debt default. Should the Court rule in his favor, the debt limit would effectively become a dead letter. Is that really the outcome Republicans want from a debt limit showdown?
He digs into particulars here.
Garrett Epps makes the same point:
Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment states, at its outset, that "[t]he validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." This section was inserted into the Amendment because of a very real concern that Southern political leaders, and their Northern allies, would gain the upper hand in Congress in the 1866 or 1868 elections and vote to repudiate the national debt.
The Lincoln administration had borrowed freely to finance the war machine. As Reconstruction dawned, white Southerners complained bitterly that they would now be taxed to repay the funds that had been borrowed to defeat their cause. "What, ruin us, and then make us help pay the cost of our own whipping?" one asked a Northern journalist in 1865. "I reckon not."
Southerners were used to having their way in Congress--they had dominated the institution from 1787 until secession in 1861--and many believed that when their representatives arrived in House and Senate, they would be able to tear up the nation's IOUs.
Section Four was the response; its language is extraordinary. First, it does not simply say that the national debt must be paid; it says that its "validity ... shall not be questioned." Only one other section of the Constitution--the Thirteenth Amendment's proclamation that "[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude ... shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"--is as unqualified and sweeping.
Second, it suggests a broad definition of the national debt: "...including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion."
From this language, it's not hard to argue that the Constitution places both payments on the debt and payments owed to groups like Social Security recipients--pensioners, that is--above the vagaries of Congressional politics. These debts have to be paid, the argument would be, in full, on time, without question. If Congress won't pay them, then the executive must.
Obama was a constitutional law professor so he is certainly aware of this argument. Perhaps he's picking a fight.
- US Public Debt.
- CRS Report: The Debt Limit.
- Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917.
The denial of a raise in the debt ceiling may violate the following language in the 14th Amendment:
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Bruce Bartlett and Garrett Epps have been raising this issue:
Bartlett argues that the potential consequences of a debt default amount to a threat to national security and might justify such action:
. . . it’s worth remembering that the debt limit is statutory law, which is trumped by the Constitution which has a little known provision that relates to this issue. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment says, “The validity of the public debt of the United States…shall not be questioned.” This could easily justify the sort of extraordinary presidential action to avoid default that I am suggesting.
And the Supreme Court might be deferential to the president:
Given that the Supreme Court in recent years has been unusually deferential to executive prerogatives –I feel certain President Obama would be on firm constitutional ground should he challenge the debt limit in order to prevent a debt default. Should the Court rule in his favor, the debt limit would effectively become a dead letter. Is that really the outcome Republicans want from a debt limit showdown?
He digs into particulars here.
Garrett Epps makes the same point:
Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment states, at its outset, that "[t]he validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." This section was inserted into the Amendment because of a very real concern that Southern political leaders, and their Northern allies, would gain the upper hand in Congress in the 1866 or 1868 elections and vote to repudiate the national debt.
The Lincoln administration had borrowed freely to finance the war machine. As Reconstruction dawned, white Southerners complained bitterly that they would now be taxed to repay the funds that had been borrowed to defeat their cause. "What, ruin us, and then make us help pay the cost of our own whipping?" one asked a Northern journalist in 1865. "I reckon not."
Southerners were used to having their way in Congress--they had dominated the institution from 1787 until secession in 1861--and many believed that when their representatives arrived in House and Senate, they would be able to tear up the nation's IOUs.
Section Four was the response; its language is extraordinary. First, it does not simply say that the national debt must be paid; it says that its "validity ... shall not be questioned." Only one other section of the Constitution--the Thirteenth Amendment's proclamation that "[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude ... shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"--is as unqualified and sweeping.
Second, it suggests a broad definition of the national debt: "...including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion."
From this language, it's not hard to argue that the Constitution places both payments on the debt and payments owed to groups like Social Security recipients--pensioners, that is--above the vagaries of Congressional politics. These debts have to be paid, the argument would be, in full, on time, without question. If Congress won't pay them, then the executive must.
Obama was a constitutional law professor so he is certainly aware of this argument. Perhaps he's picking a fight.
- US Public Debt.
- CRS Report: The Debt Limit.
- Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Appeals Court Upholds Obama’s Health Care Law
From the NYT:
The Obama administration prevailed in the first appellate review of the 2010 health care law on Wednesday as a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that it was constitutional for Congress to require that Americans obtain health insurance.
The ruling by the Cincinnati court is the first of three opinions to be delivered by separate courts of appeal that heard arguments in the health care litigation in May and June. Opinions are expected soon from panels in both the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., and the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta.
Lawyers on both sides of the case widely expect the Supreme Court to take one or more of the cases, perhaps as soon as its coming term, which starts in October. The speed of the Sixth Circuit ruling could help insure that timing.
You can read the decision here.
Here's a key part of the story:
The Sixth Circuit majority held that the mandate was “facially constitutional under the Commerce Clause” for two reasons.
“First, the provision regulates economic activity that Congress had a rational basis to believe has substantial effects on interstate commerce,” Judge Martin wrote. “In addition, Congress had a rational basis to believe that the provision was essential to its larger economic scheme reforming the interstate markets in health care and health insurance.”
The court directly addressed whether a choice to go without health insurance qualifies as an “activity” that substantially affects interstate commerce, which is the standard set in prior Supreme Court decisions on the breadth of the Commerce Clause.
“The activity of foregoing health insurance and attempting to cover the cost of health care needs by self-insuring is no less economic than the activity of purchasing an insurance plan,” the opinion stated.
The majority emphasized that the case should not hang on distinctions about whether the failure to purchase insurance should be defined as activity or inactivity, a question the Supreme Court has never considered. “The constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision cannot be resolved with a myopic focus on a malleable label,” the judges said.
In his concurrence, Judge Sutton added: “Inaction is action, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse, when it comes to financial risk.” Whether an individual buys an insurance policy or not, the judge wrote, “each requires affirmative choices; one is no less active than the other; and both affect commerce.”
The Obama administration prevailed in the first appellate review of the 2010 health care law on Wednesday as a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that it was constitutional for Congress to require that Americans obtain health insurance.
The ruling by the Cincinnati court is the first of three opinions to be delivered by separate courts of appeal that heard arguments in the health care litigation in May and June. Opinions are expected soon from panels in both the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., and the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta.
Lawyers on both sides of the case widely expect the Supreme Court to take one or more of the cases, perhaps as soon as its coming term, which starts in October. The speed of the Sixth Circuit ruling could help insure that timing.
You can read the decision here.
Here's a key part of the story:
The Sixth Circuit majority held that the mandate was “facially constitutional under the Commerce Clause” for two reasons.
“First, the provision regulates economic activity that Congress had a rational basis to believe has substantial effects on interstate commerce,” Judge Martin wrote. “In addition, Congress had a rational basis to believe that the provision was essential to its larger economic scheme reforming the interstate markets in health care and health insurance.”
The court directly addressed whether a choice to go without health insurance qualifies as an “activity” that substantially affects interstate commerce, which is the standard set in prior Supreme Court decisions on the breadth of the Commerce Clause.
“The activity of foregoing health insurance and attempting to cover the cost of health care needs by self-insuring is no less economic than the activity of purchasing an insurance plan,” the opinion stated.
The majority emphasized that the case should not hang on distinctions about whether the failure to purchase insurance should be defined as activity or inactivity, a question the Supreme Court has never considered. “The constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision cannot be resolved with a myopic focus on a malleable label,” the judges said.
In his concurrence, Judge Sutton added: “Inaction is action, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse, when it comes to financial risk.” Whether an individual buys an insurance policy or not, the judge wrote, “each requires affirmative choices; one is no less active than the other; and both affect commerce.”
Extrajudicial Activity
For 2302: An NYT story highlighted in the Atlantic regarding extrajudicial activity and whether it might undermine the impartiality (or the appearance of it) of the courts:
Jeff Shesol on an Excess of Extrajudicial Activity: Jeff Shesol observes that all nine Supreme Court justices have been "giving speeches, signing books, leading workshops, posing for pictures at charity functions" lately and asks, "is there something wrong with extrajudicial activity?" Shesol, a former speechwriter for Bill Clinton, acknowledges in today's New York Times that "surely there is nothing new or unnatural about justices holding political views and seeking the company of others who share them," but, for example, "there are few, if any, precedents for the involvement of Justices Thomas and Scalia with the fund-raising efforts of the Koch brothers." Justice Alito has associated himself with conservative magazine The American Spectator, just as "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has taken part in the Aspen Institute seminars, which receive some financing from George Soros... [and] Justice Stephen Breyer has turned up at Renaissance Weekend, the conclave that the Clintons put on the map in the 1990s." The problem with these extrajudicial activities, Shesol explains, is that "the public's faith in the rule of law depends, to no small degree, on the idea that judges try, as best they can, to maintain a judicial temperament--that they keep a certain distance from public and even private events that appear, in the truest sense of the word, partisan, and that they maintain an open mind. Not a blank mind, devoid of a judicial philosophy, but an open mind — a certain receptiveness to reason, argument and fact."
Jeff Shesol on an Excess of Extrajudicial Activity: Jeff Shesol observes that all nine Supreme Court justices have been "giving speeches, signing books, leading workshops, posing for pictures at charity functions" lately and asks, "is there something wrong with extrajudicial activity?" Shesol, a former speechwriter for Bill Clinton, acknowledges in today's New York Times that "surely there is nothing new or unnatural about justices holding political views and seeking the company of others who share them," but, for example, "there are few, if any, precedents for the involvement of Justices Thomas and Scalia with the fund-raising efforts of the Koch brothers." Justice Alito has associated himself with conservative magazine The American Spectator, just as "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has taken part in the Aspen Institute seminars, which receive some financing from George Soros... [and] Justice Stephen Breyer has turned up at Renaissance Weekend, the conclave that the Clintons put on the map in the 1990s." The problem with these extrajudicial activities, Shesol explains, is that "the public's faith in the rule of law depends, to no small degree, on the idea that judges try, as best they can, to maintain a judicial temperament--that they keep a certain distance from public and even private events that appear, in the truest sense of the word, partisan, and that they maintain an open mind. Not a blank mind, devoid of a judicial philosophy, but an open mind — a certain receptiveness to reason, argument and fact."
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Justices Strike Down Arizona Campaign Finance Law
Again, from the NYT. More limits on campaign finance laws:
In its first campaign-finance decision since its 5-to-4 ruling in the Citizens United case last year, the Supreme Court on Monday struck down an Arizona law that provided escalating matching funds to candidates who accept public financing.
The vote was again 5 to 4, with the same five justices in the majority as in the Citizens United decision. The majority said the law violated the First Amendment rights of candidates who raise private money. Such candidates, the majority said, may be reluctant to spend money to speak if they know that it will give rise to counterspeech paid for by the government.
“Laws like Arizona’s matching funds provision that inhibit robust and wide-open political debate without sufficient justification cannot stand,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.
In its first campaign-finance decision since its 5-to-4 ruling in the Citizens United case last year, the Supreme Court on Monday struck down an Arizona law that provided escalating matching funds to candidates who accept public financing.
The vote was again 5 to 4, with the same five justices in the majority as in the Citizens United decision. The majority said the law violated the First Amendment rights of candidates who raise private money. Such candidates, the majority said, may be reluctant to spend money to speak if they know that it will give rise to counterspeech paid for by the government.
“Laws like Arizona’s matching funds provision that inhibit robust and wide-open political debate without sufficient justification cannot stand,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.
Justices Reject Ban on Violent Video Games for Children
From the NYT, a highly anticipated Supreme Court case. Gaming is protected speech.
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down on First Amendment grounds a California law that banned the sale of violent video games to children. The 7-to-2 decision was the latest in a series of rulings protecting free speech, joining ones on funeral protests, videos showing cruelty to animals and political speech by corporations.
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down on First Amendment grounds a California law that banned the sale of violent video games to children. The 7-to-2 decision was the latest in a series of rulings protecting free speech, joining ones on funeral protests, videos showing cruelty to animals and political speech by corporations.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
What does "Lawfully Detained" Mean?
The Texas Tribune has a story today on what may be unintended consequences of the "sanctuary cities" legislation: the deportation of children brought to the country illegally by their parents, but are now excelling in school. If they are lawfully detained, they may be asked about their immigration status, but what exactly does that phrase mean? It's not just about being arrested, but can relate to almost any interaction one might have with a police officer.
There are concerns the law might not be used to simply focus on people deemed dangerous, but those that Texas might wish to retain. Supporters of the legislation are attempting to ensure the language will not lead to its arbitrary and capricious use.
In both 2301 and 2302 we tough on interpretation of law and constitutional language. Here's an example.
There are concerns the law might not be used to simply focus on people deemed dangerous, but those that Texas might wish to retain. Supporters of the legislation are attempting to ensure the language will not lead to its arbitrary and capricious use.
In both 2301 and 2302 we tough on interpretation of law and constitutional language. Here's an example.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Public Opinion on Afghanistan Shifts following Osama Shooting
Andrew Sullivan thinks that may be leading to a more aggressive troop pullout.
Sometimes policy does follow opinion.
Sometimes policy does follow opinion.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Justices Rule for Wal-Mart in Bias Case
From the NYT, perhaps the most consequential decision of this Supreme Court term:
The Supreme Court on Monday threw out the largest employment discrimination case in the nation’s history. The suit, against Wal-Mart Stores, had sought to consolidate the claims of as many as 1.5 million women on the theory that the company had discriminated against them in pay and promotion decisions.
The lawsuit sought back pay that could have amounted to billions of dollars. But the Supreme Court, in a decision that was unanimous on this point, said the plaintiffs’ lawyers had improperly sued under a part of the class action rules that was not primarily concerned with monetary claims.
The court did not decide whether Wal-Mart had in fact discriminated against the women, only that they could not proceed as a class. The court’s decision on that issue will almost certainly affect all sorts of other class-action suits, including ones asserting antitrust, securities and product liability violations.
From Scotusblog, an analysis of the opinion, and a link to relevant documents related to the case.
The Supreme Court on Monday threw out the largest employment discrimination case in the nation’s history. The suit, against Wal-Mart Stores, had sought to consolidate the claims of as many as 1.5 million women on the theory that the company had discriminated against them in pay and promotion decisions.
The lawsuit sought back pay that could have amounted to billions of dollars. But the Supreme Court, in a decision that was unanimous on this point, said the plaintiffs’ lawyers had improperly sued under a part of the class action rules that was not primarily concerned with monetary claims.
The court did not decide whether Wal-Mart had in fact discriminated against the women, only that they could not proceed as a class. The court’s decision on that issue will almost certainly affect all sorts of other class-action suits, including ones asserting antitrust, securities and product liability violations.
From Scotusblog, an analysis of the opinion, and a link to relevant documents related to the case.
The Standard Time Act
My 5 week 2302 class has begun looking at the evolution and expansion of federal executive authority and I just ran across mention of the Standard Time Act, where the Interstate Commerce Commission was given the authority to create time zones in order to assist railroad transportation.
Executive overreach or essential means for enabling the expansion of commerce in the nation?
- First there was standard time.
Executive overreach or essential means for enabling the expansion of commerce in the nation?
- First there was standard time.
Inbox Influence | Influence Explorer
This looks like an amazing app. It allows you to find out the political influence behind any communication you receive. I'm about to add it to my browser.
Inbox Influence Influence Explorer
Inbox Influence Influence Explorer
Judge invalidates vote ending red-light cameras
From the Chron:
Houston city leaders are assessing their options after a federal judge invalidated the November referendum that turned off a red-light surveillance system and halted a stream of millions of dollars into strapped city coffers.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes ruled Friday that the referendum was improperly placed on the ballot last year, and the city cannot be forced to turn off the cameras.
Hughes said Houston's city charterrequires that efforts to overturn ordinances by referendum must occur within 30 days of an ordinance's passage.
Opponents to the red-light ordinance, which passed in 2004, mounted the election challenge last year and got it on the ballot as a charter amendment, but Hughes said that was essentially the same as repealing it.
"Presented with this mislabeling, the council supinely ignored — over voices of some of its members — their responsibility and put the proposition to the voters as an amendment to the charter," Hughes wrote.
The city filed a federal suit against the camera vendor as a way of having a judge review the procedure for shutting off the system, winding down the contract and determining the amount owed the company.
Houston city leaders are assessing their options after a federal judge invalidated the November referendum that turned off a red-light surveillance system and halted a stream of millions of dollars into strapped city coffers.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes ruled Friday that the referendum was improperly placed on the ballot last year, and the city cannot be forced to turn off the cameras.
Hughes said Houston's city charterrequires that efforts to overturn ordinances by referendum must occur within 30 days of an ordinance's passage.
Opponents to the red-light ordinance, which passed in 2004, mounted the election challenge last year and got it on the ballot as a charter amendment, but Hughes said that was essentially the same as repealing it.
"Presented with this mislabeling, the council supinely ignored — over voices of some of its members — their responsibility and put the proposition to the voters as an amendment to the charter," Hughes wrote.
The city filed a federal suit against the camera vendor as a way of having a judge review the procedure for shutting off the system, winding down the contract and determining the amount owed the company.
Conflict of Interest on the Supreme Court
Justice Clarence Thomas has an interesting relationship with a wealthy Dallas businessman. Is it problematic? And if so, is there anything that can be done about it? Not really.
Rational choice philosophy
From the NYT, background on the development of rational choice theory which has had great influence on economics and political science -- for better or worse -- over the past several decades. Apparently it was developed by the RAND Corporation - an influential think tank - as a reaction to the spread of communist ideas during the Cold War.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Five Observations About Today's Five Supreme Court Rulings - The Atlantic
Also for 2302: Five Observations About Today's Five Supreme Court Rulings - The Atlantic
We will look through some of these recently decided Supreme Court decisions in due time.
We will look through some of these recently decided Supreme Court decisions in due time.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
What Drives Public Opinion on the ACA?
Some great and relevant commentary. Why do people think the way they do on Obamacare? Does it come down to self-interest, or perhaps thr cues they receive from the political elites they identify with?
These are based on a recently published article: Playing Fair: Fairness Beliefs and Health Policy Preferences in the United States
From John Sides: I’ve heard commentators opine on whether people’s attitudes toward the ACA will grow more favorable with time, once they see that it helps them in various ways. This presupposes that people’s attitudes about health care reform are predicated on self-interest. I’ve been dubious, and Lynch and Gollusk provide some confirmation. Health care opinions are really based on things that don’t change very much: partisanship, ideology, values.
Perhaps though people are just turned off by the process, not the law itself.
These are based on a recently published article: Playing Fair: Fairness Beliefs and Health Policy Preferences in the United States
From John Sides: I’ve heard commentators opine on whether people’s attitudes toward the ACA will grow more favorable with time, once they see that it helps them in various ways. This presupposes that people’s attitudes about health care reform are predicated on self-interest. I’ve been dubious, and Lynch and Gollusk provide some confirmation. Health care opinions are really based on things that don’t change very much: partisanship, ideology, values.
Perhaps though people are just turned off by the process, not the law itself.
Perry Vetoes Over 20 Bills
Including a ban on texting while driving.
- Story from the Austin American Statesman.
- Announcement from the Governor's Office.
Now the question is whether the legislature, since it is meeting in special session, will claim it has the right to vote to override.
- Story from the Austin American Statesman.
- Announcement from the Governor's Office.
Now the question is whether the legislature, since it is meeting in special session, will claim it has the right to vote to override.
Counseling the President on the War Powers Resolution
The NYT reports on the conflict between various executive agencies regarding the scope of the War Powers Resolution and whether it applies to our activities in Libya:
President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.
Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.
But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.
President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.
Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.
But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.
Talk Radio and Ideological Think Tanks
Politico points out that a handful of the most talk radio personalities get substantive support from ideologically oriented think tanks - like the Heritage Foundation and - as well as recently formed advocacy groups - like Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity.
Is Ideology Genetic?
Political scientists have wondered for a while. A recently published paper may provide proof.
The paper is called A Genome Wide Analysis of Liberal and Conservative Political Attitudes.
Read commentary here and here, and of course Wikipedia is on it.
The paper is called A Genome Wide Analysis of Liberal and Conservative Political Attitudes.
Read commentary here and here, and of course Wikipedia is on it.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Dem Leadership Forces Weiner to Resign
Here's insider info on how the Democratic leadership forced Congressman Weiner to resign. It's helps us understand the relationship between party leaders and the rank and file.
Fixing Congress
I cannot recommend this article enough. An ex-member of Congress makes the argument - which we've hit several times in 2302 - that the political parties have taken over Congress and have made it largely disfunctional.
He makes a series of suggestions to turn the tide:
1 - Break the power of partisans to keep candidates off the general-election ballot.
2 - Turn over the process of redrawing congressional districts to independent, nonpartisan commissions.
3 - Allow members of any party to offer amendments to any House bill and—with rare exceptions—put those amendments to a vote.
4 - Change the leadership structure of congressional committees.
5 - Fill committee vacancies by lot.
6 - Choose committee staff solely on the basis of professional qualifications.
I recommend a careful read.
He makes a series of suggestions to turn the tide:
1 - Break the power of partisans to keep candidates off the general-election ballot.
2 - Turn over the process of redrawing congressional districts to independent, nonpartisan commissions.
3 - Allow members of any party to offer amendments to any House bill and—with rare exceptions—put those amendments to a vote.
4 - Change the leadership structure of congressional committees.
5 - Fill committee vacancies by lot.
6 - Choose committee staff solely on the basis of professional qualifications.
I recommend a careful read.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
The argumentative theory of reasoning
A new theory regarding the source of reasoning suggests something all too human:
For centuries thinkers have assumed that the uniquely human capacity for reasoning has existed to let people reach beyond mere perception and reflex in the search for truth. Rationality allowed a solitary thinker to blaze a path to philosophical, moral and scientific enlightenment.
Now some researchers are suggesting that reason evolved for a completely different purpose: to win arguments. Rationality, by this yardstick (and irrationality too, but we’ll get to that) is nothing more or less than a servant of the hard-wired compulsion to triumph in the debating arena. According to this view, bias, lack of logic and other supposed flaws that pollute the stream of reason are instead social adaptations that enable one group to persuade (and defeat) another. Certitude works, however sharply it may depart from the truth.
The researchers suggest that this helps explain why obviously faulty reasoning often works politically. Reason isn't about understanding, its about winning. As depressing as it is, it makes more and more sense the longer you think it over.
For centuries thinkers have assumed that the uniquely human capacity for reasoning has existed to let people reach beyond mere perception and reflex in the search for truth. Rationality allowed a solitary thinker to blaze a path to philosophical, moral and scientific enlightenment.
Now some researchers are suggesting that reason evolved for a completely different purpose: to win arguments. Rationality, by this yardstick (and irrationality too, but we’ll get to that) is nothing more or less than a servant of the hard-wired compulsion to triumph in the debating arena. According to this view, bias, lack of logic and other supposed flaws that pollute the stream of reason are instead social adaptations that enable one group to persuade (and defeat) another. Certitude works, however sharply it may depart from the truth.
The researchers suggest that this helps explain why obviously faulty reasoning often works politically. Reason isn't about understanding, its about winning. As depressing as it is, it makes more and more sense the longer you think it over.
The Battle Over the Natiohal Labor Relations Board
From the NYT:
Barring a last-minute settlement, lawyers for the National Labor Relations Board will begin arguing before a Seattle judge on Tuesday that Boeing broke the law by building a new, nonunion production line in South Carolina instead of expanding its unionized operations in Washington State.
Boeing, the N.L.R.B. and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers local that initiated the case all still say they would like to find a way to settle. Appeals could grind on for years, clouding the future of Boeing’s $750 million Dreamliner assembly plant scheduled to start production in July in North Charleston, S.C. Negotiators and outside analysts said that any deal would most likely require Boeing to commit to adding some level of new production lines to its Puget Sound manufacturing hub in exchange for certain union concessions, like a no-strike pledge.
The labor board’s top lawyer says Boeing’s decision to move the operation to South Carolina constituted illegal retaliation against Boeing’s unionized workers in Washington for engaging in their legally protected right to strike, including a 58-day walkout in 2008.
Barring a last-minute settlement, lawyers for the National Labor Relations Board will begin arguing before a Seattle judge on Tuesday that Boeing broke the law by building a new, nonunion production line in South Carolina instead of expanding its unionized operations in Washington State.
Boeing, the N.L.R.B. and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers local that initiated the case all still say they would like to find a way to settle. Appeals could grind on for years, clouding the future of Boeing’s $750 million Dreamliner assembly plant scheduled to start production in July in North Charleston, S.C. Negotiators and outside analysts said that any deal would most likely require Boeing to commit to adding some level of new production lines to its Puget Sound manufacturing hub in exchange for certain union concessions, like a no-strike pledge.
The labor board’s top lawyer says Boeing’s decision to move the operation to South Carolina constituted illegal retaliation against Boeing’s unionized workers in Washington for engaging in their legally protected right to strike, including a 58-day walkout in 2008.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
14 Reasons Why the Senate is no Longer the World's Greatest Deliberative Body
This is pulled from a link below, but it deserves highlighting:
1.Archaic rules, such as not allowing committees to hold hearings after 2:00 in the afternoon without unanimous consent.
2.Senators spending less time in Washington, due primarily to fundraising needs, but also owed to anti-Washington sentiment.
3.Proliferation of staffers, often “more ideological than their bosses, and less dependent on institutional relationships.”
4.Lack of actual conversations; Senators never change their minds as a result of the argument of a colleague.
5.“Tabloid” Hill rags (Roll Call, The Hill, Politico, etc…) that promote conflict; fewer state newspapers covering hometown Senators.
6.More Senators coming from the House, not from governorships or other positions that would encourage bipartisanship.
7.Lack of friendships and trust among members (see reasons 2, 4, and 6).
8.The “Quayle generation.” In 1981, more than half of the Senate had served less than 6 years.
9.C-Span, and the new priority of transparency over deal-making.
10.Proliferation of lobbyists (coinciding with the advent of C-Span).
11.Liberal Republicans started vanishing. Southern Democrats died off and were replaced by conservative Republicans. Each party became more insular.
12.Filibusters being used for political purposes.
13.Revolving door from Senate to lobbying firms.
14.Lunching in the caucus rooms as opposed to Senate dining rooms.
1.Archaic rules, such as not allowing committees to hold hearings after 2:00 in the afternoon without unanimous consent.
2.Senators spending less time in Washington, due primarily to fundraising needs, but also owed to anti-Washington sentiment.
3.Proliferation of staffers, often “more ideological than their bosses, and less dependent on institutional relationships.”
4.Lack of actual conversations; Senators never change their minds as a result of the argument of a colleague.
5.“Tabloid” Hill rags (Roll Call, The Hill, Politico, etc…) that promote conflict; fewer state newspapers covering hometown Senators.
6.More Senators coming from the House, not from governorships or other positions that would encourage bipartisanship.
7.Lack of friendships and trust among members (see reasons 2, 4, and 6).
8.The “Quayle generation.” In 1981, more than half of the Senate had served less than 6 years.
9.C-Span, and the new priority of transparency over deal-making.
10.Proliferation of lobbyists (coinciding with the advent of C-Span).
11.Liberal Republicans started vanishing. Southern Democrats died off and were replaced by conservative Republicans. Each party became more insular.
12.Filibusters being used for political purposes.
13.Revolving door from Senate to lobbying firms.
14.Lunching in the caucus rooms as opposed to Senate dining rooms.
Predicting the Consequences of Texas' Redistricting Plan
A couple Harvard guys looked into Texas' redistricting plan and predict as a result "the Republicans will increase their congressional delegation from twenty-three to twenty six seats, and the Democrats from nine to ten seats."
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Adminstering Dodd-Frank
The NYT points out that while financial regulation laws were passed last year, the agencies it established have yet to be staffed. This has the obvious consequence:
Without strong leaders at the top of the nation’s financial regulatory agencies, the Dodd-Frank financial reform doesn’t have a chance. Whether it is protecting consumers against abusive lending, reforming the mortgage market or reining in too-big-to-fail banks, all require tough and experienced regulators.
Too many of these jobs are vacant, or soon will be, or are filled by caretakers. So it was a relief last week when President Obama said he had decided on a well-qualified nominee to be the new chairman for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and would make other nominations soon. The White House needs to move quickly and be prepared to fight.
Much of the blame for the delays lies with Republican lawmakers who have consistently opposed qualified candidates. In the case of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, they have vowed to obstruct any nominee unless Democrats first agree to gut the agency’s powers. Until now, the administration hasn’t pushed back.
This points out a secondary way that legislation can be curtailed. If the opposition lacks the strength to stop a law from being passed, they may be able to use obstruction as a way to ensure that the law is not implemented as originally intended.
Without strong leaders at the top of the nation’s financial regulatory agencies, the Dodd-Frank financial reform doesn’t have a chance. Whether it is protecting consumers against abusive lending, reforming the mortgage market or reining in too-big-to-fail banks, all require tough and experienced regulators.
Too many of these jobs are vacant, or soon will be, or are filled by caretakers. So it was a relief last week when President Obama said he had decided on a well-qualified nominee to be the new chairman for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and would make other nominations soon. The White House needs to move quickly and be prepared to fight.
Much of the blame for the delays lies with Republican lawmakers who have consistently opposed qualified candidates. In the case of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, they have vowed to obstruct any nominee unless Democrats first agree to gut the agency’s powers. Until now, the administration hasn’t pushed back.
This points out a secondary way that legislation can be curtailed. If the opposition lacks the strength to stop a law from being passed, they may be able to use obstruction as a way to ensure that the law is not implemented as originally intended.
David Brooks thinks the issues that really matter will not be discussed in the 2012 election
These include:
. . . the core issue is the accumulation of deeper structural problems that this recession has exposed — unsustainable levels of debt, an inability to generate middle-class incomes, a dysfunctional political system, the steady growth of special-interest sinecures and the gradual loss of national vitality.
The number of business start-ups per capita has been falling steadily for the past three decades. Workers’ share of national income has been declining since 1983. Male wages have been stagnant for about 40 years. The American working class — those without a college degree — is being decimated, economically and socially. In 1960, for example, 83 percent of those in the working class were married. Now only 48 percent are.
Voters are certainly aware of the scope of the challenges before them. Their pessimism and anxiety does not just reflect the ebb and flow of the business cycle, but is deeper and more pervasive. Trust in institutions is at historic lows. Large majorities think the country is on the wrong track, and have for years. Large pluralities believe their children will have fewer opportunities than they do.
Voters are in the market for new movements and new combinations, yet the two parties have grown more rigid.
. . . the core issue is the accumulation of deeper structural problems that this recession has exposed — unsustainable levels of debt, an inability to generate middle-class incomes, a dysfunctional political system, the steady growth of special-interest sinecures and the gradual loss of national vitality.
The number of business start-ups per capita has been falling steadily for the past three decades. Workers’ share of national income has been declining since 1983. Male wages have been stagnant for about 40 years. The American working class — those without a college degree — is being decimated, economically and socially. In 1960, for example, 83 percent of those in the working class were married. Now only 48 percent are.
Voters are certainly aware of the scope of the challenges before them. Their pessimism and anxiety does not just reflect the ebb and flow of the business cycle, but is deeper and more pervasive. Trust in institutions is at historic lows. Large majorities think the country is on the wrong track, and have for years. Large pluralities believe their children will have fewer opportunities than they do.
Voters are in the market for new movements and new combinations, yet the two parties have grown more rigid.
The Republican 2012 Debate
The Republican Primary season picks up some steam. Seven candidates showed off in New Hampshire.
- Story in the NYT.
- Andrew Sullivan live-blogs the event and links to immediate reactions.
- Story in the NYT.
- Andrew Sullivan live-blogs the event and links to immediate reactions.
Monday, June 13, 2011
NYT: "F.B.I. Agents Get Leeway to Push Privacy Bounds"
The New York Times reports on the latest stage of the ongoing conflict between security and civil liberties in the age of terror:
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents, allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention.
Valerie E. Caproni, the F.B.I. general counsel, said the bureau had carefully considered each change to its operations manual. The F.B.I. soon plans to issue a new edition of its manual, called the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, according to an official who has worked on the draft document and several others who have been briefed on its contents. The new rules add to several measures taken over the past decade to give agents more latitude as they search for signs of criminal or terrorist activity.
The story states that agents may take "proactive" steps against individuals and organization who they deem likely to act against the US.
The directives are contained in the FBI's new operations manual.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents, allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention.
Valerie E. Caproni, the F.B.I. general counsel, said the bureau had carefully considered each change to its operations manual. The F.B.I. soon plans to issue a new edition of its manual, called the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, according to an official who has worked on the draft document and several others who have been briefed on its contents. The new rules add to several measures taken over the past decade to give agents more latitude as they search for signs of criminal or terrorist activity.
The story states that agents may take "proactive" steps against individuals and organization who they deem likely to act against the US.
The directives are contained in the FBI's new operations manual.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Some Texas Republicans Concerned about Latino Support
There are concerns within the Texas Republican Party that some of the measures pushed by Governor Perry - the sanctuary cities bill for example - might make it difficult for the party to reach out to Latino voters. This is a general concern the party leadership has had for a while and showcases an area of disagreement between leadership and the rank and file. Tea Partiers especially have been anxious to push this and similar measures, but considering that 89% of Texas' growth in the past decade was Latino, coupled with expectations that this will be the case the next decade as well, these measures may doom the party to eventual minority status.
About "Gingrich’s Senior Campaign Staff Resigns"
For both 2301 and 2302, the story about the mass resignation of Newt Gingrich's campaign advising staff points out not just the importance of this groups of people, but also gives an indication of who these people are. They tend to (but don't always) shun the spotlight.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Texas Tribune: GOP Understands Texas Voters — For Now
According to recent polling information, the policies passed by the Texas Legislature fit the preferences of self identified Tea Party members and Republicans. The question will be whether this support last once the effects of the cuts are felt.
From the Plum Line: Will the GOP base really demand a crazy GOP 2012 nominee?
Primary elections do not necessarily produce electable candidates, here is speculation abotu whether that is likely to occur in 2012:
The conventional wisdom right now on the left is that due to an irrational hatred of Obama and all things liberal, the only way a Republican can win the nomination is by embracing the most extreme positions possible. Yet Mitt Romney, widely perceived as a weak frontrunner, is still polling well in primary states like South Carolina and New Hampshire (though he seems to have given up on Iowa). That’s despite his record on health reform and his refusal to embrace the absurd conservative idea that global warming is a hoax.
The Republican base has shown itself to be more practical than expected in the past. Despite Senator John McCain’s apostasies — his support for immigration reform, opposition to the Bush tax cuts, and his championing of campaign finance reform — he nevertheless ended up being the Republican standard-bearer in 2008. He wasn’t Rush Limbaugh’s preferred candidate, but when it finally came time to cast a ballot Rush had the same single vote as everyone else.
The conventional wisdom right now on the left is that due to an irrational hatred of Obama and all things liberal, the only way a Republican can win the nomination is by embracing the most extreme positions possible. Yet Mitt Romney, widely perceived as a weak frontrunner, is still polling well in primary states like South Carolina and New Hampshire (though he seems to have given up on Iowa). That’s despite his record on health reform and his refusal to embrace the absurd conservative idea that global warming is a hoax.
The Republican base has shown itself to be more practical than expected in the past. Despite Senator John McCain’s apostasies — his support for immigration reform, opposition to the Bush tax cuts, and his championing of campaign finance reform — he nevertheless ended up being the Republican standard-bearer in 2008. He wasn’t Rush Limbaugh’s preferred candidate, but when it finally came time to cast a ballot Rush had the same single vote as everyone else.
How Would Weiner do Before the House Ethics Committee?
Not well apparently:
The panel that would investigate Weiner’s sexually charged online relationships is stacked with Southern, swift-justice Christian conservatives unlikely to relate to a sexting, swearing New Yorker, and liberal Democrats who have dedicated their careers to protecting the rights of women, both in the workplace and online. If Weiner wants to save his hide, he might have more luck in front of an old-fashioned firing squad.
Follow these links for more information on the House Ethics Committee
- Wikipedia.
- Official Website.
- Times Topics.
The panel that would investigate Weiner’s sexually charged online relationships is stacked with Southern, swift-justice Christian conservatives unlikely to relate to a sexting, swearing New Yorker, and liberal Democrats who have dedicated their careers to protecting the rights of women, both in the workplace and online. If Weiner wants to save his hide, he might have more luck in front of an old-fashioned firing squad.
Follow these links for more information on the House Ethics Committee
- Wikipedia.
- Official Website.
- Times Topics.
Can Americans Govern Themselves?
An ongoing question. Here's a doubter:
E.J. Dionne:
. . . the Weiner episode marked the culmination of several months during which other sideshows involving outrageous male behavior — John Ensign and John Edwards come to mind — dominated news coverage at a moment when our country’s future really is on the line. (Bill Clinton’s scandal played out when we were in very good shape, which is one reason he survived.)
Add to this the political media’s tendency to prefer covering personalities that the media created in the first place (Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, above all) to those taking the trouble of running for president and thinking through what they want to say. It’s another case of politicians being reduced (or, maybe, reducing themselves) to celebrities.
I have no particular sympathy for the political views of Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty or Rick Santorum, but at least the three of them are doing the hard work that democratic politics requires. Thus: Palin’s unusual comments about Paul Revere got far more attention than did Pawlenty’s economic speech this week. It fell to policy bloggers such as The Post’s Ezra Klein to take Pawlenty’s ideas apart. Thus: Palin’s bus trip to the New Hampshire seacoast got at least as much attention as Romney’s announcement of a real, live candidacy.
E.J. Dionne:
. . . the Weiner episode marked the culmination of several months during which other sideshows involving outrageous male behavior — John Ensign and John Edwards come to mind — dominated news coverage at a moment when our country’s future really is on the line. (Bill Clinton’s scandal played out when we were in very good shape, which is one reason he survived.)
Add to this the political media’s tendency to prefer covering personalities that the media created in the first place (Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, above all) to those taking the trouble of running for president and thinking through what they want to say. It’s another case of politicians being reduced (or, maybe, reducing themselves) to celebrities.
I have no particular sympathy for the political views of Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty or Rick Santorum, but at least the three of them are doing the hard work that democratic politics requires. Thus: Palin’s unusual comments about Paul Revere got far more attention than did Pawlenty’s economic speech this week. It fell to policy bloggers such as The Post’s Ezra Klein to take Pawlenty’s ideas apart. Thus: Palin’s bus trip to the New Hampshire seacoast got at least as much attention as Romney’s announcement of a real, live candidacy.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Federalism and Planned Parenthood
The latest conflict between the national and state governments appears to be over Planned Parenthood:
GOP lawmakers have gone to great lengths to force Planned Parenthood out of Texas’ Medicaid Women’s Health Program, which provides family planning and reproductive health care — but not abortions — for more than 100,000 low-income women every year. They’ve considered legislation and passed budget riders. They’ve asked for opinions from the Texas attorney general. A hearing at the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) Thursday is expected to try to seal the deal by clarifying regulatory language to exclude Planned Parenthood from the state program.
But the Obama administration may have headed off their plans. Last week, federal officials shot down an Indiana plan to prohibit the use of Medicaid funds — the joint state/federal dollars that cover poor children, pregnant women and the disabled — at Planned Parenthood clinics. And the director of the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) sent a memo to all 50 states reminding them that while Medicaid doesn’t fund abortions, Medicaid programs can’t exclude health care providers who offer them. States who don't comply could risk the loss of federal Medicaid funds.
GOP lawmakers have gone to great lengths to force Planned Parenthood out of Texas’ Medicaid Women’s Health Program, which provides family planning and reproductive health care — but not abortions — for more than 100,000 low-income women every year. They’ve considered legislation and passed budget riders. They’ve asked for opinions from the Texas attorney general. A hearing at the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) Thursday is expected to try to seal the deal by clarifying regulatory language to exclude Planned Parenthood from the state program.
But the Obama administration may have headed off their plans. Last week, federal officials shot down an Indiana plan to prohibit the use of Medicaid funds — the joint state/federal dollars that cover poor children, pregnant women and the disabled — at Planned Parenthood clinics. And the director of the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) sent a memo to all 50 states reminding them that while Medicaid doesn’t fund abortions, Medicaid programs can’t exclude health care providers who offer them. States who don't comply could risk the loss of federal Medicaid funds.
From the Hill: FCC chairman agrees to strike Fairness Doctrine from rule books
This is huge news. Republicans have been pushing for this change for years:
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said his agency will remove the Fairness Doctrine from the rule books in response to a recent request from House Republicans.
"I fully support deleting the Fairness Doctrine and related provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations, so that there can be no mistake that what has been a dead letter is truly dead," Genachowski wrote in a letter Monday to House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
"I look forward to effectuating this change when acting on the staff's recommendations and anticipate that the process can be completed in the near future."
Genachowski has frequently voiced his opposition to the rule, which required broadcasters to cover controversial public issues in a manner deemed fair and balanced by the FCC.
The commission stopped enforcing the rule in 1987 after concluding it was unconstitutional, but in recent years some Democrats have suggested reviving the policy in response to the increasingly partisan nature of cable news.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said his agency will remove the Fairness Doctrine from the rule books in response to a recent request from House Republicans.
"I fully support deleting the Fairness Doctrine and related provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations, so that there can be no mistake that what has been a dead letter is truly dead," Genachowski wrote in a letter Monday to House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
"I look forward to effectuating this change when acting on the staff's recommendations and anticipate that the process can be completed in the near future."
Genachowski has frequently voiced his opposition to the rule, which required broadcasters to cover controversial public issues in a manner deemed fair and balanced by the FCC.
The commission stopped enforcing the rule in 1987 after concluding it was unconstitutional, but in recent years some Democrats have suggested reviving the policy in response to the increasingly partisan nature of cable news.
Texas lawmakers OK changes to hurricane insurance
From the Chron, an example of a Texas Legislative Committee in action:
AUSTIN — Lawmakers approved big changes Tuesday to the insurance authority that covers coastal residents in case of a hurricane.
The House Insurance Committee passed a bill overhauling the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association. Gov. Rick Perry put the matter on the special session's agenda, saying he hoped it would be passed before another hurricane hits. The bill now goes to the full House for consideration and if approved, on to the Senate.
The association is a nonprofit, state-supervised insurer of last resort for people who can't get private property insurance. The organization is subsidized with mandatory dues from for-profit insurance companies.
Following Hurricane Rita, there were numerous allegations of collusion between claims adjusters and the association. More than 1,900 policyholders sued the association for failing to pay for legitimate damages. The Texas Department of Insurance placed the association under administrative oversight in February.
The most controversial part of the bill would limit how much a property owner could win in punitive damages if the nonprofit association doesn't fulfill its obligation for coverage. The proposed bill would eliminate claims for punitive damages. Trial attorneys and advocacy groups have opposed that provision.
AUSTIN — Lawmakers approved big changes Tuesday to the insurance authority that covers coastal residents in case of a hurricane.
The House Insurance Committee passed a bill overhauling the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association. Gov. Rick Perry put the matter on the special session's agenda, saying he hoped it would be passed before another hurricane hits. The bill now goes to the full House for consideration and if approved, on to the Senate.
The association is a nonprofit, state-supervised insurer of last resort for people who can't get private property insurance. The organization is subsidized with mandatory dues from for-profit insurance companies.
Following Hurricane Rita, there were numerous allegations of collusion between claims adjusters and the association. More than 1,900 policyholders sued the association for failing to pay for legitimate damages. The Texas Department of Insurance placed the association under administrative oversight in February.
The most controversial part of the bill would limit how much a property owner could win in punitive damages if the nonprofit association doesn't fulfill its obligation for coverage. The proposed bill would eliminate claims for punitive damages. Trial attorneys and advocacy groups have opposed that provision.
From the Texas Tribune: Can a Governor's Veto Be Overturned After Sine Die?
The answer appears to be: We don't really know.
This year, there are some questions about whether lawmakers might be able to override Gov. Rick Perry’s May 31 veto of HB 2403, a bill that would have allowed the state to collect online sales taxes (from retailers like Amazon). After all, they never had a break and started a special session the day right after the regular session ended.
The question is open to interpretation, but officials in the governor’s office tell the Tribune they do not believe the Legislature can defy Perry’s veto during this special session. Why? The officials say the bill was filed and passed during the regular session. Since that regular session is over, the governor sent the vetoed measure straight to the secretary of state’s office rather than the House, where the bill was created. In a special session, lawmakers can only vote on issues that are included in the governor’s call. In this case, Perry sets the agenda, and lawmakers can’t address issues he leaves out of the call.
This year, there are some questions about whether lawmakers might be able to override Gov. Rick Perry’s May 31 veto of HB 2403, a bill that would have allowed the state to collect online sales taxes (from retailers like Amazon). After all, they never had a break and started a special session the day right after the regular session ended.
The question is open to interpretation, but officials in the governor’s office tell the Tribune they do not believe the Legislature can defy Perry’s veto during this special session. Why? The officials say the bill was filed and passed during the regular session. Since that regular session is over, the governor sent the vetoed measure straight to the secretary of state’s office rather than the House, where the bill was created. In a special session, lawmakers can only vote on issues that are included in the governor’s call. In this case, Perry sets the agenda, and lawmakers can’t address issues he leaves out of the call.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Friday, June 3, 2011
Obama v House v Senate
For 2302's written assignment, here are links to a couple places where you might find specific areas of controversy between these institutions. Both come from "Wonkbook" which I find to be a pretty good go-to source for general information about federal activities. These might help you with this week's written assignment.
1 - Moody's says it may downgrade US debt if the debt limit isn't increased, report Zachary Goldfarb and Felicia Sonmez: "Moody’s Investors Service warned Thursday that it may soon downgrade the U.S. credit rating because of mounting concerns that the government will default, adding new urgency to negotiations between President Obama and congressional Republicans over the nation’s debt. Moody’s, one of the premier credit-rating agencies, said that political gamesmanship over raising the government’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling has been worse than expected. If progress toward increasing the limit isn’t made by mid-July, Moody’s said it would take another step toward reducing the country’s top-of-the-line AAA rating by putting the United States under review for a possible downgrade."
2 - It's do-or-die time for many Obama nominees, report Abby Phillip and Josh Gerstein: "It’s crunch time for the White House to get key executive branch jobs filled before the end of President Barack Obama’s first term. Dozens of top posts in both the executive branch and the judiciary remain vacant, while some of those who started near the beginning of the administration are bailing out. Nominees who aren’t confirmed by the Senate by the end of this year likely will become tangled in election-year politics, given Republican hopes of taking the White House, the Senate or both. If Obama wants a good shot at getting his nominees through this year, Hill veterans say, names need to reach the Senate by the summer recess. Adding to the heightened urgency for action: Many of the unfilled posts deal with Obama’s major policy priorities, including financial regulatory reform, immigration and health care."
1 - Moody's says it may downgrade US debt if the debt limit isn't increased, report Zachary Goldfarb and Felicia Sonmez: "Moody’s Investors Service warned Thursday that it may soon downgrade the U.S. credit rating because of mounting concerns that the government will default, adding new urgency to negotiations between President Obama and congressional Republicans over the nation’s debt. Moody’s, one of the premier credit-rating agencies, said that political gamesmanship over raising the government’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling has been worse than expected. If progress toward increasing the limit isn’t made by mid-July, Moody’s said it would take another step toward reducing the country’s top-of-the-line AAA rating by putting the United States under review for a possible downgrade."
2 - It's do-or-die time for many Obama nominees, report Abby Phillip and Josh Gerstein: "It’s crunch time for the White House to get key executive branch jobs filled before the end of President Barack Obama’s first term. Dozens of top posts in both the executive branch and the judiciary remain vacant, while some of those who started near the beginning of the administration are bailing out. Nominees who aren’t confirmed by the Senate by the end of this year likely will become tangled in election-year politics, given Republican hopes of taking the White House, the Senate or both. If Obama wants a good shot at getting his nominees through this year, Hill veterans say, names need to reach the Senate by the summer recess. Adding to the heightened urgency for action: Many of the unfilled posts deal with Obama’s major policy priorities, including financial regulatory reform, immigration and health care."
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Is America Immune from Revolution?
The Daily Beast wonders.
The purpose behind regular elections and a house closely connected to the general population is to ensure that unrest in the general population is contained quickly and effectively. That doesn't mean it always will of course.
The purpose behind regular elections and a house closely connected to the general population is to ensure that unrest in the general population is contained quickly and effectively. That doesn't mean it always will of course.
From Salon: Welcome to Herman Cain's moment
Salon wonders if the recent rise of support for unlikely presidential candidate Herman Cain is due to recent changes in the media environment:
That Cain could rise so high in the polls so early in the process certainly speaks to the weakness of the current GOP field, and also to the unique appeal of his own story and message to Obama era Republicans (as Alex Pareene explained yesterday). But it also illustrates how significantly the online world and cable news has changed presidential politics.
. . . . It's infinitely easier for someone who would have previously been deemed a fringe candidate to gain exposure (and the credibility that comes with it) today. In Fox News, Republicans have found a cable news home. Unlike CNN 15 years ago, Fox needs a deep supply of Republican characters to keep its audience happy, so there's plenty of room for Herman Cain, and many others. Well-established blogs and conservative news sites can introduce and popularize new Republican faces and ideas overnight. Back in 1995, Keyes delivered countless speeches that mesmerized rooms with a few dozen Republican voters in them. If he was lucky, the speech would be televised by C-Span, bringing his message to a slightly wider world of conservatives. And once audiences watched the speech, that was it. There was no follow-up appearances on "Hannity" or "Fox and Friends," no uploading it to YouTube for others to see, no Googling Keyes' name and finding a trove of other speeches, videos and television appearances. In a world of viral videos and 24-hour cable news, the Alan Keyes of 1995 might have made the early charge we're now seeing from Cain.
That Cain could rise so high in the polls so early in the process certainly speaks to the weakness of the current GOP field, and also to the unique appeal of his own story and message to Obama era Republicans (as Alex Pareene explained yesterday). But it also illustrates how significantly the online world and cable news has changed presidential politics.
. . . . It's infinitely easier for someone who would have previously been deemed a fringe candidate to gain exposure (and the credibility that comes with it) today. In Fox News, Republicans have found a cable news home. Unlike CNN 15 years ago, Fox needs a deep supply of Republican characters to keep its audience happy, so there's plenty of room for Herman Cain, and many others. Well-established blogs and conservative news sites can introduce and popularize new Republican faces and ideas overnight. Back in 1995, Keyes delivered countless speeches that mesmerized rooms with a few dozen Republican voters in them. If he was lucky, the speech would be televised by C-Span, bringing his message to a slightly wider world of conservatives. And once audiences watched the speech, that was it. There was no follow-up appearances on "Hannity" or "Fox and Friends," no uploading it to YouTube for others to see, no Googling Keyes' name and finding a trove of other speeches, videos and television appearances. In a world of viral videos and 24-hour cable news, the Alan Keyes of 1995 might have made the early charge we're now seeing from Cain.
Authoritarianism in Equatorial New Guinea
For 2301, as we get comfortable with the various systems of government that exist around the world, here's an example of an authoritarian system: Equatorial New Guinea. The NYT points out that we have a tendency to work with authoritarian regimes depending on how doing so affects our strategic interests:
Officially and unofficially, Americans do business with one of the undisputed human rights global bad boys, Equatorial Guinea, Africa’s fourth biggest oil exporter. Its widely criticized record on basic freedoms has offered little barrier to broad engagement by the United States, commercially or diplomatically.
American oil companies have billions of dollars invested here. One American diplomat, using language that makes human rights advocates fume, praised the “mellowing, benign leadership” of the dictator in power for more than 30 years, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, in 2009 cables released by WikiLeaks. And a leading American military contractor with strong Pentagon ties has a multimillion-dollar contract to protect his shores and help train his forces.
The country is an example of a common occurrence: oil wealthy nations that are also among the world's poorest. Somehow the resources flow into the hands of the leadership and do little to address the needs of the poor. 2301's might also want to note that the current leader of the country was overwhelmingly reelected last year.
Officially and unofficially, Americans do business with one of the undisputed human rights global bad boys, Equatorial Guinea, Africa’s fourth biggest oil exporter. Its widely criticized record on basic freedoms has offered little barrier to broad engagement by the United States, commercially or diplomatically.
American oil companies have billions of dollars invested here. One American diplomat, using language that makes human rights advocates fume, praised the “mellowing, benign leadership” of the dictator in power for more than 30 years, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, in 2009 cables released by WikiLeaks. And a leading American military contractor with strong Pentagon ties has a multimillion-dollar contract to protect his shores and help train his forces.
The country is an example of a common occurrence: oil wealthy nations that are also among the world's poorest. Somehow the resources flow into the hands of the leadership and do little to address the needs of the poor. 2301's might also want to note that the current leader of the country was overwhelmingly reelected last year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)