Sunday, July 31, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
How would the Supreme Court rule if Obama uses the 14th Amendment to borrow money if the debt ceiling is not raised?
A few previous posts have highlighted the ongoing dispute concerning the language in the 14th Amendment which mandates that the full faith and credit of the US should be maintained and whether this means that Obama can go ahead and keep borrowing money to meet obligations.
So what if he does and a challenge to that action is brought up in court?
There is reason to believe that the Supreme Court may not even rule on that case since few if any people will be able to state that they have standing before the court:
When it comes to Congress’s ability to stop the Obama administration from ignoring the debt ceiling, legal experts note that the first obstacle standing in its way is the question of standing, or whether a certain party has the right to sue over an issue in the first place. Jonathan Zasloff, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who has discussed this idea on a blog that he writes with several other academics, told me that while an order from the president for the Treasury Department to continue issuing new debt sounded extreme, it was unclear who could prove sufficient injury from the decision that would qualify the person to sue the administration in court. “Who has some kind of particularized injury, in fact?” Zasloff asked, and he could not come up with a satisfying answer.
Part of the reason for Zasloff’s difficulty in identifying an appropriate plaintiff is that members of Congress have tried before to sue the president for diminishing their legislative and appropriating power and have typically failed. . . .
Even if they do decide to hear it, past voting records and philosophies suggest that Most justices - with the exception of Thomas - would side with the president.
A post in Volock Conspiracy argues that a recently decided Supreme Court decision might provide an opportunity for standing to be granted.
All this aside, Andrew Sullivan seems to think this is all an impeachment trap.
So what if he does and a challenge to that action is brought up in court?
There is reason to believe that the Supreme Court may not even rule on that case since few if any people will be able to state that they have standing before the court:
When it comes to Congress’s ability to stop the Obama administration from ignoring the debt ceiling, legal experts note that the first obstacle standing in its way is the question of standing, or whether a certain party has the right to sue over an issue in the first place. Jonathan Zasloff, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who has discussed this idea on a blog that he writes with several other academics, told me that while an order from the president for the Treasury Department to continue issuing new debt sounded extreme, it was unclear who could prove sufficient injury from the decision that would qualify the person to sue the administration in court. “Who has some kind of particularized injury, in fact?” Zasloff asked, and he could not come up with a satisfying answer.
Part of the reason for Zasloff’s difficulty in identifying an appropriate plaintiff is that members of Congress have tried before to sue the president for diminishing their legislative and appropriating power and have typically failed. . . .
Even if they do decide to hear it, past voting records and philosophies suggest that Most justices - with the exception of Thomas - would side with the president.
A post in Volock Conspiracy argues that a recently decided Supreme Court decision might provide an opportunity for standing to be granted.
All this aside, Andrew Sullivan seems to think this is all an impeachment trap.
Does Congress Deserve an A?
Here's a reminder that Congress - even though it has the responsibility to pass laws - is actually set up to make this very, very difficult:
What if Congress is working precisely as designed?
Suppose the purpose of Congress is not to pass laws but to stymie the passage of laws. To be precise, what if the purpose of Congress is to provide us with maximum theater while delivering the least number of new laws? In this alternate universe, we should expect a congressional landscape littered with good initiatives that have gone nowhere. Check. We should expect to see ideologues on both sides deeply disappointed that after all the time and effort they spend campaigning and winning elections, so little of what they want actually happens. Check. We'd expect that the issues on which Congress is decisive are mostly empty and symbolic. Check again.
What if Congress is working precisely as designed?
Suppose the purpose of Congress is not to pass laws but to stymie the passage of laws. To be precise, what if the purpose of Congress is to provide us with maximum theater while delivering the least number of new laws? In this alternate universe, we should expect a congressional landscape littered with good initiatives that have gone nowhere. Check. We should expect to see ideologues on both sides deeply disappointed that after all the time and effort they spend campaigning and winning elections, so little of what they want actually happens. Check. We'd expect that the issues on which Congress is decisive are mostly empty and symbolic. Check again.
Thoughts on Media Bias
If you have the stamina, this is a terrific analysis of a book which purports to measure liberal bias among journalists. It also touches on the ideological bias of various other institutions and professions, and perhaps most important, how we determine whether they are in fact biased. How does one measure bias?
Friday, July 29, 2011
Recession impact revised, it was worse than thought
From the NYT:
Data revisions going back to 2003 . . . showed that the 2007-2009 recession was deeper, and the recovery to date weaker, than originally estimated. Indeed, the latest figures show that the nation’s economy is still smaller than it was in 2007, when the Great Recession officially began.
Data revisions going back to 2003 . . . showed that the 2007-2009 recession was deeper, and the recovery to date weaker, than originally estimated. Indeed, the latest figures show that the nation’s economy is still smaller than it was in 2007, when the Great Recession officially began.
Ranking the Presidents by G.D.P.
From the NYT, a ranking of president since and including Eisenhower based on GDP growth while in office:
They are listed in reverse order of growth.
Barack Obama, 1.2% annual G.D.P. growth rate (previously 1.5%)
George W. Bush, 1.6% (previously 1.7%)
George H.W. Bush, 2.1%
Gerald Ford, 2.2%
Dwight Eisenhower, 2.5%
Richard Nixon, 3.0%
Jimmy Carter, 3.2%
Ronald Reagan, 3.5%
Bill Clinton, 3.8%
Lyndon B. Johnson, 5.0%
John F. Kennedy, 5.4%
They are listed in reverse order of growth.
Barack Obama, 1.2% annual G.D.P. growth rate (previously 1.5%)
George W. Bush, 1.6% (previously 1.7%)
George H.W. Bush, 2.1%
Gerald Ford, 2.2%
Dwight Eisenhower, 2.5%
Richard Nixon, 3.0%
Jimmy Carter, 3.2%
Ronald Reagan, 3.5%
Bill Clinton, 3.8%
Lyndon B. Johnson, 5.0%
John F. Kennedy, 5.4%
Lay Judgments of Judicial Decision-Making
Here's an article exploring how lay people (you and me) evaluate judicial decision-making.
Debt Ceiling Rumble: Business vs. the Tea Party
Debt Ceiling Rumble: Business vs. the Tea Party
Here's more analysis of a key division within the Republican Party. So far, theTea Party faction seems to be winning the debt ceiling debate.
Here's more analysis of a key division within the Republican Party. So far, theTea Party faction seems to be winning the debt ceiling debate.
Judge tosses atheists' lawsuit over Perry rally
If you read this Chron story, you'll notice that the judge did not rule on the merit of the argument - is it in fact a violation of church and state for the governor to be involved and promoting this event - but the fact that the people who brought the suit lacked standing to do so in the state of Texas. The actual argument regarding whether this is or isn't problematic may not be resolved, but here's a link to the group's complaint.
Which of the following is protected speech?
Volokh Conspiracy highlights a few current disputes about what is and is not protected speech:
- Displaying plastic testicles on the back of a car.
- Leaving nasty phone messages.
- Barking at a police dog.
- Soliciting or advocating criminal activity.
- Displaying plastic testicles on the back of a car.
- Leaving nasty phone messages.
- Barking at a police dog.
- Soliciting or advocating criminal activity.
What does "the freedom of" mean?
This is a terrific little article. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech or of the press" among other things. Note that it doesn't say that Congress shall make no law abridging speech of the press absolutely. So any abridgement has to comply with some understanding of what "the freedom of" means.
From the article:
. . . nearly everyone, as best I can tell, saw “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press” as providing less than complete constitutional protection for spoken or printed words. And this suggests that the term “freedom of” referred to some understanding that there is a proper scope of such freedom (even if the scope was unsettled in some particulars), rather to unlimited freedom to say or print anything one pleases. It’s much like, if tomorrow a state enacted a law protecting “the freedom to marry,” we probably wouldn’t think that it means the freedom to marry a 10-year-old, or the freedom to marry one’s daughter, or (depending on the circumstances) even the freedom to marry several people at once. “The freedom to marry” would be seen as referring to a broad but not unlimited concept that is less than the freedom to marry anyone one pleases.
This adds to our discussion of the balance of civil liberties versus the greater interest of society in 2301 - and to a degree to our discussion of how the judiciary acts in 2302 - in addition to the general question of what the Constitution in fact means and how we come to a determination of that meaning.
From the article:
. . . nearly everyone, as best I can tell, saw “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press” as providing less than complete constitutional protection for spoken or printed words. And this suggests that the term “freedom of” referred to some understanding that there is a proper scope of such freedom (even if the scope was unsettled in some particulars), rather to unlimited freedom to say or print anything one pleases. It’s much like, if tomorrow a state enacted a law protecting “the freedom to marry,” we probably wouldn’t think that it means the freedom to marry a 10-year-old, or the freedom to marry one’s daughter, or (depending on the circumstances) even the freedom to marry several people at once. “The freedom to marry” would be seen as referring to a broad but not unlimited concept that is less than the freedom to marry anyone one pleases.
This adds to our discussion of the balance of civil liberties versus the greater interest of society in 2301 - and to a degree to our discussion of how the judiciary acts in 2302 - in addition to the general question of what the Constitution in fact means and how we come to a determination of that meaning.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
About Those Credit Agencies
Some background on the credit agencies that threaten to downgrade the U.S.'s credit rating, which in turn will likely raise interest rates across the board. From the Daily Beast:
How did it come to this—that a trio of private-sector companies could wield such enormous influence? More specifically, a trio that has proven chronically behind the curve, analytically compromised, and complicit in the financial crisis of 2008–09 as well as the more recent euro-zone debt dilemmas? Somehow, these inept groups again find themselves destabilizing the global system in the name of preserving it.
While there are more than 100 credit-rating agencies worldwide, three—Moody’s, Fitch, and Standard & Poor’s—occupy their own particular universe, the products of a New Deal ruling from the SEC that enshrined "nationally recognized statistical rating organizations” to ensure that the bonds held by insurance companies, banks, and broker-dealers were appropriate for their capital requirements.
From this well-intended decision, three new private-sector firms attained the status of government regulators but with none of the oversight
Andrew Sullivan speculates that our credit rating may be toast.
For info about each:
- Moody's.
- Fitch.
- Standard and Poor's.
How did it come to this—that a trio of private-sector companies could wield such enormous influence? More specifically, a trio that has proven chronically behind the curve, analytically compromised, and complicit in the financial crisis of 2008–09 as well as the more recent euro-zone debt dilemmas? Somehow, these inept groups again find themselves destabilizing the global system in the name of preserving it.
While there are more than 100 credit-rating agencies worldwide, three—Moody’s, Fitch, and Standard & Poor’s—occupy their own particular universe, the products of a New Deal ruling from the SEC that enshrined "nationally recognized statistical rating organizations” to ensure that the bonds held by insurance companies, banks, and broker-dealers were appropriate for their capital requirements.
From this well-intended decision, three new private-sector firms attained the status of government regulators but with none of the oversight
Andrew Sullivan speculates that our credit rating may be toast.
For info about each:
- Moody's.
- Fitch.
- Standard and Poor's.
Patent Trolls
The Constitution - as we all should know by now - allows Congress to pass laws providing patent and copyright protection. People have exclusive ownership of these items for a limited time. The intent is to encourage people to invent products with the assumption that they will be driven by the promise of making money off them.
Recent attention has been paid to a new breed of litigant - a patent troll - who acquire patents and then hunt around and try to find people they think might be violating it. There are questions about whether this practice might actually inhibit innovation, which can defeat the entire purpose of the patent clause.
- Patent Troll on Steroids: How America’s Patent System May Hurt Innovation.
- When Patents Attack.
Recent attention has been paid to a new breed of litigant - a patent troll - who acquire patents and then hunt around and try to find people they think might be violating it. There are questions about whether this practice might actually inhibit innovation, which can defeat the entire purpose of the patent clause.
- Patent Troll on Steroids: How America’s Patent System May Hurt Innovation.
- When Patents Attack.
Weber for Congress? And what exactly is an Exploratory Committee?
Now that Ron Paul has announced that he will not run for Congress in 2012, our state representative Randy Weber - who has built some name recognition by running for and serving in the legislature for the past three sessions - is taking "the necessary steps to form an Exploratory Committee for US Congress to gauge his support for a race."
- What is an exploratory committee?
- The Atlantic.
- Huffington Post.
- Perry doesn't need one.
- What is an exploratory committee?
- The Atlantic.
- Huffington Post.
- Perry doesn't need one.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Nearly 4,000 Post Offices Might Close
From the NYT, a story about how the post office plans to adjust the realities of the digital age.
The financially beleaguered Postal Service announced Tuesday that it would consider closing more than 3,600 of its 32,000 post offices.
Continuing efforts to reduce costs by shrinking the organization’s retail network and work force, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe released a list of the targeted offices, which are primarily in rural locations and produce little revenue. There will be a 60-day comment period before the Postal Service makes a final decision, which can be appealed to the Postal Regulatory Commission.
In communities that lose post offices, the Postal Service may outsource basic services, like selling stamps and shipping flat-rate packages, to local businesses like pharmacies and groceries, Mr. Donahoe said.
“The Postal Service of the future will be smaller, leaner and more competitive,” he said in a statement.
The post office is one of the few agencies that can trace itself to a delegated constitutional power. As we argue in both 2301 and 2302, the post office has served a commercial function since its early days by providing cheap means of sending items from any address in the nation to any other. A perennial question is whether this service is too cheap.
- 21st Century Coalition: Focusing the Impact of the Mailing Industry In a Time of Crisis
The financially beleaguered Postal Service announced Tuesday that it would consider closing more than 3,600 of its 32,000 post offices.
Continuing efforts to reduce costs by shrinking the organization’s retail network and work force, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe released a list of the targeted offices, which are primarily in rural locations and produce little revenue. There will be a 60-day comment period before the Postal Service makes a final decision, which can be appealed to the Postal Regulatory Commission.
In communities that lose post offices, the Postal Service may outsource basic services, like selling stamps and shipping flat-rate packages, to local businesses like pharmacies and groceries, Mr. Donahoe said.
“The Postal Service of the future will be smaller, leaner and more competitive,” he said in a statement.
The post office is one of the few agencies that can trace itself to a delegated constitutional power. As we argue in both 2301 and 2302, the post office has served a commercial function since its early days by providing cheap means of sending items from any address in the nation to any other. A perennial question is whether this service is too cheap.
- 21st Century Coalition: Focusing the Impact of the Mailing Industry In a Time of Crisis
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Study Shows Racial Wealth Gap Grows Wider
From NPR:
There's long been a big gap between the wealth of white families and the wealth of African-Americans and Hispanics. But the Great Recession has made it much worse — the divide is almost twice what it used to be.
That's according to a new study by the Pew Research Center, which says that the decline in the housing market is the main cause.
The numbers are astounding. The median wealth of a white family in 2009 was 20 times greater than that of the average black family, and 18 times greater than the average Hispanic family. In other words, the average white family had $113,149 in net worth, compared to $6,325 for Hispanics and $5,677 for blacks.
That's the largest gap since the government began collecting the data a quarter of a century ago, and twice what it was before the start of the Great Recession.
Click here for the study from the Pew center.
There's long been a big gap between the wealth of white families and the wealth of African-Americans and Hispanics. But the Great Recession has made it much worse — the divide is almost twice what it used to be.
That's according to a new study by the Pew Research Center, which says that the decline in the housing market is the main cause.
The numbers are astounding. The median wealth of a white family in 2009 was 20 times greater than that of the average black family, and 18 times greater than the average Hispanic family. In other words, the average white family had $113,149 in net worth, compared to $6,325 for Hispanics and $5,677 for blacks.
That's the largest gap since the government began collecting the data a quarter of a century ago, and twice what it was before the start of the Great Recession.
Click here for the study from the Pew center.
After Aiding Republicans, Business Groups Press Them on Debt Ceiling
From the NYT, an example of interest group pressure on the legislature, perhaps the most potent of the interest groups.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent millions of dollars last year helping elect Republicans to Congressional seats, is struggling to convince the House it helped to build that the debt ceiling must be increased.
The chamber and other business groups have pressed with increasing urgency for Congress to raise the maximum amount that the government can borrow. They have cataloged the consequences of default at meetings, parties and dinners and over drinks.
On Tuesday, the chamber threw its weight behind the proposal of the House speaker, John A. Boehner, telling recalcitrant Republicans that a pending vote on the plan was a with-us-or-against-us moment that would be remembered during the next election campaign.
I find the last sentence to be striking. The next part of the story highlights a growing tension within the Republican Party:
But as the government runs out of money, those efforts have not produced the desired result. The freshman class of House Republicans, along with longer-serving members, is balking at Mr. Boehner’s plan, let alone anything that Senate Democrats and the White House might be willing to accept.
The tension highlights the distance between the pro-business stalwarts of the traditional Republican Party and the populism of its newer representatives, many of whom seem to view Wall Street and Washington with equal suspicion.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent millions of dollars last year helping elect Republicans to Congressional seats, is struggling to convince the House it helped to build that the debt ceiling must be increased.
The chamber and other business groups have pressed with increasing urgency for Congress to raise the maximum amount that the government can borrow. They have cataloged the consequences of default at meetings, parties and dinners and over drinks.
On Tuesday, the chamber threw its weight behind the proposal of the House speaker, John A. Boehner, telling recalcitrant Republicans that a pending vote on the plan was a with-us-or-against-us moment that would be remembered during the next election campaign.
I find the last sentence to be striking. The next part of the story highlights a growing tension within the Republican Party:
But as the government runs out of money, those efforts have not produced the desired result. The freshman class of House Republicans, along with longer-serving members, is balking at Mr. Boehner’s plan, let alone anything that Senate Democrats and the White House might be willing to accept.
The tension highlights the distance between the pro-business stalwarts of the traditional Republican Party and the populism of its newer representatives, many of whom seem to view Wall Street and Washington with equal suspicion.
Unemployment Discrimination
Apparently applicants are being denied consideration for jobs due to being unemployed. The question is whether this is type of discrimination is a civil rights violation subject to redress.
- Manpower Blog: Unemployment Discrimination?
- EEOC Holds Public Hearing on Unemployment Discrimination.
- FAQ: The Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
- Discriminating Against the Unemployed.
- Manpower Blog: Unemployment Discrimination?
- EEOC Holds Public Hearing on Unemployment Discrimination.
- FAQ: The Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
- Discriminating Against the Unemployed.
Transportation as a Civil Rights Issue
From Wired, a provocative claim:
Many things come to mind when you think about transportation: Traffic, congestion, mass transit and the cost of fuel, to name a few. You might also think about the economy, urban planning and the environment. Yet one thing often is left out of the discussion: civil rights.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights lays out the case for transportation as a civil right in a report, Where We Need to Go: A Civil Rights Roadmap for Transportation Equity.
The way the conference sees it, access to transportation is key to connecting the poor, seniors and those with disabilities to jobs, schools, health care and other resources. It is essential to widening opportunities for all. Many of us take our mobility for granted, but getting around can be a real challenge for millions of Americans.
Many things come to mind when you think about transportation: Traffic, congestion, mass transit and the cost of fuel, to name a few. You might also think about the economy, urban planning and the environment. Yet one thing often is left out of the discussion: civil rights.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights lays out the case for transportation as a civil right in a report, Where We Need to Go: A Civil Rights Roadmap for Transportation Equity.
The way the conference sees it, access to transportation is key to connecting the poor, seniors and those with disabilities to jobs, schools, health care and other resources. It is essential to widening opportunities for all. Many of us take our mobility for granted, but getting around can be a real challenge for millions of Americans.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Imaginative Constitutional Histories, Executive Unilateralism, and the Debt Ceiling
From Balkinization, more thoughts about presidential power during a time of crisis, such as the possibility that Congress might allow the nation to default on its debt.
The author points out that previous presidents - Lincoln and FDR, though there were others - had to wrestle with situations where massive damage could have been done to the nation through perfectly constitutional and legal means. They choose to do the (probably) unconstitutional thing, in order to maintain the constitutional and economic system.
Its an interesting question. In order to preserve the constitution, might a president have to - on extraordinary occasions, violate it?
A side note: Should we just get rid of the debt ceiling?
- Smash the Ceiling
- How we got into this fine mess
The author points out that previous presidents - Lincoln and FDR, though there were others - had to wrestle with situations where massive damage could have been done to the nation through perfectly constitutional and legal means. They choose to do the (probably) unconstitutional thing, in order to maintain the constitutional and economic system.
Its an interesting question. In order to preserve the constitution, might a president have to - on extraordinary occasions, violate it?
A side note: Should we just get rid of the debt ceiling?
- Smash the Ceiling
- How we got into this fine mess
A Liberal Reads the Great Conservative Works
A nice brief interview in the National Review which helps lay out one man's understanding of the difference between liberalism and conservatism:
. . . what separates us at the most fundamental level may be our different conceptions of liberty. Conservatives value above all else what Berlin called the negative vision of liberty, namely, freedom from coercion. Liberals are more willing to balance that against the positive vision of liberty — that is, having a reasonable opportunity to realize one’s potential. The negative vision focuses conservatives on restricting the government’s ability to interfere in people’s lives. The positive vision leads liberals to believe that government has a role in guaranteeing baseline minimums in education, medical care, and healthy communities. Most of us probably accept both visions to some extent, but how we balance the two may be built into our DNA. It is not to be expected, therefore, that a liberal will be converted by reading the great works of conservatism, or vice versa. But there are rewards to be gained from doing so nonetheless. Often, we get a better understanding of what we believe by reading about a philosophy with which we have disagreements than by reading congenial literature. More important, reading its great works helps us better understand — and respect — the other side. That, at least, has been my experience.
. . . what separates us at the most fundamental level may be our different conceptions of liberty. Conservatives value above all else what Berlin called the negative vision of liberty, namely, freedom from coercion. Liberals are more willing to balance that against the positive vision of liberty — that is, having a reasonable opportunity to realize one’s potential. The negative vision focuses conservatives on restricting the government’s ability to interfere in people’s lives. The positive vision leads liberals to believe that government has a role in guaranteeing baseline minimums in education, medical care, and healthy communities. Most of us probably accept both visions to some extent, but how we balance the two may be built into our DNA. It is not to be expected, therefore, that a liberal will be converted by reading the great works of conservatism, or vice versa. But there are rewards to be gained from doing so nonetheless. Often, we get a better understanding of what we believe by reading about a philosophy with which we have disagreements than by reading congenial literature. More important, reading its great works helps us better understand — and respect — the other side. That, at least, has been my experience.
A Cold Civil War?
That's what Andrew Sullivan thinks we're going through right now. He thinks Republicans are focused on destroying Obama's presidency and are willing to sacrifice the economy in order to do it. They seem to have gotten everything they want in the debt ceiling show-down, but "can't take yes for an answer."
Not that party polarization is argued to be one of the driving forces leading the antagonism.
Not that party polarization is argued to be one of the driving forces leading the antagonism.
Behind Battle Over Debt, a War Over Government
From the NYT, the battle over the debt ceiling is simply the latest battle over the larger question of the size scope and purpose of government - especially the national government.
Republicans have shown that their higher priority is not lower deficits, as it was for the party through most of the last century, but a smaller government. House Republicans in the spring passed a plan that would not balance the budget for three decades despite deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid — largely because it also deeply cut taxes, adding debt.
For Republicans, “reducing the deficit implies tax increases, or the possibility of tax increases, and that’s not something they want to do under any circumstances because it doesn’t suit their political needs,” said Stan Collender, a longtime federal budget analyst and a partner at Qorvis Communications.
The party’s dynamic in the debt talks reflects the culmination of a 30-year evolution in Republican thinking, dating to the start of President Ronald Reagan’s administration. The change is from emphasizing balanced budgets — or at least lower deficits — to what tax-cutting conservatives have called “starve the beast,” that is, cut taxes and force government to shrink.
Republicans have shown that their higher priority is not lower deficits, as it was for the party through most of the last century, but a smaller government. House Republicans in the spring passed a plan that would not balance the budget for three decades despite deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid — largely because it also deeply cut taxes, adding debt.
For Republicans, “reducing the deficit implies tax increases, or the possibility of tax increases, and that’s not something they want to do under any circumstances because it doesn’t suit their political needs,” said Stan Collender, a longtime federal budget analyst and a partner at Qorvis Communications.
The party’s dynamic in the debt talks reflects the culmination of a 30-year evolution in Republican thinking, dating to the start of President Ronald Reagan’s administration. The change is from emphasizing balanced budgets — or at least lower deficits — to what tax-cutting conservatives have called “starve the beast,” that is, cut taxes and force government to shrink.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
'Super Congress': Debt Ceiling Negotiators Aim To Create New Legislative Body
I have no idea what this is about.
Debt ceiling negotiators think they've hit on a solution to address the debt ceiling impasse and the public's unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work: Create a new Congress.
This "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.
Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has made a Super Congress a central part of his last-minute proposal, multiple news reports and people familiar with his plan say.
Debt ceiling negotiators think they've hit on a solution to address the debt ceiling impasse and the public's unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work: Create a new Congress.
This "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.
Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has made a Super Congress a central part of his last-minute proposal, multiple news reports and people familiar with his plan say.
Unfavorable Ratings for Both Major Parties Near Record Highs
From Nate Silver, commentary on the results of a new CNN poll on political parties:
A new CNN poll finds that 55 percent of voters have a negative view of the Republican Party, tied for their second-highest unfavorable score since CNN began asking this question in 1992. The Republicans also achieved a 55 percent unfavorable rating in a poll conducted in April 2009, although the party’s all-time high, 57 percent, was recorded as the House of Representatives was in the process of impeaching Bill Clinton in December, 1998.
The news for Democrats is not any better. Some 49 percent of voters now hold a negative view of the party, according to the poll. Although this figure is slightly better than for Republicans, it matches the Democrats’ record high unfavorable rating of September 2010 and is part of an upward trajectory that has persisted for the past three years.
The combined unfavorable score for both parties — 104 percent — is also a record, and represents the first time that the figure has been above 100.
A new CNN poll finds that 55 percent of voters have a negative view of the Republican Party, tied for their second-highest unfavorable score since CNN began asking this question in 1992. The Republicans also achieved a 55 percent unfavorable rating in a poll conducted in April 2009, although the party’s all-time high, 57 percent, was recorded as the House of Representatives was in the process of impeaching Bill Clinton in December, 1998.
The news for Democrats is not any better. Some 49 percent of voters now hold a negative view of the party, according to the poll. Although this figure is slightly better than for Republicans, it matches the Democrats’ record high unfavorable rating of September 2010 and is part of an upward trajectory that has persisted for the past three years.
The combined unfavorable score for both parties — 104 percent — is also a record, and represents the first time that the figure has been above 100.
Polarized Parties
Given the current stalemate on raising the debt ceiling, and the degree to which it might be due to the fact that neither party has any incentive to compromise with each other since they are each dominated by ideologues who have little in common with other, it makes sense to use this as background for this week's written assignment for my 2301 11 week class. We are covering political parties this week, so the topic is relevant.
I'll have the precise question on backboard soon. I want you to click on the blog tag labelled "party polarization" for background on the topic, but here are a few additional posts to help out:
- Why political polarization has gone wild in America (and what to do about it)
- Polarized America.
- Party polarization is not the same as ideological polarization.
- Can a Polarized American Party System Be “Healthy”?
- Debating the Causes of Party Polarization in America
I'll have the precise question on backboard soon. I want you to click on the blog tag labelled "party polarization" for background on the topic, but here are a few additional posts to help out:
- Why political polarization has gone wild in America (and what to do about it)
- Polarized America.
- Party polarization is not the same as ideological polarization.
- Can a Polarized American Party System Be “Healthy”?
- Debating the Causes of Party Polarization in America
Friday, July 22, 2011
Public Opinion on Tax Increases
If polls are to be believed, a majority of Americans support a compromise on the debt ceiling impasse that contains a balance of spending cuts and tax increases. They also suggest that people prefer policies that focus on jobs, not the deficit.
Here are three articles supporting this argument:
- G.O.P.’s No-Tax Stance Is Outside Political Mainstream.
- Concerns About Economy, Jobs Outweigh Worries About Deficit.
- Dueling Debt Ceiling Polls.
Nevertheless, Republicans are pushing - seemingly with success - a spending only package. These policies seem to not comport with those supported by the general public. Our basic understanding of democracy is that policies will follow the will of the majority. That does not seem to be what's happening here, so what's up?
There are two ways to address this question.
First, recall that we are a democratic republic, meaning that people voted into institutions are responsible for passing policies, not the general public. Federalist #10 explains the reasoning behind this and it boils down to ensuring that policymakers are removed from the direct, and often irrationally passionate, preferences of the general public. This allows for policy making to be immune from the "mob" and hopefully based on rational, sober thinking.
But one might argue that this is not a satisfactory explanation, since members of the House especially do seem to be closely connected to at least a segment of the general population. So perhaps the better explanation is that the current electoral environment is such that the preferences of the general population do not matter to members of Congress - especially members of the House of Representatives.
Prior to running in the general election, they have to run in primary elections. They do so every two years, and the districts they run in are gerrymandered so that they are dominated by people affiliated with either of the two major political parties. Members of the House do not need to worry - primarily - about making the general population happy, they need to worry about the preferences of the primary voters in their districts. It is their opinions - and their electoral support - that matter most. So even though the general population may not support what is happening in Congress, it is rational - based on the design of our electoral process - for incumbents to discount that opinion in favor of the more immediate preferences of primary voters.
So the more important question for us is whether the current electoral process distorts democracy.
This is a point we hit - party polarization - in both 2301 and 2302.
Here are three articles supporting this argument:
- G.O.P.’s No-Tax Stance Is Outside Political Mainstream.
- Concerns About Economy, Jobs Outweigh Worries About Deficit.
- Dueling Debt Ceiling Polls.
Nevertheless, Republicans are pushing - seemingly with success - a spending only package. These policies seem to not comport with those supported by the general public. Our basic understanding of democracy is that policies will follow the will of the majority. That does not seem to be what's happening here, so what's up?
There are two ways to address this question.
First, recall that we are a democratic republic, meaning that people voted into institutions are responsible for passing policies, not the general public. Federalist #10 explains the reasoning behind this and it boils down to ensuring that policymakers are removed from the direct, and often irrationally passionate, preferences of the general public. This allows for policy making to be immune from the "mob" and hopefully based on rational, sober thinking.
But one might argue that this is not a satisfactory explanation, since members of the House especially do seem to be closely connected to at least a segment of the general population. So perhaps the better explanation is that the current electoral environment is such that the preferences of the general population do not matter to members of Congress - especially members of the House of Representatives.
Prior to running in the general election, they have to run in primary elections. They do so every two years, and the districts they run in are gerrymandered so that they are dominated by people affiliated with either of the two major political parties. Members of the House do not need to worry - primarily - about making the general population happy, they need to worry about the preferences of the primary voters in their districts. It is their opinions - and their electoral support - that matter most. So even though the general population may not support what is happening in Congress, it is rational - based on the design of our electoral process - for incumbents to discount that opinion in favor of the more immediate preferences of primary voters.
So the more important question for us is whether the current electoral process distorts democracy.
This is a point we hit - party polarization - in both 2301 and 2302.
Ideology Among Governors
Here's analysis by Nate Silver. Republican governors are as rigidly and consistently conservative as those in the U.S. House and Senate. Democratic Governors tend to be a bit more ideologically diverse.
The Founders, Taxes, and the National Debt
Here's an argument that the founders - at least those who supported the ratification of the Constitution - did so with the idea that it would be better able to tax, and assume the debt necessary to develop projects that would enhance the safety and well being of the nation.
I'll track down counter-arguments.
I'll track down counter-arguments.
Barack Obama: The Democrats’ Richard Nixon?
Barack Obama: The Democrats’ Richard Nixon?
Bruce Bartlett has quickly become one of my favorite commentators and the story linked to above is a reason why. He quickly and neatly summarizes the ideological nature of almost every president since FDR and explains why Obama is best seen as being to conservatism, what Nixon was to liberalism.
2302s ought to read this in order to get familiar with the nature of recent presidents, 2301s ought to read it in order to understand not only the ideological shifts that the nation has gone through in the past seven or eight decades, but the elections that facilitate this shift.
Bruce Bartlett has quickly become one of my favorite commentators and the story linked to above is a reason why. He quickly and neatly summarizes the ideological nature of almost every president since FDR and explains why Obama is best seen as being to conservatism, what Nixon was to liberalism.
2302s ought to read this in order to get familiar with the nature of recent presidents, 2301s ought to read it in order to understand not only the ideological shifts that the nation has gone through in the past seven or eight decades, but the elections that facilitate this shift.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
The American Legislative Exchange Council
Attention is being focused on a recently established interest group, the American Legislative Exchange Council, which is helping coordinate policies - primarily conservative policies - across the states. It has helped drive tort reform, opposition to health care reform and environmental regulations, and the balanced budget amendment.
Obviously with that agenda, people are polarized about it's influence on the states, but it has emerged as a leading source for much of the legislation that has been promoted through the states.
Here are a handful of links related to the group. Some of my 2301s will see a written assignment based on these, something that ties the subjects of federalism, elections and interest groups together. My 2302s might want to read through some of these stories to get an idea about the origins of legislation.
- ALEC Exposed: The Koch Connection.
- ALEC: Democracy's Arch-Nemesis.
- Koch, Exxon Mobil Among Corporations Helping Write State Laws Across U.S.
- Who's Really Writing States' Legislation?
- Right-wing group brings together pols & corps to write 'model bills'
- ALEC’s influence in West Virginia
Obviously with that agenda, people are polarized about it's influence on the states, but it has emerged as a leading source for much of the legislation that has been promoted through the states.
Here are a handful of links related to the group. Some of my 2301s will see a written assignment based on these, something that ties the subjects of federalism, elections and interest groups together. My 2302s might want to read through some of these stories to get an idea about the origins of legislation.
- ALEC Exposed: The Koch Connection.
- ALEC: Democracy's Arch-Nemesis.
- Koch, Exxon Mobil Among Corporations Helping Write State Laws Across U.S.
- Who's Really Writing States' Legislation?
- Right-wing group brings together pols & corps to write 'model bills'
- ALEC’s influence in West Virginia
Legal Challenges to Texas Redistricting Begins
For 2301 primarily, recall that Texas falls under the Voting Rights Act and its districts have to be precleared by a panel of federal judges due to Texas' history of racial gerrymandering. Latino political leaders think they have a strong case that the recently passed plan illegally dilutes their power. While the bulk of population growth in the state was due to an increase in the Latino population, none of the new congressional districts are likely to lead to the election of a Latino to Congress, or so they claim.
- Texas Seeks Clearance for Political Maps.
- Redistricting Fights Move From Capitol to Courthouse.
- Texas Seeks Clearance for Political Maps.
- Redistricting Fights Move From Capitol to Courthouse.
The Balanced Budget Amendment
A Tea Party proposal to add a Balanced Budget Amendment (actually a particular version of one - others have been proposed previously) passed the House recently, but is unlikely to either pass the Senate or survive a certain presidential veto.
The bill was officially called the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011 (H.R. 2560), there are questions regarding the wisdom of such an amendment, but little analysis, as far as I can see, of whether states are in fact likely to ratify such an amendment. States are able to keep their budgets - gimmicks aside - because the federal government doesn't have to. What incentive do they have to ratify it?
A variety of links on the proposal (the bulk I stole from A Plain Blog about Politics):
- Obligatory Balance Budget Amendment Post.
- Bruce Bartlett: The Phony Balanced Budget Amendment Debate.
- IS A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT A DANGEROUS GIMMICK?
- Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
- The Balanced Budget Amendment would make the Framers weep.
- The futility of Cut, Cap and Balance, cont’d.
Expect more background on this as we proceed.
Here's the proposed text:
`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year.
`Section 2. Total outlays shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.
`Section 3. The Congress may provide for suspension of the limitations imposed by section 1 or 2 of this article for any fiscal year for which two-thirds of the whole number of each House shall provide, by a roll call vote, for a specific excess of outlays over receipts or over 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.
`Section 4. Any bill to levy a new tax or increase the rate of any tax shall not become law unless approved by two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress by a roll call vote.
`Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.
`Section 6. Any Member of Congress shall have standing and a cause of action to seek judicial enforcement of this article, when authorized to do so by a petition signed by one-third of the Members of either House of Congress. No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.
`Section 7. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
`Section 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States except those for repayment of debt principal.
`Section 9. This article shall become effective beginning with the second fiscal year commencing after its ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.'.
The bill was officially called the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011 (H.R. 2560), there are questions regarding the wisdom of such an amendment, but little analysis, as far as I can see, of whether states are in fact likely to ratify such an amendment. States are able to keep their budgets - gimmicks aside - because the federal government doesn't have to. What incentive do they have to ratify it?
A variety of links on the proposal (the bulk I stole from A Plain Blog about Politics):
- Obligatory Balance Budget Amendment Post.
- Bruce Bartlett: The Phony Balanced Budget Amendment Debate.
- IS A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT A DANGEROUS GIMMICK?
- Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
- The Balanced Budget Amendment would make the Framers weep.
- The futility of Cut, Cap and Balance, cont’d.
Expect more background on this as we proceed.
Here's the proposed text:
`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year.
`Section 2. Total outlays shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.
`Section 3. The Congress may provide for suspension of the limitations imposed by section 1 or 2 of this article for any fiscal year for which two-thirds of the whole number of each House shall provide, by a roll call vote, for a specific excess of outlays over receipts or over 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.
`Section 4. Any bill to levy a new tax or increase the rate of any tax shall not become law unless approved by two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress by a roll call vote.
`Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.
`Section 6. Any Member of Congress shall have standing and a cause of action to seek judicial enforcement of this article, when authorized to do so by a petition signed by one-third of the Members of either House of Congress. No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.
`Section 7. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
`Section 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States except those for repayment of debt principal.
`Section 9. This article shall become effective beginning with the second fiscal year commencing after its ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.'.
Getting Specific on Spending - The Atlantic
Getting Specific on Spending - The Atlantic.
So if the debt ceiling is raised and the president has to - in theory - start making decisions about should and shodul not be cut, how are these decisions likely to be made?
The link above digs into this question.
So if the debt ceiling is raised and the president has to - in theory - start making decisions about should and shodul not be cut, how are these decisions likely to be made?
The link above digs into this question.
Constitutional Hardball Revisited
Constitutional Hardball Revisited
Click on this post for a back and forth regarding the factors that have led to an increase in the polarized political environment. This is useful for both 2301 and 2302. Think about this as we explore the impact that political parties have had on the system of separated powers.
Click on this post for a back and forth regarding the factors that have led to an increase in the polarized political environment. This is useful for both 2301 and 2302. Think about this as we explore the impact that political parties have had on the system of separated powers.
HIgher Than Expected
The Gallup Poll's Frank Newport is surprised that Obama's number are as high as they are given the economy.
. . . the number of Americans who think things are overall going well in the country is extremely low -- just 16% were satisfied in the last Gallup survey -- and history dictates that number is tied to the way people feel about the economy. And Americans are not happy with the economy.
That means Obama's numbers should be extremely low, too. But they're not.
"He is overperforming," Newport said. He pointed out that both the Democrat Bill Clinton and the Republican Reagan dipped into the 30s in their approval ratings during their first terms in office. Both men, like Obama, were facing a tough economy and the low level of voter satisfaction with the overall state of the country that goes with that.
And yet: "So far, despite similarly bad economic perceptions, Obama has not fallen into the 30% range," Newport said.
Newport's got some theories, and he's promised to explore the topic further in an upcoming analysis. For now, though, he says two potential reasons stand out.
"The two major threads of theories are something about the personality of the man, and the other is the nature of coalition politics today," Newport said. "[They have] become such that he has a strong coalition of certain types of voters who are going to support him no matter what and that props up his approval rating."
. . . the number of Americans who think things are overall going well in the country is extremely low -- just 16% were satisfied in the last Gallup survey -- and history dictates that number is tied to the way people feel about the economy. And Americans are not happy with the economy.
That means Obama's numbers should be extremely low, too. But they're not.
"He is overperforming," Newport said. He pointed out that both the Democrat Bill Clinton and the Republican Reagan dipped into the 30s in their approval ratings during their first terms in office. Both men, like Obama, were facing a tough economy and the low level of voter satisfaction with the overall state of the country that goes with that.
And yet: "So far, despite similarly bad economic perceptions, Obama has not fallen into the 30% range," Newport said.
Newport's got some theories, and he's promised to explore the topic further in an upcoming analysis. For now, though, he says two potential reasons stand out.
"The two major threads of theories are something about the personality of the man, and the other is the nature of coalition politics today," Newport said. "[They have] become such that he has a strong coalition of certain types of voters who are going to support him no matter what and that props up his approval rating."
The Latest on the Debt Ceiling Showdown - 7/21/11
The latest from the Washington Post's Ezra Klein. His take on the conflict between House and Senate Republican leadership points out the differences between the two branches. Remember that Tea Party members were - due to the electoral differences between the two - able to infiltrate the House more than the Senate. That helps explain - perhaps fully - the course of the conflict.
Senate and House Republican leadership are starting to split, report Jonathan Allen and Manu Raju: "Senate Republicans are starting to send a message to their increasingly isolated House counterparts: It’s time to abandon the hard line or face a public backlash.Whether it’s the top two Senate leaders’ plan to avert a debt crisis or the recently resurrected Gang of Six framework, most senators have shown interest in the kind of bipartisan compromise that provides political cover to all involved. But House Republicans leaped further to the right this week, endorsing a Cut, Cap and Balance bill that attracted just five Democratic votes...House Republican insiders acknowledge that passage of a bipartisan Senate plan would put enormous pressure on them to follow suit or get blamed for any ensuing economic calamity. But most House Republicans aren’t ready to move off their mark."
Senate and House Republican leadership are starting to split, report Jonathan Allen and Manu Raju: "Senate Republicans are starting to send a message to their increasingly isolated House counterparts: It’s time to abandon the hard line or face a public backlash.Whether it’s the top two Senate leaders’ plan to avert a debt crisis or the recently resurrected Gang of Six framework, most senators have shown interest in the kind of bipartisan compromise that provides political cover to all involved. But House Republicans leaped further to the right this week, endorsing a Cut, Cap and Balance bill that attracted just five Democratic votes...House Republican insiders acknowledge that passage of a bipartisan Senate plan would put enormous pressure on them to follow suit or get blamed for any ensuing economic calamity. But most House Republicans aren’t ready to move off their mark."
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Cost-Cutters, Except When the Spending Is Back Home
Here's another story that's commonly repeated:
Freshman House Republicans who rode a wave of voter discontent into office last year vowed to stop out-of-control spending, but that has not stopped several of them from quietly trying to funnel millions of federal dollars into projects back home.
They have pushed for dozens of projects in their districts, including military programs opposed by the president, replenishing beach sand lost to erosion, a $700 million bridge in Minnesota and a harbor dredging project in Charleston, S.C. Some of their projects were once earmarks, political shorthand for pet projects penciled into spending bills, which Republicans banned when they took over the House.
They do this because they have to. While we like the idea of spending cuts, we like them better if they only impose costs on other people in other districts. We reward our members of congress who keep spending in our districts. It's one of the reasons spending is so difficult to cut. Once it shifts from being an abstract consideration to something concrete and recognizable, we tend to like it.
2302's especially should take note of this story since it helps explain the decisions of members of congress and their relationships with their constituents. 2301s should also take note, it helps us understand voter behavior and the screwy nature of democracy.
Freshman House Republicans who rode a wave of voter discontent into office last year vowed to stop out-of-control spending, but that has not stopped several of them from quietly trying to funnel millions of federal dollars into projects back home.
They have pushed for dozens of projects in their districts, including military programs opposed by the president, replenishing beach sand lost to erosion, a $700 million bridge in Minnesota and a harbor dredging project in Charleston, S.C. Some of their projects were once earmarks, political shorthand for pet projects penciled into spending bills, which Republicans banned when they took over the House.
They do this because they have to. While we like the idea of spending cuts, we like them better if they only impose costs on other people in other districts. We reward our members of congress who keep spending in our districts. It's one of the reasons spending is so difficult to cut. Once it shifts from being an abstract consideration to something concrete and recognizable, we tend to like it.
2302's especially should take note of this story since it helps explain the decisions of members of congress and their relationships with their constituents. 2301s should also take note, it helps us understand voter behavior and the screwy nature of democracy.
Will "Sanctuary Cities" Galvanize Texas Latinos?
Here's a provocative story in the Texas Tribune. In 2301, when we discuss voter turnout, we cover the low turnout numbers of Latino voters. This hurts Democrats primarily. The question thsi story poses is whether legislation passed by the Texas legislature that some argue works against Latino interests might increase turnout.
Some Latinos and Democrats argue the bill could spark what they dubbed Texas’ Proposition 187 movement. In 1994, Proposition 187 was introduced in California as a ballot initiative to eliminate an illegal immigrant’s access to health care, education and other services. Many consider it the precursor to Arizona’s controversial bill, which in turn led to similar proposals in other states, including Texas. The bill, though approved by voters, created a backlash that many say led to waning support for the GOP in that state. It is credited with the party’s failure to win a statewide seat for several election cycles after it was introduced. (The legislation subsequently faced several challenges in court and was never implemented.)
“Before that California was very much a purple state, and it was solidly more on the red side than it was on the blue side,” Kumar said. “He [former Calif. Gov. Pete Wilson] politicized the Latino community in a way that we had never seen. California now is a solidly blue state close to 20 years later and that is not insignificant.”
Texas is a different matter altogether, however . . .
Please read on.
Some Latinos and Democrats argue the bill could spark what they dubbed Texas’ Proposition 187 movement. In 1994, Proposition 187 was introduced in California as a ballot initiative to eliminate an illegal immigrant’s access to health care, education and other services. Many consider it the precursor to Arizona’s controversial bill, which in turn led to similar proposals in other states, including Texas. The bill, though approved by voters, created a backlash that many say led to waning support for the GOP in that state. It is credited with the party’s failure to win a statewide seat for several election cycles after it was introduced. (The legislation subsequently faced several challenges in court and was never implemented.)
“Before that California was very much a purple state, and it was solidly more on the red side than it was on the blue side,” Kumar said. “He [former Calif. Gov. Pete Wilson] politicized the Latino community in a way that we had never seen. California now is a solidly blue state close to 20 years later and that is not insignificant.”
Texas is a different matter altogether, however . . .
Please read on.
The paradox of presidential leadership
Here's an Ezra Klein post which touches on a perennial subject regarding presidential power, we tend to assume they have more - and can do more - than they actually can:
Here’s the problem with being president: Everyone thinks that if you want to get anything done, you need to lead the public. As the presidential scholar Richard Neustadt famously wrote, “presidential power is the power to persuade.” And persuasion, as Washington understands it, means taking strong positions, giving speeches, getting out on the campaign trail and forcefully making your case.
But you know that every time you do that, you make it impossible for members of the other party to support you. Maybe you’ve seen this graph, and maybe you haven’t. But you know full well that presidents polarize. That you polarize. If you take a strong position, the other side will immediately take the opposite position. And in the American political system, you need the other side.
This is what I’ve come to think of as the Paradox of Presidential Leadership . . .
I strongly recommend that 2302 students read this post thoroughly. This is an important point regarding presidential leadership and power.
Here’s the problem with being president: Everyone thinks that if you want to get anything done, you need to lead the public. As the presidential scholar Richard Neustadt famously wrote, “presidential power is the power to persuade.” And persuasion, as Washington understands it, means taking strong positions, giving speeches, getting out on the campaign trail and forcefully making your case.
But you know that every time you do that, you make it impossible for members of the other party to support you. Maybe you’ve seen this graph, and maybe you haven’t. But you know full well that presidents polarize. That you polarize. If you take a strong position, the other side will immediately take the opposite position. And in the American political system, you need the other side.
This is what I’ve come to think of as the Paradox of Presidential Leadership . . .
I strongly recommend that 2302 students read this post thoroughly. This is an important point regarding presidential leadership and power.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Separation of Parties, Not Powers
Through Balikinization I found a link to a research paper which argues - plausibly - that the concept of separated powers is best understood today to operate between political parties not governing institutions, as Madison had intended it to. This actually blows apart the argument we make in 2301, based on Federalist #51, that the most important division in American government is between the branches and that the factor that keeps them separated is ambition. The authors suggest instead that:
Checks and balances only work, as the founders intended, during periods of divided government and not during periods of unified government.
. . . we live under a legal regime of separation of powers, overlaid on a political regime in which the real separation is of parties. Usually, one major implication of this gap is that legislatures are more inclined to constrain executive power when government is divided, and more inclined to cede power to an executive of the same party.
Checks and balances only work, as the founders intended, during periods of divided government and not during periods of unified government.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Report: Some voters swayed by looks alone
A bit depressing, but this isn't the first study to point out that it matters how attractive a candidate is. This is argued to be a product of the television age. Do you think Abraham Lincoln could be elected today?
A new Massachusetts Institute of Technology study found that so-called “low-information voters” — those who watch a lot of TV but who aren’t up-to-date on policy issues — are most likely vote for a candidate based on looks alone.
For every 10-point increase a candidate gets because of his or her appearance, about half of that increase comes from the voters with the least amount of political knowledge and the most time spent in front of the TV.
The study analyzed data from two surveys conducted during the 2006 midterm elections: the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, which surveyed voters on their candidate preferences and television-watching habits; and a study headed by Princeton University professor Alex Todorov, which asked participants to rate ’06 Senate and gubernatorial candidates based solely on appearance.
“People judge other people all the time when they first meet them, but once they learn more about them they update their impressions and forget their initial judgments,” said MIT associate professor Gabriel Lenz, who co-authored the study. “The problem with democracy is that we ask people to vote in all these elections where they don’t know all that much except their first impression.”
A new Massachusetts Institute of Technology study found that so-called “low-information voters” — those who watch a lot of TV but who aren’t up-to-date on policy issues — are most likely vote for a candidate based on looks alone.
For every 10-point increase a candidate gets because of his or her appearance, about half of that increase comes from the voters with the least amount of political knowledge and the most time spent in front of the TV.
The study analyzed data from two surveys conducted during the 2006 midterm elections: the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, which surveyed voters on their candidate preferences and television-watching habits; and a study headed by Princeton University professor Alex Todorov, which asked participants to rate ’06 Senate and gubernatorial candidates based solely on appearance.
“People judge other people all the time when they first meet them, but once they learn more about them they update their impressions and forget their initial judgments,” said MIT associate professor Gabriel Lenz, who co-authored the study. “The problem with democracy is that we ask people to vote in all these elections where they don’t know all that much except their first impression.”
Poll: 40% say worst gridlock ever
Not a big surprise given the results of the 2010 election.
Washington is locked in the worst gridlock they’ve seen in their lifetimes, four in 10 Americans say as they voice dissatisfaction with how President Barack Obama and members of Congress are handling the country’s problems.
More than two-thirds of those surveyed for a USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday say that members of Congress of both parties are putting their own interests ahead of the country’s, while they’re evenly divided on whether the president is more driven by his own interests or the country’s.
Both 2301 and 2302 should read up on the phenomena of divided and unified government to put this in perspective.
- United States Presidents and control of Congress.
- Gridlock.
Washington is locked in the worst gridlock they’ve seen in their lifetimes, four in 10 Americans say as they voice dissatisfaction with how President Barack Obama and members of Congress are handling the country’s problems.
More than two-thirds of those surveyed for a USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday say that members of Congress of both parties are putting their own interests ahead of the country’s, while they’re evenly divided on whether the president is more driven by his own interests or the country’s.
Both 2301 and 2302 should read up on the phenomena of divided and unified government to put this in perspective.
- United States Presidents and control of Congress.
- Gridlock.
Court reinstates part of 'don't ask, don't tell'
From Politico, an example of checks and balances. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily reinstated part of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy the Obama Administration rescinded recently because it didn't take into consideration changes to the law made by Congress last year. It involves a complex entanglement of a slew of institutions in each of the three branches and illustrates just how confusing a system of separated powers really is.
Read on and see if you can describe what's going on in a single sentence or two.
Read on and see if you can describe what's going on in a single sentence or two.
Is Tabloid Journalism Really Journalism and is it Entitled to Protection?
Andrew Sullivan weighs in and provides a nice video debate on the subject.
G.O.P. Freshmen Say Debt Concerns Them More Than Re-election
From the NYT: 2302 5 week students might wish to use this to answer week 2's written assignment.
What are those contributons spent on anyway?
From the Washington Post, here's a story about how different presidential candidates are spending campaign money.
My 2302 11 week class will be writting this week's assignment on this subject.
Here are other links for the assignment:
- Several Presidential Campaigns Rev Small-Dollar Donor Engines, While Others Sputter.
- Fund-Raising Reports Reveal Presidential Candidate Haves -- and Have Nots.
My 2302 11 week class will be writting this week's assignment on this subject.
Here are other links for the assignment:
- Several Presidential Campaigns Rev Small-Dollar Donor Engines, While Others Sputter.
- Fund-Raising Reports Reveal Presidential Candidate Haves -- and Have Nots.
All You Ever Wanted to Know About the National Debt
Here's a report from the General Accountability Office on the Federal Debt.
Everything you always wanted to know.
Everything you always wanted to know.
A Week of Symbolic Votes Ahead in Congress
From the NYT, hints about what lies ahead this week. Prior to substantive attention to the debt ceiling, a series of symbolic votes are expected in order to provide members of Congress political cover.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Herding Cats
Republican leaders are attempting to persuade their rank and file - and mostly Tea Party affiliated - members to vote for an increase in the debt ceiling, despite reservations:
As top Republicans face delicate and difficult negotiations with the White House, they are beginning a concerted effort to prepare newer members of the Republican conference to vote in favor of raising the ceiling. This coming week's most difficult task, some Republicans believe, will be getting their own freshman class to a yes vote.
The hurdles House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and their respective leadership teams face are formidable. The vast majority of new members, coupled with hard-core conservative veterans like Sen. Jim DeMint, began the year indicating there was no way they could vote to raise the debt ceiling. Some even believe there won't be consequences if a deal isn't reached by August 2.
Slowly, senior Republicans have been walking their newer colleagues off that position. Boehner, McConnell and the rest know what will happen if Republicans and Democrats cannot work out a deal; what's more, they believe voters will ultimately blame them for obstruction, rather than Democrats. "The leadership uniformally understands the need to reach some kind of agreement that will avoid default," said a senior House Republican aide.For 2302, this illustrates the role of the party leadership and the tension that is common between them and the rank and file members. For both 2301 and 2302 it illustrates one of the problematic consequences Republicans face as a consequence of the 2010 elections. With greater numbers, come increased internal divisions and greater difficulty keeping everyone together.
This is compounded by the increased connections House members have with folks in their home districts - or their electoral constituencies - who want them to toe the line. Tea Party members who might be interested in voting for the increase might face threats that doing so will lead to a competitor in the Republican primary. Almost certainly a great deal of the conversations that are taking place have to do with how the leadership can provide these people electoral cover.
Democrats have historically had greater problems keeping their troops together, than Republicans, but this seems to be changing.
As top Republicans face delicate and difficult negotiations with the White House, they are beginning a concerted effort to prepare newer members of the Republican conference to vote in favor of raising the ceiling. This coming week's most difficult task, some Republicans believe, will be getting their own freshman class to a yes vote.
The hurdles House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and their respective leadership teams face are formidable. The vast majority of new members, coupled with hard-core conservative veterans like Sen. Jim DeMint, began the year indicating there was no way they could vote to raise the debt ceiling. Some even believe there won't be consequences if a deal isn't reached by August 2.
Slowly, senior Republicans have been walking their newer colleagues off that position. Boehner, McConnell and the rest know what will happen if Republicans and Democrats cannot work out a deal; what's more, they believe voters will ultimately blame them for obstruction, rather than Democrats. "The leadership uniformally understands the need to reach some kind of agreement that will avoid default," said a senior House Republican aide.For 2302, this illustrates the role of the party leadership and the tension that is common between them and the rank and file members. For both 2301 and 2302 it illustrates one of the problematic consequences Republicans face as a consequence of the 2010 elections. With greater numbers, come increased internal divisions and greater difficulty keeping everyone together.
This is compounded by the increased connections House members have with folks in their home districts - or their electoral constituencies - who want them to toe the line. Tea Party members who might be interested in voting for the increase might face threats that doing so will lead to a competitor in the Republican primary. Almost certainly a great deal of the conversations that are taking place have to do with how the leadership can provide these people electoral cover.
Democrats have historically had greater problems keeping their troops together, than Republicans, but this seems to be changing.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Obama's Haul and Bundling
Obama raised an impressive amount of money - $86 million - in the three month period ending June 30th. Reports tell us this is more than all the Republican candidates combined.
An interesting aspect of this story is the number of donations that came from "bundling" a practice where one person who has maxed out their contribution limits can collect checks from others and bundle them together so that it makes an impact. on the campaign. Bundlers for successful presidential campaigns often are then rewarded with appointed positions in that adminitstration.
- Campaign Finance in the United States.
- What Obama's Richest Donors Tell us About his Campaign.
- Obama Campaign Releases Bundler List.
- Obama For America and Obama Victory Fund 2012 Volunteer Fundraisers.
- Watchdogs Ask: What About the Bundlers?
An interesting aspect of this story is the number of donations that came from "bundling" a practice where one person who has maxed out their contribution limits can collect checks from others and bundle them together so that it makes an impact. on the campaign. Bundlers for successful presidential campaigns often are then rewarded with appointed positions in that adminitstration.
- Campaign Finance in the United States.
- What Obama's Richest Donors Tell us About his Campaign.
- Obama Campaign Releases Bundler List.
- Obama For America and Obama Victory Fund 2012 Volunteer Fundraisers.
- Watchdogs Ask: What About the Bundlers?
Peter Orszag and the Debt Ceiling
Aside from providing some analysis about the consequences of default, and the likely prospects for increases in employment in the near future, the following story illustrates the close relationship - some say too close - between executive officials and private enterprise.
Until recently, Peter Orszag was the head of Obama's Office of Management and Budget - the White House's top adviser on budgetary matters - a position comparable to the Congressional Budget Office. Now he holds a high position at Citigroup, and is able to provide inside information about likely government activities. Nothing he is doing is that different from previous officials from various administrations.
From the Atlantic:
Former OMB director Peter Orszag left the Obama administration last year for Citigroup. But his opinions about what's going on in Washington are highly sought after by Citigroup clients. Part of his job is to advise institutional clients like hedge funds and mutual funds, which are growing nervous about the looming possibility of a debt default, like everybody else. Orszag recently gave such a briefing that left at least some in his audience convinced that the situation is less dire than Treasury is indicating.
FYI: Ezra Klein explains why default is bad for the economy. It will increase the amount of money that the federal government pays in interest on the money it borrows, which will in turn increase everyone else's interests as well. This will suppress spending.
Until recently, Peter Orszag was the head of Obama's Office of Management and Budget - the White House's top adviser on budgetary matters - a position comparable to the Congressional Budget Office. Now he holds a high position at Citigroup, and is able to provide inside information about likely government activities. Nothing he is doing is that different from previous officials from various administrations.
From the Atlantic:
Former OMB director Peter Orszag left the Obama administration last year for Citigroup. But his opinions about what's going on in Washington are highly sought after by Citigroup clients. Part of his job is to advise institutional clients like hedge funds and mutual funds, which are growing nervous about the looming possibility of a debt default, like everybody else. Orszag recently gave such a briefing that left at least some in his audience convinced that the situation is less dire than Treasury is indicating.
FYI: Ezra Klein explains why default is bad for the economy. It will increase the amount of money that the federal government pays in interest on the money it borrows, which will in turn increase everyone else's interests as well. This will suppress spending.
Friday, July 15, 2011
If News Corp hacked the phones of 9/11 families, Fox News is finished
Commentary from the Guardian:
. . . some Republican Congress members like Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack (Republican, Florida) initially satisfied with NewsCorps assurances that the problems were confined abroad. That is until the 9/11 Parents and Families of Firefighters & World Trade Center Victims came out in favor of an investigation into whether they were hacked. With that, House homeland security chairman Peter King (Republican, New York) proved himself far less likely to rely on News Corp's statements alone and called for an investigation, given his constituents' close connections to 9/11 and his own reputation as their biggest defender in Congress.
King, a frequent guest on Fox News programs whose hearings on Muslim radicalisation earlier this year garnered him more than a fair share of criticism on every other network, was apparently the last crack in the proverbial dam at the Department of Justice, which announced only a day later that they were beginning a probe into whether News Corp. employees attempted to hack 9/11 victims' phones or records.
By the way, how does a Murdoch owned paper cover this story?
. . . some Republican Congress members like Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack (Republican, Florida) initially satisfied with NewsCorps assurances that the problems were confined abroad. That is until the 9/11 Parents and Families of Firefighters & World Trade Center Victims came out in favor of an investigation into whether they were hacked. With that, House homeland security chairman Peter King (Republican, New York) proved himself far less likely to rely on News Corp's statements alone and called for an investigation, given his constituents' close connections to 9/11 and his own reputation as their biggest defender in Congress.
King, a frequent guest on Fox News programs whose hearings on Muslim radicalisation earlier this year garnered him more than a fair share of criticism on every other network, was apparently the last crack in the proverbial dam at the Department of Justice, which announced only a day later that they were beginning a probe into whether News Corp. employees attempted to hack 9/11 victims' phones or records.
By the way, how does a Murdoch owned paper cover this story?
The Debt Ceiling Battle as of 7/15/11
Commentators see things looking bad for Republicans:
Jonathan Alter thinks Obama has won his ultimate objective, support from independents for 2012:
The good news for Obama is that the more liberals, lobbyists and apologists for the rich squawk, the more fiscally responsible he looks to the independent voters who will determine the election.
Better yet, under McConnell’s plan Obama would get credit for good budgetary intentions without blame for the pain, which will remain theoretical for now. At the risk of mixing dessert and vegetables, the “Big Fudge” lets him pose as a responsible pea eater without actually ingesting any of the wrinkled little suckers.
You can hear the centrist 2012 message now. “We wanted to slash the debt by $4 trillion and protect our children’s future,” the Democrats will say, conveniently forgetting how loud they’re bellyaching this week about their own president’s proposed cuts. “But the Republicans killed responsible deficit reduction to protect corporate jet owners.”Megan McArdle thinks that if we default and actual cuts are made and people see the consequence of that, the public will turn against the party. She chides them for not taking a very generous deal and jeopardizing electoral opportunities in 2012 and 2016:
Republicans have a decent shot of taking the White House and the Senate in 2012; by throwing that away with both hands they also throw away their best chance at repealing ObamaCare before it starts irrevocably altering health care markets. They also ensure that any deficit-reduction deal we do post election will be heavily weighted towards tax hikes; give Democrats a fresh crack at all the bits of the Obama agenda that they ignored in favor of passing health care; and probably let them preside over a mid-decade recovery that will leave the GOP in a very difficult electoral position in 2016.
The GOP will have taken a chance at meaningful entitlement reform and a mostly-spending budget deal, and thrown it away for literally no gain. Anything you can achieve by simply saying no, they can undo by simply persuading voters not to re-elect you. And the 1996 experience suggests that this will not be hard for them.Polls suggest support for tax increases has grown among the American public.
Jonathan Alter thinks Obama has won his ultimate objective, support from independents for 2012:
The good news for Obama is that the more liberals, lobbyists and apologists for the rich squawk, the more fiscally responsible he looks to the independent voters who will determine the election.
Better yet, under McConnell’s plan Obama would get credit for good budgetary intentions without blame for the pain, which will remain theoretical for now. At the risk of mixing dessert and vegetables, the “Big Fudge” lets him pose as a responsible pea eater without actually ingesting any of the wrinkled little suckers.
You can hear the centrist 2012 message now. “We wanted to slash the debt by $4 trillion and protect our children’s future,” the Democrats will say, conveniently forgetting how loud they’re bellyaching this week about their own president’s proposed cuts. “But the Republicans killed responsible deficit reduction to protect corporate jet owners.”Megan McArdle thinks that if we default and actual cuts are made and people see the consequence of that, the public will turn against the party. She chides them for not taking a very generous deal and jeopardizing electoral opportunities in 2012 and 2016:
Republicans have a decent shot of taking the White House and the Senate in 2012; by throwing that away with both hands they also throw away their best chance at repealing ObamaCare before it starts irrevocably altering health care markets. They also ensure that any deficit-reduction deal we do post election will be heavily weighted towards tax hikes; give Democrats a fresh crack at all the bits of the Obama agenda that they ignored in favor of passing health care; and probably let them preside over a mid-decade recovery that will leave the GOP in a very difficult electoral position in 2016.
The GOP will have taken a chance at meaningful entitlement reform and a mostly-spending budget deal, and thrown it away for literally no gain. Anything you can achieve by simply saying no, they can undo by simply persuading voters not to re-elect you. And the 1996 experience suggests that this will not be hard for them.Polls suggest support for tax increases has grown among the American public.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Better Use of Light Bulbs Act Fails
The House voted down an effort to suspend the rules and pass a bill - the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act - which would have repealed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. That bill included a section which required "lightbulb manufacturers to improve the efficiency of incandescent bulbs by 25 percent."
Supporters of the repeal framed the issue as a violation of liberty, while opponents highlighted the costs savings increased efficiency was likely to provide.
- Commentary in The Altantic.
Supporters of the repeal framed the issue as a violation of liberty, while opponents highlighted the costs savings increased efficiency was likely to provide.
- Commentary in The Altantic.
Mistrial in Clemens Case
The prosecution seems to have introduced inadmissible evidence, despite being warned by the judge. A jury is to be impartial - so ways Amendment #6.. Evidence that might jeopardize this is excluded from being introduced. The judge is supposed to oversee this guarantee. This one apparently did.
Story in the Washington Post:
One important piece of evidence was Andy Pettitte’s testimony that Clemens had told him he had taken human growth hormone. In previous proceedings, Pettitte’s wife Laura signed an affidavit affirming that her husband told her of the conversation the day it occurred.
But in pretrial decisions, Walton ruled that, because Laura Pettitte hadn’t heard the conversation directly, her testimony would be inadmissible.
So, what did the prosecution do? They apparently tried to go through a backdoor by showing the jury a video of Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) at the 2008 congressional hearings in which Clemens referred to Pettitte’s conversation with his wife. Laura Pettitte’s affidavit appeared on the courtroom monitor. And there it stayed in full view.
Story in the Washington Post:
One important piece of evidence was Andy Pettitte’s testimony that Clemens had told him he had taken human growth hormone. In previous proceedings, Pettitte’s wife Laura signed an affidavit affirming that her husband told her of the conversation the day it occurred.
But in pretrial decisions, Walton ruled that, because Laura Pettitte hadn’t heard the conversation directly, her testimony would be inadmissible.
So, what did the prosecution do? They apparently tried to go through a backdoor by showing the jury a video of Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) at the 2008 congressional hearings in which Clemens referred to Pettitte’s conversation with his wife. Laura Pettitte’s affidavit appeared on the courtroom monitor. And there it stayed in full view.
Ruper Murdoch's Influence on Governing
The recent phone hacking scandal seems to have open the flood gates and accusations about Murdoch and his businesses are piling on. People who he once intimidated seem to be no longer so.
Here are a couple stories detaining his ability to influence government figures.
A snippte from Howard Kurtz: the troops regularly received marching orders. “For a long time the Clintons were targets,” he said. “You couldn’t get enough dirt on the Clintons. Then Bill Clinton made a rapprochement with Murdoch, sucked up to him in the run-up to Hillary running” for the Senate in 2000.
“Then one day it was, ‘You can’t write anything bad about the Clintons.’ We had to kill stuff all the time. It filtered down from Murdoch. In the meetings we’d be told, ‘No way, mate.’”
And Alex Massie: The tabloids prefer winners to losers. That was one reason that they soured on John Major and backed Blair. When Gordon Brown succeeded Blair, he attempted to curry favor with News International. His wife Sarah guest-edited an edition of the News of the World's magazine; and the Browns hosted Elisabeth Murdoch, Rupert's daughter, and Rebekah Brooks, chief executive of News International and onetime News of the World editor, at Chequers, the prime minister's country mansion.
And here's one of a member of the House of Lords - a movie producer - that has worked to limit Murdoch's influence:
Years ago this prodigal filmmaker gave up the business and, elevated to the House of Lords, took up two causes close to his heart: education and communications. When Rupert Murdoch announced his bid to take total control of BSkyB, the British satellite-TV giant, Lord Puttnam was among the first to see how menacing this move was to the diversity of media ownership in the U.K.
But in a political climate where prime ministers—of both the Labour and Tory persuasion—walked in fear of the whim of Rupert Murdoch and where so-called regulators moved the goalposts every time Murdoch found them in his path, raising a red flag against Murdoch’s empire was about as popular as proposing the abolition of the monarchy.
Nonetheless, David Puttnam has three qualities that come in handy when waging a campaign against overmighty barons: the ability to marshal an argument with irrefutable facts, to present them with passion—and a lack of fear about the consequences. As we now know in gruesome detail, opposing the Murdoch empire can attract some odious countermeasures.
Here are a couple stories detaining his ability to influence government figures.
A snippte from Howard Kurtz: the troops regularly received marching orders. “For a long time the Clintons were targets,” he said. “You couldn’t get enough dirt on the Clintons. Then Bill Clinton made a rapprochement with Murdoch, sucked up to him in the run-up to Hillary running” for the Senate in 2000.
“Then one day it was, ‘You can’t write anything bad about the Clintons.’ We had to kill stuff all the time. It filtered down from Murdoch. In the meetings we’d be told, ‘No way, mate.’”
And Alex Massie: The tabloids prefer winners to losers. That was one reason that they soured on John Major and backed Blair. When Gordon Brown succeeded Blair, he attempted to curry favor with News International. His wife Sarah guest-edited an edition of the News of the World's magazine; and the Browns hosted Elisabeth Murdoch, Rupert's daughter, and Rebekah Brooks, chief executive of News International and onetime News of the World editor, at Chequers, the prime minister's country mansion.
And here's one of a member of the House of Lords - a movie producer - that has worked to limit Murdoch's influence:
Years ago this prodigal filmmaker gave up the business and, elevated to the House of Lords, took up two causes close to his heart: education and communications. When Rupert Murdoch announced his bid to take total control of BSkyB, the British satellite-TV giant, Lord Puttnam was among the first to see how menacing this move was to the diversity of media ownership in the U.K.
But in a political climate where prime ministers—of both the Labour and Tory persuasion—walked in fear of the whim of Rupert Murdoch and where so-called regulators moved the goalposts every time Murdoch found them in his path, raising a red flag against Murdoch’s empire was about as popular as proposing the abolition of the monarchy.
Nonetheless, David Puttnam has three qualities that come in handy when waging a campaign against overmighty barons: the ability to marshal an argument with irrefutable facts, to present them with passion—and a lack of fear about the consequences. As we now know in gruesome detail, opposing the Murdoch empire can attract some odious countermeasures.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
A Few Stories I'm Missing
I'm trying to find the best way to frame a few recent stories regarding the media and its interrelation with other institutions.
One is the Casey Anthony trial, most importantly the fact that this was a trial that was conducted both in a trial court and in the court of public opinion. As we know, the verdicts in each diverged. What does this tell us about the nature of information made available to a jury in a trial versus the public through media sources?
A second is the DSK accusations and the entire concept of a perp walk, where police are able to parade a person arrested for, but not formally accused of, a crime. What's the point of it? Is it a gratuitous display of power? Might it bias a potential jury pool against a potential trial defendant.
A third is the entire Rupert Murdoch phone hacking scandal. There is so much going on in this I don't know where to begin, but I'll get an angle soon. Be prepared to field potential assignment questions about these.
One is the Casey Anthony trial, most importantly the fact that this was a trial that was conducted both in a trial court and in the court of public opinion. As we know, the verdicts in each diverged. What does this tell us about the nature of information made available to a jury in a trial versus the public through media sources?
A second is the DSK accusations and the entire concept of a perp walk, where police are able to parade a person arrested for, but not formally accused of, a crime. What's the point of it? Is it a gratuitous display of power? Might it bias a potential jury pool against a potential trial defendant.
A third is the entire Rupert Murdoch phone hacking scandal. There is so much going on in this I don't know where to begin, but I'll get an angle soon. Be prepared to field potential assignment questions about these.
The Doves are Hawks and the Hawks are Doves
The New Republic Reports on an interesting observation. Members of each party seem to have flipped their positions on the use of American military power. Democrats who had been critical of Bush's aggressive activities in Iraq are now supportive of Obama's similarly aggressive activities in Libya. Republicans have reversed their positions on the military and are calling for bringing troop how when three years ago they derided such actions.
The obvious difference is which party controls the White House.
The obvious difference is which party controls the White House.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
U.S. Debt Ceiling Increase Remains Unpopular With Americans
U.S. Debt Ceiling Increase Remains Unpopular With Americans
A bit for 2301 - and our upcoming discussion of public opinion, and our ongoing exploration of the relationship between public opinion and the different institution: According to the Gallup Poll, twice as many Americans - 42% to 22% - oppose increasing the debt ceiling as support increasing it. 35% admit to not knowing enough to give an opinion - a large chunk.
Here are the numbers:
The numbers vary depending on partisanship, but independents answer the question the same as Republicans. They oppose raising it 4 to1. Respondents are more concerned about runaway spending than the economic crisis that would likely follow a refusal to increase it.
A bit for 2301 - and our upcoming discussion of public opinion, and our ongoing exploration of the relationship between public opinion and the different institution: According to the Gallup Poll, twice as many Americans - 42% to 22% - oppose increasing the debt ceiling as support increasing it. 35% admit to not knowing enough to give an opinion - a large chunk.
Here are the numbers:
The numbers vary depending on partisanship, but independents answer the question the same as Republicans. They oppose raising it 4 to1. Respondents are more concerned about runaway spending than the economic crisis that would likely follow a refusal to increase it.
Senate Rules Changes on Debt Ceiling Votes Might Avert Default
The Constitution says nothing about a budgetting process - the dent ceiling included, so can always be modified, and is from time to time. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority leader, has proposed a change in order to avoid the looming default.
The story is detailed in the Washington Post and Politico, and it is a but complex, but it allows the president to submit to Congress a request to increase the debt ceiling. Congress can pass a "denial of request" which coudl then be vetoed by the president. Since it takes a 2/3rds vote to overide the veto. the president's own party can ensure it will not be overriden. This means the debt ceiling is raised, and there is a voting record showign who voted for it and who voted against it.
Obviously this fits within our 2302 discussion of the internal rules of Congress and how they change over time. Since this is driven be expedience (and this asumes the proposal passes), its worth wondering how many rules in Congress were the result of similar circumstances.
I like to make the point in our discussion of the executive that its increase in size occurred incrementally over time and generally in response to specific historical events and problems. Most recently, the Department of Homeland Security was created due to 9/11. Without that event, the department would not exist.
Are congressional procedures the accumulation of various decisions made to deal with ceratin political impasses? Might be a good study.
The story is detailed in the Washington Post and Politico, and it is a but complex, but it allows the president to submit to Congress a request to increase the debt ceiling. Congress can pass a "denial of request" which coudl then be vetoed by the president. Since it takes a 2/3rds vote to overide the veto. the president's own party can ensure it will not be overriden. This means the debt ceiling is raised, and there is a voting record showign who voted for it and who voted against it.
Obviously this fits within our 2302 discussion of the internal rules of Congress and how they change over time. Since this is driven be expedience (and this asumes the proposal passes), its worth wondering how many rules in Congress were the result of similar circumstances.
I like to make the point in our discussion of the executive that its increase in size occurred incrementally over time and generally in response to specific historical events and problems. Most recently, the Department of Homeland Security was created due to 9/11. Without that event, the department would not exist.
Are congressional procedures the accumulation of various decisions made to deal with ceratin political impasses? Might be a good study.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Club for Growth Warns Lugar, Hatch on Debt Ceiling
From RollCall, a great explanation why moderate Republicans are falling in line against compromise on the debt ceiling:
The conservative Club for Growth issued a warning shot Monday in the home states of Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.).
The deep-pocketed group bought air time for advertisements criticizing the records of the Senators — both of whom are vulnerable in their respective GOP primaries next year. The spot intends to serve as a warning to Hatch and Lugar not to vote to raise the debt ceiling without a strong spending reduction package, including spending caps and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
. . .
Lugar and Hatch — the two most senior Republicans in the Senate — will likely have tough primary challenges next year. State Treasurer Richard Mourdock has announced he will challenge Lugar, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz indicated he will soon jump into the race against Hatch. The Utah contest would likely be decided at a statewide convention of party activists.
The club already expressed interest in supporting Chaffetz last month, when its president, former Rep. Chris Chocola (R-Ind.), declared, “Run, Jason, Run” in a press release. The club also has met with Mourdock.
This fits with a handful of topics we cover in class - both 2301 and 2302. For 2301 its a great examples of the sort of strength interest groups - especially business groups -- have on the political process. It shows how well heeled groups can put pressure on members of Congress not only by airing negative ads, but also by recruiting candidates to run against incumbents in primaries. Primary elections - as we mention in 2301 - tend to be dominated by extremes of either party, and pull party members to the sides with them. To compete successfully, the incumbents have to start voting in a way that will not be used against them in the primary. When we discuss elections we suggest that primary elections, along with gerrymandering have led to the party polarization we see today. This is a great example of this dynamic at work.
The point for 2302 is similar but in reverse. With the increased costs of campaigns, candidates become beholden to certain groups, and access to further campaign cash becomes something they can dangle before the member.
The conservative Club for Growth issued a warning shot Monday in the home states of Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.).
The deep-pocketed group bought air time for advertisements criticizing the records of the Senators — both of whom are vulnerable in their respective GOP primaries next year. The spot intends to serve as a warning to Hatch and Lugar not to vote to raise the debt ceiling without a strong spending reduction package, including spending caps and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
. . .
Lugar and Hatch — the two most senior Republicans in the Senate — will likely have tough primary challenges next year. State Treasurer Richard Mourdock has announced he will challenge Lugar, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz indicated he will soon jump into the race against Hatch. The Utah contest would likely be decided at a statewide convention of party activists.
The club already expressed interest in supporting Chaffetz last month, when its president, former Rep. Chris Chocola (R-Ind.), declared, “Run, Jason, Run” in a press release. The club also has met with Mourdock.
This fits with a handful of topics we cover in class - both 2301 and 2302. For 2301 its a great examples of the sort of strength interest groups - especially business groups -- have on the political process. It shows how well heeled groups can put pressure on members of Congress not only by airing negative ads, but also by recruiting candidates to run against incumbents in primaries. Primary elections - as we mention in 2301 - tend to be dominated by extremes of either party, and pull party members to the sides with them. To compete successfully, the incumbents have to start voting in a way that will not be used against them in the primary. When we discuss elections we suggest that primary elections, along with gerrymandering have led to the party polarization we see today. This is a great example of this dynamic at work.
The point for 2302 is similar but in reverse. With the increased costs of campaigns, candidates become beholden to certain groups, and access to further campaign cash becomes something they can dangle before the member.
How Partisan Are Texas House Members?
The Texas Tribune, a graph, based on a study from a Rice poli-sci guy, of partisanship in the Texas Legislature.
Comment or Vote
From a link taken from the post below, possibly the greatest video ever made.
http://www.commentorvote.com/
http://www.commentorvote.com/
One Man's View of Blogging
Jonathan Rauch (we discuss his concept of demosclreosis several times) hates not only blogging, but the impact of blogging on discourse. He suggests that the way we interface in a blogging environment makes a particular type of discourse more likely to emerge.
Its an interesting point. The technology impacts political discourse. We know this already of course. The development of radios changed the executive branch, and television impacted the type of people we elect president. Which just now seem to be fully coming to terms with the way the bloggosphere impacts politics. The reviews are not good, but change seems underway.
For people who want to read and think, which is still a lot of people, the worldwide web is an incorrigibly hostile environment. Thank goodness, it is already in the process of being displaced by the far more reader-friendly world of apps, which is hospitable to quality writing and focused reading, as opposed to knee-jerk opinionating and attention-deficit-disordered skimming. The blogging format, I believe, was an outgrowth of a particular technological moment, specifically the gap between the decline of paper and the rise of HTML5. Its heyday is over.
Its an interesting point. The technology impacts political discourse. We know this already of course. The development of radios changed the executive branch, and television impacted the type of people we elect president. Which just now seem to be fully coming to terms with the way the bloggosphere impacts politics. The reviews are not good, but change seems underway.
For people who want to read and think, which is still a lot of people, the worldwide web is an incorrigibly hostile environment. Thank goodness, it is already in the process of being displaced by the far more reader-friendly world of apps, which is hospitable to quality writing and focused reading, as opposed to knee-jerk opinionating and attention-deficit-disordered skimming. The blogging format, I believe, was an outgrowth of a particular technological moment, specifically the gap between the decline of paper and the rise of HTML5. Its heyday is over.
The Constitution and the Debt Ceiling
Here are a few links touching on the different issues raised regarding the constitution, the national debt and presidential power. It's worth considering whether the Constitution is internally contradictory. Example: We are supposed to honor debts, but no entity other than Congress can borrow money, which means that there is no entity that can force Congress to honor debts.
- Under What Circumstances Can The President Ignore the Debt Ceiling?
- The Legislative History of Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- More on the Original Meaning of Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Laurence Tribe Responds to Secretary Geithner.
- Is Section 4 Alive?
- The Debt Limit Debate and the War Powers Debate
- A Ceiling We Can’t Wish Away
- Under What Circumstances Can The President Ignore the Debt Ceiling?
- The Legislative History of Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- More on the Original Meaning of Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Laurence Tribe Responds to Secretary Geithner.
- Is Section 4 Alive?
- The Debt Limit Debate and the War Powers Debate
- A Ceiling We Can’t Wish Away
Alabama immigration law challenged in federal court
For my eleven week 2301 class, as we dig into civil rights, here are links to stories about accusations that recent immigration laws might be (or lead to) unconstitutional violations of the civil rights of Americans.
- Alabama immigration law challenged in federal court
- Lawsuit to block Ala. immigration law
- Advocacy Groups Sue to Block Alabama Immigration Law.
Heres' an outline of some of the disputes from the LA Times:
At issue is the extent to which states may set immigration policy, traditionally a federal prerogative. Fresh answers may soon come from the U.S. Supreme Court: In May, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said her state would ask the high court to lift a temporary injunction preventing parts of the state's controversial law, known as SB 1070, from taking effect.
The broader immigration issue, meanwhile, continues to roil even those parts of the country where lawmakers have taken a more conciliatory approach. This week in Maryland, a recent law to grant illegal immigrants in-state college tuition breaks was suspended after opponents gathered enough signatures to place the matter before voters in a 2012 referendum.
The Alabama measure requires police, in the course of any arrest or traffic stop, to try to determine a person's residency status, given a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an immigrant — unless doing so would hinder an investigation.
Friday's lawsuit, whose plaintiffs include unions, individuals, and social service groups, alleges the law would result in racial profiling, subjecting many to "unlawful interrogations, searches, seizures and arrests" — a throwback to "the worst aspects of Alabama's history."
Among other things, the suit argues the law will hinder due process and violate the Constitution's contracts clause by deeming invalid civil contracts knowingly entered into with an illegal immigrant.
One plaintiff, the AIDS Action Coalition, would be barred from "harboring" illegal immigrants in its buildings, taking them to medical appointments, and helping them find rental housing, the suit said.
Another plaintiff, an Alabama-born man named Matt Webster, is in the process of adopting two young orphans who are in the country illegally. He and his wife plan to apply for the boys' citizenship after the adoption goes through. But in the meantime, the suit notes, the new law will make it illegal for him to drive the boys anywhere.
- Alabama immigration law challenged in federal court
- Lawsuit to block Ala. immigration law
- Advocacy Groups Sue to Block Alabama Immigration Law.
Heres' an outline of some of the disputes from the LA Times:
At issue is the extent to which states may set immigration policy, traditionally a federal prerogative. Fresh answers may soon come from the U.S. Supreme Court: In May, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said her state would ask the high court to lift a temporary injunction preventing parts of the state's controversial law, known as SB 1070, from taking effect.
The broader immigration issue, meanwhile, continues to roil even those parts of the country where lawmakers have taken a more conciliatory approach. This week in Maryland, a recent law to grant illegal immigrants in-state college tuition breaks was suspended after opponents gathered enough signatures to place the matter before voters in a 2012 referendum.
The Alabama measure requires police, in the course of any arrest or traffic stop, to try to determine a person's residency status, given a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an immigrant — unless doing so would hinder an investigation.
Friday's lawsuit, whose plaintiffs include unions, individuals, and social service groups, alleges the law would result in racial profiling, subjecting many to "unlawful interrogations, searches, seizures and arrests" — a throwback to "the worst aspects of Alabama's history."
Among other things, the suit argues the law will hinder due process and violate the Constitution's contracts clause by deeming invalid civil contracts knowingly entered into with an illegal immigrant.
One plaintiff, the AIDS Action Coalition, would be barred from "harboring" illegal immigrants in its buildings, taking them to medical appointments, and helping them find rental housing, the suit said.
Another plaintiff, an Alabama-born man named Matt Webster, is in the process of adopting two young orphans who are in the country illegally. He and his wife plan to apply for the boys' citizenship after the adoption goes through. But in the meantime, the suit notes, the new law will make it illegal for him to drive the boys anywhere.
How Stable is Boehner's Speakership?
Politico thinks that Boehner's inability to sell a compromise to House Republicans puts his speakership at jeopardy. The second in command - Eric Cantor - seem to speak more for the tea party faction within the party and may be angling for a promotion.
Fourth Amendment RIP?
Grits for Breakfast points to several stories suggesting that the 4th Amendment may be increasingly irrelevant. Recent technological developments (GPS, wireless communicatons, credit card use) have put more and more private information in the public sphere, which previous court rulings have argued is fair game for investigators.
ScotusBlog: Review of the Court’s Fourth Amendment cases.
ScotusBlog: Review of the Court’s Fourth Amendment cases.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Why the Republicans Resist Compromise
From Nate Silver at the NYT, more proof that Republicans are more and more conservative, but Democrats are primarily moderate. It explains the power of the Tea Party in the latter, but why the hard left lacks the same pull with the Democrats.
2011 Texas Sunset Reports
For my upcoming 2302 summer 2 students:
- The Texas Sunset Commission.
- Report to the 82nd Session.
Every few years Texas executive agencies are reviewed and be potentially eliminated if its seen as necessary. This link takes us to this year's list. Expect an assignment at some point regarding the process.
- The Texas Sunset Commission.
- Report to the 82nd Session.
Every few years Texas executive agencies are reviewed and be potentially eliminated if its seen as necessary. This link takes us to this year's list. Expect an assignment at some point regarding the process.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Opinion v Knowledge about the ACA
While significant majorities of Americans voice opinions one way or another on the recent health care bill majorities are also clueless about what's exactly in it.
See this Pew Researh Center report for detail.
For 2301 (the public opinion section) it is worth wondering what drives people's opinions about the bill. Studies suggest opinion leaders (like Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore) are why. When it comes to detailed information about items we'd rather not investigate ourselves, we'll adopt the opinion of the opinion leaders we most identify with.
See this Pew Researh Center report for detail.
For 2301 (the public opinion section) it is worth wondering what drives people's opinions about the bill. Studies suggest opinion leaders (like Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore) are why. When it comes to detailed information about items we'd rather not investigate ourselves, we'll adopt the opinion of the opinion leaders we most identify with.
Was windstorm insurance reform all about punishing a political opponent?
Texas Tribune seem to think so.
The following part of the piece points out the battle between two major interest groups over the bill:
The reform debate naturally pitted the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, which (Steve) Mostyn leads as president, against Texans for Lawsuit Reform, arguably the most influential business lobby group in Republican-ruled Texas. That group’s chief lobbyist is Mike Toomey, Perry’s former chief of staff, longtime friend and confidante.
For my upcoming 2301 class, I'd like to use this story as a way to understand how the current state of political power in Texas
- Website: Texas Windstorm Insurance Association.
- Website: Texas Trial Lawyers Association.
- Website: Texans for Lawsuit Reform.
The following part of the piece points out the battle between two major interest groups over the bill:
The reform debate naturally pitted the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, which (Steve) Mostyn leads as president, against Texans for Lawsuit Reform, arguably the most influential business lobby group in Republican-ruled Texas. That group’s chief lobbyist is Mike Toomey, Perry’s former chief of staff, longtime friend and confidante.
For my upcoming 2301 class, I'd like to use this story as a way to understand how the current state of political power in Texas
- Website: Texas Windstorm Insurance Association.
- Website: Texas Trial Lawyers Association.
- Website: Texans for Lawsuit Reform.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Is this proof that the Tea Party has pulled the Republican Party too far to the right?
David Brooks seems to think the current posturing on the debt ceiling - and the seeming willingness to either risk financial collapse or ignore anyone who believes that's a possibility - proves it. He's pretty harsh:
. . . the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.
The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no.
If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.
The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.
As if this is not enough, some Tea Party activists are unhappy with some of the newbies and are looking for people to challenge them from the right:
On the flip side, groups aligned with the Tea Party movement, which helped push many new-to-politics candidates into House seats, are disenchanted with some of their new hires and are pondering if they can raise the money, and the firepower, to find someone to take them on.
“I do think it is going to be more competitive,” said Jenny Beth Martin, a co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots. “With the freshmen who claim to be Tea Party or claim to support the ideas of the Tea Party movement but haven’t kept their promise, I think it will be tough for them.”
This explains why freshman Republicans are not inclined to compromise. The question for 2012 will be whether this creates an opening for Democrats in the center.
. . . the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.
The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no.
If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.
The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.
As if this is not enough, some Tea Party activists are unhappy with some of the newbies and are looking for people to challenge them from the right:
On the flip side, groups aligned with the Tea Party movement, which helped push many new-to-politics candidates into House seats, are disenchanted with some of their new hires and are pondering if they can raise the money, and the firepower, to find someone to take them on.
“I do think it is going to be more competitive,” said Jenny Beth Martin, a co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots. “With the freshmen who claim to be Tea Party or claim to support the ideas of the Tea Party movement but haven’t kept their promise, I think it will be tough for them.”
This explains why freshman Republicans are not inclined to compromise. The question for 2012 will be whether this creates an opening for Democrats in the center.
Some Random Links Related to the War Powers Resolution
The following are intended for my 2302 and this week's written assignment. These are a variety of stories related to the War Powers Resolution and whether Obama violated the law by joining the "intervention" against Qaddafi in Libya. I'm especially interested in the nature of the conflict as it winds its way through Congress. This is an institutional conflict as much as anything else and I'm interested in the current nature of the showdown between the legislative and executive branches regarding war powers.
These links should jump start the investigation:
- CRS: War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance.
- CRS: The War Powers Resolution: After Thirty Years.
- White House Report on U.S. Actions in Libya.
- On Libya, a Split in Congress Means an Obama Win
- Times Topics: War Powers Act of 1973.
These links should jump start the investigation:
- CRS: War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance.
- CRS: The War Powers Resolution: After Thirty Years.
- White House Report on U.S. Actions in Libya.
- On Libya, a Split in Congress Means an Obama Win
- Times Topics: War Powers Act of 1973.
Civil Liberties in the 2010 Supreme Court Term
The Supreme Court ruled on several cases involving civil liberties this term. The ACLU runs through a few.
Establishment Clause - Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn: "State residents do not have a right to challenge a state tax credit – arguing that the credit unconstitutionally subsidizes religious schools in violation of the Establishment Clause – simply because they pay taxes."
Free Exercise - Sossamon v. Texas: "The plaintiff in this case is a Texas state prisoner who was denied the opportunity to participate in Christian worship services. He sued, seeking injunctive relief and damages. Texas changed its policy mid-litigation, mooting the claim for injunctive relief, and successfully argued in the lower courts that it was immune from damages. The ACLU amicus brief argues that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) authorizes the federal courts to order "appropriate relief" when the religious rights of prisoners are violated, that "appropriate relief" includes damages, that Texas waived its immunity when it accepted federal funds to help operate its prisons, and that damages are essential to ensure judicial review, as this case demonstrates."
Exculpatory Evidence - Connick v. Thompson: "A district attorney's office cannot be held liable for failing to train its prosecutors when the plaintiff proves only a single violation that has allegedly arisen from the inadequate training."
Free Speech - Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association: "California has enacted a law banning the sale of "violent video games" to minors. Like every other similar law around the nation, it was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal appeals court. In an amicus brief supporting that decision, the ACLU argues that the statute is pointless if it does not reach on-line sales and game playing, and overbroad if it does since the statutory prohibition would then effectively apply to adults as well as children. In addition, the ACLU brief argues that the statute's attempt to define "violent video games" by analogy to obscenity is vague, unenforceable, and unconstitutional."
Free Speech - Snyder v. Phelps: "The jury in this case awarded $10 million in damages on the theory that defendants had engaged in the intentional infliction of emotional distress by staging a funeral protest on the public streets and in conformity with local law that was meant to express their opposition to homosexuality. While disagreeing vehemently with defendants' stated views — and, indeed, having been the subject of their condemnation on other occasions — the ACLU amicus brief supports the judgment of the Fourth Circuit below, holding that the jury verdict was inconsistent with the First Amendment."
Right to Counsel / Habeas Corpus - Cullen v. Pinholster: "When an inmate challenges his state death sentence on the grounds that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present adequate mitigating evidence, a federal habeas court may only consider the evidence the inmate presented in support of that claim in the state courts. The Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that, on the basis of the state record alone, the inmate was entitled to habeas relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim."
Miranda Warning - J.D.B. v. North Carolina: "A suspect in custody must be given Miranda warnings prior to any police interrogation. Whether a suspect is in custody for Miranda purposes depends on the totality of circumstances. The ultimate question is whether a reasonable person in similar circumstances would feel free to leave and terminate the questioning. The suspect in this case was a 13 year old boy who was interrogated in school by police officers. In our amicus brief, the ACLU argues that the suspect’s age is an appropriate factor to consider in deciding whether Miranda warnings were required. We also argue that the school context is relevant, since students in school are not normally free leave a room whenever they choose. Finally, our amicus brief highlights for the court the increasing prevalence of police in school, and the increasing criminalization of school disciplinary infractions."
The Right to Petition - Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri: "The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is one of the central guarantees of the First Amendment and has long been understood to include the right to seek a resolution of disputes with the government by invoking the government's formal adjudicatory processes, including litigation. The ACLU's amicus brief argues that public employees do not forfeit this right when they accept a job with the government and that the right to sue the government does not depend on whether the underlying grievance involves a matter of public concern or private concern. Finally, we argue that the existence of the right necessarily means that the government may not retaliate against public employees who sue their public employer or pursue statutorily recognized arbitration."
2301: These cases highlight the current state of civil liberties and the meaning of the Constitution, at least as applied to these specific disputes.
2302: here is the latest indication of the state of the Supreme Court.
Establishment Clause - Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn: "State residents do not have a right to challenge a state tax credit – arguing that the credit unconstitutionally subsidizes religious schools in violation of the Establishment Clause – simply because they pay taxes."
Free Exercise - Sossamon v. Texas: "The plaintiff in this case is a Texas state prisoner who was denied the opportunity to participate in Christian worship services. He sued, seeking injunctive relief and damages. Texas changed its policy mid-litigation, mooting the claim for injunctive relief, and successfully argued in the lower courts that it was immune from damages. The ACLU amicus brief argues that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) authorizes the federal courts to order "appropriate relief" when the religious rights of prisoners are violated, that "appropriate relief" includes damages, that Texas waived its immunity when it accepted federal funds to help operate its prisons, and that damages are essential to ensure judicial review, as this case demonstrates."
Exculpatory Evidence - Connick v. Thompson: "A district attorney's office cannot be held liable for failing to train its prosecutors when the plaintiff proves only a single violation that has allegedly arisen from the inadequate training."
Free Speech - Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association: "California has enacted a law banning the sale of "violent video games" to minors. Like every other similar law around the nation, it was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal appeals court. In an amicus brief supporting that decision, the ACLU argues that the statute is pointless if it does not reach on-line sales and game playing, and overbroad if it does since the statutory prohibition would then effectively apply to adults as well as children. In addition, the ACLU brief argues that the statute's attempt to define "violent video games" by analogy to obscenity is vague, unenforceable, and unconstitutional."
Free Speech - Snyder v. Phelps: "The jury in this case awarded $10 million in damages on the theory that defendants had engaged in the intentional infliction of emotional distress by staging a funeral protest on the public streets and in conformity with local law that was meant to express their opposition to homosexuality. While disagreeing vehemently with defendants' stated views — and, indeed, having been the subject of their condemnation on other occasions — the ACLU amicus brief supports the judgment of the Fourth Circuit below, holding that the jury verdict was inconsistent with the First Amendment."
Right to Counsel / Habeas Corpus - Cullen v. Pinholster: "When an inmate challenges his state death sentence on the grounds that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present adequate mitigating evidence, a federal habeas court may only consider the evidence the inmate presented in support of that claim in the state courts. The Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that, on the basis of the state record alone, the inmate was entitled to habeas relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim."
Miranda Warning - J.D.B. v. North Carolina: "A suspect in custody must be given Miranda warnings prior to any police interrogation. Whether a suspect is in custody for Miranda purposes depends on the totality of circumstances. The ultimate question is whether a reasonable person in similar circumstances would feel free to leave and terminate the questioning. The suspect in this case was a 13 year old boy who was interrogated in school by police officers. In our amicus brief, the ACLU argues that the suspect’s age is an appropriate factor to consider in deciding whether Miranda warnings were required. We also argue that the school context is relevant, since students in school are not normally free leave a room whenever they choose. Finally, our amicus brief highlights for the court the increasing prevalence of police in school, and the increasing criminalization of school disciplinary infractions."
The Right to Petition - Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri: "The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is one of the central guarantees of the First Amendment and has long been understood to include the right to seek a resolution of disputes with the government by invoking the government's formal adjudicatory processes, including litigation. The ACLU's amicus brief argues that public employees do not forfeit this right when they accept a job with the government and that the right to sue the government does not depend on whether the underlying grievance involves a matter of public concern or private concern. Finally, we argue that the existence of the right necessarily means that the government may not retaliate against public employees who sue their public employer or pursue statutorily recognized arbitration."
2301: These cases highlight the current state of civil liberties and the meaning of the Constitution, at least as applied to these specific disputes.
2302: here is the latest indication of the state of the Supreme Court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)