You cannot fault Bloomberg for his goals; they embrace the
fundamental tension at the heart of the First Amendment and public
protest. Case law dealt the Occupy movement some fairly heavy cards.
Their speech, on matters of core political concerns, sits at the top of
the pantheon of what the First Amendment protects. And while Zuccotti
Park is technically private, it functions as a public park, and was
dedicated under local zoning laws for round-the-clock public enjoyment
in 1968. Public parks enjoy an exalted status in the geography of the
First Amendment, enshrined in the sort of language men like the first Justice Roberts used to conjure images of the Periclean agora:
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Membership of the 112th Congress: A Profile
A statistical overview of the current Congress from the CRS.
From Bruce Bartlett: Gingrich and the Destruction of Congressional Expertise
Bartlett was a top adviser to both Reagan and H.W. Bush. He takes Newt Gingrich to task for dismantling vital institutions within Congress and making the institution less effective than it might otherwise be.
Judge overturns SEC ruling
2301's should take note of this story. We're covering interest groups and the related concept of agency capture. Sectors of the economy are often accused of "capturing" the regulatory agencies that oversee them by working to have people affiliated with that sector placed at the head of those agencies. The assumption is that once in power, those people will use the power of the regulatory agencies to promote the interests of the economic sector, not the general public.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is commonly accused of doing the biding of the financial sector. This story not only explains how - punishing financial companies with fines while allowing them to not admit to doing anything wrong - but how an independent judiciary can limit this practice.
Consider this to also illustrate the checks and balances and the importance of independent judiciaries. Would an elected judiciary also be able to do this?
The Securities and Exchange Commission is commonly accused of doing the biding of the financial sector. This story not only explains how - punishing financial companies with fines while allowing them to not admit to doing anything wrong - but how an independent judiciary can limit this practice.
Consider this to also illustrate the checks and balances and the importance of independent judiciaries. Would an elected judiciary also be able to do this?
Does the freedom of speech include the right to tell prospective jurors about jury nullification?
The NYT details a case where a man - an advocate of jury nullification- who has been standing outside a U.S. Courthouse has been informing potential jurors of the practice. Not surprisingly, prosecutors don;t like this and want to punish him for doing so. They accuse him of juror tampering. Lawyers for the man charged argue that what he is doing is protected by the First Amendment.
Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said: “The government is dangerously wrong in claiming it can criminalize sidewalk advocacy supporting jury nullification. Other than the extremely limited situations in which someone seeks to influence a known juror in a case, jury nullification advocacy is squarely protected by the First Amendment.”
This story hits a few points covered in 2301, if not the very concept of consent and how it plays itself out in the governing system. Remember that the jury that acquitted John Peter Zenger effectively nullified the libel laws that existed at that time. It's worth pointing out that he is handing out information created by an interest group called the Fully Informed Jury Association.
Based on what we've covered in class - is this protected speech? How might a court rule on this case?
Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said: “The government is dangerously wrong in claiming it can criminalize sidewalk advocacy supporting jury nullification. Other than the extremely limited situations in which someone seeks to influence a known juror in a case, jury nullification advocacy is squarely protected by the First Amendment.”
This story hits a few points covered in 2301, if not the very concept of consent and how it plays itself out in the governing system. Remember that the jury that acquitted John Peter Zenger effectively nullified the libel laws that existed at that time. It's worth pointing out that he is handing out information created by an interest group called the Fully Informed Jury Association.
Based on what we've covered in class - is this protected speech? How might a court rule on this case?
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Structural or Cyclical Unemployment?
As we've noted in class, half of the unemployment rate is composed of people out of work for long periods of time, which may reflect a change in the structural nature of the job market. This means these people may not be able to easily find other jobs, and we may be witnessing an increase in the normal rate of unemployment. Here are comments related to that question:
- Why the Job Market May Never be the Same: The Great Recession has profoundly altered the U.S. labor market, says a growing number of economists. The problem is that unemployed workers are not finding their way to available jobs as smoothly as in past recoveries due mainly to a mismatch between the skills companies need and those workers have to offer. If these analysts are right—and there is mounting evidence in their favor—the goal of returning to the heady days of 5 percent unemployment, generally perceived as “full employment,” may no longer be possible, and policymakers may not be able to do anything about it.
- Gary Becker doubts whether structural employment has changed. He thinks high joblessness is due to extended unemployment benefits, an unwillingness to work for less money than they had previously, and a reluctance to move to where the jobs are.
- Richard Posner isn't sure that structural change can be ruled out. Jobs continue to be sent overseas where labor is cheaper and workers have fewer protections. and there's this: Persistent unemployment can feed on itself, because the unemployed have lower incomes and so spend less on consumption (and consumption drives production and therefore employment), and because the long-term unemployed lose skills. And if the pattern of employment shifts, many workers discover that they have not been trained for the types of work in which there are jobs.
- Why the Job Market May Never be the Same: The Great Recession has profoundly altered the U.S. labor market, says a growing number of economists. The problem is that unemployed workers are not finding their way to available jobs as smoothly as in past recoveries due mainly to a mismatch between the skills companies need and those workers have to offer. If these analysts are right—and there is mounting evidence in their favor—the goal of returning to the heady days of 5 percent unemployment, generally perceived as “full employment,” may no longer be possible, and policymakers may not be able to do anything about it.
- Gary Becker doubts whether structural employment has changed. He thinks high joblessness is due to extended unemployment benefits, an unwillingness to work for less money than they had previously, and a reluctance to move to where the jobs are.
- Richard Posner isn't sure that structural change can be ruled out. Jobs continue to be sent overseas where labor is cheaper and workers have fewer protections. and there's this: Persistent unemployment can feed on itself, because the unemployed have lower incomes and so spend less on consumption (and consumption drives production and therefore employment), and because the long-term unemployed lose skills. And if the pattern of employment shifts, many workers discover that they have not been trained for the types of work in which there are jobs.
The Beige Book
From the NYT, information on - and a link to - the Fed's occasional report on economic conditions throughout the US:
- The Beige Book.
- The Beige Book.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Prop. 8 cases joined, moving faster : SCOTUSblog
Prop. 8 cases joined, moving faster : SCOTUSblog.
The Supreme Court may be ruling on gay marriage this term.
The Supreme Court may be ruling on gay marriage this term.
A missed opportunity to educate the American people about the budget
Bruce Bartlett wished the super committee and President Obama had spent more time explaining the deficit than playing politics with it.
For 2301, this touches on issues we talked about with public opinion and the media. Does the American electorate posses the knowledge necessary to govern itself effectively and does the media see any profit in teaching them?
For 2301, this touches on issues we talked about with public opinion and the media. Does the American electorate posses the knowledge necessary to govern itself effectively and does the media see any profit in teaching them?
Might Republicans Lose the Working Class vote in 2012?
We've discussed the volatility of the electorate in 2012, and evidence continues to mount that segments of the population that voted Republican in 2010 - after having voted Democratic in 2008 - might swing back in 2012.
This author wonders why and thinks there is a disconnect between the GOP base voter and the working class:
. . . the differences between white working-class independents and the GOP’s conservative base are becoming too substantial to ignore. The GOP base voter believes the deficit is as large a problem as the economy; the white working-class independent does not. The GOP base voter believes cutting entitlements is necessary to cut the deficit and that taxes on the rich should not be raised; the white working-class independent disagrees. The GOP base voter wants to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan; the white working-class independent wants to come home. The GOP base voter scorns Occupy Wall Street; the white working-class independent thinks the Occupiers have something of a point.
In the past, Republican politicians would respond to such differences by avoiding areas of disagreement. But that option is no longer possible. Avoiding the deficit now means America will turn into Italy later. Conservative Republicans need to understand why white working-class independents disagree with them. They need to see if there is a way to bring the white working class on board.
Romney doesn't seem to be an appealing candidate to this group:
While Governor Romney did well among Massachusetts white working-class independents in his 2002 victory, in the 2008 primaries he failed to make much of an impression among Republicans with a similar profile. His support was noticeably skewed to the affluent suburbs populated by college-educated voters. The polls in the 2012 race continue to show he runs well behind more conservative competitors among the non-college educated.
One could dismiss this and argue that these Republican voters will ultimately back whomever the party nominates. But a recent Wall Street Journal poll confirms that Romney’s problem extends to white working-class independents as well. The poll, released last week, found that an unnamed generic Republican beats President Obama among the white working class by 12 points, 48 percent to 36 percent. Paired with Romney, however, Obama runs even at 44 percent.
Why does this matter?
Despite all their advantages, Republicans won only 52 percent of the popular vote in the House last year. They achieved this total because of their record-high 63 percent to 33 percent margin of victory among the white working class. In other words, if the Republican nominee’s share of the white working-class vote slips below 60 percent, there is virtually no chance he will get a majority of the national popular vote in 2012. If the share slips closer to McCain’s 58 percent in 2008, Obama’s reelection is assured.
This author wonders why and thinks there is a disconnect between the GOP base voter and the working class:
. . . the differences between white working-class independents and the GOP’s conservative base are becoming too substantial to ignore. The GOP base voter believes the deficit is as large a problem as the economy; the white working-class independent does not. The GOP base voter believes cutting entitlements is necessary to cut the deficit and that taxes on the rich should not be raised; the white working-class independent disagrees. The GOP base voter wants to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan; the white working-class independent wants to come home. The GOP base voter scorns Occupy Wall Street; the white working-class independent thinks the Occupiers have something of a point.
In the past, Republican politicians would respond to such differences by avoiding areas of disagreement. But that option is no longer possible. Avoiding the deficit now means America will turn into Italy later. Conservative Republicans need to understand why white working-class independents disagree with them. They need to see if there is a way to bring the white working class on board.
Romney doesn't seem to be an appealing candidate to this group:
While Governor Romney did well among Massachusetts white working-class independents in his 2002 victory, in the 2008 primaries he failed to make much of an impression among Republicans with a similar profile. His support was noticeably skewed to the affluent suburbs populated by college-educated voters. The polls in the 2012 race continue to show he runs well behind more conservative competitors among the non-college educated.
One could dismiss this and argue that these Republican voters will ultimately back whomever the party nominates. But a recent Wall Street Journal poll confirms that Romney’s problem extends to white working-class independents as well. The poll, released last week, found that an unnamed generic Republican beats President Obama among the white working class by 12 points, 48 percent to 36 percent. Paired with Romney, however, Obama runs even at 44 percent.
Why does this matter?
Despite all their advantages, Republicans won only 52 percent of the popular vote in the House last year. They achieved this total because of their record-high 63 percent to 33 percent margin of victory among the white working class. In other words, if the Republican nominee’s share of the white working-class vote slips below 60 percent, there is virtually no chance he will get a majority of the national popular vote in 2012. If the share slips closer to McCain’s 58 percent in 2008, Obama’s reelection is assured.
The dreaded You Tube moment
Here's an interesting read - it touches on points made in 2301 when we discussed the consequences of new media technology, in this case You Tube. The author argues that Republican candidates are mindful that their performances in the debates can lead to unwitting viral recordings that can undermine a candidate's appeal. Rick Perry's "oops" moment took off and had a life of its own since it was easily captured and distributed.
This has had an impact on how candidates perform: "No one has been more cautious in debates than Romney, the field's nominal front-runner. The former Massachusetts governor has worked to draw little attention to himself, choosing his words carefully when answering questions and often refusing to take the bait if a rival tries to goad him or get under his skin."
The story points out an important contemporary reality: ""The potential army of detractors or amplifiers has expanded exponentially, which makes the candidates more sensitive . . . Now, everyone's a publisher and everyone's a distributor. It makes the candidates realize there is no safe harbor anymore."
This has had an impact on how candidates perform: "No one has been more cautious in debates than Romney, the field's nominal front-runner. The former Massachusetts governor has worked to draw little attention to himself, choosing his words carefully when answering questions and often refusing to take the bait if a rival tries to goad him or get under his skin."
The story points out an important contemporary reality: ""The potential army of detractors or amplifiers has expanded exponentially, which makes the candidates more sensitive . . . Now, everyone's a publisher and everyone's a distributor. It makes the candidates realize there is no safe harbor anymore."
Environmental Interest Groups and the Obama Administration
Environmental groups have not been pleased with Obama Administration decisions they see as being too lenient on big business. An author writing in the New Yorker details how business and environmental groups have competed with each other in influencing the administration's decision about a proposed pipeline (by TransCanada) to carry tar sand from Canada to Port Arthur. The conflict between the two groups illustrates the "outsider" and "insider' tactics interest groups adopt whether they consider themselves to have or not have inside connections with decision makers.
Pro-pipeline groups were the White House and could adopt insider tactics: "The lineup promoting TransCanada’s interests was a textbook study in modern, bipartisan corporate influence peddling. Lobbyists ranged from the arch-conservative Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform to TransCanada’s in-house lobbyist Paul Elliott, who worked on both Hillary and Bill Clinton’s Presidential campaigns. President Clinton’s former Ambassador to Canada, Gordon Giffin, a major contributor to Hillary Clinton’s Presidential and Senate campaigns, was on TransCanada’s payroll, too."
Environmental groups had few internal connections with the administration so they adopted an outsider tactic to draw attention to their complaints: "On November 6th, exactly a year before the election, the protest returned to Washington. This time, twelve thousand people encircled the White House. President Obama was reportedly out, playing golf, but the message evidently got through to him. Four days later, he issued a statement saying that the decision on the pipeline permit would be delayed until at least 2013, pending further environmental review. In addition, in response to claims of conflict of interest, the State Department’s inspector general launched an investigation into the permit process. Since then, TransCanada, which previously insisted that no other pipeline route was feasible, has announced a new route through Nebraska."
The author concludes by comparing the focused agenda driven tactics employed by the environmnetal grousp here to the "the free-form, leaderless one waged by" the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Pro-pipeline groups were the White House and could adopt insider tactics: "The lineup promoting TransCanada’s interests was a textbook study in modern, bipartisan corporate influence peddling. Lobbyists ranged from the arch-conservative Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform to TransCanada’s in-house lobbyist Paul Elliott, who worked on both Hillary and Bill Clinton’s Presidential campaigns. President Clinton’s former Ambassador to Canada, Gordon Giffin, a major contributor to Hillary Clinton’s Presidential and Senate campaigns, was on TransCanada’s payroll, too."
Environmental groups had few internal connections with the administration so they adopted an outsider tactic to draw attention to their complaints: "On November 6th, exactly a year before the election, the protest returned to Washington. This time, twelve thousand people encircled the White House. President Obama was reportedly out, playing golf, but the message evidently got through to him. Four days later, he issued a statement saying that the decision on the pipeline permit would be delayed until at least 2013, pending further environmental review. In addition, in response to claims of conflict of interest, the State Department’s inspector general launched an investigation into the permit process. Since then, TransCanada, which previously insisted that no other pipeline route was feasible, has announced a new route through Nebraska."
The author concludes by comparing the focused agenda driven tactics employed by the environmnetal grousp here to the "the free-form, leaderless one waged by" the Occupy Wall Street movement.
A few stories related to the failure of the "Super Committee"
The big news yesterday was that the "super committee" (the unofficial name given to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction) failed to arrive at an agreement to trim at least $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next ten years - which is a pretty modest goal considering the total budget over the next 10 years is likely to exceed $40 trillion. The failure will lead to
For summaries of the process and what went wrong click here:
- NYT: The Plans for Reducing the Deficit.
- Click here for background from Times Topics.
- Supercommittee announces failure in effort to tame debt.
- Panel Fails to Reach Deal on Plan for Deficit Reduction.
And here are a handful of opinions about the consequences:
Roger Hickey of the Huffington Post is glad the super committee failed: "If the so-called "Super Committee" had made a bi-partisan deal based on the announced negotiating positions of the Republicans and Democrats on that panel, the result would have been higher unemployment, serious damage to the social safety net -- and worsening deficits." The consequence would have been higher deficits over the next ten years due to a worse economy.
NYT commentators point out that the triggers put in place by the deal's failure - plus the increased likelihood that the Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of next year could lead to recession: "A Moody’s Analytics report warns that failing a deal, the combined impact will amount to a “historically extreme” reduction in the deficit that could push the economy into recession. It notes that under current law, federal revenue would increase as a share of economic activity by 3.7 percentage points over 2012 and 2013 — the sharpest rise since 1969, when, Moody’s says, sudden tax increases “helped set off a mild recession.” Combined with the required budget cuts, the deficit would shrink to $510 billion from $1.3 trillion by 2013."
The Washington Post provides a guide to the rhetoric surrounding the debt debate.
The Christian Science Monitor provides a briefing page - what do you need to know about the committee's failure?
For summaries of the process and what went wrong click here:
- NYT: The Plans for Reducing the Deficit.
- Click here for background from Times Topics.
- Supercommittee announces failure in effort to tame debt.
- Panel Fails to Reach Deal on Plan for Deficit Reduction.
And here are a handful of opinions about the consequences:
Roger Hickey of the Huffington Post is glad the super committee failed: "If the so-called "Super Committee" had made a bi-partisan deal based on the announced negotiating positions of the Republicans and Democrats on that panel, the result would have been higher unemployment, serious damage to the social safety net -- and worsening deficits." The consequence would have been higher deficits over the next ten years due to a worse economy.
NYT commentators point out that the triggers put in place by the deal's failure - plus the increased likelihood that the Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of next year could lead to recession: "A Moody’s Analytics report warns that failing a deal, the combined impact will amount to a “historically extreme” reduction in the deficit that could push the economy into recession. It notes that under current law, federal revenue would increase as a share of economic activity by 3.7 percentage points over 2012 and 2013 — the sharpest rise since 1969, when, Moody’s says, sudden tax increases “helped set off a mild recession.” Combined with the required budget cuts, the deficit would shrink to $510 billion from $1.3 trillion by 2013."
The Washington Post provides a guide to the rhetoric surrounding the debt debate.
The Christian Science Monitor provides a briefing page - what do you need to know about the committee's failure?
Monday, November 21, 2011
Written Assignment for 2302: Should judges be elected?
As we know, judges and justices on the national level are appointed to office in order to ensure that they have the qualifications necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of the office. One consequence of this is that these individuals are then immune from the pressures of the general population and can make decisions about cases based on their understanding of the law and the Constitution without any external pressure. Hamilton thought this was a good thing, but the Anti-Federalists did not. They though it led to an elite and detached judiciary (again - Hamilton thought this was the point).
The Texas judiciary is designed to be more responsive to the general population. It is elected to fixed six year terms which guarantees this. But since judges have to run for office, they have to campaign, and since campaigns need money, they rely on contributors to provide those funds. This leads to a problem. Are judges then likely to be swayed by those contributions? Can an elected judge be independent? Can a political contributor - especially a well heeled one - buy justice?
I want you to read up on this controversy and evaluate it. Think about this especially for Texas judges: Is Justice for sale in Texas?
Some links:
- State Judicial Elections.
- The Case for Judicial Appointments.
- Bill Moyers: Justice for Sale.
- Debate: Election of Judges.
- Sandra Day O'Connor: Stop Electing Judges.
The Texas judiciary is designed to be more responsive to the general population. It is elected to fixed six year terms which guarantees this. But since judges have to run for office, they have to campaign, and since campaigns need money, they rely on contributors to provide those funds. This leads to a problem. Are judges then likely to be swayed by those contributions? Can an elected judge be independent? Can a political contributor - especially a well heeled one - buy justice?
I want you to read up on this controversy and evaluate it. Think about this especially for Texas judges: Is Justice for sale in Texas?
Some links:
- State Judicial Elections.
- The Case for Judicial Appointments.
- Bill Moyers: Justice for Sale.
- Debate: Election of Judges.
- Sandra Day O'Connor: Stop Electing Judges.
Written Assignment for 16 week 2301: Comparing the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street
The Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements have both flared up since 2008. Each is a group that developed - seemingly from the grassroots - as an expression of dissatisfaction from different groups within the electorate (older folks on medicare and younger folks with student loan debt - to be simplistic), and each hopes to achieve some success in having the needs of those groups redressed. Each is employing different tactics to do so. Beyond that, each also represents different issues that themselves may be more or less easily remediable.
I want you to analyze each group and compare and contrast the different tactics each is using to address the needs of their membership (assuming we are clear about who the members of each happen to be). How effective is each group in converting the grievances of its members into effective political action?
I want you to analyze each group and compare and contrast the different tactics each is using to address the needs of their membership (assuming we are clear about who the members of each happen to be). How effective is each group in converting the grievances of its members into effective political action?
Friday, November 18, 2011
New Texas House District Map - Incumbents likely safe
Now that a federal court has overthrown the map the Texas Legislature drew for the Texas House in the spring, it has drawn a new one.
Related stories:
- First Reading: Map points to smaller GOP majority in Texas House.
- Texas Dems could gain seats under revised voting maps.
Ross Ramsey points out that, as with previous maps, this one is drawn to protect incumbents and guarantee that the winner in November will be the member of a specific party. The general election really doesn't matter that much in Texas:
. . . if recent political history is your guide, you know that a large number of incumbents won’t draw serious opposition even in a redistricting year. They’ll effectively be elected when filing closes. And unless the judges do something shocking to the election recipes (as opposed to some limited surgery to make the maps legal), most of the political districts will remain toxic to candidates from one party or the other.
Most of the Republican districts — nearly two-thirds in the maps drawn by the Legislature — are configured to be nearly impossible for Democrats or Libertarians or anyone other than Republicans to win. It’s the same with the Democratic districts — there are just fewer of them.
The people who represent those districts will effectively be chosen in March, in the party primaries. The November election will hold some surprises. It always does. But the real decision-making in Texas politics increasingly happens in March.
Related stories:
- First Reading: Map points to smaller GOP majority in Texas House.
- Texas Dems could gain seats under revised voting maps.
Ross Ramsey points out that, as with previous maps, this one is drawn to protect incumbents and guarantee that the winner in November will be the member of a specific party. The general election really doesn't matter that much in Texas:
. . . if recent political history is your guide, you know that a large number of incumbents won’t draw serious opposition even in a redistricting year. They’ll effectively be elected when filing closes. And unless the judges do something shocking to the election recipes (as opposed to some limited surgery to make the maps legal), most of the political districts will remain toxic to candidates from one party or the other.
Most of the Republican districts — nearly two-thirds in the maps drawn by the Legislature — are configured to be nearly impossible for Democrats or Libertarians or anyone other than Republicans to win. It’s the same with the Democratic districts — there are just fewer of them.
The people who represent those districts will effectively be chosen in March, in the party primaries. The November election will hold some surprises. It always does. But the real decision-making in Texas politics increasingly happens in March.
Two twists in the health care challenge
Again from Slate, two unexpected twists have emerged in the health care argument before the court.
First, if the court rules that the ACA's individual mandate is unconstitutional, then this might mean that any effort to privatize Social Security or Medicare is unconstitutional as well.
Second, the major issue seems not to be the commerce clause question raised by the individual mandate, but a question raised by the Medicaid expansion also within the bill. Do federal mandates violate the Spending Clause of the Constitution? If so, this severely limits the ability of the national government to impose national standards at all.
First, if the court rules that the ACA's individual mandate is unconstitutional, then this might mean that any effort to privatize Social Security or Medicare is unconstitutional as well.
Second, the major issue seems not to be the commerce clause question raised by the individual mandate, but a question raised by the Medicaid expansion also within the bill. Do federal mandates violate the Spending Clause of the Constitution? If so, this severely limits the ability of the national government to impose national standards at all.
Are the Occupy Wal Street Protests Covered by the First Amendment?
From Slate, a contemplation of the conflict between First Amendment rights to assemble and protest and the rights of government to secure health and safety:
But practice First Amendment law long enough, and you learn that for every uplifting paragraph like that, there are a thousand cases bending an abstract right to the prosaic realities of protest.
Wherever the title of streets and parks
may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the
public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly,
communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public
questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient
times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties
of citizens.
But practice First Amendment law long enough, and you learn that for every uplifting paragraph like that, there are a thousand cases bending an abstract right to the prosaic realities of protest.
Victory for Prop. 8 backers : SCOTUSblog
Victory for Prop. 8 backers : SCOTUSblog.
From the LA Times:
The California Supreme Court decided Thursday that the sponsors of Proposition 8 and other ballot measures are entitled to defend them in court when the state refuses to do so, a ruling likely to spur federal courts to decide the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans.
The state high court’s decision, a defeat for gay rights groups, sets the stage for a federal ruling -- which could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court -- that would affect marriage bans outside California.
Background from the NYT:
Some gay rights groups were disappointed today when the California Supreme Court ruled that the sponsors of Proposition 8, ProtectMarriage, have standing to defend the discriminatory law, even though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown had refused to do so.
Previously, Judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled the ban against same-sex unions unconstitutional in federal court, had said that ProtectMarriage could not appeal his decision to the Ninth Circuit, because they were never able to prove that gay marriage harmed them in any way.
That, of course is one of the many huge flaws in the argument against marriage equality.
But, as we wrote in an editorial on December 10, 2010, denying standing to the anti-marriage crowd would effectively nullify the referendum, confounding the initiative process and the voters’ right to have their choices defended. That’s probably not the best way to secure equality for a minority group.
From the LA Times:
The California Supreme Court decided Thursday that the sponsors of Proposition 8 and other ballot measures are entitled to defend them in court when the state refuses to do so, a ruling likely to spur federal courts to decide the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans.
The state high court’s decision, a defeat for gay rights groups, sets the stage for a federal ruling -- which could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court -- that would affect marriage bans outside California.
Background from the NYT:
Some gay rights groups were disappointed today when the California Supreme Court ruled that the sponsors of Proposition 8, ProtectMarriage, have standing to defend the discriminatory law, even though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown had refused to do so.
Previously, Judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled the ban against same-sex unions unconstitutional in federal court, had said that ProtectMarriage could not appeal his decision to the Ninth Circuit, because they were never able to prove that gay marriage harmed them in any way.
That, of course is one of the many huge flaws in the argument against marriage equality.
But, as we wrote in an editorial on December 10, 2010, denying standing to the anti-marriage crowd would effectively nullify the referendum, confounding the initiative process and the voters’ right to have their choices defended. That’s probably not the best way to secure equality for a minority group.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Is this Internet Censorship?
From the NYT:
China operates the world’s most elaborate and opaque system of Internet censorship. But Congress, under pressure to take action against the theft of intellectual property, is considering misguided legislation that would strengthen China’s Great Firewall and even bring major features of it to America.
The legislation — the Protect IP Act, which has been introduced in the Senate, and a House version known as the Stop Online Piracy Act — have an impressive array of well-financed backers
. . . The bills would empower the attorney general to create a blacklist of sites to be blocked by Internet service providers, search engines, payment providers and advertising networks, all without a court hearing or a trial. The House version goes further, allowing private companies to sue service providers for even briefly and unknowingly hosting content that infringes on copyright — a sharp change from current law, which protects the service providers from civil liability if they remove the problematic content immediately upon notification. The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar.
The web may not remain be the forum for ideas that we think it is now.
James Fallows: Censoring the Internet: It's Not Just for China Any More!
China operates the world’s most elaborate and opaque system of Internet censorship. But Congress, under pressure to take action against the theft of intellectual property, is considering misguided legislation that would strengthen China’s Great Firewall and even bring major features of it to America.
The legislation — the Protect IP Act, which has been introduced in the Senate, and a House version known as the Stop Online Piracy Act — have an impressive array of well-financed backers
. . . The bills would empower the attorney general to create a blacklist of sites to be blocked by Internet service providers, search engines, payment providers and advertising networks, all without a court hearing or a trial. The House version goes further, allowing private companies to sue service providers for even briefly and unknowingly hosting content that infringes on copyright — a sharp change from current law, which protects the service providers from civil liability if they remove the problematic content immediately upon notification. The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar.
The web may not remain be the forum for ideas that we think it is now.
James Fallows: Censoring the Internet: It's Not Just for China Any More!
More on the challenge to health care reform
Two stories in the Atlantic:
- Odds placed on possible outcomes in the court.
- Here are comments on an aspect of the case that is seldom discussed. While most attention is paid to whether act fits within the commerce clause, a second question may be more important. Does the Spending Clause give Congress or the Executive the power to dictate how money is pents once it is given to the states? For example, can it dictate how Medicaid dollars are spent?
- Odds placed on possible outcomes in the court.
- Here are comments on an aspect of the case that is seldom discussed. While most attention is paid to whether act fits within the commerce clause, a second question may be more important. Does the Spending Clause give Congress or the Executive the power to dictate how money is pents once it is given to the states? For example, can it dictate how Medicaid dollars are spent?
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Perry wants a part time Congress and term limits on Supreme Court Justices
The NYT believes the proposal almost surely will never happen. Is he trying to get the other two institutions out of the way?
Monday, November 14, 2011
It sucks to be a millennial
From the Atlantic, an article detailing the impact the current recession is having on the Millennial Generation.
The Supreme Court will hear challenges to health care reform
From the Hill:
The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear the legal challenges to President Obama’s healthcare law.
The high court granted a hearing in the suit filed by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business. The court said it will hear the lawsuit’s challenge to the health law’s individual mandate — the requirement that almost all people in the United States buy insurance.
The decision means that the high court will be reviewing the healthcare law at the height of the 2012 election season.
As they weigh the mandate, the justices will also have to consider how it affects other parts of the law. If they find the coverage requirement unconstitutional, they will have to decide whether to strike it down on its own or instead strike down the entire law.
- From the NYT.
- From the Wapo.
The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear the legal challenges to President Obama’s healthcare law.
The high court granted a hearing in the suit filed by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business. The court said it will hear the lawsuit’s challenge to the health law’s individual mandate — the requirement that almost all people in the United States buy insurance.
The decision means that the high court will be reviewing the healthcare law at the height of the 2012 election season.
As they weigh the mandate, the justices will also have to consider how it affects other parts of the law. If they find the coverage requirement unconstitutional, they will have to decide whether to strike it down on its own or instead strike down the entire law.
- From the NYT.
- From the Wapo.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Banned: Let There Be Light
Director John Huston produced a 1946 film about returning WW2 veterans with psychological trauma. The Defense Department suppressed it and did not allow it to be shown for 30 years. Why?
''Let There Be Light'' is a good, slickly made documentary about the treatment of psychoneurotic combat veterans at Mason General Hospital on Long Island. The treatment involved the thenrevolutionary use of truth drugs and hypnosis and, though the movie tells us more than once that the cures we see will have to be supported by long, intensive psychiatric care, the impression given and even encouraged by the film is of a series of miraculous cures.
In the late 40's, the Army seemed to feel that the film would scare off potential recruits. In his recently published autobiography, ''An Open Book,'' Mr. Huston reports the Army justified its censorship on the grounds that a public showing of the film would invade the privacy of the soldiers. He also reports, in passing, that he photographed some patients being given shock treatment . . .
''Let There Be Light'' is a good, slickly made documentary about the treatment of psychoneurotic combat veterans at Mason General Hospital on Long Island. The treatment involved the thenrevolutionary use of truth drugs and hypnosis and, though the movie tells us more than once that the cures we see will have to be supported by long, intensive psychiatric care, the impression given and even encouraged by the film is of a series of miraculous cures.
In the late 40's, the Army seemed to feel that the film would scare off potential recruits. In his recently published autobiography, ''An Open Book,'' Mr. Huston reports the Army justified its censorship on the grounds that a public showing of the film would invade the privacy of the soldiers. He also reports, in passing, that he photographed some patients being given shock treatment . . .
From the Atlantic: I Was Wrong, and So Are You
We just wrapped up the public opinion section in the 16 week 2301, and I like to spend time discussing what researchers have uncovered about public opinion - specifically how people process information. Rather than use incoming information to develop opinions, people tend to evaluate incoming information based on whether it confirms their pre-held beliefs.
A recent article in the Atlantic lends some support to this idea. The article also shows how misdesigned studies can lead to wrong conclusions.
A recent article in the Atlantic lends some support to this idea. The article also shows how misdesigned studies can lead to wrong conclusions.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Do polls give us a clear idea about who is prefered in a presidential race?
Not really. This post touches on items we covered in 2301 dual credit classes today. It applies to elections as well. The winner can vary depending on how the poll or election is structured. Plurality, majority and borda count rules can produce different results.
The different types of inequality
In 16 week 2301 this week we covered areas of agreement and disagreement on values questions and mentioned that while most people would agree that equality is important, they tend to disagree over what exactly "equality" means.
This David Brooks commentary provides and example. He lists a couple of dozen types of inequalities and outlines which are socially acceptable and which are not.
Example:
Academic inequality is socially acceptable. It is perfectly fine to demonstrate that you are in the academic top 1 percent by wearing a Princeton, Harvard or Stanford sweatshirt.
Ancestor inequality is not socially acceptable. It is not permissible to go around bragging that your family came over on the Mayflower and that you are descended from generations of Throgmorton-Winthrops who bequeathed a legacy of good breeding and fine manners.
This David Brooks commentary provides and example. He lists a couple of dozen types of inequalities and outlines which are socially acceptable and which are not.
Example:
Academic inequality is socially acceptable. It is perfectly fine to demonstrate that you are in the academic top 1 percent by wearing a Princeton, Harvard or Stanford sweatshirt.
Ancestor inequality is not socially acceptable. It is not permissible to go around bragging that your family came over on the Mayflower and that you are descended from generations of Throgmorton-Winthrops who bequeathed a legacy of good breeding and fine manners.
The Media and Syria
Next week, my 16 week 2301s begin studying the freedom of the press and the media. In order to frame the discussion, here's a link to a recent Andrew Sullivan post that points out the importance of media technology that allows people to get a clear picture of what is happening inside a country like Syria.
As media technology allows us to take closer looks at what sorts of things are happening around the world, it becomes more difficult to plead ignorance.
As media technology allows us to take closer looks at what sorts of things are happening around the world, it becomes more difficult to plead ignorance.
From the NYT: Public Opinion and the Occupy Movement
The New York Times has an interactive feature designed to dig into attitudes about the movement.
Perry and Cain's Damage Control
The sign of an effective campaign is its ability to control any damage resulting from a candidate's mistake, or the sudden scandal. Here's a comparison of the relative abilities of the Perry and Cain campaigns to deal with each.
- Top Ten Rick Perry Excuses.
1. I just learned Justin Bieber is my father.
- not bad
- Top Ten Rick Perry Excuses.
1. I just learned Justin Bieber is my father.
- not bad
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Obama Back to Even With "Generic" Republican Candidate
Obama Back to Even With "Generic" Republican Candidate.
Here's a prediction that the election will be close one way or another, here's another saying he has a good chance of being re-elected.
The later prediction is based on a formula cal;led the "Time for Change" model:
The Time-for-Change model is based on three predictors: the growth rate of the economy in the second quarter of the election year (Q2GDP), the president’s net approval rating in late June or early July of the election year (JUNEAPP) and the time-for-change factor (CHANGE), which takes on the value of zero if the president’s party has been in office for one term and one if the president’s party has been in office for two or more terms. The model predicts the incumbent party’s share of the major party vote (PV).
Here's a prediction that the election will be close one way or another, here's another saying he has a good chance of being re-elected.
The later prediction is based on a formula cal;led the "Time for Change" model:
The Time-for-Change model is based on three predictors: the growth rate of the economy in the second quarter of the election year (Q2GDP), the president’s net approval rating in late June or early July of the election year (JUNEAPP) and the time-for-change factor (CHANGE), which takes on the value of zero if the president’s party has been in office for one term and one if the president’s party has been in office for two or more terms. The model predicts the incumbent party’s share of the major party vote (PV).
Was there a backlash against the Tea Party in last Wednesday's election?
Are swing voters still swinging?
Does this tell us anything about what might or might not happen in November 2012?
- OHIO TURNS BACK A LAWLIMITING UNIONS’ RIGHTS
- MISSISSIPPI VOTERSREJECT ANTI-ABORTION MEASURE
Does this tell us anything about what might or might not happen in November 2012?
- OHIO TURNS BACK A LAWLIMITING UNIONS’ RIGHTS
- MISSISSIPPI VOTERSREJECT ANTI-ABORTION MEASURE
Some thoughts about last night's Republican Debate
- From The Daily Beast.
- From Andrew Sullivan.
Everyone wants to know if its time to stick a fork in our governor.
- From Andrew Sullivan.
Everyone wants to know if its time to stick a fork in our governor.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Monday, November 7, 2011
From the Gallup POll: Support for Third U.S. Party Dips, but Is Still Majority View
Despite what we've discovered in class, thee is still strong support for third parties in the U.S:
Fifty-two percent of Americans believe the Republican and Democratic parties do such a poor job of representing the people that a third party is needed. Forty percent believe they do an adequate job. The percentage calling for a third party is down from August, when it tied its high of 58%.
Interestingly, this number includes a majority of Republicans and Tea Party supporters. Is an independent Tea Party bid out of the question?
Fifty-two percent of Americans believe the Republican and Democratic parties do such a poor job of representing the people that a third party is needed. Forty percent believe they do an adequate job. The percentage calling for a third party is down from August, when it tied its high of 58%.
Interestingly, this number includes a majority of Republicans and Tea Party supporters. Is an independent Tea Party bid out of the question?
From the Gallup Poll: Democrats More Liberal, Less White Than in 2008
The Gallup Poll looks at the Democratic Party:
In many respects, the demographic profile of Democrats nationwide is similar to what it was in 2008, although Democrats have become somewhat less white and more liberal than the party that nominated Barack Obama as its presidential candidate that year. As a group, Democrats are more likely than average to be women and nonwhite, less likely to be religious or married, much less likely to be conservative, and much more likely to be liberal than the U.S. population as a whole.
In many respects, the demographic profile of Democrats nationwide is similar to what it was in 2008, although Democrats have become somewhat less white and more liberal than the party that nominated Barack Obama as its presidential candidate that year. As a group, Democrats are more likely than average to be women and nonwhite, less likely to be religious or married, much less likely to be conservative, and much more likely to be liberal than the U.S. population as a whole.
So is crime getting worse or not?
This is an old story. Crime statistics are going down, but people think crime is getting worse:
The Gallup Poll speculates why:
This unwarranted pessimism may stem from the imperfect indications of crime that Americans receive from the news and other sources, as well as Americans' overall mood. In line with this point, the view that crime is worsening could reflect the broader decline in Americans' optimism about the country, as satisfaction with the way things are going declined from 71% in 1999 to 7% in 2008; and, after slightly higher ratings in 2009 and 2010, it is now back down to 13%. Whatever the case, there is a positive story to be told about the nation's violent crime problem that Americans haven't yet fully heard or absorbed.
The Gallup Poll speculates why:
This unwarranted pessimism may stem from the imperfect indications of crime that Americans receive from the news and other sources, as well as Americans' overall mood. In line with this point, the view that crime is worsening could reflect the broader decline in Americans' optimism about the country, as satisfaction with the way things are going declined from 71% in 1999 to 7% in 2008; and, after slightly higher ratings in 2009 and 2010, it is now back down to 13%. Whatever the case, there is a positive story to be told about the nation's violent crime problem that Americans haven't yet fully heard or absorbed.
From NPR: Court Weighs President's Power To Recognize Nations
A case before the court challenges the President's authority over this aspect of foreign policy:
Ever since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, the U.S. government has declined to recognize Jerusalem as part of any country. Palestinians have long claimed the city as their own, and so have Israelis.
The U.S. State Department has long viewed the city's status as one of the key items to be negotiated in a Middle East peace deal. Consequently, the U.S. has avoided even seemingly minor actions that might undermine its role in the peace negotiations by implying any endorsement of Israeli or Arab sovereignty over the city.
Israel's supporters in Congress, however, have long objected to the U.S. policy, and have sought, through legislation, to force U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In 2002, Congress enacted a law urging the president to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and requiring the State Department to allow American citizens born in Jerusalem to list their place of birth as Israel on passport documents.
The case is Zivotofsky v. Clinton.
- From Scotusblog: Argument recap: Who controls foreign policy?
Ever since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, the U.S. government has declined to recognize Jerusalem as part of any country. Palestinians have long claimed the city as their own, and so have Israelis.
The U.S. State Department has long viewed the city's status as one of the key items to be negotiated in a Middle East peace deal. Consequently, the U.S. has avoided even seemingly minor actions that might undermine its role in the peace negotiations by implying any endorsement of Israeli or Arab sovereignty over the city.
Israel's supporters in Congress, however, have long objected to the U.S. policy, and have sought, through legislation, to force U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In 2002, Congress enacted a law urging the president to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and requiring the State Department to allow American citizens born in Jerusalem to list their place of birth as Israel on passport documents.
The case is Zivotofsky v. Clinton.
- From Scotusblog: Argument recap: Who controls foreign policy?
GOVT 2302 16 Week Written Assignment: Judicial Nominations
One of a President's constitutional functions is to nominate people to the federal judiciary, a function that is checked by the Senate since they have to confirm those appointments. While this allows President the ability to shape the judiciary, some are more successful than others. I want you to research President Obama's success in shaping the federal judiciary as opposed to the success of other President's, Such as W. Bush and Clinton. What factors help explain what he has and has not been able to accomplish?
Here are some sites which should help you get going, but do your own research as well.
- JudicialNominations.org.
- Judicial Confirmation and the Constitution.
- Breaking the Judicial Nominations and Confirmations Logjam.
- The Judicial Confirmation Crisis.
Here are some sites which should help you get going, but do your own research as well.
- JudicialNominations.org.
- Judicial Confirmation and the Constitution.
- Breaking the Judicial Nominations and Confirmations Logjam.
- The Judicial Confirmation Crisis.
GOVT 2301 16 week Written Assignment: Is the Stolen Valor Act constitutional?
In a recent blog post I mentioned that the Supreme Court will soon hear arguments in the case of the United States v Alvarez, which will challenge the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act.
I want to read up on the case and detail the arguments on either side of the issue. Is punishing someone for lying about receiving military commendations a violation of speech rights or not? How might the Supreme Court rule on this issue. Back up your claim.
I want to read up on the case and detail the arguments on either side of the issue. Is punishing someone for lying about receiving military commendations a violation of speech rights or not? How might the Supreme Court rule on this issue. Back up your claim.
Friday, November 4, 2011
The Rise of Oligarchy in the US?
Will the information age be oligarchic? An increasing number of commentators think it will. Perhaps the middle class was unique to the industrial age. What might this mean for governance in the US?
- Libertarians For Oligarchy?
- What If Middle-Class Jobs Disappear?
- Texans for Oligarchy
- Libertarians For Oligarchy?
- What If Middle-Class Jobs Disappear?
- Texans for Oligarchy
Business Plan Candidates
This post is a bit hyper-critical of the Republican field, but it says some interesting things about the choices that have been made regarding who has decided to run - or not - and why - or why not.
Note the term "business plan candidates."
Note the term "business plan candidates."
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Before the Walmart Moms there was the Silent Majority
I strongly suggest that 2301 students read through this. It describes how Richard Nixon identified a group that had traditionally voted Democratic - but seemed up for grabs in the 1972 election - and how to mobilize them. His effort led to the realignment that continues to define the current party era. The Republican and Democratic parties look the way they do today as a consequence of this electoral strategy.
- the Southern Strategy.
- the Southern Strategy.
For tomorrow's 2301 dual credit....
According to the syllabus, you've studied elections this week. After wrapping up a few items related to federalism I want to discuss electoral matter that are in the news.
These are up for grabs:
- The Greek referendum - should we have national referendum elections?
- The proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution.
- The role the economy plays in electoral decisions.
- Should we elect judges? How about school board members?
- The tightening of election laws - is voting a right?
- OWS - direct democracy?
These are just a few thoughts, expect more.
These are up for grabs:
- The Greek referendum - should we have national referendum elections?
- The proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution.
- The role the economy plays in electoral decisions.
- Should we elect judges? How about school board members?
- The tightening of election laws - is voting a right?
- OWS - direct democracy?
These are just a few thoughts, expect more.
Maybe there wont be a referendum in Greece
From the Washington Post:
Prime Minister George Papandreou backed away Thursday from a proposal to hold a referendum on a European bailout plan as Greek politicians appeared to be rallying around the rescue despite the tough austerity measures it entails.
The move came after the country’s main opposition party dropped its objections to the bailout package and indicated it would back the measures. But the opposition also called for new elections, which Papandreou opposes, suggesting that a deal could still fall apart.
Papandreou’s proposal to hold a national referendum on the bailout plan, a vote that would also determine Greece’s future in the euro zone, had caused fissures within his Socialist party and sent shockwaves through Europe. Thursday evening, he told an emergency cabinet meeting that if the opposition agreed to the bailout, there was no need to put it to a popular test.
Apparently proposing a referendum on the bailout proposal - which was likely to fail, meaning no bailout - forced the issue. The opposition could have staged their own opposition to the proposal, but now they are stuck with it. To not support it would have risked the future of the European Union. This was less about the merit of the bailout than determining how best to rally support for it.
That raises an interesting point should we have national referenda in the United States? The agreement imposes costs on the general public. Should they be able to vote on it? Is it the right thing to do? But this creates tremendous uncertainty prior to the election. And what if they decide against the measure and Europe falls apart as a result. It wouldn't be the first time.
Prime Minister George Papandreou backed away Thursday from a proposal to hold a referendum on a European bailout plan as Greek politicians appeared to be rallying around the rescue despite the tough austerity measures it entails.
The move came after the country’s main opposition party dropped its objections to the bailout package and indicated it would back the measures. But the opposition also called for new elections, which Papandreou opposes, suggesting that a deal could still fall apart.
Papandreou’s proposal to hold a national referendum on the bailout plan, a vote that would also determine Greece’s future in the euro zone, had caused fissures within his Socialist party and sent shockwaves through Europe. Thursday evening, he told an emergency cabinet meeting that if the opposition agreed to the bailout, there was no need to put it to a popular test.
Apparently proposing a referendum on the bailout proposal - which was likely to fail, meaning no bailout - forced the issue. The opposition could have staged their own opposition to the proposal, but now they are stuck with it. To not support it would have risked the future of the European Union. This was less about the merit of the bailout than determining how best to rally support for it.
That raises an interesting point should we have national referenda in the United States? The agreement imposes costs on the general public. Should they be able to vote on it? Is it the right thing to do? But this creates tremendous uncertainty prior to the election. And what if they decide against the measure and Europe falls apart as a result. It wouldn't be the first time.
From Roll Call: Members of Congress are getting richer
The top 1% in the nation make up almost half of Congress. Does this inhibit their ability to represent the American population?
Members of Congress had a collective net worth of more than $2 billion in 2010, a nearly 25 percent increase over the 2008 total, according to a Roll Call analysis of Members' financial disclosure forms.
Nearly 90 percent of that increase is concentrated in the 50 richest Members of Congress.
Two years ago, Roll Call found that the minimum net worth of House Members was slightly more than $1 billion; Senators had a combined minimum worth of $651 million for a Congressional total of $1.65 billion.
Andrew Sullivan says this makes us an oligarchy.
Members of Congress had a collective net worth of more than $2 billion in 2010, a nearly 25 percent increase over the 2008 total, according to a Roll Call analysis of Members' financial disclosure forms.
Nearly 90 percent of that increase is concentrated in the 50 richest Members of Congress.
Two years ago, Roll Call found that the minimum net worth of House Members was slightly more than $1 billion; Senators had a combined minimum worth of $651 million for a Congressional total of $1.65 billion.
Andrew Sullivan says this makes us an oligarchy.
Incumbent Party’s Expected Vote Margin = 1.14 −.83 × (Years in Office) +4.51 × (4th-Year Income Growth) +1.66 × (3rd-Year Income Growth) −1.04 × (2nd-Year Income Growth) −2.34 × (1st-Year Income Growth)
This formula tells us how likely it is that a president (any president, not just Obama) is likely to be re-elected. The key factor here is "real disposable income per capita."
This is premature, but who cares? Handicapping the 2012 Election
From Nate Silver, a nice overview of where Obama stands now, about a year away from the general election. It all depends on three factors (1) Obama's approval rating, (2) who the Republican nominee is and (3) GDP growth in 2012.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
A Visual History of the American Presidency
A pretty expensive poster, nice graphics though. You can zoom in on it pretty closely. Check it out.
Black and White? Or Shades of Gray?
This might be an interesting read for 2302 students as we plunge into the judiciary.
From the Volock Conspiracy:
One of the main things a law teacher does in class is to explore the boundary regions of a legal doctrine—the hard-to-categorize cases that are most likely to give rise to litigation: Is it an assault for a man to kiss a sleeping woman? Has the hunter acquired ownership of a wild animal when one of his bullets has been lodged in it, whereupon the animal stumbles into another hunter’s trap? Is the alumnus’ promise of a donation a binding contract? Posing these kinds of questions may be the activity law professors most often indulge in, often to excess.
One of the most fascinating problems raised by such boundary cases is why the law is so disturbingly rigid when dealing with them, why it paints in black and white, when reality seems to come in shades of gray. The law insists that something either is an assault or is not, either gives rise to ownership or does not, either is a binding contract or is not. There are no in-betweens.
The trouble is that many of the actual cases seem like in-betweens. In fact a case would never reach the courts if it did not seem to be in-between. But why not let the court say that while this is not a clear-cut case of an assault, it is sort of an assault and that therefore we will award the victim a fraction of the damages, or impose on the perpetrator a fraction of the punishment, that would be appropriate if this were a clear-cut case? Wouldn’t that avoid a lot of unnecessary hair-splitting hairsplitting? That’s what many legal scholars have come to believe. Are they right? Would it be better if the law were less either/or?
From the Volock Conspiracy:
One of the main things a law teacher does in class is to explore the boundary regions of a legal doctrine—the hard-to-categorize cases that are most likely to give rise to litigation: Is it an assault for a man to kiss a sleeping woman? Has the hunter acquired ownership of a wild animal when one of his bullets has been lodged in it, whereupon the animal stumbles into another hunter’s trap? Is the alumnus’ promise of a donation a binding contract? Posing these kinds of questions may be the activity law professors most often indulge in, often to excess.
One of the most fascinating problems raised by such boundary cases is why the law is so disturbingly rigid when dealing with them, why it paints in black and white, when reality seems to come in shades of gray. The law insists that something either is an assault or is not, either gives rise to ownership or does not, either is a binding contract or is not. There are no in-betweens.
The trouble is that many of the actual cases seem like in-betweens. In fact a case would never reach the courts if it did not seem to be in-between. But why not let the court say that while this is not a clear-cut case of an assault, it is sort of an assault and that therefore we will award the victim a fraction of the damages, or impose on the perpetrator a fraction of the punishment, that would be appropriate if this were a clear-cut case? Wouldn’t that avoid a lot of unnecessary hair-splitting hairsplitting? That’s what many legal scholars have come to believe. Are they right? Would it be better if the law were less either/or?
From the National Review: In Defense of the Establishment
An interesting take on the establishment - insiders know how to get things done.
While it contains a lot of errors, the Washington Consensus is right more often than it is wrong. Even more importantly, critiques of the Washington Consensus are wrong more of then than they are right—meaning that taking Washington Establishment down a peg will tend to do more harm than good.
Take, for example, the Federal Reserve. The Fed has made some big mistakes in the last few years—it was too loose during the middle of the last decade, allowing the housing bubble to inflate, and has been too tight since the housing crash. But the modal critique of the Fed has called for worse policy—even tighter money or, worse yet, a return to the Gold Standard.
Or look at banking. The government has mostly failed to address the root causes of the last financial crisis, by continuing to allow complex financial institutions to profit off risk-taking that is backstopped by an implicit government guarantee. But the ideas with the most populist energy—from calls for indiscriminate debt forgiveness on the left to insistence that we should have just let Citigroup and Bank of America fail on the right—are even worse than what Washington has actually done.
While it contains a lot of errors, the Washington Consensus is right more often than it is wrong. Even more importantly, critiques of the Washington Consensus are wrong more of then than they are right—meaning that taking Washington Establishment down a peg will tend to do more harm than good.
Take, for example, the Federal Reserve. The Fed has made some big mistakes in the last few years—it was too loose during the middle of the last decade, allowing the housing bubble to inflate, and has been too tight since the housing crash. But the modal critique of the Fed has called for worse policy—even tighter money or, worse yet, a return to the Gold Standard.
Or look at banking. The government has mostly failed to address the root causes of the last financial crisis, by continuing to allow complex financial institutions to profit off risk-taking that is backstopped by an implicit government guarantee. But the ideas with the most populist energy—from calls for indiscriminate debt forgiveness on the left to insistence that we should have just let Citigroup and Bank of America fail on the right—are even worse than what Washington has actually done.
From Diane Rhem The Constitution Today: Fourth Amendment
Click here for a radio interview on the 4th Amendment and whether placing a GPS tracking device on a car without a warrant is an unreasonable search.
What's up with Greece?
Financial markets are in a panic because the bailout deal worked out by European leadership last week - and will impose austerity measuers on the Greek population - is going to be put up for a referendum. It is not considered likely to pass, which may have global consequences.
This is a very democratic development, but is it a good thing or a bad thing? Is the type of activity that Madison and Hamilton wanted the American system to avoid? There are no national referendums in the U.S. Is Greece acting like one of the states under the Articles of Confederation?
This is worth heavy discussion.
- Greek Inaction Or Democracy In Action?
- What The Hell Just Happened In Greece?
This is a very democratic development, but is it a good thing or a bad thing? Is the type of activity that Madison and Hamilton wanted the American system to avoid? There are no national referendums in the U.S. Is Greece acting like one of the states under the Articles of Confederation?
This is worth heavy discussion.
- Greek Inaction Or Democracy In Action?
- What The Hell Just Happened In Greece?
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Interested in practicing before the Supreme Court?
Here's a book you might find useful in order to prepare: Supreme Court Practice, Ninth Edition.
For guidance on every aspect of practicing before the Supreme Court, rely on this trusted source of the Justices’ law clerks for over 50 years.
Rely on this treatise for guidance on every aspect of practice before the Supreme Court—from how to pass through the guarded entrance to get to the Clerk’s Office, to whether to file one or more petitions in consolidated or related cases. Supreme Court Practice, Ninth Edition is the definitive resource for everything you need to know to prosecute or defend a case before the Supreme Court. This treatise provides:
And it seem to be a bargain at a mere $455.
For guidance on every aspect of practicing before the Supreme Court, rely on this trusted source of the Justices’ law clerks for over 50 years.
Rely on this treatise for guidance on every aspect of practice before the Supreme Court—from how to pass through the guarded entrance to get to the Clerk’s Office, to whether to file one or more petitions in consolidated or related cases. Supreme Court Practice, Ninth Edition is the definitive resource for everything you need to know to prosecute or defend a case before the Supreme Court. This treatise provides:
And it seem to be a bargain at a mere $455.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)