5 - Written Assignment GOVT 2305

In the ACA decision, the Supreme Court (unanimously) defined both the commerce clause and the necessary and proper by placing explicit limits on what they do not allow. The five person majority did continue to allow for an expansive interpretation of the tax and spending clause of the Constitution. This is what allowed them to find the individual mandate unconstitutional.

Notice that these are the elastic clauses. This decision - it seems to me - is an authoritative statement of the nature of the elastic powers of the national government at this moment in time.

I want you to read through the decision and detail exactly what they says about each of these. I want thorough analysis of the court actually said. That is what you will be graded on. Personal opinions may be offered only if you have done so - but since they're easy to give, they wont be graded.

- NFIB v. Sebelius.

5 - Written Assignment GOVT 2306

While most of the attention given to last week's ACA decision focused on the individual mandate the decision on the expansion of Medicaid was just as important - if not more so. The federal government's ability to mandate state policies by threatening to remove federal funding has been curtails. This was a tool used to expand national power during the New Deal and ever since. Now it seem to have been considerably weakened.

We just spent a little time looking at federalism and how it impacts the states, and Texas specifically. Things appear to have changed. I want you to outline this change and speculate in what this means for the relationship between the states and the national government. How does this impact Texas?

Here some readings:
- After Supreme Court ruling, Medicaid expansion faces uncertainty.
- A guide to the Supreme Court's Review of the ACA.
- Uncertain future for Medicaid expansion.
- If Texas Doesn't Expand Medicaid....
- After Health Care Ruling, TX Has Big Decisions to Make.
- With Health Reform Cnstitutional, What Happens in TX?

No more weekly written assignments for Summer 1 2301 and 2302

I mentioned this in class and wanted to reinforce the point here. Get the first drafts of your 1000 word essays in to me by Moday and be prepared to make the necessary improvements by the 9th. There's lots due on the 9th, plus the fnal so start preparing now.

Thanks

Free Speech Violation?

You tell me: ‘Speed trap’ sign lands Houston pedestrian in jail.

Is the oversight function being corrupted?

Jonathan Bernstein thinks scandal mongering has replaced traditional oversight:

By focusing exclusively on scandals, the House inevitably does less of the real, tough oversight that they should be doing.

As many have noted (see for example Mann and Ornstein’s The Broken Branch), Congressional oversight slumped in the 1990s and then collapsed during the stretch of unified Republican control during the George W. Bush years. The problem is that instead of the traditional oversight, two types of partisanship have emerged: Members of Congress stopped taking their institutional role seriously when the White House was in their party’s hands, and when it’s not they focused on discovering huge scandals instead of just making sure that executive branch departments and agencies were doing what they’re supposed to do.

House Votes to Hold Attorney General in Criminal and CIvil Contempt

From the Hill:

Seventeen Democrats bucked party lines and voted with Republicans to pass a criminal contempt resolution in a 255-67 vote. House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) pushed that resolution as part of his 16-month investigation into the botched "Fast and Furious" gun-tracking operation.

Only two Republicans voted "no" on the measure, while 65 Democrats recorded "no" votes and 108 Democrats didn't cast votes. Most of them were protesting the fact that the House GOP was holding the vote
The Washington Post reports that the Justice Department will not prosecute him:

The Justice Department declared Friday that Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to withhold information about a bungled gun-tracking operation from Congress does not constitute a crime and he won’t be prosecuted for contempt of Congress.

The House voted Thursday afternoon to find Holder in criminal and civil contempt for refusing to turn over the documents. President Barack Obama invoked his executive privilege authority and ordered Holder not to turn over materials about executive branch deliberations and internal recommendations.

In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, the department said that it will not bring the congressional contempt citation against Holder to a federal grand jury and that it will take no other action to prosecute the attorney general. Dated Thursday, the letter was released Friday.

Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the decision is in line with long-standing Justice Department practice across administrations of both political parties.

“We will not prosecute an executive branch official under the contempt of Congress statute for withholding subpoenaed documents pursuant to a presidential assertion of executive privilege,” Cole wrote.

Darryll Issa's possession of sealed wiretaps almost led to a criminal offense:

Issa entered the sensitive, and previously undisclosed, information into the Congressional Record on Thursday during the floor debate leading up to the passage of his resolution placing Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.

The powerful Republican might be protected from what otherwise would be a criminal offense under Congress’s speech and debate clause because the remarks were written into the public record during chamber proceedings.

Absolute poverty in the US is getting worse.

Something to tack onto 2302s look at social welfare policy. Via Andrew Sullivan.

- The Recession and Extreme Poverty.
- Poor and Getting Poorer.

Recessions, in fact, appear to affect disproportionately the extreme poor, rather than those closer to the federal poverty threshold or the "near poor," those whose income is less than twice the federal poverty threshold.

Consider this: in 2010, 6.7 percent of Americans were among the extreme poor, as compared to 5.2 percent in 2007 and 4.5 percent in 2000. That's a 50 percent increase in the fraction of extremely poor individuals -- the greatest increase, by far, of any income group relative to the poverty threshold.
The comments are worth perusing.

The ACA decision

Here are A few links related to yesterday's decision:

The breaking story from the NYT: Supreme Court Lets Health Law Largely Stand, in Victory for Obama.

The text of the decision here: NFIB v. Sebelius.

An interactive look at the decision.

Andrew Sullivan's compilation of reactions here.

We read through the syllabus in class yesterday, but expect more soon. Analysis is pervasive. I'll link to some of the better comments. 01s and 02s will be hitting this hard next week (especially 02s since we start looking at the judiciary next week). 05s and 06s can expect written assignments on this later this weekend.

Why Good People Can't Find Jobs

More from the Fiscal Times: A conversation with an author that claims that the hiring practices of companies make it difficult for skilled job applicants to connect with the right job.

Files this under: What factors cause - or sustain - unemployment.

From the Fiscal Times: The Poor: Not As Bad Off As They Once Were?

This story illustrates a point made in our lectures on social welfare policy. Poverty in the US is more relative than absolute. If one measures it in terms of access to consumer products - that get cheaper all the time - there's little poverty in the US, but the story is different when inequality is taken into consideration. But there's no clear cut, non controversial way to measure inequallity.

As with many other phenomena, data can be found to support various positions.

From Reason: Texas Man Faces 10 Years in Prison for Recording Cops

Scary but true:

An Iraq War veteran faces ten years in prison after snapping photos of police making an arrest.

Antonio Buehler was pumping gas last New Year’s Eve when he caught sight of two Austin, TX cops “manhandling a woman” during a DUI investigation. Buehler, a resident of Austin, pulled out his cell phone and began taking pictures of the arrest. This is where the trouble began.

According to a Pixiq.com article by Carlos Miller, a veteran cops and cameras journalist, police then stormed over to Buehler and accused him of interfering with the investigation. When Buehler stood his ground, the cops argued that the Texan was “getting in [their] faces”. In the police report, Officer Pat Oborski claims Buehler proceeded to “spit in [his] face”. This, of course, gave officers the right to put Buehler under arrest for harassment of a public servant—a third degree felony charge.

What Officer Oborski didn’t realize, however, is that other cameras were rolling during the altercation with Buehler. And video shot by a witness standing across the street show a different scene than what was painted in the police reports.

The right to record has been a subject of major debate recently. For 2301s might want to note this:

The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department took an important stand last week, declaring that citizens have a First Amendment right to videotape the actions of police officers in public places and that seizure or destruction of such recordings violates constitutional rights.

We recently discussed this agency in our lecture on civil rights.

Executive Privilege 101

I just ran across this primer about executive privilege. All you need to know.

EPA greenshouse emmission regulations upheld by appellate court

From the NYT:

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a finding by the Environmental Protection Agency that heat-trapping gases from industry and vehicles endanger public health, dealing a decisive blow to companies and states that had sued to block agency rules.

. . . The judges unanimously dismissed arguments from industry that the science of global warming was not well supported and that the agency had based its judgment on unreliable studies. “This is how science works,” they wrote. “The E.P.A. is not required to reprove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.”

In addition to upholding the E.P.A.’s so-called endangerment finding, the court let stand related rules setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars and limiting emissions from stationary sources. Opponents had also challenged the agency’s timetable for enforcement and its rules singling out big polluters, but the court said the plaintiffs lacked the standing to do so.

Fourteen states, led by Virginia and Texas, had sued to block the rules. Fifteen states, including New York, California and Massachusetts, went to court to support the agency.



More from the Volokh Conspiracy.

RegBlog

I justr became aware of this website. Should be useful for our look at the executive branch and regulatory agencies. Its affilitated with the university of Pennsylvania's Program on Regulation.

One area of interest: Romney's regulatory proposals.

Redefining American Government

A Washington Post writer argues that the Supreme Court is using Obamacare and other current cases to redefine American government in much the same way as was done during the New Deal:

President Franklin Roosevelt’s alphabet soup of federal programs ran counter to established doctrine denying the constitutionality of economic and social legislation, state or federal. Steeped in that tradition, many legal experts recoiled in horror at FDR’s plans.

Amid a Great Depression, and under tremendous pressure from a popular president and his huge congressional majority, however, this expert consensus gave way. The Supreme Court abandoned its laissez faire understanding of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (among other provisions) so as to permit New Deal programs.

I don’t think this history proves that “politics, money, party and party loyalty” crassly determined the decisions of the 1930s. If that were true, why accord them precedential weight today?

Rather, what it shows is that the United States periodically redefines the role of the federal government in society, in a process that is both political and legal — and, sometimes, more revolutionary than evolutionary. In that sense, we do have a “living Constitution.”

In the 1930s, expanding federal power was innovative, promising. By blessing it, the court aligned itself with the wave of the future, in this country and globally. Ditto for the 1960s. Much of the legislation that resulted — from Social Security to the Voting Rights Act — was indeed progressive.

Today, however, there is nothing new about federal intervention — and much evidence from the past 70 years that big programs produce inefficiencies and unintended consequences.

Galveston mayors race hinged on housing policy

The incumbent - as well as a member of the city council - appear to have been defeated because of their support of a Galveston Housing Authority proposal to rebuild subsidized housing rather than provide vouchers for rental units.

Its been quite the story on the island - and it hits many nerves including race.

Was Abraham Lincoln really a vampire killer?

That's your call, but we briedly discussed the new movie in one of the classes yesrterday. Then I stumbled across this story which claims that slaves were concerned that southern slave masters were cannibals and - yes - vampires.

Slaves in the colonial era created a complex folklore about the southern master class, worrying that slave traders were cannibals. My research uncovered at least one case in Louisiana which newly imported slaves became convinced that the masters were witches and vampires (after watching them drink red wine).

These tales of terror illuminate rather than obscure important truths. Slavery did represent a kind of dark magic in which legal fictions transmogrified the bodies of human beings into property. The institution of slavery did become a kind of cannibalism, swallowing millions from the African continent, digesting them in the rice and cotton fields in the relentless pursuit of wealth that characterized the alleged southern "aristocrats."

America needed a vampire hunter in 1860. 

Citizens United decision affirmed

The court threw out a Montana case which challenged the ruling.

The Supreme Court's Arizona Ruling

A split decision. Three out of four provisions were judged to be unconstitutional violations of federalism (state interference with national powers), but the major component of it - which allowed local police to inquire about the citizenship status of people they stop or arrest - was found constitutional, unanimously.

From the NYT:

The court unanimously sustained the law’s centerpiece, the one critics have called its “show me your papers” provision, though they left the door open to further challenges. The provision requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if they have reason to suspect that the individual might be in the country illegally.

The justices parted ways on three other provisions, with the majority rejecting measures that would have subjected illegal immigrants to criminal penalties for activities like seeking work.

The ruling is likely to set the ground rules for the immigration debate, with supporters of the Arizona law pushing for “show me your papers” provisions in more states and opponents trying to overturn criminal sanctions for illegal immigrants.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”
An interactive look at the decision.

Scotusblog has several posts on the subject.

Do police care about "preservation of life?"

From the Austin American Statesman: are police too quick to kill? Is this a civil rights issue?

Preservation of life is not just a matter of policy. It is a constitutional mandate. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1989's Graham v. Conner ruling that the proper way to determine whether a law enforcement officer's use of force is excessive is the "objective reasonableness" test under the Fourth Amendment. The Austin Police Department routinely violates this requirement through its current use-of-force policy called the "reasonable officer standard."

This standard is highly subjective and relies on the officer's "state of mind" at the time of the incident. The primary reason given for using deadly force in most incidents is that the officer feared for his life or the life of his partner. This is considered "reasonable" use of deadly force under the policy. This standard is nothing less than a "get out of jail free" card as evidenced by no grand jury indictments of police.

Most of the extrajudicial killings by APD have been of minorities. Since 2000, 16 minorities have been killed, the majority in East Austin.

Mandatory life without parole sentences for juvenile defedants are cruel and unusual according to the Supreme Court

From the NYT:

The ruling left open the possibility of judges' sentencing juveniles to life imprisonment without parole in individual circumstances but said state laws could not automatically impose such sentences.

“Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features — among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority. “It prevents taking into account the family and home environment that surrounds him — and from which he cannot usually extricate himself — no matter how brutal or dysfunctional.”

Justice Kagan’s opinion argued that the cases, involving 14-year-old boys who had taken part in murders in Arkansas and Alabama, were an extension of the court’s recent rulings on the young, which asserted that they still had unformed emotional and moral structures and that treating them as adults violated “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

From Scotusblog:

. . . . there presently are approximately seventy-nine individuals currently serving life-without-parole sentences for crimes they committed at age thirteen or fourteen. The Court further explains that approximately 2500 people are serving life without parole for crimes they committed before they were eighteen.
The Court’s opinion brings together two strands of precedent to hold that a mandatory life-without-parole sentence for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment. The first strand holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits punishments that enact a mismatch between the culpability of a class of offenders and the severity of the penalty. Citing, among cases, Roper and Graham, the Court explains that juveniles have always been regarded as less culpable because the distinctive attributes of youth diminish the penological justifications for imposing the harshest penalties on juvenile offenders, even when they commit severe crimes.  The second line of precedent holds that life without parole shares key characteristics with the death penalty, and thus raises similar Eighth Amendment concerns, most notably that defendants are entitled to individualized consideration when facing such a severe sanction.

Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012

The US Senate passed its version of this bill last week, the House will follow at some point.

Let's walk through the bill making process in class. You can find the steps detailed on Govtrack and Thomas.

We'll walk through the commentary about the bill soon enough, but this was one of those large omnibus bills that dealt with multiple issues that are being unpacked by the media. All of this can be negated by the House. Over a dozen Republicans voted for the bill - that may be les likely to happen in the more partisan House.

Knox v. Service Employees International Union

In an ideologically split 5-4 vote (with Kennedy siding with the conservatives) the Supreme Court ruled the public sector unions cannot collect an "agency fee" from non-members in order to help advance political measures that benefit the employees collectively. This severely weakens the ability of unions to enable all public sector employees to act collectively, but enhances the ability of public sector employees to opt out of these efforts if they choose. The majority argued that forcing non-members to pay for the unions efforts violated their free speech rights.

Scotusblog has a rundown of the case, here's an analysis from Cornell's Law School. The opinion can be found here.

Opinions about it are mixed.

- The New York Times calls the Roberts Court. anti-union.
- A Washington Post writer argues that this is a victory for the free speech rights of non-union members.
- The American Prospect argues this is conservative judicial activism, they decided on an issue that was not argued before the court.
- A Forbes writer wonders if this ruling will apply to shareholders. Do they have to subsidize poliitcal speech?

4 - Written Assignment GOVT 2306

The runoff for the Republican Party's nominee for the U.S. Senate pits the current Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst against former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz. The former has the support of what might be considered the Texas Republican Party "establishment" while the latter is supported by the Texas Tea Party - whatever that might mean at the moment. Their respective candidacies represent an interesting fault line within the party, and I want you to investigate it in this week's assignment.

What are the major differences between the supporters of Dewhurst as opposed to the supporters of Cruz? What does their conflict tell us about the future direction of the party?

4 - Written Assignment GOVT 2305

Last week the House Oversight Committee voted to hold the Attorney General in Contempt of Congress. There's nothing in the Constitution about these things so review its history and describe how the power was established and what it is intended to accomplish. Is its current use in synch with its use in the past? Is it a legitimate power in your view? Does it fit properly within the broad heading of checks and balances?

4 - Written Assignment GOVT 2301 and 2302

This week's assignment is simple. Give me a rough draft of your 1000 word paper. Send it to me in a word document through blackboard. Use appropriate formatting etc... blah, blah, blah.

Fast and Furious for Dummies

Here's a quick look at the program at the heart of this particular conflict between Congress - or at least the House Oversight Committee's chair Darryl Issa - and the Obama Administration - or at least the Attorney General Eric Holder.

Gunrunning programs have been around for a while apparently.

And here's an analysis of the current conflict (the checking and the balancing and the ambition counteracting ambition) in light of past conflicts between Congress and the executive over similar matters. This ain't this first time and it ain't the last. tha author suggests that if the House wants to get at Holder, it should impeach him. That's what its for. A contempt citation is cheap talk.

Random founding quotes

I stumbled across this collection of quotes from the founders. Some touch on the importance of education so I'll add a few into my introductory slides, but I though you might get a kick out of reviewing them. Quotes are always taken out of context, so it's touch to say how they fit into whatever point was being made by them, but they're fun nevertheless.

Feudal Rights

I have no idea how accurate the information is on this site, but it purports to list the rights of the nobility, and the lack thereof on the part of vassals and serfs, in feudal systems and provides a good point of comparison for our look at civil rights and liberties.

From Texas Tribune: Texans Sound Off on "Fast and Furious" Hearing

Little surprise, Texas Republicans support the contempt of Congress vote against the attorney general.

Supreme Court rules against FCC in fleeting explitive cases

They ruled that the FCC changed its rules arbitrarily and they could not punish Fox television stations for profanities uttered on live shows it covered. It did not rule on whether such utterance are constitutionally protected speech.

From the NYT:

The case, Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, No. 10-1293, arose from the broadcast of fleeting expletives by celebrities on awards shows on Fox and partial nudity on the police drama “NYPD Blue” on ABC. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for seven justices, said the commission had changed the rules in the middle of the game.

“The commission failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent,” Justice Kennedy wrote.

That left the larger free speech questions unresolved.

“This opinion leaves the commission free to modify its current indecency policy in light of its determination of the public interest and applicable legal requirements,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “And it leaves the courts free to review the current policy or any modified policy in light of its content and application.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor recused herself from the case.

Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who voted with the majority but did not join its reasoning, was prepared to address the First Amendment issues raised by changes in the world of broadcasting and related media since 1978, when the Supreme Court decided the leading case in this area, Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica.

That decision said the government could restrict George Carlin’s famous “seven dirty words” monologue, which had been broadcast on the radio in the afternoon. The court relied on what it called the uniquely pervasive nature of broadcast media and its unique accessibility to children.

From the Texas Tribune: In a More Urban Texas, Farmers Face Uncertain Future

I posted new material for GOVT 2306 - Texas and Local Government - which touches on Texas' ongoing transition from a rural to an urban state. This story suggests that the change marks a crisis for agrarian interests in the state.

The drought continues to wreck havoc on farmers, and the increased clout of cities raise questions about whether water intensive crops will be able to draw the water necessary to survive. Will cities get it instead?

The Immigration Directive

 A few random posts regarding it:

- GOP Senators send letter to Obama challenging directive. The letter requests documents from President Obama proving that he sought legal counsel to ensure that he had the right to issue the immigration directive.


- Republican Representative King thinks the directive is unconstitutional because it violates the checks and balances. He promises to sue the administration.

- Homeland Security Secretary clarifies the directive. It is not an executive order, it is a directive authorizing "prosecutorial discretion" in who they bring deportation proceedings against.

- Lyle Denniston doubts the courts can hear King's lawsuit. Courts customarily do not second-guess the use of "prosecutorial discretion," unless that has been done in a "malicious" way that is somehow discriminatory or punitive in a special way.

What rankled Rep. King, and other members of Congress, was that Congress itself had refused last year to pass the so-called "DREAM Act" that would have achieved the same kind of deportation reprieve, so -- they argued -- the President was defying congressional will in going ahead on his own.

But the failure to pass legislation, or the explicit refusal to enact a bill, does not limit Executive discretion in enforcing laws already on the books. Congress does have the power, of course, to pass a new piece of legislation to undo what DHS did last week. But the votes are not there to do that and, in any event, such a bill would be subject to presidential veto even if it had cleared Congress.
- A commentator argues that Congress should pass immigration reform - maybe the Dream Act - if it want to adjust the policy.

Fed to extend Operation Twist

From the Washington Post:

The Federal Reserve on Wednesday renewed a program designed to provide a push to economic growth amid a warning that hiring is slowing.

The Fed said it would extend “Operation Twist,” a program that seeks to reduce long-term interest rates, through the end of the year. The decision was a sign that the Fed is not pulling back from its years-long campaign to support the U.S. economy.

In its policymaking statement, the Fed said “growth in employment has slowed in recent months” and made clear it is “prepared to take further action” in the future.

The Fed “anticipates that the unemployment rate will decline only slowly toward levels that it judges to be consistent with its dual mandate,” the statement said. “Furthermore, strains in global financial markets continue to pose significant downside risks to the economic outlook.”
- Definition: Operation Twist

Should voting be mandatory?

It is in Australia and a few other countries. Why not here?

William Galston wonders: JURY duty is mandatory; why not voting?

Do computers have free speech rights?

A provocative piece from the NYT. There is a move afoot to say that they do, and that the results of searches, on Google for example, are speech and should be protected in the same sense that any act of speech is.  

The argument that machines speak was first made in the context of Internet search. In 2003, in a civil suit brought by a firm dissatisfied with the ranking of Google’s search results, Google asserted that its search results were constitutionally protected speech. (In an unpublished opinion, the court ruled in Google’s favor.) And this year, facing increasing federal scrutiny, Google commissioned Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, to draft a much broader and more elaborate version of the same argument. As Professor Volokh declares in his paper: “Google, Microsoft’s Bing, Yahoo! Search, and other search engines are speakers.”

[See a related article here.]

To a non-lawyer the position may sound bizarre, but here is the logic. Take a newspaper advice columnist like Ann Landers: surely her answers to readers’ questions were a form of speech. Likewise, when you turn to Google with a question, the search engine must decide, at that moment, what “answers” to give, and in what order to put those answers. If such answers are speech, then any government efforts to regulate Google, like any efforts to bowdlerize Ann Landers, must be examined as censorship.

But the authors balks at the idea that a non-organic entity - a creature created by an algorithm developed by a corporation - should have the same speech rights as an actual person:

Is there a compelling argument that computerized decisions should be considered speech? As a matter of legal logic, there is some similarity among Google, Ann Landers, Socrates and other providers of answers. But if you look more closely, the comparison falters. Socrates was a man who died for his views; computer programs are utilitarian instruments meant to serve us. Protecting a computer’s “speech” is only indirectly related to the purposes of the First Amendment, which is intended to protect actual humans against the evil of state censorship. The First Amendment has wandered far from its purposes when it is recruited to protect commercial automatons from regulatory scrutiny.

It is true that the First Amendment has been stretched to protect commercial speech (like advertisements) as well as, more controversially, political expenditures made by corporations. But commercial speech has always been granted limited protection. And while the issue of corporate speech is debatable, campaign expenditures are at least a part of the political system, the core concern of the First Amendment.

The line can be easily drawn: as a general rule, nonhuman or automated choices should not be granted the full protection of the First Amendment, and often should not be considered “speech” at all.

Executive Privilege exerted by Obama over Fast and Furious program

Just in time for our discussion about executive power.

Story in the Washington Post, and the NYT.

The House Oversight Committee is set to vote on contempt citation.

Greek coalition formed

This builds off yesterday's story about the Greek elections. A coalition has been formed and parliament can now meet and do its magic.

Members of the House Public Education Committee hold hearings on STARR tests

And it doesn't seem to have been a pleasant meeting:


There is a growing frustration among parents and educators — and apparently legislators — with the new State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, known as STAAR. Many say the sheer volume of high-stakes tests and how those tests affect students have become hugely problematic.

"The only people that are being hurt this school year are children," said Wanda Bamberg, the superintendent of the Aldine Independent School District.

Superintendents from across the state testified that the number of high school dropouts could skyrocket in the coming years because almost three-quarters of the students who failed the exams this spring were already considered at risk of dropping out.

File this under oversight, among other things.

Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearing on solitary confinement

Is it cruel and unusual punishment?

The hearings can be found here: “Reassessing Solitary Confinement: The Human Rights, Fiscal and Public Safety Consequences”

From the NYT:

The hearing, held before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, represents the first time lawmakers on Capitol Hill have taken up the issue of solitary confinement, a form of imprisonment that many human rights advocates believe violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment” and that has drawn increasing scrutiny in recent months in the United States and internationally.

The practice, which is widespread in American prisons, has also been the target of a growing number of lawsuits, including a class-action suit filed on Monday on behalf of mentally ill inmates held in solitary at ADX, the federal super-maximum-security prison in Florence, Colo.

Last month, civil rights lawyers representing prisoners held for more than 10 years in isolation at Pelican Bay State Prison in California filed suit in federal court, arguing that solitary confinement is unconstitutional.

The politics of the individual mandate

An instructive story for students who are wrestling with the question whether Congress is dysfunctional.

The individual mandate was once supported by a large cross section of members of Congress, but this changed fast. Ezra Klein walks us through the process. Republicans came up with the idea of a mandate and supported it until Democrats began to embrace the idea. Sane with cap and trade and stimulus bills.

The War of 1812

I missed a major event yesterday: the 200th anniversary of our declaration of war against the British Empire. We know this now as the War of 1812, and apparently little else about it. The Star Spangled Banner was composed during the Battle of Baltimore and Andrew Jackson became a household name due to his victory in the Battle of New Orleans.

One consistent rumor is that the United States intended to use the war to annex Canada. Canada apparently thinks so and their ability to repel American forces remains a point of pride for the nation. NPR has an interesting piece detailing how each nation teaches the war to its students. The US, hardly at all. Canada, quite a bit.

I suppose British students don;t learn much about the Revolutionary War.

The Fed unlikley to act on the economy when it meets this week.

The story is in the Fiscal Times. Last week - in 2302 - we discussed monetary policy and the role of the Fed in regulating the macro economy. We especially noted that since it is an executive institution that already has a mandate to act by Congress, it is free from the political constraints common in Congress. That doesn't mean it will always act however.

Here's proof:

Even though the jobless rate is far above that mark, don’t expect any bold new steps this week. Here are the three main reasons why the Fed won’t act:

1. The Slow-Boil Euro Crisis
2. Growth has Slowed, not Stopped
3. The Fiscal Cliff Ahead.

We should discuss in class. This adds to our query about whether government can actually work.

Elections in Greece

The recent elections in Greece us another opportunity to contrast American elections - and the entire presidential system established in the Constitution - with that of most other democracies. Greece has a parliamentarian system with a legislature selected by proportional representation. Generally this means that people vote for a party - not a person - and the party is awarded seats in the legislature in proportion to its share of the total vote. Often this means that a single party cannot get a majority and cannot therefore control parliament. A coalition has to be put together in order to do so.

That's where Greece seems to be right now. The conservative - pro bailout - party won a plurality of the vote, but now has to put a ruling coalition together in order to government. This cannot happen in a two party system. We will touch on the various differences between the two systems soon.

- Greek Elections.

Can presidents reverse executive orders?

A good question posed in class today. Here's an answer. Yes.

3 - Written Assignment GOVT 2302 and 2305

Correction: I made a mistake when I originally wrote this assignment. The policy change was made by a directive, not an executive order. The general question about presidential power is still relevant.
President Obama's recent decision to change immigration policy by using an executive order highlights an increasing trend. Presidents - especially those hamstrung by Congress - have been using executive orders to establish and implement policies despite the objections of the legislative branch. Is this an example of executive overreach and an increasingly imperial executive, or is it an inevitable consequence of gridlock and a dysfunctional Congress? Regardless, it does indicate an increase in the powers and discretion of the presidency, but is it an unconstitutional expansion of presidential power?

Wade into this debate and let me know what you think. First, place Obama's recent actions in historical perspective. Is he doing anything that recent president - notably W Bush and Clinton - didn't do as well. Is this part of a trend?

A few helpful links:

- Executive Orders and Presidential Directives.
- List of United States federal executive orders.
- Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index.
- APP: Executive Orders.

3 - Written Assignment GOVT 2301 and 2306

In this week's assignment I want you to look at the platforms recently passed by the Texas Democratic and Republican Parties and compare them. How are they similar and distinct and what does this tell us about the conflict that exists between the two parties? How does this help us understand the different constituencies that make up each party?

Click here for the post below that provides links to each party's platform.

New Textualism

For decades, conservatives have embraced an originalist approach to the constitution. Either the intent or the text of the Constitution should be the guiding force determining constitutional meaning. Liberals are apparently embracing originalism now and calling it "New Textualism."

Jeffrey Rosen comments on the development, and suggests that it would have helped the administration's argument supporting the individual mandate before the Supreme Court, but at a cost:

. . . the New Textualists—insist that arguments grounded in constitutional text and history can be deployed just as effectively to support liberal policies as conservative ones.

So far, the New Textualists have an impressive track record of winning over conservative justices and judges. But their ideas are being strenuously resisted by the liberal legal establishment—both by administration lawyers like Verrilli and an older generation of scholars, who fear their approach will ultimately lead to the downfall of landmark precedents, including Roe v. Wade.

More commentary on this approach:

- The Promise of New Textualism.
- The Case for New Textualism.
- Old Dictionaries and New Textualists.
- Laying Claim to the Constitution.

Do political parties matter anymore?

The post Citizens United world has witnessed an unprecendented amount of money being spent on political campaigns, money injected directly to campaigns, not through the medium of the political party. Which leads one to wonder why even have the political party anymore?

Major donors - the Koch Brothers - seem ready to put this idea to the test. They are scheduled to have their own political convention in San Diego soon. Its not a public affair apparently. Its worth wondering what direction politics is heading.

Obama uses executive order to effectively implement the Dream Act

Story in the NYT. We'll elaborate on this more this week since we will be digging into the executive branch.

Under the change, the Department of Homeland Security will no longer initiate the deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the United States before age 16, have lived here for at least five years, and are in school, are high school graduates or are military veterans in good standing. The immigrants must also be under 30 and have clean criminal records.



. . . The group of illegal immigrants that will benefit from the policy is similar to those who would have been eligible to become legal permanent residents under the Dream Act, legislation that Mr. Obama has long supported. An effort by the White House to pass the bill in late 2010 was blocked by Republicans in the Senate. Mr. Obama called on Congress again Friday to pass that legislation.

The president was facing growing pressure from Latino leaders and Democrats who warned that because of his harsh immigration enforcement, his support was lagging among Latinos who could be crucial voters in his race for re-election.

Something to consider: Is this executive overreach or an inevitable consequence of gridlock? Maybe both?

JP Morgan Chase chief faces Senate Banking Committee

For 2302, an example of last week's discussion of committees, especially their oversight authority. Recent trading losses led the Senate Banking Committee to compel testimony from Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan's president and CEO. At issue is whether the trades involved undue risk with depositors money. These were the types of activities that helped lead to the financial crash in 2008.

Video of the entire testimony can be found here, and the opening statement of the chair here. You can follow the testimony through this liveblog.

Part of the purpose of the testimony was for members of the Senate to determine whether regulations limiting such activities needed to be strengthened. Special attention focused on the merits of the Volcker Rule rule, which is meant to limit the ability of banks to trade with depositors funds in a manner that does not benefit the institution as a whole. Support and opposition for the rule - as well as the general demeanor of senators towards Dimon, hinge on ideological dispositions towards regulations. Democrats support the rule and argue that the regulations are necessary in order to limit careless trading, Republicans oppose them and claim that the rule is an unnecessary infrngment on financial innovation and the free market in general.

Here are general comments on the testimony:

- John Stewart thought the committee went easy with Dimon.  
- The CRP points out that JP Morgan Chase has contributed plenty to members of the committee.
- Bill Moyers sees evidence of a revolving door between committee staffers and the lobbyists representing the industry.

The Vatican censors best-seller written by nun

Which is probably why its a best seller. These things happen.

Story here.

Egyptian Parliament is dissoved by the nation's Supreme Constitutional Court

Backsliding towards tyranny? A military coup? This seems unusual to me since its ususally the executive that dissolves the legislature, but in this case tis the judiciary. Of course they may be controlled by the military, which controls the executive as well, so the distinction may mark no real difference.

Story in the NYT:

“From a democratic perspective, this is the worst possible outcome imaginable,” said Shadi Hamid, research director of the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar. “This is an all-out power grab by the military.”

The timing of the ruling seems like a transparent attempt to undermine the Islamists just two days before Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood is set to compete in the runoff against Ahmed Shafik, a former air force general and Mr. Mubarak’s last prime minister.

If the ruling is carried out, whoever wins the presidential race would take power without the check of a sitting Parliament and could exercise significant influence over the elections to form a new one. The new president will also take office without a permanent constitution to define his powers or duties. A 100-member constitutional assembly appointed by Parliament and including dozens of lawmakers may also be dissolved. And in any event, the ruling generals are expected to issue their own interim charter during the drafting.

Electing a president without either a constitution or a parliament is like “electing an ‘emperor’ with more power than the deposed dictator. A travesty,” Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Prize-winning diplomat and former presidential candidate, said in a comment online.
I hope students can place this event in historical context and understand the precise problem this event poses for Egypt's attempt to transition into democracy.

What will American democracy look like in 2024?

Some smart people hash it out in a special edition of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas.

Ethnic violence breaks out in Myanmar

Regrettably, this is not unprecedented. Riots are breaking out in Myanmar after its military rulers loosened their grip on power. 

The story is common: An autocratic, totalitarian regime relinquishes power and society tumbles into chaos. Long standing tensions that had been repressed under the previous regime are then free to flourish. What had been a peaceful repressed society becomes a violent free society.

Helps us understand why some populations favor dictatorial rule. This helps explain the framers' concerns over the "excesses of democracy." 

Are Millenials less religious than older generations?

Apparently so. Less than 70% say they've never doubted the existence of God. Older generations are less likely to have a similar doubt - the figure gets higher the older generation. Is this a trend? If so, what impact will this have on politics in upcoming decades?

Can Congress do Immigration Reform?

To follow a theme: No. At least according to this author:

In a breakfast interview with Bloomberg View on Monday, Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, expressed general disappointment with the Republican Party’s rightward drift since his brother left the White House in 2009. He also cited a specific place where his party needs to return to the center: The issue of immigration reform. According to Bush, Mitt Romney’s focus on border enforcement has placed him “in a box” and limited his appeal to Hispanic voters.

Similarly, in a piece in this week’s New Yorker on President Obama’s potential second-term agenda, Ryan Lizza reported that many White House aides believe that comprehensive immigration reform offers the president his best chance of “achieving a major piece of domestic legislation in his second term.” If Obama wins re-election narrowly while Romney runs poorly among Hispanics, the White House theory runs, Republican leaders will feel that they have a strong political incentive to accept some kind of path to citizenship for the nation’s illegal immigrant population.

To the extent that Republican lawmakers are influenced by the conventional wisdom of the city they inhabit, then this theory might be correct. But there’s a reason the push for some sort of amnesty or earned legalization for illegal immigrants failed repeatedly under George W. Bush, and a reason it wasn’t much of a priority for Democrats during their Obama-era window of Beltway dominance. At the grass-roots level of both parties, the politics of the issue are simply more fraught, and the advantages of the pro-legalization position less obvious, than the elite consensus tends to assume.
What follows is a good breakdown of the politics of immigration. It's not that Congress is broken, we've simplified the issue and made it seem easier than it really is. Conflict in Congress is a manifestation of this hidden complexity.

Catching up with the fight over security leaks

Recent revelations about drone strikes, kill lists and cyber attacks have led some in Congress to call foul and demand investigation about who leaked this information. It also raises questions about the propriety of such leaks, are they necessarily bad?

I'll try to catch up with recent stories so we can follow this as it plays out. Here's a chronology based on newspaper stories going back to April: 

- April 30, 2012: Top U.S. Security Official Says 'Rigorous Standards' Are Used for Drone Strikes.
- May 29, 2012: Secret 'Kill List' Proves a Test of Obama's Principles and Will.
- June 1, 2012: Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyber Attacks Against Iran.
- June 7, 2012: Bipartisan congressional group calls for legislative action on leaks.
- June 8, 2012: Holder Directs U.S. Attorneys to Track Down Paths of Leaks.
- June 8, 2012: Obama: 'Zero tolerance' for leaking classified information.
- June 9, 2012: For U.S. Inquiries on Leaks, a Difficult Road to Prosecution.
- June 10, 2012: New York Times journalist defends national security leaks.
- June 12, 2012: Attorney General Grilled over Security Leaks.
- June 12, 2012: Republicans say special counsel - not US Attorneys - should run leak probes; Holder resists.

Stay tuned for more. A couple related items: What does a 'kill list' tell us about the current state of executive power? Does leaking security secrets damage national security?

Party 2012 Platforms

The Texas Republican and Democratic Parties had their state conventions last weekend. The party activists compiled their respective platforms. For your enjoyment, Here is the Republican Party Platform, and here is the Democratic Platform. A comparison of the two would make a good written assignment.

For some commentary:

- The Republican platform calls for a temporary worker program in order to curtail illegal immigration - or contain it perhaps. A Cato Institute scholar calls it progress - Texas GOP wonders if it is pandering.
- The Democratic platform includes a plank calling for acceptance of gay marriage. Burnt Orange Report calls it the most progressive platform in years. It also calls for decriminalizing marijuana and repealing the death penalty.

E.J. Dionne defends strong government

Implicit in much of what we cover in class is an argument over what government should and shouldn't do. Where should the line be drawn between the public and the private sector, and should that line be clear or blurry?

Even though liberals are argued to defend the use of government to promote goals and objectives the private sector cannot - or cares not to - address, they don't do a good job of it, at least according to Dionne who takes then to task for not doing so:


The case for government’s role in our country’s growth and financial success goes back to the very beginning. One of the reasons I wrote my book “Our Divided Political Heart” was to show that, from Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay forward, farsighted American leaders understood that action by the federal government was essential to ensuring the country’s prosperity, developing our economy, promoting the arts and sciences and building large projects: the roads and canals, and later, under Abraham Lincoln, the institutions of higher learning, that bound a growing nation together.

Both Clay and Lincoln battled those who used states’ rights slogans to crimp federal authority and who tried to use the Constitution to handcuff anyone who would use the federal government creatively. Both read the Constitution’s commerce clause as Franklin Roosevelt and progressives who followed him did, as permitting federal action to serve the common good. A belief in government’s constructive capacities is not some recent ultra-liberal invention.

Liberals, he argues, have been brow beaten into baking off an aggressive defense of governmental involvement in various aspects of life. The national conversation about how to best govern ourselves is lesser as a result.

Local newspapers are almost dead

And that may be contributing to political polarization and a general ignorance about what happens at the local level.

Federal Reserve Study Reveals that U.S. Wealth Fell 38.8% in 2007-2010 on Housing

The information comes from a report issued by the Federal Reserve. Bloomberg outlines it here. This complicates recovery since less wealth means less purchasing power and less demand for goods and services.

From KUHF: Revolving Door: Oil & Gas Companies Hire Former Texas Regulators

An ongoing story: "People who once worked for the state of Texas, but who quit to work — sometimes — for the very companies they used to regulate."

More detail from State Impact.

From NPR: Health Care Decision Hinges On A Crucial Clause

A good listen if you want to quickly catch up with how the powers of the national government - including whether it can require people to purchase health insurance - hinge on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the commerce clause.

Update: Here's a similar overview of the court's history - notabley its struggle for independence.

How to spin jobs numbers

Neat idea - take Romney and Obama's rhetorical techniques and apply them to the others' numbers.

Me the People

Enjoy.

Prison-Based Gerrymandering

A new one on me. Are African - American prisoners sent to serve time in penitentiaries far removed from their home communities in order to deliberately reduce the potential power of those districts - which tend to be black - and increase those of districts where prisons are located - which tend to be white?

African-Americans comprise 12.7 percent of the U.S. population. But because they make up 41.3 percent of the federal and state prison population, this type of gerrymandering disproportionately affects black communities. Prisons are also often located in rural areas — non-metropolitan America houses 20 percent of the national population, but 60 percent of new prison construction, according to the report — further distorting political muscle.

“It is all too reminiscent,” the report says, “of the infamous ‘three-fifths compromise,’ whereby enslaved and disfranchised African Americans were counted to inflate the number of constituents – and thus, the political influence – of Southern states before the Civil War.”

The most inexperienced Congress in decades?

That's what Politico says we are in store for come January when the 113th Congress is set to convene:

Between the historically large 2010 freshman class, 36 lawmaker retirements in 2012 and the expected election turnover this fall, the new Congress could have upward of 155 members with less than four years of experience. And the implications of a youthful Congress are significant: On the upside, the American voter will get even more fresh blood infused into the least popular Congress in modern history, bringing new ideas and vigor to the stodgy Capitol.

But there’s also a significant downside: The new breed — in both parties — is more partisan, less willing to compromise, not beholden to any leader, chairmen or customs, all of which can throw a wrench into the tradition of legislating.
|
In other words, the new Congress could be even worse in terms of gridlock and polarization, even as voters rebuke the legislative branch for being that way.

“There are chairmen of subcommittees who don’t know which end of the gavel to use, much less how to get a bill through Congress,” said Rep. Jim Cooper (D.-Tenn)
We discussed the pros and cons of short term length in 2302 today. We'll find out more soon enough.

Low voter turnout among Latino voters

The trend continues. The Dallas Morning News points out that only 83 people voted in a precinct where 6,910 people live. 6,400 of the residents are Latino.

Those who track voting patterns on the national level are especially alarmed because 2012 has produced a decline in the number of registered Hispanic voters, despite population gains that guarantee the addition of thousands of potential voters every month.

There are several reasons offered for why so many eligible Latino voters are not taking part in elections, including a prolonged recession and the collapse of the housing market, both of which can displace people and interrupt their voting habits.

In our area, an important factor also appears to be a lack of tradition in voting. Unlike in San Antonio or El Paso, where Latinos have been enfranchised for generations, too many eligible Hispanic voters in North Texas are simply not in the habit of voting. How else do you end up with a turnout of 3 percent among registered voters in a heavily Hispanic district, which is what happened in Arlington on primary day?

This is not a partisan issue, contrary to perception. Republicans and Democrats, at the party level, need to invest significant resources to mobilize this electorate. In Texas alone, there are about 2.1 million eligible Latino voters who are not registered. Some of them, no doubt, live in voting precinct No. 4085. Getting them on the rolls and then to the polls should be a priority.

Should Texas adopt a non-partisan blanket primary?

The Dallas Morning New editorializes that we should. Out increasingly partisan primaries which select candidates from increasingly protected legislative districts fuel our hyper partisan political environment. Independents have no role to play in selecting candidates. But the non-partisan blanket primary - otherwise known as the jungle primary - not only allows them to play a role, it encourages candidates to moderate their positions in order to get their votes.

Instead of having two separate primaries - one for each major party - only one primary would be held. The two top vote candidates - regardless of party - would meet in the general election.

- On a similar note, the Austin American-Statesman claims that the demise of centrists and the rise of disdain toward those willing to compromise is leading to dysfunction in Congress. 

Is the private sector doing fine?

The president seemed to step into a mine field when he suggested it was, and he backed away from his comments, but the episode raises a question addressed here and here. What is the evidence that the private sector is doing weel - or not - as opposed to the private sector?

Halftime?

Another depressing read. Some economists have argued that the 2007-2009 recession was a financial in nature, and these tend to be especially nasty. The last was the Great Depression and that took over a decade and the massive federal spending necessary to fight WW2. Japan is still digging out of its financial crash 20 years ago. We might only be in the middle of ours.

But according to the author, there are other factors at play which will delay recovery. These include an aging population, debt, and the economy's ongoing transition to a digital environment.

This should help guide us we approach discussions of public policy. What types of polices can alleviate this? Assuming any can, and we just have to wait it out.

2 - Written Assignment GOVT 2302 and 2305

The job of the Speaker is to preside over the House of Representatives, both in the US and Texas. At least that's what it implies in the Constitution. As we will note as we start looking at the internal structure of Congress the Speaker is selected by the members of the House of Representatives after they have selected their party leaders, and the party with the most members generally gets to vote their leader in.

This means that in addition to presiding over the House, he or she is also responsible for organizing their party. This can pose challenges, especially now since the Republican Party - in the House in both Congress and the Texas Legislature - contains a Tea Party caucus that wants to pull the party further to the right, more so than the Speaker on either level is interested in.

I want you to look at either the Congress or the Texas Legislature and determine how the Speaker on that level is handling trying to keep all elements of the party together. This is good way to get to understand how leadership operates (or fails to) on the national or state level.

This might be a helpful read: King of the Hill: House Leadership.

2 - Written Assignment GOVT 2301 and 2306

This week in 2306 we begin to look at Texas' place within the federal system. In 2301 we will be looking at it soon enough. 2306's 1000 word essay requires you to look at a specific conflict between the state and the national governments, so you should already have a general understanding of this issue.

In this assignment, I want you to look at an issue that pits the national and state governments against each other, and one that the Supreme Court - as much as they want to avoid it - will have to decide on, and maybe soon.

Gay Marriage.

This story in The Atlantic details the consequences of a recent decision by a federal appeals court to strike down part of the Defense of Marriage Act. It contains links to additonal stories on the case. The case is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Once it does - assuming it renders an intelligible decision - we have some clarity about the separate roles the state and national governments have regarding marriage.

I want you to get a head start on that by reading through the material and detailing the respective roles each has according to existing law. Is marriage fully up to the states - is it a reserved power? - or are aspects of it subject to US law? The Equal Protection Clause for example.

150 words at a minimum.

For the Summer 1 - 2306 writing assignment

In your syllabus I asked you to put together a 1000 word report on current conflicts between the Texas and US governments. These have kicked in recent years, especially since the conservative wing of the Republican Party has asserted itself more in state government. The state and national governments have different views about various aspects of public policy and who is responsible for what. The Supreme Court will be hearing some of these cases, if not now, in the near future.

This week I asked that you give me a topic, a specific policy area where there is conflict between the two levels of government. I want you to outline it fully and take a stand. You can change this at some point if necessary, but I want you to get going on it now. You'll thank me - I promise.

To get a general sense of the nature of the conflict, start off by looking at some of my previous posts on federalism.

Here are a few further links to help you out. These links take you to the topics pages in the Texas Tribune, which I highly recommend as a place to begin your search. But please surf around on your own.

- Health Reform and Texas.
- Education.

- Redistricting.
- Energy.
- Death Penalty.
- Immigration.

Again, sift through these and find places where tension is high between state and national power.

For the Summer 1 - 2301 writing assignment

You been asked to answer a simple question: what are contributors after when they give money to candidates for office? Is there evidence they get it? Is this corruption or is it a necessary consequence of a political system where people are able to freely participate to the degree they choose?

I don't give you specific information after that, but you should consider becoming familiar with a specific race - the presidency is fine since there's lots of information about that - but also see what you can do with congressional and legislative races, as well as the judiciary. You may find it easiest to focus on a specific contributor to a race and speculate on what interests are motivating them. What might they expect to receive if their chosen candidate wins?

Here some sites worth looking at for information, you'll also find links to these on the right hand column.

- The Texas Ethics Commission. look for links on the left hand column.
- Texas Tribune: Search Texas Campaign Donations

- Texas Politics: Voting Campaigns and Elections.
- Open Secrets: Texas.
- Open Secrets: 2012 Presidential Candidate Fundraising Summary.


Search through this information to help hone in on a specific topic. Send me an idea about what you want to look at - complete with any questions you have.

For the Summer 2302/2305 writing assignment

I've asked both classes to answer the same basic question - Is Congress Broken? - and to feel free to take a critical approach to the question. Perhaps it is in fact behaving as it was always intended to behave, with one side checking the ambitions of the other. Contemporary observers argue that the current level of polarization is preventing the Congress from solving basic problems. It no longer about checking and balancing, its about disfunction.

But again you may differ, and feel free to as long as you can provide a solid reasonable argument supporting your take.

Some students have asked where they can find info to address the question (remember that I've asked for a thesis for this week's weekly written assignment). As it turns out, I've complied a series of posts over time on this subject and you might want to look at some of these. They are listed under the following blog tags:

- Is Congress Broken?
- party polarization.

For specific stories to hang your answer on, look through news sources. You'll see plenty of links on the right hand column. These recent stories have caught my eye:

- Is Congress broken? Startup Act shows what can work.
- Republicans Pledge New Standoff on Debt Limit.
- Could 'fiscal cliff' push US into recession? Five questions answered.

- Top 9 reasons Congress is broken

Battle looms between Florida Governor and the Justice Department

The Justice Department wants the state to stop purging voters from registration rolls, the governor wants to push ahead. Challenges to the Voting Rights Act and National Voter Registration Act lie ahead.

Filibuster Reform is in the air

Some students have been asked to prepare written work regarding whether polarization in Congress has weakened our capacity for self governance. One avenue you might want to take in answering the question is to look at procedural rules that allow for a polarized Congress to become ineffective. One of those procedures is the filibuster - or at least the way it has evolved recently. According to one story, "between 1840 and 1900, there were 16 filibusters. Between 2009 and 2010, there were more than 130." And according to another, "in 1960s, threatened or actual filibusters affected only 8% of major legislation. By the 1980s, threatened or actual filibusters affected 27% of legislation. Since 2006, that number has reached 70%. This means that the vast majority of major legislation‐‐ and many nominations as well‐‐require 60 votes for cloture."

Reform measures have been offered, and they may or may not pass, but if you're interesting in pursuing this angle, go for it:

- Who will bust the filibuster?
- Olympia Snowe on filibuster reform.
- The Real State of Senate Rules Reform

The President's Cabinet is irrelevant

This is a point made repeatedly when we discuss presidential advising - they are far more likely to look to members of the White House staff when seeking advice. Obama is no different in this regard.

The larger truth is that modern presidents, with a few exceptions, don’t need, and don’t use, Cabinet members as privy councillors on the most important questions. They have other people for that. Presidents do need competent, even if anonymous, executives to run the vast machinery of the federal government, but most Cabinet secretaries don’t really do that either—at least not in the classic C.E.O. sense—leaving such work to their deputies and the professional civil-service staffs. In fact, experience has shown, it is hard for modern presidents to attract private-sector C.E.O.’s to serve in the Cabinet because of the financial and personal sacrifices required. Hank Paulson, George W. Bush’s Treasury secretary, once told me that if he’d known how arduous the confirmation would be for his own non-controversial appointment to the post he would never have left Goldman Sachs. The Cabinet these days amounts to a kind of demographically balanced assembly of team mascots, with increasingly ill-defined roles. The Constitution stipulates only that the president “may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.” Maybe Obama should ask for an occasional postcard and leave it at that.

Proposals to amend the US Constitution

Slate has a series of articles by constitutional scholars with their suggestions for constitutional amendments. These might be worth a class discussion.

Some proposals:

1 - A Popular Sovereignty Initiative. This proposes a method where the Constitution can be amended without the approval of the states. As it stands, 13 states (that can represent as little as 5% of the population) can deny the passage of an amendment that might supported by the rest of the nation. Here's the proposal:

The president, after gaining election to a second term in office, may propose amendments that, if approved by the House and Senate, shall be placed on the ballot of the several states for consideration at the next two presidential elections. If sixty percent of the nation’s voters approve the amendment at both elections, it shall become a part of this Constitution.

2 - Informational Privacy. The ability of the public and private sector to obtain personal information has expanded greatly in the digital age, and this information can be processed, analyzed and shared very quickly. The Constitution does not adequately address this aspect of privacy, so the author proposes the following amendment:

“The people’s right to privacy in their data and communications shall not be abridged.”

The courts would then be in a position to determine what this means when cases are brought to it.

3 - Plea bargains and excessive punishment. The first is aimed at the practice of prosecutors to coerce defendants to accept plea bargains by charging them with crimes with stiff sentences in order to frighten them into giving up their right to a jury trial. Lesser sentences for plea bargains violate the right to a jury trial (which only happen in 5% of cases). This can be corrected with the following text:

Prosecutors may not seek higher penalties, nor may judges impose higher penalties, when defendants exercise their right to a jury trial.

The second is based on the argument that punishments in the US generally do not fit the crime. Politicians are awarded by claiming to be tough on crime and encouraging longer sentences for minor crimes. Here's the proposed text:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor excessive terms of incarceration, nor any other excessive form of criminal punishment, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.

Mandatory punishments are prohibited. Courts must have discretion to alter punishments based on individual circumstances.

4 - Move the President's Inauguration closer to election day. Once it took a while for the Electoral College to meet and make their votes. That was a long time ago, and the two months between election day and inauguration only produce stalemate. The proposed language:

The president shall be chosen in an election open to all qualified voters within the United States. Should no candidate receive an absolute majority of those casting ballots, a run-off will be held between the top two candidates within two weeks of the initial ballot. He or she shall take office two weeks after Congress in joint session declares that a candidate has achieved majority approval. The new president, upon taking office, shall nominate someone to serve as vice president of the United States, who shall take office upon being confirmed by majority vote of both Houses of Congress, meeting in joint session.

5 - Elect the Attorney General. The authors makes a good point about the design of the presidency in the Constitution. It was vague because the framers had little idea about how to design such a novel office. The increase in the presidency's power has been an inevitable consequence. The Attorney General has facilitated this increase because the office is appointed by the president. If it was independently appointed - as it is in Texas - this would not occur. Here's the lengthy proposal:

The legal, law enforcement and investigative functions of the Department of Justice and other legal duties as shall be specified by law shall be vested in one attorney general, who shall be elected by vote of the people for a term of four years during those years in which members of Congress shall be elected but no presidential election shall be conducted.

The attorney general shall represent the United States and shall conduct the law-enforcement and investigative functions of the department, and all other duties as shall be assigned by law, in conformity with this Constitution, laws made pursuant to it and treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States. In conducting his duties, the Attorney General shall at all times safeguard the public interest.

The attorney general shall give the president legal advice, in writing, at the president’s request and at other appropriate times and shall inform the president of the actions taken by the Justice Department, and shall attend sessions of the Cabinet; however, the president may not require the resignation of the attorney general.

The attorney general shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the legal and law-enforcement policy and actions of the United States, and shall furnish to Congress information requested concerning the same, excepting only such information as may compromise ongoing legal investigations or reveal information properly classified.

"A Brief History of Money"

Here's a moderately long look at the evolution of money in general, and paper money specifically. We live in an area with fans of the gold standard. The article helps address the problems gold standards posed and why we shifted out of it.

Perhaps something to ponder as we start looking at the US Constitution and Congress' delegated power to coin money and regulate its value.

"The Politics of Loss"

This is a very depressing assessment of our possible political future. Deficit spending over the past few decades has allowed different groups in society to get most of what they want - low taxes for some, social programs for others. Benefits were positive sum, everyone got more and more, as long as the gravy train continued to flow.

Now that we're looking at austerity in the near future, and benefits might have to start contracting, we might be looking at zero sum, or even negative sum exchanges. Politics will be fought over who loses the least. This does not create a stable governing environment, but we may have to get used to it.

On NYC's ban on large sodas

An example of policy making by a city: NYC's ban on large servings of sugary soda's. Some argue its an unjustifiable limit on individual autonomy and decision making. Here's an argument that it is an appropriate response to a legitimate problem:

To (loosely) paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, your right to harm yourself stops when I have to pay for it. And just as we all pay for the ravages of smoking, we all pay for the harmful effects of Coke, Snapple and Gatorade.

Let’s be clear: Sugar-sweetened beverages are nothing more than sugar delivery systems, and sugar is probably the most dangerous part of our current diet. People will argue forever about whether sugar-sweetened beverages lead directly to obesity, but Bloomberg’s ban should be framed first and foremost as an effort to reduce sugar consumption. Good.

Does Texas have five Republican Parties?

Apparently so. Here's one man's list:

The Mitt Romney-Joe Straus Party: business conservatives and gray-suit types interested in economic success and winning elections.

The Rick Perry-David Dewhurst Party: Gov. Rick Perry's coalition of establishment religious and business conservatives, united primarily by faith in Perry -- or fear of him.

The Ron Paul-Debra Medina Tea Party: U.S. Rep. Ron Paul's devout cost-cutters, with subsets following everything from militias to marijuana.

The Rick Santorum-Sarah Palin Tea Party: The same grassroots religious GOP we've always had, using the name Tea Party.

The Empower Texans-Michael Quinn Sullivan Party: Midland oil millionaire Tim Dunn's self-funded effort to take over all the other parties, with some success.

I make a consistent point in our discussion a about political parties that while we are a two party system, each party has competing factions within it. This seems to a rational guess about what factions exist within the Texas Republican Party at the moment.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/06/05/4010727/texas-is-lucky-to-have-five-republican.html#storylink=cpy

Texas tax collection exceeds projections, but state asks state agencies to cut an additional 10% during 2012-25.

The request follows similar cuts in recent budgets. Something to consider as we discuss the political culture of Texas in some upcoming classes. Story from the Austin American Statesman.