The Top 21 Sources of Legislative History

This might be of interest to 2305 students since we are now looking at the judiciary and also discussing how the courts go about the business of interpreting the Constitution and statutory law.

One things some judges and justices look to - though some discount it - is legislative history. This helps judges understand what legislators were trying to accomplish when they passed a law they might be reviewing.

The blog of Nicholas J. Wagoner - which appears to be dormant - runs through the top 21 places judges may look to seek out legislative history.

- Click here for a description.

In order of importance they are:

1. Conference Committee Reports
2. Committee Debates and Bill Mark-ups
3. Committee Reports
4. The Status of the Person Speaking—Sponsor, Committee Chairman, Floor Leader, Etc.
5. Accepted and Rejected Amendments
6. Floor Debates
7. Planned Colloquy
8. Transcripts of Discussions at Committee Hearings
9. Prepared Statements on Submission of a Bill, in Committee Hearings, and at the Time of Floor Debates
10. Revised and Amended Statements
11. Actions on and Discussions About Separate Bills on the Same Topic
12. Prior Relevant Administrative Action or Judicial Decisions, with or without Congressional Acknowledgement
13. Executive Branch Messages and Proposals Whether from the President, Cabinet Secretaries, or from Independent Agencies
14. Analysis of Bills by Legislative Counsel
15. Analysis of Bills by Relevant Executive Departments
16. Related Statutes, Provisions, and Terms (click here)
17. Dictionaries (click here)
18. Statements by Executive Branch Administrators (click here)
19. Statements and Submissions by Lobbyists (click here)
20. Subsequent or Prior Unrelated, but Conflicting Legislation (click here)
21. Recorded Votes

Attorney General Abbott will appeal yesterday's federal rule overturning the state's ban on gay marriage

This was to be expected.

Politico provides detail:

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican running for governor, will appeal a Wednesday ruling striking down the Lone Star State’s ban on gay marriage.

In a statement, Abbott announced that same-sex marriage is “an issue that will ultimately be resolved by a higher court. Texas will begin that process by appealing today’s ruling to the Fifth Circuit.”

“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled over and over again that states have the authority to define and regulate marriage,” said Abbott, who is set to face off with Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis in the deep-red state. “The Texas Constitution defines marriage as between one man and one woman. If the Fifth Circuit honors those precedents, then today’s decision should be overturned and the Texas Constitution will be upheld.”

His comments came after a ruling earlier in the day from a federal judge in Austin.

“This is an issue on which there are good, well-meaning people on both sides,” Abbott said.

The last remarks seems telling to me - an increasing group of Republicans seem to believe (1) that acceptance of gay marriage is growing among Republicans so they may have to prepare ground work for a switch on the issue, and (2) the courts will mandate this change anyway so it might be worth getting ahead of it. Having the court overturn Texas laws - including part of the Texas Constitution - relieves Texas of the political dirty work associated with changing it. It takes it off their hands - which simultaneously gets rid of the issue and gives them a target to blame for the change.

From the Atlantic: What Is Clarence Thomas Thinking?

Thomas is perhaps the most consistently conservative justice on the court - and is famously silent during oral arguments. He asks no questions, though his opinions tend to be very forceful. This has led some to wonder about his though process. Including this author. For 2305's look at the judiciary.

- Click here for the article.

For his own part, Thomas doesn't seem to feel that there's any reason to speak up. "Maybe it's the Southerner in me," he has mused. "Maybe it's the introvert in me, I don't know. I think that when somebody's talking, somebody ought to listen." But while I am not sure I would label his silence a “disgrace,” as Toobin did, it is a lost opportunity for all of us. Thomas is a complex figure. I think his legal ideas profoundly wrong. Over the years he has expressed deep resentment over the battle over his confirmation—resentment that his admirers may find understandable but that to me seems excessive. (“Whoop-de-damn-do,” Thomas reports himself as saying when confirmed. But winning a Supreme Court Justiceship, even in ugly circumstances, is an honor. A slight show of gratitude might have been becoming.)

Like every justice, Thomas has a number of areas where he can offer special understanding. He's the only justice who has studied for the priesthood and the only one who has worked in state government. Most relevant to the clean air case, he's the only one who has served as head of an important executive agency (in his case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). I am not sure I would label his silence a “disgrace,” but it is a lost opportunity for all of us.

And when he has spoken out, the results have on occasion been extraordinary. Consider the 2003 case of Virginia v. Black. Several convicted defendants challenged a Virginia statute that made it a felony to burn a cross where others could see it “with the intent of intimidating any person or group.” Not long before, in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the Court had struck down a city ordinance making it a crime to use any symbol in public with the knowledge that it “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” Even though the Virginia law was narrower, many observers were confident the majority would also strike the Virginia law as an invalid ban on “symbolic expression.”

Thomas, the only African American on the court, was born into poverty in a segregated community, and he knows a few things that most of his gently raised colleagues do not. He calmly interrupted: “[A]ren't you understating the—the effects of—of the burning cross? . . . Now, it's my understanding that we had almost 100 years of lynching and activity in the South. The Knights of Camellia and—and the Ku Klux Klan, and this was a reign of terror and the cross was a symbol of that reign of terror. Was—isn't that significantly greater than intimidation or a threat?”

From the NYT: Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill on Refusal of Service to Gays

Neither the Kansas not Arizona bills allowing religious beliefs to legally justify discrimination against gays and lesbians will become law.

Is this a consequence of checks and balances? What motivates one governing institution, does not motivate - necessarily - others. The same could be said of the previous story regarding laws against same-sex marriage in Texas being found unconstitutional by a federal judge in the state. That brings in the complicating factor of federalism - but let's hold that aside for now.

Among the arguments against the bill were its unintended consequences - which seem limitless.

- Click here for the article:

Ending a day that cast a glaring national spotlight on Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, vetoed a bill on Wednesday that would have given business owners the right to refuse service to gay men, lesbians and other people on religious grounds.

Her action came amid mounting pressure from Arizona business leaders, who said the bill would be a financial disaster for the state and would harm its reputation. Prominent members of the Republican establishment, including Mitt Romney and Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, also sided with the bill’s opponents, who argued that the measure would have allowed people to use religion as a fig leaf for prejudice.

Ms. Brewer announced her veto at a hastily called news conference after spending the day holed up in the Capitol in private meetings with opponents and supporters. “I call them like I see them, despite the cheers or the boos from the crowd,” she said. She added that the legislation “does not address a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona,” and that it was “broadly worded and

The governor further castigated the Republican-controlled Legislature, which passed the bill last Thursday, for making it the first piece of legislation to reach her desk this year. Her priorities, she said, are a budget, continuing the state’s economic growth, and “fixing our broken child protection system.”

The bill was inspired by episodes in other states in which florists, photographers and bakers were sued for refusing to cater to same-sex couples. But it would have allowed much broader religious exemptions by business owners.

A range of critics — who included business leaders and figures in both national political parties — said it was broadly discriminatory and would have permitted all sorts of denials of service, allowing, say, a Muslim taxi driver to refuse to pick up a woman traveling solo.

A federal judge in San Antonio declares Texas' ban on same sex marriage to be unconstitutional

The Judge is Orlando Garcia who serves in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas.

- Click here for his website.

I cant the decision right now, and there's not much on details yet.

Here's what the Washington Post has to say:

A federal judge has struck down Texas’ ban on gay marriage, but is leaving it in place pending a ruling by an appeals court later this year.

Judge Orlando Garcia issued a preliminary injunction on the ban Wednesday, then suspended his ruling. Two gay couples had challenged the state’s constitutional amendment and a longstanding law banning gay marriage.

Under federal court rules, a judge may suspend a law if he or she believes the plaintiffs have a strong case and will suffer if the law is enforced.

Garcia said his injunction against Texas enforcing its ban will take effect once an appeals court has a chance to rule on the issue.

The ruling is the latest in a recent series of victories for gay rights activists.

This is from the Houston Chronicle:

A federal judge in San Antonio on Wednesday declared Texas' ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. The Lone Star state's refusal to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages is also unconstitutional, he ruled.

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, however, also issued a stay, meaning the bans remain in effect for the time being.

Two gay couples have sued the state aiming to overturn the bans. One lesbian couple had to go to Massachusetts to get married, and they want Texas to recognize the union. A second couple had a courtship of 17 years and say they want to get married here in their home state.

Garcia ruled that the couples met the criteria for a preliminary injunction, including the likelihood of winning the suit.

Nationwide, seven states have struck down same-sex marriage bans, in whole or in part, in the past 65 days. But every state, including now Texas, has a stay in effect leaving the laws in place until the issue is visited by the U.S. Supreme Court.

From the Atlantic: The War on Reason

Andrew Sullivan called attention to this article - written by a cognitive scientist -  that attempts to get to the root of our ability to reason. Remember that our collective capacity to reason was part of John Locke's theory about why human choose to leave the state of nature and what allows us to provide - or deny - consent to what governments do.

It's a long article, but the last few paragraphs are especially important for our subject matter this semester since it touches on the factors that influence the decisions we make. Notable the influence that our identification with political parties has on what policies we favor and oppose.

- Click here for the article.

We’re at our worst when it comes to politics. This helps explain why recent attacks on rationality have captured the imagination of the scientific community and the public at large. Politics forces us to confront those who disagree with us, and we’re not naturally inclined to see those on the other side of an issue as rational beings. Why, for instance, do so many Republicans think Obama’s health-care plan violates the Constitution? Writing in The New Yorker in June 2012, Ezra Klein used the research of Haidt and others to argue that Republicans despise the plan on political, not rational, grounds. Initially, he notes, they objected to what the Democrats had to offer out of a kind of tribal sense of loyalty. Only once they had established that position did they turn to reason to try to justify their views.

But notice that Klein doesn’t reach for a social-psychology journal when articulating why he and his Democratic allies are so confident that Obamacare is constitutional. He’s not inclined to understand his own perspective as the product of reflexive loyalty to the ideology of his own group. This lack of interest in the source of one’s views is typical. Because most academics are politically left of center, they generally use their theories of irrationality to explain the beliefs of the politically right of center. They like to explore how psychological biases shape the decisions people make to support Republicans, reject affirmative-action policies, and disapprove of homosexuality. But they don’t spend much time investigating how such biases might shape their own decisions to support Democrats, endorse affirmative action, and approve of gay marriage.

None of this is to say that Klein is mistaken. Irrational processes do exist, and they can ground political and moral decisions; sometimes the right explanation is groupthink or cognitive dissonance or prejudice. Irrationality is unlikely to be perfectly proportioned across political parties, and it’s possible, as the journalist Chris Mooney and others have suggested, that the part of the population that chose Obama in the most recent presidential election is more reasonable than the almost equal part that chose Romney.

But even if this were so, it would tell us little about the human condition. Most of us know nothing about constitutional law, so it’s hardly surprising that we take sides in the Obamacare debate the way we root for the Red Sox or the Yankees. Loyalty to the team is what matters. A set of experiments run by the Stanford psychologist Geoffrey Cohen illustrates this principle perfectly. Subjects were told about a proposed welfare program, which was described as being endorsed by either Republicans or Democrats, and were asked whether they approved of it. Some subjects were told about an extremely generous program, others about an extremely stingy program, but this made little difference. What mattered was party: Democrats approved of the Democratic program, and Republicans, the Republican program. When asked to justify their decision, however, participants insisted that party considerations were irrelevant; they felt they were responding to the program’s objective merits. This appears to be the norm. The Brown psychologist Steven Sloman and his colleagues have found that when people are called upon to justify their political positions, even those that they feel strongly about, many are unable to point to specifics. For instance, many people who claim to believe deeply in cap and trade or a flat tax have little idea what these policies actually mean.

So, yes, if you want to see people at their worst, press them on the details of those complex political issues that correspond to political identity and that cleave the country almost perfectly in half. But if this sort of irrational dogmatism reflected how our minds generally work, we wouldn’t even make it out of bed each morning. Such scattered and selected instances of irrationality shouldn’t cloud our view of the rational foundations of our everyday life. That would be like saying the most interesting thing about medicine isn’t the discovery of antibiotics and anesthesia, or the construction of large-scale programs for the distribution of health care, but the fact that people sometimes forget to take their pills.

From ScotusBlog: Court denies gun rights cases (UPDATED)

ScotusBlog's Lyle Dennison tries to explain why the Supreme Court decided to not hear the Second Amendment cases we've been discussing in class - the ones that were intended to get the court to expand the right to keep and bear arms for self defense outside the home.

Remember that two of these cases involved expanding access to guns to 18, 19 and 20 year olds. The court apparently see no reason to even consider the argument. I'm not sure whether this should be considered a statement about attitudes towards the Second Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment's applicability to age discrimination. Clearly the young can still be discriminated against when it comes to gun purchases - as it can with alcohol purchases.

- Click here for the article.

The Supreme Court refused on Monday, as it has done repeatedly in recent years, to settle the issue of whether Second Amendment rights to have a gun extend beyond the home. The Court, without comment, denied three new petitions — two filed by the National Rifle Association — seeking clarification on the scope of an individual’s right to have a gun for personal self-defense. In other orders, the Court did not accept any new cases for review, although it did hold over a number of cases it had examined for potential review.

Since the Court first ruled nearly six years ago that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to have a gun, it has issued only one further ruling — expanding that right so that it applies nationwide, to state and local gun control laws, as well as to federal laws. But, without exception, the Justices have turned aside every potential sequel, essentially leaving it to lower courts to continue to sort out variations on the right.
One thing seemed clear from the denial of review of two of the new cases, the NRA’s challenges: the Court is not, as yet, ready to stop lower courts from creating an entirely new group in society with less than full gun rights. In those cases, it was youths aged eighteen to twenty years old.

One petition — NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms — was a challenge to the part of a 1968 law barring licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to those in that age bracket. The other case — NRA v. McCraw — was a challenge to a series of Texas laws that generally barred individuals in that age bracket from qualifying for a license to carry a handgun in public, outside the home.

In separate rulings in those cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit raised doubts about whether individuals in that age group are entitled to any protection under the Second Amendment, on the theory that the Supreme Court had upheld gun rights only for “responsible” individuals.

While the Supreme Court’s denial of review of those petitions was not explained, it cannot be said for sure that it agreed with the lower court’s view, but that view does prevail for the time being.

The third Second Amendment case denied review on Monday was Lane v. Holder, an attempt to get the Court to clarify when gun purchasers have a legal right (“standing,” in a technical sense) to go to court to challenge federal restrictions on gun buying. At issue is a provision of a 1968 law barring all interstate sales of guns except through federally licensed gun dealers, and whether purchasers can sue to challenge that limitation.

From the Hill: An excess of executive power?

Congressional resistance - instigated mainly by the Republican dominated House of Representatives - has put President Obama in a position where if he wants to implement his agenda he has to make use of executive tolls that allow him to act without Congressional authorization.

The Hill details the controversies associated with this move - and also puts it in perspective. Is Obama doing anything previous presidents have not done? Republicans will of course say yes - but there's no consensus on whether this is the case. The article outlines this argument. I recommend a quick read to catch up with the current state of executive power. Remember that the executive has consistently gathered strength over the course of American history - so there's little surprise that this trend may be continuing. Putting it in proper - non partisan - perspective can be a chore though.

- Click here for the article. 

President Obama's aggressive use of administrative power is testing the boundaries of executive authority on several fronts.

Obama throughout his presidency has pushed the envelope on recess appointments, prosecutorial discretion and the way his administration executes laws, drawing resistance from the other two branches of government.

Experts say Obama's tactics are not unusual and note he has issued fewer executive orders than many of his predecessors. But congressional Republicans counter it is the content, not the number, of presidential directives that has them up in arms.. . . In remarks Friday at House Democrats’ annual retreat, Obama said he would prefer to work with Congress than act unilaterally.

“But, I'm not going to wait, because there's too much to do,” he said. “And America does not believe in standing still.”

In recent days, Obama signed an executive order effectively raising the minimum wage for employees of federal contractors, while his administration extended additional legal rights to same sex couples and issued new banking guidelines for legal pot businesses, among other contentious actions.

“All modern presidents have done this,” said Kenneth Mayer, a University of Wisconsin political science professor who has studied the presidency extensively. “All presidents utilize the tools of executive power to implement policies.”

To be sure, Obama is not the first president to be accused of overstepping the bounds of his authority — a point emphasized Friday by White House press secretary Jay Carney, who said, “It is funny to hear Republicans get upset about the suggestion the president might use legally available authorities … when, obviously, they supported a president who used executive authorities quite widely.”

But the same point could be made in reverse. President George W. Bush faced an onslaught of criticism from Democrats in response to “signing statements” used to expound his administration’s interpretations of hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

. . .In the House, Rice is leading a more aggressive rebuke to Obama’s executive power play. His "Stop This Overreaching Presidency" Resolution directing the House to file a federal lawsuit challenging four executive actions has attracted more than 100 co-sponsors.

The lawsuit would challenge the employer mandate delay and the 2011 decision to stop certain deportations after the Dream Act failed to gain traction in Congress. Also targeted are the extension of "substandard" insurance policies that would otherwise have been canceled under the Affordable Care Act, and a waiver of welfare work requirements under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

Before hearing the case, a court would have to find that the House has standing to sue over the actions. A Congressional Research Service analysis conducted for Rice late last year found that such a lawsuit might clear that hurdle.

“It appears likely that a one-house resolution specifically authorizing such judicial recourse would satisfy this authorization requirement,” the nonpartisan CRS concluded.

Regardless of the fate of that measure, the courts will be the final arbiter of whether Obama’s actions have exceeded the power of his office.

Weekly Written Assignment #7 - Critical Thinking Assessment

Note: I was late posting this assignment - so you'll have until the end of next week to turn it in without a penalty. The due date on Blackboard is set already, so don't worry if it tells you you are late.

This week's assignment also serves as the critical thinking assessment. In a separate post I'll give a link to the rubric that will be used to evaluate this assessment. Both 2305 and 2306 classes will focus on the same recent event, but will cover different aspects of it. In each case you will be asked to apply material we've covered in class so far to understand different aspects of it.

The story involves the emerging conflict between religious liberty and gay rights in a handful of states - most notably Kansas and Arizona. Here some useful links:

- Kansas, Arizona bills reflect national fight over gay rights vs. religious liberty.
- Wikipedia: Kansas House Bill 2453.
- What The Hell Just Happened In Kansas?
- NM Court Says Christian Photographers Must Compromise Beliefs.
- Religious Right in Arizona Cheers Bill Allowing Businesses to Refuse to Serve Gays.

This is just a handful of stories - there are many more, many of which may be more relevant.

GOVT 2305

I want 2305 students to analyze the conflict these laws present between religious liberty and equal protection. Note that both exist in the US Constitution. Congress - and by extension the states - cannot pass laws that infringe on the free exercise of religious belief, but neither can the state deny to person's within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

This seems to present a dilemma. I want you to figure out how to resolve it. How might the conflict between religious liberty and equal protection be resolved - especially when either side seems so dug into its own interests?

GOVT 2306

This conflict also calls to mind disputes between the national and state governments over how the nature of liberties and rights are defined, and the ongoing conflict over which level's definition take precedence over the others.

Make an argument supporting whether states or the national government should have the principle responsibility to define religious liberty and equal; protection. Also touch on how the dispute between the two might be effectively resolved.

- Click here to find the rubric that will be used to evaluate this assignment.

The Supreme Court will not hear Second Amendment cases

A bit of a disappointment - we looked at these cases last week in both 2305 and 2306.

- Click here for the notice in ScotuBlog.

The Supreme Court refused on Monday, as it has done repeatedly in recent years, to reopen the issue of whether Second Amendment rights to have a gun extend beyond the home. The Court, without comment, denied three new petitions — two filed by the National Rifle Association. The cases were Nos. 12-1401, 13-137, and 13-390.

2306 students should click here for the order list to see just how few cases the Supreme Court agrees to hear. Unless I'm reading this wrong, they will hear only four of the many many cases they considered. No word on how they processed this many cases. Undoubtedly some over worked clerks were involved.

I'll post further commentary as it flies by.

Texas Solicitor General to argue before the US Supreme Court

The case involves environmental regulations - surprise.

- Click here for ScotusBlog coverage.

Political Power in Texas

Not surprisingly, one indicator of political power is how much cash a candidate or group has on hand. You need more than money - but it a good start.

Texas Tribune has a page devoted to campaign finance numbers and it highlights the size of the "warchest" of different groups and individuals. It's worth a look.

- Click here for it.

From the Atlantic: The Zombie Numbers That Rule the U.S. Economy

In 2305 we looked briefly at the budgeting process and will also look at economic policy making soon enough. Both make use of numbers that purport to tell us how the economy is doing - but here's a suggestion that those numbers are misleading.

- Click here for the article:

We act as if they are markers from time immemorial, but in fact they were invented for modern industrial nations after the Depression and World War II and are now seriously outdated.

Take gross domestic product. Derived from formulas set down by the economist Simon Kuznets and others in the 1930s, its limitations have long been recognized, none more eloquently than by Robert F. Kennedy in a famous speech in 1968 when he declared that it measured everything except that which is worth measuring.

GDP treats all output as a positive. When you buy LED lights that obviate the need to spend on incandescent bulbs and reduce energy consumption, GDP goes down and what should be an unmitigated good becomes a statistical negative. If a coal company pollutes a river, the cleanup costs are positive for GDP, as are any health care costs for those harmed.

What’s more, we have also come to assume that with output comes more spending and employment, but factories today are powered by robotics and software, and robots don’t buy more lattes and shoes.

GDP is a good number for a nation that produces lots of stuff made by lots of workers, but for an information economy grounded in services and intellectual property and awash in apps that cost nothing yet enable commerce, it is not up to the task. Nor are many of our indicators. Our trade figures treat an iPhone made—more accurately, assembled—in China with no reference to the intellectual property created by Apple in California.

From the Washington Post: Department of Homeland Security cancels national license-plate tracking plan

Here's some good news:

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Wednesday ordered the cancellation of a plan by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency to develop a national license-plate tracking system after privacy advocates raised concern about the initiative.

The order came just days after ICE solicited proposals from companies to compile a database of license-plate information from commercial and law enforcement tag readers. Officials said the database was intended to help apprehend fugitive illegal immigrants, but the plan raised concerns that the movements of ordinary citizens under no criminal suspicion could be scrutinized.

The data would have been drawn from readers that scan the tags of every vehicle crossing their paths, and would have been accessed only for “ongoing criminal investigations or to locate wanted individuals,” officials told The Washington Post this week.

“The solicitation, which was posted without the awareness of ICE leadership, has been cancelled,” ICE spokeswoman Gillian Christensen said in a statement. “While we continue to support a range of technologies to help meet our law enforcement mission, this solicitation will be reviewed to ensure the path forward appropriately meets our operational needs.”

Lawmakers and privacy advocates reacted with approval.

From the Atlantic: The Case for Corruption, Why Washington needs more honest graft

From Jonathan Rauch - the guy who gave us the word demosclerosis - an argument that cleaning up politics has made the political process less functional. He suggests that the governing system lost something vital when political machines were broken apart and the use of patronage to build coalitions became distasteful. Its an interesting counter-intuitive take on what makes governments work.

- Click here for the article.

The government shutdown last fall wasted billions of dollars, upset innumerable plans, and besmirched both political parties. But it did have one constructive effect. Surveying the wreckage, grown-ups in both parties realized that the politics of public confrontation is a lot better at closing the government than running it. So, to avoid a repeat, they decided to try something old. Something very old. In a healthy return to machine politics, they handed budget negotiations over to political hacks cutting deals behind closed doors.

Once upon a time, the budget process was reasonably regular. In fact, it was conducted under what was called regular order. The budget-committee chairmen would do some horse trading to build a consensus within each chamber, the House and Senate would then pass those budgets without too much ado, and the two chambers would work out their differences in a conference committee. Then the appropriations committees would do more or less the same thing, making sure to spread around enough pork-barrel goodies to get their friends paid off and the budget passed. The president and the congressional leaders would be involved throughout the process, every now and then calling a budget summit, but most of the real work would go on behind the scenes.
In the past few years, by contrast, regular order has been replaced by regular chaos.

Public ultimatums supplanted private negotiations, games of chicken replaced mutual back-scratching, and bumptious Republican House members took to dictating terms to their putative leadership. Last fall, after one tantrum too many, Congress seemed exhausted. As part of a deal to reopen the government, it returned the task of setting the next fiscal year’s budget to the budget and appropriations committees, sending them off to a smoke-free smoke-filled room to cut a deal. The result, a trillion-dollar spending bill loaded with incentives for each side, sailed through Congress in January.

How often backroom deal making will work in today’s age of hyper-partisanship remains to be seen, but Congress’s recourse to it represents a welcome rediscovery of a home truth. Politics needs good leaders, but it needs good followers even more, and they don’t come cheap. Loyalty gets you only so far, and ideology is divisive. Political machines need to exist, and they need to work. No one understood this better than the street-smart political sage George Washington Plunkitt, who articulated the concept of honest graft.
Plunkitt was a factotum of New York’s renowned Tammany Hall political machine during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Among his accomplishments was holding four public offices at once, drawing salaries for three of them. It was his custom to opine on politics from the shoeshine stand at the county courthouse, where his reflections were taken down by a reporter named William L. Riordon and published in a 1905 classic called Plunkitt of Tammany Hall. His greatest insight was the distinction between honest and dishonest graft.

“There’s the biggest kind of a difference between political looters and politicians who make a fortune out of politics by keepin’ their eyes wide open,” Plunkitt said. “The looter goes in for himself alone without considerin’ his organization or his city. The politician looks after his own interests, the organization’s interests, and the city’s interests all at the same time.” Dirty graft is parasitic, mere larceny, whereas honest graft helps knit together a patronage network that ensures leaders can lead and followers will follow. Reformers who failed to understand this crucial distinction, Plunkitt said, courted anarchy. “First,” he reasoned, “this great and glorious country was built up by political parties; second, parties can’t hold together if their workers don’t get the offices when they win; third, if the parties go to pieces, the government they built up must go to pieces, too; fourth, then there’ll be h--- to pay.”

Meth Labs of Democracy

The National Journal highlights a fun video from the Daily Show featuring some of the more creative laws passed by state legislatures recently.

- Click here for the article.

From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: More Evidence That You Can’t Lure Entrepreneurs With Tax Cuts

This cuts against an argument commonly made by Texas politicians:

Cutting state taxes to attract entrepreneurs is likely futile at best and self-defeating at worst, a new survey of founders of some of the country’s fastest-growing companies suggests. The study, which is consistent with other research, should be required reading for state policymakers — especially those in Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin who are pushing for large income tax cuts.

The 150 executives surveyed by Endeavor Insight, a research firm that examines how entrepreneurs contribute to job creation and long-term economic growth, said a skilled workforce and high quality of life were the main reasons why they founded their companies where they did; taxes weren’t a significant factor. This suggests that states that cut taxes and then address the revenue loss by letting their schools, parks, roads, and public safety deteriorate will become less attractive to the kinds of people who found high-growth companies. (Hat tip to urbanologist Richard Florida for calling attention to the study.)

. . . The new survey provides further evidence for these arguments. It found that:

- “The most common reason cited by entrepreneurs for launching their business in a given city was that it was where they lived at the time. The entrepreneurs who cited this reason usually mentioned their personal connections to their city or specific quality of life factors, such as access to nature or local cultural attractions.”

- “31% of founders cited access to talent as a factor in their decision on where to launch their company. . . . A number of founders also highlighted the link between the ability to attract talented employees and a city’s quality of life.”

- “Only 5% of entrepreneurs cited low tax rates as a factor in deciding where to launch their company” and only 2% mentioned “business-friendly regulations” and other government policies. The report’s authors concluded, “We believe that the lack of discussion of these factors indicates that marginal differences in these areas at the state or municipal level have little influence on great entrepreneurs’ decision-making processes.”

Kansas, North Carolina, and Ohio have cut personal income taxes significantly in the last two years, and in each case the governor argued that it would give a big boost to creating or attracting new firms. This new study provides more compelling evidence that that’s the wrong approach. Let’s hope other states don’t start down the same dead-end path.

The Fiscal Times gives low marks to the 113th Congress so far, and expects little improvement this year

They are not alone in this assessment.

1 - Howthe 113th Do-Nothing Congress Lived Up to Its Name

The 113^th Congress last year was arguably one of the least productive bodies in history. Lawmakers passed just 55 substantive bills that were signed into law, according to the Pew Research Center, while being bogged down in a partisan morass over scores of other important matters.

Moreover, the House was in session a total of 942 hours in 2013 (not counting brief pro-forma sessions), The New York Times calculated — “the fewest hours in a nonelection year since 2005, when detailed information about legislative activity became available.” 

Like a dysfunctional family writ large, the Republican-controlled House and Democratic-dominated Senate talked past each other on critical issues that included immigration reform, gun violence, food stamps and farm legislation, job training, trade and energy production.

2 - GetReady for the ‘Do-Next-to-Nothing’ Congress

If the 113^th Congress broke all records last year for being the biggest do-nothing legislative body in modern times, this year it may set the record for doing “next to nothing.”

Big-ticket measures such as comprehensive immigration reform, an overhaul of the tax code, an increase in the minimum wage,  an extension of long-term unemployment insurance, improvements to the Affordable Care Act, major infrastructure projects for creating new jobs,  expedited trade legislation and more appear well out of reach, according to some political experts.

With a new two-year budget and spending package in place and a year-long extension of the Treasury’s borrowing authority agreed to, Republicans have signaled an unwillingness to take up any politically-charged measure this year that might detract from their efforts this fall to expand their majority in the House and possibly take back control of the Senate.

he 113^th Congress last year was arguably one of the least productive bodies in history. Lawmakers passed just 55 substantive bills that were signed into law, according to the Pew Research Center, while being bogged down in a partisan morass over scores of other important matters.
Moreover, the House was in session a total of 942 hours in 2013 (not counting brief pro-forma sessions), The New York Times calculated — “the fewest hours in a nonelection year since 2005, when detailed information about legislative activity became available.”
- See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/02/17/How-113th-Do-Nothing-Congress-Lived-Its-Name#sthash.j82tWVtB.dpuf

How the 113th Do-Nothing Congress Lived Up to Its Name - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/02/17/How-113th-Do-Nothing-Congress-Lived-Its-Name#sthash.j82tWVtB.dpuf

How the 113th Do-Nothing Congress Lived Up to Its Name - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/02/17/How-113th-Do-Nothing-Congress-Lived-Its-Name#sthash.j82tWVtB.dpuf

How the 113th Do-Nothing Congress Lived Up to Its Name - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/02/17/How-113th-Do-Nothing-Congress-Lived-Its-Name#sthash.j82tWVtB.dpu

From the Hill: House GOP plots anti-reg blitz

For our look at the executive branch - and specifically the bureaucracy and how Congress attempts to oversee it.

- Click here for the article.

House Republicans next week will pass a legislative package aimed at making federal regulations more transparent and less costly to the economy.

The legislation is the GOP's latest attempt to reduce the regulatory red tape that they say is stifling job creation. Republicans have said getting Washington out of the way of companies is the best way to turn around an economy that stills struggles to create jobs more than five years after the Great Recession.

Bills to pare back federal regulations have become the GOP's response to Democratic arguments that Congress should be pushing to extend emergency unemployment benefits and raise the minimum wage. But these bills have mostly gone nowhere in the Senate due to opposition from Senate Democrats.

Nonetheless, GOP leaders next week will bring up the Achieving Less Excess in Regulation and Requiring Transparency (ALERRT) Act, H.R. 2804. The legislation combines four measures proposed by Republicans over the last year.

One piece of the bill, from Rep. George Holding (R-N.C.), would require the head of each federal agency to report each month on rules it is expected to issue, including the reason for the rule and when it will be issued. It would also have to estimate the cost of the rule and its economic impact.

Current law requires the administration to issue reports on regulatory actions twice a year, but Republicans have complained that these reports are rarely on time. Holding said when he introduced his bill that his language is needed to ensure the government's regulatory plans are transparent to companies.

From ProPublica: Buying Your Vote

ProPublica devotes an entire section of its website to story related to dark money and big data.

- Click here for it.

Our Great Region 2040

The Houston Galveston Area Council voted to accept the Our Region 2040 Plan, which Guidry News describes as "a long range plan designed to help the region address critical challenges such as housing, transportation, economic development and the environment."

We refer periodically to area councils of government in 2306 - less so in 2305 - since they exist to coordinate the activities of the hundreds of independent governing institutions in the various metropolital regions in the state. They deserve more attention than we have the time to give them, but this gives you an opportunity to see how they try to do what they do.

Useful links:

- The Our Great Region 2040 report.
- www.ourregion.org.
- Story from Guidry News.
- February Board Agenda.

a long range plan designed to help the region address critical challenges such as housing, transportation, economic development and the environment. - See more at: http://www.guidrynews.com/story.aspx?id=1000058891#sthash.r3kWzOpC.dpuf

a long range plan designed to help the region address critical challenges such as housing, transportation, economic development and the environment. - See more at: http://www.guidrynews.com/story.aspx?id=1000058891#sthash.r3kWzOpC.dpuf

a long range plan designed to help the region address critical challenges such as housing, transportation, economic development and the environment. - See more at: http://www.guidrynews.com/story.aspx?id=1000058891#sthash.r3kWzOpC.dpuf

a long range plan designed to help the region address critical challenges such as housing, transportation, economic development and the environment. - See more at: http://www.guidrynews.com/story.aspx?id=1000058891#sthash.r3kWzOpC.dpuf

From The Dish: The Expanding Right To Bear Arms

Andrew Sullivan calls attention to appellate court cases where the extent of the Second Amendment is not only expanded, but limits the ability of state and local governments to restrict the ability to carry guns outside the home.

- Click here for the story.

This story applies to a good handful of topics we cover in class. Civil liberties, how the judiciary interprets civil liberties - most recently the 2nd Amendment, checks and balances and federalism among them. Something for 2306 students to consider is how this affect that idea that states can serve as "laboratories of democracy." This seems to limit that possibility. The recognition of rights by the U.S. Supreme Court limits the ability of states to fine tune policies and act as laboratories of democracy. This is because once something is considered to be a "right" it cannot be limited by electorate.

Sullivan links to Lyle Denniston's ScotusBlog report, which I highly recommend reading since it details the process these cases have taken through the courts and the issues they raise, Like the NRS v MGraw case referred to below, the courts are being asked to consider whether the second amendment right - broadly interpreted - to have guns in the home for self defense purposes applies outside the home as well.

The states have been moving in the direction of more lenient gun laws - the Supreme Court may end up making that mandatory. A similar dynamic is underway with gay marriage and possibly marijuana laws. Maybe the death with dignity movement might follow this trajectory one day as well.

Here's a look at the expansion of gun rights in the states, and the growth of "Shall Issue Laws."

Click here for an explanation of shall issue, may issue, no issue and unrestricted states.

From Politico: The Word That Changed the Debt Ceiling Debate

This applies to the bill making process, budgeting and public opinion. The author points out that Democrats were able to spin public opinion in their favor in the recent debate over the debt ceiling by using the word "default" to describe the proposal to not increase it.

This is a common tactic - define a policy or proposal in terms favorable to one's preferred outcome. Republicans have generally bee more successful doing so than Democrats, for example calling the estate tax a death tax. Democrats seem to have learned the lesson.

- Click here for the article.

When Treasury Secretary Jack Lew recently gave notice that the federal government would once again hit the debt ceiling in February, the response from congressional Republicans—who twice took the nation to the brink of default—was decidedly muted.
The official line? “We believe that defaulting on our debt is the wrong thing,” says House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). “We don’t want to do that.” On Tuesday, the House duly voted to raise the debt limit without conditions, sending the action over to the Senate.

This move represents a 180-degree turn from the previous strategy of trying to extract concessions from Democrats by threatening to send the country into economic chaos.

Why such a stark softening of the party line? Republicans’ retreat from the debt-limit battlefield, which they entered so boldly in the spring of 2011 and again last year, began with a shift in the Democrats’ rhetorical strategy. A simple turn of phrase turned the tables on the GOP.

The short history of debt-limit brinksmanship offers a useful lesson in the power of a word to reframe a national debate and drive public opinion in a new direction.
When Republicans first played the debt-limit card in 2011 to force budget concessions from Democrats, the GOP held the rhetorical upper hand. The dialogue was framed in terms of the policy question at hand: Should the national debt limit be raised, so that the Treasury could borrow more money to pay outstanding bills?

. . . Democrats undermined their own position by talking too much about raising the debt limit—and not talking about the consequences of sending the country into default. As seen in the word frequency chart above, the word “default” didn’t even show up in the debate during the first round of this fight in 2011.

We shared this linguistic analysis with top Democrats and recommended a simple, but critical, change in their message: Stop talking about the “debt limit.” Start the conversation with the word “default.”

It was a straightforward switch in vocabulary—but it started a whole new conversation. When high-profile messengers in the Obama administration and Congress started talking about the danger of “default,” the prominence of that idea quickly increased in news coverage. Commentators began discussing it more, and the theme was amplified in social media.

Democrats also dialed up the emotional resonance of the message by saying that a default could cause an economic “catastrophe.” Emotion works with cognition in the brain to help us with attention, retention and motivation. A message must create an emotional reaction for people to notice it, much less remember it.

Within weeks of Democrats adopting this new tack, the polls began to shift. A Pew survey in July 2011 showed the percentage of respondents concerned about default had increased by seven points—while opposition to raising the debt limit had decreased by one.

More on the battle over control of the Harris County Republican Party

This pick up from a story below on local party organization.

- Click here for the story.

Previously, Republicans had "something of a luxury in that their opponent was not especially well organized," said Rice University political scientist Mark Jones.

That has changed in a big way with the arrival last year of Battleground Texas, a Democratic campaign that has pledged to spend tens of millions of dollars identifying and communicating directly with persuadable voters, particularly in the Houston area.

"For Republicans there's a concern, I think, that if they don't get their ground game into high gear, then they risk losing the county altogether," Jones said.

Simpson and his supporters paint the race as a battle over management style, accusing Woodfill of weak fundraising and outreach at a time when the county is growing and diversifying - and, by many measures, becoming more Democratic. They also have suggested that Woodfill has focused too much on divisive social issues, such as same-sex marriage.

At a Houston Chronicle editorial board meeting last month, Emmett complained that the local party is "driving young people away," that hundreds of Republican precinct chair positions are vacant and at least 80 percent of the party's money comes from its own candidates.

"The party is supposed to be supporting candidates," he said. "Right now, the party is living off a few candidates that can raise money. I look at it and I say, 'Look, we need a county party that understands it's about winning elections, it's not about giving speeches.' "

Republican political consultant Jim McGrath said "a lot of people have been looking for a viable alternative to Jared just because he's not getting the job done, and we need to hold him accountable for a lack of results."