We covered this in 2306 earlier this week.
Tricky territory given the looming election and past decisions by the Supreme Court.
- Click here for the article.
The morning of Oct. 2, 2017 was not the first time that India Landry, a senior at Windfern High School outside Houston, refused to stand when the Pledge of Allegiance came on over the intercom.
The protest had gotten her kicked out of her English class five times; her law teacher told her she was disrespectful, according to a 2017 lawsuit. But on that October morning, when the then-17-year-old refused to stand, she was expelled.
Landry, who is black and had sat through the daily Pledge of Allegiance some 200 times as a form of protest, was sitting in the principal’s office that morning when the pledge rang through over the intercom. When she failed to stand, court documents allege, Principal Martha Strother told her, “Well, you’re kicked outta here.”
“This is not the NFL,” the principal’s secretary told her, according to court documents.
That expulsion — which a court filing says was reversed days later with little explanation — has sparked a legal battle that this week expanded to include Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who intervened in the case on Tuesday.
As tensions mount nationally over football players who kneel during the national anthem at televised games, the issue has become a new front in Texas’ culture wars. Randall Kallinen, Landry’s lawyer, is representing two Houston-area students who say administrators punished them after they after they sat through the pledge as a form of protest. Landry and Kallinen argue that a state law requiring students to stand for the pledge of allegiance violates her First Amendment right to free speech. The district declined to comment on pending litigation.
The Texas Education Code states that schools “shall require students, once during each school day at each campus,” to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. But it also directs schools to “excuse the student” from reciting the pledge “on written request from a student’s parent or guardian.”
The teenager’s mother, Kizzy Landry, was supportive of her daughter’s protest, Kallinen said, though the lawyer could not recall whether she had filed a written statement with the school.
In any case, Kallinen argues in court documents, the principal “said that sitting was disrespectful and would not be allowed.”
The law, Kallinen argues, violates students’ free speech rights even though it offers parents the chance to opt out.
The relevant Supreme Court decisions are :
- Minersville School District v. Gobitis.
- West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.
While reading this, we read up on Francis Bellamy, the author of the original version of the Pledge of Allegiance and the person responsible for the Bellamy Salute.
Friday, September 28, 2018
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
From Lawfare: Remembering the Whiskey Rebellion
A brief description of the first internal conflict using national military force.
- Click here for it.
- Click here for it.
Monday, September 17, 2018
From Governing: Shades of Purple - Colorado is one of the most closely divided states in the nation. In the race for governor, now far left is it willing to go?
For this week's written assignment for my GOVT 2306 ACC classes. The article describes how party primaries are impacting state politics. I want 2306 students to outline the argument.
This will also be useful for my 2305 students, since it touches on the topic of the 1000 word esay.
- Click here for the article.
Around the country, candidates in both parties are doing their best to fire up their bases. In campaigns for governor, candidates are talking a lot about national issues that excite partisan constituencies -- not least Trump himself, whether they’re Republicans pledging fealty to the president or Democrats who are repulsed by him. They’re not devoting nearly as much time or focus to the state-level issues they’ll actually grapple with as governor. “It probably won’t hinge on who has the best road proposal or who has the best plan for K-12,” says Bill Owens, the last Republican governor of Colorado. “It’s winnable for either party, but it’s about who is able to define the other as too extreme. It’s who can make the most ad hominem attacks.”
Although this may be a familiar scenario in many states this year, it’s still a little bit surprising that things are playing out this way in Colorado, which is among the most closely divided states in the country. Registered independents there outnumber both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats narrowly control the state House, but Republicans have a one-seat advantage in the state Senate. Hickenlooper just barely managed to hold on for reelection during the 2014 GOP wave, taking 49 percent against a weak opponent. Colorado Republicans won all the other statewide contests during that last midterm, including a U.S. Senate seat held by a Democrat. Hillary Clinton carried the state by five points in 2016 and now Trump’s approval ratings are deep underwater. “With the right candidate, this state trends slightly red,” Democratic consultant Ted Trimpa says. “Anyone who thinks it’s going to be a blowout either way is high.”
In a state split between its Democratic cities and conservative rural areas, most elections are decided by the swing voters in suburban Jefferson and Arapahoe counties. But neither Polis nor Stapleton seems to feel that his best hope lies in appealing to the mythical middle voter. Instead, both camps are working to excite their core supporters, in large part by tearing down the other guy as being beyond the pale. “Moving toward the middle is probably an outdated paradigm,” says Joe Webb, who chairs the Jefferson County Republican Party.
This will also be useful for my 2305 students, since it touches on the topic of the 1000 word esay.
- Click here for the article.
Around the country, candidates in both parties are doing their best to fire up their bases. In campaigns for governor, candidates are talking a lot about national issues that excite partisan constituencies -- not least Trump himself, whether they’re Republicans pledging fealty to the president or Democrats who are repulsed by him. They’re not devoting nearly as much time or focus to the state-level issues they’ll actually grapple with as governor. “It probably won’t hinge on who has the best road proposal or who has the best plan for K-12,” says Bill Owens, the last Republican governor of Colorado. “It’s winnable for either party, but it’s about who is able to define the other as too extreme. It’s who can make the most ad hominem attacks.”
Although this may be a familiar scenario in many states this year, it’s still a little bit surprising that things are playing out this way in Colorado, which is among the most closely divided states in the country. Registered independents there outnumber both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats narrowly control the state House, but Republicans have a one-seat advantage in the state Senate. Hickenlooper just barely managed to hold on for reelection during the 2014 GOP wave, taking 49 percent against a weak opponent. Colorado Republicans won all the other statewide contests during that last midterm, including a U.S. Senate seat held by a Democrat. Hillary Clinton carried the state by five points in 2016 and now Trump’s approval ratings are deep underwater. “With the right candidate, this state trends slightly red,” Democratic consultant Ted Trimpa says. “Anyone who thinks it’s going to be a blowout either way is high.”
In a state split between its Democratic cities and conservative rural areas, most elections are decided by the swing voters in suburban Jefferson and Arapahoe counties. But neither Polis nor Stapleton seems to feel that his best hope lies in appealing to the mythical middle voter. Instead, both camps are working to excite their core supporters, in large part by tearing down the other guy as being beyond the pale. “Moving toward the middle is probably an outdated paradigm,” says Joe Webb, who chairs the Jefferson County Republican Party.
From Vox: Why the right to vote is not enshrined in the Constitution - How voter suppression became a political weapon in American politics.
For this week's writing assignment for my ACC GOVT 2305 students. Explain the following article to me.
- Click here for the article.
The Founding Fathers made a lot of mistakes when they drafted the United States Constitution. Some of these were the result of extremely difficult compromises, and some of them were just, well, mistakes.
The biggest and most consequential mistake, one could argue, was the decision not to guarantee the right to vote to anyone. Suffrage was treated as a privilege reserved exclusively for property-owning white men, but it was not enshrined as an inalienable right in the Constitution.
Instead, these men placed power in the hands of the states, which is one reason the right to vote in the US has expanded and contracted over time with continuous battles over voter ID laws, literacy tests, poll taxes, and other measures designed to keep specific groups, like women and African Americans, from voting.
It’s difficult to overstate the price — moral and political — we’ve paid for this mistake. But a new book by American University history professor Allan Lichtman does a nice job of explaining it. The Embattled Vote in America is a sweeping look at the history of voting rights in the US, focusing on the constant struggle to extend suffrage in this country.
I spoke to Lichtman recently about how voting restrictions put American democracy at risk, why the right to vote is so important, and what we can do to solve this problem once and for all.
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Read on ....
- Click here for the article.
The Founding Fathers made a lot of mistakes when they drafted the United States Constitution. Some of these were the result of extremely difficult compromises, and some of them were just, well, mistakes.
The biggest and most consequential mistake, one could argue, was the decision not to guarantee the right to vote to anyone. Suffrage was treated as a privilege reserved exclusively for property-owning white men, but it was not enshrined as an inalienable right in the Constitution.
Instead, these men placed power in the hands of the states, which is one reason the right to vote in the US has expanded and contracted over time with continuous battles over voter ID laws, literacy tests, poll taxes, and other measures designed to keep specific groups, like women and African Americans, from voting.
It’s difficult to overstate the price — moral and political — we’ve paid for this mistake. But a new book by American University history professor Allan Lichtman does a nice job of explaining it. The Embattled Vote in America is a sweeping look at the history of voting rights in the US, focusing on the constant struggle to extend suffrage in this country.
I spoke to Lichtman recently about how voting restrictions put American democracy at risk, why the right to vote is so important, and what we can do to solve this problem once and for all.
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Read on ....
From the Texas Tribune: With a supermajority, Republicans have complete control of the Texas Senate. That's at risk this election cycle.
Senate Republicans might have to compromise with Democrats next session.
- Click here for the article.
Republican lawmakers in the Texas Senate were sitting pretty last year.
For years, the GOP had faced roadblocks to passing some conservative measures by the chamber’s two-thirds rule, which normally required the support of 21 members to get a bill to the floor. With 20 Republicans in the chamber, that left Republicans one short of moving out bills without the help of a single Democrat.
But then in 2015, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick led a successful move to lower the threshold from two-thirds to three-fifths. Suddenly, any measure with the backing of all of the chamber’s Republicans had all the support it needed. For that session and the ones that followed in 2017, the GOP effectively ran the Senate floor.
Now, with less than two months until Election Day, Republicans are finding that keeping that supermajority in the Texas Senate is no longer a sure thing.
“We’re emphasizing the possibility of losses,” said Darl Easton, the Republican Party Chairman in Tarrant County, where state Sen. Konni Burton's re-election bid is seen as a potential toss-up. “The more complacent you become, the more likely it is that you won’t win. We definitely have to keep the voters alert to the possibility of losing some seats. We’re not going to take anything for granted.”
“We are working and making sure we’re leaving no stone unturned,” added Missy Shorey, the Dallas County Republican Party chairwoman, speaking of the party’s efforts in assisting state Sen. Don Huffines, R-Dallas. “People in Dallas certainly know there’s no chance that seat is going to flip. [Huffines] is working for every vote out there.”
The Senate is still poised to remain GOP-dominated during next year’s legislative session. What’s at stake for the chamber’s Republicans this election cycle is losing their three-fifths majority — the crucial threshold for bringing legislation to the Senate floor without any support from Democrats.
- Click here for the article.
Republican lawmakers in the Texas Senate were sitting pretty last year.
For years, the GOP had faced roadblocks to passing some conservative measures by the chamber’s two-thirds rule, which normally required the support of 21 members to get a bill to the floor. With 20 Republicans in the chamber, that left Republicans one short of moving out bills without the help of a single Democrat.
But then in 2015, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick led a successful move to lower the threshold from two-thirds to three-fifths. Suddenly, any measure with the backing of all of the chamber’s Republicans had all the support it needed. For that session and the ones that followed in 2017, the GOP effectively ran the Senate floor.
Now, with less than two months until Election Day, Republicans are finding that keeping that supermajority in the Texas Senate is no longer a sure thing.
“We’re emphasizing the possibility of losses,” said Darl Easton, the Republican Party Chairman in Tarrant County, where state Sen. Konni Burton's re-election bid is seen as a potential toss-up. “The more complacent you become, the more likely it is that you won’t win. We definitely have to keep the voters alert to the possibility of losing some seats. We’re not going to take anything for granted.”
“We are working and making sure we’re leaving no stone unturned,” added Missy Shorey, the Dallas County Republican Party chairwoman, speaking of the party’s efforts in assisting state Sen. Don Huffines, R-Dallas. “People in Dallas certainly know there’s no chance that seat is going to flip. [Huffines] is working for every vote out there.”
The Senate is still poised to remain GOP-dominated during next year’s legislative session. What’s at stake for the chamber’s Republicans this election cycle is losing their three-fifths majority — the crucial threshold for bringing legislation to the Senate floor without any support from Democrats.
Thursday, September 13, 2018
For GOVT 2306
- From Governing: Transit Advocates: Is the White House Purposefully Delaying Project Funds?
Transit advocates are becoming increasingly alarmed that the Trump administration may be intentionally slowing down the process for local agencies to get the money they need to build new projects, like light rail, streetcars and bus rapid transit.
The U.S. Department of Transportation is sitting on nearly $1.8 billion for projects that are ready or nearly ready for final federal approval, according to Transportation for America, a group that promotes local transportation improvement efforts. Specifically, the group is concerned that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is not distributing money from its New Starts, Small Starts and Core Capacity programs, which all help local transit agencies pay for big-ticket construction projects.
The delays at the FTA affect rail projects in and around Chicago, Dallas, Minneapolis and New York City. They could impact new streetcar service in Sacramento, Calif.; Tempe, Ariz.; and Orange County, Calif. And new rapid bus service in El Paso, Jacksonville, Fla., Reno, Nev., Seattle and St. Petersburg, Fla. could be delayed as well.
The backlog may actually be even bigger than that, says Beth Osborne, a former Obama administration official who now works for Transportation for America. It’s hard to know exactly how much money is waiting to be distributed, she says, because the Trump administration has released fewer details than previous administrations about the status of projects. (The Obama administration’s 2016 report, for example, was 189 pages long, while the Trump administration’s corresponding 2018 report is just 20 pages long. The FTA says it no longer includes information on individual projects in those reports, because details are available online.)
- State Supreme Courts Increasingly Face Partisan Impeachment Threats.
Attacks on judicial independence are becoming more frequent and more partisan. The current effort to impeach the entire West Virginia Supreme Court, while not unprecedented, is taking place against a backdrop of political attacks against judges elsewhere.
"There's a kind of a war going on between the legislatures and the courts," says Chris Bonneau, a political scientist at the University of Pittsburgh. "Absolutely, we're seeing a new environment."
The West Virginia House last month voted to impeach all the sitting justices on the state Supreme Court. The state Senate is set to begin its impeachment trial Tuesday. There were legitimate reasons for legislators to go after justices, or at least some of them.
. . . West Virginia Democrats have accused Republicans of staging a coup by impeaching the entire court. The allegations of criminal impropriety had been known for months, but legislators waited until last month to act -- missing a deadline to let voters, rather than the governor, fill any vacancies. (Justice Robin Davis resigned, rather than face an impeachment trial, to give voters a chance to pick her replacement.) Republican Gov. Jim Justice did little to assuage complaints of partisan meddling in the courts by appointing two politicians, state House Speaker Tim Armstead and Congressman Evan Jenkins, to interim posts on the court last week. It's not unheard of for sitting politicians to be appointed to court seats, but it's not the common practice.
Judicial impeachments actually were rather common in earlier eras. During the 19th century, for instance, New Hampshire's legislature made a habit of clearing out the entire state Supreme Court, doing so on at least five occasions.
- Gov. Abbott orders increased readiness ahead of possible tropical storm.
Gov. Greg Abbott has ordered the Texas State Operations Center (SOC) to elevate its readiness level as a potential tropical system is expected to develop and move into the Gulf of Mexico and toward the Texas coast later this week.
The SOC will increase its readiness level from level IV (normal conditions) to level III (increased readiness) beginning at 12 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 11. Additionally, Gov. Abbott has made state resources available to assist local officials in their response efforts.
“We are closely monitoring a tropical system expected to approach the Gulf of Mexico and potentially impact the Texas coast in the coming days,” said Governor Abbott. “In light of recent heavy rainfall across the state, we are on high-alert as any additional rain could quickly create dangerous flash flooding conditions. I urge all Texans to take precautions and review their emergency plans now to prepare for any potential impact to their community.”
State and partner agencies engaged in this effort include:
- Texas Department of Public Safety (Texas Highway Patrol)
- Texas Department of Transportation
- Texas Engineering & Extension Service
- Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
- Texas Forest Service
- Texas Military Department
- Texas Department of State Health Services
- Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
- American Red Cross
- The Salvation Army
Transit advocates are becoming increasingly alarmed that the Trump administration may be intentionally slowing down the process for local agencies to get the money they need to build new projects, like light rail, streetcars and bus rapid transit.
The U.S. Department of Transportation is sitting on nearly $1.8 billion for projects that are ready or nearly ready for final federal approval, according to Transportation for America, a group that promotes local transportation improvement efforts. Specifically, the group is concerned that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is not distributing money from its New Starts, Small Starts and Core Capacity programs, which all help local transit agencies pay for big-ticket construction projects.
The delays at the FTA affect rail projects in and around Chicago, Dallas, Minneapolis and New York City. They could impact new streetcar service in Sacramento, Calif.; Tempe, Ariz.; and Orange County, Calif. And new rapid bus service in El Paso, Jacksonville, Fla., Reno, Nev., Seattle and St. Petersburg, Fla. could be delayed as well.
The backlog may actually be even bigger than that, says Beth Osborne, a former Obama administration official who now works for Transportation for America. It’s hard to know exactly how much money is waiting to be distributed, she says, because the Trump administration has released fewer details than previous administrations about the status of projects. (The Obama administration’s 2016 report, for example, was 189 pages long, while the Trump administration’s corresponding 2018 report is just 20 pages long. The FTA says it no longer includes information on individual projects in those reports, because details are available online.)
- State Supreme Courts Increasingly Face Partisan Impeachment Threats.
Attacks on judicial independence are becoming more frequent and more partisan. The current effort to impeach the entire West Virginia Supreme Court, while not unprecedented, is taking place against a backdrop of political attacks against judges elsewhere.
"There's a kind of a war going on between the legislatures and the courts," says Chris Bonneau, a political scientist at the University of Pittsburgh. "Absolutely, we're seeing a new environment."
The West Virginia House last month voted to impeach all the sitting justices on the state Supreme Court. The state Senate is set to begin its impeachment trial Tuesday. There were legitimate reasons for legislators to go after justices, or at least some of them.
. . . West Virginia Democrats have accused Republicans of staging a coup by impeaching the entire court. The allegations of criminal impropriety had been known for months, but legislators waited until last month to act -- missing a deadline to let voters, rather than the governor, fill any vacancies. (Justice Robin Davis resigned, rather than face an impeachment trial, to give voters a chance to pick her replacement.) Republican Gov. Jim Justice did little to assuage complaints of partisan meddling in the courts by appointing two politicians, state House Speaker Tim Armstead and Congressman Evan Jenkins, to interim posts on the court last week. It's not unheard of for sitting politicians to be appointed to court seats, but it's not the common practice.
Judicial impeachments actually were rather common in earlier eras. During the 19th century, for instance, New Hampshire's legislature made a habit of clearing out the entire state Supreme Court, doing so on at least five occasions.
- Gov. Abbott orders increased readiness ahead of possible tropical storm.
Gov. Greg Abbott has ordered the Texas State Operations Center (SOC) to elevate its readiness level as a potential tropical system is expected to develop and move into the Gulf of Mexico and toward the Texas coast later this week.
The SOC will increase its readiness level from level IV (normal conditions) to level III (increased readiness) beginning at 12 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 11. Additionally, Gov. Abbott has made state resources available to assist local officials in their response efforts.
“We are closely monitoring a tropical system expected to approach the Gulf of Mexico and potentially impact the Texas coast in the coming days,” said Governor Abbott. “In light of recent heavy rainfall across the state, we are on high-alert as any additional rain could quickly create dangerous flash flooding conditions. I urge all Texans to take precautions and review their emergency plans now to prepare for any potential impact to their community.”
State and partner agencies engaged in this effort include:
- Texas Department of Public Safety (Texas Highway Patrol)
- Texas Department of Transportation
- Texas Engineering & Extension Service
- Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
- Texas Forest Service
- Texas Military Department
- Texas Department of State Health Services
- Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
- American Red Cross
- The Salvation Army
From 538: Americans Are Shifting The Rest Of Their Identity To Match Their Politics
For ACC 2305 students, this might be helpful for the 1000 word essay.
- Click here for the article.
We generally think of a person’s race or religion as being fixed — and that those parts of identity (being black, say, or evangelical Christian) drive political views. Most African-Americans vote Democratic. Most evangelical Christians vote Republican. But New York University political scientist Patrick Egan has written a new paper showing evidence that identity and politics operate in the opposite direction too — people shift the non-political parts of their identity, including ethnicity and religion, to align better with being a Democrat or a Republican.
Egan used public opinion data collected through the General Social Survey, one of the most reliable measures of Americans’ views of political and social attitudes that we have. The GSS is conducted every two years and surveys a rotating panel of respondents. Some respondents agree to follow-up interviews two years and four years after their initial interview. Egan’s data set was made up of about 3,900 people who were interviewed three times for the GSS surveys, starting either in 2006, 2008 or 2010 (so the most recent data was from people interviewed in 2010, 2012 and 2014). All three times, respondents were asked to rank themselves on a seven-point ideological scale (from “extremely liberal,” to “moderate, middle of the road,” to “extremely conservative.”) They were also asked questions about aspects of their identity that, at least in theory, are non-ideological — questions like: 1) “From what countries or part of the world did your ancestors come?” and 2) “What is your religious preference? Is it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, some other religion, or no religion?”
There was more inconsistency among answers to these types of questions than I would have expected. For example, about a quarter of people who identified themselves as born-again Christian in at least one of the three interviews either had not described themselves that way in a previous interview or stopped describing themselves that way in a later interview. Nearly half of respondents who identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual at some point during the three interviews did not identify themselves that way in all three (meaning that some people stopped identifying as LGB, while others started to after not having done so at first).
- Click here for the article.
We generally think of a person’s race or religion as being fixed — and that those parts of identity (being black, say, or evangelical Christian) drive political views. Most African-Americans vote Democratic. Most evangelical Christians vote Republican. But New York University political scientist Patrick Egan has written a new paper showing evidence that identity and politics operate in the opposite direction too — people shift the non-political parts of their identity, including ethnicity and religion, to align better with being a Democrat or a Republican.
Egan used public opinion data collected through the General Social Survey, one of the most reliable measures of Americans’ views of political and social attitudes that we have. The GSS is conducted every two years and surveys a rotating panel of respondents. Some respondents agree to follow-up interviews two years and four years after their initial interview. Egan’s data set was made up of about 3,900 people who were interviewed three times for the GSS surveys, starting either in 2006, 2008 or 2010 (so the most recent data was from people interviewed in 2010, 2012 and 2014). All three times, respondents were asked to rank themselves on a seven-point ideological scale (from “extremely liberal,” to “moderate, middle of the road,” to “extremely conservative.”) They were also asked questions about aspects of their identity that, at least in theory, are non-ideological — questions like: 1) “From what countries or part of the world did your ancestors come?” and 2) “What is your religious preference? Is it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, some other religion, or no religion?”
There was more inconsistency among answers to these types of questions than I would have expected. For example, about a quarter of people who identified themselves as born-again Christian in at least one of the three interviews either had not described themselves that way in a previous interview or stopped describing themselves that way in a later interview. Nearly half of respondents who identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual at some point during the three interviews did not identify themselves that way in all three (meaning that some people stopped identifying as LGB, while others started to after not having done so at first).
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
From Governing: Dead Reckoning - America's system of coroners and medical examiners is facing unprecedented challenges.
For my HCC GOVT 2306 student's written assignment. Tell me what's going on in this article.
- Click here for it.
- Click here for it.
Kentucky has historically been considered a national model in its death investigations. It was the first state to implement a dual coroner and medical examiner system, something it’s had in place since 1973. That has given the state an important balance of elected leadership and forensic know-how. Coroners are elected county officials responsible for investigating any death that’s deemed unnatural. Once elected, they go through death investigation training with the Kentucky Department of Criminal Justice and are expected to keep up 18 hours of continuing education. They work with state medical examiners to determine the exact cause of death and decide whether an autopsy or toxicology test is needed, which a medical examiner would have to perform.
But it’s a system that has been strained in recent years. Pollard, who also serves as director of the Kentucky Coroner’s Association, made headlines last year for convincing one state medical examiner to stay on after the doctor had announced his resignation, citing a lack of funding and resources to properly do his job. The National Association of Medical Examiners recommends that professionals not perform more than 250 autopsies a year; Kentucky is averaging about 280, according to Pollard. “We need two more doctors. That would ease our caseload tremendously,” he says. In Henry County, Pollard used to investigate around 26 cases in his county per year in the 1990s. In recent years, that number has risen to around 66.
These issues aren’t singular to Kentucky. Coroners, medical examiners, forensic pathologists -- and people who wear more than one of those hats -- say their profession is more vital than ever before, particularly in the midst of the opioid epidemic. But low pay, long hours and heavy debt loads carried by young physicians make it hard to recruit and retain talented people.
America’s system for investigating deaths is a patchwork quilt of different laws, procedures and job descriptions. From state to state -- and even from one county to the next -- there can be variations in how sudden deaths are handled. “Unlike primary care or obstetrics, it’s the one specialty in medicine that’s practiced differently depending on where you live,” says Gregory Davis, former associate chief medical examiner for Kentucky.
Confusing matters even more, qualifications for each title also vary depending on state statute. Coroners are overwhelmingly an elected or politically appointed position, a tradition that dates back centuries to when they were simply tax collectors for the deceased; America’s first coroner took office in 1636 in Plymouth County, Mass. Some states require a coroner to be a physician; other states only stipulate that you must be 18 and have no felony convictions.
- Wikipedia: Coroner.
- Wikipedia: Coroner.
Monday, September 10, 2018
From the New York Times: Congressional G.O.P. Agenda Quietly Falls Into Place Even as Trump Steals the Spotlight
For GOVT 2305's weekly assignment. Tell me what's going on here:
- Click here for the article.
On one end of Pennsylvania Avenue this week, President Trump and his closest advisers labored to beat back perceptions, fueled by an anonymous essay in The New York Times and a bruising new book by Bob Woodward, that he had all but lost control of the presidency from within. He lashed out anew at his attorney general, shouted “TREASON” and demanded investigations of his detractors.
But as he raged, Republicans in the Senate were pressing steadily through angry liberal protests and Democratic perjury traps toward perhaps the most lasting impact of the Trump era: a conservative shift in the balance of the Supreme Court capable of shaping the country for a generation.
The dueling images of a president on the edge and a conservative Congress soldiering forward explain succinctly why almost all elected Republicans here have quietly supported Mr. Trump through his travails — or at least not chastised him too loudly. The payoffs for what Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, called the party’s “Faustian bargain” have been rich and long awaited: deep cuts in corporate and personal tax rates, confirmation of a wave of conservative judges for the lower courts, and soon an ideological shift in the highest court of the land.
“Process and personality is what we are talking about — how they do things, how dysfunctional it is and how off the rails he can be,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, conceding that Mr. Trump was “a handful.” But, he said, “what I am talking about is results.”
- Click here for the article.
On one end of Pennsylvania Avenue this week, President Trump and his closest advisers labored to beat back perceptions, fueled by an anonymous essay in The New York Times and a bruising new book by Bob Woodward, that he had all but lost control of the presidency from within. He lashed out anew at his attorney general, shouted “TREASON” and demanded investigations of his detractors.
But as he raged, Republicans in the Senate were pressing steadily through angry liberal protests and Democratic perjury traps toward perhaps the most lasting impact of the Trump era: a conservative shift in the balance of the Supreme Court capable of shaping the country for a generation.
The dueling images of a president on the edge and a conservative Congress soldiering forward explain succinctly why almost all elected Republicans here have quietly supported Mr. Trump through his travails — or at least not chastised him too loudly. The payoffs for what Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, called the party’s “Faustian bargain” have been rich and long awaited: deep cuts in corporate and personal tax rates, confirmation of a wave of conservative judges for the lower courts, and soon an ideological shift in the highest court of the land.
“Process and personality is what we are talking about — how they do things, how dysfunctional it is and how off the rails he can be,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, conceding that Mr. Trump was “a handful.” But, he said, “what I am talking about is results.”
From Governing: How the Midterms Could Impact Medicaid - The elections come at a crucial time for health care.
For this week's 2306 written assignment. Medicaid is the largest of the programs that fall under the category of "cooperative federalism."
I've asked students to outline the issue raised in this article.
- Click here for the article.
The fate of Medicaid expansion, a central tenet of President Obama's signature health-care legislation, is in the hands of the people in several states.
In Idaho, Nebraska and Utah, voters will decide whether to make more low-income people, those up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line, eligible for Medicaid, the government-run health insurance program. In most of the other states, who voters elect as governor and to the legislature will influence the direction of this health-care policy for years to come.
Since the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, 33 states have expanded Medicaid, largely along partisan lines, with Republicans leading the holdout movement. But in some cases, Republican governors tried for years to convince their GOP legislatures to expand.
Health policy experts say that, generally, a state's status of expansion guides which races are most important to watch in the midterms.
"For a state that hasn’t yet expanded, the governor can’t do it all, so you have to watch what happens with the legislature," says David Jones, associate professor of health law at Boston University who recently examined where Medicaid expansion appears more vulnerable. "But for states that have already expanded, the legislature doesn’t matter as much" because the governor has authority to tweak the current law or to end expansion in some cases.
The midterms come at a crucial time for health care. The Trump administration gave states the greenlight to adopt new rules for Medicaid that the Obama administration rejected. For instance, Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana and New Hampshire have been approved to add work requirements, and several other states have applied. In July, a federal judge struck down Kentucky's work requirements plan, putting the rest of the states' policies into legal jeopardy. Despite the ruling, the Trump administration has signaled that it plans to proceed with work requirements.
I've asked students to outline the issue raised in this article.
- Click here for the article.
The fate of Medicaid expansion, a central tenet of President Obama's signature health-care legislation, is in the hands of the people in several states.
In Idaho, Nebraska and Utah, voters will decide whether to make more low-income people, those up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line, eligible for Medicaid, the government-run health insurance program. In most of the other states, who voters elect as governor and to the legislature will influence the direction of this health-care policy for years to come.
Since the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, 33 states have expanded Medicaid, largely along partisan lines, with Republicans leading the holdout movement. But in some cases, Republican governors tried for years to convince their GOP legislatures to expand.
Health policy experts say that, generally, a state's status of expansion guides which races are most important to watch in the midterms.
"For a state that hasn’t yet expanded, the governor can’t do it all, so you have to watch what happens with the legislature," says David Jones, associate professor of health law at Boston University who recently examined where Medicaid expansion appears more vulnerable. "But for states that have already expanded, the legislature doesn’t matter as much" because the governor has authority to tweak the current law or to end expansion in some cases.
The midterms come at a crucial time for health care. The Trump administration gave states the greenlight to adopt new rules for Medicaid that the Obama administration rejected. For instance, Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana and New Hampshire have been approved to add work requirements, and several other states have applied. In July, a federal judge struck down Kentucky's work requirements plan, putting the rest of the states' policies into legal jeopardy. Despite the ruling, the Trump administration has signaled that it plans to proceed with work requirements.
Friday, September 7, 2018
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
For GOVT 2306 - 9/5/18
All from The Texas Tribune:
- Here's a look at who's interested in replacing Straus as House speaker.
- Why Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh would be good news for Texas Republicans.
- Federal judge denies Texas' request to halt DACA — for now.
- Dallas County’s secret bail machine.
- Judge strikes down Texas law requiring burial or cremation of fetal remains.
- Lawmakers couldn't agree on property tax reform, but Texas homeowners can still get some relief.
- Here's a look at who's interested in replacing Straus as House speaker.
- Why Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh would be good news for Texas Republicans.
- Federal judge denies Texas' request to halt DACA — for now.
- Dallas County’s secret bail machine.
- Judge strikes down Texas law requiring burial or cremation of fetal remains.
- Lawmakers couldn't agree on property tax reform, but Texas homeowners can still get some relief.
Monday, September 3, 2018
Frontiero v. Richardson
I'm watching the CNN documentary on Ruth Bader Ginsburg and it points out her role in the first case which directly addressed gender discrimination.
We'll go over it in 2305 when we cover Civil Rights.
- Oyez.
From Oyez:
Question: Did a federal law, requiring different qualification criteria for male and female military spousal dependency, unconstitutionally discriminate against women thereby violating the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
Conclusion: Yes. The Court held that the statute in question clearly commanded "dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated," violating the Due Process Clause and the equal protection requirements that clause implied. A majority could not agree on the standard of review, however. The plurality opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., applying a strict standard of review to the sex-based classification as it would to racial classification, found that the government's interest in administrative convenience could not justify discriminatory practices. But a concurring opinion by Justice Lewis F. Powell and joined by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justice Harry A. Blackmun would not go so far as to hold sex discrimination to the same standard as race, choosing instead to argue that statutes drawing lines between the sexes alone necessarily involved the "very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Constitution," an approach employed in the Court's prior decision in Reed v. Reed. Justice Potter Stewart concurred separately that the statutes created invidious discrimination in violation of the Constitution. Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented affirming the reasoning of the lower court opinion.
We'll go over it in 2305 when we cover Civil Rights.
- Oyez.
From Oyez:
Question: Did a federal law, requiring different qualification criteria for male and female military spousal dependency, unconstitutionally discriminate against women thereby violating the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
Conclusion: Yes. The Court held that the statute in question clearly commanded "dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated," violating the Due Process Clause and the equal protection requirements that clause implied. A majority could not agree on the standard of review, however. The plurality opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., applying a strict standard of review to the sex-based classification as it would to racial classification, found that the government's interest in administrative convenience could not justify discriminatory practices. But a concurring opinion by Justice Lewis F. Powell and joined by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justice Harry A. Blackmun would not go so far as to hold sex discrimination to the same standard as race, choosing instead to argue that statutes drawing lines between the sexes alone necessarily involved the "very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Constitution," an approach employed in the Court's prior decision in Reed v. Reed. Justice Potter Stewart concurred separately that the statutes created invidious discrimination in violation of the Constitution. Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented affirming the reasoning of the lower court opinion.
From Vox: California is this close to its boldest energy target yet: 100% clean electricity
Here's an example of policy diffusion:
- Click here for the article.
California is one signature away from committing to 100 percent clean electricity. If it does so, it will become the most significant political jurisdiction in the world to take that step, by a wide margin. (It is the world’s fifth-largest economy!) The state is on the verge of making history — again.
SB 100, the bill sponsored by state Sen. Kevin de León, would set a target of 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045. It passed the California Senate last year, passed the state Assembly on Tuesday, and was reconciled by the Senate on Thursday. All that remains is a signature from Gov. Jerry Brown, which is expected soon (though there’s a bit of fuss around that — more on that in a second).
How big a deal is this?
Very big. For one thing, there’s enormous power and symbolism in “100 percent.” This instantly sets a new marker for others to match. I guarantee, before this time next year, there will be news of ambitious states, provinces, or countries following California’s lead.
But it’s also important to understand that SB 100 is not some big leap for California, or a flash out of the blue. It’s another step in a path — toward less pollution and more clean energy — that the state has been walking steadily for more than 15 years.
- Click here for the article.
California is one signature away from committing to 100 percent clean electricity. If it does so, it will become the most significant political jurisdiction in the world to take that step, by a wide margin. (It is the world’s fifth-largest economy!) The state is on the verge of making history — again.
SB 100, the bill sponsored by state Sen. Kevin de León, would set a target of 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045. It passed the California Senate last year, passed the state Assembly on Tuesday, and was reconciled by the Senate on Thursday. All that remains is a signature from Gov. Jerry Brown, which is expected soon (though there’s a bit of fuss around that — more on that in a second).
How big a deal is this?
Very big. For one thing, there’s enormous power and symbolism in “100 percent.” This instantly sets a new marker for others to match. I guarantee, before this time next year, there will be news of ambitious states, provinces, or countries following California’s lead.
But it’s also important to understand that SB 100 is not some big leap for California, or a flash out of the blue. It’s another step in a path — toward less pollution and more clean energy — that the state has been walking steadily for more than 15 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)