Key terms: equal protection, supreme court, ideology, social policy, writ of certiorari
- Click here for the article.
The US Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take a trio of cases that will, collectively, help decide the future of gay and transgender rights in America.
The Court agreed to hear three cases that have to do with whether existing federal bans on sex discrimination in the workplace also prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In the consolidated Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, a skydiving instructor and a child welfare services coordinator, respectively, said they were fired for being gay. And in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a funeral home employee said she was fired because she came out as transgender.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency, has said that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The law doesn’t explicitly prohibit anti-gay or anti-trans discrimination, instead banning discrimination based on sex. But advocates argue that bans on sex discrimination should cover anti-gay and anti-trans discrimination as well, because discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is fundamentally rooted in expectations about a person’s sex.
Some lower courts have agreed with the stance. In R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, for instance, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals declared, “It is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex.”
But some courts have also ruled against LGBTQ rights — like the 11th Circuit Court’s ruling that “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.” President Donald Trump’s administration has also argued that Title VII doesn’t prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Supreme Court will now settle the question. It’s unclear how they’ll rule: The Court now has a likely conservative majority on these issues, since former Justice Anthony Kennedy — a strong ally of LGBTQ rights, despite his largely conservative record — retired in 2018. That could be bad news for LGBTQ rights.
Monday, April 22, 2019
From the Texas Tribune: Senate bill would let felons run for office in Texas only if they've been pardoned
- Click here for the article.
A bill before the Texas Senate would allow felons to seek public office only if they have received pardons.
Current election code says a candidate who has been convicted of a felony must either be pardoned “or otherwise released from the resulting disabilities” — but it doesn’t define resulting disabilities. Senate Bill 466 would remove that clause.
"When someone has committed and has been convicted of a felony ... they have broken their pact with society in a very egregious manner and should not have certain rights restored," the bill's author, state Sen. Pat Fallon, R-Prosper, said during a Senate committee hearing earlier this month.
The legislation is in response to a felon who ran for Austin City Council last year.
Lewis Conway Jr.’s eligibility was challenged because of the ambiguous term. He and his lawyers argued that since he had served his sentence, completed his parole and had his voting rights reinstated, he was “released from the resulting disabilities.” The city clerk allowed him to stay on the ballot, but he didn’t win the District 1 seat.
“When are we going to embrace compassion in regards to electoral politics and agree that a precedent has been set?” Conway said in response to the bill. “Why are we not looking at including people in the electoral process as opposed to excluding people?”
Conway said he thinks more people are engaging with the criminal justice system and realizing that punishment isn’t serving the community.
“There’s a hard line of folks who believe that once you have been in prison, that you are no longer human,” he said, “but then there’s a great number of folks who realize that the criminal justice system pervasively impacts people of color — disproportionately.”
A bill before the Texas Senate would allow felons to seek public office only if they have received pardons.
Current election code says a candidate who has been convicted of a felony must either be pardoned “or otherwise released from the resulting disabilities” — but it doesn’t define resulting disabilities. Senate Bill 466 would remove that clause.
"When someone has committed and has been convicted of a felony ... they have broken their pact with society in a very egregious manner and should not have certain rights restored," the bill's author, state Sen. Pat Fallon, R-Prosper, said during a Senate committee hearing earlier this month.
The legislation is in response to a felon who ran for Austin City Council last year.
Lewis Conway Jr.’s eligibility was challenged because of the ambiguous term. He and his lawyers argued that since he had served his sentence, completed his parole and had his voting rights reinstated, he was “released from the resulting disabilities.” The city clerk allowed him to stay on the ballot, but he didn’t win the District 1 seat.
“When are we going to embrace compassion in regards to electoral politics and agree that a precedent has been set?” Conway said in response to the bill. “Why are we not looking at including people in the electoral process as opposed to excluding people?”
Conway said he thinks more people are engaging with the criminal justice system and realizing that punishment isn’t serving the community.
“There’s a hard line of folks who believe that once you have been in prison, that you are no longer human,” he said, “but then there’s a great number of folks who realize that the criminal justice system pervasively impacts people of color — disproportionately.”
Tuesday, April 16, 2019
From the Texas Tribune: Closed on Sundays: A guide to some of Texas' confusing alcohol regulations
Key terms: rulemaking, interest groups, sunset advisory commission, executive agencies, regulatory agencies, federalism, judicial federalism, lobbying, bill making
- Click here for the article.
This session, the Texas Legislature is biting into a once-in-a-dozen years opportunity to overhaul alcohol laws through the Sunset process. Every session, 20 to 30 state agencies are reviewed by the Sunset Advisory Commission, a state agency in charge of evaluating the effectiveness and worth of other state agencies. And this session, it’s the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission’s turn.
. . . In a process where virtually any reform could be contemplated, here are seven unusual Texas alcohol laws.
Hating on Walmart
Liquor and blood
Sunday sales
Distributors rule
Cash on the barrelhead
Beer to go
Interest groups mentioned in the story:
- Wholesale Beer Distributors
- Beer Alliance of Texas
- Texas Craft Brewers Guild
- Texas Package Stores Association
- Distilled Spirits Council
- Click here for the article.
This session, the Texas Legislature is biting into a once-in-a-dozen years opportunity to overhaul alcohol laws through the Sunset process. Every session, 20 to 30 state agencies are reviewed by the Sunset Advisory Commission, a state agency in charge of evaluating the effectiveness and worth of other state agencies. And this session, it’s the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission’s turn.
. . . In a process where virtually any reform could be contemplated, here are seven unusual Texas alcohol laws.
Hating on Walmart
Liquor and blood
Sunday sales
Distributors rule
Cash on the barrelhead
Beer to go
Interest groups mentioned in the story:
- Wholesale Beer Distributors
- Beer Alliance of Texas
- Texas Craft Brewers Guild
- Texas Package Stores Association
- Distilled Spirits Council
Monday, April 15, 2019
From the Dallas Morning News: Will fixes to Texas’ broken Medicaid system live or die? Patient groups, insurers draw battle lines
Key terms: Health and Human Services, cooperative federalism, poverty,
- Click here for the article.
A package of bipartisan bills to fix the state's broken Medicaid system got their first hearing Tuesday, setting the stage for a behind-the-scenes battle between influential doctor and patient groups that want change and health care companies that profited from the status quo.
Those bills came in response to an investigation by The Dallas Morning Newslast year that showed how companies that Texas pays to care for millions of sick, disabled and extremely poor people were skimping on treatments and medical equipment to boost profits under a program called "managed care."
A House effort, led by Rep. Sarah Davis, R-Houston, seeks major overhauls. Her bill would broadly expand protections for patients who are denied treatments and extend the state's power to monitor and penalize managed care companies that fail to meet certain standards.
The Senate is taking a more reserved approach, beefing up the way Texas handles patient complaints and cutting red tape for about 6,000 families with medically complex kids who were haphazardly forced into managed care more than two years ago.
Committees in both chambers heard hours of testimony on those bills, almost none of it in opposition.
But despite that public support, patient advocates worry the biggest changes, such as those included in Davis' bill, may already be doomed.
Rep. James Frank, R-Wichita Falls, is the new chairman of the House Human Services Committee, which may decide whether these bills live or die. He told the committee he expects tweaks but hopes to "get the best of these to the floor."
"We will pass, hopefully, some very good [managed care] bills this session," he said.
That's a stark contrast to the resistance patient advocates are hearing in private, says Hannah Mehta, who leads Protect TX Fragile Kids, a group of parents that fought back when lawmakers forced their children into managed care.
"We were told we should treat this as if this is the only managed care hearing we'll get," she said, expressing concern that Davis' bill may not make it out of Frank's committee.
Mehta says that's what she was told by Frank's chief of staff, Jim Johnson, before Tuesday's hearing.
Reached by phone, Johnson told The News, "I don't recall that that's what I said." He declined further comment.
- Click here for the article.
A package of bipartisan bills to fix the state's broken Medicaid system got their first hearing Tuesday, setting the stage for a behind-the-scenes battle between influential doctor and patient groups that want change and health care companies that profited from the status quo.
Those bills came in response to an investigation by The Dallas Morning Newslast year that showed how companies that Texas pays to care for millions of sick, disabled and extremely poor people were skimping on treatments and medical equipment to boost profits under a program called "managed care."
A House effort, led by Rep. Sarah Davis, R-Houston, seeks major overhauls. Her bill would broadly expand protections for patients who are denied treatments and extend the state's power to monitor and penalize managed care companies that fail to meet certain standards.
The Senate is taking a more reserved approach, beefing up the way Texas handles patient complaints and cutting red tape for about 6,000 families with medically complex kids who were haphazardly forced into managed care more than two years ago.
Committees in both chambers heard hours of testimony on those bills, almost none of it in opposition.
But despite that public support, patient advocates worry the biggest changes, such as those included in Davis' bill, may already be doomed.
Rep. James Frank, R-Wichita Falls, is the new chairman of the House Human Services Committee, which may decide whether these bills live or die. He told the committee he expects tweaks but hopes to "get the best of these to the floor."
"We will pass, hopefully, some very good [managed care] bills this session," he said.
That's a stark contrast to the resistance patient advocates are hearing in private, says Hannah Mehta, who leads Protect TX Fragile Kids, a group of parents that fought back when lawmakers forced their children into managed care.
"We were told we should treat this as if this is the only managed care hearing we'll get," she said, expressing concern that Davis' bill may not make it out of Frank's committee.
Mehta says that's what she was told by Frank's chief of staff, Jim Johnson, before Tuesday's hearing.
Reached by phone, Johnson told The News, "I don't recall that that's what I said." He declined further comment.
From the Houston Chronicle: Texas lawmakers propose major reforms for $44B school endowment
Key Terms: education funding, plural executive, SBOE, legislature,
- Click here for the article.
Lawmakers are proposing a wide range of fixes for the state’s public school endowment, which has lost out on billions in growth during the past decade while paying out less to schoolchildren.
One bipartisan bill backed by high-powered legislators would restore the State Board of Education’s control over nearly all of the investments for the $44 billion Texas Permanent School Fund, reverting to the way it was before a 2001 law change.
Another would allow the School Land Board, which now controls about $10 billion of the endowment, to double the amount it can send annually directly to schools — up to $600 million. Yet another would take most of the money away from the feuding boards and create a new nine-member governing body appointed by the governor to decide how the endowment invests and distributes its dollars.
In a year-long investigation, “Broken Trust,” the Houston Chronicle found that the while endowment is far larger than it was 20 years ago, it has grown more slowly than many comparable funds. And it has been paying out less to schools than it did in the previous 20 years in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Last year, the fund distributed only 2.8 percent of its value — roughly half the share paid out by many endowments. If it had paid out 5 percent of a four-year average market value, as many endowments try to, Texas schools would have received $720 million more in 2018.
- Click here for the article.
Lawmakers are proposing a wide range of fixes for the state’s public school endowment, which has lost out on billions in growth during the past decade while paying out less to schoolchildren.
One bipartisan bill backed by high-powered legislators would restore the State Board of Education’s control over nearly all of the investments for the $44 billion Texas Permanent School Fund, reverting to the way it was before a 2001 law change.
Another would allow the School Land Board, which now controls about $10 billion of the endowment, to double the amount it can send annually directly to schools — up to $600 million. Yet another would take most of the money away from the feuding boards and create a new nine-member governing body appointed by the governor to decide how the endowment invests and distributes its dollars.
In a year-long investigation, “Broken Trust,” the Houston Chronicle found that the while endowment is far larger than it was 20 years ago, it has grown more slowly than many comparable funds. And it has been paying out less to schools than it did in the previous 20 years in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Last year, the fund distributed only 2.8 percent of its value — roughly half the share paid out by many endowments. If it had paid out 5 percent of a four-year average market value, as many endowments try to, Texas schools would have received $720 million more in 2018.
From Governing: Marital Rape Isn't Necessarily a Crime in 12 States
Key terms: criminal law, reserved powers, policy diffusion, due process
- Click here for the article.
By day, Minnesota state Rep. Zach Stephenson is a prosecutor. Yet it came as a surprise to him when a constituent said his daughter had been raped by her husband and that a provision in the state’s law prevented him from being prosecuted.
"I don’t normally handle sex crimes, but I thought no way in 2019 in Minnesota do we have a law on the books that makes that OK," says the Democratic lawmaker. "I went back to my office and read through the law and sure enough there is an exception for drugging or having sex with someone mentally incapacitated if they’re married."
Twelve states -- Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Virginia -- have a loophole that legalizes marital rape. In Nevada, being married to the victim is enough to protect someone from prosecution. In Virginia, a husband can avoid criminal charges if he agrees to therapy. In South Carolina, a married victim only has 30 days to report the rape and has to prove threat of physical violence.
The most recent state to close a marital rape loophole was Maryland, in 2017, where the law had required victims to prove there was use of force.
Since then, lawmakers in Ohio have tried and failed to eliminate the state's requirement for proof of threat of force or violence if a couple is married or living together. Ohio state Rep. Kristin Boggs, a Democrat, believed the state had the votes to pass it last year, but the bill didn't make it past committee. Boggs says she intends to refile the bill this year. She'll have to overcome the critics who argue that closing marital rape loopholes would open the door to false allegations during contentious divorce settlements.
"The problems of proof was one concern. This happens between husband and wife in private -- it’s one person’s word against another," John Murphy of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, which has previously opposed the bill, told the Dayton Daily News in 2017.
- Click here for the article.
By day, Minnesota state Rep. Zach Stephenson is a prosecutor. Yet it came as a surprise to him when a constituent said his daughter had been raped by her husband and that a provision in the state’s law prevented him from being prosecuted.
"I don’t normally handle sex crimes, but I thought no way in 2019 in Minnesota do we have a law on the books that makes that OK," says the Democratic lawmaker. "I went back to my office and read through the law and sure enough there is an exception for drugging or having sex with someone mentally incapacitated if they’re married."
Twelve states -- Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Virginia -- have a loophole that legalizes marital rape. In Nevada, being married to the victim is enough to protect someone from prosecution. In Virginia, a husband can avoid criminal charges if he agrees to therapy. In South Carolina, a married victim only has 30 days to report the rape and has to prove threat of physical violence.
The most recent state to close a marital rape loophole was Maryland, in 2017, where the law had required victims to prove there was use of force.
Since then, lawmakers in Ohio have tried and failed to eliminate the state's requirement for proof of threat of force or violence if a couple is married or living together. Ohio state Rep. Kristin Boggs, a Democrat, believed the state had the votes to pass it last year, but the bill didn't make it past committee. Boggs says she intends to refile the bill this year. She'll have to overcome the critics who argue that closing marital rape loopholes would open the door to false allegations during contentious divorce settlements.
"The problems of proof was one concern. This happens between husband and wife in private -- it’s one person’s word against another," John Murphy of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, which has previously opposed the bill, told the Dayton Daily News in 2017.
From the Texas Tribune: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, other top leaders propose raising the sales tax to provide property tax relief
We might have to change our government notes again.
Key Terms: regressive taxes, unitary government, fiscal policy, local government, Texas constitution
- Click here for the article.
Texas' top three political leaders — Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Dennis Bonnen — threw their support Wednesday behind a proposal to increase the sales tax by 1 percentage point in order to lower property taxes across the state.
But that's only if lawmakers agree to limit future local property tax increases.
The proposal would raise the state's sales tax from 6.25% to 7.25%, generating billions of additional dollars annually for property tax relief, if voters approve a constitutional amendment. But the idea will be a hard sell to Democrats, since the sales tax is considered regressive, meaning lower-income Texans end up paying a larger percentage of their paychecks than higher-income Texans.
"Today we are introducing a sales tax proposal to buy down property tax rates for all Texas homeowners and businesses, once Senate Bill 2 or House Bill 2 is agreed to and passed by both Chambers. If the one-cent increase in the sales tax passes, it will result in billions of dollars in revenue to help drive down property taxes in the short and long term," said a joint statement from the three Republicans.
Neither chamber has passed HB 2 or SB 2, which would require voter approval of property tax increases over 2.5%.
The House Ways and Means Committee was scheduled to take public testimony on the House's sales tax swap proposal this week but delayed hearing the bills. Rep. Dan Huberty, R-Houston, who authored House Joint Resolution 3 and House Bill 4621, is considering changing the legislation to use a fraction of the additional money generated by the sales tax for public schools — in order to get more Democrats on board.
The bills are intended to provide another revenue source to help significantly cut down local school property taxes, which make up more than half of the local property taxes levied in Texas.
If the Legislature approves the resolution, the constitutional amendment would go to voters to approve in November, and if voters sign on, the tax rate change would apply in January 2020.
Key Terms: regressive taxes, unitary government, fiscal policy, local government, Texas constitution
- Click here for the article.
Texas' top three political leaders — Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Dennis Bonnen — threw their support Wednesday behind a proposal to increase the sales tax by 1 percentage point in order to lower property taxes across the state.
But that's only if lawmakers agree to limit future local property tax increases.
The proposal would raise the state's sales tax from 6.25% to 7.25%, generating billions of additional dollars annually for property tax relief, if voters approve a constitutional amendment. But the idea will be a hard sell to Democrats, since the sales tax is considered regressive, meaning lower-income Texans end up paying a larger percentage of their paychecks than higher-income Texans.
"Today we are introducing a sales tax proposal to buy down property tax rates for all Texas homeowners and businesses, once Senate Bill 2 or House Bill 2 is agreed to and passed by both Chambers. If the one-cent increase in the sales tax passes, it will result in billions of dollars in revenue to help drive down property taxes in the short and long term," said a joint statement from the three Republicans.
Neither chamber has passed HB 2 or SB 2, which would require voter approval of property tax increases over 2.5%.
The House Ways and Means Committee was scheduled to take public testimony on the House's sales tax swap proposal this week but delayed hearing the bills. Rep. Dan Huberty, R-Houston, who authored House Joint Resolution 3 and House Bill 4621, is considering changing the legislation to use a fraction of the additional money generated by the sales tax for public schools — in order to get more Democrats on board.
The bills are intended to provide another revenue source to help significantly cut down local school property taxes, which make up more than half of the local property taxes levied in Texas.
If the Legislature approves the resolution, the constitutional amendment would go to voters to approve in November, and if voters sign on, the tax rate change would apply in January 2020.
Thursday, April 11, 2019
What is Medicare for all?
A couple explainers from Vox.
Cutting to the chase, lot's of different things. It's much more popular among liberals, sine it promotes equity. Less so among conservatives since it interferes with the market.
- The “pleasant ambiguity” of Medicare-for-all in 2018, explained.
- We read Democrats’ 9 plans for expanding health care. Here’s how they work.
As popular as Medicare-for-all is, the slightly more vexing question is what it actually means.
Historically, Medicare-for-all has meant single-payer health insurance, a national government-run program that covered every American and replaced private coverage entirely, similar to the government-run health care programs in Canada and some European countries.
Then-Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) first introduced the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act in 2003. Conyers has since been disgraced by sexual harassment allegations but the idea lives on. It’s now sponsored by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and it is still a single-payer proposal. So is Sanders’s Medicare-for-all bill, a cornerstone of his unexpectedly resonant 2016 presidential campaign.
But these days, other plans are falling under the Medicare-for-all umbrella. Some progressives, like Green, are even comfortable with the term being applied to the various proposals to allow all Americans buy into Medicare. Some of those plans used to be branded as a “public option”; they would not end private insurance that more than half of Americans get, usually through work, as a true single-payer would. But these plans would also not provide the same guarantee of universal coverage that a single-payer system does.
“For anybody who supports Medicare-for-all single payer, what better way to debunk the right wing lies than to allow millions and millions of Americans to voluntarily opt into Medicare and love it?” Green told me in our interview. “As a political strategy, having Medicare-for-all be a broad umbrella where any candidate can embrace some version of it... that moves the center of gravity in the Democratic party.”
In 2018, with control of Congress at stake, nobody is taking up arms to insist that their version should be orthodoxy. What we know for certain is that Medicare-for-all is popular, and so Democrats of all stripes want to campaign on it. Governing comes later.
- For more: what is a single-payer system?
Cutting to the chase, lot's of different things. It's much more popular among liberals, sine it promotes equity. Less so among conservatives since it interferes with the market.
- The “pleasant ambiguity” of Medicare-for-all in 2018, explained.
- We read Democrats’ 9 plans for expanding health care. Here’s how they work.
As popular as Medicare-for-all is, the slightly more vexing question is what it actually means.
Historically, Medicare-for-all has meant single-payer health insurance, a national government-run program that covered every American and replaced private coverage entirely, similar to the government-run health care programs in Canada and some European countries.
Then-Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) first introduced the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act in 2003. Conyers has since been disgraced by sexual harassment allegations but the idea lives on. It’s now sponsored by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and it is still a single-payer proposal. So is Sanders’s Medicare-for-all bill, a cornerstone of his unexpectedly resonant 2016 presidential campaign.
But these days, other plans are falling under the Medicare-for-all umbrella. Some progressives, like Green, are even comfortable with the term being applied to the various proposals to allow all Americans buy into Medicare. Some of those plans used to be branded as a “public option”; they would not end private insurance that more than half of Americans get, usually through work, as a true single-payer would. But these plans would also not provide the same guarantee of universal coverage that a single-payer system does.
“For anybody who supports Medicare-for-all single payer, what better way to debunk the right wing lies than to allow millions and millions of Americans to voluntarily opt into Medicare and love it?” Green told me in our interview. “As a political strategy, having Medicare-for-all be a broad umbrella where any candidate can embrace some version of it... that moves the center of gravity in the Democratic party.”
In 2018, with control of Congress at stake, nobody is taking up arms to insist that their version should be orthodoxy. What we know for certain is that Medicare-for-all is popular, and so Democrats of all stripes want to campaign on it. Governing comes later.
- For more: what is a single-payer system?
From the Atlantic: Why Europeans Don’t Get Huge Medical Bills
For our look at economic policy, regulations, interest groups, ideology, and health policy
Several European countries have health insurance, just like America does. The difference is that their governments regulate what insurance must cover and what hospitals and doctors are allowed to charge much more aggressively than the U.S. does.When I described surprise medical bills to experts who focus on different Western European countries’ health systems, they had no idea what I was talking about. “What is a surprise medical bill?” said Sophia Schlette, a public-health expert and a former senior advisor at Berlin’s National Statutory Health Insurance Physicians Association. “Seriously, they don’t happen here.”
Almost all Germans are covered by a variety of health-insurance like “sickness funds,” which are financed through taxes. Almost all doctors and hospitals accept these plans. About 90 percent of Germans never see a bill for their doctor’s visit, and the rest are covered by private insurance, which usually reimburses whatever they get charged. According to the researchers Roosa Tikkanen and Robin Osborn at the Commonwealth Fund, there’s a flat copay for people who are hospitalized, capped at a maximum of 280 euros—or about $315 U.S. dollars—for a 28-day stay. And doctors, too, are not allowed to charge more than the payment rates that are negotiated between the sickness funds and the doctors’ associations. A very small number of the country’s physicians are private and don’t accept the sickness funds, but they have to tell patients how much they’ll charge before the patient is treated, removing the surprise element.
In France, there are no provider networks, so no doctor can be “out of network.” Doctors’ associations negotiate their fees with the universal public health-insurance program every few years. As a result, says Paul Dutton, a history professor at Northern Arizona University who has studied the French system, “I’ve walked into an office [in France] with my kids where it’s just a receptionist and a doctor. There’s not these back-office wars” over what to charge patients.
Tuesday, April 9, 2019
Bump Stock Ban
We followed this rabbit hole in GOVT 2305 this evening.
- A federal bump stock ban starts today. Here's what that means for owners.
- The US Supreme Court Is Letting The Trump Administration's Bump Stock Ban Take Effect.
- Federal Register: Bump-Stock-Type Devices.
- Wikipedia: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
- Firearms Policy Foundation.
- Hollis v. Lynch.
- A federal bump stock ban starts today. Here's what that means for owners.
- The US Supreme Court Is Letting The Trump Administration's Bump Stock Ban Take Effect.
- Federal Register: Bump-Stock-Type Devices.
- Wikipedia: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
- Firearms Policy Foundation.
- Hollis v. Lynch.
From Wikipedia: 1st United States Congress
We went through this in class today in order to figure out how the 1st Congress began to fill the empty vessel of executive power.
- Click here for it.
- Click here for it.
From the Texas Tribune Topics: Criminal Justice
For perusal in 2306.
- Click here for it.
A few standouts:
- Will Texas decriminalize marijuana this year? There is growing support.
- This Texas program lands poor people in jail. Getting rid of it has been too complicated — but that might be changing.
- Eight years on Texas' highest criminal court turned Elsa Alcala into a death penalty skeptic. How will the court change without her?
- What does race have to do with the death penalty in Texas?
- Built with rehabilitation in mind, Texas state jails are now viewed by lawmakers as a "complete failure"
For relevant Texas Statutes:
- Texas Penal Code.
- Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
From the Texas Attorneyt General's Office:
- Penal Code Offenses by Punishment Range.
- Click here for it.
A few standouts:
- Will Texas decriminalize marijuana this year? There is growing support.
- This Texas program lands poor people in jail. Getting rid of it has been too complicated — but that might be changing.
- Eight years on Texas' highest criminal court turned Elsa Alcala into a death penalty skeptic. How will the court change without her?
- What does race have to do with the death penalty in Texas?
- Built with rehabilitation in mind, Texas state jails are now viewed by lawmakers as a "complete failure"
For relevant Texas Statutes:
- Texas Penal Code.
- Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
From the Texas Attorneyt General's Office:
- Penal Code Offenses by Punishment Range.
Meet FAA acting administrator Daniel Elwell
Background from Wikipedia.
Raised in San Diego, Elwell graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in International Affairs from the United States Air Force Academy in 1983.[1] He moved on to Williams Air Force Base where he earned his pilot wings.[3]
Elwell was a Command Pilot for the U.S Air Force and U.S Air Force Reserve. Elwell fought in the Operation Desert Storm[4] in a combat capacity.[3] Elwell eventually reached the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. He retired soon after.
For 16 years, Elwell was a commercial pilot for American Airlines. Elwell also had a role of American Airlines's Managing Director for International and Government Affairs.[3] He also served served as a legislative fellow for the late Senator Ted Stevens.[3] While working for Senator Stevens, Elwell was part of other aviation safety programs in Alaska, including the Capstone Program in the Yukon–Kuskokwim Delta, as well as the installation of real-time weather cameras at remote airfields and mountain passes.[5]
Elwell was named Vice President of the Aerospace Industries Association[6] in 2008 where he stayed until 2013. Elwell was a civil aerospace manufacturer representative in this capacity where he was an advocate for various companies.[3]
Elwell joined Airlines for America (A4A) in 2013[4] where he was the Senior Vice President for Safety, Security, and Operations. Elwell left this role in 2015.[3]
Elwell also served as the Senior Advisor on Aviation to Secretary Elaine Chao.[7]
Has Boeing captured the Federal Aviation Administration?
Recent events have lead some to say so.
Key Terms: regulatory capture, interest groups, regulatory agencies, lobbying
- Regulatory capture may be responsible for Boeing's recent problems.
- Bad dog: When the regulatory watchdog gets captured by big business.
- The FAA Has Always Played Cozy With the Aviation Industry.
From the last article:
The FAA is unusual among federal agencies because it was originally established to regulate and promote an industry. This fostered the unusually cozy relationship between regulators and business that has persisted to the present, even as the agency’s official mandate became exclusively focused on safety beginning in the 1990s.
The idea of a federal regulator for aviation first took shape with the Air Commerce Act of 1926. This law empowered the secretary of commerce to issue and enforce traffic rules, certify aircraft, improve air safety and investigate the cause of accidents.
But the language of the legislation made clear the main objective was “to encourage air commerce by attracting capital, creating appropriate laws, and establishing civil airways and navigational facilities.” By the 1930s, the “Bureau of Air Commerce” had helped foster the rise of the aviation business.
For more:
- Wikipedia: FAA.
Key Terms: regulatory capture, interest groups, regulatory agencies, lobbying
- Regulatory capture may be responsible for Boeing's recent problems.
- Bad dog: When the regulatory watchdog gets captured by big business.
- The FAA Has Always Played Cozy With the Aviation Industry.
From the last article:
The FAA is unusual among federal agencies because it was originally established to regulate and promote an industry. This fostered the unusually cozy relationship between regulators and business that has persisted to the present, even as the agency’s official mandate became exclusively focused on safety beginning in the 1990s.
The idea of a federal regulator for aviation first took shape with the Air Commerce Act of 1926. This law empowered the secretary of commerce to issue and enforce traffic rules, certify aircraft, improve air safety and investigate the cause of accidents.
But the language of the legislation made clear the main objective was “to encourage air commerce by attracting capital, creating appropriate laws, and establishing civil airways and navigational facilities.” By the 1930s, the “Bureau of Air Commerce” had helped foster the rise of the aviation business.
For more:
- Wikipedia: FAA.
From Politico: The Forgotten Reason Congress Needs to See the Mueller Report
"Legislators have a responsibility to police obstruction of justice, according to the Constitution."
- Click here for the article.
. . . Congress has a responsibility, rooted firmly in the Constitution, to safeguard the integrity of the justice system, including to prevent obstruction of justice. Therefore, Mueller’s findings are as much about whether President Donald Trump has stepped on Congress’ toes as it is about whether he broke the law.
In contesting a subpoena from Congress, the White House likely will make its favorite defense, which is that the president, legally speaking, can’t obstruct justice. This “unitary executive” theory rests on Article II of the Constitution, which gives the chief executive the power to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” According to this view, this language means the president alone is in charge of which cases to pursue in the justice system: If he decides to stop an investigation, that is his prerogative, and his reasons for doing so are beyond the purview of investigators, Congress and the courts. A year before being confirmed as attorney general, Barr laid out an ancillary proposition in a long and rambling memo to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, arguing the president can’t be investigated for obstruction based on something that is, on its face, a valid exercise of his power — like firing the FBI director. According to Barr, questioning the motives behind such an action would have disastrous consequences and open a Pandora’s box of potential inquisitions into “all exercises of prosecutorial discretion.”
The problem with this defense is that it conflates enforcement of the laws—a power that resides in the executive branch—with the administration of justice, which is constitutional responsibility that is shared by all three branches, including Congress. When it comes to the administration of justice—and those who would thwart the integrity of that process—Congress has a big role to play.
The idea of obstruction of justice has its origins in an 1819 Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland (a case you might be familiar with if you’re a Hamilton fan), that challenged Congress’ power to create a national bank. The court found that Congress’ authority to create a bank—even though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution—stemmed from its power to create laws “necessary and proper” for executing its explicit powers, like collecting taxes, borrowing money and regulating commerce. Importantly, the court noted that under the same reasoning, Congress could similarly pass laws which are “necessary and proper” to execute the powers of the other branches, as well. As an example of the latter, the Supreme Court pointed out that Congress could pass laws to ensure the effective functioning of the courts, noting that crimes like “falsifying … a process of the court,” or perjury, were “conducive to the due administration of justice.” In other words, the court made clear that Congress has the constitutional authority to ensure that the justice system can function without malevolent interference: This is exactly what obstruction of justice is about.
As courts have observed in more recent cases, it makes sense that Congress would be entrusted with safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process. After all, Congress itself is responsible for creating all federal courts apart from the Supreme Court. Protecting the procedure through which cases are investigated, tried and adjudicated is what allows the judicial branch to function as a coequal branch—if defendants could derail cases, mislead investigators or lie to the court with impunity, courts would cease to have the ability to administer justice at all. This is why “process crimes”—the family of crimes that includes not only obstruction of justice, but false statements, perjury, witness tampering and contempt of court (a mechanism by which the judiciary can assert its own interest in fair administration of the laws)—are indispensable to the rule of law: They ensure that the integrity of the justice system is maintained from start to finish. If it’s Congress’ job to create rules that protect the courts’ ability to do their job, then it’s also Congress’ duty to get to the bottom of whether the president has tried to thwart those efforts.
- Click here for the article.
. . . Congress has a responsibility, rooted firmly in the Constitution, to safeguard the integrity of the justice system, including to prevent obstruction of justice. Therefore, Mueller’s findings are as much about whether President Donald Trump has stepped on Congress’ toes as it is about whether he broke the law.
In contesting a subpoena from Congress, the White House likely will make its favorite defense, which is that the president, legally speaking, can’t obstruct justice. This “unitary executive” theory rests on Article II of the Constitution, which gives the chief executive the power to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” According to this view, this language means the president alone is in charge of which cases to pursue in the justice system: If he decides to stop an investigation, that is his prerogative, and his reasons for doing so are beyond the purview of investigators, Congress and the courts. A year before being confirmed as attorney general, Barr laid out an ancillary proposition in a long and rambling memo to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, arguing the president can’t be investigated for obstruction based on something that is, on its face, a valid exercise of his power — like firing the FBI director. According to Barr, questioning the motives behind such an action would have disastrous consequences and open a Pandora’s box of potential inquisitions into “all exercises of prosecutorial discretion.”
The problem with this defense is that it conflates enforcement of the laws—a power that resides in the executive branch—with the administration of justice, which is constitutional responsibility that is shared by all three branches, including Congress. When it comes to the administration of justice—and those who would thwart the integrity of that process—Congress has a big role to play.
The idea of obstruction of justice has its origins in an 1819 Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland (a case you might be familiar with if you’re a Hamilton fan), that challenged Congress’ power to create a national bank. The court found that Congress’ authority to create a bank—even though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution—stemmed from its power to create laws “necessary and proper” for executing its explicit powers, like collecting taxes, borrowing money and regulating commerce. Importantly, the court noted that under the same reasoning, Congress could similarly pass laws which are “necessary and proper” to execute the powers of the other branches, as well. As an example of the latter, the Supreme Court pointed out that Congress could pass laws to ensure the effective functioning of the courts, noting that crimes like “falsifying … a process of the court,” or perjury, were “conducive to the due administration of justice.” In other words, the court made clear that Congress has the constitutional authority to ensure that the justice system can function without malevolent interference: This is exactly what obstruction of justice is about.
As courts have observed in more recent cases, it makes sense that Congress would be entrusted with safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process. After all, Congress itself is responsible for creating all federal courts apart from the Supreme Court. Protecting the procedure through which cases are investigated, tried and adjudicated is what allows the judicial branch to function as a coequal branch—if defendants could derail cases, mislead investigators or lie to the court with impunity, courts would cease to have the ability to administer justice at all. This is why “process crimes”—the family of crimes that includes not only obstruction of justice, but false statements, perjury, witness tampering and contempt of court (a mechanism by which the judiciary can assert its own interest in fair administration of the laws)—are indispensable to the rule of law: They ensure that the integrity of the justice system is maintained from start to finish. If it’s Congress’ job to create rules that protect the courts’ ability to do their job, then it’s also Congress’ duty to get to the bottom of whether the president has tried to thwart those efforts.
Monday, April 8, 2019
From the Clarion-Ledger: COPY, PASTE, LEGISLATE You elected them to write new laws. They’re letting corporations do it instead.
Key Terms: watchdog, special interests, federalism, biased pluralism
- Click here for the article.
Each year, state lawmakers across the U.S. introduce thousands of bills dreamed up and written by corporations, industry groups and think tanks.
Disguised as the work of lawmakers, these so-called “model” bills get copied in one state Capitol after another, quietly advancing the agenda of the people who write them.
A two-year investigation by USA TODAY, The Arizona Republic and the Center for Public Integrity reveals for the first time the extent to which special interests have infiltrated state legislatures using model legislation.
USA TODAY and the Republic found at least 10,000 bills almost entirely copied from model legislation were introduced nationwide in the past eight years, and more than 2,100 of those bills were signed into law.
The investigation examined nearly 1 million bills in all 50 states and Congress using a computer algorithm developed to detect similarities in language. That search – powered by the equivalent of 150 computers that ran nonstop for months – compared known model legislation with bills introduced by lawmakers.
The phenomenon of copycat legislation is far larger. In a separate analysis, the Center for Public Integrity identified tens of thousands of bills with identical phrases, then traced the origins of that language in dozens of those bills across the country.
Model bills passed into law have made it harder for injured consumers to sue corporations. They’ve called for taxes on sugar-laden drinks. They’ve limited access to abortion and restricted the rights of protesters.
In all, these copycat bills amount to the nation’s largest, unreported special-interest campaign, driving agendas in every statehouse and touching nearly every area of public policy.
The investigation reveals that fill-in-the-blank bills have in some states supplanted the traditional approach of writing legislation from scratch. They have become so intertwined with the lawmaking process that the nation’s top sponsor of copycat legislation, a member of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, claimed to have signed on to 72 such bills without knowing or questioning their origin.
For lawmakers, copying model legislation is an easy way to get fully formed bills to put their names on, while building relationships with lobbyists and other potential campaign donors.
For special interests seeking to stay under the radar, model legislation also offers distinct advantages. Copycat bills don’t appear on expense reports, or campaign finance forms. They don’t require someone to register as a lobbyist or sign in at committee hearings. But once injected into the lawmaking process, they can go viral, spreading state to state, executing an agenda to the letter. those bills across the country.
- Click here for the article.
Each year, state lawmakers across the U.S. introduce thousands of bills dreamed up and written by corporations, industry groups and think tanks.
Disguised as the work of lawmakers, these so-called “model” bills get copied in one state Capitol after another, quietly advancing the agenda of the people who write them.
A two-year investigation by USA TODAY, The Arizona Republic and the Center for Public Integrity reveals for the first time the extent to which special interests have infiltrated state legislatures using model legislation.
USA TODAY and the Republic found at least 10,000 bills almost entirely copied from model legislation were introduced nationwide in the past eight years, and more than 2,100 of those bills were signed into law.
The investigation examined nearly 1 million bills in all 50 states and Congress using a computer algorithm developed to detect similarities in language. That search – powered by the equivalent of 150 computers that ran nonstop for months – compared known model legislation with bills introduced by lawmakers.
The phenomenon of copycat legislation is far larger. In a separate analysis, the Center for Public Integrity identified tens of thousands of bills with identical phrases, then traced the origins of that language in dozens of those bills across the country.
Model bills passed into law have made it harder for injured consumers to sue corporations. They’ve called for taxes on sugar-laden drinks. They’ve limited access to abortion and restricted the rights of protesters.
In all, these copycat bills amount to the nation’s largest, unreported special-interest campaign, driving agendas in every statehouse and touching nearly every area of public policy.
The investigation reveals that fill-in-the-blank bills have in some states supplanted the traditional approach of writing legislation from scratch. They have become so intertwined with the lawmaking process that the nation’s top sponsor of copycat legislation, a member of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, claimed to have signed on to 72 such bills without knowing or questioning their origin.
For lawmakers, copying model legislation is an easy way to get fully formed bills to put their names on, while building relationships with lobbyists and other potential campaign donors.
For special interests seeking to stay under the radar, model legislation also offers distinct advantages. Copycat bills don’t appear on expense reports, or campaign finance forms. They don’t require someone to register as a lobbyist or sign in at committee hearings. But once injected into the lawmaking process, they can go viral, spreading state to state, executing an agenda to the letter. those bills across the country.
From Governing: Mississippi Leads Nation in Filing Legislation Other People Wrote. Here's Why That Matters.
Key Terms: interest groups, dark money, federalism, policy diffusion
- Click here for the article.
A bill that critics fear could unleash a wave of “dark money” in political spending quietly slipped through the Mississippi Legislature this year and became law.
There were no rallies for or against the bill, which was loaded with jargon about non-profit organizations.
It only caused a stir by the time it reached the desk of Gov. Phil Bryant, who signed it with no hesitation.
Supporters of the bill say it protects the privacy of donors, yet acknowledged that donor privacy is not a problem in Mississippi.
Some did not realize it had originated outside of Mississippi, or that a nearly identical bill had been pushed through the Michigan Legislature months earlier.
That’s because House Bill 1205, like many Mississippi bills, is a model bill, meaning it was essentially copied from a bill in a different state.
Rather than lobby the U.S. Congress, partisan organizations, business interests, and religious groups with national agendas plant these bills in statehouses across the country.
A USA Today investigation found Mississippi — which has fewer than 3 million residents — has more model bills introduced in its Legislature than any other state in the country.
Bills about donor privacy, abortion, divesting from Iran and many other issues frequently come from outside Mississippi’s borders.
Most never end up becoming law.
But some do. They have restricted abortion rights and public benefits and have changed policies on drugs, charter schools and much more.
- Click here for the article.
A bill that critics fear could unleash a wave of “dark money” in political spending quietly slipped through the Mississippi Legislature this year and became law.
There were no rallies for or against the bill, which was loaded with jargon about non-profit organizations.
It only caused a stir by the time it reached the desk of Gov. Phil Bryant, who signed it with no hesitation.
Supporters of the bill say it protects the privacy of donors, yet acknowledged that donor privacy is not a problem in Mississippi.
Some did not realize it had originated outside of Mississippi, or that a nearly identical bill had been pushed through the Michigan Legislature months earlier.
That’s because House Bill 1205, like many Mississippi bills, is a model bill, meaning it was essentially copied from a bill in a different state.
Rather than lobby the U.S. Congress, partisan organizations, business interests, and religious groups with national agendas plant these bills in statehouses across the country.
A USA Today investigation found Mississippi — which has fewer than 3 million residents — has more model bills introduced in its Legislature than any other state in the country.
Bills about donor privacy, abortion, divesting from Iran and many other issues frequently come from outside Mississippi’s borders.
Most never end up becoming law.
But some do. They have restricted abortion rights and public benefits and have changed policies on drugs, charter schools and much more.
Thursday, April 4, 2019
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
From CNN Business: Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg calls for more regulation of the internet
For our upcoming look at economic policy, and the factors that lead to the development of regulations.
- Click here for the article.
Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, who has been under scrutiny for the social media company's role in spreading misinformation and inadequately policing content, is calling for regulators to play a "more active role" in establishing rules for the internet.
Zuckerberg called for stricter regulation of "harmful content, election integrity, privacy and data portability" in an op-ed published Saturday on his official Facebook account and in the Washington Post.
"I believe we need a more active role for governments and regulators," he wrote. "By updating the rules for the Internet, we can preserve what's best about it - the freedom for people to express themselves and for entrepreneurs to build new things - while also protecting society from broader harms."
Zuckerberg's missive was the most comprehensive the Facebook CEO has ever been on the issue of government regulation. His call comes as US federal prosecutors are reportedly probing Facebook's data sharing deals with a number of large technology companies. The US Federal Trade Commission is said to be in talks with Facebook over a possible record fine. And European officials continue to scrutinize the company.
Facebook was roundly condemned this month when it failed to stop a live stream by the suspect in the New Zealand terrorist attack that killed 50 people. The platform has also faced a litany of scandals, ranging from hate speech to privacy, and criticism over the spread of fake news, especially during national elections.
"Every day, we make decisions about what speech is harmful, what constitutes political advertising, and how to prevent sophisticated cyberattacks. These are important for keeping our community safe," he wrote. "But if we were starting from scratch, we wouldn't ask companies to make these judgments alone."
- Click here for the article.
Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, who has been under scrutiny for the social media company's role in spreading misinformation and inadequately policing content, is calling for regulators to play a "more active role" in establishing rules for the internet.
Zuckerberg called for stricter regulation of "harmful content, election integrity, privacy and data portability" in an op-ed published Saturday on his official Facebook account and in the Washington Post.
"I believe we need a more active role for governments and regulators," he wrote. "By updating the rules for the Internet, we can preserve what's best about it - the freedom for people to express themselves and for entrepreneurs to build new things - while also protecting society from broader harms."
Zuckerberg's missive was the most comprehensive the Facebook CEO has ever been on the issue of government regulation. His call comes as US federal prosecutors are reportedly probing Facebook's data sharing deals with a number of large technology companies. The US Federal Trade Commission is said to be in talks with Facebook over a possible record fine. And European officials continue to scrutinize the company.
Facebook was roundly condemned this month when it failed to stop a live stream by the suspect in the New Zealand terrorist attack that killed 50 people. The platform has also faced a litany of scandals, ranging from hate speech to privacy, and criticism over the spread of fake news, especially during national elections.
"Every day, we make decisions about what speech is harmful, what constitutes political advertising, and how to prevent sophisticated cyberattacks. These are important for keeping our community safe," he wrote. "But if we were starting from scratch, we wouldn't ask companies to make these judgments alone."
INS v. Chadha
The Supreme Court case that invalidated the legislative veto, and in the opinion of some, unleashed executive power.
- The Legislative Veto.
- Oyez.
- Wikipedia.
- The Legislative Veto.
- Oyez.
- Wikipedia.
From the Washington Post: How the Supreme Court weakened Congress on emergency declarations
On the evolving relationship between the three branches, and the imperial presidency.
- Click here for the article.
When the law under which President Trump has declared a national emergency was first enacted, in 1976, it was designed to require both Congress and the president to agree that a national emergency exists before the president could exercise emergency powers. Now that the Senate has joined the House in rejecting Trump’s emergency declaration, his declaration would be invalid — if not for a 1983 Supreme Court decision that destroyed the careful scheme Congress had designed for deciding whether emergency powers should be unleashed.
To understand how that Supreme Court decision dramatically affected the way the government works, consider what Congress had intended when it passed the National Emergencies Act. The law, created in the post-Vietnam and post-Watergate years, was one of many adopted in that era to constrain what had come to be called “the imperial presidency.” Congress decided that the awesome and dangerous power to declare emergencies required the agreement of both political branches of the government.
Rightly or wrongly (and over the vigorous dissent of Justice Byron White), the court concluded that Congress cannot act through a legislative veto but can act only by passing a new law. In the case of Trump’s declaration of a national emergency, that means Congress cannot simply disapprove, thus terminating the declaration, but instead must give Trump the chance to veto Congress’s disapproval, as he has promised to do. Instead of being able to end a presidential declaration of emergency with a majority vote in both the House and Senate, Congress must marshal an implausible two-thirds majority in each chamber to override the president’s veto.
Congress is often accused, justifiably, with fecklessly abdicating its institutional responsibilities by delegating vast, general powers to the president and the executive branch. Some critics of the National Emergencies Act have accused Congress of exactly that, in part because the act does not define what constitutes an emergency. But the criticisms are misplaced when it comes to the act in its original form.
Having resolved that deciding whether an emergency exists is ultimately a political judgment, Congress gave itself a crucial role in the process. The legislative veto sought to make Congress, not the courts, the appropriate institution to decide whether the president was right to declare an emergency. By their nature, emergencies are difficult to define; that challenge mattered less when Congress was empowered to react to specific circumstances and decide whether the president had appropriately declared an emergency.
- Click here for the article.
When the law under which President Trump has declared a national emergency was first enacted, in 1976, it was designed to require both Congress and the president to agree that a national emergency exists before the president could exercise emergency powers. Now that the Senate has joined the House in rejecting Trump’s emergency declaration, his declaration would be invalid — if not for a 1983 Supreme Court decision that destroyed the careful scheme Congress had designed for deciding whether emergency powers should be unleashed.
To understand how that Supreme Court decision dramatically affected the way the government works, consider what Congress had intended when it passed the National Emergencies Act. The law, created in the post-Vietnam and post-Watergate years, was one of many adopted in that era to constrain what had come to be called “the imperial presidency.” Congress decided that the awesome and dangerous power to declare emergencies required the agreement of both political branches of the government.
Rightly or wrongly (and over the vigorous dissent of Justice Byron White), the court concluded that Congress cannot act through a legislative veto but can act only by passing a new law. In the case of Trump’s declaration of a national emergency, that means Congress cannot simply disapprove, thus terminating the declaration, but instead must give Trump the chance to veto Congress’s disapproval, as he has promised to do. Instead of being able to end a presidential declaration of emergency with a majority vote in both the House and Senate, Congress must marshal an implausible two-thirds majority in each chamber to override the president’s veto.
Congress is often accused, justifiably, with fecklessly abdicating its institutional responsibilities by delegating vast, general powers to the president and the executive branch. Some critics of the National Emergencies Act have accused Congress of exactly that, in part because the act does not define what constitutes an emergency. But the criticisms are misplaced when it comes to the act in its original form.
Having resolved that deciding whether an emergency exists is ultimately a political judgment, Congress gave itself a crucial role in the process. The legislative veto sought to make Congress, not the courts, the appropriate institution to decide whether the president was right to declare an emergency. By their nature, emergencies are difficult to define; that challenge mattered less when Congress was empowered to react to specific circumstances and decide whether the president had appropriately declared an emergency.
From 538: Why Trump Hasn’t Seen A Post-Mueller Boost In The Polls
Possible evidence supporting the conclusions here.
- Click here for the article.
The completion of Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election was widely portrayed as a turning point in Trump’s presidency. But so far it’s had little effect on his approval rating.
As of Monday night, Trump’s approval rating was 42.1 percent and his disapproval rating was 52.8 percent, according to FiveThirtyEight’s approval rating tracker, which is based on data all publicly-available polls. Those numbers are little changed from where they were – 41.9 percent approval and 52.9 percent disapproval – on Saturday, March 23, the day before Attorney General William Barr issued a four-page letter on the Mueller report to Congress. (The Mueller report itself has not yet been released to the public or to Congress, although Barr has pledged to release a redacted version of it by mid-April.)
Trump’s approval rating is little changed since the Barr letter
While I’d urge a little bit of caution on these numbers – sometimes there’s a lag before a news event is fully reflected in the polls – there’s actually been quite a bit of polling since Barr’s letter came out, including polls from high-quality organizations such as Marist College, NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Quinnipiac University and the Pew Research Center which were conducted wholly or partially after the Barr letter was published. Some of these polls showed slight improvements in Trump’s approval rating, but others showed slight declines. Unless you’re willing to do a lot of cherry-picking, there just isn’t anything to make the case that much has changed.
In writing about the Barr letter just after it came out, I ducked making any sort of prediction about its effect on Trump’s numbers, saying it might or might not approve his approval ratings. Truth be told, if I were forced to put money on one side or another, I’d probably have expected them to improve by more than a few tenths of a percentage point.
With the benefit of hindsight, though, maybe this shouldn’t have been any sort of surprise. There are at least six reasons for why you might not have expected to see much of a change in Trump’s numbers. Here they are – note that these aren’t mutually exclusive and aren’t listed in any particular order of importance.
- Click here for the article.
The completion of Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election was widely portrayed as a turning point in Trump’s presidency. But so far it’s had little effect on his approval rating.
As of Monday night, Trump’s approval rating was 42.1 percent and his disapproval rating was 52.8 percent, according to FiveThirtyEight’s approval rating tracker, which is based on data all publicly-available polls. Those numbers are little changed from where they were – 41.9 percent approval and 52.9 percent disapproval – on Saturday, March 23, the day before Attorney General William Barr issued a four-page letter on the Mueller report to Congress. (The Mueller report itself has not yet been released to the public or to Congress, although Barr has pledged to release a redacted version of it by mid-April.)
Trump’s approval rating is little changed since the Barr letter
Trump’s approval rating is little changed since the Barr letter
Trump approval and disapproval ratings in FiveThirtyEight polling average
| DATE | EVENT | APPROVE | DISAPPROVE |
|---|---|---|---|
| March 1 | Start of last month | 42.0% | 53.3% |
| March 21 | Day before Mueller report filed to Barr | 41.6 | 53.1 |
| March 23 | Day before Barr letter released | 41.9 | 52.9 |
| April 1 | Current | 42.1 | 52.8 |
While I’d urge a little bit of caution on these numbers – sometimes there’s a lag before a news event is fully reflected in the polls – there’s actually been quite a bit of polling since Barr’s letter came out, including polls from high-quality organizations such as Marist College, NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Quinnipiac University and the Pew Research Center which were conducted wholly or partially after the Barr letter was published. Some of these polls showed slight improvements in Trump’s approval rating, but others showed slight declines. Unless you’re willing to do a lot of cherry-picking, there just isn’t anything to make the case that much has changed.
In writing about the Barr letter just after it came out, I ducked making any sort of prediction about its effect on Trump’s numbers, saying it might or might not approve his approval ratings. Truth be told, if I were forced to put money on one side or another, I’d probably have expected them to improve by more than a few tenths of a percentage point.
With the benefit of hindsight, though, maybe this shouldn’t have been any sort of surprise. There are at least six reasons for why you might not have expected to see much of a change in Trump’s numbers. Here they are – note that these aren’t mutually exclusive and aren’t listed in any particular order of importance.
From the Columbia Law Review: Article II Vests Executive Power, Not the Royal Prerogative
For our look at the presidency. This seems to be a challenge to our understanding on the inherent powers of the president.
- Click here for the article.
The abstract:
Article II of the United States Constitution vests “the executive power” in the President. For more than two hundred years, advocates of presidential power have claimed that this phrase was originally understood to include a bundle of national security and foreign affairs authorities. Their efforts have been highly successful: among constitutional originalists, this so-called Vesting Clause Thesis is now conventional wisdom. But it is also demonstrably wrong.
Based on an exhaustive review of the eighteenth-century bookshelf, this article shows that the ordinary meaning of “executive power” referred unambiguously to a single, discrete, and potent authority: the power to execute law. This enforcement role was constitutionally crucial. Substantively, however, it extended only to the implementation of legal norms created by some other authority. It wasn’t just that the executive power was subject to legislative influence in a crude political sense; rather, the power was conceptually an empty vessel until there were laws or instructions that needed executing.
There was indeed a term of art for the Crown’s non-statutory powers, including its various national security and foreign affairs authorities. But as a matter of well-established legal semantics, that term was “prerogative.” The other elements of prerogative—including those relating to national security and foreign affairs— were possessed in addition to “the executive power” rather than as part of it.
For more, click here.
Of special note:
Let's start with some background. Basically, the Executive Power Clause has three competing
interpretations.
- The cross-reference thesis. On this view, the clause has no standalone content. It simply refers to the more specific powers listed later in Article II.
- The law execution thesis. On this understanding, the clause grants exactly what its grammar suggests: the power to execute the laws.
- The royal residuum thesis. This view reads the clause to include all of the powers typically held by an eighteenth-century executive—particularly those relating to foreign affairs and national security—unless specifically revised or reallocated elsewhere in the Constitution.
- Zivotofsky II and the Vesting Clause Theory of Presidential Foreign Relations Power.
- prerogative.
- Click here for the article.
The abstract:
Article II of the United States Constitution vests “the executive power” in the President. For more than two hundred years, advocates of presidential power have claimed that this phrase was originally understood to include a bundle of national security and foreign affairs authorities. Their efforts have been highly successful: among constitutional originalists, this so-called Vesting Clause Thesis is now conventional wisdom. But it is also demonstrably wrong.
Based on an exhaustive review of the eighteenth-century bookshelf, this article shows that the ordinary meaning of “executive power” referred unambiguously to a single, discrete, and potent authority: the power to execute law. This enforcement role was constitutionally crucial. Substantively, however, it extended only to the implementation of legal norms created by some other authority. It wasn’t just that the executive power was subject to legislative influence in a crude political sense; rather, the power was conceptually an empty vessel until there were laws or instructions that needed executing.
There was indeed a term of art for the Crown’s non-statutory powers, including its various national security and foreign affairs authorities. But as a matter of well-established legal semantics, that term was “prerogative.” The other elements of prerogative—including those relating to national security and foreign affairs— were possessed in addition to “the executive power” rather than as part of it.
For more, click here.
Of special note:
Let's start with some background. Basically, the Executive Power Clause has three competing
interpretations.
- The cross-reference thesis. On this view, the clause has no standalone content. It simply refers to the more specific powers listed later in Article II.
- The law execution thesis. On this understanding, the clause grants exactly what its grammar suggests: the power to execute the laws.
- The royal residuum thesis. This view reads the clause to include all of the powers typically held by an eighteenth-century executive—particularly those relating to foreign affairs and national security—unless specifically revised or reallocated elsewhere in the Constitution.
- Zivotofsky II and the Vesting Clause Theory of Presidential Foreign Relations Power.
- prerogative.
Monday, April 1, 2019
From the Texas Tribune: After helping defeat the “bathroom bill” in 2017, business groups are back to oppose “discriminatory and divisive measures”
Business groups in Texas ...
- Click here for the article.
- Click here for the article.
In the spring of 2015, 80 companies and business groups banded together to create Texas Competes, a coalition with something of a novel mission: It would make the “economic case for equality,” fighting discriminatory proposals and convincing the state’s business-friendly leaders that doing what they considered the right thing for LGBTQ Texans was also the smart play economically.
This year, the group’s membership has swelled above 1,400 organizations and counts among its ranks dozens of Fortune 500 companies, including Amazon, Google and Facebook.
The group and its allies are now flexing that muscle to combat legislative proposals the business leaders consider threats to their economic success due to the disparate impacts they would have on Texas’ LGBTQ communities.
That opposition infrastructure was on full display Wednesday afternoon as a slate of business leaders, including representatives of Texas’ burgeoning tech industry and tourism officials from some of the state’s biggest cities, detailed their opposition to two priority Senate bills at a Capitol press conference that came alongside an open letter to state leaders.
Perhaps the group’s biggest success was the failure last session of a “bathroom bill” that would have restricted transgender Texans’ access to certain public facilities. This year, many groups have argued, proposals that may have seemed more innocuous at first blush would create “a bathroom bill 2.0” situation.
“It’s always been about more than bathrooms because a welcoming, inclusive Texas is a 21st century economic imperative,” said David Edmonson, Texas director for TechNet, a coalition of tech companies committed to inclusivity.
At issue this week are two bills that have been tagged as priorities for the lieutenant governor. One, Republican Sen. Brandon Creighton’s Senate Bill 15, was at its start a relatively uncontroversial measure aimed at gutting mandatory paid sick leave ordinances in cities like Austin and San Antonio. But the bill was rewritten before it passed out of committee, and protections for local nondiscrimination ordinances were stripped out. Although the new version of the bill doesn’t explicitly target LGBTQ Texans, advocacy groups immediately raised alarm bells about the shift.
The other bill, Republican Sen. Charles Perry’s Senate Bill 17, would protect professional license holders from losing their licenses for conduct or speech they say was motivated by “sincerely held religious beliefs.” Advocates and business leaders say the bill would grant huge swaths of Texas employees a “license to discriminate” against LGBTQ communities.
This year, the group’s membership has swelled above 1,400 organizations and counts among its ranks dozens of Fortune 500 companies, including Amazon, Google and Facebook.
The group and its allies are now flexing that muscle to combat legislative proposals the business leaders consider threats to their economic success due to the disparate impacts they would have on Texas’ LGBTQ communities.
That opposition infrastructure was on full display Wednesday afternoon as a slate of business leaders, including representatives of Texas’ burgeoning tech industry and tourism officials from some of the state’s biggest cities, detailed their opposition to two priority Senate bills at a Capitol press conference that came alongside an open letter to state leaders.
Perhaps the group’s biggest success was the failure last session of a “bathroom bill” that would have restricted transgender Texans’ access to certain public facilities. This year, many groups have argued, proposals that may have seemed more innocuous at first blush would create “a bathroom bill 2.0” situation.
“It’s always been about more than bathrooms because a welcoming, inclusive Texas is a 21st century economic imperative,” said David Edmonson, Texas director for TechNet, a coalition of tech companies committed to inclusivity.
At issue this week are two bills that have been tagged as priorities for the lieutenant governor. One, Republican Sen. Brandon Creighton’s Senate Bill 15, was at its start a relatively uncontroversial measure aimed at gutting mandatory paid sick leave ordinances in cities like Austin and San Antonio. But the bill was rewritten before it passed out of committee, and protections for local nondiscrimination ordinances were stripped out. Although the new version of the bill doesn’t explicitly target LGBTQ Texans, advocacy groups immediately raised alarm bells about the shift.
The other bill, Republican Sen. Charles Perry’s Senate Bill 17, would protect professional license holders from losing their licenses for conduct or speech they say was motivated by “sincerely held religious beliefs.” Advocates and business leaders say the bill would grant huge swaths of Texas employees a “license to discriminate” against LGBTQ communities.
From the Texas Monior: Heavyweight lobby group tries again to reduce power of state’s anti-SLAPP law
For our look at interest groups in Texas, as well as free press and speech.
- Click here for the article.
The politically powerful Texans for Lawsuit Reform is again seeking to tamp down the state’s Texas Citizens Participation Act, better known as the anti-SLAPP law.
A SLAPP suit — shorthand for a “strategic lawsuit against public participation” — is an action to discourage the exercise of some First Amendment rights, including free speech. In 2011, the Texas Legislature passed the act to combat such lawsuits, which have been used to quash investigations by media groups and others seeking public records. The suits are intended to intimidate defendants with the potential cost of legal fees.
The move comes after a similar attempt in the 2017 session when a bill filed by state Rep. J.M. Lozano, R-Kingsville, failed to move past filing stage. TLR has contributed more than $400,000 to Lozano’s campaigns over five election seasons.
Texans for Lawsuit Reform sent out a 25-page memo early this year, noting that the state’s anti-SLAPP law, which it supported when it passed, has become a tool for individuals seeking protection not just from political efforts but also in cases of individual beefs. The special interest group and political action committee funded in part by builders and developers alleges that the law, one of the broadest in the U.S., has been applied too loosely in some cases.
TLR urged legislative intervention to limit the reach of the statute.
This session, bills that incorporate TLR’s ideas have been filed in the House and the Senate — in both cases by legislators who’ve received substantial donations from the lobbying group.
State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, has received $40,000 in donations over his four terms while state Sen. Angela Paxton, R-McKinney, received $90,000 from TLR in 2017 and 2018 in her first campaign for state office.
In 2011, the anti-SLAPP law was approved unanimously by both chambers, meaning that it could go into effect immediately.
The Texas law was backed from the outset by media groups and individuals who had been sued for defamation.
Many of those same groups, including the Texas Press Association, the Texas Association of Broadcasters and the Society of Professional Journalists, are now part of the Protect Free Speech Coalition, which is opposing measures to limit the law.
The Interest Groups in question:
- Texans for Lawsuit Reform.
- Texas Press Association.
- Texas Association of Broadcasters.
- he Society of Professional Journalists.
- Click here for the article.
The politically powerful Texans for Lawsuit Reform is again seeking to tamp down the state’s Texas Citizens Participation Act, better known as the anti-SLAPP law.
A SLAPP suit — shorthand for a “strategic lawsuit against public participation” — is an action to discourage the exercise of some First Amendment rights, including free speech. In 2011, the Texas Legislature passed the act to combat such lawsuits, which have been used to quash investigations by media groups and others seeking public records. The suits are intended to intimidate defendants with the potential cost of legal fees.
The move comes after a similar attempt in the 2017 session when a bill filed by state Rep. J.M. Lozano, R-Kingsville, failed to move past filing stage. TLR has contributed more than $400,000 to Lozano’s campaigns over five election seasons.
Texans for Lawsuit Reform sent out a 25-page memo early this year, noting that the state’s anti-SLAPP law, which it supported when it passed, has become a tool for individuals seeking protection not just from political efforts but also in cases of individual beefs. The special interest group and political action committee funded in part by builders and developers alleges that the law, one of the broadest in the U.S., has been applied too loosely in some cases.
TLR urged legislative intervention to limit the reach of the statute.
This session, bills that incorporate TLR’s ideas have been filed in the House and the Senate — in both cases by legislators who’ve received substantial donations from the lobbying group.
State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, has received $40,000 in donations over his four terms while state Sen. Angela Paxton, R-McKinney, received $90,000 from TLR in 2017 and 2018 in her first campaign for state office.
In 2011, the anti-SLAPP law was approved unanimously by both chambers, meaning that it could go into effect immediately.
The Texas law was backed from the outset by media groups and individuals who had been sued for defamation.
Many of those same groups, including the Texas Press Association, the Texas Association of Broadcasters and the Society of Professional Journalists, are now part of the Protect Free Speech Coalition, which is opposing measures to limit the law.
The Interest Groups in question:
- Texans for Lawsuit Reform.
- Texas Press Association.
- Texas Association of Broadcasters.
- he Society of Professional Journalists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)