Coverage of Trump's recent propsals:
- Everything You Need To Know About Block Grants — The Heart Of GOP’s Medicaid Plans.
- The Problematic Law And Policy Of Medicaid Block Grants.
- ‘Block grants’ no more: Trump's Medicaid overhaul has new name, same goals.
- Trump’s audacious new plan to cut Medicaid, explained.
Thursday, January 30, 2020
From Wikipedia: Andrew Wheeler
A great look at the revolving door and the iron triangle.
- Click here for the entry.
Career
EPA
Wheeler's first job between 1991 and 1995 was as special assistant to the Information Management Division Director in the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics working on toxic chemical, pollution prevention, and right-to-know issues. Wheeler received the Agency's Bronze Medal in 1993 and twice in 1994.
Senate staff
From January 1995 until January 1997, Wheeler worked as Chief Counsel of Senator Jim Inhofe. In 1997, Wheeler entered his first work in Congress as majority staff director at the US Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, Wetlands, and Nuclear Safety, which Inhofe chaired until 2001; thereafter he was minority staff director under Chairman George Voinovich from 2001 to 2003. From 2003 to 2009, he was chief counsel at the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. During this time, Wheeler generally sought to reduce government regulations on industries that generate greenhouse gases. Senator James Inhofe was prominent for his rejection of climate change, and famously brought a snowball to the Senate as alleged proof that climate change was not real.
During his time at the Senate, Wheeler was named by the National Journal as one of the Top Congressional Staff Leaders in 2005 and was a John C. Stennis Congressional Staff Fellow in the 106th Congress.
Lobbyist
From 2009 until 2017, Wheeler was a lobbyist in the law firm Faegre Baker Daniels' energy and natural resources practice. Since 2009, he represented the coal producer Murray Energy, privately owned by Robert E. Murray, a supporter of President Trump.[21] Murray Energy was Wheeler's best-paying client, paying at least $300,000, and possibly as much as $3,300,000 during the period 2009-2017. Wheeler lobbied against the Obama administration's climate regulations for power plants and also sought to persuade the Energy Department to subsidize coal plants. Wheeler set up a meeting between Murray and Energy Secretary Rick Perry in March 2017; at the meeting, Murray advocated for the rollback of environmental regulations and for protections for the coal industry.
EPA Deputy Administrator
In October 2017, Wheeler was nominated by President Trump to become Deputy Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. His nomination was returned to the White House on January 3, 2018 as the Senate had adjourned at the end of 2017 without taking up the nomination (Senate Rule XXXI, paragraph 6). His nomination was resubmitted and he was confirmed as Deputy Administrator of the EPA on April 12, 2018, by a mostly party-line vote of 53–45, which included three Democratic Senators: Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, and Joe Donnelly.
Since being sworn in, Wheeler has had at least three meetings with former lobbying clients of his in a potential violation of the Trump administration's ethics pledge and the promises that Wheeler made during his confirmation hearing Justina Fugh, an EPA ethics official, said that Wheeler's meetings with former lobbying clients did not violate the Trump administration's ethics pledge, because Wheeler had not worked on their behalf in the two years prior to joining the EPA. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said he was "vigorously opposed" to Wheeler replacing Pruitt.
- Click here for the entry.
Career
EPA
Wheeler's first job between 1991 and 1995 was as special assistant to the Information Management Division Director in the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics working on toxic chemical, pollution prevention, and right-to-know issues. Wheeler received the Agency's Bronze Medal in 1993 and twice in 1994.
Senate staff
From January 1995 until January 1997, Wheeler worked as Chief Counsel of Senator Jim Inhofe. In 1997, Wheeler entered his first work in Congress as majority staff director at the US Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, Wetlands, and Nuclear Safety, which Inhofe chaired until 2001; thereafter he was minority staff director under Chairman George Voinovich from 2001 to 2003. From 2003 to 2009, he was chief counsel at the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. During this time, Wheeler generally sought to reduce government regulations on industries that generate greenhouse gases. Senator James Inhofe was prominent for his rejection of climate change, and famously brought a snowball to the Senate as alleged proof that climate change was not real.
During his time at the Senate, Wheeler was named by the National Journal as one of the Top Congressional Staff Leaders in 2005 and was a John C. Stennis Congressional Staff Fellow in the 106th Congress.
Lobbyist
From 2009 until 2017, Wheeler was a lobbyist in the law firm Faegre Baker Daniels' energy and natural resources practice. Since 2009, he represented the coal producer Murray Energy, privately owned by Robert E. Murray, a supporter of President Trump.[21] Murray Energy was Wheeler's best-paying client, paying at least $300,000, and possibly as much as $3,300,000 during the period 2009-2017. Wheeler lobbied against the Obama administration's climate regulations for power plants and also sought to persuade the Energy Department to subsidize coal plants. Wheeler set up a meeting between Murray and Energy Secretary Rick Perry in March 2017; at the meeting, Murray advocated for the rollback of environmental regulations and for protections for the coal industry.
EPA Deputy Administrator
In October 2017, Wheeler was nominated by President Trump to become Deputy Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. His nomination was returned to the White House on January 3, 2018 as the Senate had adjourned at the end of 2017 without taking up the nomination (Senate Rule XXXI, paragraph 6). His nomination was resubmitted and he was confirmed as Deputy Administrator of the EPA on April 12, 2018, by a mostly party-line vote of 53–45, which included three Democratic Senators: Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, and Joe Donnelly.
Since being sworn in, Wheeler has had at least three meetings with former lobbying clients of his in a potential violation of the Trump administration's ethics pledge and the promises that Wheeler made during his confirmation hearing Justina Fugh, an EPA ethics official, said that Wheeler's meetings with former lobbying clients did not violate the Trump administration's ethics pledge, because Wheeler had not worked on their behalf in the two years prior to joining the EPA. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said he was "vigorously opposed" to Wheeler replacing Pruitt.
From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: Testing the Texas political waters by breaking the rules
For our look at primaries and campaign funding.
- Click here for the article.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is skipping the Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses in early states. Instead, he is concentrating his efforts on Texas and the other 13 Super Tuesday states, throwing money around like the billionaire that he is, advertising his name and trying to build an organization to wrest the presidential nomination away from the contenders in those earlier contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
Those other Democrats are focused mainly on those four states. That’s the standard operating procedure in presidential campaigns, and it has been since Georgia’s Jimmy Carter surprised other Democrats in 1976, focusing on Iowa while they were focused on the standard operating procedure of the time — campaigning in big states with more electoral juice.
. . . Texas election history is littered with names of wealthy folks who burned wads of their own money on their way to defeat: Clayton Williams Jr., Tony Sanchez Jr. and Ross Perot, to name a Republican, a Democrat and an independent.
Nearly everyone in politics puts his or her own twist on things, but most candidates stick with conventional strategies. Perot, who had to file boxes of petitions to get on the ballot and who advertised his campaign with half-hour infomercials, was an exception. He influenced the outcome of the 1992 presidential race, winning almost 19% of the popular vote. But nobody has turned to his race in the search for best practices, the way they did after Carter won Iowa, the nomination and then a general election against incumbent President Gerald Ford.
Bloomberg is the latest well-financed candidate to really mess with the formula.
- Click here for the article.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is skipping the Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses in early states. Instead, he is concentrating his efforts on Texas and the other 13 Super Tuesday states, throwing money around like the billionaire that he is, advertising his name and trying to build an organization to wrest the presidential nomination away from the contenders in those earlier contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
Those other Democrats are focused mainly on those four states. That’s the standard operating procedure in presidential campaigns, and it has been since Georgia’s Jimmy Carter surprised other Democrats in 1976, focusing on Iowa while they were focused on the standard operating procedure of the time — campaigning in big states with more electoral juice.
. . . Texas election history is littered with names of wealthy folks who burned wads of their own money on their way to defeat: Clayton Williams Jr., Tony Sanchez Jr. and Ross Perot, to name a Republican, a Democrat and an independent.
Nearly everyone in politics puts his or her own twist on things, but most candidates stick with conventional strategies. Perot, who had to file boxes of petitions to get on the ballot and who advertised his campaign with half-hour infomercials, was an exception. He influenced the outcome of the 1992 presidential race, winning almost 19% of the popular vote. But nobody has turned to his race in the search for best practices, the way they did after Carter won Iowa, the nomination and then a general election against incumbent President Gerald Ford.
Bloomberg is the latest well-financed candidate to really mess with the formula.
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
From Wikipedia: The Center for Disease Control
Another example of cooperative federalism - seemingly built up from an agency established during WW2.
- Click here for the entry.
- Click here for the entry.
The Communicable Disease Center was founded July 1, 1946, as the successor to the World War II Malaria Control in War Areas program of the Office of National Defense Malaria Control Activities.
Preceding its founding, organizations with global influence in malaria control were the Malaria Commission of the League of Nations and the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation greatly supported malaria control, sought to have the governments take over some of its efforts, and collaborated with the agency.
The new agency was a branch of the U.S. Public Health Service and Atlanta was chosen as the location because malaria was endemic in the Southern United States. The agency changed names (see infobox on top) before adopting the name Communicable Disease Center in 1946. Offices were located on the sixth floor of the Volunteer Building on Peachtree Street.
. . . The mission of CDC expanded beyond its original focus on malaria to include sexually transmitted diseases when the Venereal Disease Division of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) was transferred to the CDC in 1957. Shortly thereafter, Tuberculosis Control was transferred (in 1960) to the CDC from PHS, and then in 1963 the Immunization program was established.
It became the National Communicable Disease Center (NCDC) effective July 1, 1967. The organization was renamed the Center for Disease Control (CDC) on June 24, 1970, and Centers for Disease Control effective October 14, 1980. An act of the United States Congress appended the words "and Prevention" to the name effective October 27, 1992. However, Congress directed that the initialism CDC be retained because of its name recognition.
Currently, the CDC focus has broadened to include chronic diseases, disabilities, injury control, workplace hazards, environmental health threats, and terrorism preparedness. CDC combats emerging diseases and other health risks, including birth defects, West Nile virus, obesity, avian, swine, and pandemic flu, E. coli, and bioterrorism, to name a few. The organization would also prove to be an important factor in preventing the abuse of penicillin. In May 1994 the CDC admitted having sent several biological warfare agents to the Iraqi government from 1984 through 1989, including Botulinum toxin, West Nile virus, Yersinia pestis and Dengue fever virus.
Preceding its founding, organizations with global influence in malaria control were the Malaria Commission of the League of Nations and the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation greatly supported malaria control, sought to have the governments take over some of its efforts, and collaborated with the agency.
The new agency was a branch of the U.S. Public Health Service and Atlanta was chosen as the location because malaria was endemic in the Southern United States. The agency changed names (see infobox on top) before adopting the name Communicable Disease Center in 1946. Offices were located on the sixth floor of the Volunteer Building on Peachtree Street.
. . . The mission of CDC expanded beyond its original focus on malaria to include sexually transmitted diseases when the Venereal Disease Division of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) was transferred to the CDC in 1957. Shortly thereafter, Tuberculosis Control was transferred (in 1960) to the CDC from PHS, and then in 1963 the Immunization program was established.
It became the National Communicable Disease Center (NCDC) effective July 1, 1967. The organization was renamed the Center for Disease Control (CDC) on June 24, 1970, and Centers for Disease Control effective October 14, 1980. An act of the United States Congress appended the words "and Prevention" to the name effective October 27, 1992. However, Congress directed that the initialism CDC be retained because of its name recognition.
Currently, the CDC focus has broadened to include chronic diseases, disabilities, injury control, workplace hazards, environmental health threats, and terrorism preparedness. CDC combats emerging diseases and other health risks, including birth defects, West Nile virus, obesity, avian, swine, and pandemic flu, E. coli, and bioterrorism, to name a few. The organization would also prove to be an important factor in preventing the abuse of penicillin. In May 1994 the CDC admitted having sent several biological warfare agents to the Iraqi government from 1984 through 1989, including Botulinum toxin, West Nile virus, Yersinia pestis and Dengue fever virus.
From Wikipedia: Red Shirts
A look at the use of political violence in the South.
- Click here for the entry.
The Red Shirts or Redshirts of the Southern United States were white supremacist paramilitary terrorist groups that were active in the late 19th century in the last years of, and after the end of, the Reconstruction era of the United States. Red Shirt groups originated in Mississippi in 1875, when Democratic Party private terror units adopted red shirts to make themselves more visible and threatening to Southern Republicans, both whites and freedmen. Similar groups in the Carolinas also adopted red shirts.
Among the most prominent Red Shirts were the supporters of Democratic Party candidate Wade Hampton during the campaigns for the South Carolina gubernatorial elections of 1876 and 1878. The Red Shirts were one of several paramilitary organizations, such as the White League in Louisiana, arising from the continuing efforts of white Democrats to regain political power in the South in the 1870s. These groups acted as "the military arm of the Democratic Party."
While sometimes engaging in violent acts of terrorism, the Red Shirts, the White League, rifle clubs, and similar groups in the late nineteenth century worked openly and were better organized than the secret vigilante groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. They used organization, intimidation and force to achieve political purposes of restoring the Democrats to power, overturning Republicans, and repressing civil and voting rights of freedmen. During the 1876, 1898 and 1900 campaigns in North Carolina, the Red Shirts played prominent roles in intimidating non-Democratic Party voters.
- Click here for the entry.
The Red Shirts or Redshirts of the Southern United States were white supremacist paramilitary terrorist groups that were active in the late 19th century in the last years of, and after the end of, the Reconstruction era of the United States. Red Shirt groups originated in Mississippi in 1875, when Democratic Party private terror units adopted red shirts to make themselves more visible and threatening to Southern Republicans, both whites and freedmen. Similar groups in the Carolinas also adopted red shirts.
Among the most prominent Red Shirts were the supporters of Democratic Party candidate Wade Hampton during the campaigns for the South Carolina gubernatorial elections of 1876 and 1878. The Red Shirts were one of several paramilitary organizations, such as the White League in Louisiana, arising from the continuing efforts of white Democrats to regain political power in the South in the 1870s. These groups acted as "the military arm of the Democratic Party."
While sometimes engaging in violent acts of terrorism, the Red Shirts, the White League, rifle clubs, and similar groups in the late nineteenth century worked openly and were better organized than the secret vigilante groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. They used organization, intimidation and force to achieve political purposes of restoring the Democrats to power, overturning Republicans, and repressing civil and voting rights of freedmen. During the 1876, 1898 and 1900 campaigns in North Carolina, the Red Shirts played prominent roles in intimidating non-Democratic Party voters.
What are "high crimes and misdemeanors"?
There's debate on the subject.
- Just Security: Justice Joseph Story on “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”.
- AEI: What Does “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” Mean?
- CRS: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
- The Atlantic: The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’
- Just Security: Justice Joseph Story on “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”.
- AEI: What Does “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” Mean?
- CRS: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
- The Atlantic: The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’
Mora and Ruger - Chapters 1 and 2 - Key Terms
Chapter One
Anglo
empresario
Adelsverein Society
land-based economy
economic regions
political action committees
majority-minority
political culture
moralistic
individualistic
traditionalistic
Chapter Two
ballot wording
bill of rights
block grants
categorical grants
checks and balances
confederal systems
constitution
constitutional convention
due process clause
earmarked
equal protection clause
federal system
full faith and credit
initiative
interstate commerce clause
necessary and proper clause
ordinances
plural executive
popular sovereignty
privileges and immunities
separation of powers
social contract theory
statute
supremacy clause
10th amendment
unitary systems
Anglo
empresario
Adelsverein Society
land-based economy
economic regions
political action committees
majority-minority
political culture
moralistic
individualistic
traditionalistic
Chapter Two
ballot wording
bill of rights
block grants
categorical grants
checks and balances
confederal systems
constitution
constitutional convention
due process clause
earmarked
equal protection clause
federal system
full faith and credit
initiative
interstate commerce clause
necessary and proper clause
ordinances
plural executive
popular sovereignty
privileges and immunities
separation of powers
social contract theory
statute
supremacy clause
10th amendment
unitary systems
Patterson - Chapters 1 and 2 - Key Terms
Chapter One
authoritarian government
authority
confirmation bias
constitutionalism
corporate power
critical thinking
democracy
elitism
equality
free-market system
individualism
legal action
liberty
majoritarianism
party polarization
pluralism
political culture
political science
politics
power
public policies
self-government
Chapter Two
anti-federalists
bill of rights
checks and balances
constitution
constitutional democratic republican
democracy (according to the framers)
denials of powers
electoral college
electoral votes
federalists
grants of power
great compromise
inalienable rights
judicial review
liberty
limited government
new jersey plan
primary election
representative government
republic
separated institutions sharing powers
separation of powers
social contract
3/5ths compromise
tyranny of the majority
virginia plan
authoritarian government
authority
confirmation bias
constitutionalism
corporate power
critical thinking
democracy
elitism
equality
free-market system
individualism
legal action
liberty
majoritarianism
party polarization
pluralism
political culture
political science
politics
power
public policies
self-government
Chapter Two
anti-federalists
bill of rights
checks and balances
constitution
constitutional democratic republican
democracy (according to the framers)
denials of powers
electoral college
electoral votes
federalists
grants of power
great compromise
inalienable rights
judicial review
liberty
limited government
new jersey plan
primary election
representative government
republic
separated institutions sharing powers
separation of powers
social contract
3/5ths compromise
tyranny of the majority
virginia plan
Monday, January 27, 2020
From the Texas Tribune: Attorney general tells Galveston City Council it can't stop gun shops from locating near schools and churches
More on the conflict between the state and cities in Texas.
- Click here for the article.
After Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton threatened a lawsuit, the Galveston City Council repealed a local rule this week that aimed to put some space between gun shops and schools.
Galveston previously had on its books some regulations that required a minimum of 200 feet of distance between gun stores and a school, place of worship or public park, reported The Houston Chronicle.
But in a unanimous decision, the city council voted to repeal the regulations on Thursday.
On Dec. 17, Assistant Attorney General Cleve Doty wrote a letter to the city of Galveston stating that the land use regulation violated state law. Doty requested the city rule to be overturned or else face legal retaliation, The Chronicle reports.
“The Office of the Attorney General demands that the City repeal these regulations and any like them immediately,” Doty wrote in the letter. “Rather than file litigation now, we are confident that the City of Galveston intends to comply with Texas law and will rescind regulations that are in violation of Texas law.”
This wouldn’t have been the first time Paxton sued a local government over gun regulations. In 2016 he sued Waller County over its ban on guns at its courthouse. In the same year, he sued the city of Austin for restricting residents from bringing firearms into city hall.
City Council members admitted prior to the vote that they couldn’t do anything about the state law, but some said they were not fond of Paxton’s approach and interference with local rule, reported The Chronicle.
John Paul Listowski, a city council member, told The Chronicle that he doesn’t think a lot of gun stores are going to start popping up, but he doesn’t, “like being forced to do something that we might not want here.”
- Click here for the article.
After Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton threatened a lawsuit, the Galveston City Council repealed a local rule this week that aimed to put some space between gun shops and schools.
Galveston previously had on its books some regulations that required a minimum of 200 feet of distance between gun stores and a school, place of worship or public park, reported The Houston Chronicle.
But in a unanimous decision, the city council voted to repeal the regulations on Thursday.
On Dec. 17, Assistant Attorney General Cleve Doty wrote a letter to the city of Galveston stating that the land use regulation violated state law. Doty requested the city rule to be overturned or else face legal retaliation, The Chronicle reports.
“The Office of the Attorney General demands that the City repeal these regulations and any like them immediately,” Doty wrote in the letter. “Rather than file litigation now, we are confident that the City of Galveston intends to comply with Texas law and will rescind regulations that are in violation of Texas law.”
This wouldn’t have been the first time Paxton sued a local government over gun regulations. In 2016 he sued Waller County over its ban on guns at its courthouse. In the same year, he sued the city of Austin for restricting residents from bringing firearms into city hall.
City Council members admitted prior to the vote that they couldn’t do anything about the state law, but some said they were not fond of Paxton’s approach and interference with local rule, reported The Chronicle.
John Paul Listowski, a city council member, told The Chronicle that he doesn’t think a lot of gun stores are going to start popping up, but he doesn’t, “like being forced to do something that we might not want here.”
From the Texas Tribune: Austin police chief: We will still ticket, arrest for marijuana - The day after the Austin City Council unanimously approved stopping arrests and tickets for low-level marijuana cases, police Chief Brian Manley said he will continue to enforce such laws
Conflict between a city council and law enforcement.
- Click here for the article.
The day after the Austin City Council approved a resolution to stop arresting or ticketing people for most low-level marijuana possession offenses, the police chief made clear he had no plans to do so.
“[Marijuana] is still illegal, and we will still enforce marijuana law if we come across people smoking in the community,” Chief Brian Manley said during a news conference Friday afternoon.
Although cracking down on those in possession of small amounts of marijuana has never been a priority for the department, he said, police will continue to either issue tickets under the city’s “cite-and-release” policy or arrest people if officers “come across it.”
The difference, according to City Council member and resolution sponsor Greg Casar, is that the council's move now guarantees those actions will come with no penalty. Tickets will be meaningless pieces of paper, and any arrests will result in a quick release with no charges accepted from prosecutors, he told The Texas Tribune after the news conference.
“What has changed since yesterday is that enforcement, almost in virtually all cases, is now handing someone a piece of paper with no penalty or no court date,” Casar said.
The move by the City Council came as a direct result of Texas’ new hemp law, which complicated marijuana prosecution across the state. Last summer, when lawmakers legalized hemp, they also changed the definition of marijuana from cannabis to cannabis that contains more than 0.3% THC, the psychoactive ingredient in the plant.
Many prosecutors, including those in Austin’s Travis County, now won’t accept pot cases based on look and smell alone, requiring lab testing to determine THC levels before accepting a case. Such testing is not yet available in public crime labs, though some counties and cities have spent money to obtain test results from private labs.
The council’s resolution prohibited using city funds or personnel to conduct such testing in non-felony marijuana cases. It also directed the elimination, to the furthest extent possible, of arrests or citations for cannabis possession. As Manley also noted, the resolution clarifies it can’t technically decriminalize marijuana, since that is state law.
- Click here for the article.
The day after the Austin City Council approved a resolution to stop arresting or ticketing people for most low-level marijuana possession offenses, the police chief made clear he had no plans to do so.
“[Marijuana] is still illegal, and we will still enforce marijuana law if we come across people smoking in the community,” Chief Brian Manley said during a news conference Friday afternoon.
Although cracking down on those in possession of small amounts of marijuana has never been a priority for the department, he said, police will continue to either issue tickets under the city’s “cite-and-release” policy or arrest people if officers “come across it.”
The difference, according to City Council member and resolution sponsor Greg Casar, is that the council's move now guarantees those actions will come with no penalty. Tickets will be meaningless pieces of paper, and any arrests will result in a quick release with no charges accepted from prosecutors, he told The Texas Tribune after the news conference.
“What has changed since yesterday is that enforcement, almost in virtually all cases, is now handing someone a piece of paper with no penalty or no court date,” Casar said.
The move by the City Council came as a direct result of Texas’ new hemp law, which complicated marijuana prosecution across the state. Last summer, when lawmakers legalized hemp, they also changed the definition of marijuana from cannabis to cannabis that contains more than 0.3% THC, the psychoactive ingredient in the plant.
Many prosecutors, including those in Austin’s Travis County, now won’t accept pot cases based on look and smell alone, requiring lab testing to determine THC levels before accepting a case. Such testing is not yet available in public crime labs, though some counties and cities have spent money to obtain test results from private labs.
The council’s resolution prohibited using city funds or personnel to conduct such testing in non-felony marijuana cases. It also directed the elimination, to the furthest extent possible, of arrests or citations for cannabis possession. As Manley also noted, the resolution clarifies it can’t technically decriminalize marijuana, since that is state law.
From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: The Texas Senate could become more democratic — for partisan reasons
For 2306 - a story that features a couple key terms in your book: blocking bill and lieutenant governor.
- Click here for the article.
Legislative majorities make the rules, and they almost always contend that the rules are there to protect legislative minorities.
Why is that surprising to anyone? Rules are written to allow the people in charge to get their way while maintaining a reasonable façade of fairness. Want to win? Get a majority. Want to keep your power without a majority? Good luck.
That brings us to the latest from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who suggested Thursday that a loss of Republican seats in the Texas Senate in 2020 would likely result in a change in the rule for how many votes it takes to bring legislation up for debate.
It’s both arcane and important. For a long time, the Texas Senate wouldn’t consider any legislation unless two-thirds of the senators in the room agreed to consider it.
That was a protection racket of sorts, and an effective one. Anything with a bare majority died in the dustbin. A slight majority is often the setting for a nasty and divisive debate — the kind of battle that leaves senators on all sides bruised, battered and open to dangerous voter scorn. And senators, who are allergic to voter scorn, set up the rules to freeze out legislation that less than two-thirds of them wanted to debate.
The upside of that, according to senators who defended it, was that it forced each senator to talk to colleagues to try to win their support — if not for the legislation itself, then at least for the debate over it. Senators are big on collaboration, especially when it keeps them out of trouble with voters and anyone else who’s paying attention.
It also gave them cover on issues they didn’t want to debate. Notably, that included proposed limitations on abortion rights. Most of the Democrats opposed new limitations, and a fair number of Republicans didn’t want to vote on it, stuck between GOP platforms that called for outlawing abortion and their more moderate voters who wanted the law left as it is.
- Click here for the article.
Legislative majorities make the rules, and they almost always contend that the rules are there to protect legislative minorities.
Why is that surprising to anyone? Rules are written to allow the people in charge to get their way while maintaining a reasonable façade of fairness. Want to win? Get a majority. Want to keep your power without a majority? Good luck.
That brings us to the latest from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who suggested Thursday that a loss of Republican seats in the Texas Senate in 2020 would likely result in a change in the rule for how many votes it takes to bring legislation up for debate.
It’s both arcane and important. For a long time, the Texas Senate wouldn’t consider any legislation unless two-thirds of the senators in the room agreed to consider it.
That was a protection racket of sorts, and an effective one. Anything with a bare majority died in the dustbin. A slight majority is often the setting for a nasty and divisive debate — the kind of battle that leaves senators on all sides bruised, battered and open to dangerous voter scorn. And senators, who are allergic to voter scorn, set up the rules to freeze out legislation that less than two-thirds of them wanted to debate.
The upside of that, according to senators who defended it, was that it forced each senator to talk to colleagues to try to win their support — if not for the legislation itself, then at least for the debate over it. Senators are big on collaboration, especially when it keeps them out of trouble with voters and anyone else who’s paying attention.
It also gave them cover on issues they didn’t want to debate. Notably, that included proposed limitations on abortion rights. Most of the Democrats opposed new limitations, and a fair number of Republicans didn’t want to vote on it, stuck between GOP platforms that called for outlawing abortion and their more moderate voters who wanted the law left as it is.
Thursday, January 23, 2020
From Vox: Virginia’s historic gun control fight, explained
For 2305's look at the 2nd Amendment.
- Click here for the article.
Virginia Democrats’ push for new gun control laws has already attracted a huge backlash. Tens of thousands of gun rights supporters rallied in the state capital, Richmond, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day to protest the proposals. The majority of Virginia counties have declared themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries” that won’t enforce laws they claim are unconstitutional — a not-so-implicit threat against the new gun control proposals.
Compared to other states, though, the proposals under consideration in Virginia aren’t so radical. They would strengthen gun control laws, but they wouldn’t turn the state into the strictest in the country — far from it.
The bills that currently seem most likely to pass are universal background checks, a purchase limit for one handgun a month, a “red flag” law letting authorities temporarily seize a person’s guns if he’s deemed a threat, and a law giving local governments the ability to ban guns in public spaces during permitted events.
These measures are a far cry from, say, Massachusetts’s laws requiring a license to buy and own a firearm. They’re not anywhere as comprehensive as California’s laws, which, among other measures, ban assault weapons and require a 10-day waiting period for firearm sales. In fact, one of the Virginia proposals — the one-gun-a-month limit — simply brings back a law that was repealed in 2012.
But there are several reasons Virginia became such a focal point in the fight for stronger gun laws. For one, the state is home to the National Rifle Association’s headquarters, a testament to the state’s history as a haven for gun rights.
At the same time, Virginia has swung blue in recent years, with Virginians electing two Democratic governors, including current Gov. Ralph Northam, in a row, and flipping the legislature in 2019 to Democrats for the first time in decades. This blue surge has been fueled in part by Democrats’ very vocal support for gun control, particularly after 2019’s Virginia Beach mass shooting.
- Click here for the article.
Virginia Democrats’ push for new gun control laws has already attracted a huge backlash. Tens of thousands of gun rights supporters rallied in the state capital, Richmond, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day to protest the proposals. The majority of Virginia counties have declared themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries” that won’t enforce laws they claim are unconstitutional — a not-so-implicit threat against the new gun control proposals.
Compared to other states, though, the proposals under consideration in Virginia aren’t so radical. They would strengthen gun control laws, but they wouldn’t turn the state into the strictest in the country — far from it.
The bills that currently seem most likely to pass are universal background checks, a purchase limit for one handgun a month, a “red flag” law letting authorities temporarily seize a person’s guns if he’s deemed a threat, and a law giving local governments the ability to ban guns in public spaces during permitted events.
These measures are a far cry from, say, Massachusetts’s laws requiring a license to buy and own a firearm. They’re not anywhere as comprehensive as California’s laws, which, among other measures, ban assault weapons and require a 10-day waiting period for firearm sales. In fact, one of the Virginia proposals — the one-gun-a-month limit — simply brings back a law that was repealed in 2012.
But there are several reasons Virginia became such a focal point in the fight for stronger gun laws. For one, the state is home to the National Rifle Association’s headquarters, a testament to the state’s history as a haven for gun rights.
At the same time, Virginia has swung blue in recent years, with Virginians electing two Democratic governors, including current Gov. Ralph Northam, in a row, and flipping the legislature in 2019 to Democrats for the first time in decades. This blue surge has been fueled in part by Democrats’ very vocal support for gun control, particularly after 2019’s Virginia Beach mass shooting.
From ScotusBlog: Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
Oral arguments were heard today in a case that involves both civil liberties and civil rights, the establishment clause and the equal protection clause.
- Click here for the article.
Issue: Whether it violates the religion clauses or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools.
- Click here for the article.
Issue: Whether it violates the religion clauses or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools.
Joshua Foxworth
Meet Randy Weber's opponent in the upcoming Republican Primary.
- Click here for his campaign website.
- Click here for his campaign website.
The Prince - Chapters One and Two
Chapter One
Two types of governments: Republics and Principalities
Two types of principalities: hereditary or new
Two types of new principalities: entirely new, newly acquired by an existing state
The populations in these acquired states are either used to living under a prince, or used to live in freedom
Chapter Two:
He only addresses principalities
How are they to be ruled and preserved?
It is easier to hold onto hereditary states than new ones
Do not alter their customs
Example: Duke of Ferrara.
Ferrara.
Two types of governments: Republics and Principalities
Two types of principalities: hereditary or new
Two types of new principalities: entirely new, newly acquired by an existing state
The populations in these acquired states are either used to living under a prince, or used to live in freedom
Chapter Two:
He only addresses principalities
How are they to be ruled and preserved?
It is easier to hold onto hereditary states than new ones
Do not alter their customs
Example: Duke of Ferrara.
Ferrara.
For today in 2306
- National Democrats target Republican candidate over a child abuse case in battleground state House race.
- CBD products are everywhere in Texas since the state legalized hemp. Experts warn: buyer beware.
- Obama cut women's health money in Texas for the state's targeting of Planned Parenthood. Trump just restored it.
- CBD products are everywhere in Texas since the state legalized hemp. Experts warn: buyer beware.
- Obama cut women's health money in Texas for the state's targeting of Planned Parenthood. Trump just restored it.
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Shondor Birns & the Cleveland Mob
If you watch the video starting a 6:50, you'll see mention of Don King, the boxing promoter.
The events it described led to the search of Dollree Mapp, which itself led to the case of Mapp v Ohio and the incorporation of the 4th Amendment's search and seizure clause to the state and local governments.
Texas Constitution - Article 13: Spanish and Mexican Land Titles.
This article was repealed in 1969, but here's a look at what it looked like originally.
- Click here for it.
- Click here for it.
From the East Texas Historical Journal: Civil Law and Common Law in Early Texas
For 2306 - Texas law is based on a mix of Spanish (meaning Roman) and English common law. This article discusses the mixture of the tow.
- Click here for it.
Some of the most significant development.s in Texas legal history occurred during the period of the Republic of Texas. One of them, the blending of the civil law systems of Spain and France with the common law system of Anglo-America, produced a unique legal system peculiar t.o Texas. The Spanish civil law evolved from the grafting of Roman law, principally the Justinian Code, upon the customs and usages of the Visigoths as codified in the Codex Eurici. This draft, the Visigothic Code (Fuero Juzgo), issued in Castilian form in 693, withstood seven centuries of Moorish rule and six revisions, the latest in 1805 (the Novisima Recopilacion). It remained the law of the Spanish world through the middle ages and, in large measure, to the time of Spanish colonization of Texas in the Seventeenth Century.1 It was transmitted to Texas during more than a century of Spanish colonial government and administration under the general direction of the Leyes de los Reino!; de las Indias,2 and more than a decade of Mexican rule.
The French civil law also evolved from the Roman codes, principally the Institutes of Gaius and Justinian; from the glosses of such French commentators as Domat, Pothier, and D'Aquesseau; from Frankish customs and usages, especially those of the north of France; and from decisions of the parle1'nent of Paris. From those sources a Napoleonic commission promulgated the Code Civil in 1814; and from those same sources French settlers in Louisiana evolved their civil codes.3 After the Louisiana Purchase the United States generously allowed the people of Louisiana to retain their codes, and as a result many Texans, immigrants from the Louisiana territory, were thoroughly familiar with their contents.
The English common law developed from custom and usage through the work of the common law courts of Exchequer, Common Pleas, and King's Bench. Though influenced slightly by Roman law from time to time, it was never codified; but in later times it was supplemented by legislation enacted by the British Parliament. The common law was brought to the United States by British settlers, primarily in the form of Blackstone's Commentaries. It was transmitted to Texas after 1820 through the agency of lawyers trained in its precepts in the American states of the Old Southwest.'
- Click here for it.
Some of the most significant development.s in Texas legal history occurred during the period of the Republic of Texas. One of them, the blending of the civil law systems of Spain and France with the common law system of Anglo-America, produced a unique legal system peculiar t.o Texas. The Spanish civil law evolved from the grafting of Roman law, principally the Justinian Code, upon the customs and usages of the Visigoths as codified in the Codex Eurici. This draft, the Visigothic Code (Fuero Juzgo), issued in Castilian form in 693, withstood seven centuries of Moorish rule and six revisions, the latest in 1805 (the Novisima Recopilacion). It remained the law of the Spanish world through the middle ages and, in large measure, to the time of Spanish colonization of Texas in the Seventeenth Century.1 It was transmitted to Texas during more than a century of Spanish colonial government and administration under the general direction of the Leyes de los Reino!; de las Indias,2 and more than a decade of Mexican rule.
The French civil law also evolved from the Roman codes, principally the Institutes of Gaius and Justinian; from the glosses of such French commentators as Domat, Pothier, and D'Aquesseau; from Frankish customs and usages, especially those of the north of France; and from decisions of the parle1'nent of Paris. From those sources a Napoleonic commission promulgated the Code Civil in 1814; and from those same sources French settlers in Louisiana evolved their civil codes.3 After the Louisiana Purchase the United States generously allowed the people of Louisiana to retain their codes, and as a result many Texans, immigrants from the Louisiana territory, were thoroughly familiar with their contents.
The English common law developed from custom and usage through the work of the common law courts of Exchequer, Common Pleas, and King's Bench. Though influenced slightly by Roman law from time to time, it was never codified; but in later times it was supplemented by legislation enacted by the British Parliament. The common law was brought to the United States by British settlers, primarily in the form of Blackstone's Commentaries. It was transmitted to Texas after 1820 through the agency of lawyers trained in its precepts in the American states of the Old Southwest.'
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
From Wikipedia: Avery v. Midland County
Related to the post below about the City of Midland and Midland County.
- Click here for the entry.
Background
Having already held in 1965 in Reynolds v. Sims that disparities in legislative districts violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court applied the same logic to local government districts for bodies which also have broad policy-making functions.
The case was brought by Henry Clifton Avery, Jr., more commonly known as Hank Avery, who was Mayor of the City of Midland, Texas. He challenged the districting scheme for the Commissioners Court of Midland County, a five-member county commission with four Commissioners elected in single-member districts and the County Judge elected at-large. One Commissioner's district, which included almost all the City of Midland, had a population of 67,906, according to 1963 estimates. The others, all rural areas, had populations respectively, of about 852; 414; and 828.
Avery brought his case in Texas District Court in Midland. Three of the four commissioners testified at trial that population was not a major factor in the districting process. The trial court ruled for petitioner that each district under the State's constitutional apportionment standard should have "substantially the same number of people." An intermediate appellate court reversed. The Texas Supreme Court reversed that judgment, holding that under the Federal and State Constitutions the districting scheme was impermissible "for the reasons stated by the trial court." It held, however, that the work actually done by the County Commissioners "disproportionately concerns the rural areas" and that such factors as "number of qualified voters, land areas, geography, miles of county roads, and taxable values" could justify apportionment otherwise than on a basis of substantially equal populations.
Opinion of the Court
The five justices who struck down local district inequality based their decision on the precedent in Reynolds v. Sims. Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Byron White said, "In a word, institutions of local government have always been a major aspect of our system, and their responsible and responsive operation is today of increasing importance to the quality of life of more and more of our citizens. We therefore see little difference, in terms of the application of the Equal Protection Clause and of the principles of Reynolds v. Sims, between the exercise of state power through legislatures and its exercise by elected officials in the cities, towns, and counties."
In dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan II asserted that the Writ of Certiorari to the Texas Supreme Court was improvidently granted in that the decision was not final, since the Texas court had ordered the County to redistrict. He also resumed his objections to the line of cases started with Reynolds v. Sims saying, "I continue to think that these adventures of the Court in the realm of political science are beyond its constitutional powers, for reasons set forth at length in my dissenting opinion in Reynolds, 377 U.S., at 589 et seq."
- Click here for the entry.
Background
Having already held in 1965 in Reynolds v. Sims that disparities in legislative districts violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court applied the same logic to local government districts for bodies which also have broad policy-making functions.
The case was brought by Henry Clifton Avery, Jr., more commonly known as Hank Avery, who was Mayor of the City of Midland, Texas. He challenged the districting scheme for the Commissioners Court of Midland County, a five-member county commission with four Commissioners elected in single-member districts and the County Judge elected at-large. One Commissioner's district, which included almost all the City of Midland, had a population of 67,906, according to 1963 estimates. The others, all rural areas, had populations respectively, of about 852; 414; and 828.
Avery brought his case in Texas District Court in Midland. Three of the four commissioners testified at trial that population was not a major factor in the districting process. The trial court ruled for petitioner that each district under the State's constitutional apportionment standard should have "substantially the same number of people." An intermediate appellate court reversed. The Texas Supreme Court reversed that judgment, holding that under the Federal and State Constitutions the districting scheme was impermissible "for the reasons stated by the trial court." It held, however, that the work actually done by the County Commissioners "disproportionately concerns the rural areas" and that such factors as "number of qualified voters, land areas, geography, miles of county roads, and taxable values" could justify apportionment otherwise than on a basis of substantially equal populations.
Opinion of the Court
The five justices who struck down local district inequality based their decision on the precedent in Reynolds v. Sims. Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Byron White said, "In a word, institutions of local government have always been a major aspect of our system, and their responsible and responsive operation is today of increasing importance to the quality of life of more and more of our citizens. We therefore see little difference, in terms of the application of the Equal Protection Clause and of the principles of Reynolds v. Sims, between the exercise of state power through legislatures and its exercise by elected officials in the cities, towns, and counties."
In dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan II asserted that the Writ of Certiorari to the Texas Supreme Court was improvidently granted in that the decision was not final, since the Texas court had ordered the County to redistrict. He also resumed his objections to the line of cases started with Reynolds v. Sims saying, "I continue to think that these adventures of the Court in the realm of political science are beyond its constitutional powers, for reasons set forth at length in my dissenting opinion in Reynolds, 377 U.S., at 589 et seq."
From NPR: Supreme Court To Hear 'Faithless Electors' Case
For both 2305 and 2306
- Click here for the article.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases challenging state attempts to penalize Electoral College delegates who fail to vote for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support.
Electoral College delegates are selected by each party, and under state laws, they are pledged to cast their ballots for the candidate who carries the popular vote. But from 1796 to 2016, over 20 presidential elections, 150 electors have not abided by that pledge, according to FairVote, a nonpartisan voting rights advocacy group.
In fact, 2016 marked the largest number of faithless voters — a total of seven who cast votes for candidates they were not pledged to support.
States have tried to prevent such "faithless elector" votes by enacting laws to remove them or fine them or both.
Now, just as the presidential campaign is heating up, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear challenges to such state laws in Washington and Colorado.
"This court should resolve this conflict now, before it arises within the context of a contested election," Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law professor who is the attorney for the Washington state electors, said. "As the demographics of the United States indicate that contests will become even closer, there is a significant probability that such swings could force this court to resolve the question of electoral freedom within the context of an ongoing contest."
- Click here for the article.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases challenging state attempts to penalize Electoral College delegates who fail to vote for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support.
Electoral College delegates are selected by each party, and under state laws, they are pledged to cast their ballots for the candidate who carries the popular vote. But from 1796 to 2016, over 20 presidential elections, 150 electors have not abided by that pledge, according to FairVote, a nonpartisan voting rights advocacy group.
In fact, 2016 marked the largest number of faithless voters — a total of seven who cast votes for candidates they were not pledged to support.
States have tried to prevent such "faithless elector" votes by enacting laws to remove them or fine them or both.
Now, just as the presidential campaign is heating up, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear challenges to such state laws in Washington and Colorado.
"This court should resolve this conflict now, before it arises within the context of a contested election," Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law professor who is the attorney for the Washington state electors, said. "As the demographics of the United States indicate that contests will become even closer, there is a significant probability that such swings could force this court to resolve the question of electoral freedom within the context of an ongoing contest."
From Time: Can North Carolina Declare an “Official” Religion?
For out look at federalism and the Bill of Rights.
- Click here for the article.
North Carolina legislators made national headlines last week with a bit of high-profile religious extremism. They introduced a resolution declaring that the state has the right to declare an official religion – presumably Christianity. The bill also contended that states are “sovereign” and that federal courts cannot prevent states “from making laws respecting the establishment of religion.”
The North Carolina bill—which appears to be dead for now—was one of two big church-state blow-ups last week. In Tennessee, legislators withdrew a school voucher bill that would have allowed parents to direct taxpayer money to private schools, including Christian academies. The reason they balked: it suddenly occurred to them that the bill would also allow parents to direct tax dollars to Islamic schools.
(MORE: Where Are the Most Religious States in America in 2013?)
State assaults on the separation of church and state are nothing new. What set the North Carolina bill apart, however, is that it was an aggressive attempt to change the constitutional landscape. It made an argument that conservative lawyers have been developing for some time: that the first amendment’s Establishment Clause does not apply to the states – and that, as a result, states are allowed to favor a particular religion in a way the federal government cannot.
North Carolina’s “Rowan County, North Carolina Defense of Religion Act of 2013” came about as a response to a lawsuit by the ACLU. The civil liberties group charged that Rowan County was violating the first amendment by opening 97% of its meetings with Christian prayers. In 2011, a federal court ruled that another North Carolina’s county’s public prayers violated the first amendment.
- Click here for the article.
North Carolina legislators made national headlines last week with a bit of high-profile religious extremism. They introduced a resolution declaring that the state has the right to declare an official religion – presumably Christianity. The bill also contended that states are “sovereign” and that federal courts cannot prevent states “from making laws respecting the establishment of religion.”
The North Carolina bill—which appears to be dead for now—was one of two big church-state blow-ups last week. In Tennessee, legislators withdrew a school voucher bill that would have allowed parents to direct taxpayer money to private schools, including Christian academies. The reason they balked: it suddenly occurred to them that the bill would also allow parents to direct tax dollars to Islamic schools.
(MORE: Where Are the Most Religious States in America in 2013?)
State assaults on the separation of church and state are nothing new. What set the North Carolina bill apart, however, is that it was an aggressive attempt to change the constitutional landscape. It made an argument that conservative lawyers have been developing for some time: that the first amendment’s Establishment Clause does not apply to the states – and that, as a result, states are allowed to favor a particular religion in a way the federal government cannot.
North Carolina’s “Rowan County, North Carolina Defense of Religion Act of 2013” came about as a response to a lawsuit by the ACLU. The civil liberties group charged that Rowan County was violating the first amendment by opening 97% of its meetings with Christian prayers. In 2011, a federal court ruled that another North Carolina’s county’s public prayers violated the first amendment.
Who is Richard Uihlein?
He is central to the previous story, and perhaps the dominant figure in the Texas Republican Party
- Click here for the Wikipedia entry.
Political activities
Uihlein has been a Republican donor for decades, and increased his political giving after Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Uihlein has supported conservative groups and candidates including Ted Cruz, The Club for Growth, and the Illinois Policy Institute. Uihlein is also a major donor to Liberty Principles PAC, Americas PAC, Scott Walker, and Jeanne Ives. In the 2018 election cycle, Uihlein donated to Republican candidates such as Jeanne Ives, Chris McDaniel, Kevin Nicholson, and Neal Tapio.
- Click here for the Wikipedia entry.
Political activities
Uihlein has been a Republican donor for decades, and increased his political giving after Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Uihlein has supported conservative groups and candidates including Ted Cruz, The Club for Growth, and the Illinois Policy Institute. Uihlein is also a major donor to Liberty Principles PAC, Americas PAC, Scott Walker, and Jeanne Ives. In the 2018 election cycle, Uihlein donated to Republican candidates such as Jeanne Ives, Chris McDaniel, Kevin Nicholson, and Neal Tapio.
From the Texas Tribune: Big bucks — and a big donor — fuel Allen West's bid for Texas GOP chair
A look at the structure of one of Texas' two major parties.
- Click here for the article.
For months, the race for Texas GOP chair has been in full swing, with incumbent James Dickey and his high-profile challenger, Allen West, appearing at a slew of at times feisty forums.
But it was not until last week that the two had to disclose their campaign finances for the first time — and West's report brought something of a bombshell: Not only did the former Florida congressman raise nearly half a million dollars — a large amount for such an election — but $250,000 of it came from a single person. That person: Richard Uihlein, the conservative megadonor and shipping supplies magnate from Illinois.
In recent election cycles, the reclusive Uihlein and his wife Liz have become known for bankrolling insurgent conservative candidates across the country, sometimes serving as their primary patrons. Richard Uihlein gave $37.7 million to outside spending groups during the 2018 cycle, making him the fourth biggest donor to such entities and putting him in the ranks of people like Sheldon Adelson and Michael Bloomberg, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
For now, it is not entirely clear why Uihlein has taken such an interest in the race to lead the Texas GOP — a job that entails keeping it well-funded and organized ahead of a crucial November election for state Republicans. West's campaign did not respond to questions for this story, and Uihlein himself has not responded to a message left with his Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin-based company, Uline.
- Click here for the article.
For months, the race for Texas GOP chair has been in full swing, with incumbent James Dickey and his high-profile challenger, Allen West, appearing at a slew of at times feisty forums.
But it was not until last week that the two had to disclose their campaign finances for the first time — and West's report brought something of a bombshell: Not only did the former Florida congressman raise nearly half a million dollars — a large amount for such an election — but $250,000 of it came from a single person. That person: Richard Uihlein, the conservative megadonor and shipping supplies magnate from Illinois.
In recent election cycles, the reclusive Uihlein and his wife Liz have become known for bankrolling insurgent conservative candidates across the country, sometimes serving as their primary patrons. Richard Uihlein gave $37.7 million to outside spending groups during the 2018 cycle, making him the fourth biggest donor to such entities and putting him in the ranks of people like Sheldon Adelson and Michael Bloomberg, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
For now, it is not entirely clear why Uihlein has taken such an interest in the race to lead the Texas GOP — a job that entails keeping it well-funded and organized ahead of a crucial November election for state Republicans. West's campaign did not respond to questions for this story, and Uihlein himself has not responded to a message left with his Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin-based company, Uline.
Places we went in GOVT 2306-03 on 1/21/20
https://redistricting.capitol.texas.gov/
file:///C:/Users/kjefferies/Downloads/PlanH358r100.pdf
file:///C:/Users/kjefferies/Downloads/PlanS172r100.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=445Z1Dc5-Rw
https://www.fairvote.org/new_poll_everybody_hates_gerrymandering
http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UE9uu9fKSg&t=80s
file:///C:/Users/kjefferies/Downloads/PlanH358r100.pdf
file:///C:/Users/kjefferies/Downloads/PlanS172r100.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=445Z1Dc5-Rw
https://www.fairvote.org/new_poll_everybody_hates_gerrymandering
http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UE9uu9fKSg&t=80s
From the Texas Tribune: A ballot box found weeks after Election Day has flipped a $569 million school bond vote in Midland
Wow
For our look at how elections are actually run.
- Click here for the article.
County officials found the missing box in early December. Taking into account those 836 votes, plus one stray ticket found separately from the box that had also been misplaced, the results flipped again. The new version of final results, which Land said should finally lay the issue to rest, was 11,800 votes in favor of the bond and 11,826 against. The result means that Midland ISD will not receive the authority to build two new high schools.
For those scoring at home, the bond passed, then failed, then passed and then failed again. Political groups on both sides of the bond vote will now ask the Midland County judge to cement the most recent results so all sides can “go forward,” Land said.
"Though this is not the result that supporters of the 2019 school bond worked for, it was what we expected and were prepared for," We Choose Our Future, the group in favor of the bond, wrote in a statement on Facebook. "Today’s exercise was an opportunity to build trust in the process for future elections and bring closure to this election so that the work on another bond plan can begin."
For our look at how elections are actually run.
- Click here for the article.
County officials found the missing box in early December. Taking into account those 836 votes, plus one stray ticket found separately from the box that had also been misplaced, the results flipped again. The new version of final results, which Land said should finally lay the issue to rest, was 11,800 votes in favor of the bond and 11,826 against. The result means that Midland ISD will not receive the authority to build two new high schools.
For those scoring at home, the bond passed, then failed, then passed and then failed again. Political groups on both sides of the bond vote will now ask the Midland County judge to cement the most recent results so all sides can “go forward,” Land said.
"Though this is not the result that supporters of the 2019 school bond worked for, it was what we expected and were prepared for," We Choose Our Future, the group in favor of the bond, wrote in a statement on Facebook. "Today’s exercise was an opportunity to build trust in the process for future elections and bring closure to this election so that the work on another bond plan can begin."
For GOVT 2306: Key Terms in Chapters 1 and 2
ACC:
Chapter 1
- empresario
- individualistic political culture
- moralistic political culture
- political culture
- presidential republicanism
- traditionalistic political culture
- Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
Chapter 2
- apprenticeship laws
- black codes
- block grants
- categorical grants
- concurrent powers
- confederal system
- constitution
- cooperative federalism
- devolution
- dual federalism
- enumerated powers
- extradition
- federalism
- fiscal federalism
- full faith and credit clause
- horizontal federalism
- implied powers
- initiative
- long ballot
- Manifest Destiny
- peonage
- popular sovereignty
- privileges and immunities
- referendum
- reserved powers
- supremacy clause
- unfunded mandate
- unitary system
- vertical federalism
Chapter 1
- empresario
- individualistic political culture
- moralistic political culture
- political culture
- presidential republicanism
- traditionalistic political culture
- Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
Chapter 2
- apprenticeship laws
- black codes
- block grants
- categorical grants
- concurrent powers
- confederal system
- constitution
- cooperative federalism
- devolution
- dual federalism
- enumerated powers
- extradition
- federalism
- fiscal federalism
- full faith and credit clause
- horizontal federalism
- implied powers
- initiative
- long ballot
- Manifest Destiny
- peonage
- popular sovereignty
- privileges and immunities
- referendum
- reserved powers
- supremacy clause
- unfunded mandate
- unitary system
- vertical federalism
Monday, January 20, 2020
From Lawfare: The Age of Open Assassination
Whether constitutional or not, the author argues that they are not a good idea.
- Click here for the article.
The terms “assassination” and “targeted killing” were once legally distinguishable. Until 2001, most people accepted a distinction between illegal assassinations of political figures during peacetime and lawful targeting of those who were an imminent threat in an armed conflict. Since 9/11, under the framework of global counterterrorism, these differences have become a matter of semantics. Any killing the president orders is now apparently lawful, at least under U.S. domestic law. However much we parse the finer legal points of the legitimacy of self-defense under Article II, or the Quds Force’s April 2019 designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, or the relevance or irrelevance of Executive Order 12333 banning assassinations, or even the unchecked growth of U.S. executive power, we are looking at the world through a straw. Whether or not it was technically a legal act, Soleimani’s killing will have a historic global influence.
To understand why this is so, we must start with the history of assassination. Assassination is one of the oldest tools of statecraft, a favorite tactic of weak states seeking leverage against strong powers. In “The Art of War” (5th century BCE), Ancient Chinese strategist Sun Zi wrote of assassination as a way to avoid costly warfare, using spies to gain “the identities of the defending commander, his retainers, counselors, gate officers, and sentries” so as to eliminate them. Indian statesman Kautilya also explained the benefits of assassinating enemy leaders to gain an advantage in “Arthashastra” (1st century BCE), his comprehensive guide to governance. The Iranians invented the term “assassins” in the 12th century. Rulers were commonly assassinated in 15th-century Italy: Niccolo Machiavelli spent much of The Prince discussing how to avoid it.
Banning assassination was not just the right thing to do; it was how modern nation-states consolidated their power. What the United States has done with the hit on Soleimani is undermine a pillar of support for stronger, status quo powers. With the development of international law in the 18th century, most states ruled out assassination precisely because it advantaged weaker states and nonstate actors. The Lieber Code, written during the American Civil War, expressly prohibited it. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 also banned assassination, and the Geneva Conventions forbade killing anyone not directly involved in hostilities. Assassination as statecraft declined during this period for normative reasons but also because major powers feared retaliation and got better at physically protecting their territory. In the century that followed (and influenced by the devastating global consequences of the 1914 killing of Archduke Franz Ferdinand), the ban on assassinations was a practical way to prevent state leaders and senior officials from being killed and upending the international system. When major powers put certain people, such as political leaders and senior officials, off-limits for targeting by governments not engaged in a formal state of war, the act was a practical move that served their interests.
- Click here for the article.
The terms “assassination” and “targeted killing” were once legally distinguishable. Until 2001, most people accepted a distinction between illegal assassinations of political figures during peacetime and lawful targeting of those who were an imminent threat in an armed conflict. Since 9/11, under the framework of global counterterrorism, these differences have become a matter of semantics. Any killing the president orders is now apparently lawful, at least under U.S. domestic law. However much we parse the finer legal points of the legitimacy of self-defense under Article II, or the Quds Force’s April 2019 designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, or the relevance or irrelevance of Executive Order 12333 banning assassinations, or even the unchecked growth of U.S. executive power, we are looking at the world through a straw. Whether or not it was technically a legal act, Soleimani’s killing will have a historic global influence.
To understand why this is so, we must start with the history of assassination. Assassination is one of the oldest tools of statecraft, a favorite tactic of weak states seeking leverage against strong powers. In “The Art of War” (5th century BCE), Ancient Chinese strategist Sun Zi wrote of assassination as a way to avoid costly warfare, using spies to gain “the identities of the defending commander, his retainers, counselors, gate officers, and sentries” so as to eliminate them. Indian statesman Kautilya also explained the benefits of assassinating enemy leaders to gain an advantage in “Arthashastra” (1st century BCE), his comprehensive guide to governance. The Iranians invented the term “assassins” in the 12th century. Rulers were commonly assassinated in 15th-century Italy: Niccolo Machiavelli spent much of The Prince discussing how to avoid it.
Banning assassination was not just the right thing to do; it was how modern nation-states consolidated their power. What the United States has done with the hit on Soleimani is undermine a pillar of support for stronger, status quo powers. With the development of international law in the 18th century, most states ruled out assassination precisely because it advantaged weaker states and nonstate actors. The Lieber Code, written during the American Civil War, expressly prohibited it. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 also banned assassination, and the Geneva Conventions forbade killing anyone not directly involved in hostilities. Assassination as statecraft declined during this period for normative reasons but also because major powers feared retaliation and got better at physically protecting their territory. In the century that followed (and influenced by the devastating global consequences of the 1914 killing of Archduke Franz Ferdinand), the ban on assassinations was a practical way to prevent state leaders and senior officials from being killed and upending the international system. When major powers put certain people, such as political leaders and senior officials, off-limits for targeting by governments not engaged in a formal state of war, the act was a practical move that served their interests.
From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: Voters elect Texas' judges. The state might take that power — but it's risky.
For 2306, and our discussion of the Texas Constitution, the judiciary, and elections.
- Click here for the article.
There are any number of ways to pick good judges, bad judges and those not-quite-rare-enough WTF judges, and none of those selection methods is foolproof.
Texas elects judges, relying on voters to sort through pages and pages of ballot undergrowth, figuring out which candidates are fit to put on the judicial robes. The record is mixed. In a normal election, candidates in the races at the top — for president, for governor and the like — are usually well known to voters. That recognition doesn’t often travel far down the ballot, and judges are elected largely on the basis of political party and whether they have melodious names. It’s a grab bag, evidenced whenever a party sweep clears a courthouse full of incumbents, as happened in Harris County in 2018. That was a party rout, replacing the best and the worst Republican judges with the best and the worst Democratic challengers.
The federal government uses appointment, relying on presidents to pick judges and on the U.S. Senate to confirm the qualified ones, sorting legal wizards from rotten eggs. The voters in this case have more information about the candidates, but the partisan nature of the exercise is obvious to anyone who has followed a U.S. Supreme Court appointment and confirmation.
Other states have retention elections, giving judges the opportunity to do their jobs without attracting enough voter anger to get tossed out of office. As in states like Texas, where judges are elected like everyone else, that’s subject to outside influence by political donors and interest groups hoping to influence the direction of the courts, if not the outcomes of specific cases. Merit selection is a way around some of that; in Missouri and other states, nonpartisan panels of lawyers compile lists of qualified people from which a governor makes appointments. Voters then have periodic chances to vote judges they don’t like out of office.
Good judges support all of these systems, and good judges hate all of them. Judicial selection by any method is subjective, and someone who looks like a good pick might turn out to be a terror in a black robe.
- Click here for the article.
There are any number of ways to pick good judges, bad judges and those not-quite-rare-enough WTF judges, and none of those selection methods is foolproof.
Texas elects judges, relying on voters to sort through pages and pages of ballot undergrowth, figuring out which candidates are fit to put on the judicial robes. The record is mixed. In a normal election, candidates in the races at the top — for president, for governor and the like — are usually well known to voters. That recognition doesn’t often travel far down the ballot, and judges are elected largely on the basis of political party and whether they have melodious names. It’s a grab bag, evidenced whenever a party sweep clears a courthouse full of incumbents, as happened in Harris County in 2018. That was a party rout, replacing the best and the worst Republican judges with the best and the worst Democratic challengers.
The federal government uses appointment, relying on presidents to pick judges and on the U.S. Senate to confirm the qualified ones, sorting legal wizards from rotten eggs. The voters in this case have more information about the candidates, but the partisan nature of the exercise is obvious to anyone who has followed a U.S. Supreme Court appointment and confirmation.
Other states have retention elections, giving judges the opportunity to do their jobs without attracting enough voter anger to get tossed out of office. As in states like Texas, where judges are elected like everyone else, that’s subject to outside influence by political donors and interest groups hoping to influence the direction of the courts, if not the outcomes of specific cases. Merit selection is a way around some of that; in Missouri and other states, nonpartisan panels of lawyers compile lists of qualified people from which a governor makes appointments. Voters then have periodic chances to vote judges they don’t like out of office.
Good judges support all of these systems, and good judges hate all of them. Judicial selection by any method is subjective, and someone who looks like a good pick might turn out to be a terror in a black robe.
Sunday, January 19, 2020
Thursday, January 16, 2020
The National Association of Health Care Assistants
For our look at interest groups.
- Click here for their website.
What is a Certified Nursing Assistant? In the United States, certified nursing assistants (CNAs) typically work in a nursing home or hospital and perform everyday living tasks for the elderly, chronically sick, or rehabilitation patients who cannot care for themselves. There are some differences in scope of care across UAPs based on title and description. CNAs must become certified based on respective states’ requirements. Not all states’ requirements are the same.
Mission: The mission of the National Association of Health Care Assistants is to elevate the professional standing and performance of caregivers through recognition, advocacy, education and empowerment while building a strong alliance with health care providers to maximize success and quality patient care.
History: The National Association of Health Care Assistants was formally established in 1995 by former Certified Nursing Assistants Lori Porter and Lisa Sweet. Lori’s career started as a dietary aide. Then she became a Certified Nursing Assistant and ultimately she became a Licensed Nursing Home Administrator. She shares that one of her greatest motivations for becoming an administrator was so she could better affect the lives of CNAs and other caregivers with the same scope of care. Lisa’s journey started when she shared with her grandmother that she wanted to become a nurse. Her grandmother gave her important advice, “To be a great nurse you need to be a CNA first.” Lisa’s experiences as a CNA had a profound impact. Based upon their experiences, they embraced the idea that nursing assistants are the backbone, heart and soul of long term care. “Our life’s work is built around enhancing the professional standing of Certified Nursing Assistants, (CNAs) and other caregivers who may have different titles and still work closely with our nations’ frail, elderly and disabled citizens. Our Association strives to create recognition, education, advocacy and motivation for the nearly 1.4 million people who care for the Greatest Generation. We invite you to continue your professional journey with us at NAHCA.”
With these beliefs in mind, the Co-Founders set out to establish the association. Their intent is to:
Enhance quality of life and care for frail, elderly and disabled people.
Enhance the professional standing of Certified Nursing Assistants and other similarly credentialed caregivers through; recognition, education, advocacy and motivation.
Form strong relationship with the other professionals within the long term care system.
NAHCA took root in southern Missouri. Meetings, conferences and banquets were held in a church basement during the early years. Over time, through hard work, dedication and perseverance, the association grew.
Today, the association has a membership of more than 26,000 caregivers, representing over 500 nursing homes in 29 states and the District of Columbia. It provides recognition for outstanding achievements, development training for caregivers, mentoring programs to reduce CNA turnover, and advocacy for issues important to long term care and caregivers. The organization has entered the legislative arena, providing testimony on staffing in long term care before the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging.
- Click here for their website.
What is a Certified Nursing Assistant? In the United States, certified nursing assistants (CNAs) typically work in a nursing home or hospital and perform everyday living tasks for the elderly, chronically sick, or rehabilitation patients who cannot care for themselves. There are some differences in scope of care across UAPs based on title and description. CNAs must become certified based on respective states’ requirements. Not all states’ requirements are the same.
Mission: The mission of the National Association of Health Care Assistants is to elevate the professional standing and performance of caregivers through recognition, advocacy, education and empowerment while building a strong alliance with health care providers to maximize success and quality patient care.
History: The National Association of Health Care Assistants was formally established in 1995 by former Certified Nursing Assistants Lori Porter and Lisa Sweet. Lori’s career started as a dietary aide. Then she became a Certified Nursing Assistant and ultimately she became a Licensed Nursing Home Administrator. She shares that one of her greatest motivations for becoming an administrator was so she could better affect the lives of CNAs and other caregivers with the same scope of care. Lisa’s journey started when she shared with her grandmother that she wanted to become a nurse. Her grandmother gave her important advice, “To be a great nurse you need to be a CNA first.” Lisa’s experiences as a CNA had a profound impact. Based upon their experiences, they embraced the idea that nursing assistants are the backbone, heart and soul of long term care. “Our life’s work is built around enhancing the professional standing of Certified Nursing Assistants, (CNAs) and other caregivers who may have different titles and still work closely with our nations’ frail, elderly and disabled citizens. Our Association strives to create recognition, education, advocacy and motivation for the nearly 1.4 million people who care for the Greatest Generation. We invite you to continue your professional journey with us at NAHCA.”
With these beliefs in mind, the Co-Founders set out to establish the association. Their intent is to:
Enhance quality of life and care for frail, elderly and disabled people.
Enhance the professional standing of Certified Nursing Assistants and other similarly credentialed caregivers through; recognition, education, advocacy and motivation.
Form strong relationship with the other professionals within the long term care system.
NAHCA took root in southern Missouri. Meetings, conferences and banquets were held in a church basement during the early years. Over time, through hard work, dedication and perseverance, the association grew.
Today, the association has a membership of more than 26,000 caregivers, representing over 500 nursing homes in 29 states and the District of Columbia. It provides recognition for outstanding achievements, development training for caregivers, mentoring programs to reduce CNA turnover, and advocacy for issues important to long term care and caregivers. The organization has entered the legislative arena, providing testimony on staffing in long term care before the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging.
HUMAN RESOURCES CODE - TITLE 6. SERVICES FOR THE ELDERLY - CHAPTER 102. RIGHTS OF THE ELDERLY
- Click here for it.
Sec. 102.003. RIGHTS OF THE ELDERLY. (a) An elderly individual has all the rights, benefits, responsibilities, and privileges granted by the constitution and laws of this state and the United States, except where lawfully restricted. The elderly individual has the right to be free of interference, coercion, discrimination, and reprisal in exercising these civil rights.
(b) An elderly individual has the right to be treated with dignity and respect for the personal integrity of the individual, without regard to race, religion, national origin, sex, age, disability, marital status, or source of payment. This means that the elderly individual:
(1) has the right to make the individual's own choices regarding the individual's personal affairs, care, benefits, and services;
(2) has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, and exploitation; and
(3) if protective measures are required, has the right to designate a guardian or representative to ensure the right to quality stewardship of the individual's affairs.
(c) An elderly individual has the right to be free from physical and mental abuse, including corporal punishment or physical or chemical restraints that are administered for the purpose of discipline or convenience and not required to treat the individual's medical symptoms. A person providing services may use physical or chemical restraints only if the use is authorized in writing by a physician or the use is necessary in an emergency to protect the elderly individual or others from injury. A physician's written authorization for the use of restraints must specify the circumstances under which the restraints may be used and the duration for which the restraints may be used. Except in an emergency, restraints may only be administered by qualified medical personnel.
There's more
Sec. 102.003. RIGHTS OF THE ELDERLY. (a) An elderly individual has all the rights, benefits, responsibilities, and privileges granted by the constitution and laws of this state and the United States, except where lawfully restricted. The elderly individual has the right to be free of interference, coercion, discrimination, and reprisal in exercising these civil rights.
(b) An elderly individual has the right to be treated with dignity and respect for the personal integrity of the individual, without regard to race, religion, national origin, sex, age, disability, marital status, or source of payment. This means that the elderly individual:
(1) has the right to make the individual's own choices regarding the individual's personal affairs, care, benefits, and services;
(2) has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, and exploitation; and
(3) if protective measures are required, has the right to designate a guardian or representative to ensure the right to quality stewardship of the individual's affairs.
(c) An elderly individual has the right to be free from physical and mental abuse, including corporal punishment or physical or chemical restraints that are administered for the purpose of discipline or convenience and not required to treat the individual's medical symptoms. A person providing services may use physical or chemical restraints only if the use is authorized in writing by a physician or the use is necessary in an emergency to protect the elderly individual or others from injury. A physician's written authorization for the use of restraints must specify the circumstances under which the restraints may be used and the duration for which the restraints may be used. Except in an emergency, restraints may only be administered by qualified medical personnel.
There's more
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
From the Texas Tribune: Michael Bloomberg announces plans to hire more than 100 Texas organizers by end of the month
For our look at campaigning and primary elections.
- Click here for the article.
Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg has sharply ramped up his campaign in Texas, hiring 37 people with plans to have about 150 staffers by the end of the month.
On Tuesday, his campaign also named three deputy state directors, Terry Bermea, currently the organizing director for Battleground Texas, El Paso City Rep. Peter Svarzbein and former Texas Senate candidate Kendall Scudder.
The numbers give Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City, by far the biggest formal operation in Texas ahead of the state’s delegate-rich primary on Super Tuesday, March 3. The campaign initially made its ambitious plans known late last month when it named its first four hires here, including a state director, and announced it intended to open 17 offices before the primary.
On Tuesday, the campaign said it would open offices in Dallas, Austin, Houston, El Paso and San Antonio by the end of the month.
- Click here for the article.
Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg has sharply ramped up his campaign in Texas, hiring 37 people with plans to have about 150 staffers by the end of the month.
On Tuesday, his campaign also named three deputy state directors, Terry Bermea, currently the organizing director for Battleground Texas, El Paso City Rep. Peter Svarzbein and former Texas Senate candidate Kendall Scudder.
The numbers give Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City, by far the biggest formal operation in Texas ahead of the state’s delegate-rich primary on Super Tuesday, March 3. The campaign initially made its ambitious plans known late last month when it named its first four hires here, including a state director, and announced it intended to open 17 offices before the primary.
On Tuesday, the campaign said it would open offices in Dallas, Austin, Houston, El Paso and San Antonio by the end of the month.
From the Texas Tribune: Round two of fight over online voter registration for Texas drivers reaches federal court
A look at federalism, suffrage, and the courts.
- Click here for the article.
The first time former English professor Jarrod Stringer was told he couldn't vote in a Texas election, he sued. A federal appeals court tossed his case on a technicality, but one of the judges ended up admonishing state officials to not let it happen again.
Yet it did, and now Stringer and other frustrated Texans are taking the state back to federal court.
In a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday in San Antonio, they are arguing anew that the state continues to disenfranchise an unknown number of voters by violating the motor voter law, a federal requirement that people be allowed to complete voter registration when they get a driver's license. Stringer is the lead plaintiff in the second legal chapter of a fight over Texas' resistance to online voter registration.
The state allows driver's licenses applicants to complete their voter registration when they physically appear at a Texas Department of Public Safety office, but does not allow the same result when residents update or renew licenses online. At least 1.5 million Texans use the state’s online driver's license portal a year, according to Stringer’s lawyers, though it’s unclear how many also attempt to re-register.
- Click here for the article.
The first time former English professor Jarrod Stringer was told he couldn't vote in a Texas election, he sued. A federal appeals court tossed his case on a technicality, but one of the judges ended up admonishing state officials to not let it happen again.
Yet it did, and now Stringer and other frustrated Texans are taking the state back to federal court.
In a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday in San Antonio, they are arguing anew that the state continues to disenfranchise an unknown number of voters by violating the motor voter law, a federal requirement that people be allowed to complete voter registration when they get a driver's license. Stringer is the lead plaintiff in the second legal chapter of a fight over Texas' resistance to online voter registration.
The state allows driver's licenses applicants to complete their voter registration when they physically appear at a Texas Department of Public Safety office, but does not allow the same result when residents update or renew licenses online. At least 1.5 million Texans use the state’s online driver's license portal a year, according to Stringer’s lawyers, though it’s unclear how many also attempt to re-register.
From the Boston Globe: What the Constitution actually says about a Senate impeachment trial
- Click here for the article.
While the Constitution is not often specific, when it comes to impeachment, the words are fairly clear, especially on the issues now being debated: Should there be live witnesses at a Senate trial? How impartial should the senators be? Should there be additional evidence in the Senate that was not produced before the House?
Article I, section 3 of the Constitution gives the Senate the “the sole power to try all impeachments.” As noted by the late Charles Black, a leading constitutional law expert who wrote an authoritative book on impeachment, early drafts of the 1787 Constitutional Convention provided for impeachment trials by the Supreme Court; when this was changed to a Senate trial, there was no suggestion that the nature of the proceeding — a trial — would change. “Try” had a specific meaning in the 18th century, not unlike its meaning today — a hearing with live witnesses. “Trial” is defined in Article III, the article outlining the judicial power: “The trial of all crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by jury.” The implication is that an impeachment trial is like any other except the decision-maker is the Senate, not a lay jury.
While the Constitution is not often specific, when it comes to impeachment, the words are fairly clear, especially on the issues now being debated: Should there be live witnesses at a Senate trial? How impartial should the senators be? Should there be additional evidence in the Senate that was not produced before the House?
Article I, section 3 of the Constitution gives the Senate the “the sole power to try all impeachments.” As noted by the late Charles Black, a leading constitutional law expert who wrote an authoritative book on impeachment, early drafts of the 1787 Constitutional Convention provided for impeachment trials by the Supreme Court; when this was changed to a Senate trial, there was no suggestion that the nature of the proceeding — a trial — would change. “Try” had a specific meaning in the 18th century, not unlike its meaning today — a hearing with live witnesses. “Trial” is defined in Article III, the article outlining the judicial power: “The trial of all crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by jury.” The implication is that an impeachment trial is like any other except the decision-maker is the Senate, not a lay jury.
Was the killing of Soleimani constitutional?
Two separate views
No - The Soleimani Strike Defied the U.S. Constitution.
The drone strike that killed Major General Qassem Soleimani, leader of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, raises many legal issues, but one of the most significant—at least to the American constitutional order—is that President Donald Trump ordered the strike without so much as informing Democratic leadership in Congress, disregarding Congress’s essential role in initiating war. If Congress fails to respond effectively, the constitutional order will be broken beyond repair, and the president will be left with the unmitigated power to take the country to war on his own—anywhere, anytime, for any reason.
Yes - The Soleimani Strike: The President Has the Constitution and Precedent on His Side.
Killing an individual, of course, is not generally legal. Nor is it always illegal. Killing an individual can be legal when it is carried out by the state as criminal punishment for first-degree murder. It can be legal when a police officer shoots an attacker armed with a weapon. It can be illegal when it is murder.
No American law prohibits the targeting of specific enemy leaders. Neither the Constitution nor federal statutes prevent the direct targeting of individual members of the enemy. Only Executive Order 12,333, issued by President Reagan in 1981, states that “no person employed or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” This was a continuation of a similar ban first issued by President Gerald Ford in 1976, which was subsequently reaffirmed by President Carter, and has been followed by every president since.
But while he banned assassinations, Reagan did not define them. Ever since Reagan’s executive order, administrations of both parties have generally defined assassination as the murder of a public figure for political purposes. The killings of Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, and Abraham Lincoln were assassinations. By contrast, the killing of the enemy in combat is protected by the laws of war. As Hugo Grotius, the father of modern international law, observed in 1646, “it is permissible to kill an enemy.” Legitimate military targets include not just foot soldiers, but the command-and-control structure of an enemy’s military, leading up to its commander in chief. Assassination is different from killing an enemy general, such as Soleimani.
No - The Soleimani Strike Defied the U.S. Constitution.
The drone strike that killed Major General Qassem Soleimani, leader of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, raises many legal issues, but one of the most significant—at least to the American constitutional order—is that President Donald Trump ordered the strike without so much as informing Democratic leadership in Congress, disregarding Congress’s essential role in initiating war. If Congress fails to respond effectively, the constitutional order will be broken beyond repair, and the president will be left with the unmitigated power to take the country to war on his own—anywhere, anytime, for any reason.
Yes - The Soleimani Strike: The President Has the Constitution and Precedent on His Side.
Killing an individual, of course, is not generally legal. Nor is it always illegal. Killing an individual can be legal when it is carried out by the state as criminal punishment for first-degree murder. It can be legal when a police officer shoots an attacker armed with a weapon. It can be illegal when it is murder.
No American law prohibits the targeting of specific enemy leaders. Neither the Constitution nor federal statutes prevent the direct targeting of individual members of the enemy. Only Executive Order 12,333, issued by President Reagan in 1981, states that “no person employed or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” This was a continuation of a similar ban first issued by President Gerald Ford in 1976, which was subsequently reaffirmed by President Carter, and has been followed by every president since.
But while he banned assassinations, Reagan did not define them. Ever since Reagan’s executive order, administrations of both parties have generally defined assassination as the murder of a public figure for political purposes. The killings of Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, and Abraham Lincoln were assassinations. By contrast, the killing of the enemy in combat is protected by the laws of war. As Hugo Grotius, the father of modern international law, observed in 1646, “it is permissible to kill an enemy.” Legitimate military targets include not just foot soldiers, but the command-and-control structure of an enemy’s military, leading up to its commander in chief. Assassination is different from killing an enemy general, such as Soleimani.
Friday, January 10, 2020
10 Tips From Machiavelli - 2
From the video below:
10. Distrust mercenaries and auxiliaries
9. You cannot imitate great people exactly, but you should try
8. Do not increase the power of rivals or potential rivals
7. When conquering a new people, don’t change their ways too much
6. Without power opportunity is wasted. Without opportunity, power is wasted
5. We live so far from how we ought to live, that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done will ruin himself, rather than prevail
4. One must secure himself with the nobles and the people, which are two different realms
3. One must be as efficient as possible, but look as noble as possible
2. It is better to be feared than loved, but both are desirable (as long as you are not hated)
1. The end justifies the means
10. Distrust mercenaries and auxiliaries
9. You cannot imitate great people exactly, but you should try
8. Do not increase the power of rivals or potential rivals
7. When conquering a new people, don’t change their ways too much
6. Without power opportunity is wasted. Without opportunity, power is wasted
5. We live so far from how we ought to live, that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done will ruin himself, rather than prevail
4. One must secure himself with the nobles and the people, which are two different realms
3. One must be as efficient as possible, but look as noble as possible
2. It is better to be feared than loved, but both are desirable (as long as you are not hated)
1. The end justifies the means
Some material related to The Prince.
- For the full text, click here.
- For the Wikipedia entry, click here.
- For the Wikipedia entry on Niccolo Machiavelli, click here.
- For the Wikipedia entry on Lorenzo di Piero de Medici, click here.
- For the Wikipedia entry, click here.
- For the Wikipedia entry on Niccolo Machiavelli, click here.
- For the Wikipedia entry on Lorenzo di Piero de Medici, click here.
Thursday, January 9, 2020
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
Monday, January 6, 2020
Thursday, January 2, 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)