https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands
https://ianhistor.tripod.com/maps/ihr20.html
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/11/in-dispute-over-groundwater-court-tells-mississippi-its-equitable-apportionment-or-nothing/
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/we-should-definitely-stop-the-killer-asteroid-but-first-lets-figure-out-who-is-going-to-get-rich-from-saving-humanity
https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/63
https://eddm.usps.com/eddm/select-routes.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_routes
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fungible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fungible_token#Description
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/11/intro-supply-demand.asp
Monday, November 29, 2021
Tuesday, November 23, 2021
Categories of Public Policies
This figure breaks down the types of goods that exist based on whether the supply is finite or infinite, and whether one must purchase the good in order to receive it.
Here are the relevant definitions:
- Excludability: the degree to which a good, service or resource can be limited to only paying customers, or conversely, the degree to which a supplier, producer or other managing body (e.g. a government) can prevent "free" consumption of a good.
- Exhaustive (also called "rivalrous"): a good is said to be rivalrous or a rival if its consumption by one consumer prevents simultaneous consumption by other consumers, or if consumption by one party reduces the ability of another party to consume it. A good is considered non-rivalrous or non-rival if, for any level of production, the cost of providing it to a marginal (additional) individual is zero.
The combination is these results in a four part ordering of the types of goods provided by government.
A bit more on each:
Social Goods
- exhaustive
- exclusive
Examples:
- Education
- Libraries
- Housing
- Health Care
What Is a Social Good?
A social good is something that benefits the largest number of people in the largest possible way.
Some call these private goods since they can be private sector. People can make money offering them in the marketplace, to those who can afford to pay their full costs. The question is whether a society wants these to be made available to those who cannot afford them.
__________
Common-Pool Goods
- exhaustive
- non exclusive
Examples:
- Aquifers
- Fisheries
- Forests
- Groundwater
What Is a Common-Pool Resource?
A common-pool resource is a good that functions as a hybrid between a public and private good because it is shared and available to everyone but also scarce, with a finite supply. These open-access resources are susceptible to overexploitation and diminished availability if each individual pursues their own self-interest.
__________
Toll Goods (or club goods)
- non exhaustive (non rival)
- exclusive
Examples
- Broadcasting Airwaves
- National Parks
- Toll Roads
- Toll Bridges
Also called a club good.
What is a Toll Good?
. . . products that are excludable but non-rival. Thus, individuals can be prevented from consuming them, but their consumption does not reduce their availability to other individuals (at least until a point of overuse or congestion is reached). Club goods are sometimes also referred to as artificially scarce resources. They are often provided by natural monopolies. Examples of club goods include cable television, cinemas, wireless internet, toll roads, etc.
__________
Pure Public Goods
- non exhaustive
- non exclusive
Examples:
- Clean Air
- National Defense
- Pollution Abatement
- Street Lights
What is a pure public good?
a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous. For such goods, users cannot be barred from accessing or using them for failing to pay for them. Also, use by one person neither prevents access of other people nor does it reduce availability to others. Therefore, the good can be used simultaneously by more than one person.
__________
For more:
- Legal Theory Blog: Legal Theory Lexicon: Public and Private Goods.
- PUBLIC, COMMON POOL, TOLL GOODS, AND THE MARKET.
- The Four Different Types of Goods.
- Lecture 8: Public Goods.
A bit more on each:
Social Goods
- exhaustive
- exclusive
Examples:
- Education
- Libraries
- Housing
- Health Care
What Is a Social Good?
A social good is something that benefits the largest number of people in the largest possible way.
Some call these private goods since they can be private sector. People can make money offering them in the marketplace, to those who can afford to pay their full costs. The question is whether a society wants these to be made available to those who cannot afford them.
__________
Common-Pool Goods
- exhaustive
- non exclusive
Examples:
- Aquifers
- Fisheries
- Forests
- Groundwater
What Is a Common-Pool Resource?
A common-pool resource is a good that functions as a hybrid between a public and private good because it is shared and available to everyone but also scarce, with a finite supply. These open-access resources are susceptible to overexploitation and diminished availability if each individual pursues their own self-interest.
__________
Toll Goods (or club goods)
- non exhaustive (non rival)
- exclusive
Examples
- Broadcasting Airwaves
- National Parks
- Toll Roads
- Toll Bridges
Also called a club good.
What is a Toll Good?
. . . products that are excludable but non-rival. Thus, individuals can be prevented from consuming them, but their consumption does not reduce their availability to other individuals (at least until a point of overuse or congestion is reached). Club goods are sometimes also referred to as artificially scarce resources. They are often provided by natural monopolies. Examples of club goods include cable television, cinemas, wireless internet, toll roads, etc.
__________
Pure Public Goods
- non exhaustive
- non exclusive
Examples:
- Clean Air
- National Defense
- Pollution Abatement
- Street Lights
What is a pure public good?
a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous. For such goods, users cannot be barred from accessing or using them for failing to pay for them. Also, use by one person neither prevents access of other people nor does it reduce availability to others. Therefore, the good can be used simultaneously by more than one person.
__________
For more:
- Legal Theory Blog: Legal Theory Lexicon: Public and Private Goods.
- PUBLIC, COMMON POOL, TOLL GOODS, AND THE MARKET.
- The Four Different Types of Goods.
- Lecture 8: Public Goods.
Monday, November 22, 2021
Political instability in the United States
Authoritarian movements seem to feed off perceptions of instability.
- The US is now the focus of global instability.
- America is entering a new era of political instability.
- USA: Political stability.
- As Political Instability Distracts America, Japan is Charting a New Future.
-
From Wikipedia: - King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy.
An early victim of Mussolini's intimidation.
- Click here for the entry.
Support for Mussolini
The economic depression which followed World War I gave rise to much extremism among Italy's sorely tried working classes. This caused the country as a whole to become politically unstable. Benito Mussolini, soon to be Italy's Fascist dictator, took advantage of this instability for his rise to power.
March on Rome
In 1922, Mussolini led a force of his Fascist supporters on a March on Rome. Prime Minister Luigi Facta and his cabinet drafted a decree of martial law. After some hesitation the King refused to sign it, citing doubts about the ability of the army to contain the uprising without setting off a civil war.
Fascist violence had been growing in intensity throughout the summer and autumn of 1922, climaxing in rumours of a possible coup. On 24 October 1922, during the Fascist Congress in Naples, Mussolini announced that the Fascists would march on Rome to "take by the throat our miserable ruling class".[5] General Pietro Badoglio told the King that the military would be able without difficulty to rout the rebels, who numbered no more than 10,000 men armed mostly with knives and clubs whereas the Regio Esercito had 30,000 soldiers in the Rome area armed with heavy weapons, armoured cars, and machine guns.[6] During the "March on Rome", the Fascist squadristi were halted by 400 lightly armed policemen, as the squadristi had no desire to take on the Italian state.[7]
The troops were loyal to the King; even Cesare Maria De Vecchi, commander of the Blackshirts, and one of the organisers of the March on Rome, told Mussolini that he would not act against the wishes of the monarch. De Vecchi went to the Quirinal Palace to meet the king and assured him that the Fascists would never fight against the king.[8] It was at this point that the Fascist leader considered leaving Italy altogether. But then, minutes before midnight, he received a telegram from the King inviting him to Rome. Facta had the decree for martial law prepared after the cabinet had unanimously endorsed it, and was very surprised when he learned about 9 am on 28 October that the king had refused to sign it.[5] When Facta protested that the king was overruling the entire cabinet, he was told that this was the royal prerogative and the king did not wish to use force against the Fascists.[6] The only politician Victor Emmanuel consulted during the crisis was Antonio Salandra, who advised him to appoint Mussolini prime minister and stated he was willing to serve in a cabinet headed by Mussolini.[9]
By midday on 30 October, Mussolini had been appointed President of the Council of Ministers (Prime Minister), at the age of 39, with no previous experience of office, and with only 32 Fascist deputies in the Chamber.[10] Though the King claimed in his memoirs that it was the fear of a civil war that motivated his actions, it would seem that he received some 'alternative' advice, possibly from the arch-conservative Antonio Salandra as well as General Armando Diaz, that it would be better to do a deal with Mussolini.[8]
On 1 November 1922, the king reviewed the squadristi as they marched past the Quirinal Palace giving the fascist salute.[11] Victor Emmanuel took no responsibility for appointing Mussolini prime minister, saying he learned from studying history that events were "much more automatic than a result of individual action and influence".[12] Victor Emmanuel was tired of the recurring crises of parliamentary government and welcomed Mussolini as a "strong man" who imposed "order" on Italy.[13] Mussolini was always very respectful and deferential when he met him in private, which was exactly the behaviour which the king expected of his prime ministers.[14] Many Fascist gerarchi, most notably Italo Balbo, regarded as the number two-man in Fascism, remained republicans, and the king greatly appreciated Mussolini's conversion to monarchism.[15] In private, Mussolini detested Victor Emmanuel as a tedious and tiresomely boring man, whose only interests were military history and his collections of stamps and coins, a man whom Mussolini sneered was "too diminutive for an Italy destined to greatness" (a reference to the king's height).[15] However, Mussolini told the other gerarchi that he needed the king's support and that one day, another fascist revolution would take place "without contraceptives".[15]
The King failed to move against the Mussolini regime's abuses of power (including, as early as 1924, the assassination of Giacomo Matteotti and other opposition MPs). During the Matteotti affair of 1924, Sir Ronald Graham, the British ambassador, reported: "His Majesty once told me that he had never had a premier with whom he found it so satisfactory to deal as with Signor Mussolini, and I know from private sources that recent events have not changed his opinion".[16] The Matteotti affair did much to turn Italian public opinion against Fascism, and Graham reported to London that "Fascism is more unpopular by the day" while quoting a high Vatican official as saying to him that Fascism was a "spent force".[17] The fact that Matteotti had been tortured by his killers for several hours before he was killed especially shocked Italian public opinion, who were much offended by the gratuitous cruelty of the squadristi killers.[17] Given the widespread public revulsion against Mussolini generated by the murder of Matteotti, the king could have dismissed Mussolini in 1924 with a minimum of trouble and broad public support.[17] Orlando told the king that the majority of the Italian people were tired of the abuses of the squadristi, of which the murder of Matteotti was only the most notorious example, and were hoping that he would dismiss Mussolini, saying that one word from the king would be enough to bring down his unpopular prime minister.[18] The newspaper Corriere della Sera in an editorial stated the abuses of the Fascist government such as the murder of Matteotti had now reached such a point that the king had both a legal and moral duty to dismiss Mussolini at once and restore the rule of law.[18] During the Matteotti affair, even pro-Fascist politicians like Salandra started to express some doubts about Mussolini after he took responsibility for all the Fascist violence, saying he did not order Matteotti's murder, but did he authorise the violence of the squadristi, making him responsible for the murder of Matteotti.[17] The king affirmed that "the Chamber and the Senate were his eyes and ears",[19] wanting the sovereign a parliamentary initiative, according to the Statuto Albertino. The knowledge that the king and the Parliament would not dismiss the prime minister led to the Mussolini government winning a vote of no confidence in November 1924 in the chamber of deputies by 314 votes to 6 and in the Senate by 206 votes to 54.[17] The deputies and the senators were unwilling to risk their lives by voting for a no-confidence motion as the king had made it clear that he would not dismiss Mussolini even if the motion did carry the votes of the majority.[17]
Victor Emmanuel remained silent during the winter of 1925–26 when Mussolini dropped all pretence of democracy. During this time, the king signed without protest laws that eliminated freedom of speech and assembly, abolished freedom of the press, and declared the Fascist Party to be the only legal party in Italy.[20] In December 1925, Mussolini passed a law declaring that he was responsible to the King, not Parliament. Although under the Statuto Albertino Italian governments were formally answerable only to the monarch, it had been a strong constitutional convention since at least the 1860s that they were actually answerable to Parliament. In January 1926, the squardristi used violence to prevent opposition MPs from entering Parliament and in November 1926, Mussolini arbitrarily declared that all of the opposition MPs had forfeited their seats, which he handed out to Fascists.[21] Despite this blatant violation of the Statuto Albertino, the king remained passive and silent as usual.[22] In 1926, Mussolini had violated the Statuto Albertino by creating a special judicial tribunal to try political crimes with no possibility of a royal pardon. Even though the right of pardon was part of the royal prerogative, the king gave his assent to the law.[22] However, the king did veto an attempt by Mussolini to change the Italian flag by adding the fasces symbol to stand beside the coat of arms of the House of Savoy on the Italian tricolour. The king considered this proposal to be disrespectful to his family, and refused to sign the law when Mussolini submitted it to him.[22] By 1928, practically the only check on Mussolini's power was the King's prerogative of dismissing him from office. Even then, this prerogative could only be exercised on the advice of the Fascist Grand Council, a body that only Mussolini could convene.[22]
Whatever the circumstances, Victor Emmanuel showed weakness from a position of strength, with dire future consequences for Italy and fatal consequences for the monarchy itself. Fascism was a force of opposition to left-wing radicalism. This appealed to many people in Italy at the time, and certainly to the King. In many ways, the events from 1922 to 1943 demonstrated that the monarchy and the moneyed class, for different reasons, felt Mussolini and his regime offered an option that, after years of political chaos, was more appealing than what they perceived as the alternative: socialism and anarchism. Both the spectre of the Russian Revolution and the tragedies of World War I played a large part in these political decisions. Victor Emmanuel always saw the Italian Socialists and Communists as his principal enemies, and felt that Mussolini's dictatorship had saved the existing status quo in Italy.[23] Victor Emmanuel always returned the fascist salute when the Blackshirts marched past the Quirinal Palace and he lit votive lamps at public ceremonies to honour the Fascist "martyrs" killed fighting against the Socialists and Communists.[23] At the same time, the Crown became so closely identified with Fascism that by the time Victor Emmanuel was able to shake himself loose from it, it was too late to save the monarchy. In what proved to be a prescient speech, Senator Luigi Albertini called the king a "traitor" to Italy by supporting the Fascist regime and warned that the king would one day regret what he had done.[24]
Victor Emmanuel was disgusted by what he regarded as the superficiality and frivolity of what he called the "so-called elegant society" of Rome, and as such, the king preferred to spend his time out in the countryside where he went hunting, fishing and reading military history books outside.[25] A taciturn man who felt deeply uncomfortable expressing himself in conversation, Victor Emmanuel was content to let Mussolini rule Italy as he regarded Il Duce as a "strong man" who saved him the trouble from meeting various politicians as he had done before 1922.
- Click here for the entry.
Support for Mussolini
The economic depression which followed World War I gave rise to much extremism among Italy's sorely tried working classes. This caused the country as a whole to become politically unstable. Benito Mussolini, soon to be Italy's Fascist dictator, took advantage of this instability for his rise to power.
March on Rome
In 1922, Mussolini led a force of his Fascist supporters on a March on Rome. Prime Minister Luigi Facta and his cabinet drafted a decree of martial law. After some hesitation the King refused to sign it, citing doubts about the ability of the army to contain the uprising without setting off a civil war.
Fascist violence had been growing in intensity throughout the summer and autumn of 1922, climaxing in rumours of a possible coup. On 24 October 1922, during the Fascist Congress in Naples, Mussolini announced that the Fascists would march on Rome to "take by the throat our miserable ruling class".[5] General Pietro Badoglio told the King that the military would be able without difficulty to rout the rebels, who numbered no more than 10,000 men armed mostly with knives and clubs whereas the Regio Esercito had 30,000 soldiers in the Rome area armed with heavy weapons, armoured cars, and machine guns.[6] During the "March on Rome", the Fascist squadristi were halted by 400 lightly armed policemen, as the squadristi had no desire to take on the Italian state.[7]
The troops were loyal to the King; even Cesare Maria De Vecchi, commander of the Blackshirts, and one of the organisers of the March on Rome, told Mussolini that he would not act against the wishes of the monarch. De Vecchi went to the Quirinal Palace to meet the king and assured him that the Fascists would never fight against the king.[8] It was at this point that the Fascist leader considered leaving Italy altogether. But then, minutes before midnight, he received a telegram from the King inviting him to Rome. Facta had the decree for martial law prepared after the cabinet had unanimously endorsed it, and was very surprised when he learned about 9 am on 28 October that the king had refused to sign it.[5] When Facta protested that the king was overruling the entire cabinet, he was told that this was the royal prerogative and the king did not wish to use force against the Fascists.[6] The only politician Victor Emmanuel consulted during the crisis was Antonio Salandra, who advised him to appoint Mussolini prime minister and stated he was willing to serve in a cabinet headed by Mussolini.[9]
By midday on 30 October, Mussolini had been appointed President of the Council of Ministers (Prime Minister), at the age of 39, with no previous experience of office, and with only 32 Fascist deputies in the Chamber.[10] Though the King claimed in his memoirs that it was the fear of a civil war that motivated his actions, it would seem that he received some 'alternative' advice, possibly from the arch-conservative Antonio Salandra as well as General Armando Diaz, that it would be better to do a deal with Mussolini.[8]
On 1 November 1922, the king reviewed the squadristi as they marched past the Quirinal Palace giving the fascist salute.[11] Victor Emmanuel took no responsibility for appointing Mussolini prime minister, saying he learned from studying history that events were "much more automatic than a result of individual action and influence".[12] Victor Emmanuel was tired of the recurring crises of parliamentary government and welcomed Mussolini as a "strong man" who imposed "order" on Italy.[13] Mussolini was always very respectful and deferential when he met him in private, which was exactly the behaviour which the king expected of his prime ministers.[14] Many Fascist gerarchi, most notably Italo Balbo, regarded as the number two-man in Fascism, remained republicans, and the king greatly appreciated Mussolini's conversion to monarchism.[15] In private, Mussolini detested Victor Emmanuel as a tedious and tiresomely boring man, whose only interests were military history and his collections of stamps and coins, a man whom Mussolini sneered was "too diminutive for an Italy destined to greatness" (a reference to the king's height).[15] However, Mussolini told the other gerarchi that he needed the king's support and that one day, another fascist revolution would take place "without contraceptives".[15]
The King failed to move against the Mussolini regime's abuses of power (including, as early as 1924, the assassination of Giacomo Matteotti and other opposition MPs). During the Matteotti affair of 1924, Sir Ronald Graham, the British ambassador, reported: "His Majesty once told me that he had never had a premier with whom he found it so satisfactory to deal as with Signor Mussolini, and I know from private sources that recent events have not changed his opinion".[16] The Matteotti affair did much to turn Italian public opinion against Fascism, and Graham reported to London that "Fascism is more unpopular by the day" while quoting a high Vatican official as saying to him that Fascism was a "spent force".[17] The fact that Matteotti had been tortured by his killers for several hours before he was killed especially shocked Italian public opinion, who were much offended by the gratuitous cruelty of the squadristi killers.[17] Given the widespread public revulsion against Mussolini generated by the murder of Matteotti, the king could have dismissed Mussolini in 1924 with a minimum of trouble and broad public support.[17] Orlando told the king that the majority of the Italian people were tired of the abuses of the squadristi, of which the murder of Matteotti was only the most notorious example, and were hoping that he would dismiss Mussolini, saying that one word from the king would be enough to bring down his unpopular prime minister.[18] The newspaper Corriere della Sera in an editorial stated the abuses of the Fascist government such as the murder of Matteotti had now reached such a point that the king had both a legal and moral duty to dismiss Mussolini at once and restore the rule of law.[18] During the Matteotti affair, even pro-Fascist politicians like Salandra started to express some doubts about Mussolini after he took responsibility for all the Fascist violence, saying he did not order Matteotti's murder, but did he authorise the violence of the squadristi, making him responsible for the murder of Matteotti.[17] The king affirmed that "the Chamber and the Senate were his eyes and ears",[19] wanting the sovereign a parliamentary initiative, according to the Statuto Albertino. The knowledge that the king and the Parliament would not dismiss the prime minister led to the Mussolini government winning a vote of no confidence in November 1924 in the chamber of deputies by 314 votes to 6 and in the Senate by 206 votes to 54.[17] The deputies and the senators were unwilling to risk their lives by voting for a no-confidence motion as the king had made it clear that he would not dismiss Mussolini even if the motion did carry the votes of the majority.[17]
Victor Emmanuel remained silent during the winter of 1925–26 when Mussolini dropped all pretence of democracy. During this time, the king signed without protest laws that eliminated freedom of speech and assembly, abolished freedom of the press, and declared the Fascist Party to be the only legal party in Italy.[20] In December 1925, Mussolini passed a law declaring that he was responsible to the King, not Parliament. Although under the Statuto Albertino Italian governments were formally answerable only to the monarch, it had been a strong constitutional convention since at least the 1860s that they were actually answerable to Parliament. In January 1926, the squardristi used violence to prevent opposition MPs from entering Parliament and in November 1926, Mussolini arbitrarily declared that all of the opposition MPs had forfeited their seats, which he handed out to Fascists.[21] Despite this blatant violation of the Statuto Albertino, the king remained passive and silent as usual.[22] In 1926, Mussolini had violated the Statuto Albertino by creating a special judicial tribunal to try political crimes with no possibility of a royal pardon. Even though the right of pardon was part of the royal prerogative, the king gave his assent to the law.[22] However, the king did veto an attempt by Mussolini to change the Italian flag by adding the fasces symbol to stand beside the coat of arms of the House of Savoy on the Italian tricolour. The king considered this proposal to be disrespectful to his family, and refused to sign the law when Mussolini submitted it to him.[22] By 1928, practically the only check on Mussolini's power was the King's prerogative of dismissing him from office. Even then, this prerogative could only be exercised on the advice of the Fascist Grand Council, a body that only Mussolini could convene.[22]
Whatever the circumstances, Victor Emmanuel showed weakness from a position of strength, with dire future consequences for Italy and fatal consequences for the monarchy itself. Fascism was a force of opposition to left-wing radicalism. This appealed to many people in Italy at the time, and certainly to the King. In many ways, the events from 1922 to 1943 demonstrated that the monarchy and the moneyed class, for different reasons, felt Mussolini and his regime offered an option that, after years of political chaos, was more appealing than what they perceived as the alternative: socialism and anarchism. Both the spectre of the Russian Revolution and the tragedies of World War I played a large part in these political decisions. Victor Emmanuel always saw the Italian Socialists and Communists as his principal enemies, and felt that Mussolini's dictatorship had saved the existing status quo in Italy.[23] Victor Emmanuel always returned the fascist salute when the Blackshirts marched past the Quirinal Palace and he lit votive lamps at public ceremonies to honour the Fascist "martyrs" killed fighting against the Socialists and Communists.[23] At the same time, the Crown became so closely identified with Fascism that by the time Victor Emmanuel was able to shake himself loose from it, it was too late to save the monarchy. In what proved to be a prescient speech, Senator Luigi Albertini called the king a "traitor" to Italy by supporting the Fascist regime and warned that the king would one day regret what he had done.[24]
Victor Emmanuel was disgusted by what he regarded as the superficiality and frivolity of what he called the "so-called elegant society" of Rome, and as such, the king preferred to spend his time out in the countryside where he went hunting, fishing and reading military history books outside.[25] A taciturn man who felt deeply uncomfortable expressing himself in conversation, Victor Emmanuel was content to let Mussolini rule Italy as he regarded Il Duce as a "strong man" who saved him the trouble from meeting various politicians as he had done before 1922.
From Wikipedia: Giacomo Matteotti
An early critic of Mussolini.
- Click here for the entry.
Giacomo Matteotti (22 May 1885 – 10 June 1924) was an Italian socialist politician. On 30 May 1924, he openly spoke in the Italian Parliament alleging the Fascists committed fraud in the recently held elections, and denounced the violence they used to gain votes. Eleven days later he was kidnapped and killed by Fascists. The presumed fraud in the 1924 elections (however won by PNF thanks to the Acerbo Law, ad-hoc made in order to make the Party win) was not the only cause of his murder. In fact, according to Renzo De Felice's essay Breve Storia del Fascismo, Matteotti also publicly condemned the alliance of the socialist trade unions and the fascist counterpart. Yet, the most important aspect, and probably the main reason for his murder, was that he found out the evidence of bribes from Sinclair Oil in favour to Mussolini, in order to get permission for the petroleum reservoir exploitation in North Africa.
From the Martial Law Museum: Democracy vs. Authoritarianism
- Click here for the article.
or here: https://martiallawmuseum.ph/magaral/democracy-vs-authoritarianism/
In this exhibit, we investigate the specific aspects of democracy and authoritarianism which clarify how these two systems of power and governance diverge, especially in terms of the effects these systems have on the citizens of the nation, and in terms of what each system likewise demands of its citizens.
As we deepen our reflection on Martial Law as a period in Philippine history, we also deepen our imagination of how Filipinos during Martial Law must have thought and felt about their situation, and what eventually drove them to choose democracy over authoritarianism on EDSA, and rise up as one to make that difference.
For UH students
TX chapter 13
bail
bailable
cash bail
personal recognizance
impartial juries
grand juries
pick a pal / key man
rights of felons
death penalty
felonies and misdemeanors
Sandra Bland Act
probation
community supervision
compliance
the use of force
4th amendment
due process
arraignment
6th amendment
county attorney
city attorney
district attorney
TDCJ / board members
pardons and paroles
plea bargains
standards of proof
criminal cases
civil cases
Timothy Cole Act
enhanced penalties
criminal justice reforms
jury verdicts
voi dire
constitutional carry
TX – Chapter 14
mass transit
public transportation
high speed rail
flooding
water supply
water rights / federalism
the law of capture
Flood Infrastructure Act
road usage
highway tax
motor fuels taxes
income taxes
sales taxes
earmarked items
border security
border crossings
Texas National Guard
U.S. Border Patrol
sanctuary cities – SB4 (2017)
Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Burrell Day and Joel McDaniel (2012
tuition
DACA
Texas Groundwater Act
Texas Water Development Board
State Water Plan
PUF
HEF
THECB
Friday, November 19, 2021
Thursday, November 18, 2021
Viable: capable of working successfully; feasible.
https://harris.uchicago.edu/news-events/news/do-americans-support-democracy-much-they-say
https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/2021/antidemocratic-turn
https://freedomhouse.org/countries/nations-transit/scores
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-danger-is-american-democracy-in/
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/03/13/is-public-sentiment-shifting-toward-support-of-authoritarianism-not-really/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/few-americans-care-about-democracy/616534/
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/15/politics/cnn-poll-most-americans-democracy-under-attack/index.html
https://time.com/5336615/democracy-will-prevail/
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-republicans-keep-saying-that-the-united-states-isnt-a-democracy?source=search_google_dsa_paid&gclid=Cj0KCQiAkNiMBhCxARIsAIDDKNWXr0ntJr3ihUd6qlzvAIReBuk75glcsV2drDlbZdZsHIJZhlOKWScaAkdSEALw_wcB
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/democracy-crisis
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/09/us-election-trump-democracy-imperiled
https://www.salon.com/2021/10/06/norm-ornstein-on-the-of-democracy-this-is-the-same-roadmap-we-saw-in-germany/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2056305119843637
Hitler's BLOODY PURGE - The Night Of The Long Knives
More on Hitler's efforts to consolidate power. This occurred after he obtained control of the German government, and then sought to eradicate potential competitors from within the Nazi Party. This seems to me similar to Sadaam Hussein's activities within the Baath Party.
Wednesday, November 17, 2021
From Wikipedia: Case Law
- Click here for the entry.
Case law, also used interchangeably with common law, is law that is based on precedents, that is the judicial decisions from previous cases, rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. Case law uses the detailed facts of a case that have been resolved by courts or similar tribunals. These past decisions are called "case law", or precedent. Stare decisis—a Latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand"—is the principle by which judges are bound to such past decisions.
In common law countries (including the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), it is used for judicial decisions of selected appellate courts, courts of first instance, agency tribunals, and other bodies discharging adjudicatory functions.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/police_powers
https://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents/Publications/Fiscal_SizeUp/Fiscal_SizeUp_2020-21.pdf
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/opening-to-japan
https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Lieber_Collection/pdf/DeVattel_LawOfNations.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Customs_and_Patent_Appeals
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/security.asp#:~:text=Securities%20are%20fungible%20and%20tradable,aspects%20of%20debt%20and%20equity.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/security.asp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act#:~:text=The%20Chinese%20Exclusion%20Act%20was,all%20immigration%20of%20Chinese%20laborers.
https://guides.loc.gov/indian-removal-act#:~:text=The%20Indian%20Removal%20Act%20was,many%20resisted%20the%20relocation%20policy.
https://efinancemanagement.com/international-financial-management/international-bond-market#:~:text=The%20international%20bond%20market%20is,markets%20are%20called%20international%20bonds.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/
For Review
Constitutional and Statutory Powers
- US Constitution.
- US Code.
- Texas Constitution.
- Texas Statutes.
- Houston City Charter.
- Houston City Ordinances.
Powers
- Delegated
- Expressed
- Reserved
- Implied
Stages of Federalism
- Dual
- Cooperative
- New
Top U.S. environmental regulator to visit Houston neighborhoods where Black and Latino residents bear brunt of pollution
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/11/15/EPA-Regan-Houston-pollution-visit/
Tuesday, November 16, 2021
Monday, November 15, 2021
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Report_on_the_Public_Credit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Report_on_Public_Credit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Biddle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Navy
https://www.texastribune.org/paid-post/space-is-texas-next-frontier-if-leaders-act/
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/65-years-after-brown-v-board-where-are-all-the-black-educators/2019/05
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_area
Section 13 of the Magna Carta
(13) The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.
- Click here for the full text.
- Click here for the Wikipedia entry.
- What are the "ancient liberties" of the City of London?
- The Liberties of the Church and the City of London in Magna Carta.
- Click here for the full text.
- Click here for the Wikipedia entry.
- What are the "ancient liberties" of the City of London?
- The Liberties of the Church and the City of London in Magna Carta.
Sunday, November 14, 2021
From Wikipedia: American Indian Wars
The long process of clearing and containing native populations from the land.
The question since then has been what status they have within the American legal system.
- Click here for the entry.
For more on Native American Civil Rights, click here.
And here, Civil Rights Act of 1968.
From FindLaw: Challenging Laws: 3 Levels of Scrutiny Explained
This helps make sense of how the Supreme Court approaches laws and policies that strike differences between people based on different categories.
- Click here for it.
What Are The Levels of Scrutiny?
- Strict scrutiny
- Intermediate scrutiny
- Rational basis review
The level of scrutiny that's applied determines how a court will go about analyzing a law and its effects. It also determines which party -- the challenger or the government -- has the burden of proof. Although these tests aren't exactly set in stone, there is a basic framework for the most common levels of scrutiny applied to challenged laws.
From the Texas Tribune: Texas Republican asks state to rename several of the state's prisons honoring slave owners
Many current penitentiaries were built up from plantations. Slaves wer3e transitioned into inmates.
- Click here for the article.
Thomas Goree, the namesake of a Huntsville prison, was a former slave owner and Confederate captain who became one of the first superintendents of a Texas prison, The Marshall Project reported. He was closely tied to the convict leasing program that killed thousands in Texas. The Eastham Unit is named after the landowners who bought Goree’s family plantation about 20 miles north of Huntsville and then used it for convict leasing, according to The Marshall Project.
A spokesperson for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice said the board appreciated the input from White, and that a number of factors are taken into consideration when reviewing or renaming prison units. White said he had already talked with the prison system’s leadership.
From Wikipedia: Penal labor in the United States
Along with sharecropping, a substitute for the labor pool lost when enslavement was ended.
- Click here for the entry.
Origins
Prison Labor Post-13th Amendment (1865–1866)
Immediately following the abolition of slavery in the United States (and ratification of the 13th amendment), the slave labor-dependent economy of the South faced widespread poverty and market collapse.[15] Southern lawmakers began to exploit the so-called "loophole" written in the 13th amendment and turned to prison labor as a means of restoring the pre-abolition free labor force. Black Codes were enacted by politicians in the South to maintain white control over former slaves, namely by restricting African Americans’ labor activity.[16] Common codes included vagrancy laws that criminalized African Americans’ lack of employment or permanent residence. Inability to pay fees for vagrancy crimes resulted in imprisonment, during which prisoners labored in the very same wage-free positions held by slaves less than two years prior.[17] Other "crimes" punishable by imprisonment (and subsequent slave labor) as per Black Codes included unlawful assembly, interracial relationships, violation of slave-like labor contracts, possession of firearms, making or selling liquor, selling agricultural produce without written permission from an employer, and practicing any occupation other than servant or farmer without holding a judge-ordered license.[18][17] Additionally, orphaned minors and minors removed from their homes by the state were apprenticed by courts to employers until the age of 21.[18] Minors apprenticed under Black Codes were authorized to be forced into labor against their will, and apprentice relationships closely resembled those of master and slave in terms of discipline and involuntary labor.[18] By 1866, nearly all southern states had enacted individual sets of Black Codes.[16] The widespread enforcement of Black Code laws effectively used the 13th amendment's exception of penal labor to reinvent the chattel slavery economy and society to comply with federal law.
Prison Labor in the Reconstruction Era (1866–1877)
Between 1866 and 1869, Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Florida became the first states in the U.S. to lease out convicts.[19][20] Previously responsible for the housing and feeding of the new prison labor force, the states developed a convict leasing system as a means to rid penitentiaries of the responsibility to care for the incarcerated population.[21] State governments maximized profits by putting the responsibility on the lessee to provide food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for the prisoners. Convict labor strayed from small-scale plantation and share crop harvesting and moved toward work in the private sector. States leased out convicts to private businesses that utilized the low-cost labor to run enterprises such as coal mines, railroads, and logging companies.[22] Private lessees were permitted to use prisoner labor with very little oversight. The result was extremely poor conditions. Inadequacy of necessities like food, water, and shelter, was often exacerbated by unsafe labor practices and inhuman discipline.[23] Nevertheless, the convict lease system prompted the southern economy's return from devastation as the (cheap) labor supply returned to southern capitalism.
While incarceration rates continued to rise during Reconstruction, feeding the convict lease system, Union occupation in the South and national pressure began to change the laws by which African Americans were arbitrarily imprisoned. By 1868, the last official laws of Black Code were repealed in most states.[18] As Reconstruction lost its vigor, however, the Democratic party recovered and de-stigmatized casual racism in the Union-washed South.[18] This end to the reconstruction era set the stage for future reinvention of Black Code laws. States configured legislation to more precisely target the poor, further criminalizing the vast majority of former slaves who had not yet adapted to a free market or accrued wealth. Mississippi’s "pig law" followed this trend of hyper criminalization and fed the penal labor force simultaneously by tacking on outrageous sentences to violations. The "pig law" classified theft of any property worth $10 or more as grand larceny. Violation carried a sentence of incarceration up to five years. Following enactment of the "pig law," the incarcerated population quadrupled overnight.[24]
From Avalon: The 13th Amendment
The text:
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
From BlackPast: (1866) Texas Black Codes
These enhanced the shift from enslavement to sharecropping.
- Click here for the page.
Slave Codes
- Virginia Text: “An act concerning Servants and Slaves” (1705)
- Wikipedia: An act concerning Servants and Slaves.
- Wikipedia: Slave Codes.
- Texas Slave Codes.
- The Laws of Texas.
From Wikipedia: Typical Slave Codes.
There are many similarities between the various slave codes. The most common elements are:
Movement restrictions: Most regions required any slaves away from their plantations or outside of the cities they resided in to have a pass signed by their master. Many cities in the slave-states required slave-tags, small copper badges that enslaved people wore, to show that they were allowed to move about.
Marriage restrictions: Most places restricted the marriage rights of enslaved people, ostensibly to prevent them from trying to change masters by marrying into a family on another plantation. Marriage between people of different races was also usually restricted.
Prohibitions on gathering: Slave codes generally prevented large groups of enslaved people from gathering away from their plantations.
Slave patrols: In the slave-dependent portions of North America, varying degrees of legal authority backed slave patrols by plantation owners and other free whites to ensure that enslaved people were not free to move about at night, and to generally enforce the restrictions on slaves.
Trade and commerce by slaves: Initially, most places gave enslaved people some land to work personally and allowed them to operate their markets. As slavery became more profitable, slave codes restricting the rights of enslaved people to buy, sell, and produce goods were introduced. In some places, slave tags were required to be worn by enslaved people to prove that they were allowed to participate in certain types of work.
Punishment and killing of slaves: Slave codes regulated how slaves could be punished, usually going so far as to apply no penalty for accidentally killing a slave while punishing them. Later laws began to apply restrictions on this, but slave-owners were still rarely punished for killing their slaves. Historian Lawrence M. Friedman wrote: "Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave.... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was ′convicted of cruel treatment,′ the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master."
Education restrictions: Some codes made it illegal to teach slaves to read.
- Wikipedia: An act concerning Servants and Slaves.
- Wikipedia: Slave Codes.
- Texas Slave Codes.
- The Laws of Texas.
From Wikipedia: Typical Slave Codes.
There are many similarities between the various slave codes. The most common elements are:
Movement restrictions: Most regions required any slaves away from their plantations or outside of the cities they resided in to have a pass signed by their master. Many cities in the slave-states required slave-tags, small copper badges that enslaved people wore, to show that they were allowed to move about.
Marriage restrictions: Most places restricted the marriage rights of enslaved people, ostensibly to prevent them from trying to change masters by marrying into a family on another plantation. Marriage between people of different races was also usually restricted.
Prohibitions on gathering: Slave codes generally prevented large groups of enslaved people from gathering away from their plantations.
Slave patrols: In the slave-dependent portions of North America, varying degrees of legal authority backed slave patrols by plantation owners and other free whites to ensure that enslaved people were not free to move about at night, and to generally enforce the restrictions on slaves.
Trade and commerce by slaves: Initially, most places gave enslaved people some land to work personally and allowed them to operate their markets. As slavery became more profitable, slave codes restricting the rights of enslaved people to buy, sell, and produce goods were introduced. In some places, slave tags were required to be worn by enslaved people to prove that they were allowed to participate in certain types of work.
Punishment and killing of slaves: Slave codes regulated how slaves could be punished, usually going so far as to apply no penalty for accidentally killing a slave while punishing them. Later laws began to apply restrictions on this, but slave-owners were still rarely punished for killing their slaves. Historian Lawrence M. Friedman wrote: "Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave.... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was ′convicted of cruel treatment,′ the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master."
Education restrictions: Some codes made it illegal to teach slaves to read.
From Wikipedia: Corporate personhood
An odd twist to our look at civil liberties and rights.
- Click here for the article.
Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons. In most countries, corporations, as legal persons, have a right to enter into contracts with other parties and to sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons.
India, as early as 800 BC, granted legal personhood to guild-like śreṇī that operated in the public interest. The late Roman Republic granted legal personhood to municipalities, public works companies that managed public services, and voluntary associations (collegia) such as the early Catholic Church. The diverse collegia had different rights and responsibilities that were independent of the individual members. Some collegia resembled later medieval guilds and were allowed to advance the needs of a trade as a whole, but collegia were otherwise barred from enriching their members.
In the Middle Ages, a legal "persona" could facilitate collective perpetual ownership of assets beyond the founders' lifespans, and avoid personal property inheritance laws. Later on, incorporation was advocated as an efficient and secure mode of economic development: advantages over existing partnership structures included the corporation's continuing existence if a member died; the ability to act without unanimity; and limited liability. The word "corporation" itself derives from the Latin corpus ("body"), and corporate personhood is often assumed in medieval writings; by the Renaissance period, European jurists routinely held that churches and universities chartered by the government could gain property, enter into contracts, sue, and be sued, independent of its members. The government (or the Pope) granted religious organizations "the power of perpetual succession": church property would not revert to the local lord, nor be taxed, upon the death of church members.
Some town charters explicitly granted medieval towns the right of self-governance. Commercial endeavors were not among the entities incorporated in the medieval era, and even risky trading companies were originally run as common-law partnerships rather than corporations; the incorporation of the East India Company monopoly in 1600 broke new ground, and by the end of the century, commercial ventures frequently sought incorporation in Europe and the American continent. By the 19th century, the direction of British and American corporate law had diverged; British law of this period (such as the Joint Stock Companies Act 1856) appeared to focus more on corporations that more closely resembled traditional joint ventures, while American law was driven by the need to manage a more diverse corporate landscape.[3]
Saturday, November 13, 2021
Friday, November 12, 2021
From the Texas Tribune: Biden’s infrastructure plan will set aside about $35 billion for Texas projects
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/11/09/biden-infrastructure-bill-texas/
Thursday, November 11, 2021
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail.
From the Texas Tribune: Texas said delta-8 is illegal. But state troopers haven’t made a single arrest.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/11/11/texas-delta-8-dps-arrests/
https://thehia.org/
https://hiistick.com/
https://www.marijuanamoment.net/texas-voters-support-for-legalizing-marijuana-is-increasing-new-poll-shows/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston#/media/File:Harris_County_Texas_incorporated_and_unincorporated_areas_Houston_highlighted.svg
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-justice-marijuana/trump-administration-drops-obama-era-easing-of-marijuana-prosecutions-idUSKBN1ET1MU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Lion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Casor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Punch_(slave)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon%27s_Rebellion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_act_concerning_Servants_and_Slaves
https://www.aaihs.org/the-curious-history-of-anthony-johnson-from-captive-african-to-right-wing-talking-point/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise
https://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/c.php?g=815580
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_suit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
https://constitution.congress.gov/searchessayfacet/Slavery/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Amendments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_(United_States)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
Wednesday, November 10, 2021
What is a "Sincerely Held Religious Belief?"
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination
https://www.callaborlaw.com/entry/defining-sincerely-held-religious-beliefs-that-might-excuse-mandatory-covid-19-vaccination
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/04/1042577608/religious-exemptions-against-the-covid-19-vaccine-are-complicated-to-get
https://www.employersgroup.com/covid-19/what-exactly-is-a-sincerely-held-religious-belief
https://ogletree.com/insights/what-is-a-sincere-religious-belief-the-fifth-circuit-weighs-in-on-a-religious-discrimination-claim/
https://news.utexas.edu/2017/06/09/what-are-sincerely-held-religious-beliefs/
Tuesday, November 9, 2021
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/05/14/on-the-cusp-of-adulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-know-about-gen-z-so-far-2/
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/03/01/the-generation-gap-in-american-politics/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords
https://www.pr51st.com/territorial-clause-cares/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Alpha
https://www.elections.virginia.gov/2021-election-results/
https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/docs/STAT2008ERFIP.pdf
https://fedsoc.org/contributors/judd-stone
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/ag-paxton-announces-appointment-judd-stone-solicitor-general-and-departure-kyle-hawkins
https://www.google.com/search?q=seriatim%2C&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS968US968&oq=seriatim%2C&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i512l7j46i175i199i512j0i512.992j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-303
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_E._Gannon
https://www.justice.gov/olc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor_General_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Boerne_v._Flores
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nobility
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/sep/07/how-the-aristocracy-preserved-their-power
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Land_Use_and_Institutionalized_Persons_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
https://www.omnicoreagency.com/youtube-statistics/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Church_of_Cannabis
https://www.angrybirds.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_radio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_radio
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/aug/13/church-of-cannabis-denver-colorado
https://minorityrights.org/minorities/rastafarians/
Monday, November 8, 2021
From the Texas Slavery Project: The Laws of Texas
Some focus on slavery - some do not.
Covers the period from 1824 - 1845.
- Click here for it.
From Roll Call: Supreme Court to weigh how Congress treats Puerto Rico
A story that combines out look at civil rights and foreign policy.
- Click here for it.
The Supreme Court hears oral arguments Tuesday about how Congress denies residents of Puerto Rico certain Social Security benefits, in a case that could shift the unusual and contentious relationship between Congress and the island territory the U.S. acquired more than a century ago.
A decision that requires the United States to include Vaello-Madero and other Puerto Rico residents in the program could cost an additional $23 billion over the next decade and could affect other laws that treat Puerto Rico and other territories differently from the 50 states. A ruling is expected by the end of the term in late June.
Vaello-Madero’s attorneys say the provision is unconstitutional because the benefits from a national welfare law go to disabled Americans in the 50 states but not to the disabled Americans in Puerto Rico, which as a non-state has no voting power in Congress to change try to change it.
The justices have heard from Vaello-Madero’s attorneys that the disparate treatment stems from a “quagmire of racial and ethnic discrimination” and the court’s review of this law would counter how Congress “continues to hold Puerto Rico in an open-ended state of political powerlessness.”
For more:
- Scotusblog: United States v. Vaello-Madero.
- Wikipedia: Puerto Rico.
- Wikipedia: Jones–Shafroth Act.
- Wikipedia: Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act of 1950.
- Wikipedia: Spanish–American War.
Regarding laws related to enslavement ...
From Wikipedia: Slave Codes.
From the Tarleton Law Library: Constitutions of Texas.
For UH Chapters 5, 6, and 8 terms
5 -
discrimination
civil rights
equal protection clause
race
civil war amendments
Jim Crow / Black Codes
strict scrutiny
de jure
de facto
gerrymandering
housing
redlining
marriage
mass incarceration
gender
intermediate scrutiny
rational basis test
education
employment
sexual harassment
Latinos
immigration
Asian Americans
Chinese Exclusion Act
Native Americans
LGBTQ
Disabled
Affirmative Action
6 -
public opinion
ideology
liberalism
conservatism
political socialization
agents of socialization
political cues
party affiliation
political leaders
mass media
stability in opinion
political knowledge
shortcuts
cues
heuristics
schemas
elite opinions
polling
8 -
political participation
protest
voting
turnout
traditional
digital
expressive
who votes?
mobilization
political culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_junta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Securities_and_Exchange_Commission#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire
https://www.wsj.com/articles/crowd-surge-at-houston-music-festival-leaves-at-least-8-dead-11636187146
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/07/astroworld-concert-surge-travis-scott/
https://library.municode.com/tx/houston/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_CH25SPEV
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-08/barriers-crowd-control-in-focus-in-houston-concert-deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_movements
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stratification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Austin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyer_Anti-Lynching_Bill
https://www.houstonsports.org/
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=jss#:~:text=The%20five%20stages%20of%20the,issue%20of%20international%20terror%2D%20ism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Curtiss-Wright_Export_Corp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
Sunday, November 7, 2021
- List of United States treaties.
- Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_doctrine#United_States_2
From Wikipedia: Equal Protection Clause
For our look at civil rights policy
- Click here for the entry.
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.
The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase "Equal Justice Under Law". This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation. The clause has also been the basis for Obergefell v. Hodges which legalized same-sex marriages, along with many other decisions rejecting discrimination against, and bigotry towards, people belonging to various groups.
While the Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state and local governments, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment nonetheless imposes various equal protection requirements on the federal government via reverse incorporation.
Hierarchy
Wikipedia: Hierarchy.
A hierarchy (from Greek: ἱεραρχία, hierarkhia, 'rule of a high priest', from hierarkhes, 'president of sacred rites') is an arrangement of items (objects, names, values, categories, etc.) that are represented as being "above", "below", or "at the same level as" one another. Hierarchy is an important concept in a wide variety of fields, such as philosophy, architecture, design, mathematics, computer science, organizational theory, systems theory, systematic biology, and the social sciences (especially political philosophy).
Wikipedia: Political culture of the United States.
Traditionalistic political culture arose in the South, which elevates social order and family structure to a prominent role. It accepts a natural hierarchy in society and where necessary to protect society, authoritarian leadership in the political and religious realms. [1]
The formation of traditionalistic political culture is often thought to have arisen principally out of Virginia, the first and most populous southern colony. Virginia was also the most politically powerful state after the American Revolution: pursuant to the first census of the United States in 1790 it held a greater percentage of congressional representatives than any other state has ever enjoyed up to the present day. Nevertheless, others argue that South Carolina had the greater influence as a result of its Grand Model enabling slaveholders from Barbados to establish a durable aristocracy. That unique convergence produced a slave society with a majority black population rigidly controlled by the plantation elite. Maintaining such a society required intense political resolve and the development of a mythology of white racial supremacy. The South Carolina hybrid model ultimately spread across the Deep South and was unwavering in its promotion of southern culture, whereas Virginia and other Upper South states were less comfortable with the region’s “peculiar institution” of slavery.
Wikipedia: The Noble Lie.
In politics, a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly propagated by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in the Republic.
Plato presented the noble lie (γενναῖον ψεῦδος, gennaion pseudos)[3] in the fictional tale known as the myth or parable of the metals in book III. In it, Socrates provides the origin of the three social classes who compose the republic proposed by Plato; Socrates speaks of a socially stratified society as a metaphor for the soul
Wikipedia: The Iron Law of Oligarchy.
The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory first developed by the German-born Italian sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties. It asserts that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an "iron law" within any democratic organization as part of the "tactical and technical necessities" of organization.
Michels's theory states that all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies. Michels observed that since no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy, power within an organization will always get delegated to individuals within that group, elected or otherwise.
Using anecdotes from political parties and trade unions struggling to operate democratically to build his argument in 1911, Michels addressed the application of this law to representative democracy, and stated: "Who says organization, says oligarchy."[1] He went on to state that "Historical evolution mocks all the prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy."[1]
According to Michels, all organizations eventually come to be run by a "leadership class", who often function as paid administrators, executives, spokespersons or political strategists for the organization. Far from being "servants of the masses", Michels argues this "leadership class," rather than the organization's membership, will inevitably grow to dominate the organization's power structures. By controlling who has access to information, those in power can centralize their power successfully, often with little accountability, due to the apathy, indifference and non-participation most rank-and-file members have in relation to their organization's decision-making processes. Michels argues that democratic attempts to hold leadership positions accountable are prone to fail, since with power comes the ability to reward loyalty, the ability to control information about the organization, and the ability to control what procedures the organization follows when making decisions. All of these mechanisms can be used to strongly influence the outcome of any decisions made 'democratically' by members.
Looks interesting
Could help us understand how presidents influence the bureaucracy.
From Wikipedia: Timeline of Biden's Presidency.
- 2021 Quarter 1.
- 2021 Quarter 2.
- 2021 Quarter 3.
- 2021 Quarter 4.
H.R.3684 - Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
AKA - The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
For info
- Congress.gov.
- Wikipedia.
The overall framework for this and other legislation can be found in the Build Back Better Plan.
For info
- Congress.gov.
- Wikipedia.
The overall framework for this and other legislation can be found in the Build Back Better Plan.
Friday, November 5, 2021
For GOVT 2305 Test 4
Some terms that might useful:
Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act
Cold War
Berlin Wall
Great Depression
Plessy v. Ferguson
Jim Crow
Black Codes
the Pentagon
Path-dependent practices
national health insurance
grand strategy
The National Security Council
CIA
FBI
soft power
neorealism
Chinese Exclusion Act
Bush Doctrine
interventionism
isolationism
policy window
Subsidies and tax breaks
Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act
Cold War
Berlin Wall
Great Depression
Plessy v. Ferguson
Jim Crow
Black Codes
the Pentagon
Path-dependent practices
national health insurance
grand strategy
The National Security Council
CIA
FBI
soft power
neorealism
Chinese Exclusion Act
Bush Doctrine
interventionism
isolationism
policy window
Subsidies and tax breaks
Thursday, November 4, 2021
From Congress.gov: H.R.4 - John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021
- Click here for the page.
This bill establishes new criteria for determining which states and political subdivisions must obtain preclearance before changes to voting practices may take effect. Preclearance is the process of receiving preapproval from the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before making legal changes that would affect voting rights.
- 15 or more voting rights violations occurred in the state during the previous 25 years;
- 10 or more violations occurred during the previous 25 years, at least 1 of which was committed by the state itself; or
- 3 or more violations occurred during the previous 25 years and the state administers the elections.
A political subdivision as a separate unit shall also be subject to preclearance for a 10-year period if three or more voting rights violations occurred there during the previous 25 years.
States and political subdivisions that meet certain thresholds regarding minority groups must preclear covered practices before implementation, such as changes to methods of election and redistricting.
Further, states and political subdivisions must notify the public of changes to voting practices.
Next, the bill authorizes DOJ to require states or political subdivisions to provide certain documents or answers to questions for enforcing voting rights.
The bill also outlines factors courts must consider when hearing challenges to voting practices, such as the extent of any history of official voting discrimination in the state or political subdivision.
What is a voting rights violation?
Committing enough of them can result in a state being placed under pre-clearance.
But what exactly are they legally?
I'm not completely sure, but I'd imagine reading through these links could help:
- 52 U.S. Code § 10101 - Voting rights.
- 52 USC 10301: Denial or abridgement of right to vote on account of race or color through voting qualifications or prerequisites; establishment of violation.
- Justice Department: Voting Section.
From the Texas Tribune: Texans John Cornyn and Ted Cruz join GOP senators to block voting rights bill that would have protected voters of color
- Click here for the article.
Republican U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz of Texas joined GOP senators to block a federal voting rights bill that would have restored protections for voters of color and helped override some of Texas’s new elections restrictions and redistricted political maps.
The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act aimed to end state-level voting restrictions and bolster electoral protections for people of color, but ultimately failed in a 50-49 procedural vote that would have required 60 votes to move forward.
The bill’s failure marks a last-ditch effort by congressional Democrats to restore and expand sections of the Voting Rights Act and challenge voting restrictions enacted by an estimated 18 Republican-led state legislatures, including the Texas Legislature.
After the vote, Cornyn called the legislation “unconstitutional.” But one of the House Democrats who was at the center of the strategic fight to pass the bill responded in a critical news release.
“In choosing to block this bill, Republican Senators, including Texas’s two Senators, have once again put their political party ahead of those they were elected to serve,” said U.S. Rep. Colin Allred, a Dallas Democrat. “Nothing is more important than our democracy and we cannot lose hope.”
Texas’ new election law establishes new rules for voting by mail, strengthens protections for partisan poll watchers and rolls backs local voter initiatives used primarily in Harris County in the 2020 election.
The bill in question is the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
A more direct challenge to Roe v Wade.
- Click here for the page.
Wednesday, November 3, 2021
For HCC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evenwel_v._Abbott
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plaintiff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_man,_one_vote
From the Texas Tribune: Texas’ new House map challenged in state court, expanding redistricting fight
Another challenge ...
- Click here for the article.
The Mexican American Legislative Caucus in the Texas House has opened a second front in the legal war over the state’s new political maps.
Texas redistricting fights have typically played out in federal courts, which decade after decade have found that lawmakers, often intentionally, flouted federal protections for voters of color in redistricting. Filed in Austin, MALC framed its federal lawsuit as an effort to “redress once again Texas’s sordid pattern of racial discrimination.”
From the Texas Tribune: Evan Young, former clerk to conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, appointed to Texas Supreme Court
A common way to circumvent judicial elections.
- Click here for the article.
Gov. Greg Abbott named Austin lawyer Evan Young to the Texas Supreme Court on Monday.
Young replaces former Justice Eva Guzman, who resigned in June ahead of a campaign for attorney general.
"Evan Young is a proven legal scholar and public servant, making him an ideal pick for the Supreme Court of Texas," Abbott said in a statement. "Evan's extensive background in private practice and public service will be a fantastic addition to the bench, and I am confident that he will faithfully defend the Constitution and uphold the rule of law for the people of Texas."
Young is set to finish Guzman's term in Place 9 on the court, which goes through the end of next year. Place 9 is on the ballot next year.
After clerking for Scalia, Young went to work for the U.S. Department of Justice, serving as counsel to two former attorneys general, Alberto Gonzales and Michael Mukasey. During that period, he spent time in Iraq, helping with U.S. efforts to rebuild the government there.
Young joined Baker Botts' Austin office in 2009. More recently, Abbott appointed Young to the Texas Judicial Council, which oversees the court system in Texas, and he serves on the Texas Supreme Court Advisory Committee.
For more biographical info
- From the Federalist Society:
Evan Young’s practice focuses on trial and appellate litigation. He has argued cases before both the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Texas. Ranging from those courts to state trial courts, he has represented clients across the country before every level of the state and federal judiciary.
Before joining Baker Botts, Mr. Young worked as a lawyer in the judicial and executive branches of the federal government. He served as a law clerk to Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and then to Justice Antonin Scalia at the U.S. Supreme Court.
In 2006, after his clerkship with Justice Scalia ended, Mr. Young became Counsel to the Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice, serving in the Office of the Attorney General under Attorneys General Alberto R. Gonzales and Michael B. Mukasey. While on the Attorney General’s staff, he accepted a detail to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, where he was the Deputy Rule of Law Coordinator. In that position he worked to assist the Iraqi government in its efforts to strengthen its legal regime, including, for example, its courts and prison system. He returned to Texas and joined the Austin office of Baker Botts in 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)