delegated
expressed
implied
prohibited
concurrent
reserved
Additonal delegated powers from the amendments
Monday, January 31, 2022
the powers . . .
Sunday, January 30, 2022
links from 1/28/22
https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/GLT/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42866335?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30234752?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
https://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1190&context=luc_theses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Lion
https://www.findlaw.com/state/texas-law/property-line-and-fence-laws-in-texas.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Austin
https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/newport-christopher-1561-after-august-15-1617/#heading0
From the Texas Tribune: Congress allocated $19 billion in federal stimulus money to Texas public education, but schools have yet to see an extra dime
From last April.
Fiscal federalism in action.
- Click for the article.
For more than a year, the federal government has been pumping billions of dollars into school districts across the country to help them meet the demands of the pandemic. Most states have used that pot of stimulus funds as Congress intended: buying personal protective equipment for students and teachers, laptops for kids learning from home, improved ventilation systems for school buildings to prevent virus transmission and covering other costs.
Now, educators and advocacy groups worry that the state could do the same thing with the remaining $17.9 billion in funding for Texas public schools from the other two stimulus packages. Because of federal requirements, Texas has to invest over $1 billion of the state’s own budget in higher education to receive the third round of stimulus funding for K-12 public schools. Experts said the state has applied for a waiver to avoid sending that added money to higher education, but the process has caused major delays in local districts receiving funds they desperately need.
From Ballotpedia: Texas elections, 2022
For future reference.
- Click here for the entry.
The Texas Primary is set for March 1.
From EdWeek: What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is It Under Attack?
For this week's written assignment.
- Click here for it.
Critical race theory is an academic concept that is more than 40 years old. The core idea is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.
A good example is when, in the 1930s, government officials literally drew lines around areas deemed poor financial risks, often explicitly due to the racial composition of inhabitants. Banks subsequently refused to offer mortgages to Black people in those areas.
Today, those same patterns of discrimination live on through facially race-blind policies, like single-family zoning that prevents the building of affordable housing in advantaged, majority-white neighborhoods and, thus, stymies racial desegregation efforts.
CRT also has ties to other intellectual currents, including the work of sociologists and literary theorists who studied links between political power, social organization, and language. And its ideas have since informed other fields, like the humanities, the social sciences, and teacher education.
This academic understanding of critical race theory differs from representation in recent popular books and, especially, from its portrayal by critics—often, though not exclusively, conservative Republicans. Critics charge that the theory leads to negative dynamics, such as a focus on group identity over universal, shared traits; divides people into “oppressed” and “oppressor” groups; and urges intolerance.
Thus, there is a good deal of confusion over what CRT means, as well as its relationship to other terms, like “anti-racism” and “social justice,” with which it is often conflated.
To an extent, the term “critical race theory” is now cited as the basis of all diversity and inclusion efforts regardless of how much it’s actually informed those programs.
For more:
- Wkipedia: Critical race theory.
- ABA: A Lesson on Critical Race Theory.
- NYT: Critical Race Theory: A Brief History.
From the Texas Tribune: Frontrunners for Texas’ new congressional seats look to send message with decisive primary wins
A look at the first election held after district were redrawn last year.
- Click here for the article.
Headlining a rally here recently in one of Texas’ new congressional districts, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz made a proclamation that will likely be boilerplate across many U.S. House races this year as Republicans seek to retake the majority.
But here, the rallying cry carries a particular urgency, as Republicans press to deliver Army combat veteran Wesley Hunt an outright primary win over a crowd of underdog opponents vying for the solidly Republican seat. And it is a similar story in Texas’ other new district — a bright-blue seat in the Austin area — where there is also a clear frontrunner, U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, out for a decisive win.
Neither of the races for the state’s two new seats may end up being all that competitive, but they carry worthwhile implications for each party and candidate. Hunt’s election would send a Black conservative to Congress at a time when the GOP is eager to diversify, while an outright Doggett victory would show the 27-year incumbent remains a political force despite the fast-changing city he represents — and would represent even more of after this year.
To the extent either is facing competition in their primaries, it is not necessarily over issues but the assets that are fueling their heavy-favorite statuses — Hunt’s backing from Republicans in Washington, D.C., and Doggett’s long tenure in Congress.
“It’s always good to get new perspectives, but we don’t have a ‘new faces’ problem as much as we have a need for more faces,” Doggett said in an interview, alluding to Democrats’ thin majorities in both chambers. He added that he was “excited that Austin continues to be a youthful, energetic, vital community” and pointed to endorsements he has received from groups like the Texas College Democrats.
The Social Studies TEKS - Kindergarden
§113.11. Social Studies, Kindergarten, Beginning with School Year 2011-2012.
- Click here for the whole thing.
(a) Introduction.
(1) In Kindergarten, the study of the self, home, family, and classroom establishes the foundation for
responsible citizenship in society. Students explore state and national heritage by examining the
celebration of patriotic holidays and the contributions of individuals. The concept of chronology
is introduced. Students apply geographic concepts of location and physical and human
characteristics of place. Students identify basic human needs and ways people meet these needs.
Students learn the purpose of rules and the role of authority figures in the home and school.
Students learn customs, symbols, and celebrations that represent American beliefs and principles
and contribute to our national identity. Students compare family customs and traditions and
describe examples of technology in the home and school. Students acquire information from a
variety of oral and visual sources. Students practice problem-solving, decision-making, and
independent-thinking skills.
. . .
(8) Government. The student understands the purpose of rules.
The student is expected to:
(A) identify purposes for having rules; and
(B) identify rules that provide order, security, and safety in the home and school.
(9) Government. The student understands the role of authority figures. The student is expected to:
(A) identify authority figures in the home, school, and community; and
(B) explain how authority figures make and enforce rules.
(10) Citizenship. The student understands important symbols, customs, and responsibilities that
represent American beliefs and principles and contribute to our national identity. The student is
expected to:
(A) identify the flags of the United States and Texas;
(B) recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag and the Pledge to the Texas
Flag;
(C) identify Constitution Day as a celebration of American freedom; and
(D) use voting as a method for group decision making.
Friday, January 28, 2022
1/28/22
https://www.glo.texas.gov/history/archives/collections/resource-page/Austins-Colony-Records.html
https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/de-leons-colony
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereignty
https://www.txdot.gov/
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/swath#:~:text=Definition%20of%20swath,as%20if%20by%20a%20scythe
https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/virginia-company-of-london/
https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/gates-sir-thomas-d-1622/
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/26/texas-redistricting-kel-seliger-redistricting/
https://www.alvinisd.net/Page/39779
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full-text
TEXAS 1836 PROJECT
GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 4. EXECUTIVE BRANCH
SUBTITLE D. HISTORY, CULTURE, AND EDUCATION
CHAPTER 451. TEXAS 1836 PROJECT
- Click here for it.
From CIN: Friendswood ISD sees jump in college admissions with elimination of class rank
interesting ...
- Click here for the article.
Friendswood ISD has started to see an increase in college admissions after removing class ranks.
Though Texas law requires schools to report the top 10% of each class for automatic admission to public universities, FISD does not report any rankings outside of that.
Data presented at the Jan. 24 board workshop showed that students who fell outside of the top 10% were admitted to various public universities at a higher percentage than in 2019 before class rank was voted out.
Through a Naviance student survey, admission by any method to Texas A&M University grew from 2019 to 2020 for students who fell into the second, third and fourth quartile by a large percentage. For example, only 4% of students in the third and fourth quartile were accepted into Texas A&M in 2019. In 2020, 50% of students were admitted.
“With the second, third and fourth quartile, it's already shown that they're accepting those kids even more,” FISD Superintendent Thad Roher said.
A survey sent out to the class of 2020 at FISD also showed many students were choosing courses based simply on how it would affect their GPA and class rank.
“It was merely for a rank. Some of those students will sit down and say, “'Tell me what courses to take to put me in the top 10%,'” said Kim Cole, FISD’s executive director of secondary teaching and learning, during the presentation about how students chose their classes.
For the first phase of looking into changing how GPA is ranked, the recommendation for the board is for schools to calculate rank GPA with core and world language classes only. Personal GPAs would be calculated with all courses.
- For more on the top ten percent rule, click here.
Thursday, January 27, 2022
From the Texas Tribune: Texas Republicans pressure court to reverse decision blocking attorney general from prosecuting election cases
The Texas Attorney General does not have the power to prosecute criminal law cases, that is given to the county district attorney. Some want to change that, and they hope to do so by pressuring the Texas judiciary.
- Click here for the article.
In recent days, the state's top GOP leaders — including Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — have weighed in on the matter and sided with those imploring the Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider the decision. The all-GOP court issued an 8-1 opinion last month that struck down the attorney general's power to go after election cases without the permission of local prosecutors, saying it violates the separation-of-powers clause in the Texas Constitution.
Attorney General Ken Paxton has been vocal in his criticism of the decision and has filed a motion for rehearing. And in recent interviews with conservative media, he has called on supporters to pressure the court to reverse the ruling.
Texas' highest criminal court is facing intense pressure from fellow Republican elected officials to revisit a recent ruling that gutted the attorney general's ability to unilaterally prosecute election cases.
In recent days, the state's top GOP leaders — including Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — have weighed in on the matter and sided with those imploring the Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider the decision. The all-GOP court issued an 8-1 opinion last month that struck down the attorney general's power to go after election cases without the permission of local prosecutors, saying it violates the separation-of-powers clause in the Texas Constitution.
Attorney General Ken Paxton has been vocal in his criticism of the decision and has filed a motion for rehearing. And in recent interviews with conservative media, he has called on supporters to pressure the court to reverse the ruling.
635: 1/28/22
- DA: No charges to be filed against former Brazoria County clerk accused of jury stacking.
- Economic Development Alliance for Brazoria County.
- Brazoria County Economic Indicators.
- Manvel Economic Development Corporation.
- Manvel Economic Development Project Listing.
- Minutes: Manvel Planning Development and Zoning Commission.
- From 2014: Manvel City Council moving to put more property in its ETJ.
- Meridiana.
- Wikipedia: Meridiana, Texas.
- Rise Communities.
- HBJ: Exclusive: Nevada developer to move to Houston.
- Public Notices from the Brazosport Facts
- - one.
- - two.
- - three.
- - four.
- - five.
- - six.
- - seven.
- Economic Development Alliance for Brazoria County.
- Brazoria County Economic Indicators.
- Manvel Economic Development Corporation.
- Manvel Economic Development Project Listing.
- Minutes: Manvel Planning Development and Zoning Commission.
- From 2014: Manvel City Council moving to put more property in its ETJ.
- Meridiana.
- Wikipedia: Meridiana, Texas.
- Rise Communities.
- HBJ: Exclusive: Nevada developer to move to Houston.
- Public Notices from the Brazosport Facts
- - one.
- - two.
- - three.
- - four.
- - five.
- - six.
- - seven.
Wednesday, January 26, 2022
From Wikipedia: Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates
With the advice and consent of the United States Senate, the president of the United States appoints the members of the Supreme Court of the United States, which is the highest court of the federal judiciary of the United States. Following his victory in the 2016 presidential election, Republican Donald Trump took office as president on January 20, 2017, and faced an immediate vacancy on the Supreme Court due to the February 2016 death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. During the 2016 campaign, Trump had released two lists of potential nominees to the Supreme Court. After taking office, he nominated Neil Gorsuch to succeed Scalia, and Gorsuch was confirmed in April 2017. In November 2017, five more names were added to the previous lists of potential nominees. In June 2018, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, creating a second vacancy on the Supreme Court. In early July 2018, Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh as his replacement; Kavanaugh was confirmed on October 6, 2018. Following the death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18, 2020, Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett as her replacement on September 26, 2020. Exactly a month later on October 26, 2020, Barrett was confirmed by a vote of 52–48.
The Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett confirmations were enabled by a rule change made by the Senate Republican majority in April 2017, after the Senate Democratic majority had made a similar change in 2013, which applied the so-called nuclear option to Supreme Court nominees and allowed nominations to be advanced by a simple majority vote rather than the historical norm of a three-fifths supermajority vote.[1] Leonard Leo played a crucial role in selecting Trump's appointees and helping them successfully navigate their Senate confirmation hearings.
The Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett confirmations were enabled by a rule change made by the Senate Republican majority in April 2017, after the Senate Democratic majority had made a similar change in 2013, which applied the so-called nuclear option to Supreme Court nominees and allowed nominations to be advanced by a simple majority vote rather than the historical norm of a three-fifths supermajority vote.[1] Leonard Leo played a crucial role in selecting Trump's appointees and helping them successfully navigate their Senate confirmation hearings.
From Ballotpedia: Federal judges nominated by Joe Biden
Since taking office, President Joe Biden (D) has nominated 81 individuals to federal judgeships on Article III courts. As of January 20, 2022, 42 of the nominees have been confirmed.[1]
Ballotpedia publishes the federal vacancy count report tracking vacancies, nominations, and confirmations to all United States Article III federal courts each month. In the most recent report covering activity in December 2021, there were 74 Article III vacancies in the federal judiciary. Of those vacancies, 25 had pending nominations. To learn more about current vacancies in the federal judiciary, click here.
This page provides an overview of the status of federal judicial nominees appointed by President Joe Biden (D). This page also provides additional procedural and historical context about Biden's judicial nominees and the nomination records of previous presidents, including the following information:
- The number of historical judicial appointments made by presidents between 1933 and 2021;
- Vacancy statistics by month;
- Nomination and confirmation statistics by month;
- Status of federal court vacancies;
- Status of Article III judicial nominees appointed by Biden;
- List of judicial nominees confirmed to their positions;
- List of judicial nominees waiting for a Senate vote;
- List of judicial nominees waiting for a committee vote;
- List of judicial nominees waiting for a committee hearing.
- A timeline of nominations made by Biden;
The list of nominees is updated daily, and the comparisons are updated monthly.
Ballotpedia publishes the federal vacancy count report tracking vacancies, nominations, and confirmations to all United States Article III federal courts each month. In the most recent report covering activity in December 2021, there were 74 Article III vacancies in the federal judiciary. Of those vacancies, 25 had pending nominations. To learn more about current vacancies in the federal judiciary, click here.
This page provides an overview of the status of federal judicial nominees appointed by President Joe Biden (D). This page also provides additional procedural and historical context about Biden's judicial nominees and the nomination records of previous presidents, including the following information:
- The number of historical judicial appointments made by presidents between 1933 and 2021;
- Vacancy statistics by month;
- Nomination and confirmation statistics by month;
- Status of federal court vacancies;
- Status of Article III judicial nominees appointed by Biden;
- List of judicial nominees confirmed to their positions;
- List of judicial nominees waiting for a Senate vote;
- List of judicial nominees waiting for a committee vote;
- List of judicial nominees waiting for a committee hearing.
- A timeline of nominations made by Biden;
The list of nominees is updated daily, and the comparisons are updated monthly.
From Scotusblog: Stephen Breyer, pragmatic liberal, will retire at end of term
- Click here for the article.
Justice Stephen Breyer, a devoted pragmatist and the senior member of the Supreme Court’s liberal wing, will retire from the court at the end of the 2021-22 term, NBC News reported on Wednesday. Over nearly 28 years on the court, Breyer shunned rigid approaches to legal interpretation, often seeking functional rulings with an eye toward real-world consequences. He wrote major opinions favoring abortion rights, demarcating the separation of powers, and turning back a challenge to the Affordable Care Act. In his later years, he repeatedly questioned the constitutionality of the death penalty. His retirement opens the door for President Joe Biden to fulfill a campaign promise and nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court.
When he was nominated to the Supreme Court by then-President Bill Clinton in 1994, Breyer had spent the previous 14 years as a judge on the Boston-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. Breyer had also been a candidate to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Byron White one year earlier. But Breyer had been hit by a car while riding his bicycle shortly before he came to Washington to meet with Clinton in June 1993 and was still recovering from injuries that included broken ribs and a punctured lung. The interview reportedly did not go well, and Clinton chose a 60-year-old Washington, D.C., appeals court judge named Ruth Bader Ginsburg to fill White’s seat.
Breyer would get another shot less than a year later, after Justice Harry Blackmun announced his plans to step down after the court’s 1993-94 term. According to reporting by CNN in 2014 based on the papers of Diane Blair, a close confidante of the Clintons, Bill Clinton considered both Richard Arnold, a fellow Arkansan serving as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, and Bruce Babbitt of Arizona, then the secretary of the interior, before nominating Breyer – releasing the decision so quickly that Breyer did not have time to travel to Washington for the announcement. After a week of hearings that the New York Times characterized as intentionally “tame,” Breyer was confirmed by a vote of 87 to 9 on July 29, 1994.
Tuesday, January 25, 2022
Monday, January 24, 2022
From The Texas Tribune: Vote-by-mail rejections are testing integrity of Texas Republicans’ voting law
- Click here for the article.
Barely started down the path toward the first elections conducted under voting restrictions enacted last year by Republican lawmakers, Texas voters and local election officials have found themselves enveloped in a fog of errors, delays and miscommunications as they navigate new rules for casting votes by mail.
But hundreds of applications are being rejected — in many cases because voters appear to not know the new rules. Local election workers themselves are still deciphering the procedures, and say they've been hampered by a paucity of help and information from the Texas secretary of state's office. Meanwhile, the state is scrambling to provide training under the crush of advising counties on implementing a multitude of election changes.
- Texas Voting Rights.
From the Texas Slavery Project: "Translation of the General Law of Colonization, No. 72," August 18, 1824
- Click here for the page.
The Sovereign General Congress, assembled for the purpose of framing the Constitution of the United Mexican States, has decreed as follows:--
ART. 1.--The Mexican Nation offers to those foreigners who may be desirous of settling in her territory security for their persons and property, provided they obey the laws of the country.
ART. 2.--This law relates to those lands, national property, which, as belonging to no individual, corporation or town, may be occupied by settlers.
ART. 3.--For this purpose the Congresses of the States shall as speedily as possible frame laws of regulations for the colonization of those lands which appertain to them, conforming in every respect with the fundamental Constitutional Act, the General Constitution, and the regulations established by this law,
ART. 4.--No lands lying within 20 leagues of the boundaries with any foreign nation, nor within 10 leagues of the coast, can be occupied by settlers, without the previous approbation of the Supreme Executive Power.
ART. 5.--If, with a view to the defence or security of the nation, the government of the federation should think fit to occupy any of the lands, in order to construct magazines, arsenals, or other public buildings, it is empowered so to do, with the approbation of the general Congress, and during its recess with that of the Council of Government.
ART. 6.--Until 4 years from the publication of this law, no impost shall be levied for the admission of those foreigners who may come for the first time, in order to settle in the nation.
ART. 7.--Until the year 1840 the general Congress shall not prohibit the admission of foreigners to colonize, excepting, indeed, circumstances should imperiously oblige it so to do, with regard to the individuals of any nation.
ART. 8.--The Government, without defeating the purposes of this law, shall take those measures of precaution which it may deem expedient for the security of the federation, with regard to those foreigners who may come to colonise.
ART. 9.--In the distribution of lands a preference is to be given to Mexican citizens, and between them no other distinction shall be made
Begin Page: 98
than that to which individual merit, or services rendered to the country, may justify, or, where in other cases a parity exists, residence in the part to which the lands appertain.
ART. 10.--Those military men who, agreeable to the offer of the 27th March, 1821, have a right to lands, shall be recompensed on presenting the documents with which the Supreme Executive Power shall for that purpose provide them.
ART. 11.--If, according to decrees for paying off the principal according to a calculation of the probability of the length of life of the incumbent, the Supreme Executive Power should think proper to alienate any portions of land in favour of any public servants of the federation, military or civil, it is impowered so to do, with the government lands of the territories of the Republic.
ART. 12.--In the possession of no individual shall be allowed to be united, as his own property, more than one square league of 5000 yards of lands fit for irrigation, 4 of arable land not irrigated, and 6 of pasture land.
ART. 13.--The new settlers are not permitted to transfer their property to religious communities.
ART. 14.--This law guarantees the contracts which speculators may make with those families which they may convey at their own expense, provided they are not contrary to the laws.
ART. 15.--No one who in virtue of this law obtains possession of lands, can hold them if settled out of the territory, of the Republic.
ART. 16.--The government agreeably to the principles established in this law shall proceed to colonise the territories of the Republic.
The Supreme Executive Power is hereby made acquainted with this law, and will take the requisite measures for its fulfilment, directing that it be printed, published, and circulated.--MEXICO, 18th Aug. 1824.
(Signed) C. IBARRA,
President, Etc., Etc., Etc.
PEDRO DE AHUMADA,
MANUEL DE VILLA Y CRIO,
Deputies Secretaries.
TO DON LUCAS ALAMAN,
Directed to be published by the EXECUTIVE
POWER, in Mexico, 18th Aug. 1824.
(Signed) N. BRAVO,
President, Etc., Etc., Etc.
VICTE. GUERRERO.
MIGL. DOMINGUEZ.
And published on the same day.
From TSHA: Mexican Colonization Laws
- Click here for it.
On January 17, 1821, the government of the eastern division of the Provincias Internas granted a permit to Moses Austin to settle 300 families in Texas. While preparing to inaugurate this settlement, Austin died. His son, Stephen F. Austin, appeared in San Antonio in August 1821 and was recognized by Governor Antonio Martínez as his father's successor to carry out the enterprise. Among other provisions agreed upon by Austin and Martínez were the terms for distribution of land to colonists. Austin embodied the final form of these terms in a letter to Martínez dated October 12, 1821. He proposed to grant to each head of a family 640 acres in his own right, 320 acres in virtue of his wife, 160 acres for each child, and 80 acres for each slave. Austin's compensation for service in obtaining land, duly surveyed and with title delivered at his expense, was to be at the rate of 12 ½ cents an acre. A colonist could reduce the normal grant to fit his resources or, with Austin's permission, augment it. Austin's permit was granted by Spanish officials. Mexico became independent in 1821, however, and the provisional government failed to recognize Austin's grant but chose rather to settle terms of colonization and immigration by a general law.
- Laws for Promoting Colonization in Texas.
- General Colonization Law.
- Law of April 6, 1830.
Friday, January 21, 2022
From the Texas Tribune: Texas eviction filings among the nation's highest as millions of rent relief dollars go unspent
Fiscal Federalism
- Click here for the article.
Eviction filings in several Texas cities are among the highest in the nation — even as millions of federal dollars aimed at helping struggling renters have sat unspent so long in some counties that the federal government is taking the money back.
As the omicron surge is again forcing many workers to choose between a paycheck and the risk of COVID-19 exposure, the U.S. Treasury Department seized $1.9 million in unspent rent relief from five Texas counties — Jefferson, Brazoria, Hays, El Paso and Nueces — as well as the city of Laredo because local officials didn’t spend the money fast enough, the agency said earlier this month.
The money is instead being sent to other parts of the state or the country where local governments have distributed rental assistance more quickly.
The seizure of those funds comes as the reserve of rent relief dollars in Texas has emptied and eviction filings in the state’s major metropolitan areas have steadily neared pre-pandemic levels — all while state and federal bans on evictions have expired.
“We're reaching a critical moment for low-income people who may be struggling to stay in their homes while many of the safeguards are collapsing at the same moment,” said Ben Martin, a senior research analyst for the nonprofit advocacy group Texas Housers.
The amount of federal rent relief dollars clawed back by the Treasury is a small fraction of the nearly $1 billion in federal dollars sent to local governments in Texas to help keep tenants in their homes. That money, meant to help struggling renters, is already becoming scarce in Texas.
The state agency in charge of Texas’ separate $1.9 billion rent relief and eviction diversion program stopped taking new applications in November, citing overwhelming demand.
Locally run rent relief programs also are tightening their purse strings. Houston and Harris County’s joint $283 million rent and utility assistance program — paid for with federal dollars — is soon expected to get a $13 million injection from the federal government. The program had $7.6 million left as of Wednesday — and only applicants who have an active eviction case have a shot at getting help.
The surge of evictions and the growing scarcity of emergency rental assistance funds for renters are “directly related,” said Dana Karni, an attorney for Lone Star Legal Aid, which provides free legal services to low-income Texans.
“I think what motivates landlords is the fact that the hope for rental assistance funds to basically fill the void is gone,” Karni said. “And so they really have the choice of having to decide whether they want to become charitable and let someone stay there for free or a significantly reduced rent or evict them so they could bring in a new tenant.
Wednesday, January 19, 2022
From Community Impact News
- Pearland ISD board of trustees ratifies 2022-23 school year calendar.
- Pearland City Council to consider rules for short-term rentals.
- A growing community: Check out population, demographic, tax rate data for Pearland and Friendswood.
- Harris County bans criminal history question on department job applications.
- TEA reviewing social studies learning standards, seeking public input.
- Supreme Court begins rehearing of high-speed rail eminent domain case.
- Alvin ISD adopts district goals for 2022-23 school year.
- Pearland City Council to consider rules for short-term rentals.
- A growing community: Check out population, demographic, tax rate data for Pearland and Friendswood.
- Harris County bans criminal history question on department job applications.
- TEA reviewing social studies learning standards, seeking public input.
- Supreme Court begins rehearing of high-speed rail eminent domain case.
- Alvin ISD adopts district goals for 2022-23 school year.
From the City of Pearland: TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE NUMBER 2 (TIRZ)
A TIRZ is a funding mechanism used to develop vacant property - among other things.
- Click here for the story.
A Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) is an economic development tool available to cities under Texas Law. A TIRZ is a specific geographic area defined by the City Council. For the duration of the TIRZ (no more that 30 years), the property taxes from the increased value due to development within the TIRZ is “captured” and placed in a separate fund administered by the City.
The captured tax proceeds can only be used to pay for eligible public improvements within the zone such as streets, drainage, utilities, and public facilities. The underlying concept is that the new taxes from new development are reinvested within the zone that created the additional value. Generally, the developer is required to advance fund the eligible improvements and is only reimbursed with TIRZ proceeds when/if the captured tax proceeds are sufficient.
Property owners within the zone continue to pay the full taxes that are due, so a TIRZ does not create a “tax abatement” situation. The taxes on the “base value” (the property value within the zone before development) continue to flow to the City’s general fund for use city-wide.
TIRZ #2 includes approximately 3,467 acres in the Shadow Creek Ranch development. The TIRZ proceeds are being used to fund the major infrastructure needed to bring this completely vacant property into a developable state. Projected TIRZ projects include extension of Kirby Drive and Hampton Drive (formerly County Road 48), major water and sewer trunk lines, wastewater treatment plant capacity, drainage and detention facilities, recreational areas and trail system, a police/fire substation, and a public library. Improvements within the individual neighborhoods that will comprise Shadow Creek Ranch are not eligible for TIRZ financing under the terms of the TIRZ plan for this development.
From the National Conference of State Legislatures: Online Voter Registration
An overview of online registration across the states.
- Click here for the page.
Online voter registration systems supplement the traditional paper-based process, by which new voters fill out a paper form that is submitted to election officials, who confirm the registration is valid and enter the information from the paper application into the registration system.
Online voter registration follows essentially the same process, but instead of filling out a paper application, the voter fills out a form via an Internet site, and that paperless form is submitted electronically to election officials. In most states the application is reviewed electronically; if the request is confirmed to be valid, the new registration is added to the state’s voter registration list.
That validation step is done by comparing the information on the online registration form against the information provided by the same individual when he or she received a driver’s license or other state-issued identification card. The signature already on record with the state becomes the signature on record for voting. When the information does not match, the application is sent to officials for further review or action.
In most states, online voter registration systems work for people who have state-issued driver’s licenses or identification cards, although a few states provide online access for other potential voters as well. In all states, paper registration forms are available for anyone, including those who cannot register online.
Arizona was the innovator in paperless voter registration, having implemented its system in 2002. Washington followed with authorizing legislation in 2007 and implementation in 2008. Since then, more and more states have gone live with online voter registration. While most states have enacted specific legislation to authorize online voter registration, some have made online voter registration available without enabling legislation. See the table below for details.
From the Texas Tribune: Texas says supply chain issues have limited the number of voter registration forms it can give out
Potential subject of a federal lawsuit?
This would not be a problem if Texas had online voter registration.
- Click here for the article.
Sam Taylor, assistant secretary of state for communications, said supply chain issues have made it harder and more expensive to get paper, which means the secretary of state’s office will be giving out fewer voter registration forms to groups ahead of elections this year.
“We are limited in what we can supply this year, because of the paper shortage and the cost constraints due to the price of paper and the supply of paper,” he said.
Grace Chimene, the president of the League of Women Voters of Texas, said it is not unusual for the secretary of state to not have enough forms to fill all the requests it gets from groups like hers ahead of elections. This particular shortage, however, is affecting an important part of her group’s work: registering thousands of newly naturalized citizens.
Chimene said in previous years, her group, which has chapters across the state, has been able to get enough forms to pass out at naturalization ceremonies. Often, she said, the group partners with the state to give out several thousand forms at each ceremony.
“The League in Houston registers about 30,000 new citizens every year through these ceremonies in the past,” Chimene said.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a mix of in-person and remote ceremonies. Chimene said her group has either been handing out voter registration materials at in-person events or they’ve been sending out packets they put together ahead of time to those new citizens.
Either way, the league and their volunteers often ask for thousands of voter registration forms ahead of these ceremonies.
“It’s a really important job that we do and we value it, and I think the new citizens value it also," Chimene said.
Taylor said the secretary of state’s office has been forced to limit each group to 1,000 to 2,000 registration forms per request. He said this shortage is coming at a time when many groups are seeking out new voter registration forms because of a change in Texas’ voter registration laws created under Senate Bill 1, a controversial voting law that went into effect last month.
“The voter registration application changed this year for one reason: It’s because the legislature decided to increase the penalty for illegal voter registration from a class B misdemeanor to a class A misdemeanor,” he said.
Tuesday, January 18, 2022
From the Texas Tribune: Texas judge opens door for widespread constitutional challenges to Gov. Greg Abbott’s border initiative
Let's deconstruct this.
- Click here for it.
A state district judge Thursday may have set in motion a new wave of legal challenges to Gov. Greg Abbott’s trouble-plagued border security initiative, ruling that one migrant’s arrest on state misdemeanor trespassing charges violated the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause because immigration enforcement is the federal government’s job.
Though the ruling may be appealed and applies only to Jesús Guzmán Curipoma, a 36-year-old oil engineer, it opened the door to constitutional challenges from more of the thousands of migrants who have been imprisoned for allegedly trespassing since July, when the governor set his sights on mass trespassing arrests as a way to cut down on border crossings.
“Everybody who has a pending misdemeanor trespassing arrest under OLS will have the exact same challenge,” said Kristin Etter, an attorney with the Texas RioGrande Legal Aid who represents hundreds of migrants. “This sets a clear precedent in all of those cases both pending and future.”
Though far from the first court challenge to Abbott’s arrest initiative — which has been vexed with wrongful arrests, prosecutorial errors, court delays and ethics complaints — Soifer’s ruling is the first to rule against the constitutionality of a migrant’s trespassing arrest, according to Etter.
On Friday morning, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton vowed to appeal the ruling, though it's not yet clear how he will do so since his office was not a party in the lawsuit. A spokesperson for Abbott said Friday morning that "there is no doubt that this will be overturned."
"The district court did not have legal authority to enter this flawed and collusive judgment without hearing from the Office of the Attorney General," Nan Tolson said in a statement.
Monday, January 17, 2022
5 U.S. Code § 6103 - Holidays
(a) The following are legal public holidays:
New Year’s Day, January 1.
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., the third Monday in January.
Washington’s Birthday, the third Monday in February.
Memorial Day, the last Monday in May.
Juneteenth National Independence Day, June 19.
Independence Day, July 4.
Labor Day, the first Monday in September.
Columbus Day, the second Monday in October.
Veterans Day, November 11.
Thanksgiving Day, the fourth Thursday in November.
Christmas Day, December 25.
(b) For the purpose of statutes relating to pay and leave of employees, with respect to a legal public holiday and any other day declared to be a holiday by Federal statute or Executive order, the following rules apply:
(1) Instead of a holiday that occurs on a Saturday, the Friday immediately before is a legal public holiday for—
(A) employees whose basic workweek is Monday through Friday; and
(B) the purpose of section 6309 [1] of this title.
(2) Instead of a holiday that occurs on a regular weekly non-workday of an employee whose basic workweek is other than Monday through Friday, except the regular weekly non-workday administratively scheduled for the employee instead of Sunday, the workday immediately before that regular weekly nonworkday is a legal public holiday for the employee.
(3) Instead of a holiday that is designated under subsection (a) to occur on a Monday, for an employee at a duty post outside the United States whose basic workweek is other than Monday through Friday, and for whom Monday is a regularly scheduled workday, the legal public holiday is the first workday of the workweek in which the Monday designated for the observance of such holiday under subsection (a) occurs.
This subsection, except subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), does not apply to an employee whose basic workweek is Monday through Saturday.
(c) January 20 of each fourth year after 1965, Inauguration Day, is a legal public holiday for the purpose of statutes relating to pay and leave of employees as defined by section 2105 of this title and individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia employed in the District of Columbia, Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties in Maryland, Arlington and Fairfax Counties in Virginia, and the cities of Alexandria and Falls Church in Virginia. When January 20 of any fourth year after 1965 falls on Sunday, the next succeeding day selected for the public observance of the inauguration of the President is a legal public holiday for the purpose of this subsection.
(d)
(1)For purposes of this subsection—
(A) the term “compressed schedule” has the meaning given such term by section 6121(5); and
(B) the term “adverse agency impact” has the meaning given such term by section 6131(b).
(2) An agency may prescribe rules under which employees on a compressed schedule may, in the case of a holiday that occurs on a regularly scheduled non-workday for such employees, and notwithstanding any other provision of law or the terms of any collective bargaining agreement, be required to observe such holiday on a workday other than as provided by subsection
(b), if the agency head determines that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent an adverse agency impact.
(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 515; Pub. L. 90–363, § 1(a), June 28, 1968, 82 Stat. 250; Pub. L. 94–97, Sept. 18, 1975, 89 Stat. 479; Pub. L. 98–144, § 1, Nov. 2, 1983, 97 Stat. 917; Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title XVI, § 1613, Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2739; Pub. L. 105–261, div. A, title XI, § 1107, Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2142; Pub. L. 117–17, § 2, June 17, 2021, 135 Stat. 287.)
New Year’s Day, January 1.
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., the third Monday in January.
Washington’s Birthday, the third Monday in February.
Memorial Day, the last Monday in May.
Juneteenth National Independence Day, June 19.
Independence Day, July 4.
Labor Day, the first Monday in September.
Columbus Day, the second Monday in October.
Veterans Day, November 11.
Thanksgiving Day, the fourth Thursday in November.
Christmas Day, December 25.
(b) For the purpose of statutes relating to pay and leave of employees, with respect to a legal public holiday and any other day declared to be a holiday by Federal statute or Executive order, the following rules apply:
(1) Instead of a holiday that occurs on a Saturday, the Friday immediately before is a legal public holiday for—
(A) employees whose basic workweek is Monday through Friday; and
(B) the purpose of section 6309 [1] of this title.
(2) Instead of a holiday that occurs on a regular weekly non-workday of an employee whose basic workweek is other than Monday through Friday, except the regular weekly non-workday administratively scheduled for the employee instead of Sunday, the workday immediately before that regular weekly nonworkday is a legal public holiday for the employee.
(3) Instead of a holiday that is designated under subsection (a) to occur on a Monday, for an employee at a duty post outside the United States whose basic workweek is other than Monday through Friday, and for whom Monday is a regularly scheduled workday, the legal public holiday is the first workday of the workweek in which the Monday designated for the observance of such holiday under subsection (a) occurs.
This subsection, except subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), does not apply to an employee whose basic workweek is Monday through Saturday.
(c) January 20 of each fourth year after 1965, Inauguration Day, is a legal public holiday for the purpose of statutes relating to pay and leave of employees as defined by section 2105 of this title and individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia employed in the District of Columbia, Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties in Maryland, Arlington and Fairfax Counties in Virginia, and the cities of Alexandria and Falls Church in Virginia. When January 20 of any fourth year after 1965 falls on Sunday, the next succeeding day selected for the public observance of the inauguration of the President is a legal public holiday for the purpose of this subsection.
(d)
(1)For purposes of this subsection—
(A) the term “compressed schedule” has the meaning given such term by section 6121(5); and
(B) the term “adverse agency impact” has the meaning given such term by section 6131(b).
(2) An agency may prescribe rules under which employees on a compressed schedule may, in the case of a holiday that occurs on a regularly scheduled non-workday for such employees, and notwithstanding any other provision of law or the terms of any collective bargaining agreement, be required to observe such holiday on a workday other than as provided by subsection
(b), if the agency head determines that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent an adverse agency impact.
(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 515; Pub. L. 90–363, § 1(a), June 28, 1968, 82 Stat. 250; Pub. L. 94–97, Sept. 18, 1975, 89 Stat. 479; Pub. L. 98–144, § 1, Nov. 2, 1983, 97 Stat. 917; Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title XVI, § 1613, Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2739; Pub. L. 105–261, div. A, title XI, § 1107, Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2142; Pub. L. 117–17, § 2, June 17, 2021, 135 Stat. 287.)
U.S. Code: Title 5: Government Organization And Employees
From the Legislative Information Institute: Click here for it.
- PART II—CIVIL SERVICE FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES (§§ 1101 – 1508)
- PART III—EMPLOYEES (§§ 2101 – 11001)
From Wikipedia: Click here for entry.
Title 5 contains the Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act of 1974, the Congressional Review Act as well as authorization for government reorganizations such as Reorganization Plan No. 3. It also is the Title that specifies Federal holidays (5 U.S.C. § 6103).
From Wikipedia: Passage of Martin Luther King Jr. Day
Passage was controversial. It took a while to pass it.
- Click here for the entry.
A United States federal statute honoring Martin Luther King Jr. and his work in the civil rights movement with a federal holiday was enacted by the 98th United States Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on November 2, 1983, creating Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The final vote in the House of Representatives on August 2, 1983 was 338–90 (242–4 in the House Democratic Caucus and 89–77 in the House Republican Conference) with 5 members voting present or abstaining,[1] while the final vote in the Senate on October 19, 1983 was 78–22 (41–4 in the Senate Democratic Caucus and 37–18 in the Senate Republican Conference),[2][3] both veto-proof margins.
While attempts were made to have a federally recognized holiday, numerous U.S. states recognized holidays in honor of King. Connecticut did so in 1973. Illinois adopted a commemoration day in 1969, and made it a paid holiday also in 1973. Other states continued to adopt state holidays up through Utah in 2000.
Legislative History
Long title A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to make the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., a legal public holiday.
Enacted by the 98th United States Congress\
Legislative history
Introduced in the House as A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to make the birthday of Martin
Luther King, Jr., a legal public holiday. (H.R. 3706) by Katie Hall (D–IN) on July 29, 1983
Passed the Senate as the "A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to make the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., a legal public holiday." on October 19, 1983 (78–22)
Signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on November 2, 1983
From Wikipedia: Plan of San Diego
An attempt in 1915 to create a new republic along the U.S. - Mexican Border.
- Click here for the entry.
The Plan of San Diego (Spanish: Plan de San Diego) was drafted in San Diego, Texas, in 1915 by a group of unidentified Mexican and Tejano rebels who hoped to secede Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Texas from the United States and create a racial utopia for Native Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, and African Americans. The plan called for the execution of all white men over the age of sixteen.[1]
The plan called for the killing of all adult white American men in the Southwestern states[2] and the "return of land to Mexicans." It was, however, exposed before it could be fully executed. Although there was no uprising, there were raids into Texas that began in July 1915. The raids were countered by Texas Rangers, the U.S. Army and local self-defense groups. In total, 30 raids into Texas destroyed large amounts of property and killed 21 Americans.[3] Historians estimate that American law enforcement personnel engaged in suppressing the raids indiscriminately killed as many as 5,000 people of Mexican descent in Texas during this two-year period.[4][5] It is not known who was responsible for drafting the Plan of San Diego, but there are theories that Mexican revolutionary leaders helped to sponsor it.
From Lawfare: The January 6 Project
A good source for material relevant to the events of 1/6/21.
- Click here for it.
- Confronting Capitol Insurrection.
Thursday, January 13, 2022
From the Texas Tribune: Austin voters could decriminalize small amounts of pot in May
Texas is still taking baby steps toward legalizing marijuana.
- Click here for the article.
As greater numbers of Texas voters sour on harsh punishment for marijuana offenses, Austin voters will likely decide in May whether to effectively decriminalize the drug.
Both practices have already been informally adopted in Austin, but advocates want to solidify them at the May ballot box.
“The primary effect is that it would make the decriminalization that exists in Austin today actually long term and would put the force of law behind it,” said Chris Harris, policy director at Austin Justice Coalition.
Austin law enforcement has met the idea with varying degrees of hostility and indifference in recent years. After the Austin City Council informally asked the Police Department in 2020 to halt citations and arrests for misdemeanor marijuana charges, then-Chief Brian Manley said the council doesn’t have the authority to tell him not to enforce state law. And officers still have latitude to decide whether to make arrests and write citations.
Chief Joseph Chacon has been mum on the current proposal. A representative for the Austin Police Department did not return a request for comment Monday.
And the Austin Police Association, the union that represents Austin officers, is staying out of the ballot fight — but not because it’s happy with the idea.
“We don't support it just because we feel like you should follow state law,” said Ken Casaday, head of the union. “They're skirting state law. But the thing is if this makes people in Austin happy, so be it.”
Austin’s city clerk verified Monday that the campaign collected enough signatures — at least 20,000 — to appear on the May ballot. The City Council still must vote to put the measure, which also would formally ban “no-knock” warrants, on the ballot.
But the measure faces one big obstacle: Although marijuana laws in Texas have loosened somewhat in recent years, the drug remains illegal at the state level.
Public support for harsh marijuana laws and prosecutors’ willingness to bring charges for minor offenses has waned in recent years.
The number of new charges for misdemeanor marijuana possession fell by 59% from 2016 to 2020, according to figures from the Texas Office of Court Administration, as prosecutors in the state’s major urban areas have increasingly deprioritized marijuana prosecutions.
Most Texas voters support decriminalizing marijuana in some form. Three-fifths of Texas voters say at least a small amount of marijuana should be legal, according to a University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll last year.
That support cuts across partisan lines. Nearly three-fourths of Democrats and independents think marijuana should be legal. So do 43% of Republicans, a plurality of that group.
It’s against that backdrop that Ground Game Texas — a progressive group focused on issues of “workers, wages and weed” — plans to mount decriminalization campaigns in Killeen and Harker Heights. In San Marcos, another organization is gathering signatures for a similar ballot measure.
“This is a very popular issue, even among a lot of Republicans,” said Mike Siegel, political director for Ground Game Texas.
In the past, Gov. Greg Abbott and Republican leaders have sought to punish Austin for adopting left-leaning measures like cutting the city’s police spending or allowing homeless encampments in public.
But Abbott has signaled openness to some forms of marijuana decriminalization. In May, he signed an expansion of the state’s medical marijuana program to include people with cancer and post-traumatic stress disorder. And on Monday, he said he has little appetite for severe punishment for low-level marijuana offenses.
“One thing that I believe in, and I believe the state Legislature believes in, and that is prison and jail is a place for dangerous criminals who may harm others,” Abbott said Monday during a campaign stop in Edinburg. “Small possession of marijuana is not the type of violation that we want to stockpile jails with.”
Despite Abbott’s assertion about lawmakers’ positions, bills aiming to decriminalize or legalize marijuana haven’t gotten through the Legislature in recent years. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a fellow Republican who heads the state Senate, has previously said he’s “strongly opposed” to loosening punishment for pot possession.
Part of Abbott’s play is not to alienate moderate voters in the November general election who believe in some degree of marijuana decriminalization, said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston. His Democratic opponent, former Congressman Beto O’Rourke, has regularly backed marijuana legalization on the campaign trail.
“The governor doesn't want to be on the wrong side of public opinion on what is otherwise a popular issue towards decriminalizing and, for some, outright legalization for recreational use,” Rottinghaus said.
From Reuters: Far-right Oath Keepers first to be charged with seditious conspiracy in Capitol attack
- Click here for the article.
U.S. prosecutors on Thursday charged the founder of the far-right Oath Keepers militia, Stewart Rhodes, and 10 alleged members of the group with seditious conspiracy for their role in the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
This is the first time alleged participants in the attack have been charged with seditious conspiracy, which is defined as attempting "to overthrow, put down or to destroy by force the government of the United States."
"We are going to have a fight," prosecutors said Rhodes told his allies on the messaging app Signal. "That can't be avoided."
The Oath Keepers are a loosely organized group of activists who believe that the federal government is encroaching on their rights, and focus on recruiting current and former police, emergency services and military members.
Nine of the eleven charged with seditious conspiracy were already facing other charges relating to the Capitol attack. Members of the far-right Proud Boys and Three Percenters have also been charged with taking part in the attack.
ATTEMPT TO STOP TRANSFER OF POWER
The indictment says Rhodes started sending messages to his followers in November 2020, the month of Trump's election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, encouraging them to "oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power."
After his defeat, Trump repeatedly made false claims that his loss was a result of widespread fraud. He repeated those claims in a fiery speech near the White House before thousands of his followers stormed the Capitol in the worst attack on the seat of Congress since the War of 1812.
Prosecutors said that beginning in late December 2020, Rhodes used private encrypted communications to plan to travel to Washington on Jan. 6. He and others planned to bring weapons to help support the operation, prosecutors said.
While some of the Oath Keeper members rushed inside the building wearing tactical gear, others remained outside in what they deemed "quick-response force" teams, which were prepared to rapidly transport arms into the city, prosecutors said.
Jon Moseley, an attorney for Rhodes, told Reuters he was on the phone with Rhodes to discuss his planned appearance before the House Select Committee on Jan. 6 when the FBI called.
"He patched me in on the call and I identified myself as his lawyer," Moseley said in an e-mail. The agent then told him they were outside Rhodes' home in Granbury, Texas, and were there to arrest him.
The indictment alleges that Thomas Caldwell, who was previously charged, and Edward Vallejo of Arizona, a new defendant, were in charge of coordinating the quick-response force teams.
Seditious conspiracy is a felony carrying a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland last week vowed to hold accountable anyone involved in the attack on the Capitol. The department has charged more than 725 people with crimes arising from the attack. Of those people, about 165 have pleaded guilty and at least 70 have been sentenced. Garland said the Justice Department would "follow the facts wherever they lead."
On the day of the attack, four people died. One of them, Ashli Babbitt, was shot dead by Capitol Police while trying to break into the Speaker's Gallery. Three others died of natural causes.
The following day, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died. Although he had been sprayed with a chemical irritant the day of the attack, it was later determined he died of natural causes. Around 140 police officers were injured, and four police officers later died by suicide.
Split Scotus decisions on federally mandated COVID mandates
From Scotusblog:
- In National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, the court blocked the federal government’s vaccine-or-test requirement for workplaces of 100 or more employees.
- In Biden v. Missouri, the court allowed the government’s vaccine mandate for workers at federally funded health care facilities to take effect nationwide.
- In National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, the court blocked the federal government’s vaccine-or-test requirement for workplaces of 100 or more employees.
- In Biden v. Missouri, the court allowed the government’s vaccine mandate for workers at federally funded health care facilities to take effect nationwide.
Tuesday, January 11, 2022
Texas Land Grants
https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/land-grants
https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/austin-moses
https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/mexican-colonization-laws
https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/austin-stephen-fuller
https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/martinez-antonio-maria
https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/law-of-april-6-1830
https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/anglo-american-colonization
https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/old-three-hundred
From Wikipedia: American Indian Wars
The gradual process which cleared the land to make way for the creation of the US.
- Click here for it.
The American Indian Wars, also known as the American Frontier Wars, the First Nations Wars in Canada (French: Guerres des Premières Nations), and the Indian Wars, were fought by European governments and colonists, and later by the United States and Canadian governments and American and Canadian settlers, against various American Indian and First Nation tribes. These conflicts occurred in North America from the time of the earliest colonial settlements in the 17th century until the early 20th century. The various wars resulted from a wide variety of factors. The European powers and their colonies also enlisted allied Indian tribes to help them conduct warfare against each other's colonial settlements. After the American Revolution, many conflicts were local to specific states or regions and frequently involved disputes over land use; some entailed cycles of violent reprisal.
Fencing / Private Property
https://historicipswich.org/2018/02/25/disorder-in-the-corn-fields/
https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article/117/2/365/30072
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40170390?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5795&context=etd
https://www.britannica.com/topic/American-colonies/Land-policy-in-New-England-and-Virginia
https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/44958/1/hdl_44958.pdf
Colonialism / Mercantilism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism#Great_Britain
Texas Budgets and Legislative Appropriations Requests - plus some other stuff
https://comptroller.texas.gov/transparency/budget/primer.php
https://www.alvincollege.edu/about/financial-information/index.html
https://senate.texas.gov/_assets/srcpub/86th_Budget_101.pdf
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/21/texas-budget-2021/
https://www.alvinisd.net/Page/4141
https://www.pearlandisd.org/transparency
https://www.uh.edu/office-of-finance/budget-office/operating-budget/
https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/agency-finances/legislative-appropriations-request
https://www.highered.texas.gov/state-required-links/legislative-appropriations-request/
https://www.governing.com/finance/state-and-local-governments-with-the-most-debt-per-capita
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article256889062.html
From Wikipedia: Walter Raleigh in the New World
An early attempt to establish a sustainable English settlement in the New World.
- Click here for the entry.
In 1584, Queen Elizabeth granted Raleigh a royal charter authorising him to explore, colonise and rule any "remote, heathen and barbarous lands, countries and territories, not actually possessed of any Christian Prince or inhabited by Christian People", in return for one-fifth of all the gold and silver that might be mined there.[17] This charter specified that Raleigh had seven years in which to establish a settlement, or else lose his right to do so. Raleigh and Elizabeth intended that the venture should provide riches from the New World and a base from which to send privateers on raids against the treasure fleets of Spain. Raleigh himself never visited North America, although he led expeditions in 1595 and 1617 to the Orinoco river basin in South America in search of the golden city of El Dorado. Instead, he sent others in 1585 to find the Roanoke Colony, later known as the "Lost Colony".[18]
In 1587, Raleigh attempted a second expedition, again establishing a settlement on Roanoke Island. This time, a more diverse group of settlers was sent, including some entire families,[19] under the governance of John White.[20] After a short while in America, White returned to England to obtain more supplies for the colony, planning to return in a year. Unfortunately for the colonists at Roanoke, one year became three. The first delay came when Queen Elizabeth I ordered all vessels to remain at port for potential use against the Spanish Armada. After England's 1588 victory over the Spanish Armada, the ships were given permission to sail.[21]
The second delay came after White's small fleet set sail for Roanoke and his crew insisted on sailing first towards Cuba in hopes of capturing treasure-laden Spanish merchant ships. Enormous riches described by their pilot, an experienced Portuguese navigator hired by Raleigh, outweighed White's objections to the delay.[21]
Friday, January 7, 2022
Chartered Companies and the Financing of the Settlement of the American Colonies
- Wikipedia: London Company.
- Wikipedia: Virginia Company.
- Wikipedia: Plymouth Company.
- Wikipedia: Chartered Companies.
- Wikipedia: Incorporation.
- Wikipedia: Shareholders.
From The Legal Information Institute: Fundamental Right
- Click here for it.
Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws encroaching on a fundamental right generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.
Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include:
- marriage
- privacy
- contraception
- interstate travel.
- procreation
- custody of one's child(ren)
- voting
Repealing Fundamental Rights - The Fundamental Right to Contract
Even when the Supreme Court finds that something is a fundamental right, the Court may later revoke its standing as a fundamental right. The Court did this with the right to contract. In Lochner v New York (1905), the Supreme Court found that the right to make a private contract is a fundamental right. The Court focused on the importance of economic contracts in the context of individual liberty. In West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937), however, the Court found that there is not a fundamental right to contract: "There is no absolute freedom to do as one wills or to contract as one chooses."
There is much scholarship written about why the Court would take such drastically different approaches to a "fundamental right" in such a relatively short period of time. For further reading, this Minnesota Law Review article takes a thorough view of the shift. The article rejects the notion that "Lochner era was dominated by laissez-faire, social Darwinist Justices." Rather, the article argues that "the shift in constitutional values from Lochner to West Coast Hotel was the result of developments in legal, economic, and political theory, as well as the harsh realities of economic life during the Great Depression. Taken together, these factors were a powerful reason for the constitutional development embodied in West Coast Hotel."
Further Reading
For more on fundamental rights, read
- University of Cincinnati Law Review article,
- Cornell Law Faculty Scholarship article,
- Touro Law Review article.
wex
- CIVICS
- civil rights
- government
- human rights
- the Constitution
- wex definitions
Keywords
- constitutional law
- U.S. CONSTITUTION
- fundamental rights
- Supreme Court
- contracts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)