Thursday, February 29, 2024
2/29/24
- Dummy tank.
- The Institute for the Study of War.
- Analysis of the United States Documented Unplugged Orphaned Oil and Gas Well Dataset.
- Ryan Sitton.
- Broker.
- In vitro fertilisation.
- Wrongful Death of Minor.
- Setting the Record Straight on 10 Misconceptions about Migration and Asylum at the US-Mexico Border.
Wikipedia: James LePage, et al. v. The Center for Reproductive Medicine and Mobile Infirmary Association
- Click here for the article.
. . . a 2024 Alabama Supreme Court case in which the court held that, under Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor law, frozen embryos should be considered as living beings, making the accidental loss of embryos by an in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic considered equal to murder.
. . . In 2020, a patient at the Center for Reproductive Medicine in Mobile, Alabama improperly accessed the cryogenic freezer where frozen embryos were stored, removing and dropping them on the floor after their hands suffered from cold burns. Four parents—James and Emily LePage and Felicia and Scott Aysenne—sued against the Center for Reproductive Medicine, with William Tripp and Caroline Fonde serving as plaintiffs in LePage's lawsuit.
- The Alabama Supreme Court opinion holding that embryos are children, explained.
Wednesday, February 28, 2024
Tuesday, February 27, 2024
From the Texas Tribune: Rural housing programs serve Texas’ elderly and disabled. This federal bill could make the process easier.
Fiscal Federalism
Social Goods
- etc. . . .
- Click here for the article.
As Texans spend more of their income on paying their rent than essentials like health care, food, and transportation, several bills filed this congressional session aim to make it easier for people in rural communities to continue living there.
The bill would clean up some of the hurdles, such as making official notices about housing assistance more readable and informing landlords of the program so they are more likely to accept vouchers from tenants. It would also direct the Rural Housing Service office to develop a plan identifying at-risk tenants and ensure they have a fast approval process for vouchers.
Crockett’s bill, along with a package of bills under the Rural Housing Service Reform Act, stand to update the housing landscape for people in far-flung areas around the country.
The federal bills address Section 515, a program through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of Rural Development. It provides loans to individuals, nonprofit organizations or corporations to build, improve or purchase rural multifamily housing. People who live in rural communities can also receive a housing voucher through the 515 program that can be used toward rent where it is accepted.
Texas, the second most populous state, has 646 Section 515 properties — the largest number of any state — which serve more than 20,000 families.
How far the rural housing bills go depends on action from Congress. Aside from narrowly dodging government shutdowns, political strife has so far caused legislation to be done at a snail’s pace. This includes the new Farm Bill, which continues to be kicked down the road through extensions.
Advocates say the program is vital to keep rural housing affordable for those living paycheck to paycheck — they cater to families with low and moderate incomes, the elderly, and people with disabilities. According to a national report, 92% of Section 515 tenants have incomes that are less than half of the area median income. More than half of households are elderly people or people with disabilities.
Regarding NetChoice v Paxton
Texas Tribune: Does the First Amendment apply to social media moderation? The U.S. Supreme Court will decide.
ScotusBlog: Supreme Court skeptical of Texas, Florida regulation of social media moderation.
Oyez: NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton.
NetChoice
Wikipedia: Computer & Communications Industry Association.
Wikipedia: Paul Clement.
Monday, February 26, 2024
From The Houston Chronicle: Suspended Houston police cases grow from 2,000 to 264,000 under Chief Finner's watch, union says
For our look at local governments and criminal justice.
- Click here for the article.
A review of sex crimes cases suspended with an internal code citing a lack of personnel has expanded department-wide to include more than 264,000 cases, Chief Troy Finner said Monday.
Doug Griffith, president of the Houston Police Officers Association, said he was concerned about the latest revelations. The union president said Monday at least three of the department's division Standard Operating Procedures included directives about when to use the code to close cases.
The divisions included auto theft, vehicular crimes and major assaults and family violence, Griffith said. The major assault guidelines were signed off on by Finner Dec. 1, 2023, Griffith said.
Finner did not respond to a request for comment about the allegations as of Monday afternoon.
"I am very concerned," Mayor John Whitmire said Monday, following Finner's announcement. "It is unacceptable and I have instructed Chief Finner to be transparent and continue his review as a top priority. Public safety continues to be my highest priority."
Griffith said employees were instructed they could use the code on misdemeanor cases with little solvability. He said other cases could be suspended using that code, but those could be reopened if someone reaches out to the department seeking charges, Griffith said.
- City of Houston Police Department.
Sunday, February 25, 2024
Conflict over Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Content
- 52 U.S. Code § 10301 - Denial or abridgement of right to vote on account of race or color through voting qualifications or prerequisites; establishment of violation.
- From the Justice Department: Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act.
- From the Justice Department: Cases Raising Claims Under Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act.
- ScotusBlog: SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT: VOTE DILUTION AND VOTE DEPRIVATION.
Recent News
- 6/8/23: Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act.
- 11/20/23: Federal appeals court ruling threatens enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.
- 11/29/23: An appeals court has struck down a key path for enforcing the Voting Rights Act.
Saturday, February 24, 2024
From the Washington Post: How different groups voted in the South Carolina primary, according to exit polls
Another look at the factions within the Republican Party - at least in South Carolina - based on exit polls. Voters in the Republican Primary were divided in many ways, including whether they voted for Trump or Haley. These results don't accurately reveal the differences within the party because this was an open primary. Haley made an appeal for Democrats to crossover and vote for her. I'll look around and see if there is an estimate of how many may have done so.
Here's a bit about how the poll was conducted, this info is found at the bottom of the article:
Methods: These results are from a survey of 2,126 Republican primary voters as they exited randomly selected voting sites in South Carolina on Feb. 24, 2024. The poll was conducted by Edison Research for the National Election Pool (ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC), The Washington Post and other media organizations. Results will be weighted to match vote tallies by region and to correct for differential participation by subgroup. Totals may not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
- Click here for the article.
Donald Trump’s comfortable victory over Nikki Haley was fueled by strong support from White evangelical Christians and voters without college degrees. Big majorities of primary voters favored deporting most undocumented immigrants and said that Joe Biden’s 2020 election was illegitimate, and both of these groups favored Trump over Haley by an overwhelming margin.
The poll revealed that gender and age were not indicators of . . .
Trump voters were more likely to:
- not be college educated
- have family incomes below $50,000.
- be very conservative.
- be white evangelical Christians
- focus on immigration and the economy.
- want a president who "fights for people like me."
- favor a national ban on abortion
- deport undocumented aliens
- think that Biden was illegitimately elected
- think Trump could be president even if convicted
- vote for Trump rather than against Haley
- have previously voted in a Republican Primary
Thursday, February 22, 2024
From the Texas Tribune: Texas passes on $450 million summer lunch program for low-income families
The state government tends to refuse these funds citing a variety of reasons.
- Click here for the article.
This year 35 states will participate in a $2.5 billion federal nutrition program that will help low-income parents buy groceries for their children when free school meals are unavailable during the summer months.
The reason for the pass is simple, according to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. When the USDA notified HHSC officials of their new Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer, or EBT program on Dec. 29, that gave the nation’s second largest state only six months to get it up and running and that’s not enough time, said Tiffany Young, a spokesperson for the state agency.
Although the summer program would involve two other agencies as well – the Texas Education Agency and the Texas Department of Agriculture – HHSC would have to bear the brunt of the work because they would have to coordinate and direct the distribution of the preloaded cards to qualifying families.
Already on their plate is the cumbersome unwinding of Medicaid coverage. Since last April, the agency has removed more than 2 million Texans from the program since the federal government lifted continuous coverage rules during the pandemic, forcing those who still qualify for coverage to reapply. From HHSC’s perspective, launching an entirely new program would be at this time.
Additionally, the USDA would only cover 50% of the administrative expenses for Summer EBT. It would be up to the state to cover the residual cost.
The program is called the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer Program for Children.
For more: United States Department of Agriculture.
- Website.
- Wikipedia.
Food and Nutrition Service.
- Website.
- Wikipedia.
Political Typology Quiz Results
GOVT 2305 THS01: Establishment Liberals.
GOVT 2306 THS02: Establishment Liberals.
GOVT 2306 THS01: Stressed Sideliners.
Wednesday, February 21, 2024
Two more May 4, 2024 Elections
- City of Alvin.
- Alvin voters to consider charter changes, including judge residency and recall petition requirements.
- City of Alvin Charter Amendments.
- Alvin Community College: Board of Trustees Election.
- Alvin Community College: Election Documents.
Tuesday, February 20, 2024
Was the Founding Undemocratic? The Property Requirement for Voting
- Click here for the link.
Quotes:
Alexander Hamilton:
"If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other."
John Adams:
It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the consent of the people. But to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly, to every act of legislation? No, you will say. This is impossible. How then does the right arise in the majority to govern the minority, against their will? Whence arises the right of the men to govern women, without their consent? Whence the right of the old to bind the young, without theirs?
why exclude women? You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience, in the great business of life, and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own. True. But will not these reasons apply to others? Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? If this is a fact, if you give to every man, who has no property, a vote, will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law? Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest…
James Madison:
The right of suffrage is a fundamental article in republican constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property, and the rights of persons may be oppressed. The feudal polity alone sufficiently proves it. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice. Of this abundant proof is afforded by other popular governments and is not without examples in our own, particularly in the laws impairing the obligation of contracts.
In civilized communities, property as well as personal rights is an essential object of the laws, which encourage industry by securing the enjoyment of its fruits: that industry from which property results, and that enjoyment which consists not merely in its immediate use, but in its posthumous destination to objects of choice and of kindred affection.
In a just and a free government, therefore, the rights both of property and of persons ought to be effectually guarded. Will the former be so in case of a universal and equal suffrage? Will the latter be so in case of a suffrage confined to the holders of property?
From the Texas Tribune: Texas gives $125 million to rural sheriffs and prosecutors for pay increases
More federalism - in this case, state assistance to counties.
- Click here for the article.
Texas has awarded $125 million in grants to rural sheriffs and prosecutors across the state, the Texas Comptroller said in a statement last week — an effort to help those law enforcement agencies attract and keep talent in their communities.
Rural law enforcement can apply for the grant again in 2025, which the comptroller will issue using the remaining money.
The comptroller’s office, which among other duties manages the state’s budget and collects taxes, began accepting applications last year and determined the amount each county would receive by population size. Only counties with a population smaller than 300,000 were eligible for the grant.
Of Texas’ 254 counties, 236 have populations slimmer than 300,000, according to a 2022 estimate from the Texas Demographic Center.
The comptroller’s office said 94% of eligible sheriff’s offices applied for money. Nearly 86% of eligible prosecutor’s officers applied, the comptroller said. The comptroller awarded grants to 224 sheriff offices and 138 prosecutors offices.
The grant’s recipients must first raise pay — with sheriffs earning $75,000, deputies $45,000, and jailers $40,000 — before using the money to buy equipment. The grants ranged from $250,000 to $500,000 for sheriff’s offices. Prosecutors could apply for anywhere between $100,000 and $275,000.
The money is a start to reverse a long-term decline of prosecutors in rural Texas counties, said Pamela Metzger, executive director of the Deason Criminal Justice Reform Center at the SMU Dedman School of Law.
From the Texas Tribune: Paxton’s push to oust incumbents puts spotlight on Court of Criminal Appeals primaries
Both the Texas Attorney General and Governor are attempting to remove opponents within their party by campaigning against them in the party primary.
- Click here for the article.
The three incumbents running for their seats on Texas’ highest criminal court were not well known political figures outside of the legal community. That was until they earned the ire of Attorney General Ken Paxton in response to a 2021 opinion over a voter fraud case.
“The Court of Criminal Appeals, who I am concerned was put there by George Soros ‘cause no one knows who they are, they’re all Republicans but even Republicans don’t know who they are,” Paxton told former Fox News host Tucker Carlson last month, referring to the Democratic mega donor.
The three incumbents, who have nearly a century of combined experience practicing criminal law, as prosecutors and jurists, have been accused by Paxton’s allies of abandoning their judicial duties and stripping the attorney general’s power to enforce voter fraud — a consequential issue for the modern-day GOP under former President Donald Trump.
For more along these lines:
- Judge rejects attempts to toss indictments against Texas AG Ken Paxton, keeps April trial on course.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton remains on track to be tried for felony fraud this spring after the presiding judge shot down his attempts to have the charges thrown out.
During a Friday court hearing in Houston, Harris County District Court Judge Andrea Beall rejected Paxton’s arguments that his right to a speedy trial had been violated.
Beall’s decision means that, barring another unexpected delay, Paxton’s securities fraud trial will kick off on April 15. The proceedings are much anticipated; the attorney has been under active indictment for nearly nine years. He has pleaded not guilty.
Special prosecutor Brian Wice applauded Beall’s decision and said Paxton was the reason these cases have not yet gone to trial.
“We think that the general’s fingerprints, footprints and DNA were all over the delays,” said Wice, a private criminal defense lawyer brought on to represent the state after the local district attorney recused himself.
During the hearing, Paxton’s defense attorney Dan Cogdell blamed the prosecutors for much of the delay. He said their attempts to be paid — which have been unsuccessful since 2016 — put off the trial for years.
From Wikipedia: Allegheny Portage Railroad
An early infrastructure project designed to make transportation over the Appalachian Mountains easier.
- Click here for the entry.
The Allegheny Portage Railroad was the first railroad constructed through the Allegheny Mountains in central Pennsylvania. It operated from 1834 to 1854 as the first transportation infrastructure through the gaps of the Allegheny that connected the midwest to the eastern seaboard across the barrier range of the Allegheny Front. Approximately 36 miles (58 km) long overall, both ends connected to the Pennsylvania Canal, and the system was primarily used as a portage railway, hauling river boats and barges over the divide between the Ohio and the Susquehanna Rivers.
- Main Line of Public Works.
The Main Line of Public Works was a package of legislation passed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1826 to establish a means of transporting freight between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. It funded the construction of various long-proposed canal and road projects, mostly in southern Pennsylvania, that became a canal system and later added railroads. Built between 1826 and 1834, it established the Pennsylvania Canal System and the Allegheny Portage Railroad. Later amendments substituted a new technology, railroads, in place of the planned but costly 82-mile (132 km) canal connecting the Delaware River in Philadelphia to the Susquehanna River.
Monday, February 19, 2024
From USA Today: 5 disinformation tactics voters should guard against before Election Day
Could be useful when thinking about this semester's essay topic.
- Click here for the article.
Basic point:
Here are five tactics of disinformation used by authoritarians to gain power that voters should watch out for in the coming months:
1) Repetition. By repeating a false claim, a disinformer can trick people into believing lies are true.
2) Go big. Another tactic of propagandists is to go big. Everyone tells small lies, the thinking goes, but most people cannot imagine that someone would have the audacity to tell a huge lie
3) The either/or fallacy. A third strategy that authoritarians use to manipulate the public is the either/or fallacy. They use this technique to divide and conquer factions within society.
4) The part/whole fallacy. Another strategy is what debaters refer to as the “part/whole fallacy.” Disinformers look for the most undesirable or controversial policy view of the opposing party and then suggest that the whole party shares the same view.
5) Destroy truth. A final tactic is one that is used by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Putin, of course, learned the tradecraft of influence operations in the KGB, the former Soviet intelligence service. The goal of this tactic is to convince people that truth doesn’t matter.
Sunday, February 18, 2024
From PISD: Board of Trustees Call May 4 Bond Election
For our look at local sources of revenue.
- Click here for the notice.
The Pearland Independent School District Board of Trustees called for a May 4 bond election to address infrastructure and district-wide technology needs.
Determining the need for technology and facility infrastructure bonds within Pearland ISD was comprehensive and rooted in careful analysis and planning.
The district started by thoroughly assessing its current technology and infrastructure assets. This involved evaluating the condition of existing facilities, finding any shortcomings or areas needing improvement, and checking if the technology resources were enough to support modern educational needs. After gathering assessment data, analyzing it, and taking input from stakeholders and consulting experts, the district formulated a detailed long-term plan for facilities and technology. These plans laid out strategic goals, priorities, and recommendations to address identified needs and ensure that facilities and technology infrastructure align with educational objectives.
The bond package, which seeks to address facility issues identified as top priorities by the committee, includes. . .
Infrastructure Proposition
Electrical: district-wide upgrades to lighting for cost efficiency and added security, including replacement of old lamps for LED indoor and outdoor and addition/replacement of deteriorated light poles; wiring and extension of circuits of existing generators at multiple locations; and replacement of aging electrical components.
HVAC: Replacement and rebuild of HVAC deteriorated system/components, including chiller, boiler, heating and domestic boilers, air handler, and more, at several campuses, district stadium, and Transportation East facility, as well as district-wide replacement of pipe insulation.
Plumbing: Replacement of aging roofing components, including roof drain “cow tongues” (Turner/PJH South), water lines (PJH West), and drainage improvements (Carleston drive).
Roofing: Replacement of existing roofs at PJH East, Rogers, Jamison, East Transportation, PACE Center, Shadycrest, Old ESC, PJH West, and Athletic buildings at PHS.
Life Safety: Upgrades to existing fire alarm systems at PACE Center, Rogers, Challenger, Rustic Oak, Silverlake, CJ Harris, PJH West Weight Room, East Transportation, PHS (Searcy) and Dawson (partial), elevator rebuilds at PHS, district stadium, Turner (2) and PJH South, district-wide fire sprinkler upgrades, campus handheld radio replacement and first responder radio coverage testing equipment.
Parking and Traffic: Parking lot replacement (Carleston and ESC), additional parking (Challenger) and re-painting of fire lanes (district-wide)
Interior Scope: Interior painting, sound system upgrades, Clock System upgrades, gym ceilings and floor refinish/repair, carpet replacement and slab repair/leveling.
Technology Proposition
The technology bond's total amount covers five years of expenses, which includes replacing teacher and student computers on a one-to-one basis, upgrading classroom technology, and investing in staff, teachers, and shared computers, labs, servers, storage, networking, and a data center.
If the proposed technology and infrastructure bonds are approved, most of the planned expenses for technology and infrastructure will be covered until 2032, allowing capital funds to become available for addressing transportation, program, and other operational needs.
If either or both bond propositions pass, the tax rates will stay consistent at the approved rate of $1.1373, which was established during the fall of 2023 through the passage of Pearland ISD’s Voter-Approval Tax Rate Election (VATRE). This stability is facilitated by Pearland ISD’s current capacity within the Interest and Sinking budget (I&S), which will cover the bond projects, alleviating the need for adjustments to the operating or Maintenance and Operations (M&O) budget.
A standout among local and state school districts, Pearland ISD has a history of excellence and innovation in fiscal management, having earned state recognition for its cost-effective operations, paired with high academic achievement and overall student success. According to Niche, the district was recently ranked No. 4 in the Houston area out of 53 and No. 30 out of 1,052 school districts in Texas.
“If the technology and facility infrastructure bonds passed, Pearland ISD would maximize available funding without increasing taxes, allowing us to enhance our educational resources and facilities and support creating a sustainable and strong financial future,” Superintendent Larry Berger said.
To vote in the May 4 election, individuals must be registered Brazoria County voters living in Pearland ISD before April 4. A list of polling places will be available closer to the election date.
For information about registering to vote and voting locations, please visit www.votetexas.gov.
If you have questions about the May 4 bond election, visit www.pearlandisd.org/bond or contact Pearland ISD at 281-485-3203.
Regarding the upcoming primary elections in Brazoria County.
- Texas Secretary of State: Offices up for Election in 2024.
- Texas Secretary of State: Election Dates 2024.
- Brazoria County Elections Division.
- Brazoria County: Voter Registration.
- Brazoria County: Voter Precincts.
- Brazoria County: Candidate Information.
- Brazoria County Democratic Party Candidates.
- Democratic Sample Ballots.
- Brazoria County Republican Party Candidates.
- Republican Sample Ballots.
From The Washington Post: Inside Ted Leonsis’s decision to move Wizards, Capitals to Virginia
A look at the relationship between city governments and professional sports teams.
- Click here for the article.
For months, the billionaire owner of the Washington Wizards and Capitals had been pressing the D.C. government to pay at least half the cost of modernizing his aging downtown arena. Now, in an email on Dec. 10, a Sunday afternoon, Mayor Muriel E. Bowser was offering just that — $500 million toward an $800 million project to keep his basketball and hockey teams playing in the city for decades to come.
They spoke for an hour before the Democratic mayor brought up the elephant in the room. She said she had heard chatter that Republican Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin was about to announce a deal to build an arena for the teams on the other side of the Potomac River. She asked Leonsis if it was true.
Leonsis spun 360 degrees in his chair. Nothing had been signed, he said, but he acknowledged he would be joining Youngkin for an announcement the next day.
Suddenly, it became clear: He hadn’t invited the mayor to his offices to discuss her offer. He’d done it to tell her she was too late.
“If you would have offered this to me earlier,” he said, “I would have accepted it.”
Leonsis’s decision to pull his teams out of the city represents a consequential rupture in what has been a successful partnership between a three-term mayor and an owner who had invested in the District for more than two decades and pledged to stay there. If local and state officials in Virginia sign off, the move could also stall an economic engine that has drawn more than 2 million visitors per year to Chinatown, an area that has lately struggled with empty storefronts, office vacancies and crime.
From the Washington Post: Trump’s anger at courts, frayed alliances could upend approach to judicial issues
Many of the plans detailed here would tie together the executive and judicial powers, and give the president more direct control over the justice department.
- Click here for the article.
Trump has complained publicly and privately that his first-term Justice Department leaders were too weak, that his Supreme Court picks have tried to come across as too “independent” and that the court system has broadly been biased against him, as he faces 91 felony charges. Trump told donors in meetings in late 2023 that one of his only mistakes as president was that he did not pick the right people to lead the Justice Department, according to people who attended, and he regularly discusses plans for the department in a second term.
Terminology:
- conservative legal establishment
- Federalist Society
- stock the federal bench
- Leonard Leo
- Donald McGahn
- Mitch McConnell
- top attorney general candidates
- Article III project
- judicial advocacy group
- Jeffrey Clark
- Deregulation
- Faith and Freedom Coalition
- Insurrection Act
- White House Counsel’s Office
- populate the agencies.
- Project 2025
From the Houston Chronicle: Mayor Whitmire overhauls Houston Housing Authority board, blames agency for housing voucher pause
- Click here for the article.
Terminology:
- Houston Housing Authority
- board of commissioners
- "Section 8” Housing Choice Vouchers
- public housing
- low-income housing assistance
- affordable housing development.
- federal regulations
- Department of Housing and Urban Development
- property taxes
- tax break deals
In later material we will note that affordable housing is considered to be a social good.
Thursday, February 15, 2024
The US Supreme Court just made this map illegal
For more videos:
- The man who rigged America's election maps.
- How Michigan explains American politics.
- How Republicans conquered Florida.
Wednesday, February 14, 2024
https://texasorthopedic.com/
https://toa.org/medicare-2/
https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=22&pt=9&ch=199&rl=5
https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_view=2&ti=22
https://www.county.org/resources/resource-library/texas-counties-101/about-texas-counties
Tuesday, February 13, 2024
Why the Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapsed
Following the collapse, the Washington state government
- Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Failure of the Bridge. A Reprint of Original Reports.
The Tacoma Narrows Suspension Bridge collapsed on November 7, 1940. Immediately after this catastrophe several Boards of Engineers were appointed by the different agencies connected with the financing and construction of the bridge to report on the causes of failure, amount of damage, and cost of dismantling and rebuilding. These Boards made their reports to the agencies by which they were retained. The Advisory Board on the Investigation of Suspension Bridges obtained additional copies of these reports and arranged to supply technical libraries with assembled and corrected copies.
- The FWA ("Carmody") Investigation Board.
The State of Washington and the United States government both appointed boards of experts to investigate the collapse of the Narrows Bridge. The insurance companies established a "Narrows Bridge Loss Committee."
The Federal Works Administration appointed a 3-member panel of top-ranking engineers: Othmar Amman, Dr. Theodore Von Karmen, and Glen B. Woodruff. Their report to the Administrator of the FWA, John Carmody, became known as the "Carmody Board" report.
In March 1941 the Carmody Board announced its findings. Three key points stood out: (1) The principal cause of the Narrows Bridge's failure was its "flexibility;" (2) the solid plate girder and deck acted like an airfoil, creating "drag" and "lift;" and (3) aerodynamic forces were little understood and engineers needed to test all suspension bridge designs thoroughly using models in a wind tunnel.
The Board refused to blame any one person. The entire engineering profession was responsible, said the experts.
- Twin Views of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse.
After the various studies of the collapse, a new suspension bridge was constructed at the same location . The new bridge is four lanes wide and has open grid sides instead of solid I-beams . It was opened on October 14, 1950, and has not displayed any of the interesting oscillatory properties of the first bridge
Sunday, February 11, 2024
From Wikipedia: Taxation as theft
Thought this might fit in well with our discussion of civil liberties.
A theft is - among other things - a violation of one's civil liberties, one that is done regularly by governments. And since taxation is a concurrent power, this happens by all governments.
- Click here for the article.
The position that taxation is theft, and therefore immoral, is found in a number of political philosophies. Its popularization marks a significant departure from conservatism and classical liberalism, and has been considered radical by many as a result. The position is often held by anarcho-capitalists, objectivists, most minarchists, anarchists, right-wing libertarians, and voluntaryists.
Defenders of taxation argue that the notions of both legal private property rights and theft are defined by the legal framework of the state, and thus taxation by the state does not represent a violation of property law, unless the tax itself is illegal. Some defenders of taxation, such as socialist Matt Bruenig, argue that the phrase "taxation is theft" is question-begging, since it relies on presupposing a particular theory of property entitlement.
Saturday, February 10, 2024
From the Houston Chronicle: Houston transportation planner resigns as street designs lead to strife
For out look at both local government (the strong-mayor system) and transportation policy.
- Click here for the story.
Friday, February 9, 2024
The right to have ones vote counted
Another one of our unenumerated rights perhaps?
This is part of what former president Trump was accused of violating with his actions surrounding the 2020 elections.
But there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution stipulating such a right. Does it therefore not exist?
Some related readings:
- Right to Have Vote Counted.
- Vote Counting and Tabulation.
Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003
In recent trainings I had to cover material regarding prison rape.
Generally that's not a problem in the classrooms on prison, so it doesn't affect me much, but you Never know.
Here's background on the act.
- Wikipedia.
The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) is the first United States federal law intended to deter the sexual assault of prisoners. The bill was signed into law on September 4, 2003.
Public awareness of prison rape is relatively recent and estimates of its prevalence vary widely.
In 2001, Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a paper called No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons, the single event that contributed most to PREA's passage two years later.[2] HRW had published several papers on the topic of prison rape in the years since its initial report called All Too Familiar: Sexual Abuse of Women in U.S. State Prisons, released in 1996, when there was barely any Congressional support for legislation aimed at prison rape. A 1998 attempt by Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), known as the Custodial Sexual Abuse Act of 1998, was attached to the reauthorization bill for the Violence Against Women Act but summarily removed and never reintroduced.
Michael Horowitz, a Hudson Institute senior fellow, has been credited with playing a part in passing PREA by helping to lead a coalition of the bill's supporters.
Groups which supported the bill:
- Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
- Concerned Women for America.
- Amnesty International USA
- Focus on the Family
- Human Rights Watch
- NAACP
- National Association of Evangelicals
- Penal Reform International
- Physicians for Human Rights
- Presbyterian Church USA
- Prison Fellowship
- Salvation Army
- Union of American Hebrew Congregations.
For more:
- S.1435 - Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003.
- 42 U.S. Code Chapter 147 - PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION.
Thursday, February 8, 2024
From Lawfare: White House Submits 48-Hour War Powers Resolution Report Following Response to Jordan Attack
For our look at he extent of executive power in the United States.
Background: What is the War Powers Resolution?
The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds each of the House and Senate, overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon.
- Click here for the article.
On Feb. 4, President Joe Biden released a letter “consistent with the War Powers Resolution” notifying Congress of the U.S. strikes on Feb. 2 against Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria. The strikes followed the Jan. 28 attack on the U.S.’s Tower 22 outpost in northeast Jordan that killed three U.S. service members. In the letter, Biden wrote that these most recent strikes were conducted “[i]n response to the continuation of attacks against United States forces since my prior report” issued on Jan. 25—not just in response to the Jordan attack.
Biden stated that the strikes were conducted “pursuant to” his Article II authority and “in accordance with” the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs—consistent with Biden’s last two War Powers Resolution letters on strikes against Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria. And as in each of the prior seven letters, President Biden asserted that the strikes were a “necessary and proportionate action consistent with international law” and an exercise of the U.S.’s right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
You can read the report here or below. And you can read the rest of the reports following the strikes against Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria here (Jan. 25), here (Jan. 5), here (Dec. 27), here (Nov. 22), here (Nov. 14), here (Nov. 10), here (Oct. 27) or below.
From the New York Times: Quiz: Let Us Predict Whether You’re a Democrat or a Republican
I anticipate having this as the basis of the written question for week 6.
- Click here for it.
Here's some policy info on each party:
Democrats:
Democratic platforms seek to promote social programs, labor unions, consumer protection, workplace safety regulation, equal opportunity, disability rights, racial equity, regulations against environmental pollution, and criminal justice reform. Democrats tend to support abortion rights and the LGBT community, as well as a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Democrats typically agree with the scientific consensus on climate change and favor a multilateral approach in foreign policy.
Republicans:
The positions of the Republican Party have evolved over time. Currently, the party's fiscal conservatism includes support for lower taxes, small government conservatism, free market capitalism, free trade, deregulation of corporations, and restrictions on labor unions. The party's social conservatism includes support for gun rights outlined in the Second Amendment, the death penalty, and other traditional values, often with a Christian foundation, including restrictions on abortion. In foreign policy, Republicans usually favor increased military spending, strong national defense, and unilateral action. Other Republican positions include opposition to illegal immigration, opposition to drug legalization, pornography and affirmative action, and support for school choice and school prayer.
Demographics of the Democratic Party.
Factions in the Democratic Party.
Factions in the Republican Party.
Legal expert predicts how he thinks Supreme Court will rule in Trump case
From Politico: Mitch McConnell, Capitol police officers and Bill Barr: Who weighed in ahead of the arguments
This ties our look at Trump v Anderson with interest groups:
- Click here for the article.
- What is an amicus brief?
Dozens of outside voices have weighed in on whether former President Donald Trump is eligible to run for the presidency again.
These briefs — which are sometimes known as friend of the court briefings — let parties that aren’t actually directly involved in a case in front of the court put forward legal arguments that justices (might) consider.
Those who filed ran the gamut from legal gadflies to well-known election law experts, as well as current and former members of Congress and election officials.
Here’s a round-up of some of the most notable ones — and the legal arguments they put forth:
The Republican establishment: The Republican National Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, nearly three dozen Republican state parties, and almost 200 Republican members of Congress — including Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell — filed a slew of amicus briefs arguing that Trump should remain on the ballot.
Aside from the obvious point that the Republican Party wanted to line up behind their likely nominee, some of these filers also advanced an argument of whether it was really up to the courts to decide.
The GOP lawmakers for example, argued that Congress should be the ones to make the call when or how to apply Section 3 — which they could (but have not done) by passing legislation. In the brief led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), they also argued that a “lengthy list of partisan grievances could be labeled as ‘engaging in insurrection,’” and that the Colorado court took an overly-broad definition.
Former Attorney General Bill Barr: Trump’s former attorney general has been no fan of the former president since Jan. 6. Nevertheless, he signed on to a brief with other former attorneys general and others saying that “whatever one thinks of the behavior of former President Trump in the wake of the 2020 election, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not disqualify him” because it does not apply to presidential candidates.
Vivek Ramaswamy: One of Trump’s vanquished primary foes weighed in, backing the former president. The filing, submitted while Ramaswamy was still an active candidate, argued that if the courts wanted to go down that route, nearly every president since Jimmy Carter could be accused of engaging in an insurrection. “Mr. Ramaswamy understands that each of these examples will strike the Court as tenuous or even absurd,” his lawyers wrote. “That’s because they are.”
The father of one of Trump’s central arguments: The main argument Trump’s legal team has leaned on is that the 14th Amendment disqualification does not apply to him because the president is not “an officer of the United States.” The main legal proponent of this legal theory — Seth Barrett Tillman, an American law professor in Ireland — filed a briefing backing Trump. (Tillman also asked the court to grant him time to participate in oral arguments, which the court denied.)
On behalf of neither party
Michigan’s secretary of state and well known election law experts: Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, and a trio of well known election law experts — professors Edward Foley and Rick Hasen and longtime GOP attorney Benjamin Ginsberg — filed a pair of briefings broadly not weighing in on the underlying arguments as they apply to Trump, but urging the court to make a final decision and not try to kick the can down the road.
“We appreciate fully that the Members of this Court would prefer not to be thrust into the midst of a presidential election like this. But there is no avoiding it,” the election lawyers wrote. “Any contention that the time and place for determining Section 3’s applicability is on January 6, 2025, after the election is concluded, invites disaster for the Nation.”
Supporting the Anderson challengers
Former Republican members of Congress and governors: Basically no Democratic officials — either current or former — filed amicus briefs in this case. But some former Republican elected officials did, asking the high court to uphold his disqualification.
“As time has passed and new election cycles have begun, some have tried to rewrite the history and significance of the insurrection on January 6,” a brief from a dozen former GOP members read. “But any reasonable, good faith consideration of the events surrounding January 6 necessitates the conclusion that Trump encouraged an armed, violent mob to prevent Congress from taking an essential step in the transition of presidential power.”
Former federal judge J. Michael Luttig: Luttig is most well-known for advising then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject Trump’s allies’ attempts to cast fake Electoral College votes three years ago. But the conservative judge has also been one of the leading scholars pushing for Trump to be disqualified. “Mr. Trump deliberately tried to break the Constitution — to incite threatened and actual armed force to prevent the peaceful transfer of executive power,” he and other conservative lawyers and former officials wrote. “That constituted engaging in an insurrection against the Constitution.”
Current and former Capitol police officers: A group of current and former Capitol police officers who are suing Trump for his role on Jan. 6 also filed a brief here, saying that “speech integral to an alleged act of insurrection, like Mr. Trump’s speech on and leading up to January 6, lies entirely outside the First Amendment’s ambit.”
From the NYT: The Trump Election Immunity Ruling, Annotated
Let's try to break this argument down.
It's a long decision, but already said to be one of he more important in U.S. judicial history, despite the fact that it is an appellate court decision, not a Supreme Court decision.
Note hat this raises a procedural issue, not a substantive one. Is a president immune from prosecution for criminal acts committed while in office that were not done as part of the official duties of the office?
Here's a link to American Oversight, one of the interest groups involved in the case. They argue that the case should be dismissed because he court lacks jurisdiction, meaning that it cannot hear the case. I think they lost that argument.
- Click here for the link.
Key Terms:
- per curiam
- Electoral Count Act
- prosecution
- imprisonment
- four count indictment
- dismissal
- district court
- criminal defendant
- executive immunity
- federal grand jury
- the Constitution's text, structure, and history
- public interest
- double jeopardy
- Impeachment Judgment Clause
- interlocutory appeal
- presidential immunity
- statutory grounds
- collateral order doctrine
- prong
- sui generis
- separation of powers
- Article 3 courts
- Marbury v Madison
- discretionary powers
- ministerial powers
- political powers
-
Wednesday, February 7, 2024
Extremely Stupid - Saturday Night Live
How do we combat discrimination against Stupid-Americans?
Tuesday, February 6, 2024
The Right to "Quiet Enjoyment"
This is argued to justify making breach of the peace illegal. It interferes with peace, which suggests that we have a right to it. Since this is not mentioned in the U.S. or Texas Bills of Rights, we would assume this is an unenumerated right.
LII: quiet enjoyment.
There is an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment in leases and states generally have their own statutes codifying these protections. For example, under the California Civil Code, an agreement to hire property also secures the hirer the quiet possession of the property against all persons lawfully claiming the property. Furthermore, a landlord may not, for the purposes of forcing a tenant from the premise, engage in conduct that is menacing or significantly interferes with the tenant's purpose of leasing the premise. Significant interference generally encompasses more than denial of access or possession to the premises. For example, in New Hampshire, where partial access to a commercial lessee's property was blocked due to the landlord's construction, it is deemed to be a breach of quiet enjoyment because the denial of access, even partial, was significant enough to deprive the lessee's beneficial use of the premise.
What does "breach of the peace" really mean?
This is an aspect of police power that buts up against civil liberties, and its very murky.
As I can tell, this is mostly a state issue. Some state activity has been challenged successfully on First Amendment free speech grounds. These laws have been criticized as providing complete discretion for police to actions on he ground.
- LII - Breach of the peace: Breach of the peace is a generic phrase to describe a criminal offense that violates the public peace or order. Since numerous criminal offenses can be perceived as a violation of the public peace, this phrase is usually used to describe the offense of disorderly conduct. Due to the broad interpretation of the phrase, certain states have enacted statutes providing for a “breach of the peace” offense.
- - See also disturbance of the peace.
- Wikipedia - Breach of the peace: In the United States, prosecutions for breach of the peace are subject to constitutional constraints. In Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949), the United States Supreme Court held that an ordinance of the City of Chicago that banned speech which "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance" was unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Justice Douglas stated: "Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea."
- Click here for Texas' laws on disorderly conduct. It contains this entertaining list of things you best not do in public in Texas:
Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;
(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;
(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;
(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;
(6) fights with another in a public place;
(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;
(10) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or
(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose
Sunday, February 4, 2024
Catching up with Local Government
All concern Houston and Harris County.
: All the major leadership changes made by Houston Mayor Whitmire as he shakes up City Hall.
- Food Not Bombs files federal suit against Houston, calling food-sharing ordinance unconstitutional.
- Thousands of Houstonians are sent to jail with no legal basis under DA Ogg, judges say.
- Houston Public Works removing barriers, curbs installed in December on Houston Avenue.
- Texas lawmakers tried to stop a tiny government from arranging big tax breaks. It hasn’t worked.
- Hidalgo clashes with Commissioners Court colleagues on nearly 40% raise for HCTRA director.
