- Click here for the info.
Every state gets to determine for itself how electors are selected.
Here's how Texas does it:
To become a presidential elector candidate, a person must be nominated as a political party's elector candidate in accordance with party
rules. The party's state chair must sign a written certification of the names of presidential elector candidates nominated by the party and
the party's state chair must deliver the written certification to the secretary of state.
To be eligible to serve as a presidential elector, a person must: be a qualified voter of this state; and not hold the office of United States
senator, United States representative, or any other federal office of profit or trust. To be eligible to serve as a presidential elector for a
political party, a person must be affiliated with the party.
An elector candidate may withdraw from the presidential election before presidential election day, by delivering written notice of the
withdrawal to: the secretary of state; and the state chair of the party that nominated the elector candidate.
If an elector candidate withdraws, dies, or is declared ineligible before presidential election day, a replacement elector candidate may be
named by the party that nominated the elector candidate.
If a political party's rules do not provide the manner of choosing a replacement elector candidate, the party's state executive committee
may choose the replacement candidate. The state chair of a political party naming a replacement elector candidate must file with the
secretary of state, before presidential election day, the name and residence address of the replacement candidate.
The electors shall convene at the State Capitol at 2 p.m. on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December following their
election and shall perform their duties as prescribed by federal law.
The secretary of state shall arrange for the meeting place, notify the electors, and call the meeting to order. The secretary shall act as
temporary chair of the meeting until the electors elect a chair from among themselves.
If an elector is absent at the time for convening the meeting, the electors may declare the elector position vacant by a majority vote of
those present at the meeting.
The electors meeting to vote for president and vice-president may appoint a replacement elector by a majority vote of the qualified
electors present if: (1) the vacancy occurred before presidential election day and a replacement was not chosen; (2) on or after
presidential election day, an elector is declared ineligible or dies; or (3) the vacancy is declared.
The chair of the electors shall notify the secretary of state of the name and residence address of a replacement elector immediately on the
replacement's appointment.
(Tex. Elections Code Ann. §§ 192.002, 192.003, 192.004, 192.006, 192.007)
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Trump's reversal of the vaping ban
- From Slate: Trump Ditches Flavored Vape Ban After Learning His Supporters Like to Vape.
- From Rolling Stone: The Vaping Industry Is Furious at President Trump — Could it Cost Him the Election?
- From Vox: Trump’s controversial vaping flavor ban is now dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention
https://vaportechnology.org/
- From Rolling Stone: The Vaping Industry Is Furious at President Trump — Could it Cost Him the Election?
- From Vox: Trump’s controversial vaping flavor ban is now dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention
https://vaportechnology.org/
From Britannica: Standing to Sue
- Click here for the entry.
Standing to sue, in law, the requirement that a person who brings a suit be a proper party to request adjudication of the particular issue involved. The test traditionally applied was whether the party had a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy presented and whether the dispute touched upon the legal relations of the parties having adverse legal interests.
The U.S. Supreme Court noted in Flast v. Cohen (1968) that “the issue of standing is related only to whether the dispute sought to be adjudicated will be presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution.” Clearly, a plaintiff who claims physical injury or economic loss has standing. In the United States, until the 1960s, the courts took a relatively strict approach to standing. For instance, in Frothingham v. Mellon (1923) the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who alleged that her tax liability would be increased as a result of the Maternity Act of 1921 lacked standing to challenge the act. During the 1960s the court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren, was lenient in recognizing standing—so much so that a federal trial court commented, in granting standing to a plaintiff challenging the secrecy of Central Intelligence Agency expenditures, that the concept of standing “has now been almost completely abandoned” by the Supreme Court. Under Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the court signified that it was indeed not willing to abandon the concept completely. Reversing the trial court in the previously mentioned case, United States v. Richardson (1974), Chief Justice Burger, writing for the majority, rejected Richardson’s standing, commenting that Richardson was seeking “to employ a federal court as a forum in which to air his generalized grievances about the conduct of government.”
- From Oyez: Flast v Cohen.
Standing to sue, in law, the requirement that a person who brings a suit be a proper party to request adjudication of the particular issue involved. The test traditionally applied was whether the party had a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy presented and whether the dispute touched upon the legal relations of the parties having adverse legal interests.
The U.S. Supreme Court noted in Flast v. Cohen (1968) that “the issue of standing is related only to whether the dispute sought to be adjudicated will be presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution.” Clearly, a plaintiff who claims physical injury or economic loss has standing. In the United States, until the 1960s, the courts took a relatively strict approach to standing. For instance, in Frothingham v. Mellon (1923) the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who alleged that her tax liability would be increased as a result of the Maternity Act of 1921 lacked standing to challenge the act. During the 1960s the court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren, was lenient in recognizing standing—so much so that a federal trial court commented, in granting standing to a plaintiff challenging the secrecy of Central Intelligence Agency expenditures, that the concept of standing “has now been almost completely abandoned” by the Supreme Court. Under Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the court signified that it was indeed not willing to abandon the concept completely. Reversing the trial court in the previously mentioned case, United States v. Richardson (1974), Chief Justice Burger, writing for the majority, rejected Richardson’s standing, commenting that Richardson was seeking “to employ a federal court as a forum in which to air his generalized grievances about the conduct of government.”
- From Oyez: Flast v Cohen.
Monday, November 18, 2019
Troubled Asset Relief Program
Pacific Railways Act of 1862
Food and Drug Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
Interstate Commerce Act
Interstate Commerce Commission
Federal Trade Commission
Airline Deregulation Act
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
Consumer Protection Safety Commission
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Communications Commission
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Labor Relations Act
Homestead Act of 1862
Federal Reserve System
Federal Reserve Act of 1934
2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Bill
GI Bill
Congressional Budget Office
Trans-Pacific Partnership
Aid to Dependent Children
Medicaid
2010 Affordable Care Act
1996 Welfare Reform Act
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Social Security
Medicare
Earned Income Tax Credit
U.S. Census Bureau
1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act
1965 Higher Education Act
2001 No Child Left Behind Act
2015 Every Child Succeeds Act
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Central Intelligence Agency
National Security Agency
World Trade Organization
the World Bank
International Monetary Fund
Strategic Arms Limitations Talks
Marshall Plan
NAFTA
Pacific Railways Act of 1862
Food and Drug Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
Interstate Commerce Act
Interstate Commerce Commission
Federal Trade Commission
Airline Deregulation Act
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
Consumer Protection Safety Commission
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Communications Commission
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Labor Relations Act
Homestead Act of 1862
Federal Reserve System
Federal Reserve Act of 1934
2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Bill
GI Bill
Congressional Budget Office
Trans-Pacific Partnership
Aid to Dependent Children
Medicaid
2010 Affordable Care Act
1996 Welfare Reform Act
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Social Security
Medicare
Earned Income Tax Credit
U.S. Census Bureau
1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act
1965 Higher Education Act
2001 No Child Left Behind Act
2015 Every Child Succeeds Act
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Central Intelligence Agency
National Security Agency
World Trade Organization
the World Bank
International Monetary Fund
Strategic Arms Limitations Talks
Marshall Plan
NAFTA
From ScotusBlog: Trump returns to Supreme Court, asks justices to intervene in dispute over financial records
The case is Trump v Vance.
- Click here for the case.
- Click here for the article.
Yesterday lawyers for President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ordering the president to provide New York prosecutors with his tax returns. Those lawyers were back at the court today, this time asking the justices to temporarily put on hold a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that upheld a subpoena for Trump’s financial records issued by House Democrats to Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars.
The subpoena at the center of the dispute came from the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, which wants the financial records as part of its investigation into the adequacy of current government ethics laws. The president filed this lawsuit to bar Mazars from turning over the documents, arguing that the subpoena goes beyond Congress’ authority because it does not serve a legitimate legislative purpose.
A federal trial court rejected this contention, and in October a divided three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit upheld that ruling. The court of appeals concluded that the “public record reveals legitimate legislative pursuits,” rather than “an impermissible law-enforcement purpose behind the Committee’s subpoena,” and that the committee is investigating a subject on which it could enact legislation.
Arguing that “everything about this case is unprecedented,” Trump today asked the Supreme Court to block the D.C. Circuit’s ruling from going into effect on November 20 to give his lawyers time to file a petition for review of the lower court’s decision. If the D.C. Circuit’s ruling is allowed to stand, Trump complained in his 32-page filing today, “any committee of Congress can subpoena any personal information from the President; all the committee needs to say is that it’s considering legislation that would force Presidents to disclose that same information. Given the temptation to dig up dirt on political rivals, intrusive subpoenas into personal lives of Presidents will become our new normal in terms of divided government—no matter which party is in power. If every committee chairman is going to have this unbounded authority, this Court should be the one to say so.”
- Click here for the case.
- Click here for the article.
Yesterday lawyers for President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ordering the president to provide New York prosecutors with his tax returns. Those lawyers were back at the court today, this time asking the justices to temporarily put on hold a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that upheld a subpoena for Trump’s financial records issued by House Democrats to Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars.
The subpoena at the center of the dispute came from the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, which wants the financial records as part of its investigation into the adequacy of current government ethics laws. The president filed this lawsuit to bar Mazars from turning over the documents, arguing that the subpoena goes beyond Congress’ authority because it does not serve a legitimate legislative purpose.
A federal trial court rejected this contention, and in October a divided three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit upheld that ruling. The court of appeals concluded that the “public record reveals legitimate legislative pursuits,” rather than “an impermissible law-enforcement purpose behind the Committee’s subpoena,” and that the committee is investigating a subject on which it could enact legislation.
Arguing that “everything about this case is unprecedented,” Trump today asked the Supreme Court to block the D.C. Circuit’s ruling from going into effect on November 20 to give his lawyers time to file a petition for review of the lower court’s decision. If the D.C. Circuit’s ruling is allowed to stand, Trump complained in his 32-page filing today, “any committee of Congress can subpoena any personal information from the President; all the committee needs to say is that it’s considering legislation that would force Presidents to disclose that same information. Given the temptation to dig up dirt on political rivals, intrusive subpoenas into personal lives of Presidents will become our new normal in terms of divided government—no matter which party is in power. If every committee chairman is going to have this unbounded authority, this Court should be the one to say so.”
From Real Clear Policy: The Texas Model: Lower Crime, Lower Recidivism
- Click here for it.
The classic Daniel Patrick Moynihan quote that “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts,” is an import maxim in public policy debates. This is doubly so in criminology, where billions of dollars, quality of life in communities, and — most importantly — the very safety of law-abiding citizens rest on policymakers getting it right.
But despite the facts, critics still maintain that Texas’ criminal-justice reforms have failed to reduce crime and recidivism. The reforms at issue began with a spate of legislation passed during the 80th Texas Legislature in 2007, including a sweeping reorganization of the state’s community correction system under HB 1678. Facing prison and jail capacity overruns with no space to house violent offenders, the legislature prioritized probation and parole for low-risk offenders. We’ve illustrated time and again that once these policies were in place, crime rates continued to fall in-tandem with these reforms, despite similar protests from critics of the day that the opposite would happen.
For instance, in a recent Real Clear Policy op-ed, Sean Kennedy argues that despite Texas’ reform efforts, the re-arrest rate for state prisons and state jails (a Texas-specific type of short-term state incarceration facility) has not changed significantly since 2004. Even assuming that re-arrest rates are a good measure of recidivism reduction, the problem with this argument is that the composition of the prison population before and after the reforms is importantly different. Why? The 2007 reforms focused only on nonviolent and low-level offenders.
The classic Daniel Patrick Moynihan quote that “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts,” is an import maxim in public policy debates. This is doubly so in criminology, where billions of dollars, quality of life in communities, and — most importantly — the very safety of law-abiding citizens rest on policymakers getting it right.
But despite the facts, critics still maintain that Texas’ criminal-justice reforms have failed to reduce crime and recidivism. The reforms at issue began with a spate of legislation passed during the 80th Texas Legislature in 2007, including a sweeping reorganization of the state’s community correction system under HB 1678. Facing prison and jail capacity overruns with no space to house violent offenders, the legislature prioritized probation and parole for low-risk offenders. We’ve illustrated time and again that once these policies were in place, crime rates continued to fall in-tandem with these reforms, despite similar protests from critics of the day that the opposite would happen.
For instance, in a recent Real Clear Policy op-ed, Sean Kennedy argues that despite Texas’ reform efforts, the re-arrest rate for state prisons and state jails (a Texas-specific type of short-term state incarceration facility) has not changed significantly since 2004. Even assuming that re-arrest rates are a good measure of recidivism reduction, the problem with this argument is that the composition of the prison population before and after the reforms is importantly different. Why? The 2007 reforms focused only on nonviolent and low-level offenders.
From the ACLU: TX LEGISLATURE IN REVIEW: SMART JUSTICE
- Click here for it.
The recent end of the 2019 legislative session resulted in a mixed bag for many criminal justice advocates. However, our collaborative work with partners within the Texas Smart on Crime Coalition proved very effective at fighting for reforms that will make a real impact in the lives of Texans touched by the criminal justice system.
This year we prioritized an often overlooked area of criminal justice reform: women’s justice. According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the number of women incarcerated in Texas prisons increased 874 percent in the last forty years — over twice the growth rate as men. With such a dramatic increase, it was critical that we focused on areas where we could both reduce incarceration rates and improve the lives of women in Texas prisons.
One of the most important bills that passed was House Bill 650, wide-reaching legislation that will ensure there are trauma screenings for women in prison, requires prisons provide feminine hygiene products, and ensures new mothers are given at least 72 hours to be with any new baby born in custody.
Other legislation focusing on the dignity of women while incarcerated will become law this year, including House Bill 1651 which creates standards for care for pregnant women in county jails, House Bill 2169 which requires access to feminine hygiene products in county jails, and House Bill 3227 which requires parity in education and vocational opportunities for women in prison. These common-sense policies are significant victories for advocates of Smart Justice reforms in Texas.
Another notable bill of the session was House Bill 2048, which repeals the state’s controversial Driver Responsibility Program. The ACLU of Texas has been working with partners and community advocates for years to repeal this disastrous law. The impact of the law’s repeal is huge: Approximately 1.4 million Texans with suspended driver’s licenses will have nearly $2.5 billion in debt wiped clean and will no longer have to be worried about incarceration.
We also passed significant legislation that will make reentry easier for people released from prison. House Bill 1342 will make it easier for those with criminal records to obtain an occupational license, and House Bill 918 will ensure that individuals released from prison have the tools they need to succeed during their reentry to their communities.
Bad bills were killed this session, too, including House Bill 2020, which would have been a backwards step in Texas’ pretrial system. Thanks to the more than 500 ACLU of Texas supporters who stood against the legislation, we were able to prevent the bill from passing and becoming law.
Despite all these efforts, there is clearly more work to do. Marijuana possession reform finally passed through one chamber with House Bill 63 — in part thanks to the record breaking outpouring of support from ACLU of Texas supporters delivering 14,651 messages to legislators in support of the bill. Unfortunately, HB 63 stalled out in the Texas Senate with the Lieutenant Governor publicly opposing the legislation.
The successes we did have this session were largely due to the tremendous support from Texans that wrote, called, and testified on behalf of these criminal justice reforms. Together, we will build on these victories, learn what worked best and what didn’t, and redouble our efforts as we work through the coming months in preparation for the next legislative session in 2021.
The recent end of the 2019 legislative session resulted in a mixed bag for many criminal justice advocates. However, our collaborative work with partners within the Texas Smart on Crime Coalition proved very effective at fighting for reforms that will make a real impact in the lives of Texans touched by the criminal justice system.
This year we prioritized an often overlooked area of criminal justice reform: women’s justice. According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the number of women incarcerated in Texas prisons increased 874 percent in the last forty years — over twice the growth rate as men. With such a dramatic increase, it was critical that we focused on areas where we could both reduce incarceration rates and improve the lives of women in Texas prisons.
One of the most important bills that passed was House Bill 650, wide-reaching legislation that will ensure there are trauma screenings for women in prison, requires prisons provide feminine hygiene products, and ensures new mothers are given at least 72 hours to be with any new baby born in custody.
Other legislation focusing on the dignity of women while incarcerated will become law this year, including House Bill 1651 which creates standards for care for pregnant women in county jails, House Bill 2169 which requires access to feminine hygiene products in county jails, and House Bill 3227 which requires parity in education and vocational opportunities for women in prison. These common-sense policies are significant victories for advocates of Smart Justice reforms in Texas.
Another notable bill of the session was House Bill 2048, which repeals the state’s controversial Driver Responsibility Program. The ACLU of Texas has been working with partners and community advocates for years to repeal this disastrous law. The impact of the law’s repeal is huge: Approximately 1.4 million Texans with suspended driver’s licenses will have nearly $2.5 billion in debt wiped clean and will no longer have to be worried about incarceration.
We also passed significant legislation that will make reentry easier for people released from prison. House Bill 1342 will make it easier for those with criminal records to obtain an occupational license, and House Bill 918 will ensure that individuals released from prison have the tools they need to succeed during their reentry to their communities.
Bad bills were killed this session, too, including House Bill 2020, which would have been a backwards step in Texas’ pretrial system. Thanks to the more than 500 ACLU of Texas supporters who stood against the legislation, we were able to prevent the bill from passing and becoming law.
Despite all these efforts, there is clearly more work to do. Marijuana possession reform finally passed through one chamber with House Bill 63 — in part thanks to the record breaking outpouring of support from ACLU of Texas supporters delivering 14,651 messages to legislators in support of the bill. Unfortunately, HB 63 stalled out in the Texas Senate with the Lieutenant Governor publicly opposing the legislation.
The successes we did have this session were largely due to the tremendous support from Texans that wrote, called, and testified on behalf of these criminal justice reforms. Together, we will build on these victories, learn what worked best and what didn’t, and redouble our efforts as we work through the coming months in preparation for the next legislative session in 2021.
From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: Beware of Texas politicians bearing home-brewed arithmetic
For our look at state finance. The current state of it anyway.
- Click here for the article.
If you look at his campaign missives, it's clear that the state's lieutenant governor — or maybe it's his staff — can't reconcile his math with his politics.
Dan Patrick complains that spending in “many” cities and counties has been growing at 7% or more per year. And later on, he tries to debunk reports that the state budget went up by more than twice that amount:
“There has been a great deal of misinformation about the growth in the Texas state budget this session bolstered by early reports from the Legislative Budget Board and TPPF [the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank] suggesting the budget increased three or four times more than it actually did. You may have seen e-mails or articles on conservative blogs and news sites this summer that we increased spending this year 12-14%. That was just incorrect,” he wrote.
“After adjusting for almost $19 billion for Hurricane Harvey recovery, which was predominately federal funds, and nearly $6 billion in cuts for taxpayers, annual growth in the 2020-21 budget will be 2.5% — well below the conservative goal of population increase times the rate of inflation.”
Budgets always look better if you don’t include all of the money you’re spending. The bottom-line numbers are right there to see. At the end of this legislative session, the House and Senate passed, and the governor signed, a two-year budget totaling $250.6 billion. At the same time two years earlier, the final budget totaled $216.6 billion.
That’s an increase of 15.7%.
Patrick doesn’t want to count $26 billion of the increase, but the budget numbers are clear, and arithmetic doesn’t care about your politics. Besides, he’s still counting most of the federal spending in the current budget, which amounts to $86.4 billion.
- Click here for the article.
If you look at his campaign missives, it's clear that the state's lieutenant governor — or maybe it's his staff — can't reconcile his math with his politics.
Dan Patrick complains that spending in “many” cities and counties has been growing at 7% or more per year. And later on, he tries to debunk reports that the state budget went up by more than twice that amount:
“There has been a great deal of misinformation about the growth in the Texas state budget this session bolstered by early reports from the Legislative Budget Board and TPPF [the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank] suggesting the budget increased three or four times more than it actually did. You may have seen e-mails or articles on conservative blogs and news sites this summer that we increased spending this year 12-14%. That was just incorrect,” he wrote.
“After adjusting for almost $19 billion for Hurricane Harvey recovery, which was predominately federal funds, and nearly $6 billion in cuts for taxpayers, annual growth in the 2020-21 budget will be 2.5% — well below the conservative goal of population increase times the rate of inflation.”
Budgets always look better if you don’t include all of the money you’re spending. The bottom-line numbers are right there to see. At the end of this legislative session, the House and Senate passed, and the governor signed, a two-year budget totaling $250.6 billion. At the same time two years earlier, the final budget totaled $216.6 billion.
That’s an increase of 15.7%.
Patrick doesn’t want to count $26 billion of the increase, but the budget numbers are clear, and arithmetic doesn’t care about your politics. Besides, he’s still counting most of the federal spending in the current budget, which amounts to $86.4 billion.
Actual Innocence
A few related sites:
- TAMU: INNOCENCE PROJECT.
- Texas Innocence Project.
- The Process of Overturning a Wrongful Conviction.
- TAMU: INNOCENCE PROJECT.
- Texas Innocence Project.
- The Process of Overturning a Wrongful Conviction.
From the Texas Tribune: Texas court stops Rodney Reed’s execution to further review claims of innocence
For our look at criminal justice and the Texas judiciary.
- Click here for the article.
Texas' highest criminal court halted Rodney Reed's execution Friday afternoon, sending the now-famous case back to the trial court to further review several claims — biggest of all that he is innocent of the murder that landed him on death row more than 20 years ago.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' ruling came hours after the state's parole board separately recommended Gov. Greg Abbott delay Reed's Wednesday execution by 120 days. The court's ruling effectively preempts any gubernatorial involvement since it takes Reed's execution off the calendar and starts a new legal process.
Reed's case has gained an enormous amount of attention — with dozens of state and federal lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, A-list celebrities and millions of people signed on to online petitions calling for a stop to his death as doubts of his guilt grew. Shortly after the ruling, Reed's lawyer said he "absolutely" thought the the new review would lead to a new trial for Reed.
"We’re happy that we’re going to have an opportunity to present the compelling evidence that Rodney Reed didn’t commit the crime," Bryce Benjet of the Innocence Project told The Texas Tribune. "The Court of Criminal Appeals recognized the substance of this case and the need for a special hearing where all the evidence can be considered."
- Click here for the article.
Texas' highest criminal court halted Rodney Reed's execution Friday afternoon, sending the now-famous case back to the trial court to further review several claims — biggest of all that he is innocent of the murder that landed him on death row more than 20 years ago.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' ruling came hours after the state's parole board separately recommended Gov. Greg Abbott delay Reed's Wednesday execution by 120 days. The court's ruling effectively preempts any gubernatorial involvement since it takes Reed's execution off the calendar and starts a new legal process.
Reed's case has gained an enormous amount of attention — with dozens of state and federal lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, A-list celebrities and millions of people signed on to online petitions calling for a stop to his death as doubts of his guilt grew. Shortly after the ruling, Reed's lawyer said he "absolutely" thought the the new review would lead to a new trial for Reed.
"We’re happy that we’re going to have an opportunity to present the compelling evidence that Rodney Reed didn’t commit the crime," Bryce Benjet of the Innocence Project told The Texas Tribune. "The Court of Criminal Appeals recognized the substance of this case and the need for a special hearing where all the evidence can be considered."
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/473989aa7d2658b869fb14fc187d2f47/txcounties-map_byyear-05.png)
About Metro
For our look at single purpose local governments.
- Who we are.
The Texas State Legislature authorized the creation of local transit authorities in 1973. In 1978, Houston-area voters created METRO and approved a one-cent sales tax to support its operations. METRO opened for business in January 1979. The Authority has transformed a broken bus fleet into a regional multimodal transportation system.
- Wikipedia: Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County.
- Original Plan Book, 1978.
- Notice of special election, 2003.
- Calling a special election for 2019.
- Who we are.
The Texas State Legislature authorized the creation of local transit authorities in 1973. In 1978, Houston-area voters created METRO and approved a one-cent sales tax to support its operations. METRO opened for business in January 1979. The Authority has transformed a broken bus fleet into a regional multimodal transportation system.
- Wikipedia: Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County.
- Original Plan Book, 1978.
- Notice of special election, 2003.
- Calling a special election for 2019.
Stupid questions 2305-01
The only thing confusing me the most in this class is the difference in the four I’S in the first chapter (individualism, institutions, ideas & interests) and the differences between; equal opportunity, equal outcome, economic equality, & American dream, especially when it came to the quizzes/tests.
Why are both Democrats and Republicans generally reluctant to decrease spending on Social Security?
How much is this essay worth for our grade ?
Why do people have to categorize presidents between republican and democrat and other parties? Why don't we just let people be who they are and vote for people with similar interests? I get that we categorize them based on their beliefs and interests but some people won't even give some candidates a chance just because they're a democrat or republican. I believe in hearing what people have to say before i just automatically exclude them because they are in a certain party.
Why are senators allowed to be in office for six years at a time and are able to hold the position for as long as they'd like if they keep getting re elected.
Why do we need due process?
This isn't really a question but one thing that is confusing me most is how everything in intertwined with each other and how it still all functions without falling apart. You would think with two different parties running Congress it would be more chaotic but they function pretty well for having to work together.
How much do you believe the government is lying to us? If they do lie to us, are they justified in doing so? It sounds a little conspiracy theorist of me to ask this, but I am definitely interested to see what you think about it.
In chapter 7, I have a little trouble with the censorship of the media. What exactly is restricted?
Do you own a pet?
Whats confusing to me is the difference between civil liberties, and civil rights.
Having trouble understanding civil liberties.
We've gone over a bit on how the majority can pose a threat to the rights of the minority and I was wondering. Is there a direct opposite to this described in government? One where a minority can pose a significant threat on that of the majority's privileges?
Why is the American system called a democratic-republic?
A series of laws known as the alien and sedition acts were passed and while I understand what they are designed to protect. How did they come about, what prompted them to come up with these laws to begin with?
The whole election process confuses me. My more specific question is how does the Electoral College work? Since I am at the age where I can vote, I want to learn about how the process works. However, I never paid too much attention to how our government and elections work. I find myself not wanting to vote because I do not know how it works, and I believe that it is important to practice the right to vote and speak my mind that so many men and women have fought and died for. However, to be more specific, I want to learn what the Electoral College is and how it works. My parents have tried to explain it to me, but I still do not understand it. I know that there is a popular vote and an electoral vote, and I know that one candidate can win with the popular vote and another candidate can win with the electoral vote, but that is the extent of my knowledge of the subject. I appreciate anything information you can share on this subject so that I can learn.
This may be a stupid question, and I genuinely hope not offensive to your teaching style, but why don’t we go over the material in our books or in our quizzes more often? I don’t feel like I benefit as much from reading articles online.
I am 16 years old, will i be able to vote in the upcoming election. How can if not how can I make a difference
what is government and how does it work?
How many sources do we have to have in the essay?
The only thing confusing me the most in this class is the difference in the four I’S in the first chapter (individualism, institutions, ideas & interests) and the differences between; equal opportunity, equal outcome, economic equality, & American dream, especially when it came to the quizzes/tests.
Why are both Democrats and Republicans generally reluctant to decrease spending on Social Security?
How much is this essay worth for our grade ?
Why do people have to categorize presidents between republican and democrat and other parties? Why don't we just let people be who they are and vote for people with similar interests? I get that we categorize them based on their beliefs and interests but some people won't even give some candidates a chance just because they're a democrat or republican. I believe in hearing what people have to say before i just automatically exclude them because they are in a certain party.
Why are senators allowed to be in office for six years at a time and are able to hold the position for as long as they'd like if they keep getting re elected.
Why do we need due process?
This isn't really a question but one thing that is confusing me most is how everything in intertwined with each other and how it still all functions without falling apart. You would think with two different parties running Congress it would be more chaotic but they function pretty well for having to work together.
How much do you believe the government is lying to us? If they do lie to us, are they justified in doing so? It sounds a little conspiracy theorist of me to ask this, but I am definitely interested to see what you think about it.
In chapter 7, I have a little trouble with the censorship of the media. What exactly is restricted?
Do you own a pet?
Whats confusing to me is the difference between civil liberties, and civil rights.
Having trouble understanding civil liberties.
We've gone over a bit on how the majority can pose a threat to the rights of the minority and I was wondering. Is there a direct opposite to this described in government? One where a minority can pose a significant threat on that of the majority's privileges?
Why is the American system called a democratic-republic?
A series of laws known as the alien and sedition acts were passed and while I understand what they are designed to protect. How did they come about, what prompted them to come up with these laws to begin with?
The whole election process confuses me. My more specific question is how does the Electoral College work? Since I am at the age where I can vote, I want to learn about how the process works. However, I never paid too much attention to how our government and elections work. I find myself not wanting to vote because I do not know how it works, and I believe that it is important to practice the right to vote and speak my mind that so many men and women have fought and died for. However, to be more specific, I want to learn what the Electoral College is and how it works. My parents have tried to explain it to me, but I still do not understand it. I know that there is a popular vote and an electoral vote, and I know that one candidate can win with the popular vote and another candidate can win with the electoral vote, but that is the extent of my knowledge of the subject. I appreciate anything information you can share on this subject so that I can learn.
This may be a stupid question, and I genuinely hope not offensive to your teaching style, but why don’t we go over the material in our books or in our quizzes more often? I don’t feel like I benefit as much from reading articles online.
I am 16 years old, will i be able to vote in the upcoming election. How can if not how can I make a difference
what is government and how does it work?
How many sources do we have to have in the essay?
Stupid questions 2306 01
What edition of the book are we supposed to have because the syllabus says that we need the fifth edition but the one we use in class is the sixth edition, do I need to get the sixth edition?
who can the governor appoint i am alittle confused about this
what is a filibuster ?
With enough effort during a campaign is it possible for a third party candidate to win an election?
If Quizzes are quizzical, Then what are tests???
I have not found anything confusing. It is just a lot of information to review and remember. Texas Government contains a lot of vocabulary.
I’d say everything we’ve covered so far has been self-explanatory and common sense, but if I had to pick one thing it would be chapter five Texas Governors just because the powers and roles can get confusing and I sometimes mix them up with each other.
How much influence does the federal government have over the states, and how can it coerce compliance with federal tools?
I'm still confused about grassroots organizations.
What is paper made from?
According to one of the quiz/test questions, national politics have been a strong contributor to the weakening of state political parties in Texas. Why is that?
Nothing is really confusing me as of right now in this class, but the only thing I struggle with is remembering term lengths and who get appointed by who. But that being said they’re not that hard to remember so I should be good.
You asked for a stupid question...but then requested us to aks about the one thing we are most confused about...
I'll do both:
Stupid Questions:
1: Did they make Dyslexia Hard to spell on purpose?
2: How important does someone have to be to be considered assassinated instead of murdered?
3:Why does refrigerator not have a 'd', but Fridge does?
Most confusing thing:
Probeobly one of the most confusing things for me is the vast amount of committees and their intricate policies within the government.
My stupid question is what do I need to do to consistently make A’s on my written assignments?
why isn't there a set registration and voters eligibility law for all states ?
Sometimes it's hard to follow the lecture. I don't have an actual question just some remarks. I do learn more when you connect the chapters to news articles.That is helpful for me.
The most confusing subject matter would probably be the court systems and jurisdictions for me.
Are all written assignments do in December or are they do every week on Monday? I was confused about the syllabus saying two different things. Also, I wanted to find out if the last exam was cumulative so I can know if I must go back and review some things.
What edition of the book are we supposed to have because the syllabus says that we need the fifth edition but the one we use in class is the sixth edition, do I need to get the sixth edition?
who can the governor appoint i am alittle confused about this
what is a filibuster ?
With enough effort during a campaign is it possible for a third party candidate to win an election?
If Quizzes are quizzical, Then what are tests???
I have not found anything confusing. It is just a lot of information to review and remember. Texas Government contains a lot of vocabulary.
I’d say everything we’ve covered so far has been self-explanatory and common sense, but if I had to pick one thing it would be chapter five Texas Governors just because the powers and roles can get confusing and I sometimes mix them up with each other.
How much influence does the federal government have over the states, and how can it coerce compliance with federal tools?
I'm still confused about grassroots organizations.
What is paper made from?
According to one of the quiz/test questions, national politics have been a strong contributor to the weakening of state political parties in Texas. Why is that?
Nothing is really confusing me as of right now in this class, but the only thing I struggle with is remembering term lengths and who get appointed by who. But that being said they’re not that hard to remember so I should be good.
You asked for a stupid question...but then requested us to aks about the one thing we are most confused about...
I'll do both:
Stupid Questions:
1: Did they make Dyslexia Hard to spell on purpose?
2: How important does someone have to be to be considered assassinated instead of murdered?
3:Why does refrigerator not have a 'd', but Fridge does?
Most confusing thing:
Probeobly one of the most confusing things for me is the vast amount of committees and their intricate policies within the government.
My stupid question is what do I need to do to consistently make A’s on my written assignments?
why isn't there a set registration and voters eligibility law for all states ?
Sometimes it's hard to follow the lecture. I don't have an actual question just some remarks. I do learn more when you connect the chapters to news articles.That is helpful for me.
The most confusing subject matter would probably be the court systems and jurisdictions for me.
Are all written assignments do in December or are they do every week on Monday? I was confused about the syllabus saying two different things. Also, I wanted to find out if the last exam was cumulative so I can know if I must go back and review some things.
Friday, November 15, 2019
Russian Oligarchs
Since they've been in the news recently, and since oligarch is a term we use in class:
- Wikipedia: Russian oligarch.
Russian oligarchs are business oligarchs of the former Soviet republics who rapidly accumulated wealth during the era of Russian privatization in the aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. The failing Soviet state left the ownership of state assets contested, which allowed for informal deals with former USSR officials (mostly in Russia and Ukraine) as a means to acquire state property. Historian Edward L. Keenan has drawn a comparison between the current Russian phenomenon of oligarchs and the system of powerful boyars which emerged in late-Medieval Muscovy.
The first modern Russian oligarchs emerged as business-sector entrepreneurs under Mikhail Gorbachev (General Secretary 1985–1991) during his period of market liberalization.[2][need quotation to verify] The term "oligarch" derives from the Ancient Greek oligarkhia meaning "the rule of the few".
- Wikipedia: Russian oligarch.
Russian oligarchs are business oligarchs of the former Soviet republics who rapidly accumulated wealth during the era of Russian privatization in the aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. The failing Soviet state left the ownership of state assets contested, which allowed for informal deals with former USSR officials (mostly in Russia and Ukraine) as a means to acquire state property. Historian Edward L. Keenan has drawn a comparison between the current Russian phenomenon of oligarchs and the system of powerful boyars which emerged in late-Medieval Muscovy.
The first modern Russian oligarchs emerged as business-sector entrepreneurs under Mikhail Gorbachev (General Secretary 1985–1991) during his period of market liberalization.[2][need quotation to verify] The term "oligarch" derives from the Ancient Greek oligarkhia meaning "the rule of the few".
Thursday, November 14, 2019
From the Brennan Center: The History of Corporate Personhood
Building from Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company.
- Click here for the article.
In McCutcheon v. FEC, handed down last Wednesday, the Supreme Court built on the precedent of Citizens United by invalidating the federal aggregate contribution limit for individuals. But McCutcheon is not the only case that gives the Supreme Court chance to expand Citizens United’s reach this term.
In Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Supreme Court has to choose whether to extend the logic of 2010’s Citizens United to allow a corporation to make a religious objection to a generally applicable law.
How we got to the point where a for-profit corporation – not a church mind you – can lay claim to religious rights is a bit complicated. It all goes back to a legal fiction known as corporate personhood.
Generally, corporate personhood allows companies to hold property, enter contracts, and to sue and be sued just like a human being. But of course some human rights make no sense for a corporation, like the right to marry, to parent a child, or to vote. As Professor Elizabeth Pollman explains when it comes to Constitutional rights for corporations there is a hodgepodge: “corporations enjoy Fourth Amendment safeguards against unreasonable regulatory searches, but do not have a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.”
If you’re a fan of the Colbert Report, “corporate personhood” might sound familiar. Stephen Colbert got a well deserved Peabody Award for his work educating the public about campaign finance laws with his lawyer Trevor Potter. However, Mr. Colbert’s verbal tick of saying that Citizens United granted corporate personhood is a tad misleading.
Citizens United did not grant corporations personhood. Corporations already had it. As lawyer David Gans has documented, despite the fact that the U.S. Constitution never mentions corporations, corporate personhood has been slithering around American law for a very long time. The first big leap in corporate personhood from mere property rights to more expansive rights was a claim that the Equal Protection Clause applied to corporations.
The 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War in 1868 to grant emancipated slaves full citizenship, states, “No state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person ... the equal protection of the laws.”
We have the likes of former U.S. Senator Roscoe Conkling to thank for the extension of Equal Protection to corporations. Conkling helped draft the 14th Amendment. He then left the Senate to become a lawyer. His Gilded Age law practice was going so swimmingly that Conkling turned down a seat on the Supreme Court not once, but twice.
Conkling argued to the Supreme Court in San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the 14th Amendment is not limited to natural persons. In 1882, he produced a journal that seemed to show that the Joint Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment vacillated between using “citizen” and “person” and the drafters chose person specifically to cover corporations. According to historian Howard Jay Graham, “[t]his part of Conkling’s argument was a deliberate, brazen forgery.”
- Click here for the article.
In McCutcheon v. FEC, handed down last Wednesday, the Supreme Court built on the precedent of Citizens United by invalidating the federal aggregate contribution limit for individuals. But McCutcheon is not the only case that gives the Supreme Court chance to expand Citizens United’s reach this term.
In Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Supreme Court has to choose whether to extend the logic of 2010’s Citizens United to allow a corporation to make a religious objection to a generally applicable law.
How we got to the point where a for-profit corporation – not a church mind you – can lay claim to religious rights is a bit complicated. It all goes back to a legal fiction known as corporate personhood.
Generally, corporate personhood allows companies to hold property, enter contracts, and to sue and be sued just like a human being. But of course some human rights make no sense for a corporation, like the right to marry, to parent a child, or to vote. As Professor Elizabeth Pollman explains when it comes to Constitutional rights for corporations there is a hodgepodge: “corporations enjoy Fourth Amendment safeguards against unreasonable regulatory searches, but do not have a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.”
If you’re a fan of the Colbert Report, “corporate personhood” might sound familiar. Stephen Colbert got a well deserved Peabody Award for his work educating the public about campaign finance laws with his lawyer Trevor Potter. However, Mr. Colbert’s verbal tick of saying that Citizens United granted corporate personhood is a tad misleading.
Citizens United did not grant corporations personhood. Corporations already had it. As lawyer David Gans has documented, despite the fact that the U.S. Constitution never mentions corporations, corporate personhood has been slithering around American law for a very long time. The first big leap in corporate personhood from mere property rights to more expansive rights was a claim that the Equal Protection Clause applied to corporations.
The 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War in 1868 to grant emancipated slaves full citizenship, states, “No state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person ... the equal protection of the laws.”
We have the likes of former U.S. Senator Roscoe Conkling to thank for the extension of Equal Protection to corporations. Conkling helped draft the 14th Amendment. He then left the Senate to become a lawyer. His Gilded Age law practice was going so swimmingly that Conkling turned down a seat on the Supreme Court not once, but twice.
Conkling argued to the Supreme Court in San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the 14th Amendment is not limited to natural persons. In 1882, he produced a journal that seemed to show that the Joint Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment vacillated between using “citizen” and “person” and the drafters chose person specifically to cover corporations. According to historian Howard Jay Graham, “[t]his part of Conkling’s argument was a deliberate, brazen forgery.”
The U.S. Foreign Service and the merit system
- United States Foreign Service.
- Rogers Act.
Article II, section 2 of the US Constitution authorized the President to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, "Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls." From 1789 to 1924, the diplomatic service, which staffed US legations and embassies, and the consular service, which was primarily responsible for promoting American commerce and assisting distressed American sailors, developed separately.[2]
With small appropriations from Congress, overseas service could not be sustained based on salary alone. Diplomatic and consular service appointments fell on those with the financial means to sustain their work abroad. That and a government-wide practice of political appointments based on nomination, rather than merit, led to careers for those with relations and wealth, rather than skill and knowledge.
Wilbur J. Carr, the chief of the consular bureau, sought to end the political turmoil that affected both the diplomatic and consular services. Working with his colleague Francois Jones, they composed a congressional bill to change the services into one based on a merit system.[4]
Between 1895 and 1905, the bill was continually defeated. Then Secretary of State Elihu Root in 1905, a reformer himself, discovered Mr. Carr as head of the consular bureau. Taking the original ideas, Root worked with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and succeeded in passing a merit-based bill for the consular service in 1906.[4]
Carr began his initial overseas tour in London in 1916. He noted tensions between the diplomatic and consular corps in London and was "shocked to see the staff still wearing top hats and long-tailed coats to work each day". He was further surprised when he heard some of the American diplomatic staff speaking with British accents. He discovered that some of these officers had been living in London for so long they had become almost identical to the British foreign service members with whom they often met and socialized. Carr would later comment that "I have seen some of these young secretaries, who have had exceptional social opportunities and advantages in the capitals abroad, become the most abject followers of the social regime in the foreign capital. One of the things that I hope is going to follow from this bill is to send some of these de-Americanized secretaries to Singapore as vice consul, or to force them out of the service."[5]
With trade becoming an important foreign relations issue in the 1920s, U.S. Representative John Jacob Rogers of Massachusetts sought to complete reforms started by Carr, now Assistant Secretary of State. The bill passed May 24 as the Foreign Service Act of 1924 although it is also called the Rogers Act in honor of the principal author.
- Rogers Act.
Article II, section 2 of the US Constitution authorized the President to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, "Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls." From 1789 to 1924, the diplomatic service, which staffed US legations and embassies, and the consular service, which was primarily responsible for promoting American commerce and assisting distressed American sailors, developed separately.[2]
With small appropriations from Congress, overseas service could not be sustained based on salary alone. Diplomatic and consular service appointments fell on those with the financial means to sustain their work abroad. That and a government-wide practice of political appointments based on nomination, rather than merit, led to careers for those with relations and wealth, rather than skill and knowledge.
Wilbur J. Carr, the chief of the consular bureau, sought to end the political turmoil that affected both the diplomatic and consular services. Working with his colleague Francois Jones, they composed a congressional bill to change the services into one based on a merit system.[4]
Between 1895 and 1905, the bill was continually defeated. Then Secretary of State Elihu Root in 1905, a reformer himself, discovered Mr. Carr as head of the consular bureau. Taking the original ideas, Root worked with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and succeeded in passing a merit-based bill for the consular service in 1906.[4]
Carr began his initial overseas tour in London in 1916. He noted tensions between the diplomatic and consular corps in London and was "shocked to see the staff still wearing top hats and long-tailed coats to work each day". He was further surprised when he heard some of the American diplomatic staff speaking with British accents. He discovered that some of these officers had been living in London for so long they had become almost identical to the British foreign service members with whom they often met and socialized. Carr would later comment that "I have seen some of these young secretaries, who have had exceptional social opportunities and advantages in the capitals abroad, become the most abject followers of the social regime in the foreign capital. One of the things that I hope is going to follow from this bill is to send some of these de-Americanized secretaries to Singapore as vice consul, or to force them out of the service."[5]
With trade becoming an important foreign relations issue in the 1920s, U.S. Representative John Jacob Rogers of Massachusetts sought to complete reforms started by Carr, now Assistant Secretary of State. The bill passed May 24 as the Foreign Service Act of 1924 although it is also called the Rogers Act in honor of the principal author.
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
From the Texas Tribune: Texas education board likely to approve African American studies course in 2020
- Click here for the article.
After years of bitter debate over whether ethnic studies courses are racially divisive, the Texas State Board of Education appears poised to approve its first African American studies course next year.
The 15-member board, which is responsible for setting curriculum standards and adopting textbooks for Texas public schools, heard from dozens of students, educators and advocates at a public hearing Wednesday, most who favored the new course.
"We will be passing this," said board member Pat Hardy, a Fort Worth Republican.
The board's seeming consensus marks a tremendous shift: In 2014, many Republicans voted down a proposal to create a Mexican American studies course, arguing it would divide instead of unite students. Hardy herself was a skeptic, saying: "We're not about Hispanic history; we're about American history."
Over the next several months, the board will create curriculum standards for the course based on an existing class in the Dallas Independent School District, and is expected to take a final vote in April. It's the same process the board used to approve a Mexican American studies course last year, based on an existing course in Houston ISD.
Hardy told The Texas Tribune on Wednesday that she has always been a proponent of ethnic studies. She said the timing in 2014 was not right for a Mexican American studies course because the board and its staff did not have time to build a set of requirements for it from scratch.
Board member Ruben Cortez, the Brownsville Democrat who first proposed the Mexican American studies course in 2014, has a different theory for the change of heart: "After that long drawn-out five-year fight to get Mexican American studies approved, [Republicans] don't want to deal with it anymore."
It's also possible that fiery debates could reignite when board members meet next January and April to discuss curriculum standards for the new course.
After years of bitter debate over whether ethnic studies courses are racially divisive, the Texas State Board of Education appears poised to approve its first African American studies course next year.
The 15-member board, which is responsible for setting curriculum standards and adopting textbooks for Texas public schools, heard from dozens of students, educators and advocates at a public hearing Wednesday, most who favored the new course.
"We will be passing this," said board member Pat Hardy, a Fort Worth Republican.
The board's seeming consensus marks a tremendous shift: In 2014, many Republicans voted down a proposal to create a Mexican American studies course, arguing it would divide instead of unite students. Hardy herself was a skeptic, saying: "We're not about Hispanic history; we're about American history."
Over the next several months, the board will create curriculum standards for the course based on an existing class in the Dallas Independent School District, and is expected to take a final vote in April. It's the same process the board used to approve a Mexican American studies course last year, based on an existing course in Houston ISD.
Hardy told The Texas Tribune on Wednesday that she has always been a proponent of ethnic studies. She said the timing in 2014 was not right for a Mexican American studies course because the board and its staff did not have time to build a set of requirements for it from scratch.
Board member Ruben Cortez, the Brownsville Democrat who first proposed the Mexican American studies course in 2014, has a different theory for the change of heart: "After that long drawn-out five-year fight to get Mexican American studies approved, [Republicans] don't want to deal with it anymore."
It's also possible that fiery debates could reignite when board members meet next January and April to discuss curriculum standards for the new course.
From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: For Texas candidates, 2020 officially started last weekend
- Click here for the article.
To Texans of a political bent, Saturday was the first day of 2020 — the day candidates started paying their fees, turning in their signatures and declaring their official intention to run for office next year.
This one-month chirp-or-get-off-the-perch exercise separates people who were just testing the waters from those who are actually going to jump in and run.
As the filing period rolls from now to the Dec. 9 deadline, it will reveal which incumbents are seeking reelection, who’s had enough of this public service thing and which ones are drawing serious opposition.
Some of the sentimental favorites who’ve fallen out of other races — you can guess their names — will decide whether to listen to the followers who wanted them to run for something else the whole time.
You know, before that presidential thing didn’t work out.
The election might seem far away, but the candidate filing marks a quickening of the pace of things. Candidates have a month to file. There’s an interruption in their fundraising and politicking during the year-end holidays (but here’s betting they’ll still fill your email box in that last week before the new year). On the other side, there will be just nine weeks until the March 3 primaries. And early voting starts well before then, on Feb. 18.
March 3, 2020 Primary Calendar
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/advisory2019-16.shtml
To Texans of a political bent, Saturday was the first day of 2020 — the day candidates started paying their fees, turning in their signatures and declaring their official intention to run for office next year.
This one-month chirp-or-get-off-the-perch exercise separates people who were just testing the waters from those who are actually going to jump in and run.
As the filing period rolls from now to the Dec. 9 deadline, it will reveal which incumbents are seeking reelection, who’s had enough of this public service thing and which ones are drawing serious opposition.
Some of the sentimental favorites who’ve fallen out of other races — you can guess their names — will decide whether to listen to the followers who wanted them to run for something else the whole time.
You know, before that presidential thing didn’t work out.
The election might seem far away, but the candidate filing marks a quickening of the pace of things. Candidates have a month to file. There’s an interruption in their fundraising and politicking during the year-end holidays (but here’s betting they’ll still fill your email box in that last week before the new year). On the other side, there will be just nine weeks until the March 3 primaries. And early voting starts well before then, on Feb. 18.
March 3, 2020 Primary Calendar
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/advisory2019-16.shtml
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
From Politico: Dreamers get little traction with Supreme Court’s conservative justices
Checks and balances:
- Click here for the article.
The political standoff over the fate of so-called Dreamers loomed large at the Supreme Court Tuesday as the justices wrestled with President Donald Trump’s decision in 2017 to wind down the Obama-era program that gives work permits and quasi-legal status to about 660,000 foreigners who entered the U.S. illegally as children.
The court’s conservative majority gave little sign of openness to the contention by proponents of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program that the Trump administration’s decision to shut down the initiative was legally flawed.
Some liberal justices seemed to endorse Trump’s authority to end the program, but said he needed to embrace the consequences, rather than pawning them off on a disputed legal memo from Attorney General Jeff Sessions that concluded DACA was both illegal and unconstitutional.
“Where’s the political decision that was made that this not about the law, but about our choice to destroy lives?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked.
Justice Elena Kagan said Sessions’ opinion infected the decisionmaking about DACA in a way that made it hard to know what former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen would have done without the attorney general’s declaration that former President Barack Obama’s policy was illegal.
- Click here for the article.
The political standoff over the fate of so-called Dreamers loomed large at the Supreme Court Tuesday as the justices wrestled with President Donald Trump’s decision in 2017 to wind down the Obama-era program that gives work permits and quasi-legal status to about 660,000 foreigners who entered the U.S. illegally as children.
The court’s conservative majority gave little sign of openness to the contention by proponents of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program that the Trump administration’s decision to shut down the initiative was legally flawed.
Some liberal justices seemed to endorse Trump’s authority to end the program, but said he needed to embrace the consequences, rather than pawning them off on a disputed legal memo from Attorney General Jeff Sessions that concluded DACA was both illegal and unconstitutional.
“Where’s the political decision that was made that this not about the law, but about our choice to destroy lives?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked.
Justice Elena Kagan said Sessions’ opinion infected the decisionmaking about DACA in a way that made it hard to know what former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen would have done without the attorney general’s declaration that former President Barack Obama’s policy was illegal.
From Politico: Sean Duffy heads to K Street after resigning from Congress
The revolving door:
- Click here for the article.
Sean Duffy, the former Republican congressman who has aggressively defended President Donald Trump, is heading to K Street after resigning from Congress in September.
Duffy will become a senior counsel at BGR Group, a Republican-leaning lobbying firm that’s also home to former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. The firm’s lobbyists represent corporate clients such as Comcast and Pfizer, as well as the governments of Bahrain, Bangladesh, India and South Korea, according to disclosure filings.
Duffy, the former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee’s housing subcommittee, will head up BGR’s financial services practice. BGR lobbies for Credit Suisse and MassMutual, among other financial clients. He plans to register as a lobbyist, according to the firm.
- Click here for the article.
Sean Duffy, the former Republican congressman who has aggressively defended President Donald Trump, is heading to K Street after resigning from Congress in September.
Duffy will become a senior counsel at BGR Group, a Republican-leaning lobbying firm that’s also home to former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. The firm’s lobbyists represent corporate clients such as Comcast and Pfizer, as well as the governments of Bahrain, Bangladesh, India and South Korea, according to disclosure filings.
Duffy, the former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee’s housing subcommittee, will head up BGR’s financial services practice. BGR lobbies for Credit Suisse and MassMutual, among other financial clients. He plans to register as a lobbyist, according to the firm.
Monday, November 11, 2019
Objectives of the Texas Penal Code
Sec. 1.02. OBJECTIVES OF CODE. The general purposes of this code are to establish a system of prohibitions, penalties, and correctional measures to deal with conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably causes or threatens harm to those individual or public interests for which state protection is appropriate. To this end, the provisions of this code are intended, and shall be construed, to achieve the following objectives:
(1) to insure the public safety through:
(A) the deterrent influence of the penalties hereinafter provided;
(B) the rehabilitation of those convicted of violations of this code; and
(C) such punishment as may be necessary to prevent likely recurrence of criminal behavior;
(2) by definition and grading of offenses to give fair warning of what is prohibited and of the consequences of violation;
(3) to prescribe penalties that are proportionate to the seriousness of offenses and that permit recognition of differences in rehabilitation possibilities among individual offenders;
(4) to safeguard conduct that is without guilt from condemnation as criminal;
(5) to guide and limit the exercise of official discretion in law enforcement to prevent arbitrary or oppressive treatment of persons suspected, accused, or convicted of offenses; and
(6) to define the scope of state interest in law enforcement against specific offenses and to systematize the exercise of state criminal jurisdiction.
(1) to insure the public safety through:
(A) the deterrent influence of the penalties hereinafter provided;
(B) the rehabilitation of those convicted of violations of this code; and
(C) such punishment as may be necessary to prevent likely recurrence of criminal behavior;
(2) by definition and grading of offenses to give fair warning of what is prohibited and of the consequences of violation;
(3) to prescribe penalties that are proportionate to the seriousness of offenses and that permit recognition of differences in rehabilitation possibilities among individual offenders;
(4) to safeguard conduct that is without guilt from condemnation as criminal;
(5) to guide and limit the exercise of official discretion in law enforcement to prevent arbitrary or oppressive treatment of persons suspected, accused, or convicted of offenses; and
(6) to define the scope of state interest in law enforcement against specific offenses and to systematize the exercise of state criminal jurisdiction.
Objectives of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
Art. 1.03. OBJECTS OF THIS CODE. This Code is intended to embrace rules applicable to the prevention and prosecution of offenses against the laws of this State, and to make the rules of procedure in respect to the prevention and punishment of offenses intelligible to the officers who are to act under them, and to all persons whose rights are to be affected by them. It seeks:
1. To adopt measures for preventing the commission of crime;
2. To exclude the offender from all hope of escape;
3. To insure a trial with as little delay as is consistent with the ends of justice;
4. To bring to the investigation of each offense on the trial all the evidence tending to produce conviction or acquittal;
5. To insure a fair and impartial trial; and
6. The certain execution of the sentence of the law when declared.
1. To adopt measures for preventing the commission of crime;
2. To exclude the offender from all hope of escape;
3. To insure a trial with as little delay as is consistent with the ends of justice;
4. To bring to the investigation of each offense on the trial all the evidence tending to produce conviction or acquittal;
5. To insure a fair and impartial trial; and
6. The certain execution of the sentence of the law when declared.
From the Texas Tribune: Kay Granger is the most senior Republican woman in the U.S. House. But her reelection could turn into an intra-GOP battle.
For our look at primary elections, among other things - the iron triangle for one.
- Click here for the article.
It’s the question on the minds of Republicans from Washington to Cowtown: Is one of Texas’ most powerful U.S. House members in political trouble?
Enough people think so that many in the GOP political class are bracing for Fort Worth to serve as the setting of the next nationalized battle between the party's establishment and rebellious conservative factions.
U.S. Rep. Kay Granger, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, is running for reelection in her Fort Worth district. But at least one well-funded primary challenger has emerged: Chris Putnam, who shot out of the gate this fall with a burst of cash and accusations that Granger is not sufficiently loyal to President Donald Trump.
Unseating Granger would undoubtedly be a tall task — she’s a 12-term member of Congress who has been a force in Fort Worth politics since before she was mayor in the early 1990s.
. . . From her position on the Appropriations Committee, she spearheaded the development of the F-35 fighter plane, which is in part manufactured in Fort Worth’s Lockheed Martin plant, and a massive Fort Worth waterworks project called the Trinity River Vision Authority. Both the F-35 and the Trinity River project have come under heavy criticism for cost overruns. Granger has also withstood years of allegations that the TRVA, which has been run by her son J.D. Granger, is a source of nepotism.
A year ago, the Texas Republican delegation rallied behind her in a successful — but narrowly won — bid as the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee is where decisions are made on how the government spends money.
It is the most sought-after committee among members, and a leadership post like that of Granger’s is usually the capstone of a long Congressional career.
But her position on the Appropriations Committee cuts both ways. While she can argue that her status puts her in a unique position to help her district and Congress, she depleted her campaign accounts to get to that point.
As she vied for the role, she raised and distributed millions of dollars to House GOP efforts to win races elsewhere in the country. According to Federal Election Commission records, she has directly transferred over $3 million from her own campaign to the House GOP campaign arm since 2002. That sum does not include donations directly to colleagues and candidates, fundraisers she has hosted on behalf of colleagues and the National Republican Congressional Committee and money directly raised for the NRCC. Two Republicans who support Granger estimated the unknown sum to be millions more.
Once the top slot at the committee opened up, Granger escalated her fundraising, and that effort proved key in her victory last year. Now, as the ranking member, she has already transferred $435,000 to the NRCC this year alone.
- Earmarks.
- Political Action Committees (PACs) 2019 - 2020.
- JD Granger, Trinity River Vision Authority, Executive Director
- Click here for the article.
It’s the question on the minds of Republicans from Washington to Cowtown: Is one of Texas’ most powerful U.S. House members in political trouble?
Enough people think so that many in the GOP political class are bracing for Fort Worth to serve as the setting of the next nationalized battle between the party's establishment and rebellious conservative factions.
U.S. Rep. Kay Granger, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, is running for reelection in her Fort Worth district. But at least one well-funded primary challenger has emerged: Chris Putnam, who shot out of the gate this fall with a burst of cash and accusations that Granger is not sufficiently loyal to President Donald Trump.
Unseating Granger would undoubtedly be a tall task — she’s a 12-term member of Congress who has been a force in Fort Worth politics since before she was mayor in the early 1990s.
. . . From her position on the Appropriations Committee, she spearheaded the development of the F-35 fighter plane, which is in part manufactured in Fort Worth’s Lockheed Martin plant, and a massive Fort Worth waterworks project called the Trinity River Vision Authority. Both the F-35 and the Trinity River project have come under heavy criticism for cost overruns. Granger has also withstood years of allegations that the TRVA, which has been run by her son J.D. Granger, is a source of nepotism.
A year ago, the Texas Republican delegation rallied behind her in a successful — but narrowly won — bid as the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee is where decisions are made on how the government spends money.
It is the most sought-after committee among members, and a leadership post like that of Granger’s is usually the capstone of a long Congressional career.
But her position on the Appropriations Committee cuts both ways. While she can argue that her status puts her in a unique position to help her district and Congress, she depleted her campaign accounts to get to that point.
As she vied for the role, she raised and distributed millions of dollars to House GOP efforts to win races elsewhere in the country. According to Federal Election Commission records, she has directly transferred over $3 million from her own campaign to the House GOP campaign arm since 2002. That sum does not include donations directly to colleagues and candidates, fundraisers she has hosted on behalf of colleagues and the National Republican Congressional Committee and money directly raised for the NRCC. Two Republicans who support Granger estimated the unknown sum to be millions more.
Once the top slot at the committee opened up, Granger escalated her fundraising, and that effort proved key in her victory last year. Now, as the ranking member, she has already transferred $435,000 to the NRCC this year alone.
- Earmarks.
- Political Action Committees (PACs) 2019 - 2020.
- JD Granger, Trinity River Vision Authority, Executive Director
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident (1964)
For our look at the expanded powers of the commander in chief..
- Case Closed: The Gulf of Tonkin Incident
From The U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:
Ground zero of the impeachment process.
- Click here for the committee.
Press Releases
House Intelligence Committee Announces First Week of Open Hearings With William Taylor, George Kent and Marie Yovanovitch
Washington, November 6, 2019
Washington, DC — Today, Chairman Adam Schiff announced that on Wednesday, November 13, 2019, and Friday, November 15, 2019 the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will hold its first open hearings as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald J. Trump.
On Wednesday, November 13, 2019, the Committee will hear from Ambassador William Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent. Taylor currently serves as the Chargé D'affaires for the U.S. State Department in Ukraine. Kent serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the European and Eurasian Bureau at the U.S. Department of State.
On Friday, November 15, 2019, the Committee will hear from former Ambassador Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch. Until May 2019, Yovanovitch served as the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine.
Additional details will be released in the coming days.
- Click here for the committee.
Press Releases
House Intelligence Committee Announces First Week of Open Hearings With William Taylor, George Kent and Marie Yovanovitch
Washington, November 6, 2019
Washington, DC — Today, Chairman Adam Schiff announced that on Wednesday, November 13, 2019, and Friday, November 15, 2019 the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will hold its first open hearings as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald J. Trump.
On Wednesday, November 13, 2019, the Committee will hear from Ambassador William Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent. Taylor currently serves as the Chargé D'affaires for the U.S. State Department in Ukraine. Kent serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the European and Eurasian Bureau at the U.S. Department of State.
On Friday, November 15, 2019, the Committee will hear from former Ambassador Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch. Until May 2019, Yovanovitch served as the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine.
Additional details will be released in the coming days.
From the National Park Service: The Articles of Impeachment Against Andrew Johnson
- Click here for the site.
March 7, 1868
The Senate of the United States to Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, Greetings:
Whereas the House of Representatives of the United States of America, did on the Fourth day of March, 1868, exhibit to the Senate articles of impeachment against you the said Andrew Johnson, in the words following:
ARTICLE I.
ARTICLE II.
ARTICLE III.
ARTICLE IV.
ARTICLE V.
ARTICLE VI.
ARTICLE VII.
ARTICLE VIII.
ARTICLE IX.
ARTICLE X.
ARTICLE XI,
and demand that you, the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, shall be put to answer the accusations as set forth in said articles, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgments might be thereupon had as are agreeable to law and justice, as demanded by the House of Representatives through their managers.
And whereas, the House of Representatives through their Managers did, also, on the sixth day of March instant, demand that process be taken against you, that you may answer at the bar of the Senate, upon the articles of impeachment theretofore preferred.
Now therefore, you, the said Andrew Johnson President of the United States, are hereby summoned to be and appear before the Senate of the United States of America, sitting on the trial of the said impeachment, at their chamber in the City of Washington, on Friday the Thirteenth day of March instant, at one O'clock after noon, then and there to answer to the said articles of impeachment, and then and there to abide by, obey, and perform such orders, directions and Judgments as the said Senate of the United States, sitting as aforesaid, shall make in the premises, according to the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Hereof you are not to fail.
Witness Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the United States and President of said Senate sitting on the trial of the said impeachment, at the City of Washington, this Seventh day of March, in the year of Our Lord One thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, and of the independence of the United States the Ninety Second.
(signed) Salmon P. Chase
Chief Justice of the United States
March 7, 1868
The Senate of the United States to Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, Greetings:
Whereas the House of Representatives of the United States of America, did on the Fourth day of March, 1868, exhibit to the Senate articles of impeachment against you the said Andrew Johnson, in the words following:
ARTICLE I.
ARTICLE II.
ARTICLE III.
ARTICLE IV.
ARTICLE V.
ARTICLE VI.
ARTICLE VII.
ARTICLE VIII.
ARTICLE IX.
ARTICLE X.
ARTICLE XI,
and demand that you, the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, shall be put to answer the accusations as set forth in said articles, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgments might be thereupon had as are agreeable to law and justice, as demanded by the House of Representatives through their managers.
And whereas, the House of Representatives through their Managers did, also, on the sixth day of March instant, demand that process be taken against you, that you may answer at the bar of the Senate, upon the articles of impeachment theretofore preferred.
Now therefore, you, the said Andrew Johnson President of the United States, are hereby summoned to be and appear before the Senate of the United States of America, sitting on the trial of the said impeachment, at their chamber in the City of Washington, on Friday the Thirteenth day of March instant, at one O'clock after noon, then and there to answer to the said articles of impeachment, and then and there to abide by, obey, and perform such orders, directions and Judgments as the said Senate of the United States, sitting as aforesaid, shall make in the premises, according to the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Hereof you are not to fail.
Witness Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the United States and President of said Senate sitting on the trial of the said impeachment, at the City of Washington, this Seventh day of March, in the year of Our Lord One thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, and of the independence of the United States the Ninety Second.
(signed) Salmon P. Chase
Chief Justice of the United States
From Landmark Supreme Court Cases: Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton, 1998
- Click here for the site.
(While four articles of impeachment were created by the House Judiciary Committee, only the two below were approved by the full House. In the Senate, the vote fell short of the 2/3 majority that was required to convict Clinton and remove him from office.)
RESOLVED, That William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors . . .
Article One: In his conduct while President of the United States . . . in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of the President . . . has . . . undermined the integrity of his office . . . betrayed his trust as President . . . and acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law by:
willfully corrupting and manipulating the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration
willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to his relationship with an employee
willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to prior perjurious testimony in a civil rights action brought against him
allowing his attorney to make false and misleading statements in the same civil rights action
attempting to influence witness testimony and slow the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action
Article Three: . . . has [in the Paula Jones Case] prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice by:
encouraging a witness to give a perjurious affidavit
encouraging a witness to give false testimony if called to the stand
allowing and/or encouraging the concealment of subpoenaed evidence
attempting to sway a witness testimony by providing a job for that witness
allowing his attorney to make misleading testimony
giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a potential witness in a Federal civil rights action
giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a witness in a grand jury investigation
(While four articles of impeachment were created by the House Judiciary Committee, only the two below were approved by the full House. In the Senate, the vote fell short of the 2/3 majority that was required to convict Clinton and remove him from office.)
RESOLVED, That William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors . . .
Article One: In his conduct while President of the United States . . . in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of the President . . . has . . . undermined the integrity of his office . . . betrayed his trust as President . . . and acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law by:
willfully corrupting and manipulating the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration
willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to his relationship with an employee
willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to prior perjurious testimony in a civil rights action brought against him
allowing his attorney to make false and misleading statements in the same civil rights action
attempting to influence witness testimony and slow the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action
Article Three: . . . has [in the Paula Jones Case] prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice by:
encouraging a witness to give a perjurious affidavit
encouraging a witness to give false testimony if called to the stand
allowing and/or encouraging the concealment of subpoenaed evidence
attempting to sway a witness testimony by providing a job for that witness
allowing his attorney to make misleading testimony
giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a potential witness in a Federal civil rights action
giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a witness in a grand jury investigation
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
HARRIS COUNTY - HOUSTON SPORTS AUTHORITY HISTORY
An outline of the development of a local single purpose government.
- Click here for the story.
On September 14, 1996, Harris County, the City of Houston, the Houston Astros Baseball Club and Sports Facilities, L.P. ("SFLP") executed a Letter of Intent regarding the development of a proposed new baseball stadium for the Houston Astros to be located in downtown Houston. The Letter of Intent, among other things, stated that the downtown stadium would be developed through a "county-wide sports authority or other similar non-profit corporation" and outlined plans for financing the design, construction and operation of the Ballpark.
The financing plan described in the Letter of Intent included a joint commitment from the County, the City, the Houston Astros and SFLP to support legislation in the 1997 session of the Texas Legislature that would authorize the creation of the county-wide sports authority, provide public revenue sources to finance the ballpark, and capitalize the sports authority. The terms of the Letter of Intent were subject to a number of conditions, including (a) securing the approval of voters of the County in a referendum regarding the establishment and operation of the proposed Ballpark, and (b) passage of the legislation described above.
On November 5, 1996, the first condition was satisfied when the voters of Harris County authorized the establishment and operation of "new or renovated stadiums, arenas or other facilities for professional baseball and football teams." The second condition was satisfied on May 20, 1997, when the Texas Legislature enacted H.B. 92, which, among other things, authorizes (a) counties with a population in excess of 2.2 million and cities with a population in excess of 1.2 million to adopt concurrent orders to create a "sports and community venue district" under Chapter 335 of the Texas Local Government Code, and (b) the imposition by any such district of certain taxes, including a hotel occupancy tax and short-term motor vehicle rental tax to finance "approved venue projects" such as the proposed ballpark.
On July 29 and 30, 1997, Harris County Commissioners Court and Houston's City Council adopted Concurrent Orders creating, effective September 1, 1997, the sports and community venue district known as the Harris County - Houston Sports Authority. Shortly thereafter, pursuant to the Concurrent Orders, the County Judge and the Mayor jointly appointed the Chairman of the Sports Authority and twelve other Directors as the initial governing body.
- Click here for the story.
On September 14, 1996, Harris County, the City of Houston, the Houston Astros Baseball Club and Sports Facilities, L.P. ("SFLP") executed a Letter of Intent regarding the development of a proposed new baseball stadium for the Houston Astros to be located in downtown Houston. The Letter of Intent, among other things, stated that the downtown stadium would be developed through a "county-wide sports authority or other similar non-profit corporation" and outlined plans for financing the design, construction and operation of the Ballpark.
The financing plan described in the Letter of Intent included a joint commitment from the County, the City, the Houston Astros and SFLP to support legislation in the 1997 session of the Texas Legislature that would authorize the creation of the county-wide sports authority, provide public revenue sources to finance the ballpark, and capitalize the sports authority. The terms of the Letter of Intent were subject to a number of conditions, including (a) securing the approval of voters of the County in a referendum regarding the establishment and operation of the proposed Ballpark, and (b) passage of the legislation described above.
On November 5, 1996, the first condition was satisfied when the voters of Harris County authorized the establishment and operation of "new or renovated stadiums, arenas or other facilities for professional baseball and football teams." The second condition was satisfied on May 20, 1997, when the Texas Legislature enacted H.B. 92, which, among other things, authorizes (a) counties with a population in excess of 2.2 million and cities with a population in excess of 1.2 million to adopt concurrent orders to create a "sports and community venue district" under Chapter 335 of the Texas Local Government Code, and (b) the imposition by any such district of certain taxes, including a hotel occupancy tax and short-term motor vehicle rental tax to finance "approved venue projects" such as the proposed ballpark.
On July 29 and 30, 1997, Harris County Commissioners Court and Houston's City Council adopted Concurrent Orders creating, effective September 1, 1997, the sports and community venue district known as the Harris County - Houston Sports Authority. Shortly thereafter, pursuant to the Concurrent Orders, the County Judge and the Mayor jointly appointed the Chairman of the Sports Authority and twelve other Directors as the initial governing body.
From Wikipedia: United States admiralty law
One of the enumerated powers of the national government, and a source of federal criminal law.
The Congress shall have the power: 10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:
- Click here for the entry.
The Congress shall have the power: 10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:
- Click here for the entry.
From Wikipedia: The DREAM Act / and DACA
A subject of the GOVT 2305 textbook.
An example of an attempt by a president to establish a policy against the wishes of Congress by claiming that existing law allows him to do so.
- Click here for the entry for the DREAM Act.
- Click here for the entry for DACA.
- see also: Immigration to the United States.
From the latter:
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is an American immigration policy that allows some individuals with unlawful presence in the United States after being brought to the country as children to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and become eligible for a work permit in the U.S. To be eligible for the program, recipients cannot have felonies or serious misdemeanors on their records. Unlike the proposed DREAM Act, DACA does not provide a path to citizenship for recipients, known as Dreamers.[1][2] The policy, an executive branch memorandum, was announced by President Barack Obama on June 15, 2012. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications for the program on August 15, 2012.
In November 2014, President Obama announced his intention to expand DACA to cover additional undocumented immigrants. Multiple states immediately sued to prevent the expansion which was ultimately blocked by an evenly divided Supreme Court. Under President Trump the Department of Homeland Security rescinded the expansion on June 16, 2017, while continuing to review the existence of the DACA program as a whole. Plans to phase out DACA were announced by the Trump Administration on September 5, 2017; implementation was put on hold for six months to allow Congress time to pass the Dream Act or some other legislative protection for Dreamers. Congress failed to act and the time extension expired on March 5, 2018, but the phase-out of DACA has been put on hold by several courts. On August 31, 2018, District Court Judge Andrew Hanen ruled that DACA is likely unconstitutional. However, he let the program remain in place as litigation proceeds.[3][4] As of October 2019, the cancellation of the program was on hold by court order; a Supreme Court decision on the matter was not expected until 2020.[5]
An example of an attempt by a president to establish a policy against the wishes of Congress by claiming that existing law allows him to do so.
- Click here for the entry for the DREAM Act.
- Click here for the entry for DACA.
- see also: Immigration to the United States.
From the latter:
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is an American immigration policy that allows some individuals with unlawful presence in the United States after being brought to the country as children to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and become eligible for a work permit in the U.S. To be eligible for the program, recipients cannot have felonies or serious misdemeanors on their records. Unlike the proposed DREAM Act, DACA does not provide a path to citizenship for recipients, known as Dreamers.[1][2] The policy, an executive branch memorandum, was announced by President Barack Obama on June 15, 2012. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications for the program on August 15, 2012.
In November 2014, President Obama announced his intention to expand DACA to cover additional undocumented immigrants. Multiple states immediately sued to prevent the expansion which was ultimately blocked by an evenly divided Supreme Court. Under President Trump the Department of Homeland Security rescinded the expansion on June 16, 2017, while continuing to review the existence of the DACA program as a whole. Plans to phase out DACA were announced by the Trump Administration on September 5, 2017; implementation was put on hold for six months to allow Congress time to pass the Dream Act or some other legislative protection for Dreamers. Congress failed to act and the time extension expired on March 5, 2018, but the phase-out of DACA has been put on hold by several courts. On August 31, 2018, District Court Judge Andrew Hanen ruled that DACA is likely unconstitutional. However, he let the program remain in place as litigation proceeds.[3][4] As of October 2019, the cancellation of the program was on hold by court order; a Supreme Court decision on the matter was not expected until 2020.[5]
Links opened for GOVT 2305
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyright_Office
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-877
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/18-877
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-877/117348/20190927155909608_Allen%20State%20Amicus.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-877/87418/20190207123314429_18-877acRIAA.PDF
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/allen-v-cooper/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyright_Office
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-877
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/18-877
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-877/117348/20190927155909608_Allen%20State%20Amicus.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-877/87418/20190207123314429_18-877acRIAA.PDF
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/allen-v-cooper/
Tuesday, November 5, 2019
Monday, November 4, 2019
Lone Star Rally 2016 - Economic Impact Study - May 9th, 2017
For our look at city finances: the costs and benefits of the Lone Star Rally in 2016.
- Click here for the study.
- Click here for the study.
Who is paying for the expansion of 288?
Some answers from the Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration.
- Click here for info.
- Private Activity Bonds (PABs) (senior debt) - $298.6 million
- TIFIA Loan - $357.0 million
- Private Equity - $375.3 million
- TxDOT Funds (for the Texas Medical Center Connector) - $17.1 million
- TIFIA Capitalized Interest - $14.9 million
- Interest Income - $0.7 million
- Click here for info.
- Private Activity Bonds (PABs) (senior debt) - $298.6 million
- TIFIA Loan - $357.0 million
- Private Equity - $375.3 million
- TxDOT Funds (for the Texas Medical Center Connector) - $17.1 million
- TIFIA Capitalized Interest - $14.9 million
- Interest Income - $0.7 million
ISD takeovers
It can happen, and it may
- This school district has been at risk of state takeover for years. Some blame white flight.
Every weekday, school buses emblazoned with “MUMFORD ISD” roll their way north on a winding farm-to-market road lined by sparse, tractor-dotted fields. They pick up children in neighboring Hearne and take them back to Mumford’s public schools.
Mumford, an unincorporated community 25 miles from College Station, has 300 residents, but its schools have nearly twice as many students — almost all of them live in nine nearby school districts. The highest number comes from Hearne Independent School District.
Hearne ISD administrators and teachers see the Mumford buses around town, constant reminders of what they’re up against. They’ve long insisted — in private and in courtrooms — that the transfers are bleeding them dry financially, sapping them of high-achieving students and contributing to the district’s low performance over the last couple of decades.
For years, Mumford has been a high-performing, racially diverse school district. Meanwhile, Hearne has become a majority black and Hispanic district, and its elementary school has been low performing for longer than almost any school in Texas. Unless Hearne ISD turns things around in the next couple of years, the state will take over the district or forcibly close its elementary school.
- HISD lawyers seek injunction to block TEA takeover, allow superintendent search.
Lawyers for Houston ISD’s school board have asked a federal judge to preemptively stop the Texas Education Agency from stripping power from the district’s elected trustees and allow board members to select a permanent superintendent, the latest maneuver in a growing legal battle between the district and state.
In a motion filed Tuesday, the HISD board’s lawyers argued agency officials have discriminated against voters in predominantly black and Hispanic cities, overstepped their authority in suspending the district’s superintendent search and misinterpreted a new state law that requires dramatic intervention in districts with long-struggling schools.
The filing comes as TEA officials are on the brink of finalizing their investigation into allegations of trustee misconduct and ruling on an appeal of Wheatley High School’s seventh consecutive failing grades — with both outcomes expected to trigger the ouster of HISD’s elected school board in the coming months.
- This school district has been at risk of state takeover for years. Some blame white flight.
Every weekday, school buses emblazoned with “MUMFORD ISD” roll their way north on a winding farm-to-market road lined by sparse, tractor-dotted fields. They pick up children in neighboring Hearne and take them back to Mumford’s public schools.
Mumford, an unincorporated community 25 miles from College Station, has 300 residents, but its schools have nearly twice as many students — almost all of them live in nine nearby school districts. The highest number comes from Hearne Independent School District.
Hearne ISD administrators and teachers see the Mumford buses around town, constant reminders of what they’re up against. They’ve long insisted — in private and in courtrooms — that the transfers are bleeding them dry financially, sapping them of high-achieving students and contributing to the district’s low performance over the last couple of decades.
For years, Mumford has been a high-performing, racially diverse school district. Meanwhile, Hearne has become a majority black and Hispanic district, and its elementary school has been low performing for longer than almost any school in Texas. Unless Hearne ISD turns things around in the next couple of years, the state will take over the district or forcibly close its elementary school.
- HISD lawyers seek injunction to block TEA takeover, allow superintendent search.
Lawyers for Houston ISD’s school board have asked a federal judge to preemptively stop the Texas Education Agency from stripping power from the district’s elected trustees and allow board members to select a permanent superintendent, the latest maneuver in a growing legal battle between the district and state.
In a motion filed Tuesday, the HISD board’s lawyers argued agency officials have discriminated against voters in predominantly black and Hispanic cities, overstepped their authority in suspending the district’s superintendent search and misinterpreted a new state law that requires dramatic intervention in districts with long-struggling schools.
The filing comes as TEA officials are on the brink of finalizing their investigation into allegations of trustee misconduct and ruling on an appeal of Wheatley High School’s seventh consecutive failing grades — with both outcomes expected to trigger the ouster of HISD’s elected school board in the coming months.
From the Texas Tribune: Empower Texans helped topple House Speaker Dennis Bonnen. Did it further the conservative movement?
For 2306's look at interest groups, in this case a conservative group which is attempting to shift the Republican Party further towards the right.
- Click here for the article.
Empower Texans’ impact on the Texas GOP is difficult to overstate. With Bonnen on his way out, House Republicans are left headless as they fight to maintain their majority in a tight 2020 election. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — a top recipient of Empower Texans’ campaign cash, and, once upon a time, its top legislative ally — has accused the group of “destroying our party.”
Now, some warn, in addition to risking a new speaker who is even less sympathetic to its cause, the group behind a now-infamous secret recording may lose the trust of other Republican lawmakers.
But Luke Macias, a conservative political consultant often aligned with Empower Texans, said, “We’ve already won.”
“I definitely don’t think that conservatives are going to be in a worse position politically regarding ability to usher in conservative policies as a result of ridding themselves of a really corrupt speaker,” Macias said. “Some of Dennis Bonnen’s closest supporters are still trying to make the argument that keeping the corrupt speaker would have been better for Republicans. … At the end of the day, I think the Republican Party is going to be better off if we unite against dishonesty and not try to take down the guy who was actually quite forthright with how this entire meeting went down.”
“Shooting the whistleblower seems like a really bad idea for the Republican Party,” he added.
Several Republican members of the Texas House declined to be interviewed about the group, but some were less reluctant to privately name-call and dismiss it. A Republican House committee chairman compared the group’s recent surge in relevance to what market analysts call a “dead cat bounce” — a temporary surge in price that makes a stock look revitalized just before it spirals downward for good.
Disdain for the group has also been the clear message from the speaker’s office, whose spokeswoman, Cait Meisenheimer, has re-shared numerous tweets critical of Sullivan, including one arguing that his legacy “will be that of a treacherous snake.”
“It is unfortunate that a surreptitiously obtained 64-minute recording turned into a ten week investigation and ultimately ended with the defamation of a man’s quarter-century in public service,” she said in a statement last week.
- Click here for the article.
Empower Texans’ impact on the Texas GOP is difficult to overstate. With Bonnen on his way out, House Republicans are left headless as they fight to maintain their majority in a tight 2020 election. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — a top recipient of Empower Texans’ campaign cash, and, once upon a time, its top legislative ally — has accused the group of “destroying our party.”
Now, some warn, in addition to risking a new speaker who is even less sympathetic to its cause, the group behind a now-infamous secret recording may lose the trust of other Republican lawmakers.
But Luke Macias, a conservative political consultant often aligned with Empower Texans, said, “We’ve already won.”
“I definitely don’t think that conservatives are going to be in a worse position politically regarding ability to usher in conservative policies as a result of ridding themselves of a really corrupt speaker,” Macias said. “Some of Dennis Bonnen’s closest supporters are still trying to make the argument that keeping the corrupt speaker would have been better for Republicans. … At the end of the day, I think the Republican Party is going to be better off if we unite against dishonesty and not try to take down the guy who was actually quite forthright with how this entire meeting went down.”
“Shooting the whistleblower seems like a really bad idea for the Republican Party,” he added.
Several Republican members of the Texas House declined to be interviewed about the group, but some were less reluctant to privately name-call and dismiss it. A Republican House committee chairman compared the group’s recent surge in relevance to what market analysts call a “dead cat bounce” — a temporary surge in price that makes a stock look revitalized just before it spirals downward for good.
Disdain for the group has also been the clear message from the speaker’s office, whose spokeswoman, Cait Meisenheimer, has re-shared numerous tweets critical of Sullivan, including one arguing that his legacy “will be that of a treacherous snake.”
“It is unfortunate that a surreptitiously obtained 64-minute recording turned into a ten week investigation and ultimately ended with the defamation of a man’s quarter-century in public service,” she said in a statement last week.
From C-Span: House Republicans Leaders News Conference
A good example of opinion leaders outlining arguments for party identifiers.
- Click here for the video.
- Click here for the video.
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
The first federal law against cyber crime, passed in 1986.
- Click here for the wikipedia entry on it.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is a United States cybersecurity bill that was enacted in 1986 as an amendment to existing computer fraud law (18 U.S.C. § 1030), which had been included in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The law prohibits accessing a computer without authorization, or in excess of authorization.[1] Prior to computer-specific criminal laws, computer crimes were prosecuted as mail and wire fraud, but the applying law was often insufficient.
The original 1984 bill was enacted in response to concern that computer-related crimes might go unpunished.[2] The House Committee Report to the original computer crime bill characterized the 1983 techno-thriller film WarGames—in which a young teenager (played by Matthew Broderick) from Seattle breaks into a U.S. military supercomputer programmed to predict possible outcomes of nuclear war and unwittingly almost starts World War III—as "a realistic representation of the automatic dialing and access capabilities of the personal computer."[3]
The CFAA was written to extend existing tort law to intangible property, while, in theory, limiting federal jurisdiction to cases "with a compelling federal interest-i.e., where computers of the federal government or certain financial institutions are involved or where the crime itself is interstate in nature.", but its broad definitions have spilled over into contract law. (see "Protected Computer", below). In addition to amending a number of the provisions in the original section 1030, the CFAA also criminalized additional computer-related acts. Provisions addressed the distribution of malicious code and denial of service attacks. Congress also included in the CFAA a provision criminalizing trafficking in passwords and similar items.[1]
Since then, the Act has been amended a number of times—in 1989, 1994, 1996, in 2001 by the USA PATRIOT Act, 2002, and in 2008 by the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act. With each amendment of the law, the types of conduct that fell within its reach were extended.
In January 2015 Barack Obama proposed expanding the CFAA and the RICO Act in his Modernizing Law Enforcement Authorities to Combat Cyber Crime proposal.[4] DEF CON organizer and Cloudflare researcher Marc Rogers, Senator Ron Wyden, and Representative Zoe Lofgren have stated opposition to this on the grounds it will make many regular Internet activities illegal, and moves further away from what they were trying to accomplish with Aaron's Law.[5][6]
- Click here for the wikipedia entry on it.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is a United States cybersecurity bill that was enacted in 1986 as an amendment to existing computer fraud law (18 U.S.C. § 1030), which had been included in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The law prohibits accessing a computer without authorization, or in excess of authorization.[1] Prior to computer-specific criminal laws, computer crimes were prosecuted as mail and wire fraud, but the applying law was often insufficient.
The original 1984 bill was enacted in response to concern that computer-related crimes might go unpunished.[2] The House Committee Report to the original computer crime bill characterized the 1983 techno-thriller film WarGames—in which a young teenager (played by Matthew Broderick) from Seattle breaks into a U.S. military supercomputer programmed to predict possible outcomes of nuclear war and unwittingly almost starts World War III—as "a realistic representation of the automatic dialing and access capabilities of the personal computer."[3]
The CFAA was written to extend existing tort law to intangible property, while, in theory, limiting federal jurisdiction to cases "with a compelling federal interest-i.e., where computers of the federal government or certain financial institutions are involved or where the crime itself is interstate in nature.", but its broad definitions have spilled over into contract law. (see "Protected Computer", below). In addition to amending a number of the provisions in the original section 1030, the CFAA also criminalized additional computer-related acts. Provisions addressed the distribution of malicious code and denial of service attacks. Congress also included in the CFAA a provision criminalizing trafficking in passwords and similar items.[1]
Since then, the Act has been amended a number of times—in 1989, 1994, 1996, in 2001 by the USA PATRIOT Act, 2002, and in 2008 by the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act. With each amendment of the law, the types of conduct that fell within its reach were extended.
In January 2015 Barack Obama proposed expanding the CFAA and the RICO Act in his Modernizing Law Enforcement Authorities to Combat Cyber Crime proposal.[4] DEF CON organizer and Cloudflare researcher Marc Rogers, Senator Ron Wyden, and Representative Zoe Lofgren have stated opposition to this on the grounds it will make many regular Internet activities illegal, and moves further away from what they were trying to accomplish with Aaron's Law.[5][6]
From Florida Tech: A Brief History of Cyber Crime
A look at the origins of laws against cyber crime.
- Click here for it.
The malicious association with hacking became evident in the 1970s when early computerized phone systems became a target. Technologically savvy individuals, called “phreakers” discovered the correct codes and tones that would result in free long distance service. They impersonated operators, dug through Bell Telephone company garbage to find secret information, and performed countless experiments on early telephone hardware in order to learn how to exploit the system. They were hackers in every sense of the word, using their resourcefulness to modify hardware and software to steal long distance telephone time.
This innovative type of crime was a difficult issue for law enforcement, due in part to lack of legislation to aid in criminal prosecution, and a shortage of investigators skilled in the technology that was being hacked. It was clear that computer systems were open to criminal activity, and as more complex communications became available to the consumer, more opportunities for cyber crime developed.
In 1986 the systems administrator at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Clifford Stoll, noted certain irregularities in accounting data. Inventing the first digital forensic techniques, he determined that an unauthorized user was hacking into his computer network. Stoll used what is called a “honey pot tactic,” which lures a hacker back into a network until enough data can be collected to track the intrusion to its source. Stoll’s effort paid off with the eventual arrest of Markus Hess and a number of others located in West Germany, who were stealing and selling military information, passwords and other data to the KGB.
The Berkeley lab intrusion was soon followed by the discovery of the Morris worm virus, created by Robert Morris, a Cornell University student. This worm damaged more than 6,000 computers and resulted in estimated damages of $98 million. More incidents began to follow in a continuous, steady stream. Congress responded by passing its first hacking-related legislation, the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, in 1986. The act made computer tampering a felony crime punishable by significant jail time and monetary fines.
- Click here for it.
The malicious association with hacking became evident in the 1970s when early computerized phone systems became a target. Technologically savvy individuals, called “phreakers” discovered the correct codes and tones that would result in free long distance service. They impersonated operators, dug through Bell Telephone company garbage to find secret information, and performed countless experiments on early telephone hardware in order to learn how to exploit the system. They were hackers in every sense of the word, using their resourcefulness to modify hardware and software to steal long distance telephone time.
This innovative type of crime was a difficult issue for law enforcement, due in part to lack of legislation to aid in criminal prosecution, and a shortage of investigators skilled in the technology that was being hacked. It was clear that computer systems were open to criminal activity, and as more complex communications became available to the consumer, more opportunities for cyber crime developed.
In 1986 the systems administrator at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Clifford Stoll, noted certain irregularities in accounting data. Inventing the first digital forensic techniques, he determined that an unauthorized user was hacking into his computer network. Stoll used what is called a “honey pot tactic,” which lures a hacker back into a network until enough data can be collected to track the intrusion to its source. Stoll’s effort paid off with the eventual arrest of Markus Hess and a number of others located in West Germany, who were stealing and selling military information, passwords and other data to the KGB.
The Berkeley lab intrusion was soon followed by the discovery of the Morris worm virus, created by Robert Morris, a Cornell University student. This worm damaged more than 6,000 computers and resulted in estimated damages of $98 million. More incidents began to follow in a continuous, steady stream. Congress responded by passing its first hacking-related legislation, the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, in 1986. The act made computer tampering a felony crime punishable by significant jail time and monetary fines.
Links related to the impeachment
Expect more - much of this relates to various items in the textbook, as you would expect. Let's try to connect the dots in future classes.
- House resolution outlines public phase of impeachment inquiry, gives GOP subpoena powers.
- The very simple reason why Democrats switched strategy on an impeachment vote.
- House votes to formalize impeachment inquiry procedures.
- House resolution outlines public phase of impeachment inquiry, gives GOP subpoena powers.
- The very simple reason why Democrats switched strategy on an impeachment vote.
- House votes to formalize impeachment inquiry procedures.
Thomas Porteous
For our look at impeachments in 2305.
This is the last official removed by being convicted of an impeachable offense.
https://www.politico.com/story/2010/12/senate-removes-louisiana-judge-046134
Friday, November 1, 2019
ln addition to the vote on the impeachment process ....
...was another party line vote.
- The vote.
- The bill: H.R.823 - Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act.
- The vote.
- The bill: H.R.823 - Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act.
Links opened during a recent 2305 class
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Electoral-Commission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_United_States_Congress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/politics/house-impeachment-inquiry-resolution-floor-vote/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/politics/impeachment-vote-strategy/index.html
https://library.municode.com/tx/houston/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_CH25SPEV_ARTIISTFU
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/Could-Houston-be-a-protest-city-10896713.php
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Electoral-Commission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_United_States_Congress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/politics/house-impeachment-inquiry-resolution-floor-vote/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/politics/impeachment-vote-strategy/index.html
https://library.municode.com/tx/houston/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_CH25SPEV_ARTIISTFU
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/Could-Houston-be-a-protest-city-10896713.php
The vote on H.Res.660
An example of a party line vote.
Two Democrats voted nay.
No Republican voted yea.
The only independent (an ex-Republican) voted yeah.
- Click here for it.
Two Democrats voted nay.
No Republican voted yea.
The only independent (an ex-Republican) voted yeah.
- Click here for it.
The text of H.Res.660
- Click here for the source.
H. Res. 660
In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
October 31, 2019.
Resolved, That the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committees on Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, the Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means, are directed to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America.
SEC. 2. OPEN AND TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATIVE PROCEEDINGS BY THE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE.
For the purpose of continuing the investigation described in the first section of this resolution, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (referred to in this resolution as the “Permanent Select Committee”) is authorized to conduct proceedings pursuant to this resolution as follows:
(1) The chair of the Permanent Select Committee shall designate an open hearing or hearings pursuant to this section.
(2) Notwithstanding clause 2(j)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, upon recognition by the chair for such purpose under this paragraph during any hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1), the chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee shall be permitted to question witnesses for equal specified periods of longer than five minutes, as determined by the chair. The time available for each period of questioning under this paragraph shall be equal for the chair and the ranking minority member. The chair may confer recognition for multiple periods of such questioning, but each period of questioning shall not exceed 90 minutes in the aggregate. Only the chair and ranking minority member, or a Permanent Select Committee employee if yielded to by the chair or ranking minority member, may question witnesses during such periods of questioning. At the conclusion of questioning pursuant to this paragraph, the committee shall proceed with questioning under the five-minute rule pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(A) of rule XI.
(3) To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for the first hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1). Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution.
(4) (A) The ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair, to require, as deemed necessary to the investigation—
(i) by subpoena or otherwise—
(I) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition); and
(II) the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents; and
(ii) by interrogatory, the furnishing of information.
(B) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to subparagraph (A), the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision, subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.
(C) Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be signed by the ranking minority member, and may be served by any person designated by the ranking minority member.
(5) The chair is authorized to make publicly available in electronic form the transcripts of depositions conducted by the Permanent Select Committee in furtherance of the investigation described in the first section of this resolution, with appropriate redactions for classified and other sensitive information.
(6) The Permanent Select Committee is directed to issue a report setting forth its findings and any recommendations and appending any information and materials the Permanent Select Committee may deem appropriate with respect to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution. The chair shall transmit such report and appendices, along with any supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views filed pursuant to clause 2(l) of rule XI, to the Committee on the Judiciary and make such report publicly available in electronic form, with appropriate redactions to protect classified and other sensitive information. The report required by this paragraph shall be prepared in consultation with the chairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Oversight and Reform.
SEC. 3. TRANSMISSION OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS.
The chair of the Permanent Select Committee or the chair of any other committee having custody of records or other materials relating to the inquiry referenced in the first section of this resolution is authorized, in consultation with the ranking minority member, to transfer such records or materials to the Committee on the Judiciary.
SEC. 4. IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PROCEDURES IN THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.
(a) The House authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct proceedings relating to the impeachment inquiry referenced in the first section of this resolution pursuant to the procedures submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the chair of the Committee on Rules, including such procedures as to allow for the participation of the President and his counsel.
(b) The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to promulgate additional procedures as it deems necessary for the fair and efficient conduct of committee hearings held pursuant to this resolution, provided that the additional procedures are not inconsistent with the procedures referenced in subsection (a), the Rules of the Committee, and the Rules of the House.
(c) (1) The ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, to require, as deemed necessary to the investigation—
(A) by subpoena or otherwise—
(i) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition); and
(ii) the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents; and
(B) by interrogatory, the furnishing of information.
(2) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to paragraph (1), the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision, subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.
(3) Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be signed by the ranking minority member, and may be served by any person designated by the ranking minority member.
(d) The Committee on the Judiciary shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.
Attest:
H. Res. 660
In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
October 31, 2019.
Resolved, That the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committees on Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, the Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means, are directed to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America.
SEC. 2. OPEN AND TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATIVE PROCEEDINGS BY THE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE.
For the purpose of continuing the investigation described in the first section of this resolution, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (referred to in this resolution as the “Permanent Select Committee”) is authorized to conduct proceedings pursuant to this resolution as follows:
(1) The chair of the Permanent Select Committee shall designate an open hearing or hearings pursuant to this section.
(2) Notwithstanding clause 2(j)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, upon recognition by the chair for such purpose under this paragraph during any hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1), the chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee shall be permitted to question witnesses for equal specified periods of longer than five minutes, as determined by the chair. The time available for each period of questioning under this paragraph shall be equal for the chair and the ranking minority member. The chair may confer recognition for multiple periods of such questioning, but each period of questioning shall not exceed 90 minutes in the aggregate. Only the chair and ranking minority member, or a Permanent Select Committee employee if yielded to by the chair or ranking minority member, may question witnesses during such periods of questioning. At the conclusion of questioning pursuant to this paragraph, the committee shall proceed with questioning under the five-minute rule pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(A) of rule XI.
(3) To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for the first hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1). Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution.
(4) (A) The ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair, to require, as deemed necessary to the investigation—
(i) by subpoena or otherwise—
(I) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition); and
(II) the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents; and
(ii) by interrogatory, the furnishing of information.
(B) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to subparagraph (A), the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision, subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.
(C) Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be signed by the ranking minority member, and may be served by any person designated by the ranking minority member.
(5) The chair is authorized to make publicly available in electronic form the transcripts of depositions conducted by the Permanent Select Committee in furtherance of the investigation described in the first section of this resolution, with appropriate redactions for classified and other sensitive information.
(6) The Permanent Select Committee is directed to issue a report setting forth its findings and any recommendations and appending any information and materials the Permanent Select Committee may deem appropriate with respect to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution. The chair shall transmit such report and appendices, along with any supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views filed pursuant to clause 2(l) of rule XI, to the Committee on the Judiciary and make such report publicly available in electronic form, with appropriate redactions to protect classified and other sensitive information. The report required by this paragraph shall be prepared in consultation with the chairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Oversight and Reform.
SEC. 3. TRANSMISSION OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS.
The chair of the Permanent Select Committee or the chair of any other committee having custody of records or other materials relating to the inquiry referenced in the first section of this resolution is authorized, in consultation with the ranking minority member, to transfer such records or materials to the Committee on the Judiciary.
SEC. 4. IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PROCEDURES IN THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.
(a) The House authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct proceedings relating to the impeachment inquiry referenced in the first section of this resolution pursuant to the procedures submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the chair of the Committee on Rules, including such procedures as to allow for the participation of the President and his counsel.
(b) The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to promulgate additional procedures as it deems necessary for the fair and efficient conduct of committee hearings held pursuant to this resolution, provided that the additional procedures are not inconsistent with the procedures referenced in subsection (a), the Rules of the Committee, and the Rules of the House.
(c) (1) The ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, to require, as deemed necessary to the investigation—
(A) by subpoena or otherwise—
(i) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition); and
(ii) the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents; and
(B) by interrogatory, the furnishing of information.
(2) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to paragraph (1), the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision, subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.
(3) Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be signed by the ranking minority member, and may be served by any person designated by the ranking minority member.
(d) The Committee on the Judiciary shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.
Attest:
From Congress.gov: H.Res.660 - Directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes.
This provides the process for the passage of the resolution outlining the process for the impeachment investigation.
- Click here for the entry.
- Click here for the entry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)