Last Week Tonight With John Oliver - The NRA June 19 2016 (HBO)

For our look at interest groups and political participation

From Politico: Democrats mount gun control filibuster

A procedure we will cover later the semester.

- Click here for the story.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) launched a talking filibuster on the Senate floor — which was quickly joined by fellow Democrats — in an effort to pressure Republicans to accept legislation that would deny suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms and require universal background checks.

The Senate is debating a spending bill that Democrats hope to offer gun amendments to, but Murphy said that the Senate should “not proceed with debate on amendments to this bill until we have figured out a way to come together on, at the very least, two simple ideas.”

“I’m going to remain on this floor until we get some signal, some sign that we can come together on these two measures, that we can get a path forward on addressing this epidemic in a meaningful, bipartisan way,” Murphy continued on the Senate floor on Wednesday, after he first started his filibuster at about 11:20 a.m.

Most of the Democratic caucus was unaware of Murphy's plans until he took the floor, two senior aides said, though there had been some talk Tuesday about lining up speeches throughout the night Wednesday.

At the same time, Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) are exploring whether there is common ground on a deal to prevent suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Currently, the two parties are backing very different approaches to resolving instances where someone feels they've been wrongly put on a watch list and therefore cannot purchase a gun.

For more:

- Wikipedia: Filibuster.
- Wikipedia: Filibuster in the U.S. Senate.

Group differences in public opinion

For discussion in class:

- Race and Ethnicity.
- Gender Gap.
- Hispanic Trends.
- Generations.

And for a look at the differences in all these categories one specific question:

- Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage.

From the Washington Monthly: Asian-Americans and Affirmative Action

For out look at civil rights policy - a twist on the use of affirmative action.

- Click here for it.

Affirmative action has survived decades of conservative antagonism, an unfriendly Supreme Court, and attacks by Republican state legislatures, but the institution’s future looks bleaker than ever.

While long a staple of the progressive agenda, race-conscious affirmative action has quickly been relegated to the relative fringes of the liberal platform. While both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are both supporters, it’s been a non-issue so far in the campaign. But while it’s been mostly missing from the national stage, the frame of the affirmative action debate has also shifted – the rise of Asian-Americans as the country’s anointed “model minority” has helped to disrupt the common understanding of affirmative action as an issue of black versus white.

The question is whether Asian-American achievement – or rather understanding its underlying mechanisms – could hold the key to affirmative action 2.0. New research attempts to answer that question and highlight alternatives to race-conscious affirmative action. There are no easy answers, though, and with universities preferring to maintain statistical rankings rather than foster true diversity, it’s hard to find a practical example of affirmative action innovation. One thing’s for sure: If affirmative action is to continue to live up to its ideal, something needs to change.

Full Faith and Credit and Handgun Laws

A question was raised in class about why the full faith and credit clause applies to marriage licenses and other public records and laws, but not - currently anyway - to gun laws, especially concealed and open carry rules. I really don't know as of yet, but here are a few readings that might help us figure this out.

- Jurist: Survey of State Open and Concealed Carry Laws.
- Gun Debate: Concealed Carry Reciprocity and the Constitution.
- Volokh Conspiracy: Full Faith and Credit, Pardons, and Gun Rights.
- The Fiscal Times: A New Gun Law Pits Virginia Against the Constitution.

From the Nation:  Millennials Have Lived Through a Doubling of School Segregation The old methods of encouraging integration in our public education are failing.

Brown v Board didn't quite have the impact alleged.

- Click here for the story.

About 62 years after the Supreme Court declared “separate but equal” in America’s schools unconstitutional, on the cusp of a demographic tip toward a majority of people of color, the lessons of Brown v. Board of Education seem to be skipping a generation.

The racial disparities surfacing in school data have been dialing back history. Since 2001, according to a report by Government Accountability Office (GAO), the number of poor, racially segregated schools (with more than three-fourths of one race and high poverty rates) jumped from 9 percent to 16 percent. So today’s millennials have, from the time they entered first grade through high-school graduation, witnessed the degree of educational segregation more than double, from about 7,000 segregated schools to 15,000 nationwide. GAO criticized the Department of Education for being lax in using legal intervention in cases of extreme educational discrimination.

But segregation is less about the extremes than abouteveryday discrimination. Among predominantly black or Latino schools, for example, students tend to have less access to core college-prep classes—so about a third of mostly black and brown schools offer calculus, compared to over half of schools with high white populations.

Even within schools, enrollment in “gifted” and advanced placement programs skew white—suggesting that subsurface prejudice and resource gaps operate even in an “integrated” school setting.

Under the grip of the school-to-prison pipeline, repeated suspensions, and other disciplinary actions—which lead to chronic absenteeism and impede academic progress—are especially high for black, Latino, multiracial, and Native American high schoolers.
The cumulative effect isn’t just an “achievement gap,” but a social gap that leaves communities of color increasingly isolated, hampering social mobility and deepening inter generational poverty.

From the Gallup Poll: Presidential Candidates and the Challenge of Fixing the Government

And another from Gallup - this involves attitudes about the government, but it points out some conflicting info based on how questions are addressed.

- Click here for the article.

Approval of the job Congress is doing is now at 18%. Just 8% of Americans have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress, putting it at the bottom of a list of U.S. institutions tested. Further, 15%rate the job that Congress is doing as "excellent" or "good," a percentage that drops to 7% among those who are the most knowledgeable about Congress. Over half say that most members of Congress are corrupt, and the perceived honesty and ethics of members of Congress are near the bottom of a list of all professions tested.

All of this shows up when we ask Americans about the most important problem facing the nation today. "Dissatisfaction with government" is near the top of the list, and was the single most commonly mentioned concern for all of 2015. 

Yet, few Americans mention Congress or dysfunctional government when asked in an open-ended fashion to name the top issue on which they want the next president to focus. In other words, the major perceived problems with how the U.S. government functions clearly come to mind when Americans think about the top issues facing the country, but not when Americans think about the problems the next president should address.

From the Gallup Poll: Party Groups Agree on Importance of Big Election Issues

This ties together a variety of class topic, including public opinion, parties, and the current campaign.

- Click here for the story, and the graphs.

Republicans and Democrats place differing emphases on the importance of the candidates' positions on climate change, the treatment of minority groups and the size and scope of government. Additionally, Democrats put more emphasis on a variety of other social and income equality issues, while Republicans put greater emphasis on certain national security and fiscal issues.

Despite these differences, Republicans and Democrats are united on their top priorities: the economy, jobs, healthcare, national defense and education. These issues represent a common denominator for the electorate that should make it easy for the candidates to know where to focus their attention this year. The candidates' ability to convince Americans that they have a plan or the skill to solve these problems could go a long way toward enhancing their appeal to a broad base of voters.

From the Legal Information Institute: Incorporation Doctrine

A more precise look at the selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states.

- Click here for it.

From the Constitution Daily: Is there a constitutional right to have a rapidly firing assault gun?

This is timely.

- Click here for the article.

. . . here are the key issues that have been coming up regularly (none of which has yet been answered by the Supreme Court):

First, do assault-weapons and high-volume magazines get any protection under the Second Amendment, or are they outside of it in the same way that a military machine gun would be?

Second, is such a flat ban unconstitutional when the weapon involved is highly popular, and thus is recognized as one that is in common use – one of the factors that the Supreme Court has said should be considered?

Third, is such a flat ban always unconstitutional because it allows no exceptions, and thus puts such a commonly used weapon completely out of the hands of even trustworthy, law-abiding citizens?

Fourth, is the fact that the weapon is very much like the one that the military has traditionally used on the battlefield (the M-16) an indication that it should not be allowed for the general public – that is, is it too dangerous?

Fifth, if the Second Amendment does provide some protection for private possession of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, how rigorous should the constitutional test be? Should it be the tough test of “strict scrutiny,” or something less demanding?

Snyder v Phelps

One of the more colorful - and disturbing - court cases involving the limits of free speech.

- Oyez.
- Supreme Court Sides With Westboro Church On Funeral Protests.

From the Atlantic: The Most Powerful Dissent in American History

A look at Holmes' dissent in Abrams v. United States.

The author is obviously fond of it.

- Click here for the article.

- Here is Oyes' page on the case.

What is a "sincerely held religious belief?"

It's the term used to what a law cannot violate. - such as the ACA's contraception requirement - but its a bit vague and tough to define precisely.

How doe the court determine which beliefs are sincere and which are not?

Here are some attempts to explain it.

- The Sincerely Held Religious Belief: Hobby Lobby and the Bible.
- Questioning Sincerity: The Role of the Courts After Hobby Lobby.
- “Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs” in Religious Discrimination Cases.

And a critical look at the test. Will it lead to further divisions in society?:

- ‘Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs’ and the Fraying of America.

Several states have recently introduced bills that would allow people to withhold services to their fellow Americans if they base their decision on “sincerely held religious beliefs.” In Arizona, one of these bills has made it all the way to Gov. Jan Brewer’s desk, and she is currently deciding whether or not to sign the bill into law.

These bills are deemed necessary by religious conservatives on account of several cases where Christian business owners refused to offer services to LGBT people, claiming that serving them would violate their own religious convictions about homosexuality and same-sex relationships. In one of the most celebrated examples, a case made it all the way to the Supreme Court of New Mexico, where it was ruled that a Christian photographer did not have the right to refuse to take photographs of a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony based on her religious beliefs.

Giving a special pass that allows an individual with “sincerely held religious beliefs” to chose not to do business is fraught with problems.

For instance, who is to decide what is sincere? Are the religious beliefs sincere if a cake seller will sell a cake to two divorced individuals for their second marriage but not to a same-sex couple for their first? Or does this cafeteria-style approach to Christianity expose a lack of sincerity of religious belief? This raises the question of who will determine the sincerity of a belief. The courts? If so, which religious leaders will advise the courts on that question, as it is clear that religious leaders increasingly disagree on the question of gay marriage and the full dignity of LGBT people?

Also, will the freedom to refuse to serve those who offend “sincerely held religious beliefs” extend to people of one faith expressing hostility toward people of another faith? If a Christian believes that Hindus worship a deity or deities that she finds offensive, will she be allowed to refuse to photograph a Hindu wedding or make a cake for a Hindu holy day based on her “sincerely held religious beliefs”?

And what about sincerely held beliefs that are not religious? At a time when 40 percent of people under 30 hold no specific religious affiliation, and when many of those identify as “spiritual but not religious,” how will the laws address those with “sincerely held spiritual beliefs”? And given the rise of atheism and secular humanism, will those who espouse no formal religion also have their sincerely held beliefs protected?

Religious people should be very hesitant to go down the path of discrimination based on “sincerely held” beliefs, as it could be used against them. What if someone were to claim that their sincerely held belief caused them to not serve fundamentalist religious people? If these bills pass, you can guarantee that the reputation of religious people is gong to take a serious hit.

Laws that say we can pick and choose whom we work with based on our “sincerely held religious beliefs” are dangerous to our society. These bills promote further division at a time when America is already deeply divided, and they encourage self-segregation into isolated communities that only serve people with whom we are “sincerely” compatible.

From Oyez: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores

Worth a look as we try to understand current disputes over religious freedom in the United States. Can the government require an employer to provide services - through their insurance policies - they object to on religious grounds?

- Click here for the link.

From the Federalist: How RFRA Works, Explained In One Chart

- Click here for the accompanying article.

From the NYT: Orlando Shooting Reignites Gun Control Debate in Congress

It was a classic example of an agenda setting event. Now comes the debate over the legislative response - assuming there is one.

- click here for the article.

The Orlando, Fla., massacre reignited on Monday the debate over whether Americans like Omar Mateen who have been named on the government’s terrorist watch lists, or have been otherwise suspected by the authorities of ties to terrorist groups, should be allowed to purchase a gun. In Congress, even some supporters of gun rights seemed to be having second thoughts.

Six months after Republicans in Congress defeated a measure that would have closed the so-called terror gap after the San Bernardino, Calif., attack, Senate Democrats moved swiftly on Monday to restart the debate over tightening federal gun laws.

As a first step, the Democrats demanded that Republicans take up legislation aimed at banning the sale of guns or explosives to people who have appeared on watch lists, or who have been suspected by the Justice Department of ties to terrorist organizations.

“In the wake of Orlando, we need to think about what kind of country and Senate we want to be,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, a Democrat, said in a conference call with reporters. “Are we going to take the painfully obvious common-sense steps so that terrorists can’t get guns, or are we going to bow down to the N.R.A.?” he asked, referring to the National Rifle Association.

Mr. Schumer and other Democrats insisted that the legislation that failed in December could have prevented Mr. Mateen, identified as the Orlando gunman, from buying the weapons used in the attack. “We are now living with the consequences of that vote,” Mr. Schumer said. “How many more people have to die at the hands of a terrorist with a gun before the Senate acts?”

Just one Republican, Senator Mark S. Kirk of Illinois, voted in favor of the legislation in December, but Democrats said on Monday they believed that Republicans would come under new pressure. Indeed, there were signs that some Republicans might be reconsidering.

Just for kicks:

- From procon.org: Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?

From Fox News: Judge rules Kansas cannot require citizenship proof to vote

A story from March illustrating the concept of federalism.

- Click here for the article.

A judge said Tuesday that Kansas can't require people to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote for federal elections at motor vehicle offices.

U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson ruled that the state's proof-of-citizenship requirements likely violate a provision in the National Voter Registration Act that requires only "minimal information" to determine a voter's eligibility. She ordered Kansas to register thousands of voters whose paperwork is on hold because they did not comply with the requirement. But she put her preliminary injunction on hold until May 31 to give the state a chance to appeal.

The state immediately said it would appeal. Unless a higher court halts Robinson's order before the end of the month, it would take effect then, clearing the way for those residents to cast a ballot in the upcoming federal elections.

Robinson wrote that "even if instances of noncitizens voting cause indirect voter disenfranchisement by diluting the votes of citizens, such instances pale in comparison to the number of qualified citizens who have been disenfranchised by this law."

The evidence shows only three instances in Kansas where noncitizens voted in a federal election between 1995 and 2013, and about 14 noncitizens attempted to register during that time. The court noted the "magnitude of harm" caused by 18,372 applicants at motor vehicle offices who were denied registration due to the state's proof-of-citizenship law.

The national outweighs the state law - and the state has not cleared the burden demonstrating a need for the requirement.

One of the concepts covered in the section on federalism is policy diffusion between the states. The push for Voter ID laws, including providing proof of citizenship, have spread throughout many states - mostly those that are controlled by Republicans. The working theory is that Republicans do better when voter turnout is low, and these laws suppress turnout.

For more:

- Ballotpedia: Voter identification laws by state.

And click here for a look at the National Voter Registration Act.

From the Washington Post: Trump and Clinton and their very different responses to the Orlando shootings

The issues that impact elections can change on a dime.

- click here for the article.

Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump’s first tweet Sunday morning was a fairly measured comment about the deadly mass shooting in an Orlando gay nightclub. “Really bad shooting in Orlando. Police investigating possible terrorism. Many people dead and wounded.”

His second tweet, an hour and a half later, was a return to campaign trail politics — an attempt to falsely recast a verbal attack he made against a disabled journalist.

Then came another, more sympathetic tweet about the Orlando tragedy, followed by one in which he took credit for “being right on radical Islamic terrorism.” And then Trump went fully on the attack, saying, “Is President Obama going to finally mention the words radical Islamic terrorism? If he doesn’t he should immediately resign in disgrace!”

Trump’s approach to the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history posed a sharp contrast to the conventional one of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. She first tweeted a note of concern for the victims; hours later, she issued a statement that sought to address the main issues that the tragedy touched on — terrorism, gay rights and gun control.

The disparity between the two encapsulates the choice facing voters this fall: Do they see Trump’s bombast as the solution to a dangerous world, or do they find comfort in Clinton’s more familiar manner?

From Intelligence Squared: The President Has Usurped the Constitutional Power of Congress

More video - a debate about the appropriate limits of presidential power.

From Atlantic Video: Can Religious Freedom and LGBT Rights Co-Exist?

Worth a look in class - click here for it.

From the NYT: 2nd Amendment Does Not Guarantee Right to Carry Concealed Guns, Court Rules

The Second Amendment has yet to be interpreted to apply outside the home. This could provide the Supreme Court the opportunity to do so.

- Click here for article.

A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment of the Constitution does not guarantee the right of gun owners to carry concealed weapons in public places, upholding a California law that imposes stringent conditions on who may be granted a concealed-carry permit.

The 7-to-4 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, overturned a decision by a three-judge panel of the same court and was a setback for gun advocates. The California law requires applicants to demonstrate “good cause” for carrying a weapon, like working in a job with a security threat — a restriction sharply attacked by gun advocates as violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

“Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public,” the court said in a ruling written by Judge William A. Fletcher.
The case was brought by gun owners who were denied permits in Yolo and San Diego Counties. The plaintiffs did not immediately say whether they planned to appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

. . . Gun advocates swiftly condemned the ruling.

“This decision will leave good people defenseless, as it completely ignores the fact that law-abiding Californians who reside in counties with hostile sheriffs will now have no means to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection,” Chris W. Cox, the executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement.

With Thursday’s decision, the Ninth Circuit joins several other federal appeals courts in allowing state or local governments to put restrictions on the granting of concealed-carry licenses.

Mr. Winkler, the law professor, noted that the best indicator of whether the Supreme Court would take up a constitutional issue was there was a split among district courts. “Without a split in the circuits, the Supreme Court is less likely to take up the case,” he said.

But Mr. Lowy said that given the stakes of the decision — and the long history of litigation on the issue — he would not be surprised if the court decided to step in. “There is no circuit split, but it’s certainly possible that the court could decide it wants to address this,” he said. “I’d be surprised but not shocked if Supreme Court took this for review.”

The decision by the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit had thrown out the requirement that a gun owner demonstrate “good cause” for getting a weapon. Within days of that decision, in 2014, counties across the state, which administer the permits, reported getting a flood of applicants seeking concealed weapons permits. Although the decision was stayed pending appeal, some county sheriffs began issuing permits; the status of those permits was not immediately clear.

In a dissent to Thursday’s ruling by the full court, Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan said that the Second Amendment protection to gun owners that applied in the privacy of one’s home — upheld in a 2008 Supreme Court decision involving a law in Washington, D.C. — “extends beyond one’s front door.

From NOLO: The Public Safety Exception to Miranda Officers don't have to abide by Miranda in certain kinds of emergencies.

The Supreme Court carved out an exception to Miranda warning in a 1984 decision.

- Click here for a more thorough description of the exception here.

Here is a look at the exception in light of recent events - notably the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

- Charles Lane: An update for Miranda rights.

Established in Miranda v. Arizona 47 years ago, the you-have-the-right-to-remain-silent litany has “become part of our national culture,” as the Supreme Court noted in a 2000 ruling that reaffirmed Miranda.

My favorite example: In the 1987 film “Robocop,” the eponymous cyborg hero grabs a murderer by the lapels, growls, “You have the right to an attorney” — and hurls the creep through a plate-glass window.

Today, the issue is how, or whether, to apply Miranda to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing. The Obama administration advocates a “public safety” exception that would permit the interrogation of terror suspects for a while before “Mirandizing” them and allow the government to introduce the resulting information at trial.

That puts the administration between some Republican senators who want to dispense with Miranda and designate Tsarnaev an “enemy combatant,” and civil libertarians who fret that the public-safety exception could set a precedent that ends up nullifying Miranda.
None of these positions is entirely satisfactory. Neither is the Miranda doctrine itself — not anymore. Its fault lines were evident well before 9/11 spawned terrorism-related dilemmas.

. . . Miranda seems an especially awkward fit for the Tsarnaev case. The public interest in pumping him for intelligence is high — to detect bombs elsewhere, to unravel a conspiracy and so on. Insisting on reading him his rights immediately anyway seems formalistic, to say the least.

Meanwhile, the government has little incentive to Mirandize Tsarnaev at all, given that the evidence against him seems overwhelming even without a confession. In this case, the Obama administration’s public-safety exception seems like a legalistic attempt to preserve the admissibility of evidence it might not even need. Yet invoking it may enshrine an exception far more expansive than the one created by the 1984 Supreme Court case upon which the administration’s legal theory rests. In that case, the interrogation consisted of immediately asking a hurriedly arrested rape suspect, “Where's the gun?”

Maybe someday the Supreme Court will sort it all out, just as it has attempted to fit a host of other unforeseen applications into the Miranda paradigm over the years.
Wouldn’t it be better to achieve the necessary and legitimate purposes ofMiranda through more efficient means? One alternative made possible by evolving technology would be to require video recording of all in-custody police questioning — to deter abuses and to let juries decide if a confession was voluntary.

Updating Miranda won’t be easy, since the Supreme Court already revisited its basic validity in 2000. However, Chief Justice Earl Warren’s opinion in Mirandanoted that “it is impossible . . . to foresee the potential alternatives for protecting the privilege which might be devised by Congress or the States.” Warren disavowed an intent to “straitjacket” federal and state lawmakers.

From the Washington Post: Fifty years later, the Miranda decision hasn’t accomplished what the Supreme Court intended

For out look at civil liberties - as well as the power (or lack thereof) of the courts.

- Click here for the article.

Fifty years ago today, the Supreme Court handed down the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona. The decision requires police to inform suspects of their constitutional rights to remain silent and obtain an attorney before being questioned.

Miranda remains perhaps the most well-known case in criminal law, thanks in no small part to such TV shows as “Law and Order” and movies like “21 Jump Street.” But that’s a bit like saying the electoral college is widely familiar. Most Americans know it’s important, but they are a little fuzzy on the details.

So, in honor of the anniversary, here are two underappreciated sides to Miranda.

1 - Miranda is an important test of how much power and influence the Supreme Court actually has.

2 - But the Supreme Court’s achievements in Miranda may be less than meets the eye

For a look at the case itself click here for Oyez's page on it.

And a few other cases related to the rights - which conservatives have been trying to overturn for years.

- The right to remain silent, brought you by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI.
- Miranda rights for children?
- You have a right to a lawyer — but can’t assert it yet.

Putting the pieces back together

And here are a few items related to the respective efforts of each candidate to adjust themselves towards the political center in an effort to win the general election.

The most commonly used term is "pivot." More on that soon.

- The New Republic: How Many Young Bernie Supporters Does Hillary Clinton Really Need?
- The Fiscal Times: Why Sanders’ Supporters Might Not Switch Their Votes.
- NYT: Hillary Clinton Denounces Donald Trump as Untrustworthy on Women’s Issues.
- AP: Back in Washington, Clinton, Trump work toward party unity.
- The Washington Post: Romney loyalists’ divisions over Trump spill out into the open at Utah summit.
- The Washington Post: Trump doesn’t have a national campaign. So the GOP is trying to run one for him.
- The Washington Post: After briefing with Trump’s chief strategist, House Republicans see ‘pivot’.
- The Hill: Evangelicals give Trump stamp of approval.

How Clinton and Trump did it

For summer GOVT 2305 students. Some preliminary info that might help you with your essay. What are commentators telling us about how each won the nominations of their respective parties? Here are a few initial thoughts on the subject. I'll add more as I find them - but feel to look on your own.

- The Fiscal Times: The Strategy That Gave Hillary Clinton the Democratic Nomination.
- The Financial Times: How Trump Won the Nomination.
- Slate: The Process Worked - The Democratic primaries weren’t rigged. Despite their flaws, they produced a nominee with wide support across the party.
- The Atlantic: How the Party Decided on Trump.

About that Paper - What is a Party Faction?

I'll post a few things this week related to the assigned essay for GOVT 2305. Remember that you are free to develop your own topic, but I'd like it to be about some aspect of the 2016 election. I prefer that it be objective - not based on personal opinions.

For a reminder, this is what is in your syllabus:

As you hopefully know, both major parties are close to selecting their nominees for the presidency. Donald Trump will be the Republican Party’s nominee, and though Bernie Sanders is still in the running (and who knows what might happen?) Hillary Clinton looks to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. The primary process was unusually divisive this year, which means there are still hard feelings all around. The job of each nominee will be to try to put the pieces back together. The only way either Clinton or Trump can win the presidency is to have the support of all the various factions that identify with the party – as well as the support of independents and – ideally – some members of the other party. I want you to do some research and figure out how they are going to accomplish that. How are the nominees of the major parties re-positioning themselves for the general election?

One way to approach the question is to think about the two major parties as collections of groups - or factions. Each major party then is better thought of as coalitions of factions. Primary elections tend to involve competition between the preferred candidates of rival factions within each party. If their candidate becomes the party's nominee, then the policies the group promotes may well become enacted into law - assuming other things fall into place as well.

I'd suggest you begin by becoming familiar with the different groups within each party to get a preliminary handle on the subject.

Here are a few places you might want to look:
- Wikipedia: Factions in the Democratic Party (United States).

- Wikipedia: Factions in the Republican Party (United States).
- Politics1.com: Directory of American Political Parties.
- The Brooking Institution: Understanding American Parties and Factions.

These collections of past blog posts might also be helpful:

- Democratic Coalition.
- Factions.
- Republican Coalition.

From the Texas Tribune: The Brief: Texas Files 40th Lawsuit Against Obama Administration

Texas has led the charge suing the federal government - usually on 10th Amendment grounds - to overturn laws impacting the state.

- Click here for the story.

Texas was one of 11 states to file a lawsuit Wednesday to stop a directive from the Obama administration for public school districts to let transgender students use the bathroom of their choice, marking the 40th time the state has filed suit against his administration.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the lawsuit, calling the federal guidelines "outside the bounds of the constitution."

The Tribune's Morgan Smith wrote that Paxton filed the lawsuit this week because Harrold Independent School District, which sits near the Oklahoma border, passed a policy earlier this week "requiring students to use bathrooms according to the gender cited on their birth certificates."

“Harrold Independent School District fulfilled a responsibility to their community and adopted a bathroom policy puts the safety of their students first,” Paxton said Wednesday at a press conference announcing the lawsuit. “Unfortunately the policy placed them at odds with federal directives handed down earlier this month. That means the district is in the crosshairs of Obama administration which has maintained it will punish anyone who doesn’t comply with their orders.”

. . . Since President Obama took office in 2008, Texas has sued his administration 40 times, the Tribune's Neena Satija, Ryan McCrimmon and Becca Aaronson wrote. Paxton has filed nine of those lawsuits while his predecessor, former Texas Attorney General and current Gov. Greg Abbott, filed 31 of them.

Of the 40 cases that have been filed against the feds by Texas, court documents show the Lone Star State winning six and withdrawing eight. In 10 cases, the courts ruled against the state. The remaining 16 cases are still pending.

From Governing: The Difference Between Promising and Governing

Not everything candidates promise to do is realistic. Should voters be able to figure what is and is not doable?

- Click here for the article.

Over the last few election cycles, "fact checking" has become ubiquitous. News organizations, advocacy groups and partisans devote significant resources to comparing what is said in election campaigns to what happens after the winners take office. Not surprisingly, the reality of governing doesn't always match the promises that candidates make.

What most of the fact-checking sites and organizations have in common is that they are about correcting the record with respect to things that have already happened. There is another kind of reality check, however, that may be even more important but is much harder to do. That is when a candidate for office promises to do things, if elected, that would not pass any kind of reality check. Unlike untruths that are told about past events, we do notknow that these are false, but there should be substantial reasons to very skeptical that these promises can ever come true.

A few items on the current state of federalism

All are pulled from Governing Magazine. They should augment what we cover in class.

- The Shaky Edifice of Federal Power: As states act more like independent sovereigns, Washington has itself to blame.

- Is Federalism Breaking Down? Bad intergovernmental relations have the United States headed for fiscal disaster.

- How Obama Changed the Relationship Between Washington, the States and the CitiesStates haven’t been the willing political partners President Obama once hoped they would be. He’s found some ways to work around that.

From Politico: The 11 states that will determine the 2016 election Trump vs. Clinton may be an unusual matchup, but their coming battle will be fought on familiar terrain.

No surprise, but Texas isnt one of them.

- Click here for the article.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump bring unique strengths and weaknesses to their general-election clash. But after months of polling, the Electoral College landscape on which they will compete largely mirrors the one that has determined the presidency in the past four cycles.

POLITICO's analysis of polling data suggests 11 states will determine the next president: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. All were battleground states in the previous two elections. But that doesn’t mean the map is constant: As the states’ demographics change, and the parties’ relative appeal among various groups transforms, some states move toward one party or the other over the long term.

While those changes — combined with the unusual nature of Trump’s campaign — add an element of uncertainty to the campaign, most pollsters agree that Clinton and the Democrats will enter the general election with a perceptible advantage: Of the 11 states most likely to determine the victor, President Barack Obama won all 11 in 2008, and 10 of the 11 in 2012.

It's Hillary

Little surprise. Click below for info:

NYT: 2016 Delegate Count and Primary Results.

From the NYT: Builders Pierce California’s Environmental Shield With New Weapon: The Ballot

This should help with some terminology - and demonstrate that things don;t always work out as planned.

- Click here for it.

Once heralded as a vital check on corporate influence over government, California’s ballot initiative system — which allows residents to propose laws and approve them by popular vote — has been used to sharply cut property taxes and to enact the country’s first medical marijuana law.

But these days, developers are using the process for another purpose: to sidestep state environmental laws and speed up major developments.

Plans for a stadium in Carson, a shopping center north of San Diego and a massive warehouse complex in Moreno Valley were approved last year using the ballot initiative process. Another ballot measure petition hastened construction of a stadium in Inglewood, where the N.F.L.’s Los Angeles Rams will play.

The advantage for developers is clear: Projects approved by ballot measures avoid legal challenges under the California Environmental Quality Act.

There is a twist, though: Residents often do not even get a chance to vote.

Once 15 percent of eligible voters have signed a petition, a project qualifies for the ballot, and local elected officials can either call a special election or accept the proposal without negotiating changes. Officials often approve the project to avoid paying for a special election that could further strain tight budgets.

Supporters of the ballot measures say they allow residents to override a broken system in which lawsuits and environmental reviews can delay projects for years.

But environmentalists argue that the arrangement grants special privileges to developers, even if only a relatively small fraction of residents support a project. And land-use experts say the strategy will become more common unless the state government steps in to curtail it.

So far, the issue has failed to attract much attention in Sacramento.

“We’ve ended up with a warping of direct democracy to defeat strong environmental laws,” said Douglas Carstens, a lawyer specializing in land use and the environment. “It’s ramping up. Within a year or two, people will realize what a bad situation this is.”

The Pew Research Center on Millenials

For a look at past stories about the group from click here.

For more on age and politics:

The politics of American generations: How age affects attitudes and voting behavior.

Here's a nice graph from the story:

From the Boston Globe: Keep calm — the Constitution will constrain Trump

The author suggests that - at least in certain areas - a President Trump can be restrained by Congress, as designed by the Constitution. In places where the president is granted broader powers - like foreign policy - he is less certain.

- Click here for the article.

The only half-decent argument for keeping calm is that the Constitution was purpose-built to constrain a man like Trump. To see why the separation of powers still matters, just consider what Trump says he is going to do if he wins.

By the end of his first 100 days as president, Trump assured The New York Times recently, his wall along the Mexican border would be designed and his blanket ban on Muslim immigration would be in place. On Day 1, those American companies that have the temerity to employ people abroad would be threatened with punitive fines. Finally, Trump would impose an across-the-board tariff on Chinese imports. “We can’t continue to allow China to rape our country,” he declared at a rally last weekend.

Now for the good news. He can do almost none of this if Congress opposes him. According to the Constitution (Article I, Section 8), it is not the president but Congress that has the power to regulate immigration, taxation, and trade. The president’s principal power lies in his being commander in chief of the armed forces. Even his right to make treaties is conditional on “the advice and consent” of the Senate.

In short, the Donald’s antiglobalization program depends on his being able to muster majorities in Congress. How easy is that going to be when the speaker of the House — a Republican — can’t bring himself to endorse Trump and the Democrats stand a good chance of retaking the Senate?

For this reason, Trump may have to focus on foreign policy from the get-go. And here’s where my worries really begin. For if there is one sure sign that a Trump presidency would be a disaster, it is the eagerness with which President Vladimir Putin looks forward to it.

From the Economist: How a Trump presidency could undermine the rule of law

We're looking at constitutions and the gradual development of the rule of law over British and American history. A British magazine looks across the Atlantic and wonders whether Donald Trump's statements suggest he has little interesting following established rules. It focuses primarily on Trump's efforts to remove a federal judge from presiding over a lawsuit he is part of.

The principle of an independent judiciary is central tot eh separated powers doctrine written into the Constitution.

- Click here for the article.

DONALD TRUMP says outrageous things almost every day, but few of his incendiary comments and tweets refer to concrete changes a Trump administration would be likely to introduce. Many of Mr Trump’s proposals, including a ban on Muslims entering America, would falter in the hands of a less hot-headed Congress. But the Republican nominee’s attitude toward the judiciary may be more ominous. Mr Trump's new tirade against a federal judge overseeing two class-action fraud lawsuits involving the now-defunct Trump University suggests that Mr Trump is ready and willing to undercut a founding ideal of the American republic—all by himself.

In Federalist #78, Alexander Hamiltonwrote that keeping the judiciary independent of the other branches of government is “the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws”. But since “the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power”, it is uniquely vulnerable. “[A]ll possible care is requisite”, Hamilton admonished, “to enable it to defend itself against...attacks” from the other two branches. The judiciary “may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments”.

The principle of judicial independence means that presidents and presidential candidates respect the rule of law and the judgments of judges. It means, for example, that Barack Obama and his team of lawyers defend the legality of his immigration orders protecting 5m people from deportation on the merits rather than by engaging in a name-calling campaign to discredit and delegitimise the federal judge in Brownsville, Texas who unilaterally stopped the programme before it could be implemented. But Mr Trump’s furious tirade against Judge Gonzalo Curiel defies all norms of presidential decorum and decency, and the sentiment fuelling it threatens to undermine the delicate balance of power between the executive and judicial branches.

The problem with diversity

In recent years, the United States has become both increasingly diverse, and increasingly distrustful of almost all aspects of public life. Research suggests that those two trends are related. It costs a little to read the article that makes this argument - click on it here if you're willing to spend it.

The Wilson Quarterly has a review.

- Click here for it.

Diversity triggers a tendency to hunker down and to have less confidence in local government, community leaders, and news media, the study data show. In homogeneous North and South Dakota, 70 to 80 percent of survey respondents said they trusted their neighbors a lot. In diverse Los Angeles and San Francisco, only about 30 percent said the same ­thing.

Living in a diverse community without a lot of trust in the people next door makes residents less likely to register to vote and more likely to participate in protest marches, Putnam found. People are also less likely to give to charity or to volunteer in the community. Residents of racially or ethnically mixed areas have fewer close friends and confidantes, report being less happy, and say they have a lower quality of life. They spend more time watching ­television.

The effects are similar regardless of age, gender, economic status, political philosophy, or race. Living in a diverse community has a slightly greater negative impact on conservatives than on liberals, but the effect is “significant” among liberals too. Its impact on whites, Putnam says, is “definitely greater,” but it is “visible” among ­non­whites as ­well.

In the long run, Americans can handle diversity, Putnam says. A century ago, new immigrants from Eastern Europe married only each other, as did migrants from Southern Europe. But by 1990, only one-fifth of white Americans had spouses with an identical ethnic ­background.

Putnam says the country should look to what worked in the past to foster social solidarity, from building community centers and athletic fields that immigrants and natives can enjoy together to making English-language training more accessible. Because the long-run benefits of immigration and diversity are national in scope, the federal government should help local governments bear the short-term direct costs of increased ­expenditures on education, health care, and other needs.

But Putnam’s former Harvard colleague James Q. Wilson, the ­well-­known conservative thinker, dismisses his long-­term solutions as “wishful thinking.” It’s almost impossible to forge social cohesion among diverse groups, Wilson says. The few institutions that have succeeded, such as the U.S. military and some churches, possess two key ingred­ients that neighborhoods lack: au­thoritative leaders and ­discipline.

From Andrew Sullivan: America Has Never Been So Ripe for Tyranny

More fears about a Trump presidency:

- Click here for it.

From the Atlantic: The Seven Broken Guardrails of Democracy - The American republic was long safeguarded by settled norms, now shattered by the rise of Donald Trump.

We'll look at the current status of democratic governance in the Unites States. Here is one critics look at the current state of it, and how this might have lead to the Donald Trump's recent success. He makes the arguments that several "rails" - settled norms - have been broken in recent decades, which has allowed for the rise of Mr. Trump, who seemingly is unconcerned with abiding by the rules which have governed America since the ratification of the Constitution.

It'll be worth a talk in class.

- Click here for the article.

There are the rails according to the author:

1 - The first guardrail to go missing was the old set of expectations about how a candidate for president of the United States should speak and act.

2 - The second broken guardrail is the expectation of some measure of trustworthiness in politicians.

3 - A third broken guardrail is the expectation that a potential president should possess deep—or at least adequate—knowledge of public affairs.

4 - he guardrail of ideology.

5 - he primacy of national security concerns.

6 - A deep belief in tolerance and non-discrimination for Americans of all faiths, creeds, and origins.

7 - Partisan identities have hardened.

Regarding Civic Engagement

A few items for Monday's lecture class. The text starts with a look at civic engagement. Click here for previous blog posts on the subject (there are only four - maybe that's a good thing):

- Civic Engagement.

About that final exam

Next week is the last day for ACC classes. We will mostly wrap up and review. Check blackboard for the date of the final - or ready your syllabus - or check on the ACC website.

Your paper - as well as all other work - is due Thursday 12th at noon.

Click here for a review for each test.

- 2305.
- 2306.

About 10 or so questions on the final will be based on events that occurred over the semester, especially those we talked about in class. Here are links to blog posts to events I consider fair game for each class.

Note: I might add a few links prior to Monday - I'll have the test completed by then and will know more clearly what stories are especially useful to you.

2305

- Iowa Caucus Results.
- From 538: Scalia Was Almost Never The Most Conservative Justice On The Supreme Court.- A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law Antonin Scalia.
- From Vox: What are “superdelegates,” and what do they mean for the Democratic nomination?
- From the Brookings Institute: Angry voters dominate the presidential primaries.
- Politico: Trump's 6 populist positions His challenges to GOP orthodoxy spur soul-searching among party elites about how to snag working-class voters.
- From 538: When Political Parties Splinter.
- From the NYT: Republican Leaders Map a Strategy to Derail Donald Trump.
- From the Pew Research Center: Contested presidential conventions, and why parties try to avoid them.
- Trump v The Republican Party.
- One person one vote rule upheld.

2306

- From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: The Winner-Take-Some Texas Primaries.
- From the Austin American Statesman: Appeals court dismisses Rick Perry’s criminal case.
- From Slate: John Oliver Explains Our Nation’s “Ghost Governments,” With Help From Some Adorable Kids.
- Will the legislature re-regulate college tuition?.
- From the San Antonio Express-News: 'Dark money' disclosure fight heading back to the Texas Legislature.|
- From the Texas Tribune: Republican Presidential Race Fueled Record Primary Turnout.
- From Legal Insurrection: Conservative support grows for criminal justice reform.
- From the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: Tort Reform is Killing Trial by Jury.
- From the Texas Tribune: Courts Rebuff Texas Bid to Slow Foster Care Reform.
- From the Houston Chronicle: City bond rating downgrade reflects oil bust, pension problems.
- From the Texas Tribune: Multiple Lawsuits Could Spell Budget Doomsday for State.
- From the San Antonio Express-News: Libertarian and Green parties gather for state conventions.
- From NPR: From Fracking Bans To Paid Sick Leave: How States Are Overruling Local Laws.

Good luck - let me know it you have questions.

From Governing Magazine: Democratic Secretaries of State Most At Risk in 2016 Races Republicans currently dominate the office that holds significant power over elections.

An inside look at a position central to our discussion of elections in the state. Remember that our SOS is appointed

- Click here for the article.

Presidential campaign years are a busy time for secretaries of state, as they’re preoccupied with getting voters registered, working out ballot logistics, and counting and recounting votes. And this year, a number of secretaries of state also have their own elections to worry about.

In 2016, eight secretaries of state will be chosen directly by voters. In virtually all of these races, the incumbent party is expected to face a competitive primary and/or a competitive general election contest.

Currently, the GOP holds 28 secretary of state offices, and the Democrats hold 22. (That includes the handful of states where the lieutenant governor handles the role of secretary of state.)

Of these offices, most -- but not all -- are directly elected by the voters. Of the 39 elected positions, the Republicans currently dominate, with 23 seats to the Democrats’ 16. The parties split the appointed offices, 4-4, while the Democrats lead 2-1 in states where the legislature chooses the secretary of state.

Secretaries of state can wield significant authority over the details of elections, making them of vital importance to both parties. Some secretaries, such as Kansas Republican Kris Kobach, have used the office to advance an aggressive push for ballot security, or what critics deride as voter suppression.

For more:

- The Troubling Partisanization of Elections for Secretary of State.

From the Fort Worth Start-Telegram: Texas comptroller gives Tarrant County school districts a grace period

A bit on conflict over funding K-12 in Texas.

- Click here for the article.

As bad as things appear with the loss of millions of dollars in local property taxes for schools, the financial problems could have been worse if the Texas comptroller’s office had not stepped in to avert a potential double whammy.

The threat of state cuts occurred because of a mismatch between the property value estimates reported by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Tarrant Appraisal District. State law requires a difference of several percentage points, and fixing the difference can lead to a process in which local entities could lose substantial revenue.

The school districts dodged the potential financial disaster when the state comptroller declared a two-year grace period and used the local appraisal district’s lower property value estimate, instead of its own, to calculate state aid.

“I was sick to my stomach and sweating BBs at the time,” said Jim Schiele, chief financial officer of the Eagle Mountain-Saginaw school district.

Now school CFOs like Schiele are hoping that TAD appraisals will be in line with the comptroller’s estimates in 2016. After next year, the comptroller may not give school districts a pass if TAD’s appraisals don’t appear realistic.

“I don’t have any more get-out-of-jail free cards,” Fort Worth district CFO Elsie Schiro said. “God forbid that something goes wrong.”

The problems were created by the software conversion of more than 1.6 million property tax records at the Tarrant Appraisal District, which resulted in some incomplete appraisals and slowed down appraisal activities for several months.

From the Houston Chronicle: Health care system punishes most important doctors

For our look at health care policy in the state.

- Click here for the post.

Torres' job is to keep her patients as healthy as possible, the most important job in American health care. But her industry treats primary care physicians so badly that their numbers are shrinking, and there are consequences for all of us if conditions don't improve.

Stress, bureaucracy and case load have left 64 percent of doctors with a negative view of their industry, according to a survey commissioned by the Physician's Foundation, an advocacy group for doctors. Less than 20 percent of physicians say they can accommodate more patients.

Primary care physicians are particularly unhappy, facing the heaviest paperwork burden and the lowest pay. Forty-four percent of doctors say they plan to retire early, cut back on patients or seek a job that doesn't involve patients.

"We're at the bottom of the payment totem pole, for sure," Torres said. "The amount of work we have to do is far greater than the specialist. We have to do a lot of tedious work."

Torres calculates she works about 70 hours a week, which is typical, according to the survey. More than 80 percent of Texas physicians work more than 40 hours a week, with some averaging 80 hours or more.

Torres is also one of the shrinking number of doctors who operate as small businesses. Only 29 percent of Texas doctors still own their practice, and nationwide the number has dropped to 17 percent as physicians join large partnerships or work as employees of hospitals where patients are too often seen as statistics.

"The key word right now is efficiency. But do you want someone who is going to listen to you and take care of you, or do you want someone who will be efficient?" she said when asked why she doesn't work for someone else. "I may not be doing financially the best that I can do, but I am able to pay my bills, I'm happy with how I take care of the patients, and that to me is the important part."

From the Atlantic: The Founding Fathers Weren’t Concerned With Inequality Economic disparity is a problem that has grown along with the nation.

As we discuss in class - it doesn't become an issue at all until the 14th Amendment, and even then it is very weakly defined and enforced.

- Click here for the syllabus.

The first Bill of Rights, of course, refers to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed for, among other things, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, and the right to a trial by jury. Those rights, at the time, were top of mind among the country’s founders, who were concerned most with getting Great Britain out of their affairs. The founders didn’t concern themselves with what people in their young country would do if they got sick and couldn’t pay their rent. In fact, neither the Bill of Rights, nor the Declaration of Independence, nor the U.S. Constitution talk explicitly about the nation’s role in making sure its citizens have jobs or homes or earned enough to avoid being impoverished. The only line that even comes close appears in the preamble to the Constitution, where “We the People of the United States” pledge to “promote the general Welfare.” But at no point in the founding literature do the founding fathers identify what constitutes general welfare, or how nation should be upholding it.

Founding documents of other countries that were ratified much later, talk more about equality. The Indian Constitution, for example, was adopted in 1949, and includes an article that requires the state to “secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people,” which includes instructions to the state to try and eradicate income inequality.

It raises the question: If Americans today are so concerned with income inequality and the “American Dream,” and if FDR believed so strongly in equality of opportunity, why didn’t the founders talk about these concepts at all in the documents that created the nation? Is it really correct to say that America is built on a foundation of opportunity and economic freedom when that type of equality isn’t mentioned at all?

The answer seems to be that there was little economic inequality at that time - political equality was a different matter.

From the Texas Tribune: Lt. Gov. Patrick Slams Universities for Tuition Increases

Another likely agenda item for the next legislative session. The precise reasons why tuition has increased so much is still up for debate.

- Click here for the article.

In his most aggressive terms yet, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick excoriated Texas universities for raising their tuition in recent years, suggesting that the Texas Senate will try to limit tuition growth when it reconvenes next year.

At a press conference Tuesday before a meeting of the Senate Higher Education Committee, Patrick pointed to graphs detailing how total academic charges at the state's universities have grown 147 percent since 2002. Median household income in the United States has grown just 32 percent during that time, he said.

"People did not send us here to Austin to allow universities to raise tuition five times their salaries," Patrick said.

Patrick said "everything is on the table" in terms of legislative remedies if such growth continues.

"What we are asking is for our universities to be as fiscally responsible as we ask ourselves to be and for our agencies to be," he said. "They are not an exception."

He later added, "They need to scrub their budgets like we scrub ours. Every dollar that they spend needs to be scrubbed."

The average total cost at Texas’ four-year universities for an undergraduate taking 15 hours is $4,179. That’s up from $1,693 in 2002.

For more in the subject:

- College tuition on the rise in Texas, far exceeding household income growth.
- Analysis: Raising College Tuition, Deflecting the Blame.
- The Rising Price of Higher Education.

From ScotusBlog: “Redskins” name defense reaches Court

This involves the controversial name of the Washington's football team. Can a disparaging term be copyrighted?

- Click here for the article.

- Click here for the writ of certiorari.

Lawyers for the professional football team in Washington, D.C., seeking to salvage the owners’ legal right to the exclusive use of the team name “Redskins,” asked the Supreme Court on Monday afternoon to hear that case before a lower court rules on it, if the Justices also take on a new trademark appeal by the federal government.

The new case is Pro Football, Inc., v. Blackhorse. It was filed five days after the government filed its petition in Lee v. Tam (docket 15-1293). Both deal with the constitutionality of a part of federal trademark law that denies the exclusive right to use words or a symbol if they would “disparage” any living or dead individual, institution, belief, or national symbol. That provision was struck down last December in a case involving a rock music band’s request to register a trademark, “THE SLANTS.” The request was turned down as a racist reference to people of Asian ancestry.

The federal Patent and Trademark Office turned down the rock band’s application and, earlier, it cancelled the Washington football team’s several “Redskins” marks. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in the Tam case, found that the disparagement provision was unconstitutionally vague. While a federal judge in Virginia agreed with the cancellation of the “Redskins” marks, the team has an appeal in that case pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It is ready for oral argument there after briefing was completed.

The team’s new petition for review by the Justices ahead of any ruling by the Fourth Circuit noted that the government petition in the Tam case raised the single question of whether the disparagement clause is unconstitutionally vague.

Might there be a conflict between the copyright clause - or at least its interpretation - and free speech?

From Supreme Court Review: Justice Kennedy's Jurisprudence

For a discussion of how Anthony Kennedy approaches the Constitution:

- Click here for the article.

It was clear from Kennedy's confirmation hearing that he was not an originalist, as was Bork or Scalia: he testified at his confirmation hearing: "Over time, the intentions of the framers are more remote from their particular political concerns, and so they have a certain purity and a certain generality now that they did not have previously . . . it sometimes takes humans generations to become aware of the moral consequences of their own conduct. That does not mean that moral principles have not remained the same."

For Kennedy, the liberties in the constitution are not strictly limited to the way they would have been applied at the time of the adoption of the constitution, rather they are general moral principles that may require different applications as time passes in order to maintain the generalized concepts of individuality, liberty and dignity that the framers memorialized in the constitution.

Because Justice Kennedy's philosophy is not as capable of being pigeonholed as other justices, Justice Kennedy has often confounded legal scholars who have attempted to extrapolate a rule-oriented jurisprudence from Justice Kennedy's decisions. In general, however, one can say that Justice Kennedy is reliably conservative in most areas except in cases involving individual rights. For example, Kennedy has consistently departed from his conservative colleagues in gay rights cases.

For more:

- Living in Anthony Kennedy’s World.
- Anthony M. Kennedy: A Study of His Judicial Opinions.
- Anthony Kennedy turns moderation into power.
- The Key to Justice Kennedy? Why, It’s Liberty!

Here text from the last link:

The key to Justice ­Kennedy’s votes, Mr. Colucci says, is his moral ­reading of the Constitution: He sees the document as an unfolding story of ever greater individual liberty. Thus he ­opposes laws that abridge sexual ­freedom, including laws against homosexual conduct. If an originalist reading of the Constitution does not reveal such a liberty—relying on the received meaning of the ­Constitution’s words at the time they were ­written—Justice Kennedy’s moral ­reading does. But he is skeptical of race-conscious ­programs, too, because they treat applicants as members of a group rather than as individuals who possess the right to be free from group-based policies or rules.

. . . Most valuably, Mr. Colucci shows Justice Kennedy’s judicial philosophy to be a deeply rooted one and not, as one might suspect, the result of varied decisions that require a casuist or law professor to make coherent. He unearths a speech from 1986 in which Justice Kennedy (then an appeals-court judge) criticized ­Bowers v. Hardwick, a case in which the Supreme Court upheld a conviction for sodomy. At the time the judge did not argue, as others had, that the decision ­violated the right to privacy minted more than a ­decade before in Roe v. Wade. He argued instead that the liberty interests of gay Americans had been breached. In 2003, the court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, and Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion using the rhetoric of liberty rather than privacy.

From the NYT: Virginia Governor Restores Voting Rights to Felons

We discussed Texas' policy on voting rights for felons in class. Many states prevent people convicted of felonies to ever regain the right to vote. Virginia was one. Not any more. The decision has a political dimension to it since it is likely to benefit Democrats.

- Click here for the article.

Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia used his executive power on Friday to restore voting rights to more than 200,000 convicted felons, circumventing the Republican-run legislature. The action effectively overturns a Civil War-era provision in the state’s Constitution aimed, he said, at disenfranchising African-Americans.

The sweeping order, in a swing state that could play a role in deciding the November presidential election, will enable all felons who have served their prison time and finished parole or probation to register to vote. Most are African-Americans, a core constituency of Democrats, Mr. McAuliffe’s political party.

Amid intensifying national attention over harsh sentencing policies that have disproportionately affected African-Americans, governors and legislatures around the nation have been debating — and often fighting over — moves to restore voting rights for convicted felons. Virginia imposes especially harsh restrictions, barring felons from voting for life.

In Kentucky, Gov. Matt Bevin, a newly elected Republican, recently overturned an order enacted by his Democratic predecessor that was similar to the one Mr. McAuliffe signed Friday. In Maryland, Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, vetoed a measure to restore voting rights to convicted felons, but Democrats in the state legislature overrode him in February and an estimated 44,000 former prisoners who are on probation can now register to vote.

“There’s no question that we’ve had a horrible history in voting rights as relates to African-Americans — we should remedy it,” Mr. McAuliffe said in an interview Thursday, previewing the announcement he made on the steps of Virginia’s Capitol, just yards from where President Abraham Lincoln once addressed freed slaves. “We should do it as soon as we possibly can.”

Republicans in the Virginia Legislature have resisted measures to expand voting rights for convicted felons, and Mr. McAuliffe’s action, which he said was justified under an expansive legal interpretation of his executive clemency authority, provoked an immediate backlash. Virginia Republicans issued a statement Friday accusing the governor of “political opportunism” and “a transparent effort to win votes.”

“Those who have paid their debts to society should be allowed full participation in society,” said the statement from the party chairman, John Whitbeck. “But there are limits.” He said Mr. McAuliffe was wrong to issue a blanket restoration of rights, even to those who “committed heinous acts of violence.”

The order includes those convicted of violent crimes, including murder and rape. There is no way to know how many of the newly eligible voters in Virginia will register. “My message is going to be that I have now done my part,” Mr. McAuliffe said.
Nationally, an estimated 5.85 million Americans are denied the right to vote because of felony convictions, according to The Sentencing Project, a Washington research organizations, which says one in five African-Americans in Virginia cannot vote.
Only two states, Maine and Vermont, have no voting restrictions on felons; Virginia is among four – the others are Kentucky, Florida and Iowa – that have the harshest restrictions.

Everything you ever wanted to know about school finance in Texas

Well, very likely more than you ever wanted to know.

For 2306 - lot's more detail than what you get in the text:

- From the TEA: School Finance 101:Funding of Texas Public Schools.
- From the TTARA: An Introduction toSchool Financein Texas.
- From Texas Code: Texas Education Code.
- Texas Comptroller's Office: Texas School Funding at a Glance.

From Watchdog.org: Rising debt, taxes dim economic outlook in Texas

The group highlights a study by an influential interest group that is not bullish on Texas' economic prospects./

- Click here for the article.

Texas lawmakers have their work cut out for them if the Lone Star State is to stop its slide in a national economic rating.

The American Legislative Exchange Councildowngraded Texas to No. 12 in its 50-state economic outlook released Tuesday. The state was 11th last year and has never cracked the top 10.

Four states leapfrogged over Texas: Florida, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Wisconsin.
“With so many states now cutting taxes, Texas faces more competition than ever,” said Jonathan Williams, co-author of the report and vice president of the market-oriented ALEC Center for State Fiscal Reform.

ALEC’s “Rich States, Poor States” study examined the latest trend lines in economic health. The outlook model scored states using 15 equally weighted policy variables, including various tax rates, regulatory burdens and labor policies.

Williams cited three key areas where Florida, a rival Sunbelt mega-state with no income tax, bested Texas:

- Property tax burden: Florida ranks 27th; Texas is 10 points heavier at 37th.

- Debt service: Texas is the second worst in the country at 49th; Florida places 36th.

- Public employees per 10,000 population: Texas is a middling 30th; Florida boasts the third lowest rate in the nation.

Overall, Florida jumped seven spots in the outlook standings to place eighth in the nation. Tennessee, another state with no income tax, posted the biggest gain — climbing 10 spots to seventh place.

“Rich States, Poor States” ranked Texas No. 1 on economic performance. ALEC calls that index “a backward-looking measure” of gross domestic product gains, population growth and non-farm employment.

Are Texas’ best days in the rearview mirror?

- Click here for the study.
- Click here for the wikipedia entry on the American Legislative Exchange Council.

From the Houston Chronicle: Texas needs to dump its franchise tax and come up with something better

Texas still doesn't know how best to tax its businesses.

- Click here for the article.

The franchise tax dates to 1907 and was premised on the idea that companies should pay something for the privilege of doing business in Texas. Over the years, it evolved into a payment made by some companies in return for state laws that limited their legal liabilities. These fees and costs were generally low and spread out across the business community.

That changed in 2006 when the Texas Supreme Court declared that because the Legislature limited what local authorities could charge in property tax rates - forcing almost all of them to charge the maximum rate - the Legislature had created a de facto state property tax. Since the Texas Constitution forbids such a thing, the court ordered the Legislature to find new ways to pay for things like schools.

The solution was a franchise tax based on margins of revenues, not on income. There are four methods of calculating the taxable margins on gross receipts in Texas, and companies are allowed to pick the one that is best for them. Unfortunately, that requires many companies to make all four calculations using an accountant with specialized training.

Compliance is therefore expensive, but the good news is that with a $1 million exemption, 94 percent of Texas companies will not have to pay any tax.

That doesn't make Texas a low-tax state for businesses, though. Businesses pay 64 percent of the taxes collected in Texas, compared with the 45 percent national average. Texas' effective tax rate on business is 5 percent, higher than the national average of 4.7 percent.

The business community let out a cheer last year when the Legislature came close to eliminating the franchise tax, but Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick insisted on raising the homestead exemption on personal property taxes. Instead, lawmakers only cut the franchise tax rate by 25 percent with a promise to ultimately phase out the tax.

That was 2015, though, when 1,600 oil and gas rigs were drilling in Texas, sales tax collections were jumping and appraisal districts were raising property values at a breakneck pace. Lawmakers know 2017 will be different.