Before and After

Before

Telegraph UK

After

Mandalay Gazette via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The Clampdown Succeeds

Myanmar's military rulers stormed Buddhist monasteries, kicked everyone off the streets--those they didn't kill, prevented groups of more than five people from meeting, and shut down access to the internet. It seems to have worked.

Though reports suggest that the military rulers are being criticized across the globe, the criticism from the country's key trading partners--India, China and Russia--are not backing words with action. The country is rich in natural resources and none want to lose access to them.

Fallacies

When I began teaching in 1994 I'd begin each semester by discussing argumentation, what makes an argument valid, and what made it invalid. Special attention was paid to arguments that were fallacies. Since the bulk of political statements tend to contain various fallacies, it is probably wise to resume discussing these in class. My current students might also find them useful when trying to critically evaluate the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.

I'll bring these up when appropriate, but here are some websites which discuss these further.

- The Nizkor Project.
- The Fallacy Files.
- Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate.
- Fallacies - From UNC.

SCHIP and Socialism

Conservatives across the board have begun criticizing the expansion of SCHIP as being socialism in disguise. By expanding entitlements to middle class families, a point disputed by some of the program's supporters, more people are going to be made dependent upon government and less able to provide for themselves. Here are a couple sources for this idea:

- The Heritage Foundation
- Human Events

I'm rarely moved by the merits of accusations of socialism, but I think the effort is focused more on rallying public opinion. Conservatives admit that it is difficult to effectively counter arguments for expanding health care for children without seeming like a heartless ogre. Unless of course you can persuade people that doing so places those kids under the thumb of big brother.

I'll file this under "framing," the attempt to influence how people process information about a specific issue.

The show down over SCHIP's re authorization will be interesting. It comfortably passed both the House and Senate, but only in the Senate was the vote veto-proof. It may prove to be the first overrride of a veto in the Bush Presidency.

Here's my question: Are Democrats secretly hoping Republicans vote against this? It's a great issue for them, especially if the economy slips into recession as some economists predict.

New Power Points

I've posted some revised powerpoints on my faculty page. They are still incomplete, but they have enough info for us to cover next week in class. Expect modifications.

2301: Section Two (Constitutions)
2302: Section Two (The Executive)

I've decided remove the link from this blog because they are difficult to update. I've also decided to consolidate the entire lectures for each section on one set of powerpoints. Unless this proves confusing. I'll use this format for the rest of the semester.

Attention TBA's

You need to step things up. Only a couple of you did remotely well on the open book, 24 hour, take home exam.

You had a full day, with an open book, to answer 20 questions. There are no excuses for not making a high A on this thing.

Here are hints about how you can do better in the future.

1-Answer every question. If you see 20 questions on the test, send 20 answers back.
2-Read the material. These are open book questions because I have no idea if you are going to cheat, so I make the issue moot. But allowing you to look at the book means that you will be expected to get things right. Reading the material ahead of time helps.
3-Answer the question I ask, not the question you want to answer. If the question asks you to elaborate on a subject, elaborate on that subject. That means that I want you to explain it. Demonstrate to me that you can do more than repeat what is in the textbook.
4-Be lengthy. Fully answer the question without degenerating into pure bs. A brief incomplete answer gets a tiny grade, a lengthy one gets a higher grade.

You should also ask yourself if you have the discipline to take classes without supervision. It is no sin to need the structure of a lecture class. I tend to prefer them.

Please don't waste my time, or your money if you don't intend on giving this class the time necessary to succeed. I get paid the same whether you pass or fail.

Bush Signs College Cost Bill

In a previous post I discussed the College Cost Reduction Act, and stated that Bush was expected to sign it.

He did so yesterday.

Scenes From the Countryside

An old political statement near the intersection of I-36 and FM 2004. Here's the website. They seem to like Ron Paul. Some background on John Birch, and the society, from wikipedia.

The Clampdown Begins

Soldiers in Myanmar have begun clamping down on the protests. They've been shooting into crowds and dragging away troublesome monks.

It's standard totalitarian procedure. The monks apparently are a strong enough organization within the country that they believe they have the ability to force limits on the country's military rulers--which would make them mere authoritarians.

The rulers, if they are to keep the status quo, must demonstrate that they cannot be limited, thus the clampdown.

So that's were we are.

Proposed Amendments to the Texas Constitution

Since we are covering Texas Constitution in 2301, we ought to point out that there will elections on November 6th for the 16 amendments proposed by the legislature this past spring.

This link takes you to the analysis conducted by the Texas Legislative Council.

Here is another link that analyses them in a more condensed form.

None are a remotely controversial as the same-sex marriage ban which was approved last time, or the restriction on medical liability lawsuits the time before that. Most touch on tax issues, and the allowance of bonds to be issued for specific purposes. Texas is a pay as you go state, so unless there is a constitutional authorization, the only funds that can be spent for a specific purpose in a two year funding cycle are those earned in that two year cycle.

The most interesting one for this area is #15 which would authorize $3 Billion to be spent for a Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. No word on where this center will be and if the funds will be dispersed throughout the state or concentrated in one place. I hear lips smacking at the Texas Medical Center.

Now They Tell Us

Policy makers want kids to study math and science . . . something about a competitive edge.

But parents don't agree.

It's important, but not for me.

Free Speech Kills

Mike McConnell tells the Senate the same thing he told the House. Open discussion of surveillance will kill Americans. But does it do so at a constitutional price?

What would Patrick Henry say?

The Right to Travel

I use the right to travel as an example of the potential unalienable rights that might fall under the heading "among" in the Declaration of Independence - see below - but do it with tongue in cheek.

Maybe I should rethink this. The Daily Kos points out that a recent copy of the Federal Register contains something called the Secure Flight Plan which, they argue, will allow the Department of Homeland Security to take over pre-screening passengers, which means that the federal government will have to give you permission to get on an airplane before you can fly.

This has been in the works for a while and administration officials say that this will not violate individual liberties.

Sticklers among you will point out, correctly, that this does necessarily restrict travel, just a certain mode of transportation. But still, where does this end?

On Dialogue, Democracy, and Unalienable Rights

Two recent events call to mind continuing conflict over the role dialogue is supposed to play in policy formation, and whether we are committed to a full discussion of controversial topics, or prefer that people simply keep their mouths shut.

The first came to light during exchanges in hearings before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence. The topic was whether the temporary suspension of the need for intelligence agents to get warrants before they intercept messages from foreign suspects directed to Americans. The bulk of the dispute concerns whether the requirement imposed a time limit that would limit the effectiveness of the searches, but a more subtle, and perhaps significant exchange touched on the hearings themselves and the very fact that these issues are being debated at all (from an ABC news story):

"Some committee members questioned McConnell's credibility, especially comments he made to the El Paso Times last month that Americans would die because of open testimony in Congress. In that interview, McConnell was asked by the reporter, "So you're saying that the reporting and the debate in Congress mean that some Americans are going to die?"

McConnell responded by saying, "That's what I mean -- because we have made it so public. We used to do these things very differently, but for whatever reason it's a democratic process and sunshine's a good thing."

Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., told McConnell, "You're saying and standing by that, your previous statement, that when we debate these issues in the Congress of the United States, which is our system, that Americans -- some Americans -- are going to die. And I really think that's a stretch. And I think because of some of these things, it has done damage to what you bring forward. It puts a dent in the credibility."

This dilemma, unique to democratic governments, has been noted before. Alexis de Tocqueville suggested that democracies would be disadvantaged in military disputes because of this need for transparency. Secrecy allows for effective defense policymaking, but creates opportunities for abuse. On the one hand, McConnell may be making a valid point about what is necessary for him to do his job effectively, but he could also simply be defending his turf.

The second event is the Iranian President Ahmadinejad's visit to New York, and his public speaking engagements while there--notably his address to an audience at Columbia University.

Some argued that he should not have been allowed to speak at all given his controversial views on subjects ranging from the existence of Israel, to whether the Holocaust really happened, and the treatment of women and dissident groups in his country.

Others claim that the right to free speech requires all points of view to be debated in open forums, to compete in the marketplace of ideas. Oliver Wendel Holmes, in a Supreme Court decision, suggested that when we stifle a viewpoint we may be betraying a suspicion that we cannot successfully argue against it. If we think someone is wrong, we should give them the opportunity to speak their views and argue against it.

Personally I'm one the side of both transparency and open debate and believe that our nation is stronger as a result of both, but grows weaker when they are not allowed.

In 2301 we spend sometime speculating about the meaning of the term "among" in the Declaration of Independence's unalienable rights clause ("among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"). Other rights exist. Might one be the right to information?

The Little Rock Nine

Fifty years ago today, Eisenhower sent federal troops to enforce a federal court order to desegregate Central High School.

In his words, the troops were to ensure that "the mob" did not succeed in thwarting the legal process.

Ironically, given the recent controversy surrounding the Jena 6 and the recent court decisions that some argue have effectively overturned Brown v Board, some wonder how far as a society we have progressed since 1957.

This is also the anniversary of the last day the Brooklyn Dodgers played in Brooklyn.

Monks Protest in Myanmar

Myanmar is on most lists of the world's most totalitarian, repressive governments. Their military leaders take a dim view of opposition in any form. They have been able to operate hidden from view over much of their history, but that may change.

Recent protests by monks have tested their ability to effectively clamp down dissent, both for the sheer size of the protest and because they have all been televised. Though the leadership may have few moral qualms about a broad attack on the monks, it could look bad.

Some have argued that the most effective tool for expanding individuals liberty has been mass communications, especially satellite television, and now the Internet. Little happens in secret anymore. Television coverage of the attacks on civil rights marchers in the 1960s helped build support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but this result isn't inevitable. The Rwanda massacres were fueled by radio propaganda, so the sword is double edged.

SCHIP, Ideology and the 2008 Elections

The current controversy over the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) provides us a good opportunity to clarify the nature of ideological conflict and the political gamesmanship that occurs prior to election season.

CHIP is designed to ensure that children whose families are too rich for welfare assistance, but too poor to afford private health insurance on their own can get it. It is a modest attempt to whittle down the large number of uninsured people in the United States, many of whom are children, by providing a subsidy for private insurance. The program is a block grant, which means that the states are given money by the federal government, which they can divide as they see fit.

But since it is funded by the federal government, and since it is set to expire at the end of September, it raises recently dormant questions about the proper relationship between the individual and the state, and does so within the context of a presidential election.

The typical conservative position begins with the idea that the individual should be free to enter into, or not enter into, any contract they choose. To impose a program on an individual is to minimize individual liberty. They would also hold that society should not be put in a position where they are forced to provide services for individuals, who they suspect may be able to provide them for themselves or their children, if they put their minds to it. This touches on the moral hazard argument that some used to argue against federal assistance for the hedge funds that invested too heavily in the sub-prime mortgage market. People should bear the responsibility for their choices. But even if assistance is justified, the conservative argues that the federal government is not the appropriate venue for providing it. Ideally the private sector should do so because they are more likely to do it efficiently. Governmental programs are famously leaky when it comes to transferring funds from one place to another. From a business perspective, this is attractive to conservatives also. Public spending can crowd out private opportunities.

The liberal would respond by stating that the lack of available health insurance is the fault of the free market, not the individual or government. There is no incentive for private insurers to protect the poor (no money in it), so government must provide it. It is part of the implicit social contract that binds citizens with the greater society and can allow individuals the space to develop their capabilities so they can then grow more self sufficient. To not do so would also invite social disruption which could undermine the stability necessary to maintain a healthy economy. They are less likely to buy into the idea that these programs can create dependency on the part of the beneficiaries, and also would point out that the program is in fact run by the states, though funded by the national government, so it is somewhat responsive to local interests. The true liberal however would have no problem with the federal government running the program because that would allow the program to not be affected by local prejudices which may seek to keep certain populations away from the health care that may allow them to rise in society.

The timing of the conflict is significant. It will expire at the end of the month unless reauthorized. Democrats see this as an opportunity to not only expand the program but do so in a way that commits presidential candidates for it or against it. The pundits predict that health care will be the dominant domestic political issue of 2008 and that CHIP is the first battle in the war over it's design.

President Bush sees this as a way to reestablish his conservative bonafides, and has threatened to veto any bill sent to him that does more than simply reauthorize the existing program as is. Democrats certainly hope that any Republican that votes with the president will position themselves in a difficult position, especially if the economy slips into recession.

Some find this cynical, but clarity on this issue gives voters the ability to impact policy since they can cast meaningful votes for or against candidates based on their positions.

Here are some useful links:
-Background from the Congressional Budget Office
-From the Texas Health and Human Services Commission
-Background from the Heritage Foundation
-Opposition from the Cato Institute
-LA Times predicts a Bush Veto
-Is there a religious obligation to provide health insurance?

The Power of 60

Three majority votes in the Senate failed this week because Democrats were unable to muster 60 votes in their favor. 60 allows for a cloture vote, which breaks a filibuster.

1- A proposal to lengthen home leaves failed even though it received a majority vote of 56 to 44.
(S A 2909)

2- A proposal to give DC a vote in Congress failed despite receiving a vote of 57 to 42. (S 1257)

3- A proposal to habeas corpus to those detained by the United States despite a vote of 56 to 43. (SA 2022)

No surprise really since the Senate, by design, has always been able to empower a minority to stop legislation. That's why it looks the way it does. If we tallied the populations represented by the senators we may well find that they represent the interest of an even smaller fraction of the population.

The votes demonstrate that president Bush still has the ability to rally his party behind him. If the population is firmly behind the Democrats, they will be able to use these votes as campaign items in 2008. That's why we have elections.

Here's my question: When Democrats were in the minority and used similar tactics, Republicans argued that they violated democratic principles and proposed a nuclear, or constitutional, option that would have eliminated filibusters. It's not a constitutional power after all. So why don't we hear the same from Democrats?

Regulate Me!

The Sunday New York Times had an odd story regarding the industries and their efforts to create, rather than dismantle, new federal regulations.

Businesses which had once seen their bottom line enhanced by fewer regulations now see four reasons why they now protect it.

1--they are now competing with products from foreign countries which are under priced because they do not meet the same health, safety and environmental standards.
2--doing so may protect them in liability lawsuits.
3--and it may allow them to avoid potentially tougher regulations by states.
4--they seem concerned that Democrats may soon expand their power and also pass tougher regulations.

The story contains a graphic highlighting 14 industries and the efforts within each. Here are a few:

Automobiles: The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers are pushing for increases in fuel efficiency

Cigarettes: The Altria Group is willing to allow the FDA to regulate tobacco products as drugs.

Fireworks: The American Fireworks Standards Laboratory wants mandatory testing to ensure that fireworks explode only as intended.

Mortgages: The Mortgage Bankers Association want to curtail predatory mortgage lending.

Toys: The Toy Industry Association wants to mandate tests on products before they go to market.

All are concessions, but are tuned to shifts in the political climate and public opinion. We should recall that the New Deal policies, as unpopular as they may have been to businesses, were argued to have helped save capitalism by saving it from its excesses. In addition, many regulatory agencies, like the Federal Communications Commission, were originally established by the request of the businesses they regulated.

What this tells us is that federal agencies can often work to the benefit of the regulated industries. This idea is the backbone of the concept of the iron triangle.

The Feds Cut Interests Rates

Monetary policy is in the news today. The Federal Reserve Board cut the federal funds rate and the discount rate today by large margins. Each by half a percentage point.

This was the first time the federal funds rate was cut in four years and the first time since Ben Bernanke became chair of the fed.

Both actions reduce the cost, to banks, of borrowing money, and in turn affect the amount that they then charge you and I in interest rates on credit cards, car loans and home mortgages.

Their actions are an attempt to infuse cash (liquidity) in to the economy following the collapse of the subprime mortgage business. It also provides an indication to the business community how the fed under Bernanke will act in the future when faced with financial issues. The rates had risen in small increments over the past four years, which indicated that the fed was worried about an overheated economy that could become inflationary. The chief concern right now is recession.

The markets do not like uncertainly. Once they figure out the behavior of a fed chairman (like Alan Greenspan) they tend to want to keep them in place so they know what to expect when they are called to make a decision. Chairman tend to hold on to their jobs for 10-15 years, which allows a degree of stability to the economy. Now they have their first indication about what Bernanke is inclined to do.

1--Give a clear statement regarding the fed's intent ("The tightening of credit conditions has the potential to intensify the housing correction and to restrain economic growth more generally. Today's action is intended to help forestall some of the adverse effects on the broader economy that might otherwise arise from the disruptions in financial markets and to promote moderate growth over time."
2--And make a significant change that will make it less likely that further changes are necessary.

Both are different than the activities of his predecessor who was famously cryptic in his statements and gradual in his rate cuts or increases.

When we cover the fed and economic policymaking in the last section of 2302, I try to point out that an advantage of monetary policy as a macroeconomic instrument is that it allows for quick response to changing economic circumstances. The fed already has statutory authority to raise and lower rates and so we don't have to worry about the politics associated with congressional action.

A Dollar Auction

I've never heard of this before, but it ranks up there with the prisoner's dilemma. It helps explain how bad decisions can be compounded.

Crusader Watch

While scrolling through other sites related to the Islamic State of Iraq I stumbled across Crusader Watch, which seems to be an Al Qaeda friendly blog. It'll worth a look from time to time.

Of course I'm sure this'll put me on some NSA watch list, but I'll blame my students. They put me up to this.

Want to Make a Quick $100,000?

Kill two Swedes responsible for a cartoon dubbed offensive to Islam (the prophet Mohammad is depicted as a dog). Al Qaeda in Iraq made the offer and is willing to toss in an additional $50,000 if their throats are cut.

Though we have press protections in the United States, its worth pondering what some Christians might do if a similarly offensive cartoon was published here and whether a court might rule that they were provoked by the cartoon to do whatever they did.

And if Christians don't respond violently, why might that be the case? Recent events have led to discussions of cultural differences between the Christian and Muslim world. Might that help explain this?

Discuss.

By the way, the news story states that the bounty was actually issued by the Islamic State in Iraq. I'm obviously behind the curve on this since they claim to have been in existence for over a year, but it seems to me that we now have a real conflict between two groups each seeking legitimate control over a territory and its inhabitants.

Review for 2302 Test One

2302 students, know these topics for test one:

Three functions of Congress
representation
policymaking
oversight
magna carta
design of Congress in the Articles of Confederation
design of Congress in the Constitution
how is the Texas Legislature different than the U.S. Constitution?
what are the constitutional offices established in the U.S. Constitution?
disputes over representation in convention
why Congress is bicameral
design differences between house and senate
delegates
trustees
identify representatives and senators
bill making process
what is a committee?
what does a committee do?
types of committees
what is a committee chair?
differences between committees in the U.S. and Texas.
subcommittees
committees important to local reps
earmarks
the pork barrel
log rolling
parties in Congress
development
party organizations
party officials
floor leaders
whips
role of parties in Congress
unified government
divided government
who holds the following positions:
-speaker
-president of the senate
-house and senate majority and minority leader
-house and senate majority and minority whips
party line voting
how party leaders maintain cohesion
what drives the behavior of members of Congress
Gerrymandering-benign -racial
incumbency advantage
re-election rates
Baker v. Carr
term limits: pros and cons

Review for 2301 Test One

For my 2301 classes, please be prepared to answer questions abotu the following subjects.

I'll have topics for 2302 posted soon.

defintion of government
definition of politics
definition of democracy
components of government
governing institutions
purpose of separated powers
means of separating powers
definition of tyranny
definition of autocracy
definition of oligarchy
definition of democracy
advantages and disadvantages of the three above
how each is incorporated into the American governmental system
the decentralized American system
the relationship between the individual and the state
justifications for government in the Dec of Ind and the Preamble of the Constitution
consent and coercion
divine right of kings
Magna Carta
Thomas Hobbes
John Locke
Natural Rights
extent of political participation
political institutions
first amendment protections
political values
political ideology
equality and freedom
define liberalism
define conservatism
define libertarianism
define populism
define socialism
current issue – liberal v. conservative position
self interest
interest and the design of the American governing system
three components of democracy
tyranny of the majority
minority rights in a democracy
direct democracy
indirect democracy
republic
referenda
initiative
recall
England’s colonization of the New World
Henry 8th
Jamestown
Plymought Colony
reasons for independent thinking among colonists
equality in the colonies
status of colonists as British citizens
representation
The French and Indians Wars
reasons why Britain began to increase presence in colonies
The Albany Plan
The Stamp Act
three groups in colonial society
needs of merchants
significance of Boston Massacre
significance of Boston Tea Party
role of Second Continental Congress
outline of Declaration of Independence
outline of Articles of Confederation
Federalist opposition to the Articles
Annapolis Convention
role of George Washington
state suspicion of Constitutional Convention
Manifest Destiny and the settlement of Texas
Jacksonian Democracy
Reconstruction
E.J.Davis

Attention Monday and Wednesday Government Classes

This coming Monday the 17th is Constitution Day and we are going to have an event in the Texas Room from 11am to noon involving representatives from the city, county, state and national government addresssing how the Constitution structures how illegal immigration is handled in this country.

I've suddenly realized that the event will take the bulk of Monday, so we wont have time to adequately prepare for the test on Wednesday. So I'm postponing it until Monday the 24th, but I am not postponing the first written assignment. That will still be due on Wednesday. Wednesday we will wrap up the lectures for section one.

Please note: I am not postponing the test for the Tuesday Thursday class. That test will still be next Thursday.

What is a Life Worth?

This New York Times article touches on a difficult topic.

Though we like to think of life as priceless, they have prices just like most other things. Survivors of otherwise healthy breadwinners bear measurable losses when they die suddenly, and if the death is due to an act committed by another, then a reasonable guess can be made as to what the exact loss is likely to be. The price of the life can also help policymakers determine whether the costs of particular programs are justifiable based on the price of the lives they will save.

Detailing the Supreme Court's Shift to the Right

Our coverage of both the Supreme Court and civil rights and liberties involves some analysis of the shifting ideology of the justices themselves. Though I think I do an OK job of it, this is much better.

I'm Just a Bill

Thanks to Kimberly for sending along this link to an old favorite.

You should check out the takeoff from The Simpsons. Scroll to 2:50 and enjoy.

Bin Laden's Grand Purpose

Anne Applebaum outlines a possible rational for Bin Laden's videotapes and why he spends so much time touching on issues that seem to have no relevance to radical Islam (the like the subprime mortgage crisis).

He wants to recruit disaffected youth, even those in the United States, to his cause.

This seems to me to be an issue of consent. A democratic government rests on the consent of the governed, so perhaps he wants to persuade just enough people to not consent to the laws--to see government as illegitimate-- to upend the governing system.

How does a society fight against this? Touching on some of the subject matter of the opening lectures, is this why Texas wants you to take two government classes?

About Those Written Assignments

As is usually the case, I'm getting some feedback on how difficult it is to read the Federalist and Anti Federalist Papers. They can get a bit dense for me too, but perseverance helps. If it takes several readings then do it.

Part of the reason they are difficult to read is because of the language used in the late 1780s, but also because their argument are carefully crafted and lengthy. Our inability to reason as well as the founding generation is troublesome to many who are concerned about our ability to maintain the balanced constitutional order.

Here's a bit of help. Recall that you are to compare the arguments made in the Federalist Paper and the related Anti-Federalist Paper. 500 word minimum, opinions don't count. Tell me what they said.

2301-01 and TBA: Fed and AntiFed #1

2302-01: Fed and AntiFed #55

2301-03: Fed and AntiFed #4

2302-03: Fed and AntiFed #56

Recall that these are arguments for and against the ratification of the Constitution. Each deals with a specific issue associated with the Constitution.

1: Publius outlines the goal of the papers, the importance of the Union, and suggest why others might oppose the Union--because it compromises their positions of power. He predicts that their opposition will be based on passion, not reason. "A Federalist" responds that the purposes of the Constitution is to benefit the aristocratic classes and will oppress the general population.

55: Both papers concern how many people ought to be in the House of Representatives in order to ensure that it will in fact be a representative body, and not one that merely poses as one. Publius argues that the House will be a true representative body while the Federal Farmer suspects that it will likely allow for the creation of small factions that will represent the interests of concentrated elites, not the general population.

4: Publius states that the security of the country is best provided for by a union than a confederacy. A weak nation would invite other nations to attack it. Patrick Henry argues that this is merely a scare tactic designed to frighten people into supporting the Constitution. He challenges the idea that there is reason to fear other countries.

56: Publius argues against the suggestion that there Will not be enough people in the House of Representatives to adequately represent the full interests that exist in the country. He states that the federal system provides a remedy for the. The Federal Farmer points out that effective representation in England has led to an expansion of individual rights there over time while these rights tend to be minimized elsewhere.

I hope this helps you start. It's really not that difficult if you focus, really.

[And remember that these are due the date of the test next week. That's either Wednesday or Thursday. Please remember also that your syllabus is your friend. It doesn't have the answers to all life's questions, just those pertaining to this class.]

Executive Power and the Protect America Act

The criticism of expanded executive power continues:

Tim Roemer, an ex Congressman from Indiana and member of the 9/11 Commission, writes today to criticize Congress' willingness to kowtow to presidential power in the Protect America Act, which it passed in August, and revised the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Rather than criticize the actual expanse of power however, Roemer seems to be most concerned that it has been done without similar increases in the power of the other two branches to oversee executive actions and hold presidents accountable.

He bases his argument on the framer's efforts to ensure that power remains balanced. My 2301's and 2302's should recall that balanced, separated power was argued to be the best way to both provide for individual liberty and ensure that a home grown tyranny would not evolve over time.

According to the law, judges will no longer have oversight authority over the executive's intelligence gathering, only other executive officials will have that power and will not have the incentive to do so. Intelligence will also be focused more on domestic targets, which creates opportunities for abuse--something that presidents have not been shy about doing in the past and are capable of doing again.

His article also provides a great overview of the thicket of agencies involved in this policy.

On Oversight and War

Once Democrats took over Congress in 2006, analysts began debating the extent of congressional war powers. All the Constitution does is define briefly roles that each branch plays, but says nothing about how conflict is to be mediated.

Here's the latest contribution from Foreign Affairs.

Jack Goldsmith

Another ex-member of the Bush Administration has written a book that critically appraises it. Jack Goldsmith was head of the Office of Legal Counsel for a brief period of time in 2004 and describes his experience in "The Terror Presidency."

unitary executiveThe Office of Legal Counsel is designed to provide legal advice to the Attorney General and the President. Past occupants have included three members of the Supreme Court. In his book he outlines the conflicts he had with other in the administration over the nature of executive power, notably David Addington, Cheney's Chief of Staff.

Ironically, Goldsmith suggests that Bush's decision to not go to Congress to for approval to wiretap without warrants, among other things, though based on the idea that executive power is expansive enough to not require congressional approval may actually undermine executive power by spearheading opposition to it.

Here is a New York Times profile of Goldsmith.

Here is a video of a conversation with Dahlia Lithwick.

Jeff Skilling Wants a New Trial

And I would too if I were in his shoes, but he has some work to do.

An appeal must be based on procedural errors in the case. The Wall Street Journal states that he is claiming the following:

1-The fraud theory that the government based its case on was flawed.
2-The judges instructions to the jury were contained errors.
3-The judge was wrong to not moe the trial outside Houston since the jury pool was tainted.
4-The voir dire process was flawed and Skillings lawyers were unable to identify jurors who could not put aside their biases.

The appeal has been sent to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Perhaps a decision will be made by the time my 2302's cover the judiciary.

Health Care for the 21st Century

In Friday's New York Times, David Brooks discusses briefly the history of health care and what shifts we may see in the future. He talks about it in terms of a social contract, the explicit or implicit agreement between a government and its citizens about what each will provide the other.

He and others argue that health care will turn into the most important domestic issue for the upcoming election. The existing social contract, the one established during the New Deal and relies on employer based programs, no longer works, and must be replaced with one more in tune with how people work and live.

There are three problems he cites in the existing program: (1) the number of people insured keeps dropping, (2) rising health costs are placing increased costs on employers, (3) the fact that health care is provided by employers ties employees to their jobs and makes it less likely that they have incentives to look for better work.

He points out that the United States has vacillated between a laissez faire system in the 19th century where individuals were completely on their own, to a centralized bureaucratic system that can be traced to the New Deal.

Brooks points to recent work by Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation who has proposed policies that provides guarantees that people who contribute to society will be protected in the event that they suffer catastrophic health setbacks, but does so in a manner that ties in the range of social institutions which already exist in America. Butler, by the way, is the guy who thought up Free Enterprise Zones years ago. so he has a bit of a history as policy entrepreneur.

Congress Addresses Student Loans

The House and Senate passed legislation (the conference report) affecting student loans on Friday September 7th. It is now in the hands of President Bush, who has said he will sign it despite some misgivings.

It is called the College Cost Reduction Act (H.R. 2669). Here is a summary from the National Association of Student Aid Administrators.

Here is a statement from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and one from Education Secretary Margaret Spellings.

The legislation is an attempt to address the increased costs of college, and the increasing tendency for college education to be funded through loans rather than grants, which was the case until about twenty years ago. The bill attempts to increase the amount of funds given to students for grants, and lower the interest rates charged to students.

For 2301, this issue provides a great opportunity to look at both ideology and the role elections play in public policy making. Liberals and conservatives have clearly defined positions on this subject.

The liberals, this fits in their egalitarian agenda plus their belief that certain programs are best served by government, not private industry. The grants are to be funded by a reduction in the amount of subsidies given to private lenders. Conservatives would oppose this effort since they base their ideology on the efficiencies of the private sector.

Ideology aside, we have an election underway and no presidential candidate--maybe I should say no presidential candidate that wants to win--wants to be seen as being against college education. This may make it difficult for Republicans to vote against it or for President Bush--who would still like to be seen as supportive of education--to veto it. I could be surprised though.

For 2302, this bill provides an insight into how the congressional bill making process works right now.

It also shows how the relationship between the legislative and executive branches vary depending on whether one part controls both (unified government) , or each is controlled by a different party (divided government). Chances are that this bill may not have made much headway if Republicans were still in charge of Congress. The bill's author, George Miller, is now chair of the House Education and Labor Committee and almost certainly used his position to push this forward.

Florida and the future of the Party Convention

The national Democratic Party is up in arms about Florida's proposal to push up its primary to January 29. The tradition is for Iowa to have the first caucus and New Hampshire the first primary, but many have long held that neither state reflects the diversity of the nation and other states feel that they are given short shrift on influencing elections. The party may refuse to recognize delegates selected in the earlier primary, but some Floridians seem not to care. At least one commentator has suggested that if party leaders misplay their hand, they may spell the end of the party convention. Not that anyone would miss them.

Richard Jewell is Dead

Often when we cover civil liberties and the media, and veer off into the First Amendment's restrictions on press freedoms, we discuss the case of Richard Jewell, who died last week of a heart attack.

Jewell seemed to be proof of the adage that no good deed goes unpunished. He was a security guard who spotted a suspicious package against a stage during the Olympics in Atlanta and began moving people away until it exploded. He has since been credited with saving the lives of many who were standing by the package. After a brief moment when he was considered a hero, the story shifted and he was suspected of having planted the bomb in order to orchestrate his fifteen minutes on the spotlight.

The FBI began to investigate him publicly, which led to media attention that portrayed him negatively. On NBC Tom Brokaw stated: "The speculation is that the FBI is close to making the case. They probably have enough to arrest him right now, probably enough to prosecute him, but you always want to have enough to convict him as well. There are still some holes in this case". Though he was cleared of any suspicion officially, his reputation was tarnished.

Which raises issue of libel. Jewell sued several news sources for their actions, but it was worth considering whether he was in fact libeled based on its legal definition.

As a simple matter, libel refers to the defamation--in a fixed medium, like a newspaper or TV report--of an individual's character based on false information. This is nice and tidy, but often the public has a compelling interest in knowing about suspicions of wrong doing on the part of public officials, that is people who habitually are in the media because they are elected officials or somehow choose to be there (think about Angelina Jolie, now stop).

In this section of class we tend to spend time on the case of Sullivan v. the New York Times. The case involved whether a full page ad taken out in the New York Times, which was critical of the actions of the Montgomery Police Department defamed the city commissioner--L.B. Sullivan, and whether he then had the right to sue. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that since
Sullivan was a public person, and that punishment for criticizing him would put a chilling effect on the debate about the nature of persons such as Sullivan, statements that would not be allowed were they directed towards private persons are protected if directed towards public persons, unless it could be proved that there was actual malice involved in the publication of the story, or a reckless disregard for the truth.

This applies to Jewell's case because soon after the original incident, he granted interviews, and thereby became a public person. He was not an elected official, but someone that would be of interest to the community.

The lawsuits he filed against NBC, the Atlanta Constitution and others were settled out of court, so we will never know whether he in fact was a public person, as understood by the Supreme Court. If so, the media outlets would not have had to pay him a thing, since they were simply building off allegations made by the FBI. They were nervous enough about the outcome to strike deals with him. Sadly, most of his settlement went to the lawyers who represented him.

I'm not sure if he ever received an apology from Jay Leno. I can't imagine that it would be much fun to be called the unadoofus before a national audience.

The Eighteen Benchmaks

Since we will soon be discussing reports on whether the Iraqi Government has met the eighteen benchmarks set out for it earlier this year, it might be useful to post exactly what they are. Here goes:

(i) Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review.

(ii) Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Baathification.

(iii) Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.

(iv) Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.

(v) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.

(vi) Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty.

(vii) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the Constitution of Iraq.

(viii) Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan.

(ix) Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.

(x) Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions, in consultation with U.S commanders, without political intervention, to include the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.

(xi) Ensuring that the Iraqi Security Forces are providing even handed enforcement of the law.

(xii) Ensuring that, according to President Bush, Prime Minister Maliki said `the Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation'.

(xiii) Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.

(xiv) Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.

(xv) Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces units capable of operating independently.

(xvi) Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.

(xvii) Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.

(xviii) Ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

All are focused on the actions of the Iraqis themselves.

Gun Rights in DC

Here's the expected follow up to a story we highlighted in the spring (see Test Case) involving a court challenge to the constitutionality of Washington DC's gun control laws.

The city's laws were found unconstitutional by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and I predicted, a very easy prediction, that the city would appeal to the Supreme Court and that the appeal would be acepted. Now comes word that that's the case. The Supreme Court rarely rules on Second Amendment cases and has never actually clarified what the language actually means.

Here it is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Debate has always centered on whether the right to bear arms depends on the need for a well regulated militia. If there is no militia, meaning no need for the population to have arms that they can bring to a battle when called to respond to a threat, then there may be no right to bear arms. Since we have a standing, we have no militia, so no gun rights.

Unless the Supreme Court inferes that the Second Amendment actually is a personal right that exists whether or not militias are used.

Here's a link to the writ of certiorari (request for review) sent to the court by DC.

More to come, thsi is going to be good.

Who Needs Debates When You Have Jay Leno?

I'm not sure that this is a good idea.

The Republican presidential candidates are having a debate and Fred Thompson is not only avoiding it, he's announcing his candidacy that same night on the Jay Leno show and launching his official web site later that night. It worked for Ahnold.

Is he beign arrogant? And if so, is this likely to hurt him in the long run? Assuming he is going to be the Republican nominee, he will only win the general election if the others are willing to rally their supporters behind him. If he ticks them off enough, they may pull their support, secretly hope for Hillary win the election, and run against her in 2012.

The use of talk shows as campaign tools is worth a look.

The Surge Report

Apparently a few different reports are going to float around statign whether the surge is working. Here is the latest report by the Government Accountability Office. The title is pretty plain: "Iraqi Government has Not Met Most Legislative, Security and Economic Benchmarks."

To Sting or not to Sting

The arrest of Larry Craig highlights the police powers of the state, that is the right to protect the health, safety, morals and welfare of the citizens.

For the bulk of American history this has been a function of the state and--primarily--local governments. It is something that many people approve of since it keep citizens in line with what the majority think is proper, but also controversial since majoritarian prejudices can enter into decisions regarding what police powers are focused upon. It can be the means by which unpopular groups can be kept out of the mainstream.

This is especially true for morality issues, particularly those that involve activity in public spaces. Which brings us to Senator Craig.

Apparently, due to a history of "activity" in a particular Minnesota airport restroom, police placed an undercover officer in the restroom as a lure to would be, let's say, partners. According to the police report (plus the audio), the Senator gave every indication that he was available, and was arrested. His guilty plea was intended to keep the story suppressed, which was obviously a poor decision.

Now he is waffling on a possible resignation, and the Republican Party is weighing its options.

This story has so many angles it's tough to pin them all down, but I'll try my best to link to the various stories that highlight them.

1--He just can't admit that he is gay.
2--Overturning a guilty plea is not easy to do.
3--He may be protected from arrest due to Article One, Section 6 of the Constitution.
4--How did the story go unnoticed for two months?
5--Don't cops have something better to do?
6--Republicans are hypocrites on moral values.
7--The police are out of control.
8--This is why "don't ask don't tell" does not work in the military.

And it goes on and on. Things got even better when the Senator left a voice mail message on what he thought was his lawyer's phone, telling him he was about to announce his "intention" to resign, and that he was to start to aggressively defend him through the media. A great example of how politics really works.

Congress Back in Session

After taking August off, the U.S. Congress is back in session.

Media reports suggest that Democrats are going to attempt to make up for lost time by focusing on an agenda designed to confront the President Bush. Also looming in the future are the 2008 election. More than a few candidates are also members of the House or Senate. Look for their activities to be closely connected to their campaigns.

Immediately on the agenda are:

- The report on the effect of the surge in Iraq
- The replacement of Alberto Gonzales
- The expansion of Children's Health Insurance
- Investigations into the subprime lending market
- Increases in minimal levels of gasoline mileage

Click here for an overvie by U.S. News and World Report, The Boston Globe, and the Associated Press.

Mike O'Day Either Resigns or will not Seek Re-Election

This is a bit cryptic.

Mike O'Day, Our Texas House Rep, who won last year's special election to replace Glenda Dawson, will not return to office next year, but it is debatable whether he is resigning or simply not running again. (try make sense of the following stories here and here). Mostly the blogs just post links to each other.

Another question is why? One report points to his health, he had a heart attack early in the session. Another is related to an odd note in Paul Burka's Blog (Texas Monthly) regarding "ungentlemanly behavior."

The rumors are flying, but nothing is substantive.

Time Marches On

Each year Beloit College releases a depressing document called the Mindset List. It is meant to help their faculty come to terms with incoming freshman. It will also prove useful for my 2302 classes when we discuss public opinion and the concept of "generational politics."

Many of you do not fit this demographic, but those of you who graduated high school last May were born in 1989 meaning that:

"They have been latchkey kids for most of their lives, students entering college this fall think nothing of arriving home with parents still at work, then e-mailing or texting their friends, instantly updating their autobiographies on "Facebook" or "MySpace," and listening to their iPods while doing their research on Wikipedia. They've grown up with Rush Limbaugh urging his fellow Dittoheads to excoriate liberals, with having been taught by an equal number of women and men in the classroom, and with women having been hired as police chiefs of major cities.

Food has always been a health concern. Consumer awareness about ingredients and fats has always been energized. They've never "rolled down" a car window, and to them Jack Nicholson is mainly known as the guy who played "The Joker."

As usual, they remind their elders how quickly time has passed. For them Pete Rose has never been in baseball. Abbie Hoffman's always been dead. Johnny Carson has never been live on TV, and Nelson Mandela has always been free.

As for the Berlin Wall, what's that?

Most of the students entering College this fall, members of the Class of 2011, were born in 1989. For them, Alvin Ailey, Andrei Sakharov, Huey Newton, Emperor Hirohito, Ted Bundy, Abbie Hoffman, and Don the Beachcomber have always been dead.


1. What Berlin wall?
2. Humvees, minus the artillery, have always been available to the public.
3. Rush Limbaugh and the "Dittoheads" have always been lambasting liberals.
4. They never "rolled down" a car window.
5. Michael Moore has always been angry and funny.
6. They may confuse the Keating Five with a rock group.
7. They have grown up with bottled water.
8. General Motors has always been working on an electric car.
9. Nelson Mandela has always been free and a force in South Africa.
10. Pete Rose has never played baseball.
11. Rap music has always been mainstream.
12. Religious leaders have always been telling politicians what to do, or else!
13. "Off the hook" has never had anything to do with a telephone.
14. Music has always been "unplugged."
15. Russia has always had a multi-party political system.
16. Women have always been police chiefs in major cities.
17. They were born the year Harvard Law Review Editor Barack Obama announced he might run for office some day.
18. The NBA season has always gone on and on and on and on.
19. Classmates could include Michelle Wie, Jordin Sparks, and Bart Simpson.
20. Half of them may have been members of the Baby-sitters Club.
21. Eastern Airlines has never "earned their wings" in their lifetime.
22. No one has ever been able to sit down comfortably to a meal of "liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti."
23. Wal-Mart has always been a larger retailer than Sears and has always employed more workers than GM.
24. Being "lame" has to do with being dumb or inarticulate, not disabled.
25. Wolf Blitzer has always been serving up the news on CNN.
26. Katie Couric has always had screen cred.
27. Al Gore has always been running for president or thinking about it.
28. They never found a prize in a Coca-Cola "MagiCan."
29. They were too young to understand Judas Priest's subliminal messages.
30. When all else fails, the Prozac defense has always been a possibility.
31. Multigrain chips have always provided healthful junk food.
32. They grew up in Wayne's World.
33. U2 has always been more than a spy plane.
34. They were introduced to Jack Nicholson as "The Joker."
35. Stadiums, rock tours and sporting events have always had corporate names.
36. American rock groups have always appeared in Moscow.
37. Commercial product placements have been the norm in films and on TV.
38. On Parents' Day on campus, their folks could be mixing it up with Lisa Bonet and Lenny Kravitz with daughter Zöe, or Kathie Lee and Frank Gifford with son Cody.
39. Fox has always been a major network.
40. They drove their parents crazy with the Beavis and Butt-head laugh.
41. The "Blue Man Group" has always been everywhere.
42. Women's studies majors have always been offered on campus.
43. Being a latchkey kid has never been a big deal.
44. Thanks to MySpace and Facebook, autobiography can happen in real time.
45. They learned about JFK from Oliver Stone and Malcolm X from Spike Lee.
46. Most phone calls have never been private.
47. High definition television has always been available.
48. Microbreweries have always been ubiquitous.
49. Virtual reality has always been available when the real thing failed.
50. Smoking has never been allowed in public spaces in France.
51. China has always been more interested in making money than in reeducation.
52. Time has always worked with Warner.
53. Tiananmen Square is a 2008 Olympics venue, not the scene of a massacre.
54. The purchase of ivory has always been banned.
55. MTV has never featured music videos.
56. The space program has never really caught their attention except in disasters.
57. Jerry Springer has always been lowering the level of discourse on TV.
58. They get much more information from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert than from the newspaper.
59. They're always texting 1 n other.
60. They will encounter roughly equal numbers of female and male professors in the classroom.
61. They never saw Johnny Carson live on television.
62. They have no idea who Rusty Jones was or why he said "goodbye to rusty cars."
63. Avatars have nothing to do with Hindu deities.
64. Chavez has nothing to do with iceberg lettuce and everything to do with oil.
65. Illinois has been trying to ban smoking since the year they were born.
66. The World Wide Web has been an online tool since they were born.
67. Chronic fatigue syndrome has always been debilitating and controversial.
68. Burma has always been Myanmar.
69 Dilbert has always been ridiculing cubicle culture.
70. Food packaging has always included nutritional labeling.

The Bush Speechwriters

Access to this article requires a subscription to The Atlantic, but it's well worth it (the ACC library probably has a copy).

It's called "Present at the Creation" and is written by a pretty ticked off Matthew Scully, who was a speech writer for both Governor and President Bush until just before his re-election. It's primary purpose is to challenge the claims of one of his fellow speech writers, Michael Gerson, who he says has falsely claimed to have single handedly written most of the Bush's most famous speeches and to have come up with some of the most noteworthy phrases in those speeches (like "axis of evil").

Gerson has since parlayed his position in the Bush administration into a lucrative career as an op-ed writer for the Washington Post. Scully is pretty brutal. He accuses Gerson of deliberate dishonesty. But aside from taking licks at Gerson, Scully also provides a great overview of the process they used to create Bush's speeches. It's a great inside look at how political rhetoric is shaped.

The Gonzales Resignation

The resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales raises a few issues central to both 2301 and 2302. (Here's a reasonable outline of his resignation and the circumstances that led to it.)

The key issues for 2301 are constitutional. The Constitution does not mention the position of attorney general, nor any specific department or office. It simply states that "he [the President] may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices." Nothing is said about how these departments are created, and who they are ultimately responsible to.

The Attorney General was originally established in 1789 in the Judiciary Act and gave advice to both Congress and the President. Gradually the office focused primarily on serving the executive only. As the national government became more involved in law enforcement the Department of Justice was established in 1870, by an act of Congress, and provided a staff that facilitated more activity--specifically more opportunity for the Executive to take action without consulting Congress.

This has led to a tug of war over the control over the Attorney General, and questions about to whom or what the office is ultimately allegiant to.

The fact that the office is in the executive branch, plus the fact that Article II of the Constitution
begins by stating that "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America" has been taken by supporters of the unitary executive to mean that all executive officials are responsible only to the president (opponents of the theory argue that it invites tyranny). The Attorney General is only responsible to the President.

Supporters of congressional power differ and state that this is a violation of the separation of powers. They argue that since Congress established the executive departments, and is responsible for funding them, they have oversight authority over them. The Attorney General is also responsible to Congress. This issue was in the background during Gonzales' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee this year. The Senate was working from the assumption that Gonzales was there because the committee had the power to subpoena him, Gonzales never conceded this, rather he let it be known that he was there because the President allowed him to go. To admit that he could be compelled to testify over the objections of the President would have been to admit that Congress had power over the office.

A separate take holds that the Attorney General, and all who work in the Justice Department, is responsible to the Constitution and to the rule of law. If the activities of the President--or Congress--go beyond what is acceptable by law they should resign. This issue came up during the Watergate scandal some Justice Department officials chose to resign rather than follow some of President Nixon's orders.

A interesting series of questions during the recent testimony of a Justice Department official illustrates this dispute. As an aside she mentioned that she took her oath to the President when she took her job, she was corrected by a Senator who reminded her that her oath was actually to the Constitution, not the President.

This touches on another 2301 related topic, the political parties. The Constitution says nothing about parties, but they evolved quickly because they help get people elected and bills passed. The best way to get people involved in parties is to convince them that they'll get something in return for their time and trouble. Doing so often involves staffing executive agencies with partisans. There is nothing new in this, but critics argue that the Bush Administration took it to a new level by using partisanship as a determining factor in who was appointed a U.S attorney as well as which existing attorneys were fired.

These critics wonder whether Gonzales saw himself primarily as a law enforcement officer or a partisan. They point to the fact that attorneys who were hard on Republicans, or soft on Democrats, were fired and that they encouraged aggressive investigations of Democratic candidates prior to the 2006 elections. These actions have led to a large number of resignations from the department.

The fighting between Congress and the President is also relevant to 2302, as is the relationship between the bureaucracy and the White House.

Commentators have pointed out that the Bush Administration has, with few exceptions, been composed of a high number of loyalists. This isn't always the case with presidential administrations since appointees often have to be confirmed by the Senate, which can filter out loyalists in favor of people with more attachment to the mission of the department than the political needs of the White House. Loyalists tend to end up as policy advisers, or other aides in the White House staff, not departmental secretaries.

Members of the White House staff are unquestionably bound to the president. Their job is to make the president look good. Departmental secretaries walk the line between what the president wants and what the mission of the department requires. This involves working with the civil servants who generally know more about their specific policy arena than the president, or even the newly appointed secretary does. Controlling an obstinate bureaucracy is an ongoing struggle for presidents.

When Bush was reelected to a second term, many of his cabinet secretaries resigned and were replaced with members of the White House staff. Gonzales was one--Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was another. He had been a the president's legal adviser, now he was the country's.

Critics argue that Gonzales never appreciated this shift and continued to act as the president's personal lawyer despite his change in position. If so, it could be argues that the president made a strategically appropriate choice in ensuring that he would get an Attorney General that would do his bidding when asked.

A perfect example of this was the story about John Ashcroft's (Bush's first Attorney General) refusal to allow warrant-less wiretapping to go forward since he believed it would violate the Constitution. Gonzales had no such reservations.

Many of the investigations that Democrats (and select Republicans) have been pursuing have been intended to ensure that a proper relationship between the legislative and executive branches would be retained. The question now is whether Gonzales' resignation will stifle this effort.

We'll follow this as long as necessary to find out.