Truman's Pardon of the Duke of Duvall County

Another post from Grits for Breakfast. Archie Parr was a party boss in South Texas and key to Lyndon Johnson's electoral success.

And a great blog I'm adding to the Executive Links: Pardon Power.

Should we Elected District Attorneys?

Here's an argument that we shouldn't:

There are some things we shouldn't put to a vote. The majority can't vote to enslave a minority, or to confer fewer rights on some groups than others. The power to imprison is one of the more awesome powers we grant the government, and democracy is too crude an instrument to protect our rights in the face of that power.

But even here, the alternative isn't optimal. Voters are too easily manipulated by crime fearmongering and tend to reward, not punish, overly aggressive prosecutors, as well as punish judges who show the slightest hint of balance, mercy, or a better-than-narrow view of due process. But I've also written in the past about how rarely prosecutors are punished by courts, the state bar, or the state attorney general for even egregious violations, even in cases that result in wrongful conviction. Given what we already know about accountability in civil service jobs—that is, that there's very little of it—I don't know that there's any reason to think it would be much different for prosecutors. Still, making DAs civil servants would least insulate them from the need to justify their job to voters by racking up convictions, which in turn might eventually attract more people to the position whose concept of justice is a bit more nuanced than filling up the prisons with bad guys.
Another perfect example of the conflict between democracy and individual liberty. What about this idea? Should due process be subject to majoritarian control?

Texas Sunset Advisory Commission 2011

Every several years, the Texas Legislature reviews the performance of state agencies to determine if they should be maintained. Here's a link to the legislative agency in charge, and agencies under review this year.

*Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Coastal Coordination Council
*Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)
Electronic Government Program Management Office of the Department of Information Resources
Emergency Communications, Commission on State
Environmental Quality, Texas Commission on
*Equine Research Account Advisory Committee
Forest Service, Texas
Hearing Instruments, State Committee of Examiners in the Fitting and Dispensing of
Housing and Community Affairs, Texas Department of
*Housing Corporation, Texas State Affordable
Information Resources, Department of
Injured Employee Counsel, Office of
*Insurance Counsel, Office of Public
*Insurance, Texas Department of
*Juvenile Probation Commission, Texas
On-site Wastewater Treatment Research Council
Public Finance Authority, Texas
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Public Utility Counsel, Office of
*Racing Commission, Texas
Railroad Commission of Texas
Soil and Water Conservation Board, State
Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, State Board of Examiners for
*Transportation, Texas Department of
Water Development Board, Texas
Workers' Compensation, Texas Department of Insurance Division of
*Youth Commission, Texas

*Subject to a focused, limited scope, or special purpose review

- Wikipedia: Sunset Advisory Commission.

How Party Identifiers See the World

Apparently its not government party identifiers fear, but who controls it.

From the Gallup Poll: (via The Monkey Cage)

So party identifiers see government as an "immediate threat to citizens," what ever that means, when the other party is in power. Is this rational? Again, since I've posted on this several times, this might underscore Washington's warnings about political parties being an unnecessary source of contention in society.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Revising our Attitudes about Habeas Corpus

Grits for Breakfast points out a provocative book that might revise the way we understand the evolution of the writ of habeas corpus and what it means constitutionally.

Here's a scholarly review.

From Grits: Halliday argues provocatively that “what constituted liberties was the result rather than the starting point of judicial decision-making,” and that the British Parliament's role was mainly to limit habeas authority rather than establish it.

Ironically, despite Justice Stevens' claim that the status of the "Great Writ" in 1789 provides the floor for its authority, Vladek says "perhaps the most radical way in which American practice has diverged from England’s has been the evisceration ... of the common law as a basis for habeas jurisdiction." Justice John Marshall in 1807 was the first to withdraw habeas authority from its more robust and wide-ranging common law roots to insist that “the power to award the writ by any of the courts of the United States, must be given by written law.” Writes Vladek, "In other words, the Article III federal courts—including the Supreme Court—were powerless to issue common-law writs of habeas corpus, and could only act pursuant to express statutory jurisdiction." The reviewer concludes that "Whether he misunderstood English history or misrepresented it, Marshall thereby perpetuated critically incorrect assumptions about the scope of common-law habeas corpus at the Founding."

I'll be honest, I can't completely follow what's going on here, but it seems that John Marshall may have misunderstood the proper basis of habeas corpus and our subsequent interpretation of habeas corpus has in turn been wrong.

Coverture

I just ran across a story with the following link to a definition of "coverture."

. . .in most nations. The state or condition of a married woman. During coverture, the being of the wife is civilly merged, for many purposes, into that of her husband; she can, therefore, in general, make no contracts without his consent, express or implied. To this rule there are some exceptions: she may contract when it is for her benefit, such as to save her from starvation. In some cases, when coercion has been used by the husband to induce her to commit crime, she is exempted from punishment.
In 2301 we will cover civil rights in a month or so. This fits with our overview of gender discrimination.

On that note, I heard an interesting related story regarding the founding of Houston. The conventional story is that the Allen Brothers founded the city. The revised version is that is was actually done by their mother, she came up with the idea of a port city on the gulf and had the money to do it, but law did not allow her to sign contracts. Only her sons could. That's why they did it.

- Wikipedia: Coverture.

Campaigns v. Facts: How Do People Learn About Politics and Government?

A student sent me the following commentary touching on inaccuracies in the current campaign regarding the bank bailout (it was signed by President Bush, not President Obama) and other topical items. It has a political slant, but it may hold the answer to a question we will cover in 2301: Why are so many people ignorant about basic facts about government and politics?

Could it be that most people learn what they know about politics through political advertising? Makes my job tougher. Campaigns are oriented towards winning elections, not enhancing general knowledge. And they are very good at what they do.

The President Has no Constitutional Role to Play in the Amendment Process

I'm almost finished grading the 2302 written assignment on Wilson and I noticed many talked about his support for the 17th Amendment, but while this may have been a personal position, he could not use his office to promote the amendment.
- Here's background from the National Archives.

Shay's Rebellion and the Foreclosure Crisis

There really is little new under the sun, or in American politics.

One of the commentators in the previous post mentioned that Shay's Rebellion was driven by a large measure by farmers concerned that their lands would be foreclosed upon due to an ongoing economic crisis.

Sounds familiar.

- Wikipedia: Shay's Rebellion.
- US History: Shay's Rebellion.
- Commentary by Roy Oppenheim.
- The Hill.
- Washington Post.

The rebellion is held to have demonstrated the need for a strong central government to effectively address such crises in order to ensure chaos does not engulf the republic. Since a central government was in fact established, it's worth considering whether the effort was successful.

A Discussion About Outsider Politics

From the NYT.

Some smart folks discuss whether the current crop of outsider candidate is unusual historically. Most suggest no, but add that the internet allows greater opportunity for outsider groups to form. Whether they have staying power is a different matter.

$25 Billion

That's the possible budget shortfall in Texas this year. Proportionately worse than California's apparently.

This Week's Written Assignments

Here the written questions I'm about to post for next week:

For the 16 week classes

2301 -  Elections: Next week is election day, and since we are covering elections this week, it makes sense to ask a question related to it, but I want to add a twist. As you are probably aware, many pollsters have provided up to the minute updates on the possible results. I want you to try to determine how they are doing this and whether their results might prove accurate on election day. Here are some links: Pollster, Gallup, and 538. What I want you to determine isn't what they are predicting, but what proof they are using to make those predictions.

2302 - The Executive - Institutional Evolution: As with most -- actually every -- president, a handful of new executive agencies have been established, or redesigned, during the first two years of the Obama Administration. I want you to research what these agencies are and describe one. What factors led to its formation? What controversies surrounded its formation?

For the 8 week classes:

2301 - The U.S. and Texas Constitutions: By now you should be familiar with the Tea Party Movement and its goals and positions. One of the arguments they make is that they are "conservative constitutionalists" and that they support the true meaning of the U.S. Constitution. I want you to do two things. First, figure out what they mean by "constitutional conservative," and second evaluate whether their claims are true. Do they in fact support the proper way the the Constitution should be interpreted?

2302 -  The Legislature, History and Constitutional Design: One of the key functions of a legislature is for its members to represent the interests of their constituents, but there is a dilemma embedded in the Constitution regarding how constituents ought to be represented. House members are said to be delegates while Senators are trustees. After finding out what these terms mean, I want you to find out who your U.S. Representative is  and who your U.S. Senators are and determine whether they in fact behave according to this model. Give plenty of examples.    

The Latest From Wikileaks and the Frontier of the New Media

Wikileaks, which already released confidential files relating to ther Iraq War, released more.

- Commentary from the NYT.

How Will Vote This November?

From the Huffington Post:

Creationism v Evolution

More constitutional fallout from the Delaware debate: Can states compel school districts to teach creationism alongside evolution? Recent Supreme Court decisions have found this to violate the establishment clause.

Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut

Thanks to the Delaware Senate debate we've had another in our periodic dust ups about the meaning of the phrase "separation of church and state." I though it appropriate to bring it up, since religion is the first subject of the First Amendment, which we've just covered in 2301 and the interpretation of "establishment" and "free exercise" is up to the Supreme Court, which we will soon enough cover in 2302.

Rather than speak about the issue, it might be better to let the participants in the original discussion speak for themselves. Here is the text of the letter sent by the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut to the newly elected Thomas Jefferson, expressing their concern that they, as a religious minority, might suffer at the hands of a religious majority capable of controlling government (that concern should sounds familiar):

Sir, Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our Constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God as raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator. 

Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, Stephen S. Nelson

And here is Jefferson's reply:

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
Let's discuss.

Revolution?

Nice.

Wall Street Bailout Earns 8.2% Return

From Bloomberg ....

and Policito.

If it made money, what are candidates successfully running against the TARP. What aren't members of Congress who voted for it being rewarded?

Old People Behind the Wheel

My favorite example of justifiable discrimination. Would legislation demanding that old folks retake drivers exams survive an equal protection challenge?

Is the Declaration of Independence a Legal Document?

We wrestled with this question in class today, and here are some links that go further. Apparently there is debate on the issue, but the majority opinion seems to be that it isn't.

From Legal Lad:

The Supreme Court has generally held that the Declaration does not have the force of law, and no words in the Declaration can give rise to legal rights independently. One major justification for this view is that the Declaration’s purpose was to separate the United States from Britain, not to prescribe legal rights for the people living in the colonies.



However, the Declaration has been used in aiding the Court to interpret other laws. For example, in early constitutional law, the Court held that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land as the highest expression of intent of the people. The Court relied on the Declaration’s language about the rights of the “people,” as compared with the rights of the states. Another example, in an 1830 case, the Court, interpreting a wills and estates question of New York law, held that a child born in New York before July 4, 1776, and whose parents moved him to Britain, was not a citizen of the United States. That is, the Court determined that July 4, 1776 was the date on which the sovereignty of Great Britain ceased.


Beyond these examples, and a handful of others, courts are generally hesitant to apply the Declaration as substantive law. This is true of both those justices considered conservative and liberal, such as current Justices Scalia and Breyer.


However, the general principles have been utilized by several political movements to support their positions.

The basic point is that the Declaration establishes no independent law, so it can;t be a legal document, but it can aid in the interpretation of the law.

Other links:

- Answers.com.
- The Declaration of Independence: A Constitutional Document.
- Legal Dictionary.
- The Declaration of Independence is not Law.
- The Legal Significance of the Declaration of Independence.

Law Enforcement Seeks Expanded Surveillance Powers

From the NYT:

Law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, citing lapses in compliance with surveillance orders, are pushing to overhaul a federal law that requires phone and broadband carriers to ensure that their networks can be wiretapped, federal officials say.



The officials say tougher legislation is needed because some telecommunications companies in recent years have begun new services and made system upgrades that caused technical problems for surveillance. They want to increase legal incentives and penalties aimed at pushing carriers like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast to ensure that any network changes will not disrupt their ability to conduct wiretaps.



An Obama administration task force that includes officials from the Justice and Commerce Departments, the F.B.I. and other agencies recently began working on draft legislation to strengthen and expand the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act, a 1994 law that says telephone and broadband companies must design their services so that they can begin conducting surveillance of a target immediately after being presented with a court order.

- Wikipedia: Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act.

Can the Police Force You to Identify Yourself?

My apologies to one of my classes for not being able to directly answer this question yesterday, but the Supreme Court has made some peculiar decisions on this point and I didn't want to get it wrong. The case I was thinking of was Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, which: held that statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to identify himself.


The Court also held that the identification requirement did not violate Hiibel's Fifth Amendment rights because he had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in a situation where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.
So it seems that yes police can, at least in Nevada and the U.S. Supreme Court said they can. But part of the answer is: It depends on what state you are in since you are more likely to be pulled over and searched by a state official than a federal official. In Texas, Grits for Breakfast has this to say: "Currently, Texans don't have to identify themselves unless they're actually arrested, and it's not a crime if you don't do so. In practice, of course, police can't write a ticket without the identifying information, so this would give them cause to arrest you and cart you off to jail (under authority affirmed by the US Supreme Court in Atwater v. Lago Vista, a Texas case)."


So the answer seems to be, in Texas you don't have to identify yourself unless you are being arrested, but the Supreme Court is willing to allow the state to mandate identification if it deems it necessary to conduct an investigation. Such changes might be underway. In the last legislative session a bill passed a Senate Committee that would have made failure to identify a crime. Shoudl we expect it to be reintroduced in January?
Some additional reading:
- When You Must Identify Yourself to the Police.
- ACLU: What to do if you are stopped by the police.
- Identify Yourself or Go to Jail. (scroll down)
- SB 1175: Relating to the prosecution of the offense of failure to identify.

What Tax Cut?

One of the more curious aspects of the stimulus bill was the fact that while it contained tax cuts, no one seems to know that it did. Most people assume that taxes went up, possibly because we are all primed to expect tax increases when Democrats are in office. Something to consider when we begin to discuss public opinion and how it is formed.

A Democratic Rebound in 2012?

I've hit this topic below, and it does seem to be becoming conventional wisdom that just as the 2010 election was a reaction to the 2008 election, so will the 2012 election react against 2010:

The one sobering thought that veteran Republican consultants are already contemplating is that the larger the wave this year, the more difficult it will be to hold onto some of these seats in 2012 and 2014 in the House and 2016 in the Senate.
The bigger the wave, the weaker the class and the harder it will be to hold onto those seats. Democrats only have to look at their 2006 and 2008 classes for plenty of examples.

What this means is that we will likely have our third wave election in a row this year, and the bigger this one is, the more likely that there will be a countervailing wave in either 2012 or 2014.

Defining Liberalism and Conservatism

This post does a better job than most.

Third Party Watch

Tea Party Schmea Party.

For Possible Extra Credit -- Fall 2010, Continued

For 2301, and the extent of civil liberties in a time of war.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For 2302, specifically for our discussion of the federal financial bureaucracy.

Extra Credit -- Fall 2010

I'm receiving questions about extra credit, and I've made posts about it below. I want you to thoroughly review a book which covers some aspect of whatever class you are taking. I've posted a few, but feel free to run others by me. I'm linking you to Amazon so you can buy them there. Some might be in the ACC library, but our budget is rather low. You might find others in a local bookstore, but buying them used on Amazon might be your best bet.

Click on the "extra credit" tag below to link to the other posts.

Take this week off!

By now you've probably heard that I'm giving my 16 week 2301 and 2302 students the week off. There will be no assessment or written assignment this week. We will resume next week, starting 10/25. I'm changing the calendar slightly. You'll note the changes on the wiki pages.

2301: Next week we will pick up with the section on elections. This week's section on civil rights will replace the last week's section on interest groups.

2302: Next week we will cover the institutional evolution of the executive branch. We ill lose the following week's section on contemporary disputes.

You're Welcome.

Do We Have Brains in Texas?

Stop giggling. Do we a sufficient number of the world's leading researchers to guarantee that we will prosper in a knowledge based economy? Five Houston area universities and medical facilities are in the world's top 500, that's something? Ain't it?

Here's a map showing where these researchers live. Comments? We are not leading the pack. As bad as the economy is, should we be spending more on research?

More on The Constitutionality of Health Care Reform

Here's a great example of the consequences of a decentralized, federal judicial system. While last week a federal judge in Michigan said the individual mandate in the health care law is a constitutional use of Congress' commerce powers. a Virginia court stated that it isn't so sure, and a Florida court stated that it isn't.

Here's reasonable commentary.

Military Spending and Technological Development

While we are about to dig into the development of the executive branch, I thought it might be interesting to look at the role military has had in developing and promoting recent technologies.

- The Computer History Museum.
- ENIAC.
- The History of the Internet.

The military, obviously, puts a premium on speedy, accurate information and analysis. They had a hand in early development of the telegraph, radio, radar and television as well.

Another Thought Regarding Hyper Libertarianism ....

From the story referred to below:

Offline, Thiel is the lead backer of Seasteading, a movement to create law-free floating communes based on voluntary association.
Libertarians often argue that societies based on norms are more philosophically just than those based on rules. This is on line with our 2301 discussion about coercive vs consensual foundations of governments. My question is more pragmatic, how capable is a norm based society to secure its liberties? Can they protect themselves from Somali pirates?

Hyper Libertarianism

This analysis of Pay Pal co-founder Peter Thiel is a bit harsh (I can't vouch for its accuracy), but it touches on political conflicts central to this class. Note the highlight in the following quote from the story:

To describe Peter Thiel as simply a libertarian wildly understates the case. His belief system is based on unapologetic selfishness and economic Darwinism. His most famous quote—borrowed from Vince Lombardi—is, "Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser." In a personal statement produced last year for the CATO Foundation, Thiel announced: "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible." The public, he says, doesn't support unregulated, winner-take-all capitalism and so he doesn't support the public making decisions. This anti-democratic proclamation comes with some curious historical analysis. Thiel says that the Roaring 20s were the last period when it was possible for supporters of freedom like him to be optimistic about politics. "Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women—two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians—have rendered the notion of 'capitalist democracy' into an oxymoron," he writes.


This is similar to a point we make in the early lectures in 2301, but instead of "democracy" I we use "equality." Since democracy in based on political equality, we could probably use the terms synonymously. The story goes on ask some interesting questions about the role of government in these time. Perhaps you agree with the sentiment.

We will discuss.

FCC Proposes "Bill Shock" Rule

For 2302, here is an example of the rulemaking process. The Federal Communications Commission has proposed a rule "that would require mobile service providers to provide usage alerts and information that will assist consumers in avoiding unexpected charges on their bills." This would avoid bill shock in case, for example, if a child started downloading tons of songs not knowing each download cost $1 a kilobyte.

- Here's the FCC press release.
- Here's FCC's description of their rulemaking process.
- Slate comments on the rule.
- FCC bill shock proposal exposes carriers to greater legal woes, analyst says.

- Government To Protect Us From Bill Shock.

For 2301s and 2302s, this might be good for a general discussion of the proper role of government. Is the FCC right in proposing to do this? Are they protecting the public the abuse of cell phone companies, or should customers monitor their bills? In Tea Party language, is this in infringement of individual liberty?

An Executive Branch Official Complains About Congress ...

... and highlights the institutional differences between the two branches of government.

How Popular is the Idea of Repealing Health Reform?

No surprise, but apparently it matters what questions you ask. While pluralities are in favor of a blanket repeal, majorities support maintaining key portions of the law.

Winning Elections vs. Governing: They Are Not the Same

Daniel Larison ponders whether Republicans will be able govern effectively if they win control of Congress. The skills that allow one to win elections (divisiveness, stirring up conflict and disputes) are not the same as those that allow you to govern (ability to compromise and bargain).

. . . Republican gains are not driven by popular support for a positive Republican agenda of any kind. Neither are they being driven by an ideological rejection of the administration’s agenda. One can defend or mock the “Pledge to America,” and one can sympathize with or scorn Tea Partiers, but neither of them has much to do with reviving GOP political fortunes.


The reality is that Republican gains this year are the product of immense economic discontent and anxiety to which few conservatives have plausible answers. . . .

And of course if they cannot find those answers, they will face the same criticism before the 2012 election that Democrats are facing now.

What is the Source of the Judiciary's Power?

Stephen Breyer wonders in a new book.

Street Level Politics: Stone v. Spitzer

Here are a couple of juicy posts detailing political operative Roger Stone's successful effort to take down ex-New York Governor Eliot Spitzer.

Powerful Tea Party Caucus Set to Emerge in Congress

From the NYT:

Enough Tea Party-supported candidates are running strongly in competitive and Republican-leaning Congressional races that the movement stands a good chance of establishing a sizeable caucus to push its agenda in the House and the Senate, according to a New York Times analysis.

Different Judge, Different Take on the Health Care Law

After a Michigan judge ruled the health care law to be based the commerce clause, a Florida judge is more skeptical.

Just Published: Pinstripe Patronage

Possible extra credit if you review this book.

Will the Tea Party Guarantee an Obama Reelection?

From Political Wire:

Here's another good nugget from the New York Times Magazine piece on President Obama: "Obama advisers expect to incorporate the reelection campaign around March and think the Tea Party ultimately will reelect him by pulling Republican nominee to the right. They doubt Sarah Palin will run, figure Mitt Romney can't get nomination because of his Massachusetts health care program and guess that Obama may end up running against Mike Huckabee."
This assumes centrists will pull away from the Tea Party candidate. Its just an assumption, but history demonstrates that ideologically motivated factions within parties can nominate unelectable candidates: Barry Goldwater and George McGovern for example. It's an old story.

More from Andrew Sullivan. As rough as things might be for Obama, other political figures aren't doing much better

Can the Federal Government Challenge the Constitutionality of Prop 19 if it Passes?

Yes.

No.

Should Public Employees Have the Right to Vote?

Pat Sajak thinks maybe not.

Judge Orders Executive to Stop Enforcing "Don't Ask Don't Tell"

An example of Checks and Balances and Civil Liberties. Story in the NYT.

Judge Virginia A. Phillips of Federal District Court for the Central District of California issued an injunction banning enforcement of the law and ordered the military to immediately “suspend and discontinue” any investigations or proceedings to dismiss service members.



In language much like that in her Sept. 9 ruling declaring the law unconstitutional, Judge Phillips wrote that the 17-year-old policy “infringes the fundamental rights of United States service members and prospective service members” and violates their rights of due process and freedom of speech.

Here's Something To Look Forward To

A prediction that Republicans will impeach Obama if they will control of the House. It backfird when they did it to Clinton, but that might be immaterial.

Speaking of the Media ...

How about that coverage of the Chilean miners?

Back in the 80s there was Baby Jessica.

And of course there's this.

The Internet and Free Speech

This new technology may lead to adjustments in how Supreme Court justices rule on free speech cases.

The Best and Worst Performing State Economies

Digging into Texas' full economic picture raises questions about how well we are in fact doing.

Do Campaigns Matter?

Here's some evidence that they may not.

It's a common point made by political scientists. Some analyses suggest that pocketbook economic conditions (change in disposable income) six months prior to an election best predicts election results. That being the case, the slip in the economy that began around April and May may have doomed any chance Democrats had of a good result, but history has consistently show that -- all things equal -- the party out of power is more motivated to vote in midterm elections than the party in power.

Some Local Stories - 10/12/10

- NASA's compromise bill is launched without a bang
- Dinosaurs, sex ed stoke Texas school board debate
- No reprimand for appeals judge
- November ballot's a lengthy read for area voters

Can a Convicted Death Row Inmate Use DNA Evidence to Prove Innocence?

Not necessarily.

In both 2301 (while we discuss civil liberties) and 2302 ( while we discuss the role of judiciary) we will wade into this question. Is it the responsibility of the appellate courts to determine innocence, or is that strictly a trial court responsibility? Does the Supreme Court do "justice" or does it simply stick to process?

Did the American Plutonomy Cause the Financial Crisis?

Michael Lind thinks so. As more wealth becomes concentrated in the upper 5-20% of the population, aggregate demand shifts to those items they like to buy, and away from those things the lower 80% purchases.

According to Moody’s Analytics, the top 5 percent of American earners are responsible for 35 percent of consumer spending, while the bottom 80 percent engage in only 39.5 percent of consumer outlays. Meanwhile, the top 20 percent received nearly half of all income generated in the U.S. -- 49.4 percent -- and the ratio of the income of the top 10 percent of Americans to the poor has risen from 7.69-to-1 in 1968 to 14.5-to-1 in 2010.
At the same time, however, the top 10 percent of earners received 50 percent of all income, while they accounted for only 22 percent of spending. Where did the rest of their money go? Much of it went into speculation in the two waves of the bubble economy between the late 1990s and 2008. Had more of that money been in the hands of the bottom 50 percent, more of it would have been spent on consumer goods, including manufactured products, and far less would have gone to gambling on condos in Manhattan and Miami and trendy stocks.

This suggests a tangible economic problem is created when wealth is allowed to be concentrated in the hands of the few. This is not the first time in history this has happened.

Related:

- Definition.
- A Modern Day Plutonomy?
- From the Wall Street Journal.

A Glimpse Into the Future?

How Caesarism Came to America.

Written Questions for Week 7

Dear Students,

Here are the written questions I'd like you to consider this week (week 7). I'll have these posted in BlackBoard soon, but here's a head start.

2301: This week we are discussing how the concept of individual liberty is written into the Constitution and contained in the substantive and procedural freedoms established in the Bill of Rights. These freedoms force us to live in a world where people say things we'd rather they not. But these freedoms are not absolute.

As we will see, the Supreme Court has placed limits on speech depending on the degree to which a speech act has led to an action that is illegal or causes a damage of some sort. Currently there are two topical issues related to speech that some would like to punish. One involving the Westboro Baptist Church's protests at funerals (among many other places) and the other involving Cyber-Bullying. The case involving the former has just been argued before the Supreme Court, some blog posts below take you to the relevant links. I want you to pretend that you are a justice on the Supreme Court and you have just heard the argument. How would you decide the case? What argument wold you make and what precedence supports your position?

2302: Glenn Beck has recently focused attention (and animosity) on the presidency of Woodrow Wilson. Part of the argument is the standard conservative claim that Wilson expanded government beyond what was permissible from a strict constructionist's point of view, and did things as president that were previously not done, and ought not have been done. In other posts I've provided links to additional information about Wilson. I want you to use this information to assess his presidency and consider Beck's arguments. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

Regarding Woodrow

Glenn Beck's diatribes against Woodrow Wilson have placed the 28th President him back in the spotlight. Here's discussion about Wilson, including speculation about why Beck might have decided to focus his wrath on him rather than either Roosevelt of Lyndon Johnson.

- woodrowwilson.org.
- American Experience: Woodrow Wilson.
- Miller Center: Woodrow Wilson.
- C-Span Presidential Rankings.

A Republic of Letters

Here's an article which discusses the potential development of a digital library -- which to some degree already exists on the web. Material that would have been accessible to only a handful of people (specifically the substantive political work critical to the nation's founding) are now available to everyone. This was Jefferson's dream.

Understanding these lessons is one of the tasks of this class. But it also a task that only occur in a meaningful way once a proper balance is struck between the governing powers. As we will see in 2301, parties, the press, interest groups, all of these only begin to flourish once meaningful constitutional systems are developed, implemented and maintained.

Is Cyber-Bullying Protected Speech?

It seems that there has been a rash of bullying related suicides around the coutry recently. I say "seems that" because these tragedies happen regularly and I have no idea if the recent ones reflect an increase in their frequency, or simply an increase in the number that have been reported (It's worth pointing out the October is, apparently, Anti-Bullying Awareness Month). As we will discuss at some point in 2301, the media tends to have a pack mentality and once a story becomes topical, similar stories are then more likely to be spotlighted. Altogether it drives up readership.

Nevertheless, these events have led some to argue for increased punishment for those who bully others, and cause them to hurt themselves. New Jersey's U.S. Senator will "introduce legislation requiring colleges to adopt a code of conduct that prohibits bullying and harassment." Now questions are being raised about whether these laws (or laws in general) are the appropriate way to deal with this problem. How does one define "bullying" in such a way that does not allow for the over-aggressive, arbitrary use of executive power? How loosely might the concept of bullying be defined by law enforcement? Might this cure be worse than the disease? Might there be better ways of dealing with bullying? But if there are, what are they and how effective might they be?

The concept of "cyber-bullying" adds a wrinkle to the issue since there is no face to face interaction between the bully and the bullied, and the communication is simple speech. It's obnoxious speech, probably hateful as well, but its still speech. How can we know for sure that a direct causal link exists between a speech act and an action by the person who was the subject of the speech? As my 2301s plunge into civil liberties and the freedom of speech (among others), we should consider how the courts might deal with a lawsuit, or law which attempts to deal with cyber-bullying.

- bullying.org.
- Stick and Stones ... and Words.
- Candidates Spar over Cyber-Bullying.
- Seizing the Moment

Update: Laws are now being considered here in Texas. It is worth noting that the design of the Texas Constitution prevents the legislature from passing such laws, since the legislature is not in session and will not be until early January. This makes passage of such a bill contingent on whether this item is still topical then. This is a further example of the way that governmental power is limited in the state. We should discuss whether this is a good or bad thing.

Central Bankers Worried About Deflation

The Washington Post details the options they've discussed.

For 2301: This Monday and Tuesday

Here's a heads up on the plan for 2301 on Monday and Tuesday. After we review last week's assessment, I want to read through the following documents:

- English Bill of Rights.
- Virginia Declaration of Rights.
- United States Bill of Rights.
- Texas Bill of Rights.

Wednesday and Thursday we will go through the power points and put these in context.

The American People Hire Patton Boggs Lobbyists Jack Weldon

From the Onion.

The Gallup Poll comments on the joke.

Is the Mortgage Crisis a Product of Demosclerosis?

That's a reasonable conclusion from reading the following assessments of what got the country into the current foreclosure mess:

The real scandal is that the process of recording property title is so antiquated, and there are so many interest groups that resist modernizing it. The MERS mortgage database shows what a modern system could look like. But all of the counties that charge fees for title recording, the title "insurance" companies that shake down home buyers to buy "protection" from getting sued to prove that they own their property--these interest groups want to keep the title recording system as expensive and unreliable as possible.

A change in the system, even one that improves the condition of the vast majority is prevented by an entrenched interest. The minority clogs the administration.

What does the National Security Adviser Do Exactly?

This isn't the most flattering portrayal of the recently resigned Jim Jones, but it helps us understand the role the position plays -- or can play -- within a presidential administration.

Will the Electorate Continue to Swing After 2010?

We've discussed the volatility of the electorate and how the constitutional design is meant to minimize its impact on public policy. The last several electoral cycles have shifted drastically from favoring one party to the other. Here's an argument that this shift might continue after November's elections:

One of the more remarkable things about the likely big win Republicans are headed for next month is that they're doing it without having improved their appeal to the center at all since the 2008 election.

Barack Obama defeated John McCain 60-39 with self described moderates, according to the national exit poll. Our last national generic ballot poll found Democrats ahead 58-28, showing no improvement whatsoever


It's a similar story in some of the closest Senate races. Obama only won moderates 51-46 in West Virginia. Joe Manchin has a 29 point advantage over John Raese with them. In Colorado Obama won them 63-35...Michael Bennet leads Ken Buck by a pretty identical 56-32. In Nevada his advantage was 64-33...and Harry Reid led Sharron Angle 64-28 with them on our last poll.


The fact that Republicans are winning this election without showing much appeal to moderates is another reminder that the main reason for the pending GOP onslaught is the disengagement of Democratic voters. Conservatives will make up a much larger portion of the electorate this year than they did in 2008 and that's put Republicans in a position to make big gains without even having to develop a message that's appealing to the center.

That's the reason why this year's Republican resurgence may prove to be short lived and why much of what the party gains this year could be lost again in 2012. The formula they're using for victory this year- fire up the base, forget the moderates- may work for a midterm election but it's not likely to be particularly sustainable in a Presidential year. If Republicans want the 2012 election cycle to be as enjoyable for them as the 2010 cycle has been they have a lot of work to do to broaden their base.
I've also suggested that if Republicans win Congress, and the economy continues to be sluggish (as most economists suggest) they will bear part of the blame for it and their messages will likely not resonate as much as they are now. Plus, Republican success now will mobilize Democrats in 2012. Thsi story makes the point that moderates (the center) serves as balast in the American political system and tends to shift away from whichever party is in power, especially when that party starts implementing policies that stray too far to either ideological extreme.

Justice Department Investigates Credit Card Companies for Anti-Competitive Practices

- Some companies settle, some don't.
- Will the results matter?

Obama's First Veto

Obama vetoed H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010. From WonkBook:

The law, which would've allowed banks to speed the notarization process by using out-of-state, electronic firms, passed the House and Senate with virtually no notice, but became unexpectedly consequential as accusations of fraudulent contracts ripped through the mortgage industry. Some thought the bill might help with the current problems, unfreezing some of the contracts and demonstrating the government's intention to push through this. But no, we're stuck in this morass for at least awhile longer. Sorry, recovery.
- White House Statement.
- NYT Story.
- Wikipedia: List of Presidential Vetoes.
- Wikipedia: Vetoes in the U.S.

And while we're on the subject: the Line Item Veto.

National Security Advisor Steps Down

More transitions in the White House Staff:

President Obama announced on Friday that Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser, had resigned and will be replaced by Thomas E. Donilon, the principal deputy national security adviser.

In addition to directly advising the president, the NSA sits on the National Security Council in the Executive Office of the President.

- Wikipedia: National Security Advisor.
- Wikipedia: Thomas Donilon.

A District Court Judge Finds the Individual Mandate Constitutional

Here's huge -- and relevant -- news. A district court judge has ruled that the individual mandate in the recently passed health care law does fall under the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause. Pay attention 2301s:

From Ezra Klein:

A district court judge has ruled the individual mandate is constitutional, reports N.C. Aizenman: "Other federal courts have already dismissed some challenges to the law on technical grounds - ruling, for instance, that the plaintiffs lacked standing. However, the decision issued Thursday by Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan is the first to reject a claim based on the merits, marking a notable victory for the Obama administration...Steeh found that 'far from 'inactivity,' by choosing to forgo insurance, plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health-care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars...onto other market participants.'"

- Here's the opinion...

...and a key quote from it:

“In assessing the scope of Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause,” the court’s task “is a modest one.” The court need not itself determine whether the regulated activities, “taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a ‘rational basis’ exists for so concluding.”



There is a rational basis to conclude that, in the aggregate, decisions to forego insurance coverage in preference to attempting to pay for health care out of pocket drive up the cost of insurance. The costs of caring for the uninsured who prove unable to pay are shifted to health care providers, to the insured population in the form of higher premiums, to governments, and to taxpayers. The decision whether to purchase insurance or to attempt to pay for health care out of pocket, is plainly economic. These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers, and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance. These are the economic effects addressed by Congress in enacting the Act and the minimum coverage provision.

- From the NYT.
- Here's a decision from a previous case where the law was dismissed on procedural grounds.

Now it will go on to higher level appelate courts further consideration. Pay attention 2302s!

Executive Officials Comment on the Economy

Ezra Klein highlights actions by three separate executive officials involved in implementing economic policy. or providing advise about it:

The Secretary of the Treasury: Tim Geithner urged the IMF to push China on its currency, reports Howard Schneider: "In seeking to muster a broader coalition, Geithner issued an ultimatum to the International Monetary Fund: take a more aggressive stand on China's currency or potentially lose U.S. backing for a series of efforts pending at the agency. The IMF is debating changes in how it is governed to give greater influence to developing nations in Asia and elsewhere, but Geithner said these steps should be tied to these countries, in particular China, allowing their currencies to more closely adhere to free-market levels."
The Chair of the Federal Reserve: The Fed may target an interest rate rather than buy a set amount of bonds, reports Neil Irwin: "Instead of just announcing that it will create, say, $500 billion out of thin air and buy bonds with the money, the Fed could instead announce it will target a certain interest rate and then buy Treasury bonds so that rates in the marketplace reach that level. For example, the Fed could announce that it aims for three-year Treasury debt that now carries an interest rate of 0.56 percent to instead be 0.25 percent. It would then buy Treasury notes in whatever amounts were needed to get rates to the target level. That would help the economy by lowering rates for a broad range of borrowers, including Americans looking to take out a mortgage and companies looking to use debt to finance expansion."

The Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers: Austan Goolsbee says we'll need to grow, not tax or cut, our way to fiscal sustainability: "What little countries did to deal with their imbalances are frequently not available for giant economies like the U.S. or Japan. More intense research shows that the primary way countries get out of fiscal holes is by increasing their growth rate. To posit that you have to either substantially cut spending or raise taxes belies the fact that what really matters is debt-to-GDP. In the U.S., we’ve often reduced that ratio without running surpluses by getting the growth rate up."

Foreclosures Proceedings Stopped By Judges

Some checks and balances from Ezra Klein:

Judges across the country are ruling foreclosures illegal because of faulty paperwork, report Brady Dennis and Ariana Eunjung Cha: "If millions of foreclosures past and present were invalidated because of the way the hurried securitization process muddied the chain of ownership, banks could face lawsuits from homeowners and from investors who bought stakes in the mortgage securities - an expensive and potentially crippling proposition. For the fragile housing market, already clogged with foreclosure cases, it could mean gridlock and confusion for years. And there is concern in Washington that if the real estate market and financial institutions suffer harm, it could force the government to step in again."

Houston Historic Ordinance

The City of Houston is also wrestling with amendments to its historic preservation ordinance.

The ordinance would make it harder to tear down historic buildings and to severely alter existing ones. The intent is to maintain the "look" of a historical neighborhood. Opponents argue that it interferes with the property rights of owners. Here's how it would apply to one neighborhood.

380 Agreements

In local government news, Houston's City Council has agreed to a 380 agreement (named for the paragraph 380 of the Texas Local Government Code) to help develop a recently vacated lot near the Heights. The controversy is that the developer is Walmart -- actually agroup affiliated with Walmart, so there are questions raised regarding whether they need the assistance, as well as whether there are alternative options for development.

Whether or not this is a good idea, it illustrates local government's role in helping spur economic development. It also showcases the tight connections that can exist between vested economic interests and local development policy and implementation.

- Here's the website of an opposition group.

Did Margie Phelps Lose the Case?

Some commentary about today's oral arguments in Snyder v. Phelps. You should hire a pro to argue your case before the Supreme Court. Ask Chuck Rosenthal.

Federalism and California's Prop 19

Following on a previous post, here are a few links regarding the nation/state issues brought up by California's proposal to legalize marijuana:

- Federalism and Medical Marijuana.
- Some Red Herrings.

2301s take note.

Did the White House Blow it on the Climate Change Bill?

TNR says yes.

Are Republicans Serious About Repealing the Individual Mandate?

Here's an argument that they are not. Insurance companies are a huge beneficiary of health care reform and are donating heavily to the Republican Party. Why would they want to repeal a cash cow? They do want to repeal some of the regulations put in place limiting their ability to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, etc..., but those tend to be popular. Republicans risk losing electoral support in 2012 if they try to revoke them.

U.S. House Frustrated by U.S. Senate

The House is waiting for Senate action on more than 420 bills it has passed this session.

Snyder v. Phelps

The case involving the Westboro Baptist Church's right to protest at soldier's funerals ("God Loves Dead Soldiers," etc...) will be argued Wednesday October 6th. ScotusBlog states that it pits protest against privacy.

Elena Kagan Hits the Ground Running

From CBS News.

Cities in Debt

For our discussion of federalism.

$29 Billion

The most recent estimate of the final cost of TARP -- the bank bailout.

- Could Obama have played this better politically?

Is Defense Spending Too High?

From the Economists.

Background Reading:

- World Military Spending.
- Wikipedia: Military Budget of the United States.

A neat little quote from James Madison: Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

Is it Realistic that a Viable Third Party Candidate Will Run, and Possibly Win, in 2012?

Friedman's Sunday article (post below) led to a rash of commentary wondering whether a third party could in fact run competitively in 2012, or govern in the off chance that they win. Nate Silver adds his two cents.

Does the Gonzalez v Raich Decision Support the Constitutionality of ObamaCare?

Andrew Sullivan thinks it might. The War on Drugs rests on the same constitutional theory as does mandatory health care.

Here's an argument stating that its does indeed (maybe) rest on the commerce clause.

Water Politics

The biggest story you've probably never heard of.

A Sample White House Staffer

Stephanie Cutter, Assistant to the President for Special Projects, is responsible for developing messages promoting health care legislation. She better get to work.

- GOP will do everything to undo health care law.
- Who Runs Gov.

Is the Minimum Wage a Violation of States Rights?

Joe Miller, the Alaska Tea Party candidate says yes and wants it repealed. It gives the national government too much power.

- Wikipedia: Minimum Wage.

The First Monday in October

And the Supreme Court is back in session. Scotusblog has all the links you need to follow to get up to date on the upcoming year.

The FCC, Rule Making and "Super WiFi"

For 2302, a taste of things to come in our explorations of the executive branch.

The Tea Party vs. The War Party

The conventional wisdom right now is that the truce among Republicans is temporary and a -- potentially ruthless -- internal fight for the presidential nomination begins the day after the November election is over.

- Here's Pat Buchanan's take.

Can the Two Party System Govern?

Thomas Friedman has his doubts and is calling for a strong third party movement in 2012. He begins by reminding us -- as the founders would -- of the factors which led to the demise of the Roman Republic:

A friend in the U.S. military sent me an e-mail last week with a quote from the historian Lewis Mumford’s book, “The Condition of Man,” about the development of civilization. Mumford was describing Rome’s decline: “Everyone aimed at security: no one accepted responsibility. What was plainly lacking, long before the barbarian invasions had done their work, long before economic dislocations became serious, was an inner go. Rome’s life was now an imitation of life: a mere holding on. Security was the watchword — as if life knew any other stability than through constant change, or any form of security except through a constant willingness to take risks.”

He argues that our two major parties are concerned with their own security (not the nation.s) and refusing to accept responsibility for their failures (since to do so might jeopardize their electoral competitiveness).

We have to rip open this two-party duopoly and have it challenged by a serious third party that will talk about education reform, without worrying about offending unions; financial reform, without worrying about losing donations from Wall Street; corporate tax reductions to stimulate jobs, without worrying about offending the far left; energy and climate reform, without worrying about offending the far right and coal-state Democrats; and proper health care reform, without worrying about offending insurers and drug companies.
...


We need a third party on the stage of the next presidential debate to look Americans in the eye and say: “These two parties are lying to you. They can’t tell you the truth because they are each trapped in decades of special interests. I am not going to tell you what you want to hear. I am going to tell you what you need to hear if we want to be the world’s leaders, not the new Romans.”
His chief complaint echoes some of the warnings Washington made regarding the development of parties in the early years of the republic: It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.

My 2301s will wrestle with this soon enough, but let's keep in mind that when it comes to arguments about government and politics, there is little new under the sun. Washington would understand and sympathize with Friedman's complaint. The problem, as we will discover, is that electoral rules favor the development and continuation of a two party system, so this might be an unrealistic goal.

Texas Biennial Revenue Estimate 2010-2011

My 2302s might want to use this to help answer some of this week's short answer questions.

Texas: A High Tax State for Low Income Taxpayers

So say a report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

- An additional report on the impact of taxes: Who Pays? 

Washington Republicans Try to Maintain Cohesion

Neo-Conservative Republicans are rightly concerned about the possible impact Libertarian Conservatives might have on the cohesiveness of the party should the latter be elected in large number in November. Libertarians object to the aggressive use of American military power and want to cut the military as much as other spending areas. Marc Ambinger comments on neocon efforts to persuade the libertarians to support high levels of military spending.

Selling the Health Care Law

Campaigns are all about public relations, how to sell ideas to the electorate. The health care law has presented Democrats with a problem. The public seem to be divided over the general idea of the health care law, but supports some specifics within it. How then do they deal with this in an election?

Do they run away from the law in general? Or do they try to reframe how the public thinks of the law?

It is commonly argued that the ability to do the latter is the a key indicator of political power.

Senator Jim DeMint and Unanimous Consent

South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint apparently intends to block all action in the Senate until after the elections by refusing to allow his consent to the days business. This call attention -- not only to the Senator -- but to this practice. As we discussed in 2302, the Senate is far more subject to the preferencs of individual members than is the House. This is proof.

Here's a brief description of unanimous consent from a larger, critical, piece in the The New Republic:

The chamber conducts most of its business via what’s known as unanimous consent. Under this procedure, the Senate majority leadership announces it intention to do something, like setting the hours for debate on a given day, and reaches an agreement with the minority leadership. Once that agreement is in place, the leadership gives senators a chance to object. If nobody objects--i.e., if the consent is unanimous--the leadership’s proposal takes effect. But if even one senator does object, the majority must secure sixty votes via the cumbersome cloture process in order to reach a vote on the pending measure. As a recent brief for the Center for American Progress puts it, "It may only take 60 votes to get something accomplished in the Senate, but it takes 100 votes to do so quickly."
Among the items of business the Senate handles through unanimous consent is non-controversial legislation, such as a new law prohibiting federal prisoners from keeping cell phones while serving time. (It's called the “Cell Phone Contraband Act.”) The Senate Democratic leadership had planned this week to dispense with a backlog of such proposals before adjourning, as is customary at the end of a session. But DeMint has said no, vowing to object to any further business. That means no more laws will pass until after the election--and it will happen then only if the Senate decides to deal with the bills during the lame duck period.

- More info from the Senate Glossary.
- Unanimous Consent Agreement.
- The Senate as a collective action problem.

A Fixer

That's how the new Chief of Staff is described.

It's a term that gets tossed around to refer to the more obscure people that work in DC -- or Austin -- that simply know how to solve problems without getting their names in the papers.

- Will he make a difference?

-  Slate argues that the Washongton Post and New York Times have been writing nice things about him in order to get on his good side and gain access inside the White House.

Federal Debt and the Risk of a Fiscal Crisis

A report from the CBO. This should help 2302s answer some this week's written questions.

TARP About to End, Is Assessed.

Story in the Washington Post.

The stimulus bill is also assessed.

Head Count

Here's a page outlining Obama's appointments.

"compromise is the lubricant of American politics."

So says retiring Senator Byron Dorgan.
Bill Schneider thinks Tea Party supporters are against compromise: "They are anti-politics. They believe that politics is essentially corrupt — that deal making and compromise are an abandonment of principle." As we've discussed in class, this will make managing the Republican Conference in the House and Senate more difficult than it normally is. It'll be a wild ride regardless.

A Taxpayer Receipt

I think this is a great idea. Third Way suggests that "every taxpayer receive a receipt detaling how their money is spent."

Here's what it might look like:



Note that the first half dozen items are non-discretionary or defense.