Two posts from the Monkey Cage.
First: The cause of increased distrust - which is not related to distrust in other institutions - are related to increased polarization between the parties on policy positions and technological changes - the rise of cable and the internet - which has led to a fragmented media environment which allows people to select the news they want to hear.
Second: The consequence of increased distrust is the fact that partisan identifiers live in two completely different worlds. their evaluation of whether they think things are good are bad are not only related to whether they trust or distrust the media, but on which party holds the presidency.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Bad News
According to the Onion, every potential 2040 presidential candidate is already ineligible because of something they posted on Facebook. This is very slightly inappropriate.
Why are states reluctant to allow convicted prisoners to use DNA to prove their innocence?
Good question. Apparently many convicts in Virginia have been proven innocent, but the state is not in a hurry to let them know about it.
Initially, Virginia’s state authorities had no plans to notify the convicts that their DNA was being tested. Then, in 2008, the state legislature ordered them to notify those same convicts that their samples had been found and might be examined. If a convict failed to return the paperwork, the sample was tested nonetheless. Despite Marone’s claim that the Department of Forensic Science only conducts lab work, it alone is responsible for informing state prosecutors and police that former convicts have been cleared by DNA tests.
The department put out a call to pro bono lawyers around the state,
who were asked to hand-deliver notifications that the accused might now
be subject to DNA retesting. But there was a condition: Those lawyers
were required to sign confidentiality agreements indicating that they
were barred from explaining the content of the letters to the accused or
from representing them in court.
In a related story, do we have to accept the execution of innocent people if we are to have a death penalty?
Initially, Virginia’s state authorities had no plans to notify the convicts that their DNA was being tested. Then, in 2008, the state legislature ordered them to notify those same convicts that their samples had been found and might be examined. If a convict failed to return the paperwork, the sample was tested nonetheless. Despite Marone’s claim that the Department of Forensic Science only conducts lab work, it alone is responsible for informing state prosecutors and police that former convicts have been cleared by DNA tests.
In a related story, do we have to accept the execution of innocent people if we are to have a death penalty?
Some help reviewing for the final
McJustice
Slate has an interesting story on the problem of obtaining justice in cases involving misdemeanors.
The misdemeanor machine has inspired a slew of epithets: “meet ‘em and plead ‘em lawyering,” “assembly line justice,” “cattle herding,” and “McJustice.” They reflect the reality that once people charged with misdemeanors get to court, they are pressured by judges, prosecutors, and their own lawyers into pleading guilty, often without knowledge of their rights or the nature of the charges against them. Bail makes it worse. Around 80 percent of defendants who have bail set cannot afford to pay it. Innocent defendants commonly plead guilty just to get out of jail. In this way, millions of Americans are punished without due process and learn the cynical lesson that, at least when it comes to minor offenses, law and evidence aren’t all that important.
The misdemeanor machine has inspired a slew of epithets: “meet ‘em and plead ‘em lawyering,” “assembly line justice,” “cattle herding,” and “McJustice.” They reflect the reality that once people charged with misdemeanors get to court, they are pressured by judges, prosecutors, and their own lawyers into pleading guilty, often without knowledge of their rights or the nature of the charges against them. Bail makes it worse. Around 80 percent of defendants who have bail set cannot afford to pay it. Innocent defendants commonly plead guilty just to get out of jail. In this way, millions of Americans are punished without due process and learn the cynical lesson that, at least when it comes to minor offenses, law and evidence aren’t all that important.
From the Fiscal Times: How Sugar Daddy Lobbyists Killed the War on Obesity
A depressing story I suppose, but it shows how legislation aimed at the public good is easily undermined when doing so cuts into profits:
After aggressive lobbying, Congress declared pizza a vegetable to protect it from a nutritional overhaul of the school lunch program this year. The White House kept silent last year as Congress killed a plan by four federal agencies to reduce sugar, salt and fat in food marketed to children. And during the past two years, each of the 24 states and five cities that considered "soda taxes" to discourage consumption of sugary drinks has seen the efforts dropped or defeated.
At every level of government, the food and beverage industries won fight after fight in the last decade. They've never lost a significant political battle in the U.S. despite mounting scientific evidence of the role of unhealthy food and children's marketing in obesity. Lobbying records analyzed by Reuters reveal that the industries more than doubled their spending in Washington during the past three years. In the process, they largely dominated policymaking: pledging voluntary action while defeating government proposals aimed at changing the nation's diet, dozens of interviews show.
In contrast, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, widely regarded as the lead lobbying force for healthier food, spent about $70,000 lobbying last year, roughly what those opposing the stricter guidelines spent every 13 hours, the Reuters analysis showed.
After aggressive lobbying, Congress declared pizza a vegetable to protect it from a nutritional overhaul of the school lunch program this year. The White House kept silent last year as Congress killed a plan by four federal agencies to reduce sugar, salt and fat in food marketed to children. And during the past two years, each of the 24 states and five cities that considered "soda taxes" to discourage consumption of sugary drinks has seen the efforts dropped or defeated.
At every level of government, the food and beverage industries won fight after fight in the last decade. They've never lost a significant political battle in the U.S. despite mounting scientific evidence of the role of unhealthy food and children's marketing in obesity. Lobbying records analyzed by Reuters reveal that the industries more than doubled their spending in Washington during the past three years. In the process, they largely dominated policymaking: pledging voluntary action while defeating government proposals aimed at changing the nation's diet, dozens of interviews show.
In contrast, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, widely regarded as the lead lobbying force for healthier food, spent about $70,000 lobbying last year, roughly what those opposing the stricter guidelines spent every 13 hours, the Reuters analysis showed.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
From the Atlantic: The Postal Service Is a Civic Institution, Not a Business
2301 students wrote about the Post Office, and its recent problems, a few months back.
Here's a take on why it ought to be preserved. Congress is debating how to address its financial health.
Here's a take on why it ought to be preserved. Congress is debating how to address its financial health.
What if cities can't afford the November elections?
Interesting question:
The U.S. economy looms large over November's general election in a basic way for strapped cities and counties: can they afford it?
In Detroit, the city clerk warned last week that the Rust Belt city would have trouble holding the Nov. 6 presidential election under a slimmed-down budget the mayor proposed to address years of deep financial problems.
In Jefferson County, Alabama, the local government was so short of cash for elections that it used road repair crews to staff the state's Republican presidential primary last month.
And in South Carolina, a $500,000 shortfall after the state's Republican primary in January led elections officials to consider a sponsorship deal with comedian Stephen Colbert, who plays a mock conservative pundit on his late-night TV show.
With cities and counties across the United States in dire financial straits, many local officials are struggling to come up with the millions of dollars they will need to hold the Nov. 6 elections. That is likely to mean fewer election workers and long lines for voters, which could reduce turnout.
The U.S. economy looms large over November's general election in a basic way for strapped cities and counties: can they afford it?
In Detroit, the city clerk warned last week that the Rust Belt city would have trouble holding the Nov. 6 presidential election under a slimmed-down budget the mayor proposed to address years of deep financial problems.
In Jefferson County, Alabama, the local government was so short of cash for elections that it used road repair crews to staff the state's Republican presidential primary last month.
And in South Carolina, a $500,000 shortfall after the state's Republican primary in January led elections officials to consider a sponsorship deal with comedian Stephen Colbert, who plays a mock conservative pundit on his late-night TV show.
With cities and counties across the United States in dire financial straits, many local officials are struggling to come up with the millions of dollars they will need to hold the Nov. 6 elections. That is likely to mean fewer election workers and long lines for voters, which could reduce turnout.
Rubio helps GOP tack to the center
The Washington post reports on the Senator's proposal for an alternative Dream Act - which would offer chances for the children of illegal immigrants to become citizens. This is another example of the pivoting the party has to do in order to win the presidency, but its interesting that Romney is not doing it. He can embrace or reject it based on how it plays. Rubio is rumored to be on Romney's VP list.
Two questions:
1 - Will it be accepted by the party's base? Meaning, can Romney embrace the proposal and not lose the support of the party's right wing?
2 - Will it be accepted by the Latino population? Rubio's Cuban roots does not put him in the mainstream of the Latino community.
Two questions:
1 - Will it be accepted by the party's base? Meaning, can Romney embrace the proposal and not lose the support of the party's right wing?
2 - Will it be accepted by the Latino population? Rubio's Cuban roots does not put him in the mainstream of the Latino community.
Why is jaywalking a crime?
Cars didn't always rule the roads. pedestrians did. Cars were always at fault when there was an accident. Pedestrians could use streets as they chose.
The auto lobby made sure that changed. They invented the concept of jaywalking.
A highlighted 1913 film: The Costs of Carelessness.
The auto lobby made sure that changed. They invented the concept of jaywalking.
A highlighted 1913 film: The Costs of Carelessness.
Trials in the news
For future reference when covering the judiciary, and especially trials:
- The HC's coverage of the Roger Clemens trial.
- The Huffington's Posts on the John Edwards trial.
- An entire website devoted to the trial (and now conviction) of Charles Taylor.
- The HC's coverage of the Roger Clemens trial.
- The Huffington's Posts on the John Edwards trial.
- An entire website devoted to the trial (and now conviction) of Charles Taylor.
Texas Legislators oversee juvenile justice reforms
This AAS story hits multiple points made in both 2301 and 2302.
Members of the Texas Senate's Criminal Justice Committee and the House's Corrections Committee are reviewing reports on the effectiveness of reform measures designed to address sex abuse in the Texas Juvenile Justice Department. Its seems they haven't been effective at all.
The former superintended in the Giddings State School (Wikipedia) blew the whistle on continued abuses and was fired. He is now suing the agency for retaliation and wrongful termination.
- Texas Juvenile Justice Department.
- Wikipedia: Texas Youth Commission.
Members of the Texas Senate's Criminal Justice Committee and the House's Corrections Committee are reviewing reports on the effectiveness of reform measures designed to address sex abuse in the Texas Juvenile Justice Department. Its seems they haven't been effective at all.
The former superintended in the Giddings State School (Wikipedia) blew the whistle on continued abuses and was fired. He is now suing the agency for retaliation and wrongful termination.
- Texas Juvenile Justice Department.
- Wikipedia: Texas Youth Commission.
Democrats moving to the left?
We've spent time discussing how the Republican base has been pulling the party to the right, but here's evidence that the same dynamic is occurring with Democrats - only in the opposite direction of course.
The NYT reports on two primary election results where a relatively unknown liberal Democrats defeated two centrists (one a member of the Blue Dog Coalition) that had opposed Obamacare. Commentary in the story echoes much of what we've discussed in class:
The story also suggests the same consequence we've wondered about - a more polarized Congress even less able to deal with the nation's problems. Centrism does not get you elected in the primaries. What does this tell us about whose voice really matters"
The NYT reports on two primary election results where a relatively unknown liberal Democrats defeated two centrists (one a member of the Blue Dog Coalition) that had opposed Obamacare. Commentary in the story echoes much of what we've discussed in class:
The ouster of the Democratic incumbents — and the tough primaries being
waged against some House Republicans — suggest that redistricting
ultimately is going to send more liberal Democrats and more conservative
Republicans to the House.
The parties have become more polarized in recent decades, several
academic studies have found. The demise of the conservative “Dixiecrats”
in the 1960s and ’70s made the Democratic Party more liberal, and
Republicans have moved even further to the right than Democrats have
moved to the left, the studies show. Elections like Tuesday’s suggest
Democrats may be taking the Republicans’ cue, driven by the same
activist forces that pushed them rightward.
The story also suggests the same consequence we've wondered about - a more polarized Congress even less able to deal with the nation's problems. Centrism does not get you elected in the primaries. What does this tell us about whose voice really matters"
I'm Back
I didn't intend to take a break - but I got bogged down in class work so it happened anyway.
If you are not all aware - the last assessment for 16 week students has been cancelled so I want you all to concentrate on getting written work done. Next week we begin reviewing for the final, hard.
I'll have a separate post for mini 8 week students, but you already know that the weekly written assignments have been trimmed back by one, and you'll get further info through BlackBoard about what you are and are not expected to do to finish out the semester.
Two things: be sure to have all of your written work in by the due date - this is a firm date. And get ready for the final, which will be comprehensive and difficult.
If you are not all aware - the last assessment for 16 week students has been cancelled so I want you all to concentrate on getting written work done. Next week we begin reviewing for the final, hard.
I'll have a separate post for mini 8 week students, but you already know that the weekly written assignments have been trimmed back by one, and you'll get further info through BlackBoard about what you are and are not expected to do to finish out the semester.
Two things: be sure to have all of your written work in by the due date - this is a firm date. And get ready for the final, which will be comprehensive and difficult.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Romney's pivot to the center
A useful description of the job ahead of him and the problems it poses:
Romney, after all, managed to secure the nomination only by strenuously avoiding friction with the base. On every major issue, he aligned himself with the party’s Obama-era orthodoxy, and when he attacked his GOP opponents, he made sure to do it from their right. This, of course, was in response to conservatives’ built-in suspicions about whether he really is one of them. So far, he’s given them what they want, at least in terms of policy positions. But they’re watching him closely, looking to see if he sells them out to appeal to the middle of the electorate against Obama – and ready to raise hell if he does.
This is producing some awkwardness already, like when Romney said that he wouldn’t go out of his way to get rid of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (what general election voters like to hear) but refused to say whether he would have signed it as president (thus avoiding a position that would put him directly at odds with the base). The overall effect was to reinforce the image of Romney as spineless. Expect to see more of this straddling in the months ahead. Romney faces more pressure than previous GOP nominees to keep his party’s base happy, but he also seems to recognize that fully embracing its agenda will be suicide in the fall.
Romney, after all, managed to secure the nomination only by strenuously avoiding friction with the base. On every major issue, he aligned himself with the party’s Obama-era orthodoxy, and when he attacked his GOP opponents, he made sure to do it from their right. This, of course, was in response to conservatives’ built-in suspicions about whether he really is one of them. So far, he’s given them what they want, at least in terms of policy positions. But they’re watching him closely, looking to see if he sells them out to appeal to the middle of the electorate against Obama – and ready to raise hell if he does.
This is producing some awkwardness already, like when Romney said that he wouldn’t go out of his way to get rid of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (what general election voters like to hear) but refused to say whether he would have signed it as president (thus avoiding a position that would put him directly at odds with the base). The overall effect was to reinforce the image of Romney as spineless. Expect to see more of this straddling in the months ahead. Romney faces more pressure than previous GOP nominees to keep his party’s base happy, but he also seems to recognize that fully embracing its agenda will be suicide in the fall.
Are criminal justice fees creating de facto debtor's prisons?
Perhaps:
Debtor’s prisons are supposed to be illegal in the United States but today poor people who fail to pay even small criminal justice fees are routinely being imprisoned. The problem has gotten worse recently because strapped states have dramatically increased the number of criminal justice fees. In Pennsylvania, for example, the criminal court charges for police transport, sheriff costs, state court costs, postage, and “judgment.” Many of these charges are not for any direct costs imposed by the criminal but have been added as revenue enhancers. A $5 fee, for example, supports the County Probation Officers’ Firearms Training Fund, an $8 fee supports the Judicial Computer Project, a $250 fee goes to the DNA Detection Fund. Convicted criminals may face dozens of fees (not including fines and restitution) totaling a substantial burden for people of limited means. Fees do not end outside the courtroom. Jailed criminals can be charged for room and board and for telephone use, haircuts, drug tests, transportation, booking, and medical co-pays. In Arizona, visitors to a prison are now charged a $25 maintenance fee. In PA in order to get parole there is a mandatory charge of $60. While on parole, defendants may be further assessed counseling, testing and other fees. Interest builds unpaid fees larger and larger. In Washington state unpaid legal debt accrues at an interest rate of 12%. As a result, the median person convicted in WA sees their criminal justice debt grow larger over time.
Debtor’s prisons are supposed to be illegal in the United States but today poor people who fail to pay even small criminal justice fees are routinely being imprisoned. The problem has gotten worse recently because strapped states have dramatically increased the number of criminal justice fees. In Pennsylvania, for example, the criminal court charges for police transport, sheriff costs, state court costs, postage, and “judgment.” Many of these charges are not for any direct costs imposed by the criminal but have been added as revenue enhancers. A $5 fee, for example, supports the County Probation Officers’ Firearms Training Fund, an $8 fee supports the Judicial Computer Project, a $250 fee goes to the DNA Detection Fund. Convicted criminals may face dozens of fees (not including fines and restitution) totaling a substantial burden for people of limited means. Fees do not end outside the courtroom. Jailed criminals can be charged for room and board and for telephone use, haircuts, drug tests, transportation, booking, and medical co-pays. In Arizona, visitors to a prison are now charged a $25 maintenance fee. In PA in order to get parole there is a mandatory charge of $60. While on parole, defendants may be further assessed counseling, testing and other fees. Interest builds unpaid fees larger and larger. In Washington state unpaid legal debt accrues at an interest rate of 12%. As a result, the median person convicted in WA sees their criminal justice debt grow larger over time.
Romney and the Republican Brand
Here's a suggestion that one problem Romney might face with independents is that the Republican brand has suffered in recent years in the general public. In addition, House Republicans have let it be known that they intend on defining the party's agenda:
The Republican Party’s standing with the public plunged in the wake of last summer’s debt ceiling standoff and has yet to recover. Just 35 percent of voters, according to a recent poll, have a favorable view of the GOP, while 58 percent have an unfavorable one. By contrast, nearly 50 percent of voters view the Democratic Party favorably.
The poisoning of the GOP brand can probably be linked to a few factors, but the compromise-resistant ideological absolutism of the House seems to be the biggest single driver. Thus, the prevailing assumption is that Mitt Romney will at some point stage a dramatic break with House Republicans on some defining issue, a reassuring gesture to swing voters who want to get rid of Barack Obama but who are queasy with the Obama-era GOP’s radicalism.
But, as Jonathan Weisman and Jennifer Steinhauer report in the New York Times today, Republicans in the House are on guard for such a moment and are already making it clear to Romney that “they are driving the policy agenda for the party now.”
In 2301 we wondered who is in charge of each party - here's evidence that a battle is raging within the Republican Party over control. How might this impact the party's chances in the general election?
The Republican Party’s standing with the public plunged in the wake of last summer’s debt ceiling standoff and has yet to recover. Just 35 percent of voters, according to a recent poll, have a favorable view of the GOP, while 58 percent have an unfavorable one. By contrast, nearly 50 percent of voters view the Democratic Party favorably.
The poisoning of the GOP brand can probably be linked to a few factors, but the compromise-resistant ideological absolutism of the House seems to be the biggest single driver. Thus, the prevailing assumption is that Mitt Romney will at some point stage a dramatic break with House Republicans on some defining issue, a reassuring gesture to swing voters who want to get rid of Barack Obama but who are queasy with the Obama-era GOP’s radicalism.
But, as Jonathan Weisman and Jennifer Steinhauer report in the New York Times today, Republicans in the House are on guard for such a moment and are already making it clear to Romney that “they are driving the policy agenda for the party now.”
In 2301 we wondered who is in charge of each party - here's evidence that a battle is raging within the Republican Party over control. How might this impact the party's chances in the general election?
Romney, Obama and the gender gap
While Romney has problems with Latinos and Women, Obama has problems with men, and a couple articles suggest that Romney's advantage with men may overshadow Obama's advantage with the other two.
Are reporters taking Twitter too seriously?
Brendan Nyhan takes campaign reporters to task for giving too much - or any - attention to superficial news events like the etch a sketch comment about Romney or the recent claim that his wife has never worked a day in her life. He is especially concerned that reporters pick up rumors sent via Twitter as being true without fact checking.
He says we are the silly season.
Perhaps all of this is fostered by technology that allows for messages to get out quickly and business models that depend on this speed - regardless of whether it is accurate.
He says we are the silly season.
Perhaps all of this is fostered by technology that allows for messages to get out quickly and business models that depend on this speed - regardless of whether it is accurate.
Study finds that the current crop of congressional Republicans are the most conservative in a century
There is empirical proof that the Republican Party has veered far to the right.
Keith Poole of the University of Georgia, with his collaborator Howard Rosenthal of New York University, has spent decades charting the ideological shifts and polarization of the political parties in Congress from the 18th century until now to get the view of how the political landscape has changed from 30,000 feet up. What they have found is that the Republican Party is the most conservative it has been a century.
Moderates have left Congress - or been replaced more accurately.
. . . this loss of moderates and further rightward movement by congressional Republicans would have been a challenge to navigate for even the biggest conservative hero of modern times, President Ronald Reagan. Poole said:
And he blames poor leadership for the current inability to solve problems:
And he faults leaders of both parties for allowing the nation to get into a fiscal morass in which government spending on health care is unsustainable:
Keith Poole of the University of Georgia, with his collaborator Howard Rosenthal of New York University, has spent decades charting the ideological shifts and polarization of the political parties in Congress from the 18th century until now to get the view of how the political landscape has changed from 30,000 feet up. What they have found is that the Republican Party is the most conservative it has been a century.
Moderates have left Congress - or been replaced more accurately.
. . . this loss of moderates and further rightward movement by congressional Republicans would have been a challenge to navigate for even the biggest conservative hero of modern times, President Ronald Reagan. Poole said:
"Ronald Reagan was so successful because he made all these deals with these huge blocks of moderate legislators. That's why he had overwhelming majorities for the 81 tax cut, the 82 tax increase, where they had to go back and adjust the tax bill in 82 and the Social Security fix in 83. Then in 86 you had Simpson Mazzoli, which included amnesty and tax simplification. All that stuff passed with very large majorities. You cannot imagine anything like that happening now. Which is why the country is really in the tank.That said, Poole says the data are hard to deny; the polarization is largely due to how far and relatively quickly Republicans have shifted to the right end of the ideological spectrum.
"There's a lot of blame to go around. It doesn't look like there's any resolution of this anytime soon."
And he blames poor leadership for the current inability to solve problems:
And he faults leaders of both parties for allowing the nation to get into a fiscal morass in which government spending on health care is unsustainable:
"It is true that the Republicans have moved further to the right than the Democrats have moved to the left. That's absolutely true.This isn't meant as a knock on Obama, Poole said. But he's not very optimistic about what an Obama second term would bring:
"On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be much impetus on the part of the leadership of either political party to really do something serious about our budget crisis. I doubt very seriously we'll see much improvement.
"People forget how utterly irresponsible our political leadership has been for the last 30 years. ... The current political class of the U.S. just isn't in the same league as Truman and Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson. You just don't have that kind of leadership now, just when we need it.
"The likely outcome of the election is that it's a very close victory by President Obama, the Republicans hold the House and may come within an eyelash of taking the Senate. I could see a 50-50 Senate. So good luck. After $2 billion gets spent on federal elections at all levels, how bitter will the atmosphere will be in January 2013? We're really up the creek."
From the WP: DOJ review of flawed FBI forensics processes lacked transparency
An appropriate story since 2302s are covering the criminal justice system in Texas, even though it deals with national government.
The FBI's crime lab is accused of suppressing information that did not support the prosecution's theories of terrorist bombing plots. An investigation followed which detailed the close connections between the crime labs, the FBI and the Justice Department.
The FBI's crime lab is accused of suppressing information that did not support the prosecution's theories of terrorist bombing plots. An investigation followed which detailed the close connections between the crime labs, the FBI and the Justice Department.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Is Zimmerman's indictment based on evidence or politics?
Here's an exhaustive post - embedded with comments from various law types - that probable cause was likely not sufficient to justify the indictment.
And now his lawyers want a new judge.
Seminole Circuit Judge Jessica Recksiedler disclosed late last week that her husband works with CNN legal analyst Mark NeJame, who was approached by Zimmerman earlier in the week about representing him after his original lawyers quit. NeJame declined, but said he gave Zimmerman a short list of alternatives, including Mark O'Mara, who Zimmerman ultimately chose as his legal counsel shortly before his arrest.
O'Mara told CNN late Monday night after filing his request that he expected Recksiedler to grant it and recuse herself.
And now his lawyers want a new judge.
Seminole Circuit Judge Jessica Recksiedler disclosed late last week that her husband works with CNN legal analyst Mark NeJame, who was approached by Zimmerman earlier in the week about representing him after his original lawyers quit. NeJame declined, but said he gave Zimmerman a short list of alternatives, including Mark O'Mara, who Zimmerman ultimately chose as his legal counsel shortly before his arrest.
O'Mara told CNN late Monday night after filing his request that he expected Recksiedler to grant it and recuse herself.
From CPJ: Getting Away With Murder
The Committee to Protect Journalists details the number of journalists around the world who have been killed, and the countries that are uninterested in investigating the cases and punishing the killers.
It releases the numbers in its Impunity Index, with Iraq leading the list.
The killings have a purpose:
CPJ research shows that deadly, unpunished violence against journalists often leads to vast self-censorship in the rest of the press corps. Nowhere is that more apparent than in Mexico, where unsolved journalist murders grew for the third consecutive year. Fear of retaliation has driven some journalists to report crime news under pseudonyms on social media websites. But even those sites do not provide refuge: In September 2011, the decapitated body of Maria Elizabeth MacÃas Castro, a Mexican journalist who used social media to report crime news, was found alongside a computer keyboard and a note from a crime group claiming responsibility.
It releases the numbers in its Impunity Index, with Iraq leading the list.
The killings have a purpose:
CPJ research shows that deadly, unpunished violence against journalists often leads to vast self-censorship in the rest of the press corps. Nowhere is that more apparent than in Mexico, where unsolved journalist murders grew for the third consecutive year. Fear of retaliation has driven some journalists to report crime news under pseudonyms on social media websites. But even those sites do not provide refuge: In September 2011, the decapitated body of Maria Elizabeth MacÃas Castro, a Mexican journalist who used social media to report crime news, was found alongside a computer keyboard and a note from a crime group claiming responsibility.
Was Trayvon Martin killed by a stereotype?
We discussed stereotypes and schemas in last week's 2301. Public opinion tends to form around them, and they also influence how we each use the media - usually to confirm these stereotypes.
This opinion piece fits that mold:
This opinion piece fits that mold:
Over the last three decades, a growing body of research has shown that
racial stereotypes play a powerful role in judgments made by ostensibly
fair-minded people. Killers of whites, for example, are more likely to
receive the death penalty than killers of blacks — and, according to the
psychologist Jennifer Eberhardt, juries tend to see darker defendants
as more “deathworthy” in capital cases involving white victims.
As Vesla Weaver, a political science professor at the University of
Virginia, has written, “virtually every aspect of life and material
well-being is influenced by skin color, in addition to race.” Studies
have shown, for example, that darker-skinned blacks are punished more
severely than others for the same types of crimes; deemed less worthy of
help during disasters like Hurricane Katrina; disfavored in some hiring
decisions; and more likely to be unemployed.
. . .The power of stereotypes has always been easily illustrated in studies. But media accounts of the 911 calls made over the last several years by George Zimmerman, now charged with second-degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin, offer a glimpse of a man who seemed gripped by fears that he began to associate almost exclusively with black children and teenagers.
The 911 calls began at least eight years ago, with Mr. Zimmerman reporting on a range of non-emergencies, including the existence of potholes or someone driving slowly through the neighborhood. By late 2011, his calls were often about black youths and men, with complaints about suspicious activity or just loitering.
By the time he went on neighborhood watch patrol with his 9-millimeter pistol and spied Trayvon Martin, Mr. Zimmerman saw not a teenager with candy, but a collection of preconceptions: the black as burglar, the black as drug addict, the black “up to no good.” And he was determined not to let this one get away.
. . .The power of stereotypes has always been easily illustrated in studies. But media accounts of the 911 calls made over the last several years by George Zimmerman, now charged with second-degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin, offer a glimpse of a man who seemed gripped by fears that he began to associate almost exclusively with black children and teenagers.
The 911 calls began at least eight years ago, with Mr. Zimmerman reporting on a range of non-emergencies, including the existence of potholes or someone driving slowly through the neighborhood. By late 2011, his calls were often about black youths and men, with complaints about suspicious activity or just loitering.
By the time he went on neighborhood watch patrol with his 9-millimeter pistol and spied Trayvon Martin, Mr. Zimmerman saw not a teenager with candy, but a collection of preconceptions: the black as burglar, the black as drug addict, the black “up to no good.” And he was determined not to let this one get away.
The Tupac Hologram
I promise this isn't just gratuitous, but this pretty impressive hologram of Tupac Shakur is likely to go on tour soon, Over a decade after he was killed. What other things might follow from this technology?
It (he?) has a twitter account.
It (he?) has a twitter account.
Before Obamacare there was controversy over child labor legislation
A law professor sees a parallel between the arguments against Obamacare and against child labor laws in the early 20th Century:
. . . then and now, challengers to the statutes had to propose that the Supreme Court invent new constitutional rules in order to strike them down. At the time it considered the issue in 1918, there was nothing in the Supreme Court’s case law that suggested any limit on Congress’s authority over what crossed state lines. On the contrary, the Court had upheld bans on interstate transportation of lottery tickets, contaminated food and drugs, prostitutes, and alcoholic beverages.
That’s why the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the law in 1918 astounded even those who had most strenuously opposed enactment. Hammer v. Dagenhart declared—in tones reminiscent of the Broccoli Objection to Obamacare—that if it upheld the law “all freedom of commerce will be at an end, and the power of the States over local matters may be eliminated, and, thus, our system of government be practically destroyed.” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissenting, wondered how it could make sense for congressional regulation to be “permissible as against strong drink but not as against the product of ruined lives.” The Court responded that unlike all the contraband that it had permitted Congress to block, the products of child labor “are of themselves harmless.” This meant a completely novel constitutional doctrine: The Court took unto itself the power to decide which harms Congress was permitted to consider when it regulated commerce.
- Wikipedia: Hammer v. Dagenhart
. . . then and now, challengers to the statutes had to propose that the Supreme Court invent new constitutional rules in order to strike them down. At the time it considered the issue in 1918, there was nothing in the Supreme Court’s case law that suggested any limit on Congress’s authority over what crossed state lines. On the contrary, the Court had upheld bans on interstate transportation of lottery tickets, contaminated food and drugs, prostitutes, and alcoholic beverages.
That’s why the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the law in 1918 astounded even those who had most strenuously opposed enactment. Hammer v. Dagenhart declared—in tones reminiscent of the Broccoli Objection to Obamacare—that if it upheld the law “all freedom of commerce will be at an end, and the power of the States over local matters may be eliminated, and, thus, our system of government be practically destroyed.” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissenting, wondered how it could make sense for congressional regulation to be “permissible as against strong drink but not as against the product of ruined lives.” The Court responded that unlike all the contraband that it had permitted Congress to block, the products of child labor “are of themselves harmless.” This meant a completely novel constitutional doctrine: The Court took unto itself the power to decide which harms Congress was permitted to consider when it regulated commerce.
- Wikipedia: Hammer v. Dagenhart
A Great Question: Watergate 4.0: How Would the Story Unfold in the Digital Age?
Several newspapers have written up a recent talk made by the reporters who broke the Watergate story - Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward - that included a discussion about whether reporters in the age of the internet would have been able to break the Watergate scandal as they did years back.
They note that students today seem to over-estimate what is on the internet:
The truth of what goes on is not on the Internet. [The Internet] can supplement. It can help advance. But the truth resides with people. Human sources.”
And that the resources they had available that allowed for the investigation do not exist any more:
Woodward and Bernstein’s main point was evocative of a previous, plentiful era: Editors gave them the time and encouragement to pursue an intricate, elusive story, they said, and then the rest of the American system (Congress, the judiciary) took over and worked. It was a shining act of democratic teamwork that neither man believes is wholly replicable today — either because news outlets are strapped or gutted, or because the American people have a reduced appetite for ponderous coverage of a not-yet-scandal, or because the current Congress would never act as decisively to investigate a president.
And they mention the negative impact of the 24 hour news cycle and the use of news sources to confirm deeply held opinions rather than obtain objective analysis:
“We had a readership that was much more open to real fact than today,” Bernstein said. “Today there’s a huge audience, partly whipped into shape by the 24-hour cycle, that is looking for information to confirm their already-held political-cultural-religious beliefs/ideologies, and that is the cauldron into which all information is put. . . . I have no doubt there are dozens of great reporters out there today — and news organizations — that could do this story. What I don’t think is that it would withstand this cultural reception. It might get ground up in the process.”
Of course they might just be a couple of grumpy old guys.
They note that students today seem to over-estimate what is on the internet:
The truth of what goes on is not on the Internet. [The Internet] can supplement. It can help advance. But the truth resides with people. Human sources.”
And that the resources they had available that allowed for the investigation do not exist any more:
Woodward and Bernstein’s main point was evocative of a previous, plentiful era: Editors gave them the time and encouragement to pursue an intricate, elusive story, they said, and then the rest of the American system (Congress, the judiciary) took over and worked. It was a shining act of democratic teamwork that neither man believes is wholly replicable today — either because news outlets are strapped or gutted, or because the American people have a reduced appetite for ponderous coverage of a not-yet-scandal, or because the current Congress would never act as decisively to investigate a president.
And they mention the negative impact of the 24 hour news cycle and the use of news sources to confirm deeply held opinions rather than obtain objective analysis:
“We had a readership that was much more open to real fact than today,” Bernstein said. “Today there’s a huge audience, partly whipped into shape by the 24-hour cycle, that is looking for information to confirm their already-held political-cultural-religious beliefs/ideologies, and that is the cauldron into which all information is put. . . . I have no doubt there are dozens of great reporters out there today — and news organizations — that could do this story. What I don’t think is that it would withstand this cultural reception. It might get ground up in the process.”
Of course they might just be a couple of grumpy old guys.
No Free Press in Africa
Mohamed Keita, the Africa advocacy coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists, argues that China's increased influence in Africa is making the news media less able to report on problems across the continent and more likely to "focus on collective achievements and mobilize public support for the state."
Speaking of Ethiopia he states:
. . . today, journalists are denied independent access to sensitive areas and risk up to 20 years in prison if they report about opposition groups designated by the government as terrorists. “We are not supposed to take pictures of obviously malnourished kids,” an Ethiopia-based reporter recently told me. “We are effectively prevented from going to areas and health facilities where severely malnourished kids are, or are being treated.”
This silencing in turn frustrates the ability of aid groups to quickly mobilize funds when help is needed. And with civil society, the political opposition and the press severely restricted, there is hardly any domestic scrutiny over how the government uses billions of dollars of international assistance from Western governments.
Rwanda is another worrisome case. The volume of trade between Rwanda and China increased fivefold between 2005 and 2009. During the same period, the government has eviscerated virtually all critical press and opposition and has begun filtering Rwandan dissident news Web sites based abroad.
He tells us that following China's ascension as Africa's biggest trading partner, its news agency has infiltrated the continent and ensured that China's vision of the role of the press in society trumps that of the West:
In 2301 this week we are covering the freedom of the press and the role a free press plays in fostering and maintaining individual freedom. This may help make that point. Limits on the press enable government to keep certain stories out of the public eye and retain an authoritarian character.
Speaking of Ethiopia he states:
. . . today, journalists are denied independent access to sensitive areas and risk up to 20 years in prison if they report about opposition groups designated by the government as terrorists. “We are not supposed to take pictures of obviously malnourished kids,” an Ethiopia-based reporter recently told me. “We are effectively prevented from going to areas and health facilities where severely malnourished kids are, or are being treated.”
This silencing in turn frustrates the ability of aid groups to quickly mobilize funds when help is needed. And with civil society, the political opposition and the press severely restricted, there is hardly any domestic scrutiny over how the government uses billions of dollars of international assistance from Western governments.
Rwanda is another worrisome case. The volume of trade between Rwanda and China increased fivefold between 2005 and 2009. During the same period, the government has eviscerated virtually all critical press and opposition and has begun filtering Rwandan dissident news Web sites based abroad.
He tells us that following China's ascension as Africa's biggest trading partner, its news agency has infiltrated the continent and ensured that China's vision of the role of the press in society trumps that of the West:
Then there’s the influence of China,
which surpassed the West as Africa’s largest trading partner in 2009.
Ever since, China has been deepening technical and media ties with
African governments to counter the kind of critical press coverage that
both parties demonize as neocolonialist.
In January, Beijing issued a white paper
calling for accelerated expansion of China’s news media abroad and the
deployment of a press corps of 100,000 around the world, particularly in
priority regions like Africa. In the last few months alone, China
established its first TV news hub in Kenya and a print publication
in South Africa. The state-run Xinhua news agency already operates more
than 20 bureaus in Africa. More than 200 African government press officers received Chinese training between 2004 and 2011 in order to produce what the Communist Party propaganda chief, Li Changchun, called “truthful” coverage of development fueled by China’s activities.
In 2301 this week we are covering the freedom of the press and the role a free press plays in fostering and maintaining individual freedom. This may help make that point. Limits on the press enable government to keep certain stories out of the public eye and retain an authoritarian character.
From an intrepid student: Pentagon Study Finds Beards Directly Related To Combat Effectiveness
Read all about it here.
Jonathon Burns was the lead researcher in the study.
“We took 100 soldiers. 25 were Special Forces qualified and had beards, 25 were Special Forces qualified without beards, 25 were regular Army allowed to grow beards for the study, and the last 25 were regular Army without beards. All 100 of these subjects were in direct combat in Afghanistan during the study.”
He continued, “Xegis Solutions had several teams of researchers embedded with these troops to make observations on their combat effectiveness. The results were overwhelming, out of the 50 soldiers with beards, zero were wounded or killed and they had a significantly higher accuracy of fire than the soldiers without beards. The soldiers lacking beards had a higher rate of weapons malfunctions and basically, shit went wrong most of the time.”
Since WWI, the military has banned beards, but troops in Afghanistan woudl like to see that changed. Beards - being manly and all - allows one to blend in with the locals.
One soldier in the violent border area of Kunar province estimates that his combat outpost gets attacked almost daily. But when the base received a visit recently from a commanding officer, the soldier recalls, "the main thing" he told the soldiers is that they needed to shave more frequently. They did shave, but they felt they gathered better intelligence with locals when they were unshaven, as locals felt more comfortable talking to bearded men.
Where troops come down on beards is often the difference between the junior and senior officer ranks.
While junior officers are quickly becoming used to a counterinsurgency approach to combat that tends to be nonlinear and more focused on influencing perceptions, says a senior military official here, some are less willing to be nontraditional or to do away with disciplinary checklists that include having a short haircut and a close shave. Sometimes with reason, he adds. "You could argue that we're not here to be liked; we're here to be respected."
But occasionally junior and senior officers are on the same page. One junior soldier was given special dispensation by his commander to wear a beard since he works in close proximity with Afghan security forces. That has been invaluable, the junior officer adds, in helping to build trust and garner the respect of his Afghan coworkers.
Comments from veterans are especially welcomed.
Jonathon Burns was the lead researcher in the study.
“We took 100 soldiers. 25 were Special Forces qualified and had beards, 25 were Special Forces qualified without beards, 25 were regular Army allowed to grow beards for the study, and the last 25 were regular Army without beards. All 100 of these subjects were in direct combat in Afghanistan during the study.”
He continued, “Xegis Solutions had several teams of researchers embedded with these troops to make observations on their combat effectiveness. The results were overwhelming, out of the 50 soldiers with beards, zero were wounded or killed and they had a significantly higher accuracy of fire than the soldiers without beards. The soldiers lacking beards had a higher rate of weapons malfunctions and basically, shit went wrong most of the time.”
Since WWI, the military has banned beards, but troops in Afghanistan woudl like to see that changed. Beards - being manly and all - allows one to blend in with the locals.
One soldier in the violent border area of Kunar province estimates that his combat outpost gets attacked almost daily. But when the base received a visit recently from a commanding officer, the soldier recalls, "the main thing" he told the soldiers is that they needed to shave more frequently. They did shave, but they felt they gathered better intelligence with locals when they were unshaven, as locals felt more comfortable talking to bearded men.
Where troops come down on beards is often the difference between the junior and senior officer ranks.
While junior officers are quickly becoming used to a counterinsurgency approach to combat that tends to be nonlinear and more focused on influencing perceptions, says a senior military official here, some are less willing to be nontraditional or to do away with disciplinary checklists that include having a short haircut and a close shave. Sometimes with reason, he adds. "You could argue that we're not here to be liked; we're here to be respected."
But occasionally junior and senior officers are on the same page. One junior soldier was given special dispensation by his commander to wear a beard since he works in close proximity with Afghan security forces. That has been invaluable, the junior officer adds, in helping to build trust and garner the respect of his Afghan coworkers.
Comments from veterans are especially welcomed.
Can you film the police?
Interesting topic raised in yesterday's 8am 2302. We were discussing how easy it is now to record things through cell phones and a student remarked that an officer who pulled her and a friend over got touchy when it occurred to him that they could be recording him.
Did they have the right to do so?
I mentioned that - as best I know - this is an unresolved issue. If I recall, yes they can be recorded, but no court has yet to defend that right. Police tend to consider recordings as interferences, and make arrests on that basis. It would be a great test case.
Any takers?
I have a standing policy that any student who starts a dispute that ends up in the Supreme Court gets an A for the class.
Here's a thought though. If you are indeed arrested for recording the police and taken to jail, the Supreme Court has ruled that you can be stripped searched even though what you did in no way demonstrates probable cause that you are a violent person. So might you be reluctant to do so now?
Here are more thoughtful comments on the issue:
- Reversing Big Brother: Videotaping and Recording On-Duty Police Officers.
- Your right to record
- Rochester Woman Arrested After Videotaping Police From Her Own Front Yard
- First Circuit Court of Appeals Rules that Citizens Can Videotape Police
- Growing Number of Prosecutions for Videotaping the Police
- But for (Deleted) Video
Did they have the right to do so?
I mentioned that - as best I know - this is an unresolved issue. If I recall, yes they can be recorded, but no court has yet to defend that right. Police tend to consider recordings as interferences, and make arrests on that basis. It would be a great test case.
Any takers?
I have a standing policy that any student who starts a dispute that ends up in the Supreme Court gets an A for the class.
Here's a thought though. If you are indeed arrested for recording the police and taken to jail, the Supreme Court has ruled that you can be stripped searched even though what you did in no way demonstrates probable cause that you are a violent person. So might you be reluctant to do so now?
Here are more thoughtful comments on the issue:
- Reversing Big Brother: Videotaping and Recording On-Duty Police Officers.
- Your right to record
- Rochester Woman Arrested After Videotaping Police From Her Own Front Yard
- First Circuit Court of Appeals Rules that Citizens Can Videotape Police
- Growing Number of Prosecutions for Videotaping the Police
- But for (Deleted) Video
No More Weekly Written Assignments
In order to free you up to finish the 1000 word essay and get ready for the final, there will be no more weekly written assignments. 8 week 2301 and 2302 students need only turn in a total of 7 rather than the 8 originally assigned. 16 week students will be expected to have turned in a total of 12.
You're welcome.
You're welcome.
Monday, April 16, 2012
From Philly.com: Obama, Romney camps ready for digital warfare
The full range of social media will apparently be used in the campaigns of Romney and Obama, as well as in other races. This is new territory.
Now that Rick Santorum has suspended his campaign and the race is on between President Obama and Mitt Romney, an unprecedented media war has begun.
We've seen big media battles before. But in money, in woman- and man-hours, and in technical and strategic sophistication, this will be the biggest ever. Especially in Pennsylvania and other swing states, you'll see television ads from both camps, and from the semianonymous political action committees that have become the coin of the 2012 realm.
But that's just the visible war.
Underneath and at the edges, simmering around and through that loud clash of money and images, the digital campaigns will lock horns.
They'll come to you in e-mails, text messages, classic mail . . . and in real live human beings knocking on your door.
In a close election, as this promises to be, digital could be decisive. Just ask Ann Romney. Better yet, tweet her: @AnnDRomney. (More on that later.)
Or ask Andrew Rasiej, social-media campaign strategist, founder of Personal Democracy Media, cofounder of TechPresident. He says 2008 was "the beginning of social media on the political scene. But as of 2012, the digital campaign is on steroids."
Now that Rick Santorum has suspended his campaign and the race is on between President Obama and Mitt Romney, an unprecedented media war has begun.
We've seen big media battles before. But in money, in woman- and man-hours, and in technical and strategic sophistication, this will be the biggest ever. Especially in Pennsylvania and other swing states, you'll see television ads from both camps, and from the semianonymous political action committees that have become the coin of the 2012 realm.
But that's just the visible war.
Underneath and at the edges, simmering around and through that loud clash of money and images, the digital campaigns will lock horns.
They'll come to you in e-mails, text messages, classic mail . . . and in real live human beings knocking on your door.
In a close election, as this promises to be, digital could be decisive. Just ask Ann Romney. Better yet, tweet her: @AnnDRomney. (More on that later.)
Or ask Andrew Rasiej, social-media campaign strategist, founder of Personal Democracy Media, cofounder of TechPresident. He says 2008 was "the beginning of social media on the political scene. But as of 2012, the digital campaign is on steroids."
From the AAS: Lower-level judges receive big share of sanctions from judicial commission
Justice of the Peace and Municipal Court judges come under fire for inesperience:
Last year, complaints against justices of the peace represented 19 percent of the total complaints filed about equal to their numbers among state judges. Yet justices of the peace received 55 percent of the sanctions issued by the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Municipal court judges accounted for 9 percent of the complaints filed in 2011 but earned 24 percent all disciplinary measures. District and appellate judges, by comparison, are rarely sanctioned by the agency, even though they generate nearly half the total complaints.
One reason lower-court judges are sanctioned more often, judges and attorneys say, is that many aren't lawyers — which is often a point of pride.
"I'm not an attorney; I'm a citizen," said George Boyett, a Brazos County justice of the peace who has appeared in front of the commission three times.
Known as "people's courts," justice of the peace dockets are busy and proceedings can be informal. "The judge conducted court proceedings in an undignified manner when he heard the case while barefooted and wearing a T-shirt and shorts," said a 2003 private admonishment of an unnamed justice of the peace.
Another unidentified justice of the peace received the same sanction in 2001 after "the judge confiscated a defendant's shotgun as surety for payment of a $300 fine," according to commission records. "The judge's action was without legal authority."
Last year, complaints against justices of the peace represented 19 percent of the total complaints filed about equal to their numbers among state judges. Yet justices of the peace received 55 percent of the sanctions issued by the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Municipal court judges accounted for 9 percent of the complaints filed in 2011 but earned 24 percent all disciplinary measures. District and appellate judges, by comparison, are rarely sanctioned by the agency, even though they generate nearly half the total complaints.
One reason lower-court judges are sanctioned more often, judges and attorneys say, is that many aren't lawyers — which is often a point of pride.
"I'm not an attorney; I'm a citizen," said George Boyett, a Brazos County justice of the peace who has appeared in front of the commission three times.
Known as "people's courts," justice of the peace dockets are busy and proceedings can be informal. "The judge conducted court proceedings in an undignified manner when he heard the case while barefooted and wearing a T-shirt and shorts," said a 2003 private admonishment of an unnamed justice of the peace.
Another unidentified justice of the peace received the same sanction in 2001 after "the judge confiscated a defendant's shotgun as surety for payment of a $300 fine," according to commission records. "The judge's action was without legal authority."
From the HC: Mystery email tries to divide Houston's blacks, gays
Patricia Kilday Hart reports on an effort to divide the Democratic Party in Harris Count. We've noted similar efforts elsewhere around the country.
A political whodunit, in the most unlikely of races, is creating chaos and divisiveness in the Harris County Democratic Party. Or perhaps I should say it is creating more than the usual chaos and divisiveness that exists like a constant low-grade fever (on a good day) throughout Democratic Party operations everywhere in Texas these days.
Monday afternoon, a mysterious electronic message blew up in Houston political circles, purportedly sent by a Rev. Willie Howard on behalf of attorney Keryl Douglas' campaign for chairperson of the Harris County Democratic Party.
Douglas, who is African-American, is challenging interim chairman Lane Lewis, who is openly gay - a fact that the probably fictitious Rev. Howard finds disturbing.
The purported pastor claims to be organizing African-American ministers to support Douglas because "her opponent is openly Gay and has already told supporters behind closed doors that the Democratic Party will endorse a Gay Marriage agenda in November … If the gays take over we are poised to lose everything we have worked for during President Obama's historic win. The Republicans will rally their troops behind a united front of making sure this push for same sex marriage is defeated."
A political whodunit, in the most unlikely of races, is creating chaos and divisiveness in the Harris County Democratic Party. Or perhaps I should say it is creating more than the usual chaos and divisiveness that exists like a constant low-grade fever (on a good day) throughout Democratic Party operations everywhere in Texas these days.
Monday afternoon, a mysterious electronic message blew up in Houston political circles, purportedly sent by a Rev. Willie Howard on behalf of attorney Keryl Douglas' campaign for chairperson of the Harris County Democratic Party.
Douglas, who is African-American, is challenging interim chairman Lane Lewis, who is openly gay - a fact that the probably fictitious Rev. Howard finds disturbing.
The purported pastor claims to be organizing African-American ministers to support Douglas because "her opponent is openly Gay and has already told supporters behind closed doors that the Democratic Party will endorse a Gay Marriage agenda in November … If the gays take over we are poised to lose everything we have worked for during President Obama's historic win. The Republicans will rally their troops behind a united front of making sure this push for same sex marriage is defeated."
Travis County District Judge Ruling Could Cost Texas Billions
From State Impact:
A new ruling this week from Travis County District Judge John Dietz this week could cost the state of Texas billions in tax revenue. Ruling in favor of the drilling company Southwest Royalties, the court found that oil and gas equipment used for exploring and completing wells should not be subject to sales tax because it qualifies for an manufacturing exemption.
The ruling was first reported by the Texas Energy Report, but Dale Craymer of the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association says we’ll have to wait and see.
“The judge has indicated he’s going to rule with the plaintiffs, but we know the state is going to appeal,” he says. “We’ve had instances where plaintiffs have won big judgments in trial court, only to see it be reversed on appeal and vice-versa. This is still very early in what will be a long legal process.”
Craymer says it also depends on how the final ruling is written. It could be broad enough to include billions in tax funds or narrow enough to only affect a smaller amount. Southwest Royalties is owned by Clayton Williams, a Midland oilman known for his failed campaign against Ann Richards for Texas Governor in 1990.
A new ruling this week from Travis County District Judge John Dietz this week could cost the state of Texas billions in tax revenue. Ruling in favor of the drilling company Southwest Royalties, the court found that oil and gas equipment used for exploring and completing wells should not be subject to sales tax because it qualifies for an manufacturing exemption.
The ruling was first reported by the Texas Energy Report, but Dale Craymer of the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association says we’ll have to wait and see.
“The judge has indicated he’s going to rule with the plaintiffs, but we know the state is going to appeal,” he says. “We’ve had instances where plaintiffs have won big judgments in trial court, only to see it be reversed on appeal and vice-versa. This is still very early in what will be a long legal process.”
Craymer says it also depends on how the final ruling is written. It could be broad enough to include billions in tax funds or narrow enough to only affect a smaller amount. Southwest Royalties is owned by Clayton Williams, a Midland oilman known for his failed campaign against Ann Richards for Texas Governor in 1990.
Friday, April 13, 2012
The Wartime Bonus
In 2302 we discussed how crisis management - especially in a time of war - is good for a president's reputation. Historians tend to give high marks to presidents who held office during war, or led America into battle.
Here's a study that provides empirical proof of that allegation, and here's commentary:
American war casualties, as a fraction of the population, positively correlate with how historians rate U.S. presidents. More death = better presidents. . . . Greatness rankings by historians may prompt presidents to start more wars. The historians may have more blood on their hands than we care to admit.
And more commentary:
Henderson and Gouchenour investigated "the connection between presidents' greatness rankings and the intensity of the wars that those presidents carried on. Using multiple regression analysis, we compare the effect of war intensity with other explanations offered by previous researchers," such as intellectual prowess, GDP growth and involvement in major scandal. They found "a strong positive correlation between the number of Americans killed during a president's time in office and the president's rating."
Presidents have long recognized the "wartime bonus" doled out by historians. Henderson and Gouchenour quote Teddy Roosevelt: "if Lincoln had lived in times of peace, no one would know his name now." (TR would later come to envy Woodrow Wilson because Wilson got to fight the European war TR himself had pushed for.)
Along with the following wish:
Let's hope that the lure of "presidential greatness" doesn't tempt Barack Obama into rash action with Iran.
Some of the above commentators wonder if Congress makes it too easy to go to war. Rachel Maddow's recent book on this theme has stirred things up.
Also worth a look: War Making and State Making as Organized Crime.
Here's a study that provides empirical proof of that allegation, and here's commentary:
American war casualties, as a fraction of the population, positively correlate with how historians rate U.S. presidents. More death = better presidents. . . . Greatness rankings by historians may prompt presidents to start more wars. The historians may have more blood on their hands than we care to admit.
And more commentary:
Henderson and Gouchenour investigated "the connection between presidents' greatness rankings and the intensity of the wars that those presidents carried on. Using multiple regression analysis, we compare the effect of war intensity with other explanations offered by previous researchers," such as intellectual prowess, GDP growth and involvement in major scandal. They found "a strong positive correlation between the number of Americans killed during a president's time in office and the president's rating."
Presidents have long recognized the "wartime bonus" doled out by historians. Henderson and Gouchenour quote Teddy Roosevelt: "if Lincoln had lived in times of peace, no one would know his name now." (TR would later come to envy Woodrow Wilson because Wilson got to fight the European war TR himself had pushed for.)
Along with the following wish:
Let's hope that the lure of "presidential greatness" doesn't tempt Barack Obama into rash action with Iran.
Some of the above commentators wonder if Congress makes it too easy to go to war. Rachel Maddow's recent book on this theme has stirred things up.
Also worth a look: War Making and State Making as Organized Crime.
Independent voters are not necessarily swing voters.
Ruy Teixeira argues that it is more appropriate to think of swing voters as those who are persuadable, not necessarily just independent:
For an individual voter to qualify as a swing voter, the relevant criterion that needs to be fulfilled is persuadability. And that’s not a quality that’s exclusive only to those who are completely undecided, or who are only weakly committed to a candidate. Even those who are moderately committed can be persuaded to deepen their commitment. And the deepening of an existing affiliation with a candidate can be just as significant, both statistically and electorally speaking, as attracting mild commitment from someone who had previously been mildly committed to another candidate.
The important factor is not where voters’ inclinations started out, but the fact that their inclinations were changed at all. The act of persuading a swing voter has traditionally been thought of as moving a given voter from more likely to vote against a given candidate to more likely to vote for him—say from 55 percent likely to vote against to 55 percent likely to vote for. But it could also mean moving that voter from somewhat likely to vote for a candidate to very likely to support that candidate (say from 55 percent likelihood to 65 percent)—or, for that matter, from very likely to almost certain (65 percent to 75 percent). All three of these examples are mathematically equivalent—and it makes sense to think of them all as swing voters.
He recommends the following book if you want more info.
For an individual voter to qualify as a swing voter, the relevant criterion that needs to be fulfilled is persuadability. And that’s not a quality that’s exclusive only to those who are completely undecided, or who are only weakly committed to a candidate. Even those who are moderately committed can be persuaded to deepen their commitment. And the deepening of an existing affiliation with a candidate can be just as significant, both statistically and electorally speaking, as attracting mild commitment from someone who had previously been mildly committed to another candidate.
The important factor is not where voters’ inclinations started out, but the fact that their inclinations were changed at all. The act of persuading a swing voter has traditionally been thought of as moving a given voter from more likely to vote against a given candidate to more likely to vote for him—say from 55 percent likely to vote against to 55 percent likely to vote for. But it could also mean moving that voter from somewhat likely to vote for a candidate to very likely to support that candidate (say from 55 percent likelihood to 65 percent)—or, for that matter, from very likely to almost certain (65 percent to 75 percent). All three of these examples are mathematically equivalent—and it makes sense to think of them all as swing voters.
He recommends the following book if you want more info.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
A new rule by the FDA
From the NYT:
Farmers and ranchers will for the first time need a prescription from a veterinarian before using antibiotics in farm animals, in hopes that more judicious use of the drugs will reduce the tens of thousands of human deaths that result each year from the drugs’ overuse.
The Food and Drug Administration announced the new rule Wednesday after trying for more than 35 years to stop farmers and ranchers from feeding antibiotics to cattle, pigs, chickens and other animals simply to help the animals grow larger. Using small amounts of antibiotics over long periods of time leads to the growth of bacteria that are resistant to the drugs’ effects, endangering humans who become infected but cannot be treated with routine antibiotic therapy.
At least two million people are sickened and an estimated 99,000 die every year from hospital-acquired infections, the majority of which result from such resistant strains. It is unknown how many of these illnesses and deaths result from agricultural uses of antibiotics, but about 80 percent of antibiotics sold in the United States are used in animals.
Farmers and ranchers will for the first time need a prescription from a veterinarian before using antibiotics in farm animals, in hopes that more judicious use of the drugs will reduce the tens of thousands of human deaths that result each year from the drugs’ overuse.
The Food and Drug Administration announced the new rule Wednesday after trying for more than 35 years to stop farmers and ranchers from feeding antibiotics to cattle, pigs, chickens and other animals simply to help the animals grow larger. Using small amounts of antibiotics over long periods of time leads to the growth of bacteria that are resistant to the drugs’ effects, endangering humans who become infected but cannot be treated with routine antibiotic therapy.
At least two million people are sickened and an estimated 99,000 die every year from hospital-acquired infections, the majority of which result from such resistant strains. It is unknown how many of these illnesses and deaths result from agricultural uses of antibiotics, but about 80 percent of antibiotics sold in the United States are used in animals.
The Muzzle Awards
Every year the Thomas Jefferson Center highlights egregious examples of stifling free speech by giving them their own award: The Muzzle.
- Here's a story on the latest winners.
- Here's a story on the latest winners.
From the August 1966 Atlantic: Houston's Shackled Press
A great article from way back about how the Houston Chronicle - back when newspapers really mattered - was controlled by the city's elite. They could define what was and was not talked about. Very difficult to do in today's digital environment.
It also details the tension brewing in the city between the conservatives that controlled the city and the increasingly liberal Johnson Administration.
Strongly recommended for 2301s especially.
It also details the tension brewing in the city between the conservatives that controlled the city and the increasingly liberal Johnson Administration.
Strongly recommended for 2301s especially.
Is art covered by the First Amendment?
As 2301s look at freedom of speech and what it does and does not cover, what is it about art that makes it covered? A law article and a briefer discussion here touch on this question.
Just in case you don't have enough to read already.
Just in case you don't have enough to read already.
Are online publishers guilty of violating anti trust laws?
The Justice Department is set to find out. It is suing publishers (in the United States District Court for the Southern District in New York) for price fixing.
Anti trust laws - which have been a staple of national power since passed of the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts - allow the national government to break apart real or budding monopolies, or any activity which leads to uncompetitive practices.
The Justice Department is investigating whether this has happened in the e-book market. Did Apple secretly force- or persuade - other publishers to not under price its books? But this effort might allow Amazon, which controls 60% of the market, to expand its influence over it by reducing its prices far below what other publishers can command.
Anti trust laws - which have been a staple of national power since passed of the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts - allow the national government to break apart real or budding monopolies, or any activity which leads to uncompetitive practices.
The Justice Department is investigating whether this has happened in the e-book market. Did Apple secretly force- or persuade - other publishers to not under price its books? But this effort might allow Amazon, which controls 60% of the market, to expand its influence over it by reducing its prices far below what other publishers can command.
From the NYT: Does Romney Still Need to Court Conservatives?
Now that Romney seems to have the nomination in hand, commentary has focused on his expected pivot to the middle and whether he can do this without losing his base. This is what 2301s wrote about last week, so you are all ahead of the game.
Here are a variety of opinions about whether Romney still needs to bend far for conservative support.
Here are a variety of opinions about whether Romney still needs to bend far for conservative support.
Zimmerman arrested and charged - What roles will each participant in the case play?
A good story for 2302 as we continue looking at the judiciary, and the criminal justice process in general. 2301s shoudl consider this case also as it opens a handful of issues related to the rights of criminal defendants, as well as those related to stand your ground laws.
The NYT details the decision to charge George Zimmerman with Trayvon Martin's shooting, and attempts to outline the events leading to the shooting (the facts of the case as best they can be discerned).
The Atlantic discusses what will be required of the prosecutor, the defendant, and the judge in the case. Given the amount of publicity the case has had - how likely will he get a fair trial?
The NYT details the decision to charge George Zimmerman with Trayvon Martin's shooting, and attempts to outline the events leading to the shooting (the facts of the case as best they can be discerned).
The Atlantic discusses what will be required of the prosecutor, the defendant, and the judge in the case. Given the amount of publicity the case has had - how likely will he get a fair trial?
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
From the NYT: N.T.S.B. Suggests Safety Steps After Deadly Crash at Reno Air Show
This is a follow up to previous post and it explains where regulatory rules come from:
Air race pilots should take their modified aircraft on dry runs before participating in certain types of competitions, and should possibly wear flight suits to help them withstand high gravitational forces, according to the National Transportation Safety Board. The recommendations were among seven the board offered Tuesday during a news conference in Reno in the wake of a Sept. 16 crash at the Reno National Championship Air Races that killed 11 people and seriously injured more than 70 spectators.
“We are not here to put a stop to air racing,” said Deborah Hersman, the N.T.S.B. chairman. “We are here to make it safer.
Air race pilots should take their modified aircraft on dry runs before participating in certain types of competitions, and should possibly wear flight suits to help them withstand high gravitational forces, according to the National Transportation Safety Board. The recommendations were among seven the board offered Tuesday during a news conference in Reno in the wake of a Sept. 16 crash at the Reno National Championship Air Races that killed 11 people and seriously injured more than 70 spectators.
The Two Economies and the Two Parties
David Brooks points to an article written by Tyler Cowen which predicts that the export sectors will drive the American economy forward, but do so by creating two fundamentally different economies.
Brooks argues that these two economies have partisan characteristics - which might be worth pondering as we consider the differences between the two parties:
A rift is opening up. The first, globalized sector is producing a lot of the productivity gains, but it is not producing a lot of the jobs. The second more protected sector is producing more jobs, but not as many productivity gains. The hypercompetitive globalized economy generates enormous profits, while the second, less tradable economy is where more Americans actually live.
In politics, we are beginning to see conflicts between those who live in Economy I and those who live in Economy II. Republicans often live in and love the efficient globalized sector and believe it should be a model for the entire society. They want to use private health care markets and choice-oriented education reforms to make society as dynamic, creative and efficient as Economy I.
Democrats are more likely to live in and respect the values of the second sector. They emphasize the destructive side of Economy I streamlining — the huge profits at the top and the stagnant wages at the middle. They want to tamp down some of the streamlining in the global economy sector and protect health care, education and government from its remorseless logic.
Republicans believe the globalized sector is racing far out in front of government, adapting in ways inevitable and proper. If given enough freedom, Economy I entrepreneurs will create the future jobs we need. Government should prepare people to enter that sector but get out of its way as much as possible.
Democrats are more optimistic that government can enhance the productivity of the global sectors of the economy while redirecting their benefits. They want to use Economy I to subsidize Economy II.
I don’t know which coalition will gain the upper hand. But I do think today’s arguments are rooted in growing structural rifts. There’s an urgent need to understand the interplay between the two different sectors. I’d also add that it’s not always easy to be in one of those pockets — including the media and higher education — that are making the bumpy transition from Economy II to Economy I.
Brooks argues that these two economies have partisan characteristics - which might be worth pondering as we consider the differences between the two parties:
His work leaves the impression that there are two interrelated American
economies. On the one hand, there is the globalized tradable sector —
companies that have to compete with everybody everywhere. These
companies, with the sword of foreign competition hanging over them, have
become relentlessly dynamic and very (sometimes brutally) efficient.
On the other hand, there is a large sector of the economy that does not
face this global competition — health care, education and government.
Leaders in this economy try to improve productivity and use new
technologies, but they are not compelled by do-or-die pressure, and
their pace of change is slower.
A rift is opening up. The first, globalized sector is producing a lot of the productivity gains, but it is not producing a lot of the jobs. The second more protected sector is producing more jobs, but not as many productivity gains. The hypercompetitive globalized economy generates enormous profits, while the second, less tradable economy is where more Americans actually live.
In politics, we are beginning to see conflicts between those who live in Economy I and those who live in Economy II. Republicans often live in and love the efficient globalized sector and believe it should be a model for the entire society. They want to use private health care markets and choice-oriented education reforms to make society as dynamic, creative and efficient as Economy I.
Democrats are more likely to live in and respect the values of the second sector. They emphasize the destructive side of Economy I streamlining — the huge profits at the top and the stagnant wages at the middle. They want to tamp down some of the streamlining in the global economy sector and protect health care, education and government from its remorseless logic.
Republicans believe the globalized sector is racing far out in front of government, adapting in ways inevitable and proper. If given enough freedom, Economy I entrepreneurs will create the future jobs we need. Government should prepare people to enter that sector but get out of its way as much as possible.
Democrats are more optimistic that government can enhance the productivity of the global sectors of the economy while redirecting their benefits. They want to use Economy I to subsidize Economy II.
I don’t know which coalition will gain the upper hand. But I do think today’s arguments are rooted in growing structural rifts. There’s an urgent need to understand the interplay between the two different sectors. I’d also add that it’s not always easy to be in one of those pockets — including the media and higher education — that are making the bumpy transition from Economy II to Economy I.
Obama struggles with the base and the center
I asked 2301 students to speculate on how well Romney might pivot to the center once he - or now that he - has the nomination wrapped up, and how he can do so without losing his party's base. Obama has the same problem.
This story describes how he has to make the environmentalist portion of the party's base happy while also satisfying the center's desire for more fossil fuels. He is also trying to rally the base by pushing the Buffett Rule, but how do you do that without alienating those in the center who might be nervous about tax increases - even if it doesn't directly affect them.
This story describes how he has to make the environmentalist portion of the party's base happy while also satisfying the center's desire for more fossil fuels. He is also trying to rally the base by pushing the Buffett Rule, but how do you do that without alienating those in the center who might be nervous about tax increases - even if it doesn't directly affect them.
The Politics of Tax Reform
Bruce Bartlett explains - among other things - why its tough getting rid of tax exemptions:
Both 2301 and 2302s should consider this in light of the problems public opinion presents for bringing budgets into balance. We liek low taxes and high spending:
Politicians hide behind grandiose plans for wiping the slate clean because they know that support for every specific tax expenditure is very high. In practice, saying that one would eliminate all tax expenditures is meaningless, nothing more than a gesture that avoids confrontation with the constituencies supporting tax expenditures.
Perhaps the worst offender, in this regard, is Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee, who promises a sharp reduction in tax rates while still balancing the budget. He says that his tax cuts, which would reduce revenues by $10 trillion over the next decade over current law, according to the Tax Policy Center, would be paid for with base-broadening and loophole-closing.
But Mr. Ryan steadfastly refuses to name a single loophole that he would eliminate; he ordered the Congressional Budget Office to assume that federal revenues would rise to 19 percent of gross domestic product from 15.5 percent by 2030 under his plan.
Mr. Ryan’s political calculation is simple. He knows that taking away the tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance would greatly increase its cost and probably cause most businesses to drop coverage; repealing the mortgage-interest deduction would raise the cost of housing for homeowners and would very likely cause a further drop in home prices; abolishing the charitable-contributions deduction would decimate churches, universities, museums and every other tax-exempt organization; and rescinding the deduction for state and local taxes would vastly raise the tax burden in most states.
Mr. Ryan knows perfectly well that the most popular tax expenditures will never be repealed but pretends that they all will in order to make his phony-baloney numbers add up. The fact is that the vast bulk of tax expenditures, in dollar terms, are immensely popular and deeply imbedded in the economy and society.
Both 2301 and 2302s should consider this in light of the problems public opinion presents for bringing budgets into balance. We liek low taxes and high spending:
Politicians hide behind grandiose plans for wiping the slate clean because they know that support for every specific tax expenditure is very high. In practice, saying that one would eliminate all tax expenditures is meaningless, nothing more than a gesture that avoids confrontation with the constituencies supporting tax expenditures.
Perhaps the worst offender, in this regard, is Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee, who promises a sharp reduction in tax rates while still balancing the budget. He says that his tax cuts, which would reduce revenues by $10 trillion over the next decade over current law, according to the Tax Policy Center, would be paid for with base-broadening and loophole-closing.
But Mr. Ryan steadfastly refuses to name a single loophole that he would eliminate; he ordered the Congressional Budget Office to assume that federal revenues would rise to 19 percent of gross domestic product from 15.5 percent by 2030 under his plan.
Mr. Ryan’s political calculation is simple. He knows that taking away the tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance would greatly increase its cost and probably cause most businesses to drop coverage; repealing the mortgage-interest deduction would raise the cost of housing for homeowners and would very likely cause a further drop in home prices; abolishing the charitable-contributions deduction would decimate churches, universities, museums and every other tax-exempt organization; and rescinding the deduction for state and local taxes would vastly raise the tax burden in most states.
Mr. Ryan knows perfectly well that the most popular tax expenditures will never be repealed but pretends that they all will in order to make his phony-baloney numbers add up. The fact is that the vast bulk of tax expenditures, in dollar terms, are immensely popular and deeply imbedded in the economy and society.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
From the HC: 1.2 million Texas children still without insurance
While the Supreme Court deals with the constitutionality of the individual mandate - which is an abstract consideration of course - the real problem of the uninsured persists, especially in Texas.
From the HC:
More than 1 million Texas children remain without health insurance, and those kids are not getting the care they need.
The startling condition of the state's children came into vivid focus last week with the release of the annual Kids Count survey. The analysis of official state and federal data by the non-partisan Center for Public Policy Priorities found that 1.2 million Texas children have neither private nor public health insurance.
Almost 40 percent of Texas mothers received little or no prenatal care and one in seven babies were born premature, statistics show. The difference between being insured and uninsured is stark: 90 percent of insured kids are healthy, while only 58 percent of kids without insurance are considered healthy.
Perhaps this fits into our ongoing question about whether government is broken. Real problems persist while these constitutional questions are debated. What does this mean about our willingness to confront a problem like this, or are there sufficient numbers who do not think this presents a problem that government needs to address?
From the HC:
More than 1 million Texas children remain without health insurance, and those kids are not getting the care they need.
The startling condition of the state's children came into vivid focus last week with the release of the annual Kids Count survey. The analysis of official state and federal data by the non-partisan Center for Public Policy Priorities found that 1.2 million Texas children have neither private nor public health insurance.
Almost 40 percent of Texas mothers received little or no prenatal care and one in seven babies were born premature, statistics show. The difference between being insured and uninsured is stark: 90 percent of insured kids are healthy, while only 58 percent of kids without insurance are considered healthy.
Perhaps this fits into our ongoing question about whether government is broken. Real problems persist while these constitutional questions are debated. What does this mean about our willingness to confront a problem like this, or are there sufficient numbers who do not think this presents a problem that government needs to address?
From the Washington Post: The Supreme Court vs. the Commerce Clause
As we discuss at various points in both 2301 and 2302, some conservatives have been trying to roll back the scale of the national government to what existed prior to the New Deal, and the argument presented in heath care reform cases might allow them the opportunity to do so, the question is whether they really want to go that far and create the disruptions such a decision would inevitably lead to.
Here's a suggestion that the activity / inactivity distinction might allow the court to make a statement regarding the outside limits of governmental actions without undermining the policies (Social Security, Medicare etc. . . ) that have been built up over the past few decades.
Here's a suggestion that the activity / inactivity distinction might allow the court to make a statement regarding the outside limits of governmental actions without undermining the policies (Social Security, Medicare etc. . . ) that have been built up over the past few decades.
Budgetary politics today
Some useful analysis of the current state of budgetary politics by Ezra Klein:
Both sides face the same problem: Nothing they produce has any chance of passing. But to House Republicans, that's been a reason to go big on the annual budget resolution. Unshackled from the need to write legislation the Senate can pass and the president will sign, House Republicans have used their budgets to detail a dramatic, sweeping vision for how they would remake the federal government. For Senate Democrats, it's been just the opposite: Since nothing they produce will make it through the House, they've mostly ignored the annual budget resolution and saved their political capital for the inevitable end-of-year dealmaking.
Both approaches have had their weaknesses. House Republicans ended up going too far, signing onto unpopular Medicare reforms that they tried to walk back in this year's budget and proposing deep cuts that have given the president an easy target. But Senate Democrats have developed a reputation for cowardice on fiscal issues, and Republicans have delighted in noting that we have gone more than 1,000 days without the Senate passing a budget.
Remember that there is no need - constitutionally - for the national government to have a budget, so it invites gamesmanship.
Both sides face the same problem: Nothing they produce has any chance of passing. But to House Republicans, that's been a reason to go big on the annual budget resolution. Unshackled from the need to write legislation the Senate can pass and the president will sign, House Republicans have used their budgets to detail a dramatic, sweeping vision for how they would remake the federal government. For Senate Democrats, it's been just the opposite: Since nothing they produce will make it through the House, they've mostly ignored the annual budget resolution and saved their political capital for the inevitable end-of-year dealmaking.
Both approaches have had their weaknesses. House Republicans ended up going too far, signing onto unpopular Medicare reforms that they tried to walk back in this year's budget and proposing deep cuts that have given the president an easy target. But Senate Democrats have developed a reputation for cowardice on fiscal issues, and Republicans have delighted in noting that we have gone more than 1,000 days without the Senate passing a budget.
Remember that there is no need - constitutionally - for the national government to have a budget, so it invites gamesmanship.
Too many registered voters?
A conservative watchdog group notes there are more registered voters in some counties than should live in these counties according to the census.
The HC has the story, along with some explanations why this might be the case. One reason - there are no resources in place to purge dead folks off the rolls when they die - this costs money.
The HC has the story, along with some explanations why this might be the case. One reason - there are no resources in place to purge dead folks off the rolls when they die - this costs money.
A proposal for term limiting Supreme Court Justices
From the NYT:
In 2009 a politically diverse group of law professors, including me, proposed a system that would work around the need to amend the Constitution — an extremely unlikely possibility — yet still capture the benefits of term limits.
Here’s how our plan would work. Every two years the president would appoint a new justice to the court, but only the nine most junior justices, by years of service, would sit and decide every case.
The rest would then act as a sort of “bench” team, sitting on cases as needed because of the disability or disqualification of one of the junior justices. These senior justices might also help decide which of the thousands of petitions the court receives each year should be fully considered, vote on procedural rulemaking, and perhaps sit on occasional cases presented to lower circuit courts.
In short, our proposal would revise the job of a justice to a more human scale and perhaps make the court less likely to impose erratic political preferences on the citizens it governs. Because it would assure regular turnover, the court would experience fewer long-term ideological swings, enabling it to better do its original job of anchoring the legislative process to the Constitution.
This fits with our recent dicsussions in 2302, but 2301s - since we just discussed elections - should consider how this proposal might moderate the impact that the general population has on the Supreme Court.
In 2009 a politically diverse group of law professors, including me, proposed a system that would work around the need to amend the Constitution — an extremely unlikely possibility — yet still capture the benefits of term limits.
Here’s how our plan would work. Every two years the president would appoint a new justice to the court, but only the nine most junior justices, by years of service, would sit and decide every case.
The rest would then act as a sort of “bench” team, sitting on cases as needed because of the disability or disqualification of one of the junior justices. These senior justices might also help decide which of the thousands of petitions the court receives each year should be fully considered, vote on procedural rulemaking, and perhaps sit on occasional cases presented to lower circuit courts.
In short, our proposal would revise the job of a justice to a more human scale and perhaps make the court less likely to impose erratic political preferences on the citizens it governs. Because it would assure regular turnover, the court would experience fewer long-term ideological swings, enabling it to better do its original job of anchoring the legislative process to the Constitution.
This fits with our recent dicsussions in 2302, but 2301s - since we just discussed elections - should consider how this proposal might moderate the impact that the general population has on the Supreme Court.
Racial polarization
This is hardly a new story. It;s simply updated to reflect the difference in attitudes between whites and blacks on the Trayvon Martin shooting, and now the shooting in Tulsa. African Americans and Anglos perceive the world in different ways and perceive facts about it - or make inferences - to support those viewpoints.
From the Daily Beast:
Majorities of both whites (72%) and blacks (89%) believe the country is divided by race, the poll finds. But twice as many blacks (40%) as whites (20%) say it is very divided. And just 19 percent of whites say that racism is a big problem in America, vs. 60 percent of blacks.
Meanwhile, the killing of 17-year old Trayvon Martin has further polarized America along racial lines, the Newsweek/Daily Beast Poll finds. In the survey, whites are divided over whether they think Martin’s death was racially motivated. Thirty-five percent of whites say Martin’s death was racially motivated, while 30 percent say Zimmerman acted in self-defense and 35 percent are not sure. African-Americans, however, are convinced it was racially motivated (80% vs. 2%).
Whites also are divided on the question of whether Martin was targeted because he was a young black man–41 percent say yes, while 34 percent say no and 21 percent are not sure. Blacks are convinced he was targeted because he was a young black man (85% vs. 4%).
From the Daily Beast:
Majorities of both whites (72%) and blacks (89%) believe the country is divided by race, the poll finds. But twice as many blacks (40%) as whites (20%) say it is very divided. And just 19 percent of whites say that racism is a big problem in America, vs. 60 percent of blacks.
Meanwhile, the killing of 17-year old Trayvon Martin has further polarized America along racial lines, the Newsweek/Daily Beast Poll finds. In the survey, whites are divided over whether they think Martin’s death was racially motivated. Thirty-five percent of whites say Martin’s death was racially motivated, while 30 percent say Zimmerman acted in self-defense and 35 percent are not sure. African-Americans, however, are convinced it was racially motivated (80% vs. 2%).
Whites also are divided on the question of whether Martin was targeted because he was a young black man–41 percent say yes, while 34 percent say no and 21 percent are not sure. Blacks are convinced he was targeted because he was a young black man (85% vs. 4%).
The FDA, tobacco companies and free speech
NPR reports on a case to be argued in the DC appellate court today about whether Food and Drug Administration's requirement that graphic warnings be placed on cigarette packets violates the free speech rights of the companies.
A side thought. Opponents to Texas' abortion sonogram bill made the same - ultimately unsuccessful - point. What's the difference between the two, if any?
A side thought. Opponents to Texas' abortion sonogram bill made the same - ultimately unsuccessful - point. What's the difference between the two, if any?
Is the right to petition threatened?
The author of "Reclaiming the Petition Clause: Seditious Libel, ‘Offensive’ Protest, and the Right to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances" (info in Amazon) thinks so:
EVERY four years, we witness the spectacle of the presidential nominating conventions. And every four years, host cities, party leaders and police officials devise ever more creative ways of distancing protesters from the politicians, delegates and journalists attending these stage-managed affairs.
The goal is to trivialize and isolate dissenting speech without actually banning protest outright. One result is something of a Potemkin village: government proclaims its full commitment to respecting the First Amendment without actually permitting any observable dissent to take place near the convention.
Tampa, Fla., which will host the Republicans from Aug. 27 to 30, and Charlotte, N.C., which will host the Democrats from Sept. 3 to 7, are already following the trend. Charlotte has adopted an ordinance that expands the power of the local police to detain, search and arrest persons in its downtown core. (The Charlotte ordinance also bans camping on city-owned property, a clear response to the Occupy movement.) Tampa is also considering new municipal laws to limit, and in some instances flatly prohibit, downtown protest activity.
Citizens generally have a right to use public streets, sidewalks and parks for expressive activity — unless the government has a substantial reason for requiring expressive activity to take place somewhere else or at another time. Because the rights of speech, assembly and association do not include a right to communicate a particular message to a particular audience, the government’s willingness to let would-be protesters speak somewhere else, some other time, has usually been seen by courts as satisfying the First Amendment.
. . . Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not accorded the Petition Clause much legal significance. When litigants have pressed Petition Clause claims, the justices have noted that all First Amendment rights are “cut from the same cloth” and thus “are inseparable.” However, in Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, a Petition Clause case decided last year, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that there could be cases “where the special concerns of the Petition Clause would provide a sound basis for a distinct analysis” and where the rights of petition and free speech “might differ in emphasis and formulation.”
This suggests that the court could be sympathetic to carefully devised arguments focused on the right to petition. Officials in Charlotte and Tampa should not reflexively equate dissent with criminality (or domestic terrorism), nor should they have to be sued to do the right thing.
I strongly advise 2301 students to read this op-ed. It's worth a class discussion. The right to petition for grievances has a long and important history which led to the establishment of the U.S. as we know it. It may well be the right that all other rights rest on. If this right is threatened, what else is threatened?
EVERY four years, we witness the spectacle of the presidential nominating conventions. And every four years, host cities, party leaders and police officials devise ever more creative ways of distancing protesters from the politicians, delegates and journalists attending these stage-managed affairs.
The goal is to trivialize and isolate dissenting speech without actually banning protest outright. One result is something of a Potemkin village: government proclaims its full commitment to respecting the First Amendment without actually permitting any observable dissent to take place near the convention.
Tampa, Fla., which will host the Republicans from Aug. 27 to 30, and Charlotte, N.C., which will host the Democrats from Sept. 3 to 7, are already following the trend. Charlotte has adopted an ordinance that expands the power of the local police to detain, search and arrest persons in its downtown core. (The Charlotte ordinance also bans camping on city-owned property, a clear response to the Occupy movement.) Tampa is also considering new municipal laws to limit, and in some instances flatly prohibit, downtown protest activity.
Citizens generally have a right to use public streets, sidewalks and parks for expressive activity — unless the government has a substantial reason for requiring expressive activity to take place somewhere else or at another time. Because the rights of speech, assembly and association do not include a right to communicate a particular message to a particular audience, the government’s willingness to let would-be protesters speak somewhere else, some other time, has usually been seen by courts as satisfying the First Amendment.
. . . Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not accorded the Petition Clause much legal significance. When litigants have pressed Petition Clause claims, the justices have noted that all First Amendment rights are “cut from the same cloth” and thus “are inseparable.” However, in Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, a Petition Clause case decided last year, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that there could be cases “where the special concerns of the Petition Clause would provide a sound basis for a distinct analysis” and where the rights of petition and free speech “might differ in emphasis and formulation.”
This suggests that the court could be sympathetic to carefully devised arguments focused on the right to petition. Officials in Charlotte and Tampa should not reflexively equate dissent with criminality (or domestic terrorism), nor should they have to be sued to do the right thing.
I strongly advise 2301 students to read this op-ed. It's worth a class discussion. The right to petition for grievances has a long and important history which led to the establishment of the U.S. as we know it. It may well be the right that all other rights rest on. If this right is threatened, what else is threatened?
Partisan opinions on energy differ
From the Gallup Poll:
Americans as a whole favor a wide-ranging set of proposals for dealing with the nation's energy and environment situations, but support varies markedly across party lines. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to favor opening up federal lands for drilling, and expanding the use of nuclear energy. Democrats are more likely to favor each of six different proposals, including emissions-control measures, spending government money on alternative sources of energy, and increasing enforcement of environmental regulations.
Click here for the story and the accompanying graphics.
Americans as a whole favor a wide-ranging set of proposals for dealing with the nation's energy and environment situations, but support varies markedly across party lines. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to favor opening up federal lands for drilling, and expanding the use of nuclear energy. Democrats are more likely to favor each of six different proposals, including emissions-control measures, spending government money on alternative sources of energy, and increasing enforcement of environmental regulations.
Click here for the story and the accompanying graphics.
Monday, April 9, 2012
12 - Written Assignment GOVT 2301 Spring Semester
Now that the date for the Texas primary has been set, each political party has decided how they will (1) allocate delegates to presidential candidates and (2) figure how they will select those delegates. I want you to do some detective work and figure out how the state Republican and Democratic Parties will handle each task. I'll add posts now and then to help you out, but use each state party's website as a primary resource.
12 - Written Assignment GOVT 2302 Spring Semester
On April 2, I posted this entry about a recent decision by the Texas Supreme Court about the Texas Open Beaches Act. The act makes it illegal to own a beach in the state of Texas and authorizes the state to seize property that, due to erosion, has become a beach. The court ruled that this violated individual property rights, but the decision was not unanimous.
I want you to click on the post and follow the links it contains to the majority decision as well as the dissents. As best you can explain the different positions taken by the judges. Altogether, try to determine how the judiciary of the state of Texas draws the line between the rights of the individual and the public interest, and the conflict associated with it.
A related issue - which you are welcome to speculate about - is whether the decisions made by the judges are influenced by the fact that judges are elected in the state. Property rights groups are increasingly active in state elections - notable judicial elections. Might this decision be a consequence? Sitting judges who wish to win elections might be tempted to make decisions favorable to these groups in order to win re-election. If not, these groups may be able to recruit and fund judges whom they share a judicial philosophy.
I want you to click on the post and follow the links it contains to the majority decision as well as the dissents. As best you can explain the different positions taken by the judges. Altogether, try to determine how the judiciary of the state of Texas draws the line between the rights of the individual and the public interest, and the conflict associated with it.
A related issue - which you are welcome to speculate about - is whether the decisions made by the judges are influenced by the fact that judges are elected in the state. Property rights groups are increasingly active in state elections - notable judicial elections. Might this decision be a consequence? Sitting judges who wish to win elections might be tempted to make decisions favorable to these groups in order to win re-election. If not, these groups may be able to recruit and fund judges whom they share a judicial philosophy.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
From the New Republic: What William F. Buckley Would Think of Today’s GOP
Some commentary regarding how the current Republican Party has changed over the past 50 years.
What's the difference betwen Twitter and a magazine?
Plenty. In this TNR piece, the author shows how a Tweet from legal analysts Jeffery Toobin - that the individual mandate was doomed based on his analysis of the oral argument - conditioned the reactions of most other news outlets. A more measured response to the arguments just published in the New Yorker is getting less traction. This tells us something. Short superficial messages drown out longer thoughtful ones.
In 2301 we will be discussing the press soon. Technology matters.
In 2301 we will be discussing the press soon. Technology matters.
Will Citizens United destroy parties as we know them?
In Citizens United v FEC, the Supreme Court removed significant limits on money in politics by allowing corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want on campaigns -through SuperPACs, as long as it is not coordinated with a candidate or party.
This allows them to bypass parties however and become sole benefactors of specific candidates. Since parties traditionally perform this role, there are suspicions that the case may end up leading to the breakup of parties, since the may be irrelevant. Timothy Noah thinks this might be especially true of the Republican Party:
Super PACs have made it so easy for millionaires and billionaires to spend unlimited sums on behalf of a particular candidate that these groups are now routinely outspending Republican presidential primary campaigns. Indeed, to a remarkable extent, these oligarch-controlled super PACs are the primary campaign. And, while both parties can create super PACs, so far GOP super PACs are burying their Democratic counterparts. Of the top ten individuals funding super PACs, only one—Jeffrey Katzenberg—is a Democrat.
This allows them to bypass parties however and become sole benefactors of specific candidates. Since parties traditionally perform this role, there are suspicions that the case may end up leading to the breakup of parties, since the may be irrelevant. Timothy Noah thinks this might be especially true of the Republican Party:
Super PACs have made it so easy for millionaires and billionaires to spend unlimited sums on behalf of a particular candidate that these groups are now routinely outspending Republican presidential primary campaigns. Indeed, to a remarkable extent, these oligarch-controlled super PACs are the primary campaign. And, while both parties can create super PACs, so far GOP super PACs are burying their Democratic counterparts. Of the top ten individuals funding super PACs, only one—Jeffrey Katzenberg—is a Democrat.
Update on Texas school lawsuit
The Texas Tribune updates us on the ongoing lawsuit against school budget cuts and explains why some 500 schools have opted out of the suit - by and large they cannot afford to join up. The Austin American Statesman claims that four of the lawsuits will be consolidated into one.
Does the Supreme Court see the war on terror and Obamacare as essentially the same?
A Washington Post writer thinks so, and suggests that this explains the need for clear limiting principles:
. . . from the Supreme Court’s perspective, they pose practically the same question: How much more authority over individuals can the federal government assume, consistent with the Founders’ notion of limited and enumerated powers?
During the 20th century, the court stretched that concept to accommodate the rise of both a large domestic regulatory and welfare apparatus and of a permanent military and intelligence establishment. That seemed necessary and proper in view of the social problems of a modern urban society and the external threats of Nazism and communism.
In fact, the welfare state and the national security state grew up together. The New Deal’s twin was World War II; the Great Society accompanied the Cold War. The federal government’s expansion has protected us from old age, poverty and external threats — while burdening us with taxes, bureaucracy and a certain amount of official snooping.
The Bush administration took Sept. 11, 2001, as an opportunity to win additional national security powers for the federal government. The Obama administration saw the Great Recession as an opportunity for a New Deal-like expansion of health care and other domestic programs.
Consequently, the court has had to decide whether to allow further growth of the national security state and the welfare state — or to push back, lest these twin leviathans smother individual freedom.
I like the point he is making here, and it fits my approach to looking at the gradual expanse of executive power over American history. As the size of the government increases - meaning the actual physical size of the institutions implementing policies increases - simple votes by the people are insufficient to limit what government's do, and the courts have to step in.
So perhaps the more aggressive approach taken by the court is a necessary response to the increased size of the executive and the real and potential expanse of its powers.
. . . from the Supreme Court’s perspective, they pose practically the same question: How much more authority over individuals can the federal government assume, consistent with the Founders’ notion of limited and enumerated powers?
During the 20th century, the court stretched that concept to accommodate the rise of both a large domestic regulatory and welfare apparatus and of a permanent military and intelligence establishment. That seemed necessary and proper in view of the social problems of a modern urban society and the external threats of Nazism and communism.
In fact, the welfare state and the national security state grew up together. The New Deal’s twin was World War II; the Great Society accompanied the Cold War. The federal government’s expansion has protected us from old age, poverty and external threats — while burdening us with taxes, bureaucracy and a certain amount of official snooping.
The Bush administration took Sept. 11, 2001, as an opportunity to win additional national security powers for the federal government. The Obama administration saw the Great Recession as an opportunity for a New Deal-like expansion of health care and other domestic programs.
Consequently, the court has had to decide whether to allow further growth of the national security state and the welfare state — or to push back, lest these twin leviathans smother individual freedom.
I like the point he is making here, and it fits my approach to looking at the gradual expanse of executive power over American history. As the size of the government increases - meaning the actual physical size of the institutions implementing policies increases - simple votes by the people are insufficient to limit what government's do, and the courts have to step in.
So perhaps the more aggressive approach taken by the court is a necessary response to the increased size of the executive and the real and potential expanse of its powers.
Supreme Court approves strip searches for any arrest
From the NYT:
Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by the court’s conservative wing, wrote that courts are in no position to second-guess the judgments of correctional officials who must consider not only the possibility of smuggled weapons and drugs, but also public health and information about gang affiliations.
“Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,” Justice Kennedy wrote, adding that about 13 million people are admitted each year to the nation’s jails.
. . . Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the four dissenters, said the strip-searches the majority allowed were “a serious affront to human dignity and to individual privacy” and should be used only when there was good reason to do so.
Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by the court’s conservative wing, wrote that courts are in no position to second-guess the judgments of correctional officials who must consider not only the possibility of smuggled weapons and drugs, but also public health and information about gang affiliations.
“Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,” Justice Kennedy wrote, adding that about 13 million people are admitted each year to the nation’s jails.
. . . Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the four dissenters, said the strip-searches the majority allowed were “a serious affront to human dignity and to individual privacy” and should be used only when there was good reason to do so.
Justice Breyer said that the Fourth Amendment should be understood to
bar strip-searches of people arrested for minor offenses not involving
drugs or violence, unless officials had a reasonable suspicion that they
were carrying contraband.
The story notes that this is one of a string over ideologically polarized decisions by the court where Kennedy has been the deciding vote, switching from the liberal side to the conservatives side depending on the issue.
The case is Florence v. Burlington. Commentary here.
Where the White House and the FDA Disagree
The NYT has a great story highlighting a recent disagreement between the Food and Drug Administration and the Obama Administration over whether movie theater would have to post how many calories a box of popcorn has. The FDA though of it as a policy health issues - as it is supposed to - while the administration thought about the political fallout.
They provide a list of other areas where they disagree.
This is a great was to get a handle on the limits of presidential power over the bureaucracy, especially when the policy goals of the latter conflict with the political needs of the former.
They provide a list of other areas where they disagree.
This is a great was to get a handle on the limits of presidential power over the bureaucracy, especially when the policy goals of the latter conflict with the political needs of the former.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Texas Supreme Court limits the Texas Open Beaches Act
The Texas Open Beaches Act was passed in 1959 and guarantees free public access to beaches along the Gulf of Mexico. It limits the ability of the people to own a beach, which grants the general public access to beaches. But this allows the state to confiscate land when the vegetation line rolls over private property, which sometimes happens after storms and hurricanes.
For the second time, the court has ruled that this law violates private property rights. The case is Severance v. Patterson. The majority decision is here, which was joined by 5 justices, the other three each wrote a separate dissent here, and here, and here.
At issue is what continued access the public can have to Texas beaches and what power the state and local governments have to not only enforce that access but to engage in cleanup and repairs following storms.
- Supreme Court affirms ruling on Open Beaches Act.
- Court: Public beach easement does not roll.
- High court kills Texas Open Beach Act ‘dead,’ land commissioner says
- http://openbeaches.com/wp/
The case is set to be appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, so the story is not final.
For the second time, the court has ruled that this law violates private property rights. The case is Severance v. Patterson. The majority decision is here, which was joined by 5 justices, the other three each wrote a separate dissent here, and here, and here.
At issue is what continued access the public can have to Texas beaches and what power the state and local governments have to not only enforce that access but to engage in cleanup and repairs following storms.
- Supreme Court affirms ruling on Open Beaches Act.
- Court: Public beach easement does not roll.
- High court kills Texas Open Beach Act ‘dead,’ land commissioner says
- http://openbeaches.com/wp/
The case is set to be appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, so the story is not final.
The Gender Gap 2012
USA Today reports that the gender gap - the difference between what partisan support for parties and candidates based on gender - is widening and women are increasingly likely to support Obama over Romney.
The biggest change came among women under 50. In mid-February, just under half of those voters supported Obama. Now more than six in 10 do while Romney's support among them has dropped by 14 points, to 30%. The president leads him 2-1 in this group.
. . . In the poll, Romney leads among all men by a single point, but the president leads among women by 18. That reflects a greater disparity between the views of men and women than the 12-point gender gap in the 2008 election.
In the fifth Swing States survey taken since last fall, Obama leads Republican front-runner Mitt Romney 51%-42% among registered voters just a month after the president had trailed him by two percentage points.
The biggest change came among women under 50. In mid-February, just under half of those voters supported Obama. Now more than six in 10 do while Romney's support among them has dropped by 14 points, to 30%. The president leads him 2-1 in this group.
. . . In the poll, Romney leads among all men by a single point, but the president leads among women by 18. That reflects a greater disparity between the views of men and women than the 12-point gender gap in the 2008 election.
Obama campaign manager Jim Messina
says Romney's promise to "end Planned Parenthood" — the former
Massachusetts governor says he wants to eliminate federal funding for
the group — and his endorsement of an amendment that would allow
employers to refuse to cover contraception in health care plans have
created "severe problems" for him in the general election.
"Romney's
run to the right may be winning him Tea Party votes," Messina said in
an interview, but he says it's demonstrated that "American women can't
trust Romney to stand up for them."
Clive Crook on the Obamacare and the Constitution
Clive Crook argues that a common sense look at existing policy shows that we have far more coercive statues on the book than what is proposed in the Affordable Care Act:
For all practical purposes, the economic power of the federal government is no longer constitutionally constrained. By using its tax power, the federal government already forces you to save for retirement (Social Security), insure against disability (ditto), provide for health care in retirement (Medicare), and pay for all manner of stuff you may neither need nor want. The government could perfectly well use its tax power to pay for universal health insurance. Obamacare is a milder dispensation in terms of personal liberty than tax-and-spend schemes that are already in place or any number of tax-and-spend alternatives to Obamacare that would immediately pass constitutional muster.
The irony is that sing the private sector to provide health care - he argues - is less coercive than programs currently in place.
He concludes by pointing out that the Constitution - whether we admit it or not - is constantly changing:
The world has changed, and what we expect of the government has changed. The Constitution had to change as well, and that could be done either by amending it explicitly or having the Court draw on all its reserves of ingenuity and rewrite it judgement by judgement. In America, the Constitution is a quasi-religious document. Its constancy is an inviolable national myth. Changing it therefore falls to the Court and must be done by stealth, with a certain suspension of disbelief on the part of the citizenry. The big disadvantage of amendment by jurisprudence is that it takes an unavoidably political task out of politics and gives it to unelected judges. Obviously, that's also its big advantage.
Whether we like the way the Constitution has been rewritten is beside the point. The thing is, it has been. The Court has all but erased the limits on the economic power of the federal government. So let's not pretend that striking down the mandate would be a victory of principle rather than just a huge embarrassment for the White House, or that upholding it would mark a big new advance of government power. Politically, it matters. Constitutionally, it's a tremendous fuss about not very much.
This is, he argues, a political - not a constitutional - dispute
For all practical purposes, the economic power of the federal government is no longer constitutionally constrained. By using its tax power, the federal government already forces you to save for retirement (Social Security), insure against disability (ditto), provide for health care in retirement (Medicare), and pay for all manner of stuff you may neither need nor want. The government could perfectly well use its tax power to pay for universal health insurance. Obamacare is a milder dispensation in terms of personal liberty than tax-and-spend schemes that are already in place or any number of tax-and-spend alternatives to Obamacare that would immediately pass constitutional muster.
The irony is that sing the private sector to provide health care - he argues - is less coercive than programs currently in place.
He concludes by pointing out that the Constitution - whether we admit it or not - is constantly changing:
The world has changed, and what we expect of the government has changed. The Constitution had to change as well, and that could be done either by amending it explicitly or having the Court draw on all its reserves of ingenuity and rewrite it judgement by judgement. In America, the Constitution is a quasi-religious document. Its constancy is an inviolable national myth. Changing it therefore falls to the Court and must be done by stealth, with a certain suspension of disbelief on the part of the citizenry. The big disadvantage of amendment by jurisprudence is that it takes an unavoidably political task out of politics and gives it to unelected judges. Obviously, that's also its big advantage.
Whether we like the way the Constitution has been rewritten is beside the point. The thing is, it has been. The Court has all but erased the limits on the economic power of the federal government. So let's not pretend that striking down the mandate would be a victory of principle rather than just a huge embarrassment for the White House, or that upholding it would mark a big new advance of government power. Politically, it matters. Constitutionally, it's a tremendous fuss about not very much.
This is, he argues, a political - not a constitutional - dispute
This week in class
Expect posts focused on the following this week
2301 - 16 week: Political Parties
2302 - 16 week: The Judiciary Constitutional Design
2301 - 8 week: Federalism and Civil Liberties
2302 - 8 week: The Executive Branch: History and Constitutional Design
2301 - 16 week: Political Parties
2302 - 16 week: The Judiciary Constitutional Design
2301 - 8 week: Federalism and Civil Liberties
2302 - 8 week: The Executive Branch: History and Constitutional Design
The many faces of conservatism
Time Magazine's recent story on the conservative identity crisis points out five types of conservatives - and could easily describe five - somewhat competing strands of thought within the Republican Party:
Libertarians: Leave us alone gold-bug isolationists with growing youth appeal but no clear place in the GOP
Neo-cons: American first interventionists who led the charge into Iraq and now warn of an Iranian threat.
Chamber conservatives: Low-regulation, pro-business free marketeers who support orderly amnesty for illegal immigrants but not tax hikes for the rich.
Tea Partyers: no-deficit tri-corn revolutionaries with slash and burn budget designs.
Values Voters: Washington-wary worshipers crusading against gay marriage, abortion and moral decay.
A good a list as any.
Libertarians: Leave us alone gold-bug isolationists with growing youth appeal but no clear place in the GOP
Neo-cons: American first interventionists who led the charge into Iraq and now warn of an Iranian threat.
Chamber conservatives: Low-regulation, pro-business free marketeers who support orderly amnesty for illegal immigrants but not tax hikes for the rich.
Tea Partyers: no-deficit tri-corn revolutionaries with slash and burn budget designs.
Values Voters: Washington-wary worshipers crusading against gay marriage, abortion and moral decay.
A good a list as any.
How to hold police departments accountable?
Atlantic Cities has a disturbing piece on keeping police departments accountable. It stats that had Trayvon Martin been shot by police officers under the same conditions we would not be having this discussion about whether his shooting was warranted. We would just have assumed that it was.
Holding police departments accountable, especially when it comes to activities affecting minority communities, is difficult to do. Community review boards are largely ineffective:
. . . there is no such justice for police abusers in Philly. According to a recent Daily News report, the city's Police Advisory Commission “is often described as a toothless, civilian-run police oversight board without the authority to do anything.” The Commission has no power to punish offending police officers and can only make recommendations to the police department. It has done so just 21 times since 1994. In January, the Commission published its first recommendation since 2007. The barely funded agency currently has a backlog of 129 cases dating back to 2008. A proposal to strengthen the commission has so far been stymied by the city's powerful Fraternal Order of Police.
In New York, advocates likewise have little faith in the Civilian Complaint Review Board ( CCRB).
“The CCRB has unfortunately proven itself to be highly ineffective at reigning in police abuse,” says Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “While the CCRB receives increasing numbers of complaints every year, many people don't go there because they fail to substantiate all but a small percentage of complaints. And the police department fails to discipline officers in cases that are substantiated.”
Holding police departments accountable, especially when it comes to activities affecting minority communities, is difficult to do. Community review boards are largely ineffective:
. . . there is no such justice for police abusers in Philly. According to a recent Daily News report, the city's Police Advisory Commission “is often described as a toothless, civilian-run police oversight board without the authority to do anything.” The Commission has no power to punish offending police officers and can only make recommendations to the police department. It has done so just 21 times since 1994. In January, the Commission published its first recommendation since 2007. The barely funded agency currently has a backlog of 129 cases dating back to 2008. A proposal to strengthen the commission has so far been stymied by the city's powerful Fraternal Order of Police.
In New York, advocates likewise have little faith in the Civilian Complaint Review Board ( CCRB).
“The CCRB has unfortunately proven itself to be highly ineffective at reigning in police abuse,” says Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “While the CCRB receives increasing numbers of complaints every year, many people don't go there because they fail to substantiate all but a small percentage of complaints. And the police department fails to discipline officers in cases that are substantiated.”