GOVT 2301 and 2305: When we discussed civil liberties - and when we discussed controversies over the interpretation of constitutional language - we mentioned that there are many rights and freedoms that we assume we have, but are not clearly listed in the Constitution. Some of these seem implied by other parts of the document, so there's support for their recognition. This support is not universal however.
One of these is the freedom of information. It is closely related to both the freedom of speech and the press. Both are intended to allow for information to be disseminated. But the idea that such a freedom - or right - exists separately suggest that some proactive mechanism ought to be in place to ensure that relevant information is made available to the general public. And indeed there is such a right - it is contained in the Freedom of Information Act.
But the right is controversial. Governments tend not to like too much information to be made public, and sometimes there's a good reason for that - but not always. Over the past couple controversies have surrounded the treatment of Bradley Manning and Aaron Swartz, as well as the general treatment of whistleblowers. This is an important issue because it touches on how much information the electorate is privy to and how able they are to make fuly informed decisions about public matters. Put this way, the issue gets to the heart of the extent of democracy.
I want you to do a little research and and outline the controversies that exist regarding not only how much information the general population has access to, but what mechanisms are in place to regulate it. Do American citizens have a right to be informed? And hwo extensive is that right?
GOVT 2302 and 2306: State leaders continue to argue over whether Texas should participate in the expansion of Medicaid as promoted by the Affordable Care Act. While arguments are presented by various interests in the state, contrary arguments are made by other interests as well.
Since one of the things I want you all to get comfortable with is the way that special interests work within the legislature, it would be helpful to unpack these interests and try to figure out why they line up on the proposed expansion the way they do.
So do a little research and figure out what arguments exist in favor and against the expansion of Medicaid, which groups support each side and why? Who benefits from the expansion? Who benefits if the expansion does not happen? What lessons does this tell us about legislative politics generally, and that in the Texas legislature specifically?
