The Legislative History of Helms-Burton Act

Let's kill a few birds with one stone with this Cuba story.

Here's the wikipedia entry on the Helms-Burton Act - also known as the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996.

Might as well also link to the entry on the United States embargo against Cuba.

The embargo started in 1960 and has been gradually increased since then. This includes the Helms - Burton Act which:

. . . extended the territorial application of the initial embargo to apply to foreign companies trading with Cuba, and penalized foreign companies allegedly "trafficking" in property formerly owned by U.S. citizens but confiscated by Cuba after the Cuban revolution. The act also covers property formerly owned by Cubans who have since become U.S. citizens.

In the section on public policy we describe the public policy process how certain acts can help place an item on the public agenda and accelerate its passage into law. The bill had actually bogged down in the conference committee, but then the Cuban Air Force shot down two planes belonging to members of Brothers to the Rescue in late February 1996. This revived attention to the bill and it became law within a month.

Most laws - at least as far as I can tell - are precipitated by some event that spurs consideration.

Here's a look at the major actions involved in how the bill became a law. Click here for all actions.

2/14/1995 - Introduced in House
7/24/1995 - Reported (Amended) by the Committee on International Relations. H. Rept. 104-202, Part I.
8/4/1995 - Committee on Banking and Financial Services discharged.
8/4/1995 - Committee on Judiciary discharged.
8/4/1995 - Committee on Ways and Means discharged.
9/21/1995 - Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 294 - 130 (Roll no. 683).
10/19/1995 - Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 74-24. Record Vote No: 494.

 Planes shot down

3/1/1996 - Conference report H. Rept. 104-468 filed.
3/5/1996 - Conference report agreed to in Senate: Senate agreed to conference report by Yea-Nay Vote. 74-22. Record Vote No: 22.
3/6/1996 - Conference report agreed to in House: On agreeing to the conference report Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 336 - 86, 1 Present (Roll no. 47).
3/6/1996 - Cleared for White House.
3/11/1996 - Presented to President.
3/12/1996 - Signed by President.
3/12/1996 - Became Public Law No: 104-114 [Text, PDF]

 

From the Constitution Daily: Cuba as the next constitutional fight between Congress, Obama

Here's a look at the constitutional issues associated with the president's recent decision concerning Cuba. What can a president do regarding this? What powers are left to Congress?

- Click here for the article.

Here are a couple items from it:

In his remarks on Wednesday, the President said he didn’t have the power to directly end a trade embargo law imposed on Cuba by Congress in the 1990s in the form of the Helms-Burton Act. President Bill Clinton signed the law in 1996, and it requires the Cuban government to make democratic changes that would grant its citizens political and economic rights before the embargo is lifted.

The President’s remarks indicate he will use his powers to diplomatically recognize Cuba, regulate trade licenses and prioritize how regulations are enforced to change at least part of the Helms-Burton Act’s intent.

The Constitution authorizes the president to receive ambassadors and places no restrictions on it, and the power to faithfully implement the laws tends to provide discretion to enforce laws - depending on how specific Congress wrote the law. I'll post separately on the Helms Burton Act.

But the president cannot appoint ambassadors or fund embassies without congressional approval.

The article links to commentary on the "power of nonrecognition" which might be helpful when we look at foreign policy later this brief semester. It establishes the predominance of the executive branch in transacting business with foreign nations. But this does not mean that Congress - along with the courts - is without checks on this powers.

“The executive branch is the sole mouthpiece of the nation in communication with foreign sovereignties,” it said, citing the President’s Article II powers.

So while the President can extend diplomatic recognition to Cuba and send an ambassador to Havana, Congress does have the power to withhold funding for the embassy there. The Senate through its Advice and Consent powers also can block the nomination of an ambassador, and even keep the nomination in a state of committee limbo.

“The Senate can take no part in it at all, until the President has sent in a nomination. Then it acts in its executive capacity, and, customarily, in ‘executive session.’ The legislative branch of the Government can exercise no influence over this step except, very indirectly, by withholding appropriations,” the Senate stated back in 1897.

Note that the executive power of the sword can be checked by the legislative power of the purse.

Efforts to expand trade will be limited by both the Helms-Burton Act, which limits trade with Cuba until it begins to transition to a free market democracy, and the fact that Cuba is still on the State Department's list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism." It's been on the list since 1962, so there are questions about whether it should still be included.

From the White House: FACT SHEET: Charting a New Course on Cuba

This is the official release detailing the decision opening up relations with Cuba. It's the most comprehensive look at the range of the decision.

- Click here for it.

From the Constitution Daily: Video: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the birth of the left and right

The section on ideology describes recent work arguing that the current divide between liberalism and conservatism can be dated back to conflict between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine.

Here's a video containing a discussion about this idea - if you have time to kill its worth your time.

From Vox: 9 questions about Cuba you were too embarrassed to ask

Here's some reasonable background on the president's decision to begin the process to normalize relations with Cuba.

Vox also summarizes what each nation will provide to the other:

What the US will give Cuba

- Diplomatic opening: The U.S. will take steps toward restoring diplomatic ties with Cuba, severed since 1961. The travel ban will still be in place, as will the embargo, but the embargo's impact will be eased. And some preexisting exceptions to the travel ban will be expanded.
- Embassy in Havana: This will include the goal of reopening a US embassy in Havana in the coming months. The embassy has been closed for over half a century.
- Release alleged Cuban spies: The US will release three Cubans who were convicted of espionage and imprisoned in the US: Gerardo Hernandez, Luis Medina, and Antonio Guerrero. All three prisoners were members of the "Wasp Network," a group that spied on prominent members of the Cuban-American community. CNN reports that Hernandez, the group's leader, was also linked to the downing of two two civilian planes operated by Brothers to the Rescue, a U.S.-based dissident group.
- Easing business and travel restrictions: The U.S. will make it easier for Americans to obtain licenses to do business in Cuba, and to travel to the island. CNN reports that the new rules still won't permit American tourism, but will make it easier to visit for other purposes.
- Easing banking restrictions: Americans will be able to use credit and debit cards while in Cuba.
- Higher remittance limits: Americans will be able to send up to $2000 per year to family members in Cuba. Cuban-American remittances are a major source of income for many Cuban families.Small-scale imports of Cuban cigars and alcohol: US travelers will be able to import up to $400 in goods from Cuba, including $100 in alcohol and tobacco products.
- Review of basis for sanctions: Secretary of State John Kerry has been ordered to review Cuba's status as a "state sponsor of terrorism." If his review determines that Cuba no longer deserves that status, that will be a first step towards lifting at least some US sanctions.

What Cuba will give the US

- Release Alan Gross: US contractor Alan Gross had been imprisoned in Cuba for the last five years on charges of attempting to undermine the Cuban government. His detention has been a major issue for the US and the Obama administration. He has been released and is on his way back to the United States.
- Release political prisoners: Cuba will release 53 political prisoners from a list provided by the United States. CNN also reports that Cuba is releasing a US intelligence source who has been imprisoned in Cuba for more than 20 years, but it is not clear whether that individual was one of the 53 included on the list.
- Increased internet access: Cuba will allow its citizens increased access to the internet. The US has long sought this as a means of increasing pressure within Cuba for democratic reform.
- Access by the UN: Cuba will allow officials from the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross to return to its territory.

FYI

This is helpful for a variety of topics covered in class including campaigning, ideology, and the battle for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination in historical context.

The image comes from 538 - click here for the post.

This gets a bit geeky, but the story points out three separate ways that a candidate ideology can be measured.

DW-Nominate scores - which are based on a candidate’s voting record in Congress

CFscores - based on who donates to a candidate

 OnTheIssues.org scores - based on public statements made by the candidate 

The Mini Semester Starts Today

Normal blogging will resume - and we have lot's to catch up with.

A few things for the 2305 final

Don't limit yourself to just these topics, but these deserve special attention:

the articles of the Constitution
what are the delegated, implied, reserved and denied powers?
the Bill of Rights
Substantive and procedural liberties
civil liberties
civil rights
the equal protection clause
the powers of the president
differences between the House and the Senate
judicial review
apportionment
political parties
the two party system
party coalitions
Oliver Wendell Holmes
freedom of speech
republics
direct democracies
iron triangles
the due process of the law
agency capture
components of democracy
separated powers
checks and balances
strict scrutiny
intermediate review
autocracy
the grievances in the Declaration of Independence
Federalist 10, 45, 51, 78
voter turnout
constitutional interpretation
the public policy process
parties in Congress
purpose of foreign policy
wall of separation
purpose of social welfare policy
minority rights
suffrage
state sovereign immunity
sub-governments
the Missouri Compromise
federalism
national v. state v. local government
elections to national office
the role of states in elections
executive departments
suspect classifications
rational basis review
the right to petition
nominating conventions
liberalism
conservatism
tyranny
free exercise of religion
the establishment clause
the freedom of speech
searches and seizures
grand juries
winner take all elections
constitutions
the judiciary
service during good behavior
John Locke
the consent of the governed
the Supreme Court
procedure in the courts
how bills become law
military power
unified and divided government
committees in Congress
the Security Clause
the right to privacy
Baker v Carr
Brown v Board of Education
Marbury v Madison
inherent powers
the New Deal
party eras
critical elections
the origins of political parties
the free rider problem
the rights of criminal defendants
the presidency

There's no guarantee, but if you have a firm grasp of these concepts you just might be able to pass this class.

A few things to think about for the GOVT 2306 final

For your consideration. It's not complete, but its a start. Be familiar with at least the following:

Basic facts about the Texas Constitution
The Texas Bill of Rights
The role of cities and counties
The basic rules governing parties and elections
Primary elections
Basic facts about the Texas Legislature
The Texas Speaker
The Plural Executive
The State Board of Education
Jacksonian Democracy
Basic facts about the Texas Judiciary
The types of state courts
Mayors and city managers
K-12
Elections officials
Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution
The budgeting process
The governor’s powers of appointment
The criminal justice process
The Texas Declaration of Independent
States within the national federal system
Political culture
Popular sovereignty
Republics
The Rainy Day Fund
The history of parties in Texas
The rise of the Republican Party in Texas
The design of city governments
The limits of national and state power
Revenue in Texas
Spending in Texas
Education spending
The voter registration process
Districting in Texas
The bill making process
Committees in Texas
The temporary and permanent party organizations
Term limits
Term lengths
Board of regents
Interest group strength
gerrymandering
The 14th Amendment
Job descriptions in the executive branch
County officials
City councils
Single purpose governments
Executive agencies
The jury system
Suffrage in Texas
The general session of the legislature
The Voting Rights Act
Checks and balances

Proposals for the 84th Session

A small selection - more to come

Pro-life Group Wants Planned Parenthood Defunded, Even For Cancer Screening.
- A groups that helped tighten access to abortion in the 83rd Session wants to continue doing so in this session. This describes an attempt to do so through the budgetary process.

Tax relief figures high on legislative budget priorities.
- This includes cuts to property taxes and the business tax, but there are also calls to increase spending on border security, pre-K education and traffic congestion.

These Cannabis Bills Could Change Toking in Texas for Good.
- The Marijuana Policy Project is hoping to decriminalize marijuana this year, among other things.

About those grand juries

Recent events in Ferguson, Missouri and Staten Island - the fact that two grand juries refused to indict two police officers in shooting of unarmed men - has brought a number of things to light, including how grand juries work.

In 2305 we simply looked at grand juries in terms of the procedures put in place to limit the arbitrary actions of governing officials.

In 2306 we looked at them a bit more in-depth since we look at the criminal justice system more carefully there.

Here are a few stories that have been published about grand juries in the past few weeks:

Should Texas abolish rather than reform grand juries?
- Grits for Breakfast points out legislation introduced to change how grand juries operate in the state, but wonders more broadly whether they ought to just be abolished.

Whitmire would eliminate 'key man' system for grand juries.
- The Houston Senator prefers a system where jurors are selected from the jury pool.

Is it Time to Ditch Texas' Key Man Grand Jury System?
- The "key man system" is also referred to as pick-a-pal. The author points out that Governor Perry was indicted by a grand jury that was randomly selected, a method she argues is superior.

England abolished grand juries decades ago because they didn't work.
- Too much discretion given to a district attorney.

How a Grand Jury Works.
- The article points out that no judge is present - and only the prosecutor presents evidence, Which is why grand juries usually issue indictment.

How Does a Grand Jury Work?
- Here's similar - probably better - information from FindLaw.

Lone Star grand jury selection and independence.
- And yet more background from the a governmental interest group - the Texas District & County Attorneys Association.

Another Jasper case, another pick-a-pal grand jury.
- A story from our general area.   

Israel's ruling coalition comes apart, the legislature dissolves and elections are set for next March

We mentioned in both 2305 and 2306 that the winner take all elections common in the United States, are not used in most other nations. Proportional representation is far more common. I use Israel as an example mostly because the website of the Knesset does a great job showing how votes are translated into seats, and how this method leads to multiparty systems as opposed to the two party system we have in the Unites States.

- Click here for their explanation of how they do business.

As it turns out, Israel will be having elections soon. So to get an idea about how elections and parties work in a different country, click on these:

- Israel’s ruling coalitions coming apart sooner.
- Israeli Knesset dissolves, sets date for elections.
- Israeli Knesset to Dissolve Itself for Early Elections on 17 March.

The Supreme Court will hear a case about the confederate flag on license plates

The case - no big surprise - comes from Texas.

It's called Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.

Here's the question presented to the court:

Issue: (1) Whether the messages and images that appear on state-issued specialty license plates qualify as government speech immune from any requirement of viewpoint neutrality; and (2) whether Texas engaged in “viewpoint discrimination” by rejecting the license-plate design proposed by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, when Texas has not issued any license plate that portrays the confederacy or the confederate battle flag in a negative or critical light.

Here's a description from ScotusBlog:

The Supreme Court agreed this afternoon to rule on a state government’s power to set up a specialty license plate program that controls the messages that may be displayed. It accepted for review an appeal by the state of Texas, seeking to defend a state agency’s refusal to allow an organization to use a Confederate flag on a specialty plate because it found that display offensive.

. . . The key issue in the license plate case (Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans) is whether the messages that are displayed on specialty tags are a form of government speech, so that officials can decide which to allow or to forbid. If, however, they represent the views of the car or truck owner, then the government’s power to veto a message is more tightly restricted.

In a 1977 ruling, in Wooley v. Maynard, the Court treated a license plate message as a form of private speech displayed on private property, but it did not rule explicitly whether this was government speech or private speech more generally. In the 2009 decision in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, the Court decided that a government entity has a right to speak for itself, and thus has the authority to refuse to accept a symbolic monument for display in a public park.

The Court was asked in the Texas case, and in a separate North Carolina case that is now apparently being kept on hold, to clarify a split among federal appeals courts on whether vanity plate messages are to be treated as government or private expressions. In the Texas case, a group that seeks to preserve the memory and reputation of soldiers who fought for the Confederacy sought state approval for a plate design that included the Confederate battle flag.

Ultimately, after a series of conflicting votes, a state agency turned down that design, saying that many people regard the rebels’ flag as associated with hatred toward groups. The Texas Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans sued, and ultimately won a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, declaring that specialty plate messages are a form of private speech, and that the state agency had engaged in forbidden viewpoint discrimination.

Sounds fun, here's info from other sources:

NYT: Supreme Court to Hear Cases on License Plates and Mentally Disabled Death Row InmatesWP: Supreme Court to hear Confederate-flag license plate case from Texas.

From the NYT: The Demise of the Southern Democrat Is Now Nearly Complete

With the defeat of Mary Landrieu there are no Democrat holds statewide office in any southern state outside of Florida and Virginia. The trend that started slowly when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 seems to now be complete. The Atlantic ran a recent article calling Landrieu The Last Southern Democrat.

- Click here for the article.

Here's the proof:



The article hits on themes we cover in both 2305 and 2306. What we seem to be seeing is white flight from the party.

Here's a taste:

The timing of the demise of the Southern Democrat is not coincidental. It reflects a complete cycle of generational replacement in the post-Jim Crow era. Old loyalties to the Democratic Party have died along with the generation of white Southerners who came of age during the era of the Solid South, before Brown v. Board of Education, before the Civil Rights Act.

Yet it also reflects the very specific conditions of 2014. Today’s national Democratic Party is as unpopular in the South today as it has ever been, in no small part because the party has embraced a more secular agenda that is not popular in the region.

“It’s a completely different party than it was 20 or 30 years ago,” said Merle Black, a professor of political science at Emory University. “When the Democratic Party and its candidates become more liberal on culture and religion, that’s not a party that’s advocating what these whites value or think.”

The party is also led by an unpopular president who has never appealed to the region’s white voters. President Obama won about 17 percent of white voters across the Deep South and Texas in 2012, based on an analysis of pre-election polls conducted by the Pew Research Center, census data and election results.

Finals start Thursday

Classes officially end this week. Finals start Thursday.

I'll continue to post a variety of stories designed to focus attention on the types of questions that will be on the final. It might be worthwhile to check in from time to time.

And just so you know - I'll open the tab where you can turn in the final version of the 1000 word essay this Thursday.

For 2305 - 12/1&2/14

In addition to reviewing more for the final - I want to wrap up our look at public policy tomorrow and Tuesday. This will open Wednesday and Thursday up for a look at the freedom of speech.

Here are a few stories related to the three areas of public policy we cover in class:

Social Welfare Policy:

In fact, U.S. is a big welfare state.
- If we take into account all spending on social welfare - direct and indirect - only France spends more than we do. The authors suggests that we come to grips with that reality.

From War to Welfare: How taxes and entitlements begin with militarism.
- The author argues that the rise of the welfare state is due less to the New Deal than to our increased use of the military.

What Role Should Government Play in Combating Obesity?
- A back and forth between some public health policy types.

Economic Policy:

Fiscal policy after the mid-terms: The governance test.- A look at the looming fight over the budget.

Monetary policy: Quite enough.
- Some commentary on recent actions by the Federal Reserve.

Foreign Policy:

Exaggeration Nation.
- Are threats like ISIS as bad as we are led to believe?

Embrace the Chaos.
- We are in a new era of foreign policy.

The Myth of the Indispensable Nation.
- The world is doing fine without us.