https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/02/14/could-there-be-another-spicewood-beach/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spindletop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrews_County,_Texas
http://www.wcstexas.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Origins
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-1538
https://www.thc.texas.gov/preserve/projects-and-programs/historic-texas-highways/researching-roads-roadside-architecture/20t-0
texasmonthly.com/politics/we-the-people/
https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/erh02
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster
https://www.tceq.texas.gov/news/tceqnews/features/asked-to-serve
https://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/organization/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Road_Act_of_1916
http://www.stpnoc.com/#/welcome
https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/tag/nuclear-energy-in-texas/
https://www.chooseenergy.com/news/article/best-and-worst-ranked-states-for-solar-industry-growth/
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Texas-wind-generation-keeps-growing-state-13178629.php
https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=30&pt=1&ch=336&rl=362
https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/metur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_capture
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Friday, November 22, 2019
From Wikipedia: John Billington
The first man executed in the British colonies.
It was in Plymouth. The year was 1630.
- Click here for the entry.
John Billington, his wife Elinor and their two sons, John and Francis, departed on the Mayflower from Plymouth, Devon, England on September 6/16, 1620.
The Billington family appeared a number of times in the accounts of early Plymouth Colony and were reported to be the colony's troublemakers. Francis made squibs and fired a musket in the Mayflower while the ship was anchored off Cape Cod. Francis went exploring soon after their arrival and discovered the body of water now known as Billington Sea.[6]
In March 1621 John Senior challenged Myles Standish's orders for "contempt of the Captain's lawful command with several speeches" and was punished for it. He would do this many times more.[7]
In May 1621 John Billington (the younger) became lost in some woods for several days, eventually being returned home by some natives from Nauset on Cape Cod.[8]
In 1624 John Billington was implicated in the Oldham-Lyford scandal (a revolt against the rule of the Plymouth church), but insisted he was innocent and was never officially punished.[9]
In 1625 Governor Bradford wrote a letter to Robert Cushman saying "Billington still rails against you…he is a knave, and so will live and died."
In 1636, wife Elinor (Eleanor) was sentenced to sit in the stocks and be whipped for slandering John Doane.
In September 1630 John Billington was tried by a jury and hanged for the murder of John Newcomen, whom he saw as an enemy. This was the first such execution in Plymouth colony. Bradford states he was approximately forty years of age. His burial location is unknown.
It was in Plymouth. The year was 1630.
- Click here for the entry.
John Billington, his wife Elinor and their two sons, John and Francis, departed on the Mayflower from Plymouth, Devon, England on September 6/16, 1620.
The Billington family appeared a number of times in the accounts of early Plymouth Colony and were reported to be the colony's troublemakers. Francis made squibs and fired a musket in the Mayflower while the ship was anchored off Cape Cod. Francis went exploring soon after their arrival and discovered the body of water now known as Billington Sea.[6]
In March 1621 John Senior challenged Myles Standish's orders for "contempt of the Captain's lawful command with several speeches" and was punished for it. He would do this many times more.[7]
In May 1621 John Billington (the younger) became lost in some woods for several days, eventually being returned home by some natives from Nauset on Cape Cod.[8]
In 1624 John Billington was implicated in the Oldham-Lyford scandal (a revolt against the rule of the Plymouth church), but insisted he was innocent and was never officially punished.[9]
In 1625 Governor Bradford wrote a letter to Robert Cushman saying "Billington still rails against you…he is a knave, and so will live and died."
In 1636, wife Elinor (Eleanor) was sentenced to sit in the stocks and be whipped for slandering John Doane.
In September 1630 John Billington was tried by a jury and hanged for the murder of John Newcomen, whom he saw as an enemy. This was the first such execution in Plymouth colony. Bradford states he was approximately forty years of age. His burial location is unknown.
From Lawfare: Can a President’s Absolute Immunity be Trumped?
Picking up on a theme below.
- Click here for the article.
It’s time to think hard about Nixon v. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald isn’t really part of the national security law canon; it’s a 1982 Supreme Court decision that is often cited for the proposition that the President has “absolute immunity” (meaning he cannot be sued in his personal capacity) for any acts he undertakes while he is President.
We’re about to experience a flood of litigation testing what the case really means.
For most of American history, a sitting President’s immunity from civil litigation has been a subject of academic curiosity, but little real-world interest. Presidents get sued daily, of course, but usually in their capacity as head of the federal government, where—for the most part—Congress has waived any immunity. They generally don’t get sued in a manner that seeks to hold them personally liable.
Fitzgerald is one of the reasons. Although the Court held 15 years after deciding Fitzgerald, in Clinton v. Jones, that the same principle didn’t immunize a sitting President from civil litigation (in federal court, anyway) arising out of acts he took before assuming office, the working assumption for the past 35 years has been that inauguration is a bright constitutional line, and that the President is categorically free from civil liability for misdeeds that take place on the far side of his oath.
The problem is that Fitzgerald does not quite say what it’s cited to mean—and neither does Jones. And Donald Trump’s peculiar personality and bizarre mixing of his personal and official personas seems sure to test the parameters of the extant doctrine.
Consider: He is already being sued for incitement to violence at a campaign rally. He has, according to more than a dozen women, sexually harassed or assaulted them—and one of his accusers is now suing him for defamation after he claimed that she fabricated the charges. He says things about people using his Twitter account, like that they illegally “wire tapped” him, that might normally give rise to a defamation suit. And he is, well, careless about certain ethics rules and business practices in a fashion that might normally create exposure—even while maintaining giant business holdings as President.
- Click here for the article.
It’s time to think hard about Nixon v. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald isn’t really part of the national security law canon; it’s a 1982 Supreme Court decision that is often cited for the proposition that the President has “absolute immunity” (meaning he cannot be sued in his personal capacity) for any acts he undertakes while he is President.
We’re about to experience a flood of litigation testing what the case really means.
For most of American history, a sitting President’s immunity from civil litigation has been a subject of academic curiosity, but little real-world interest. Presidents get sued daily, of course, but usually in their capacity as head of the federal government, where—for the most part—Congress has waived any immunity. They generally don’t get sued in a manner that seeks to hold them personally liable.
Fitzgerald is one of the reasons. Although the Court held 15 years after deciding Fitzgerald, in Clinton v. Jones, that the same principle didn’t immunize a sitting President from civil litigation (in federal court, anyway) arising out of acts he took before assuming office, the working assumption for the past 35 years has been that inauguration is a bright constitutional line, and that the President is categorically free from civil liability for misdeeds that take place on the far side of his oath.
The problem is that Fitzgerald does not quite say what it’s cited to mean—and neither does Jones. And Donald Trump’s peculiar personality and bizarre mixing of his personal and official personas seems sure to test the parameters of the extant doctrine.
Consider: He is already being sued for incitement to violence at a campaign rally. He has, according to more than a dozen women, sexually harassed or assaulted them—and one of his accusers is now suing him for defamation after he claimed that she fabricated the charges. He says things about people using his Twitter account, like that they illegally “wire tapped” him, that might normally give rise to a defamation suit. And he is, well, careless about certain ethics rules and business practices in a fashion that might normally create exposure—even while maintaining giant business holdings as President.
From The Center for Biological Diversity: TRUMP LAWSUIT TRACKER: 175 One Hundred and Seventy-five Center Suits Filed Against Trump Since His Administration's Inception
An example of an interest group using the courts to impact public policy.
- Click here for the list.
Lawsuit #1:
Lawsuit Protects Floridians, 50,000+ Acres From Phosphate Strip Mining
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla.— Four conservation organizations sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service today for authorizing 50,000 acres of phosphate strip mining that would irreversibly destroy native plant and animal habitat in central Florida.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court, aims to prevent mining that would threaten water quality and quantity by obliterating wetlands and habitat for animals already clinging to survival. Those include the eastern indigo snake, crested caracara and Florida panther. The project would also exacerbate Florida's growing phosphogypsum crisis.
“Florida has already lost so much to the phosphate industry — hundreds of thousands of acres of natural landscape and habitat, unadulterated freshwater and healthy biodiversity,” said Jaclyn Lopez, Florida director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This newest proposal is the most foolhardy yet, calling for the utter destruction of an additional 50,000 acres of Florida habitat and creation of millions of tons of radioactive hazardous waste that will be stored in the state.”
- Click here for the list.
Lawsuit #1:
Lawsuit Protects Floridians, 50,000+ Acres From Phosphate Strip Mining
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla.— Four conservation organizations sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service today for authorizing 50,000 acres of phosphate strip mining that would irreversibly destroy native plant and animal habitat in central Florida.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court, aims to prevent mining that would threaten water quality and quantity by obliterating wetlands and habitat for animals already clinging to survival. Those include the eastern indigo snake, crested caracara and Florida panther. The project would also exacerbate Florida's growing phosphogypsum crisis.
“Florida has already lost so much to the phosphate industry — hundreds of thousands of acres of natural landscape and habitat, unadulterated freshwater and healthy biodiversity,” said Jaclyn Lopez, Florida director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This newest proposal is the most foolhardy yet, calling for the utter destruction of an additional 50,000 acres of Florida habitat and creation of millions of tons of radioactive hazardous waste that will be stored in the state.”
Clinton v. Jones
But a president can be sued, even while president, for actions taken prior to being president.
- Oyez.
- Wikipedia.
Facts of the case
Paula Corbin Jones sued President Bill Clinton. She alleged that while she was an Arkansas state employee, she suffered several "abhorrent" sexual advances from then Arkansas Governor Clinton. Jones claimed that her continued rejection of Clinton's advances ultimately resulted in punishment by her state supervisors. Following a District Court's grant of Clinton's request that all matters relating to the suit be suspended, pending a ruling on his prior request to have the suit dismissed on grounds of presidential immunity, Clinton sought to invoke his immunity to completely dismiss the Jones suit against him. While the District Judge denied Clinton's immunity request, the judge ordered the stay of any trial in the matter until after Clinton's Presidency. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal denial but reversed the trial deferment ruling since it would be a "functional equivalent" to an unlawful grant of temporary presidential immunity.
Question
Is a serving President, for separation of powers reasons, entitled to absolute immunity from civil litigation arising out of events which transpired prior to his taking office?
Conclusion
No. In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that the Constitution does not grant a sitting President immunity from civil litigation except under highly unusual circumstances. After noting the great respect and dignity owed to the Executive office, the Court held that neither separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level information can justify an unqualified Presidential immunity from judicial process. While the independence of our government's branches must be protected under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Constitution does not prohibit these branches from exercising any control over one another. This, the Court added, is true despite the procedural burdens which Article III jurisdiction may impose on the time, attention, and resources of the Chief Executive.
- Oyez.
- Wikipedia.
Facts of the case
Paula Corbin Jones sued President Bill Clinton. She alleged that while she was an Arkansas state employee, she suffered several "abhorrent" sexual advances from then Arkansas Governor Clinton. Jones claimed that her continued rejection of Clinton's advances ultimately resulted in punishment by her state supervisors. Following a District Court's grant of Clinton's request that all matters relating to the suit be suspended, pending a ruling on his prior request to have the suit dismissed on grounds of presidential immunity, Clinton sought to invoke his immunity to completely dismiss the Jones suit against him. While the District Judge denied Clinton's immunity request, the judge ordered the stay of any trial in the matter until after Clinton's Presidency. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal denial but reversed the trial deferment ruling since it would be a "functional equivalent" to an unlawful grant of temporary presidential immunity.
Question
Is a serving President, for separation of powers reasons, entitled to absolute immunity from civil litigation arising out of events which transpired prior to his taking office?
Conclusion
No. In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that the Constitution does not grant a sitting President immunity from civil litigation except under highly unusual circumstances. After noting the great respect and dignity owed to the Executive office, the Court held that neither separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level information can justify an unqualified Presidential immunity from judicial process. While the independence of our government's branches must be protected under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Constitution does not prohibit these branches from exercising any control over one another. This, the Court added, is true despite the procedural burdens which Article III jurisdiction may impose on the time, attention, and resources of the Chief Executive.
Nixon v. Fitzgerald
The basis for the post below.
The president cannot be sued (civil law) for performing actions related to his office when he was president.
- Oyez.
- Wikipedia.
The president cannot be sued (civil law) for performing actions related to his office when he was president.
- Oyez.
- Wikipedia.
In 1968, Fitzgerald, then a civilian analyst with the United States Air Force, testified before a congressional committee about inefficiencies and cost overruns in the production of the C-5A transport plane. Roughly one year later he was fired, an action for which President Nixon took responsibility. Fitzgerald then sued Nixon for damages after the Civil Service Commission concluded that his dismissal was unjust.
...
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The court emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official (or unofficial) acts while in office.
The court noted that a grant of absolute immunity to the President would not leave the President with unfettered power. The Court stated that there were formal and informal checks on presidential action that did not apply with equal force to other executive officials. The court observed that the President was subjected to constant scrutiny by the press. It noted that vigilant oversight by Congress would also serve to deter presidential abuses of office, as well as to make credible the threat of impeachment. The court determined that other incentives to avoid misconduct existed, including a desire to earn reelection, the need to maintain prestige as an element of presidential influence, and a President's traditional concern for his historical stature.
This decision was clarified by Clinton v. Jones, in which the Court held that a President is subject to civil suits for actions committed before he assumes the presidency.
...
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The court emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official (or unofficial) acts while in office.
The court noted that a grant of absolute immunity to the President would not leave the President with unfettered power. The Court stated that there were formal and informal checks on presidential action that did not apply with equal force to other executive officials. The court observed that the President was subjected to constant scrutiny by the press. It noted that vigilant oversight by Congress would also serve to deter presidential abuses of office, as well as to make credible the threat of impeachment. The court determined that other incentives to avoid misconduct existed, including a desire to earn reelection, the need to maintain prestige as an element of presidential influence, and a President's traditional concern for his historical stature.
This decision was clarified by Clinton v. Jones, in which the Court held that a President is subject to civil suits for actions committed before he assumes the presidency.
Trump V Vance: PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
The read deal - note the claim of presidential immunity.
- Click here for it.
The District Attorney for the County of New York is conducting a criminal investigation that, by his own admission, targets the President of the United States for possible indictment and prosecution during his term in office. As part of that investigation, he served a grand-jury subpoena on a custodian of the President’s personal records, demanding production of nearly ten years’ worth of the President’s financial papers and his tax returns. That subpoena is the combination—almost a word-for-word copy—of two subpoenas issued by committees of Congress for these same papers. The Second Circuit rejected the President’s claim of immunity and ordered compliance with the subpoena.
The question presented is: Whether this subpoena violates Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
- Click here for it.
The District Attorney for the County of New York is conducting a criminal investigation that, by his own admission, targets the President of the United States for possible indictment and prosecution during his term in office. As part of that investigation, he served a grand-jury subpoena on a custodian of the President’s personal records, demanding production of nearly ten years’ worth of the President’s financial papers and his tax returns. That subpoena is the combination—almost a word-for-word copy—of two subpoenas issued by committees of Congress for these same papers. The Second Circuit rejected the President’s claim of immunity and ordered compliance with the subpoena.
The question presented is: Whether this subpoena violates Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
Thursday, November 21, 2019
From Vox: House Democrats took a big step to get the Equal Rights Amendment moving again
We might have a 28th Amendment soon.
- Click here for the article.
The House on Wednesday took a major step in clearing the way for the advancement of the Equal Rights Amendment, an amendment to the Constitution that would offer all Americans equal legal protections regardless of sex. A resolution passed by the Judiciary Committee this week could bring the measure significantly closer to fruition.
It might seem like odd timing to take a vote on the Equal Rights Amendment. It was first passed by the House and Senate in 1972 and after an initial flurry of states approving it (the next step needed to amend the Constitution), momentum died down for over three decades. But there’s recently been new energy, and Democrats retaking the Virginia state legislature earlier this month means it’s closer to becoming a reality than ever.
The amendment still needs two things to happen in order to move forward: It requires ratification by three-fourths — or 38 — states. And it requires Congress to change the deadline for ratification, which was previously set as 1982.
With Democrats now in control in Virginia, the state is poised to become the 38th state to ratify the ERA. In light of that momentum, House lawmakers are now trying to remove the prior ratification deadline. The Judiciary Committee this week approved a resolution that would do just that and it’s now up for a vote by the full House, where it’s likely to pass with the Democratic majority.
If this resolution is ultimately approved by the House and the Senate, the measure could potentially become an amendment to the Constitution. What that would guarantee is equal protection under the law for all individuals, a change that could lead to wide-ranging updates to existing policies, according to the New York Times’s Maggie Astor:
For women, it would bolster pay equity, domestic violence laws and pregnancy discrimination protections, among many other things. It could also affect men, such as by guaranteeing paid paternity leave equal to maternity leave.
The momentum behind the ERA has lagged since its congressional passage several decades ago, but interest in it has been rekindled in recent years — a product, in part, of a growing focus on gender equity,
- Click here for the article.
The House on Wednesday took a major step in clearing the way for the advancement of the Equal Rights Amendment, an amendment to the Constitution that would offer all Americans equal legal protections regardless of sex. A resolution passed by the Judiciary Committee this week could bring the measure significantly closer to fruition.
It might seem like odd timing to take a vote on the Equal Rights Amendment. It was first passed by the House and Senate in 1972 and after an initial flurry of states approving it (the next step needed to amend the Constitution), momentum died down for over three decades. But there’s recently been new energy, and Democrats retaking the Virginia state legislature earlier this month means it’s closer to becoming a reality than ever.
The amendment still needs two things to happen in order to move forward: It requires ratification by three-fourths — or 38 — states. And it requires Congress to change the deadline for ratification, which was previously set as 1982.
With Democrats now in control in Virginia, the state is poised to become the 38th state to ratify the ERA. In light of that momentum, House lawmakers are now trying to remove the prior ratification deadline. The Judiciary Committee this week approved a resolution that would do just that and it’s now up for a vote by the full House, where it’s likely to pass with the Democratic majority.
If this resolution is ultimately approved by the House and the Senate, the measure could potentially become an amendment to the Constitution. What that would guarantee is equal protection under the law for all individuals, a change that could lead to wide-ranging updates to existing policies, according to the New York Times’s Maggie Astor:
For women, it would bolster pay equity, domestic violence laws and pregnancy discrimination protections, among many other things. It could also affect men, such as by guaranteeing paid paternity leave equal to maternity leave.
The momentum behind the ERA has lagged since its congressional passage several decades ago, but interest in it has been rekindled in recent years — a product, in part, of a growing focus on gender equity,
Three education acts
For our look at cooperative federalism and education policy.
- Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
- No Child Left Behind.
- Every Student Succeeds Act.
- Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
- No Child Left Behind.
- Every Student Succeeds Act.
Wednesday, November 20, 2019
From the Texas Tribune: Texas isn't providing major support for the 2020 Census. Local officials and nonprofits say they will instead.
because - federalism...
- Click here for the article.
In lieu of state support to ensure accurate census numbers, advocates and local government officials from across Texas announced Wednesday morning their own plans to reach all parts of the vast and notoriously hard-to-count state.
A coalition of dozens of nonprofit and philanthropy organizations as well as local governments launched Texas Counts, a centralized hub for the 2020 census that already has more than $3 million to help local communities with outreach. Next year's decennial census begins April 1 and must be submitted to the president by Dec. 31.
Ann Beeson, the CEO of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, one of the organizations heading up Texas Counts, said 25% of Texans are considered hard to count because they live in Spanish-speaking or immigrant communities, reside in sparse rural areas or are experiencing homelessness.
"While we have wonderful get-out-the-count efforts underway in major metropolitan areas and other areas of the state, way too many communities across our state lack the resources and support that they need to ensure a complete count," Beeson said. As a result, CPPP and others formed the two-pronged Texas Counts. One focus is on engagement with local groups across the state like health clinics, businesses and faith-based organizations. The other is on issuing grants to communities from a statewide fund for things like outreach to hard-to-reach communities and workers to support understaffed complete count committees.
- Click here for the article.
In lieu of state support to ensure accurate census numbers, advocates and local government officials from across Texas announced Wednesday morning their own plans to reach all parts of the vast and notoriously hard-to-count state.
A coalition of dozens of nonprofit and philanthropy organizations as well as local governments launched Texas Counts, a centralized hub for the 2020 census that already has more than $3 million to help local communities with outreach. Next year's decennial census begins April 1 and must be submitted to the president by Dec. 31.
Ann Beeson, the CEO of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, one of the organizations heading up Texas Counts, said 25% of Texans are considered hard to count because they live in Spanish-speaking or immigrant communities, reside in sparse rural areas or are experiencing homelessness.
"While we have wonderful get-out-the-count efforts underway in major metropolitan areas and other areas of the state, way too many communities across our state lack the resources and support that they need to ensure a complete count," Beeson said. As a result, CPPP and others formed the two-pronged Texas Counts. One focus is on engagement with local groups across the state like health clinics, businesses and faith-based organizations. The other is on issuing grants to communities from a statewide fund for things like outreach to hard-to-reach communities and workers to support understaffed complete count committees.
From Lawfare: Gordon Sondland Accuses the President of Bribery
A look at statutory and constitutional interpretation.
- Click here for the article.
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution makes the president subject to impeachment and removal for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Normally, we debate impeachment in terms of the last phrase—the mysterious catch-all, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” But today, Amb. Gordon Sondland, testifying before the House in the ongoing impeachment inquiry, offered a crystal clear account of how President Trump engaged in bribery.
The meaning of the term “bribery” in the impeachment clauses is not coextensive with the meaning of the same word in the criminal code. The impeachment clause predates the federal criminal code, and its contours are decided more by the common law of impeachment than by the terms of specific criminal laws. So I’m not invoking 18 U.S.C. § 201 to evaluate whether Trump committed a crime.
That said, the bribery statute offers a reasonable working definition of what it means to bribe a public official: “Whoever ... directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official ... to influence any official act” has committed the offense.
What’s more, the statute also offers a reasonable working definition of what it means for a public official to demand a bribe: “Whoever ... being a public official … directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally ... in return for ... being influenced in the performance of any official act” also has committed the offense.
Now consider the following exchange that took place today between Sondland and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, which I reproduce here at some length. You can see, in its text, Schiff probing Sondland as to the elements of the bribery offense—which is quite evidently on Schiff’s mind as he asks these questions:
- Click here for the article.
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution makes the president subject to impeachment and removal for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Normally, we debate impeachment in terms of the last phrase—the mysterious catch-all, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” But today, Amb. Gordon Sondland, testifying before the House in the ongoing impeachment inquiry, offered a crystal clear account of how President Trump engaged in bribery.
The meaning of the term “bribery” in the impeachment clauses is not coextensive with the meaning of the same word in the criminal code. The impeachment clause predates the federal criminal code, and its contours are decided more by the common law of impeachment than by the terms of specific criminal laws. So I’m not invoking 18 U.S.C. § 201 to evaluate whether Trump committed a crime.
That said, the bribery statute offers a reasonable working definition of what it means to bribe a public official: “Whoever ... directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official ... to influence any official act” has committed the offense.
What’s more, the statute also offers a reasonable working definition of what it means for a public official to demand a bribe: “Whoever ... being a public official … directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally ... in return for ... being influenced in the performance of any official act” also has committed the offense.
Now consider the following exchange that took place today between Sondland and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, which I reproduce here at some length. You can see, in its text, Schiff probing Sondland as to the elements of the bribery offense—which is quite evidently on Schiff’s mind as he asks these questions:
From Texas Security Review: A Roundtable on War Powers Reform
For 2305's look at executive powers, checks and balances. and military policy.
- Click here for the article.
- Click here for the article.
Who Is Gordon Sondland?
The basics from Wikipedia.
- Click here for the entry.
Political involvement
Sondland was a member of the transition team for Oregon Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski's administration and was appointed by Kulongoski to serve on the board of the Governor's Office of Film & Television.[20] He was appointed the commission’s chair in 2002 and has served in that capacity until 2015.[21] During his tenure on the film board, Sondland was instrumental in bringing the production of such television series as Leverage, The Librarians, and Grimm to Oregon[22] and presided over the state securing the production of feature-length films such as Wild starring Reese Witherspoon, Thumbsucker starring Tilda Swinton, and The Ring Two starring Naomi Watts. At the 2015 Oregon Film Annual Governor’s Awards, Sondland received the "Achievement in Film Service Award" for his role in growing Oregon’s film industry.[23]
Sondland also served as Oregon liaison to the White House. As an advisor to Kulongoski, Sondland suggested appointing Ted Wheeler as state treasurer, which Kulongoski did in 2010.[24] In 2007, President George W. Bush appointed Sondland as a member of the Commission on White House Fellows.[25] Sondland collaborated with President Bush and Jay Leno on an annual charitable auction of an autographed vehicle, with proceeds benefitting the Fisher House Foundation and the George W. Bush Foundation’s Military Service Initiative.[26] He was a bundler for Mitt Romney's 2012 Presidential campaign, and in 2012, Sondland was selected to serve as a member of Mitt Romney's presidential transition team.[2]
During the 2016 United States presidential election, Sondland initially supported Donald Trump, but cancelled a fundraiser and repudiated Trump for his attacks on Khizr and Ghazala Khan.[2] In April 2017, it was revealed that four companies registered to Sondland donated $1 million to the Donald Trump inaugural committee.[27][28][29]
United States ambassador to the European Union
On March 12, 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that President Trump selected Sondland to be the next United States ambassador to the European Union.[30][31] On May 10, 2018, the White House announced that Sondland's nomination had been sent to the U.S. Senate.[32] He was confirmed by the Senate on June 28, 2018.[3] On July 9, 2018, Sondland presented his credentials at the European Commission and to President of the European Council Donald Tusk.[33]
Sondland's nomination received bipartisan support during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 21, 2018.[4] Both Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) testified in support of Sondland.[34] Sen. Wyden suggested that Sondland’s "family history is both fascinating and instructive as to why he has the experience and understanding to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the E.U.," noting how his Jewish parents fled Nazi Germany before coming to the United States.[4][5]
- Click here for the entry.
Political involvement
Sondland was a member of the transition team for Oregon Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski's administration and was appointed by Kulongoski to serve on the board of the Governor's Office of Film & Television.[20] He was appointed the commission’s chair in 2002 and has served in that capacity until 2015.[21] During his tenure on the film board, Sondland was instrumental in bringing the production of such television series as Leverage, The Librarians, and Grimm to Oregon[22] and presided over the state securing the production of feature-length films such as Wild starring Reese Witherspoon, Thumbsucker starring Tilda Swinton, and The Ring Two starring Naomi Watts. At the 2015 Oregon Film Annual Governor’s Awards, Sondland received the "Achievement in Film Service Award" for his role in growing Oregon’s film industry.[23]
Sondland also served as Oregon liaison to the White House. As an advisor to Kulongoski, Sondland suggested appointing Ted Wheeler as state treasurer, which Kulongoski did in 2010.[24] In 2007, President George W. Bush appointed Sondland as a member of the Commission on White House Fellows.[25] Sondland collaborated with President Bush and Jay Leno on an annual charitable auction of an autographed vehicle, with proceeds benefitting the Fisher House Foundation and the George W. Bush Foundation’s Military Service Initiative.[26] He was a bundler for Mitt Romney's 2012 Presidential campaign, and in 2012, Sondland was selected to serve as a member of Mitt Romney's presidential transition team.[2]
During the 2016 United States presidential election, Sondland initially supported Donald Trump, but cancelled a fundraiser and repudiated Trump for his attacks on Khizr and Ghazala Khan.[2] In April 2017, it was revealed that four companies registered to Sondland donated $1 million to the Donald Trump inaugural committee.[27][28][29]
United States ambassador to the European Union
On March 12, 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that President Trump selected Sondland to be the next United States ambassador to the European Union.[30][31] On May 10, 2018, the White House announced that Sondland's nomination had been sent to the U.S. Senate.[32] He was confirmed by the Senate on June 28, 2018.[3] On July 9, 2018, Sondland presented his credentials at the European Commission and to President of the European Council Donald Tusk.[33]
Sondland's nomination received bipartisan support during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 21, 2018.[4] Both Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) testified in support of Sondland.[34] Sen. Wyden suggested that Sondland’s "family history is both fascinating and instructive as to why he has the experience and understanding to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the E.U.," noting how his Jewish parents fled Nazi Germany before coming to the United States.[4][5]
The rules for selecting presidential electors in Texas' two major parties
The Rules of the Texas Republican Party
Rule No. 39 – Presidential Electors
At the Biennial State Convention in presidential election years, the delegates from each Congressional District shall nominate one (1) Presidential Elector and such nomination shall be presented to the National Nominations Committee; additionally, the National Nominations Committee shall select additional nominees to bring to total number of nominees to the number allowed by law.
Each such nominee for Presidential Elector, prior to the report of the National Nominations Committee, shall file with the Chairman of the National Nominations Committee an affidavit in writing as to the nominee’s commitment to vote for the Republican Party’s nominees for President and Vice President. The report of the National Nominations Committee shall include only nominees who have so filed such affidavit. The report of the National Nominations Committee must include the nominees from the Congressional District who have so filed affidavits. The Convention shall then elect the Presidential Electors.
Any vacancy among the Presidential Electors shall be filled by majority vote of the SREC, with the conditions that
1) the person elected to fill the vacancy shall have already filed with the State Chairman an affidavit in writing as to his or her commitment to vote for the Republican Party’s nominees for President and Vice President and
(2) if the vacancy occurs for a person who had been nominated by his or her Congressional District Caucus at the biennial State Convention then the SREC shall elect a person who has filed such an affidavit, has made an affiliation with the Republican Party of Texas under Chapter 162 of the TEC, and resides in that same congressional district at the time he or she is elected by the SREC to be a replacement Presidential Elector.
The Rules of the Texas Democratic Party
10. Election of Presidential Elector Candidates. At its State Convention, in presidential years, the Party shall nominate as many Presidential Elector candidates as the total number of U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives to which the state legally is entitled at that time.
a. Qualifications. The qualifications for Presidential Elector candidates shall be the same as those prescribed for Party membership in Article II.B of these Rules. Legally, however, a Presidential Elector may not be a member of the United States Congress or anyone who “holds any other federal office of profit or trust.” (Texas Election Code §192.002)
b. Duties. The duties of Presidential Electors shall be to meet in the Capitol Building at Austin on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December following their election (or at such other time and place as may be required by law), and to vote for President and Vice President of the United States, making such return thereof as is required by federal law.
c. Election Procedure. Presidential Elector candidates shall be chosen in the following manner: (1) Each Senatorial District Caucus shall elect by majority vote one candidate for Presidential Elector. If Texas is entitled to more than 31 Electors, each senatorial district shall be entitled to one Elector and the remaining Elector positions shall go to the senatorial districts with the highest vote for the Democratic nominee in the preceding presidential election in descending order, until all positions are allocated. (2) The names of all Electors so chosen by the Senatorial District Caucuses shall be submitted to the Convention’s Permanent Nominations Committee for SDEC members. The Committee shall compile a list of these Electors to report to the Convention and shall make any additional nominations or any determinations by lot necessary to make the slate numerically correct. The required number of Presidential Elector candidates shall be certified to the Secretary of State by the State Chair and Secretary at least 70 days before the election. (Texas Election Code §192.031)
d. Affidavit. After the Party’s National Convention and prior to September 1, each Presidential Elector candidate shall file with the State Chair a written affidavit attesting their intention to support the Party’s Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees. Any Elector candidate chosen at the State Convention who fails to file such an affidavit shall be replaced by the SDEC with an Elector from the same senatorial district.
e. Vacancies. If for any cause, before the General Election, a Party’s chosen Elector becomes legally disqualified, the State Chair shall certify the replacement name and address to the Secretary of State. If for any cause, after the General Election, a Party’s chosen Elector fails to attend the meeting of the Electors and vote as required by law, or if an Elector becomes legally disqualified, a majority of the qualified Electors present after having convened may appoint a successor and shall report such action immediately to the Secretary of State. (Required by Texas Election Code § 192.004 and § 192.007)
Rule No. 39 – Presidential Electors
At the Biennial State Convention in presidential election years, the delegates from each Congressional District shall nominate one (1) Presidential Elector and such nomination shall be presented to the National Nominations Committee; additionally, the National Nominations Committee shall select additional nominees to bring to total number of nominees to the number allowed by law.
Each such nominee for Presidential Elector, prior to the report of the National Nominations Committee, shall file with the Chairman of the National Nominations Committee an affidavit in writing as to the nominee’s commitment to vote for the Republican Party’s nominees for President and Vice President. The report of the National Nominations Committee shall include only nominees who have so filed such affidavit. The report of the National Nominations Committee must include the nominees from the Congressional District who have so filed affidavits. The Convention shall then elect the Presidential Electors.
Any vacancy among the Presidential Electors shall be filled by majority vote of the SREC, with the conditions that
1) the person elected to fill the vacancy shall have already filed with the State Chairman an affidavit in writing as to his or her commitment to vote for the Republican Party’s nominees for President and Vice President and
(2) if the vacancy occurs for a person who had been nominated by his or her Congressional District Caucus at the biennial State Convention then the SREC shall elect a person who has filed such an affidavit, has made an affiliation with the Republican Party of Texas under Chapter 162 of the TEC, and resides in that same congressional district at the time he or she is elected by the SREC to be a replacement Presidential Elector.
The Rules of the Texas Democratic Party
10. Election of Presidential Elector Candidates. At its State Convention, in presidential years, the Party shall nominate as many Presidential Elector candidates as the total number of U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives to which the state legally is entitled at that time.
a. Qualifications. The qualifications for Presidential Elector candidates shall be the same as those prescribed for Party membership in Article II.B of these Rules. Legally, however, a Presidential Elector may not be a member of the United States Congress or anyone who “holds any other federal office of profit or trust.” (Texas Election Code §192.002)
b. Duties. The duties of Presidential Electors shall be to meet in the Capitol Building at Austin on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December following their election (or at such other time and place as may be required by law), and to vote for President and Vice President of the United States, making such return thereof as is required by federal law.
c. Election Procedure. Presidential Elector candidates shall be chosen in the following manner: (1) Each Senatorial District Caucus shall elect by majority vote one candidate for Presidential Elector. If Texas is entitled to more than 31 Electors, each senatorial district shall be entitled to one Elector and the remaining Elector positions shall go to the senatorial districts with the highest vote for the Democratic nominee in the preceding presidential election in descending order, until all positions are allocated. (2) The names of all Electors so chosen by the Senatorial District Caucuses shall be submitted to the Convention’s Permanent Nominations Committee for SDEC members. The Committee shall compile a list of these Electors to report to the Convention and shall make any additional nominations or any determinations by lot necessary to make the slate numerically correct. The required number of Presidential Elector candidates shall be certified to the Secretary of State by the State Chair and Secretary at least 70 days before the election. (Texas Election Code §192.031)
d. Affidavit. After the Party’s National Convention and prior to September 1, each Presidential Elector candidate shall file with the State Chair a written affidavit attesting their intention to support the Party’s Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees. Any Elector candidate chosen at the State Convention who fails to file such an affidavit shall be replaced by the SDEC with an Elector from the same senatorial district.
e. Vacancies. If for any cause, before the General Election, a Party’s chosen Elector becomes legally disqualified, the State Chair shall certify the replacement name and address to the Secretary of State. If for any cause, after the General Election, a Party’s chosen Elector fails to attend the meeting of the Electors and vote as required by law, or if an Elector becomes legally disqualified, a majority of the qualified Electors present after having convened may appoint a successor and shall report such action immediately to the Secretary of State. (Required by Texas Election Code § 192.004 and § 192.007)
From Britannica: Procedural law
- Click here for the entry.
Procedural law, also called adjective law, the law governing the machinery of the courts and the methods by which both the state and the individual (the latter including groups, whether incorporated or not) enforce their rights in the several courts. Procedural law prescribes the means of enforcing rights or providing redress of wrongs and comprises rules about jurisdiction, pleading and practice, evidence, appeal, execution of judgments, representation of counsel, costs, and other matters. Procedural law is commonly contrasted with substantive law, which constitutes the great body of law and defines and regulates legal rights and duties. Thus, whereas substantive law would describe how two people might enter into a contract, procedural law would explain how someone alleging a breach of contract might seek the courts’ help in enforcing the agreement.
To be effective, law must go beyond the determination of the rights and obligations of individuals and collective bodies to say how these rights and obligations can be enforced. Moreover, it must do this in a systematic and formal way, because the failure to do so would render the legal system inefficient, unfair, and biased and, as a result, possibly upset the social peace. Embodying this systematization and formalization, procedural law constitutes the sum total of legal rules designed to ensure the enforcement of rights by means of the courts.
Because procedural law is a means for enforcing substantive rules, there are different kinds of procedural law, corresponding to the various kinds of substantive law. Criminal law is the branch of substantive law dealing with punishment for offenses against the public and has as its corollary criminal procedure, which indicates how the sanctions of criminal law must be applied. Substantive private law, which deals with the relations between private (i.e., nongovernmental) persons, whether individuals or corporate bodies, has as its corollary the rules of civil procedure. Because the object of judicial proceedings is to arrive at the truth by using the best available evidence, there must be procedural laws of evidence to govern the presentation of witnesses, documentation, and physical proof.
Procedural law, also called adjective law, the law governing the machinery of the courts and the methods by which both the state and the individual (the latter including groups, whether incorporated or not) enforce their rights in the several courts. Procedural law prescribes the means of enforcing rights or providing redress of wrongs and comprises rules about jurisdiction, pleading and practice, evidence, appeal, execution of judgments, representation of counsel, costs, and other matters. Procedural law is commonly contrasted with substantive law, which constitutes the great body of law and defines and regulates legal rights and duties. Thus, whereas substantive law would describe how two people might enter into a contract, procedural law would explain how someone alleging a breach of contract might seek the courts’ help in enforcing the agreement.
To be effective, law must go beyond the determination of the rights and obligations of individuals and collective bodies to say how these rights and obligations can be enforced. Moreover, it must do this in a systematic and formal way, because the failure to do so would render the legal system inefficient, unfair, and biased and, as a result, possibly upset the social peace. Embodying this systematization and formalization, procedural law constitutes the sum total of legal rules designed to ensure the enforcement of rights by means of the courts.
Because procedural law is a means for enforcing substantive rules, there are different kinds of procedural law, corresponding to the various kinds of substantive law. Criminal law is the branch of substantive law dealing with punishment for offenses against the public and has as its corollary criminal procedure, which indicates how the sanctions of criminal law must be applied. Substantive private law, which deals with the relations between private (i.e., nongovernmental) persons, whether individuals or corporate bodies, has as its corollary the rules of civil procedure. Because the object of judicial proceedings is to arrive at the truth by using the best available evidence, there must be procedural laws of evidence to govern the presentation of witnesses, documentation, and physical proof.
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Stupid questions GOVT 2306 02
My response for the stupid question is the powers that the lieutenant Governor has and can do such as like a veto and that jazz. The differences between the actual governor a and the LT. I seem to get the speaker of the house confused with the other too. I guess that I mix up statewide versus just Texas Exclusive sometimes. Any thoughts or feedback to help stop that or correct it?
My question is actually very stupid but it's a question in regard the last written assignment. We have 2 weeks to do it correct? And on the 1000 word essay do we cover every single bill?
Government is hard to understand and I don't understand the fact that peoples rights are counteracted by laws and also i don't understand taxes.
What are the responsibilities of a comptroller? How does one become a comptroller?
Is the biennal session of the texas legislature a good policy?
I don't understand the primary, open, closed, halfway open and legendary elections. Why are there so many with so many different names and how can I understand them? Oh, and who chose the name "gubernatorial" and what in the world were they doing when they picked that name AND thought it was a good idea? This is my second government class and I am still confused by the primary gubers...
Do the people in the government still have 7 days in a week??
How long does our draft to you have to be?
To be involved in politics in Texas, do you have to know the Texas Constitution by heart? Or do they just keep going back and forth “googleling” information or questions they might need from the Texas Constitution?
Why will voters does not know how much was spent during the 2014 election until the year in 2015
What are the main reasons for low turnouts in elections; could there be possible solutions for voter turnout to be higher?
Do you think trump will win the next election? Why did they take away the straight ticket voting? I think doing that just makes things a longer process.
I have asked quite a few people and I have researched this extensively and people really do believe that Texas can succeed from America. Despite it not being true, what gives Texans the belief that succession is possible from America and that Texas has the ability to become its own country again. Is there anything in the Texas Constitution, past or present, that would give Texans that idea? Thank you for your time.
The most confusing subject that we have covered for me was the Campaigns and Elections Texas Style Chapter 8. I can not seem to get down the terms and the systems.
Stupid question: Can we have any tests written in class instead of online? My work schedule is a major factor to this.
Why has Trump not been impeached yet? What has confused me the most is what we were discussing in the 2nd written assignment about the constitution and nullification.
How many representatives does each state have?
how many amendments are being passed?
What I most likely confused about is why did the government of Texas create private prisons to further suffer the prisoners and the staff members? Does that sound like it is contradicting how regular prisons are better than private prisons?
Can we get the answers to the tests? (After we finish the exams, so we know what we got right or wrong)
Something confusing about what we've covered so far is how caucasus work.
Most of the content in this class is straight forward, But I suppose I can think of at least 1 question. My question: If the American form of government is a Federalist one, then power is shared by multiple branches and levels of government; Most notably State and national government. The States and the National Government share their power, But the states laws and actions are subservient to the constitution and laws of the national government. In what ways is the national government subservient to the states? I can’t find a practical example of this that aren't anomalies.
In order to pass an amendment does it require legislative votes or civilian votes? That’s what confuses me so much for some reason and I don’t know why, if I'm being perfectly honest.
My only question is over the essay. Are we supposed to give our opinion over the topic? or our we supposed to show both sides? I know it is not in first person and that it is formal.
I'm not really confused about the subject matter we've covered so far, I just need to read the book some more.
Why do we have the US Constitution then the Texas Constitution and where does the Bill of rights and Amendments come in to play within those two? Does the Bill of Rights fall under the Texas Constitution and not the US Constitution? Also, is it always necessary to amend the Constitution?
What exactly is the 1000 word essay supposed to cover? I understand you want it to be about the 86th Texas Legislature, but do you want our opinion along with the fact? Or do we just talk about the research we found about the amendments in the Texas Constitution?
I struggle in containing all the information, not that i don't study, but all this government stuff confuses me at times. What do you think is a better way for me to stay engaged in the topic but also be learning?
The most confusing matter is not using the book more. The quizzes questions are not aligning with what's written in the book. This makes me rely more on what's online (Google). Other than that I think the class is very informative with current events and great illustrations.
What other references that you suggest for the 1000 topic essay? I’m struggling to find a lot of information regarding each amendment.
Why doesn't Houston annex more parts of Texas for it's city anymore?
My response for the stupid question is the powers that the lieutenant Governor has and can do such as like a veto and that jazz. The differences between the actual governor a and the LT. I seem to get the speaker of the house confused with the other too. I guess that I mix up statewide versus just Texas Exclusive sometimes. Any thoughts or feedback to help stop that or correct it?
My question is actually very stupid but it's a question in regard the last written assignment. We have 2 weeks to do it correct? And on the 1000 word essay do we cover every single bill?
Government is hard to understand and I don't understand the fact that peoples rights are counteracted by laws and also i don't understand taxes.
What are the responsibilities of a comptroller? How does one become a comptroller?
Is the biennal session of the texas legislature a good policy?
I don't understand the primary, open, closed, halfway open and legendary elections. Why are there so many with so many different names and how can I understand them? Oh, and who chose the name "gubernatorial" and what in the world were they doing when they picked that name AND thought it was a good idea? This is my second government class and I am still confused by the primary gubers...
Do the people in the government still have 7 days in a week??
How long does our draft to you have to be?
To be involved in politics in Texas, do you have to know the Texas Constitution by heart? Or do they just keep going back and forth “googleling” information or questions they might need from the Texas Constitution?
Why will voters does not know how much was spent during the 2014 election until the year in 2015
What are the main reasons for low turnouts in elections; could there be possible solutions for voter turnout to be higher?
Do you think trump will win the next election? Why did they take away the straight ticket voting? I think doing that just makes things a longer process.
I have asked quite a few people and I have researched this extensively and people really do believe that Texas can succeed from America. Despite it not being true, what gives Texans the belief that succession is possible from America and that Texas has the ability to become its own country again. Is there anything in the Texas Constitution, past or present, that would give Texans that idea? Thank you for your time.
The most confusing subject that we have covered for me was the Campaigns and Elections Texas Style Chapter 8. I can not seem to get down the terms and the systems.
Stupid question: Can we have any tests written in class instead of online? My work schedule is a major factor to this.
Why has Trump not been impeached yet? What has confused me the most is what we were discussing in the 2nd written assignment about the constitution and nullification.
How many representatives does each state have?
how many amendments are being passed?
What I most likely confused about is why did the government of Texas create private prisons to further suffer the prisoners and the staff members? Does that sound like it is contradicting how regular prisons are better than private prisons?
Can we get the answers to the tests? (After we finish the exams, so we know what we got right or wrong)
Something confusing about what we've covered so far is how caucasus work.
Most of the content in this class is straight forward, But I suppose I can think of at least 1 question. My question: If the American form of government is a Federalist one, then power is shared by multiple branches and levels of government; Most notably State and national government. The States and the National Government share their power, But the states laws and actions are subservient to the constitution and laws of the national government. In what ways is the national government subservient to the states? I can’t find a practical example of this that aren't anomalies.
In order to pass an amendment does it require legislative votes or civilian votes? That’s what confuses me so much for some reason and I don’t know why, if I'm being perfectly honest.
My only question is over the essay. Are we supposed to give our opinion over the topic? or our we supposed to show both sides? I know it is not in first person and that it is formal.
I'm not really confused about the subject matter we've covered so far, I just need to read the book some more.
Why do we have the US Constitution then the Texas Constitution and where does the Bill of rights and Amendments come in to play within those two? Does the Bill of Rights fall under the Texas Constitution and not the US Constitution? Also, is it always necessary to amend the Constitution?
What exactly is the 1000 word essay supposed to cover? I understand you want it to be about the 86th Texas Legislature, but do you want our opinion along with the fact? Or do we just talk about the research we found about the amendments in the Texas Constitution?
I struggle in containing all the information, not that i don't study, but all this government stuff confuses me at times. What do you think is a better way for me to stay engaged in the topic but also be learning?
The most confusing matter is not using the book more. The quizzes questions are not aligning with what's written in the book. This makes me rely more on what's online (Google). Other than that I think the class is very informative with current events and great illustrations.
What other references that you suggest for the 1000 topic essay? I’m struggling to find a lot of information regarding each amendment.
Why doesn't Houston annex more parts of Texas for it's city anymore?
The President as Military King
Concern about the unitary executive and the power of commander in chief
- Click here for it.
Before martial law is declared to be the supreme law of the land, and your character of free citizens be changed to that of the subjects of a military king—which are necessary consequences of the adoption of the proposed constitution—let me admonish you in the name of sacred liberty, to make a solemn pause. Permit a freeman to address you, and to solicit your attention to a cause wherein yourselves and your posterity are concerned. The sun never shone upon a more important one. It is the cause of freedom of a whole continent of yourselves and of your fellow men.…
A conspiracy against the freedom of America, both deep and dangerous, has been formed by an infernal junto of demagogues. Our thirteen free commonwealths are to be consolidated into one despotic monarchy. Is not this position obvious? Its evidence is intuitive .… Who can deny but the president general will be a king to all intents and purposes, and one of the most dangerous kind too—a king elected to command a standing army. Thus our laws are to be administered by this tyrant; for the whole, or at least the most important part of the executive department is put in his hands.
A quorum of 65 representatives, and of 26 senators, with a king at their head, are to possess powers that extend to the lives, the liberties, and property of every citizen of America. This novel system of government, were it possible to establish it, would be a compound of monarchy and aristocracy, the most accursed that ever the world witnessed. About 50 (these being a quorum) of the well born, and a military king, with a standing army devoted to his will, are to have an uncontrolled power.…
- Click here for it.
Before martial law is declared to be the supreme law of the land, and your character of free citizens be changed to that of the subjects of a military king—which are necessary consequences of the adoption of the proposed constitution—let me admonish you in the name of sacred liberty, to make a solemn pause. Permit a freeman to address you, and to solicit your attention to a cause wherein yourselves and your posterity are concerned. The sun never shone upon a more important one. It is the cause of freedom of a whole continent of yourselves and of your fellow men.…
A conspiracy against the freedom of America, both deep and dangerous, has been formed by an infernal junto of demagogues. Our thirteen free commonwealths are to be consolidated into one despotic monarchy. Is not this position obvious? Its evidence is intuitive .… Who can deny but the president general will be a king to all intents and purposes, and one of the most dangerous kind too—a king elected to command a standing army. Thus our laws are to be administered by this tyrant; for the whole, or at least the most important part of the executive department is put in his hands.
A quorum of 65 representatives, and of 26 senators, with a king at their head, are to possess powers that extend to the lives, the liberties, and property of every citizen of America. This novel system of government, were it possible to establish it, would be a compound of monarchy and aristocracy, the most accursed that ever the world witnessed. About 50 (these being a quorum) of the well born, and a military king, with a standing army devoted to his will, are to have an uncontrolled power.…
From the National Association of Secretaries of State: SUMMARY: STATE LAWS REGARDING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS
- Click here for the info.
Every state gets to determine for itself how electors are selected.
Here's how Texas does it:
To become a presidential elector candidate, a person must be nominated as a political party's elector candidate in accordance with party rules. The party's state chair must sign a written certification of the names of presidential elector candidates nominated by the party and the party's state chair must deliver the written certification to the secretary of state.
To be eligible to serve as a presidential elector, a person must: be a qualified voter of this state; and not hold the office of United States senator, United States representative, or any other federal office of profit or trust. To be eligible to serve as a presidential elector for a political party, a person must be affiliated with the party.
An elector candidate may withdraw from the presidential election before presidential election day, by delivering written notice of the withdrawal to: the secretary of state; and the state chair of the party that nominated the elector candidate.
If an elector candidate withdraws, dies, or is declared ineligible before presidential election day, a replacement elector candidate may be named by the party that nominated the elector candidate.
If a political party's rules do not provide the manner of choosing a replacement elector candidate, the party's state executive committee may choose the replacement candidate. The state chair of a political party naming a replacement elector candidate must file with the secretary of state, before presidential election day, the name and residence address of the replacement candidate.
The electors shall convene at the State Capitol at 2 p.m. on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December following their election and shall perform their duties as prescribed by federal law.
The secretary of state shall arrange for the meeting place, notify the electors, and call the meeting to order. The secretary shall act as temporary chair of the meeting until the electors elect a chair from among themselves.
If an elector is absent at the time for convening the meeting, the electors may declare the elector position vacant by a majority vote of those present at the meeting.
The electors meeting to vote for president and vice-president may appoint a replacement elector by a majority vote of the qualified electors present if: (1) the vacancy occurred before presidential election day and a replacement was not chosen; (2) on or after presidential election day, an elector is declared ineligible or dies; or (3) the vacancy is declared.
The chair of the electors shall notify the secretary of state of the name and residence address of a replacement elector immediately on the replacement's appointment.
(Tex. Elections Code Ann. §§ 192.002, 192.003, 192.004, 192.006, 192.007)
Every state gets to determine for itself how electors are selected.
Here's how Texas does it:
To become a presidential elector candidate, a person must be nominated as a political party's elector candidate in accordance with party rules. The party's state chair must sign a written certification of the names of presidential elector candidates nominated by the party and the party's state chair must deliver the written certification to the secretary of state.
To be eligible to serve as a presidential elector, a person must: be a qualified voter of this state; and not hold the office of United States senator, United States representative, or any other federal office of profit or trust. To be eligible to serve as a presidential elector for a political party, a person must be affiliated with the party.
An elector candidate may withdraw from the presidential election before presidential election day, by delivering written notice of the withdrawal to: the secretary of state; and the state chair of the party that nominated the elector candidate.
If an elector candidate withdraws, dies, or is declared ineligible before presidential election day, a replacement elector candidate may be named by the party that nominated the elector candidate.
If a political party's rules do not provide the manner of choosing a replacement elector candidate, the party's state executive committee may choose the replacement candidate. The state chair of a political party naming a replacement elector candidate must file with the secretary of state, before presidential election day, the name and residence address of the replacement candidate.
The electors shall convene at the State Capitol at 2 p.m. on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December following their election and shall perform their duties as prescribed by federal law.
The secretary of state shall arrange for the meeting place, notify the electors, and call the meeting to order. The secretary shall act as temporary chair of the meeting until the electors elect a chair from among themselves.
If an elector is absent at the time for convening the meeting, the electors may declare the elector position vacant by a majority vote of those present at the meeting.
The electors meeting to vote for president and vice-president may appoint a replacement elector by a majority vote of the qualified electors present if: (1) the vacancy occurred before presidential election day and a replacement was not chosen; (2) on or after presidential election day, an elector is declared ineligible or dies; or (3) the vacancy is declared.
The chair of the electors shall notify the secretary of state of the name and residence address of a replacement elector immediately on the replacement's appointment.
(Tex. Elections Code Ann. §§ 192.002, 192.003, 192.004, 192.006, 192.007)
Trump's reversal of the vaping ban
- From Slate: Trump Ditches Flavored Vape Ban After Learning His Supporters Like to Vape.
- From Rolling Stone: The Vaping Industry Is Furious at President Trump — Could it Cost Him the Election?
- From Vox: Trump’s controversial vaping flavor ban is now dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention
https://vaportechnology.org/
- From Rolling Stone: The Vaping Industry Is Furious at President Trump — Could it Cost Him the Election?
- From Vox: Trump’s controversial vaping flavor ban is now dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention
https://vaportechnology.org/
From Britannica: Standing to Sue
- Click here for the entry.
Standing to sue, in law, the requirement that a person who brings a suit be a proper party to request adjudication of the particular issue involved. The test traditionally applied was whether the party had a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy presented and whether the dispute touched upon the legal relations of the parties having adverse legal interests.
The U.S. Supreme Court noted in Flast v. Cohen (1968) that “the issue of standing is related only to whether the dispute sought to be adjudicated will be presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution.” Clearly, a plaintiff who claims physical injury or economic loss has standing. In the United States, until the 1960s, the courts took a relatively strict approach to standing. For instance, in Frothingham v. Mellon (1923) the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who alleged that her tax liability would be increased as a result of the Maternity Act of 1921 lacked standing to challenge the act. During the 1960s the court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren, was lenient in recognizing standing—so much so that a federal trial court commented, in granting standing to a plaintiff challenging the secrecy of Central Intelligence Agency expenditures, that the concept of standing “has now been almost completely abandoned” by the Supreme Court. Under Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the court signified that it was indeed not willing to abandon the concept completely. Reversing the trial court in the previously mentioned case, United States v. Richardson (1974), Chief Justice Burger, writing for the majority, rejected Richardson’s standing, commenting that Richardson was seeking “to employ a federal court as a forum in which to air his generalized grievances about the conduct of government.”
- From Oyez: Flast v Cohen.
Standing to sue, in law, the requirement that a person who brings a suit be a proper party to request adjudication of the particular issue involved. The test traditionally applied was whether the party had a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy presented and whether the dispute touched upon the legal relations of the parties having adverse legal interests.
The U.S. Supreme Court noted in Flast v. Cohen (1968) that “the issue of standing is related only to whether the dispute sought to be adjudicated will be presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution.” Clearly, a plaintiff who claims physical injury or economic loss has standing. In the United States, until the 1960s, the courts took a relatively strict approach to standing. For instance, in Frothingham v. Mellon (1923) the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who alleged that her tax liability would be increased as a result of the Maternity Act of 1921 lacked standing to challenge the act. During the 1960s the court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren, was lenient in recognizing standing—so much so that a federal trial court commented, in granting standing to a plaintiff challenging the secrecy of Central Intelligence Agency expenditures, that the concept of standing “has now been almost completely abandoned” by the Supreme Court. Under Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the court signified that it was indeed not willing to abandon the concept completely. Reversing the trial court in the previously mentioned case, United States v. Richardson (1974), Chief Justice Burger, writing for the majority, rejected Richardson’s standing, commenting that Richardson was seeking “to employ a federal court as a forum in which to air his generalized grievances about the conduct of government.”
- From Oyez: Flast v Cohen.
Monday, November 18, 2019
Troubled Asset Relief Program
Pacific Railways Act of 1862
Food and Drug Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
Interstate Commerce Act
Interstate Commerce Commission
Federal Trade Commission
Airline Deregulation Act
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
Consumer Protection Safety Commission
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Communications Commission
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Labor Relations Act
Homestead Act of 1862
Federal Reserve System
Federal Reserve Act of 1934
2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Bill
GI Bill
Congressional Budget Office
Trans-Pacific Partnership
Aid to Dependent Children
Medicaid
2010 Affordable Care Act
1996 Welfare Reform Act
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Social Security
Medicare
Earned Income Tax Credit
U.S. Census Bureau
1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act
1965 Higher Education Act
2001 No Child Left Behind Act
2015 Every Child Succeeds Act
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Central Intelligence Agency
National Security Agency
World Trade Organization
the World Bank
International Monetary Fund
Strategic Arms Limitations Talks
Marshall Plan
NAFTA
Pacific Railways Act of 1862
Food and Drug Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
Interstate Commerce Act
Interstate Commerce Commission
Federal Trade Commission
Airline Deregulation Act
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
Consumer Protection Safety Commission
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Communications Commission
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Labor Relations Act
Homestead Act of 1862
Federal Reserve System
Federal Reserve Act of 1934
2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Bill
GI Bill
Congressional Budget Office
Trans-Pacific Partnership
Aid to Dependent Children
Medicaid
2010 Affordable Care Act
1996 Welfare Reform Act
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Social Security
Medicare
Earned Income Tax Credit
U.S. Census Bureau
1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act
1965 Higher Education Act
2001 No Child Left Behind Act
2015 Every Child Succeeds Act
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Central Intelligence Agency
National Security Agency
World Trade Organization
the World Bank
International Monetary Fund
Strategic Arms Limitations Talks
Marshall Plan
NAFTA
From ScotusBlog: Trump returns to Supreme Court, asks justices to intervene in dispute over financial records
The case is Trump v Vance.
- Click here for the case.
- Click here for the article.
Yesterday lawyers for President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ordering the president to provide New York prosecutors with his tax returns. Those lawyers were back at the court today, this time asking the justices to temporarily put on hold a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that upheld a subpoena for Trump’s financial records issued by House Democrats to Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars.
The subpoena at the center of the dispute came from the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, which wants the financial records as part of its investigation into the adequacy of current government ethics laws. The president filed this lawsuit to bar Mazars from turning over the documents, arguing that the subpoena goes beyond Congress’ authority because it does not serve a legitimate legislative purpose.
A federal trial court rejected this contention, and in October a divided three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit upheld that ruling. The court of appeals concluded that the “public record reveals legitimate legislative pursuits,” rather than “an impermissible law-enforcement purpose behind the Committee’s subpoena,” and that the committee is investigating a subject on which it could enact legislation.
Arguing that “everything about this case is unprecedented,” Trump today asked the Supreme Court to block the D.C. Circuit’s ruling from going into effect on November 20 to give his lawyers time to file a petition for review of the lower court’s decision. If the D.C. Circuit’s ruling is allowed to stand, Trump complained in his 32-page filing today, “any committee of Congress can subpoena any personal information from the President; all the committee needs to say is that it’s considering legislation that would force Presidents to disclose that same information. Given the temptation to dig up dirt on political rivals, intrusive subpoenas into personal lives of Presidents will become our new normal in terms of divided government—no matter which party is in power. If every committee chairman is going to have this unbounded authority, this Court should be the one to say so.”
- Click here for the case.
- Click here for the article.
Yesterday lawyers for President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ordering the president to provide New York prosecutors with his tax returns. Those lawyers were back at the court today, this time asking the justices to temporarily put on hold a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that upheld a subpoena for Trump’s financial records issued by House Democrats to Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars.
The subpoena at the center of the dispute came from the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, which wants the financial records as part of its investigation into the adequacy of current government ethics laws. The president filed this lawsuit to bar Mazars from turning over the documents, arguing that the subpoena goes beyond Congress’ authority because it does not serve a legitimate legislative purpose.
A federal trial court rejected this contention, and in October a divided three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit upheld that ruling. The court of appeals concluded that the “public record reveals legitimate legislative pursuits,” rather than “an impermissible law-enforcement purpose behind the Committee’s subpoena,” and that the committee is investigating a subject on which it could enact legislation.
Arguing that “everything about this case is unprecedented,” Trump today asked the Supreme Court to block the D.C. Circuit’s ruling from going into effect on November 20 to give his lawyers time to file a petition for review of the lower court’s decision. If the D.C. Circuit’s ruling is allowed to stand, Trump complained in his 32-page filing today, “any committee of Congress can subpoena any personal information from the President; all the committee needs to say is that it’s considering legislation that would force Presidents to disclose that same information. Given the temptation to dig up dirt on political rivals, intrusive subpoenas into personal lives of Presidents will become our new normal in terms of divided government—no matter which party is in power. If every committee chairman is going to have this unbounded authority, this Court should be the one to say so.”
From Real Clear Policy: The Texas Model: Lower Crime, Lower Recidivism
- Click here for it.
The classic Daniel Patrick Moynihan quote that “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts,” is an import maxim in public policy debates. This is doubly so in criminology, where billions of dollars, quality of life in communities, and — most importantly — the very safety of law-abiding citizens rest on policymakers getting it right.
But despite the facts, critics still maintain that Texas’ criminal-justice reforms have failed to reduce crime and recidivism. The reforms at issue began with a spate of legislation passed during the 80th Texas Legislature in 2007, including a sweeping reorganization of the state’s community correction system under HB 1678. Facing prison and jail capacity overruns with no space to house violent offenders, the legislature prioritized probation and parole for low-risk offenders. We’ve illustrated time and again that once these policies were in place, crime rates continued to fall in-tandem with these reforms, despite similar protests from critics of the day that the opposite would happen.
For instance, in a recent Real Clear Policy op-ed, Sean Kennedy argues that despite Texas’ reform efforts, the re-arrest rate for state prisons and state jails (a Texas-specific type of short-term state incarceration facility) has not changed significantly since 2004. Even assuming that re-arrest rates are a good measure of recidivism reduction, the problem with this argument is that the composition of the prison population before and after the reforms is importantly different. Why? The 2007 reforms focused only on nonviolent and low-level offenders.
The classic Daniel Patrick Moynihan quote that “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts,” is an import maxim in public policy debates. This is doubly so in criminology, where billions of dollars, quality of life in communities, and — most importantly — the very safety of law-abiding citizens rest on policymakers getting it right.
But despite the facts, critics still maintain that Texas’ criminal-justice reforms have failed to reduce crime and recidivism. The reforms at issue began with a spate of legislation passed during the 80th Texas Legislature in 2007, including a sweeping reorganization of the state’s community correction system under HB 1678. Facing prison and jail capacity overruns with no space to house violent offenders, the legislature prioritized probation and parole for low-risk offenders. We’ve illustrated time and again that once these policies were in place, crime rates continued to fall in-tandem with these reforms, despite similar protests from critics of the day that the opposite would happen.
For instance, in a recent Real Clear Policy op-ed, Sean Kennedy argues that despite Texas’ reform efforts, the re-arrest rate for state prisons and state jails (a Texas-specific type of short-term state incarceration facility) has not changed significantly since 2004. Even assuming that re-arrest rates are a good measure of recidivism reduction, the problem with this argument is that the composition of the prison population before and after the reforms is importantly different. Why? The 2007 reforms focused only on nonviolent and low-level offenders.
From the ACLU: TX LEGISLATURE IN REVIEW: SMART JUSTICE
- Click here for it.
The recent end of the 2019 legislative session resulted in a mixed bag for many criminal justice advocates. However, our collaborative work with partners within the Texas Smart on Crime Coalition proved very effective at fighting for reforms that will make a real impact in the lives of Texans touched by the criminal justice system.
This year we prioritized an often overlooked area of criminal justice reform: women’s justice. According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the number of women incarcerated in Texas prisons increased 874 percent in the last forty years — over twice the growth rate as men. With such a dramatic increase, it was critical that we focused on areas where we could both reduce incarceration rates and improve the lives of women in Texas prisons.
One of the most important bills that passed was House Bill 650, wide-reaching legislation that will ensure there are trauma screenings for women in prison, requires prisons provide feminine hygiene products, and ensures new mothers are given at least 72 hours to be with any new baby born in custody.
Other legislation focusing on the dignity of women while incarcerated will become law this year, including House Bill 1651 which creates standards for care for pregnant women in county jails, House Bill 2169 which requires access to feminine hygiene products in county jails, and House Bill 3227 which requires parity in education and vocational opportunities for women in prison. These common-sense policies are significant victories for advocates of Smart Justice reforms in Texas.
Another notable bill of the session was House Bill 2048, which repeals the state’s controversial Driver Responsibility Program. The ACLU of Texas has been working with partners and community advocates for years to repeal this disastrous law. The impact of the law’s repeal is huge: Approximately 1.4 million Texans with suspended driver’s licenses will have nearly $2.5 billion in debt wiped clean and will no longer have to be worried about incarceration.
We also passed significant legislation that will make reentry easier for people released from prison. House Bill 1342 will make it easier for those with criminal records to obtain an occupational license, and House Bill 918 will ensure that individuals released from prison have the tools they need to succeed during their reentry to their communities.
Bad bills were killed this session, too, including House Bill 2020, which would have been a backwards step in Texas’ pretrial system. Thanks to the more than 500 ACLU of Texas supporters who stood against the legislation, we were able to prevent the bill from passing and becoming law.
Despite all these efforts, there is clearly more work to do. Marijuana possession reform finally passed through one chamber with House Bill 63 — in part thanks to the record breaking outpouring of support from ACLU of Texas supporters delivering 14,651 messages to legislators in support of the bill. Unfortunately, HB 63 stalled out in the Texas Senate with the Lieutenant Governor publicly opposing the legislation.
The successes we did have this session were largely due to the tremendous support from Texans that wrote, called, and testified on behalf of these criminal justice reforms. Together, we will build on these victories, learn what worked best and what didn’t, and redouble our efforts as we work through the coming months in preparation for the next legislative session in 2021.
The recent end of the 2019 legislative session resulted in a mixed bag for many criminal justice advocates. However, our collaborative work with partners within the Texas Smart on Crime Coalition proved very effective at fighting for reforms that will make a real impact in the lives of Texans touched by the criminal justice system.
This year we prioritized an often overlooked area of criminal justice reform: women’s justice. According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the number of women incarcerated in Texas prisons increased 874 percent in the last forty years — over twice the growth rate as men. With such a dramatic increase, it was critical that we focused on areas where we could both reduce incarceration rates and improve the lives of women in Texas prisons.
One of the most important bills that passed was House Bill 650, wide-reaching legislation that will ensure there are trauma screenings for women in prison, requires prisons provide feminine hygiene products, and ensures new mothers are given at least 72 hours to be with any new baby born in custody.
Other legislation focusing on the dignity of women while incarcerated will become law this year, including House Bill 1651 which creates standards for care for pregnant women in county jails, House Bill 2169 which requires access to feminine hygiene products in county jails, and House Bill 3227 which requires parity in education and vocational opportunities for women in prison. These common-sense policies are significant victories for advocates of Smart Justice reforms in Texas.
Another notable bill of the session was House Bill 2048, which repeals the state’s controversial Driver Responsibility Program. The ACLU of Texas has been working with partners and community advocates for years to repeal this disastrous law. The impact of the law’s repeal is huge: Approximately 1.4 million Texans with suspended driver’s licenses will have nearly $2.5 billion in debt wiped clean and will no longer have to be worried about incarceration.
We also passed significant legislation that will make reentry easier for people released from prison. House Bill 1342 will make it easier for those with criminal records to obtain an occupational license, and House Bill 918 will ensure that individuals released from prison have the tools they need to succeed during their reentry to their communities.
Bad bills were killed this session, too, including House Bill 2020, which would have been a backwards step in Texas’ pretrial system. Thanks to the more than 500 ACLU of Texas supporters who stood against the legislation, we were able to prevent the bill from passing and becoming law.
Despite all these efforts, there is clearly more work to do. Marijuana possession reform finally passed through one chamber with House Bill 63 — in part thanks to the record breaking outpouring of support from ACLU of Texas supporters delivering 14,651 messages to legislators in support of the bill. Unfortunately, HB 63 stalled out in the Texas Senate with the Lieutenant Governor publicly opposing the legislation.
The successes we did have this session were largely due to the tremendous support from Texans that wrote, called, and testified on behalf of these criminal justice reforms. Together, we will build on these victories, learn what worked best and what didn’t, and redouble our efforts as we work through the coming months in preparation for the next legislative session in 2021.
From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: Beware of Texas politicians bearing home-brewed arithmetic
For our look at state finance. The current state of it anyway.
- Click here for the article.
If you look at his campaign missives, it's clear that the state's lieutenant governor — or maybe it's his staff — can't reconcile his math with his politics.
Dan Patrick complains that spending in “many” cities and counties has been growing at 7% or more per year. And later on, he tries to debunk reports that the state budget went up by more than twice that amount:
“There has been a great deal of misinformation about the growth in the Texas state budget this session bolstered by early reports from the Legislative Budget Board and TPPF [the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank] suggesting the budget increased three or four times more than it actually did. You may have seen e-mails or articles on conservative blogs and news sites this summer that we increased spending this year 12-14%. That was just incorrect,” he wrote.
“After adjusting for almost $19 billion for Hurricane Harvey recovery, which was predominately federal funds, and nearly $6 billion in cuts for taxpayers, annual growth in the 2020-21 budget will be 2.5% — well below the conservative goal of population increase times the rate of inflation.”
Budgets always look better if you don’t include all of the money you’re spending. The bottom-line numbers are right there to see. At the end of this legislative session, the House and Senate passed, and the governor signed, a two-year budget totaling $250.6 billion. At the same time two years earlier, the final budget totaled $216.6 billion.
That’s an increase of 15.7%.
Patrick doesn’t want to count $26 billion of the increase, but the budget numbers are clear, and arithmetic doesn’t care about your politics. Besides, he’s still counting most of the federal spending in the current budget, which amounts to $86.4 billion.
- Click here for the article.
If you look at his campaign missives, it's clear that the state's lieutenant governor — or maybe it's his staff — can't reconcile his math with his politics.
Dan Patrick complains that spending in “many” cities and counties has been growing at 7% or more per year. And later on, he tries to debunk reports that the state budget went up by more than twice that amount:
“There has been a great deal of misinformation about the growth in the Texas state budget this session bolstered by early reports from the Legislative Budget Board and TPPF [the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank] suggesting the budget increased three or four times more than it actually did. You may have seen e-mails or articles on conservative blogs and news sites this summer that we increased spending this year 12-14%. That was just incorrect,” he wrote.
“After adjusting for almost $19 billion for Hurricane Harvey recovery, which was predominately federal funds, and nearly $6 billion in cuts for taxpayers, annual growth in the 2020-21 budget will be 2.5% — well below the conservative goal of population increase times the rate of inflation.”
Budgets always look better if you don’t include all of the money you’re spending. The bottom-line numbers are right there to see. At the end of this legislative session, the House and Senate passed, and the governor signed, a two-year budget totaling $250.6 billion. At the same time two years earlier, the final budget totaled $216.6 billion.
That’s an increase of 15.7%.
Patrick doesn’t want to count $26 billion of the increase, but the budget numbers are clear, and arithmetic doesn’t care about your politics. Besides, he’s still counting most of the federal spending in the current budget, which amounts to $86.4 billion.
Actual Innocence
A few related sites:
- TAMU: INNOCENCE PROJECT.
- Texas Innocence Project.
- The Process of Overturning a Wrongful Conviction.
- TAMU: INNOCENCE PROJECT.
- Texas Innocence Project.
- The Process of Overturning a Wrongful Conviction.
From the Texas Tribune: Texas court stops Rodney Reed’s execution to further review claims of innocence
For our look at criminal justice and the Texas judiciary.
- Click here for the article.
Texas' highest criminal court halted Rodney Reed's execution Friday afternoon, sending the now-famous case back to the trial court to further review several claims — biggest of all that he is innocent of the murder that landed him on death row more than 20 years ago.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' ruling came hours after the state's parole board separately recommended Gov. Greg Abbott delay Reed's Wednesday execution by 120 days. The court's ruling effectively preempts any gubernatorial involvement since it takes Reed's execution off the calendar and starts a new legal process.
Reed's case has gained an enormous amount of attention — with dozens of state and federal lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, A-list celebrities and millions of people signed on to online petitions calling for a stop to his death as doubts of his guilt grew. Shortly after the ruling, Reed's lawyer said he "absolutely" thought the the new review would lead to a new trial for Reed.
"We’re happy that we’re going to have an opportunity to present the compelling evidence that Rodney Reed didn’t commit the crime," Bryce Benjet of the Innocence Project told The Texas Tribune. "The Court of Criminal Appeals recognized the substance of this case and the need for a special hearing where all the evidence can be considered."
- Click here for the article.
Texas' highest criminal court halted Rodney Reed's execution Friday afternoon, sending the now-famous case back to the trial court to further review several claims — biggest of all that he is innocent of the murder that landed him on death row more than 20 years ago.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' ruling came hours after the state's parole board separately recommended Gov. Greg Abbott delay Reed's Wednesday execution by 120 days. The court's ruling effectively preempts any gubernatorial involvement since it takes Reed's execution off the calendar and starts a new legal process.
Reed's case has gained an enormous amount of attention — with dozens of state and federal lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, A-list celebrities and millions of people signed on to online petitions calling for a stop to his death as doubts of his guilt grew. Shortly after the ruling, Reed's lawyer said he "absolutely" thought the the new review would lead to a new trial for Reed.
"We’re happy that we’re going to have an opportunity to present the compelling evidence that Rodney Reed didn’t commit the crime," Bryce Benjet of the Innocence Project told The Texas Tribune. "The Court of Criminal Appeals recognized the substance of this case and the need for a special hearing where all the evidence can be considered."
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/473989aa7d2658b869fb14fc187d2f47/txcounties-map_byyear-05.png)
About Metro
For our look at single purpose local governments.
- Who we are.
The Texas State Legislature authorized the creation of local transit authorities in 1973. In 1978, Houston-area voters created METRO and approved a one-cent sales tax to support its operations. METRO opened for business in January 1979. The Authority has transformed a broken bus fleet into a regional multimodal transportation system.
- Wikipedia: Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County.
- Original Plan Book, 1978.
- Notice of special election, 2003.
- Calling a special election for 2019.
- Who we are.
The Texas State Legislature authorized the creation of local transit authorities in 1973. In 1978, Houston-area voters created METRO and approved a one-cent sales tax to support its operations. METRO opened for business in January 1979. The Authority has transformed a broken bus fleet into a regional multimodal transportation system.
- Wikipedia: Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County.
- Original Plan Book, 1978.
- Notice of special election, 2003.
- Calling a special election for 2019.
Stupid questions 2305-01
The only thing confusing me the most in this class is the difference in the four I’S in the first chapter (individualism, institutions, ideas & interests) and the differences between; equal opportunity, equal outcome, economic equality, & American dream, especially when it came to the quizzes/tests.
Why are both Democrats and Republicans generally reluctant to decrease spending on Social Security?
How much is this essay worth for our grade ?
Why do people have to categorize presidents between republican and democrat and other parties? Why don't we just let people be who they are and vote for people with similar interests? I get that we categorize them based on their beliefs and interests but some people won't even give some candidates a chance just because they're a democrat or republican. I believe in hearing what people have to say before i just automatically exclude them because they are in a certain party.
Why are senators allowed to be in office for six years at a time and are able to hold the position for as long as they'd like if they keep getting re elected.
Why do we need due process?
This isn't really a question but one thing that is confusing me most is how everything in intertwined with each other and how it still all functions without falling apart. You would think with two different parties running Congress it would be more chaotic but they function pretty well for having to work together.
How much do you believe the government is lying to us? If they do lie to us, are they justified in doing so? It sounds a little conspiracy theorist of me to ask this, but I am definitely interested to see what you think about it.
In chapter 7, I have a little trouble with the censorship of the media. What exactly is restricted?
Do you own a pet?
Whats confusing to me is the difference between civil liberties, and civil rights.
Having trouble understanding civil liberties.
We've gone over a bit on how the majority can pose a threat to the rights of the minority and I was wondering. Is there a direct opposite to this described in government? One where a minority can pose a significant threat on that of the majority's privileges?
Why is the American system called a democratic-republic?
A series of laws known as the alien and sedition acts were passed and while I understand what they are designed to protect. How did they come about, what prompted them to come up with these laws to begin with?
The whole election process confuses me. My more specific question is how does the Electoral College work? Since I am at the age where I can vote, I want to learn about how the process works. However, I never paid too much attention to how our government and elections work. I find myself not wanting to vote because I do not know how it works, and I believe that it is important to practice the right to vote and speak my mind that so many men and women have fought and died for. However, to be more specific, I want to learn what the Electoral College is and how it works. My parents have tried to explain it to me, but I still do not understand it. I know that there is a popular vote and an electoral vote, and I know that one candidate can win with the popular vote and another candidate can win with the electoral vote, but that is the extent of my knowledge of the subject. I appreciate anything information you can share on this subject so that I can learn.
This may be a stupid question, and I genuinely hope not offensive to your teaching style, but why don’t we go over the material in our books or in our quizzes more often? I don’t feel like I benefit as much from reading articles online.
I am 16 years old, will i be able to vote in the upcoming election. How can if not how can I make a difference
what is government and how does it work?
How many sources do we have to have in the essay?
The only thing confusing me the most in this class is the difference in the four I’S in the first chapter (individualism, institutions, ideas & interests) and the differences between; equal opportunity, equal outcome, economic equality, & American dream, especially when it came to the quizzes/tests.
Why are both Democrats and Republicans generally reluctant to decrease spending on Social Security?
How much is this essay worth for our grade ?
Why do people have to categorize presidents between republican and democrat and other parties? Why don't we just let people be who they are and vote for people with similar interests? I get that we categorize them based on their beliefs and interests but some people won't even give some candidates a chance just because they're a democrat or republican. I believe in hearing what people have to say before i just automatically exclude them because they are in a certain party.
Why are senators allowed to be in office for six years at a time and are able to hold the position for as long as they'd like if they keep getting re elected.
Why do we need due process?
This isn't really a question but one thing that is confusing me most is how everything in intertwined with each other and how it still all functions without falling apart. You would think with two different parties running Congress it would be more chaotic but they function pretty well for having to work together.
How much do you believe the government is lying to us? If they do lie to us, are they justified in doing so? It sounds a little conspiracy theorist of me to ask this, but I am definitely interested to see what you think about it.
In chapter 7, I have a little trouble with the censorship of the media. What exactly is restricted?
Do you own a pet?
Whats confusing to me is the difference between civil liberties, and civil rights.
Having trouble understanding civil liberties.
We've gone over a bit on how the majority can pose a threat to the rights of the minority and I was wondering. Is there a direct opposite to this described in government? One where a minority can pose a significant threat on that of the majority's privileges?
Why is the American system called a democratic-republic?
A series of laws known as the alien and sedition acts were passed and while I understand what they are designed to protect. How did they come about, what prompted them to come up with these laws to begin with?
The whole election process confuses me. My more specific question is how does the Electoral College work? Since I am at the age where I can vote, I want to learn about how the process works. However, I never paid too much attention to how our government and elections work. I find myself not wanting to vote because I do not know how it works, and I believe that it is important to practice the right to vote and speak my mind that so many men and women have fought and died for. However, to be more specific, I want to learn what the Electoral College is and how it works. My parents have tried to explain it to me, but I still do not understand it. I know that there is a popular vote and an electoral vote, and I know that one candidate can win with the popular vote and another candidate can win with the electoral vote, but that is the extent of my knowledge of the subject. I appreciate anything information you can share on this subject so that I can learn.
This may be a stupid question, and I genuinely hope not offensive to your teaching style, but why don’t we go over the material in our books or in our quizzes more often? I don’t feel like I benefit as much from reading articles online.
I am 16 years old, will i be able to vote in the upcoming election. How can if not how can I make a difference
what is government and how does it work?
How many sources do we have to have in the essay?
Stupid questions 2306 01
What edition of the book are we supposed to have because the syllabus says that we need the fifth edition but the one we use in class is the sixth edition, do I need to get the sixth edition?
who can the governor appoint i am alittle confused about this
what is a filibuster ?
With enough effort during a campaign is it possible for a third party candidate to win an election?
If Quizzes are quizzical, Then what are tests???
I have not found anything confusing. It is just a lot of information to review and remember. Texas Government contains a lot of vocabulary.
I’d say everything we’ve covered so far has been self-explanatory and common sense, but if I had to pick one thing it would be chapter five Texas Governors just because the powers and roles can get confusing and I sometimes mix them up with each other.
How much influence does the federal government have over the states, and how can it coerce compliance with federal tools?
I'm still confused about grassroots organizations.
What is paper made from?
According to one of the quiz/test questions, national politics have been a strong contributor to the weakening of state political parties in Texas. Why is that?
Nothing is really confusing me as of right now in this class, but the only thing I struggle with is remembering term lengths and who get appointed by who. But that being said they’re not that hard to remember so I should be good.
You asked for a stupid question...but then requested us to aks about the one thing we are most confused about...
I'll do both:
Stupid Questions:
1: Did they make Dyslexia Hard to spell on purpose?
2: How important does someone have to be to be considered assassinated instead of murdered?
3:Why does refrigerator not have a 'd', but Fridge does?
Most confusing thing:
Probeobly one of the most confusing things for me is the vast amount of committees and their intricate policies within the government.
My stupid question is what do I need to do to consistently make A’s on my written assignments?
why isn't there a set registration and voters eligibility law for all states ?
Sometimes it's hard to follow the lecture. I don't have an actual question just some remarks. I do learn more when you connect the chapters to news articles.That is helpful for me.
The most confusing subject matter would probably be the court systems and jurisdictions for me.
Are all written assignments do in December or are they do every week on Monday? I was confused about the syllabus saying two different things. Also, I wanted to find out if the last exam was cumulative so I can know if I must go back and review some things.
What edition of the book are we supposed to have because the syllabus says that we need the fifth edition but the one we use in class is the sixth edition, do I need to get the sixth edition?
who can the governor appoint i am alittle confused about this
what is a filibuster ?
With enough effort during a campaign is it possible for a third party candidate to win an election?
If Quizzes are quizzical, Then what are tests???
I have not found anything confusing. It is just a lot of information to review and remember. Texas Government contains a lot of vocabulary.
I’d say everything we’ve covered so far has been self-explanatory and common sense, but if I had to pick one thing it would be chapter five Texas Governors just because the powers and roles can get confusing and I sometimes mix them up with each other.
How much influence does the federal government have over the states, and how can it coerce compliance with federal tools?
I'm still confused about grassroots organizations.
What is paper made from?
According to one of the quiz/test questions, national politics have been a strong contributor to the weakening of state political parties in Texas. Why is that?
Nothing is really confusing me as of right now in this class, but the only thing I struggle with is remembering term lengths and who get appointed by who. But that being said they’re not that hard to remember so I should be good.
You asked for a stupid question...but then requested us to aks about the one thing we are most confused about...
I'll do both:
Stupid Questions:
1: Did they make Dyslexia Hard to spell on purpose?
2: How important does someone have to be to be considered assassinated instead of murdered?
3:Why does refrigerator not have a 'd', but Fridge does?
Most confusing thing:
Probeobly one of the most confusing things for me is the vast amount of committees and their intricate policies within the government.
My stupid question is what do I need to do to consistently make A’s on my written assignments?
why isn't there a set registration and voters eligibility law for all states ?
Sometimes it's hard to follow the lecture. I don't have an actual question just some remarks. I do learn more when you connect the chapters to news articles.That is helpful for me.
The most confusing subject matter would probably be the court systems and jurisdictions for me.
Are all written assignments do in December or are they do every week on Monday? I was confused about the syllabus saying two different things. Also, I wanted to find out if the last exam was cumulative so I can know if I must go back and review some things.
Friday, November 15, 2019
Russian Oligarchs
Since they've been in the news recently, and since oligarch is a term we use in class:
- Wikipedia: Russian oligarch.
Russian oligarchs are business oligarchs of the former Soviet republics who rapidly accumulated wealth during the era of Russian privatization in the aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. The failing Soviet state left the ownership of state assets contested, which allowed for informal deals with former USSR officials (mostly in Russia and Ukraine) as a means to acquire state property. Historian Edward L. Keenan has drawn a comparison between the current Russian phenomenon of oligarchs and the system of powerful boyars which emerged in late-Medieval Muscovy.
The first modern Russian oligarchs emerged as business-sector entrepreneurs under Mikhail Gorbachev (General Secretary 1985–1991) during his period of market liberalization.[2][need quotation to verify] The term "oligarch" derives from the Ancient Greek oligarkhia meaning "the rule of the few".
- Wikipedia: Russian oligarch.
Russian oligarchs are business oligarchs of the former Soviet republics who rapidly accumulated wealth during the era of Russian privatization in the aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. The failing Soviet state left the ownership of state assets contested, which allowed for informal deals with former USSR officials (mostly in Russia and Ukraine) as a means to acquire state property. Historian Edward L. Keenan has drawn a comparison between the current Russian phenomenon of oligarchs and the system of powerful boyars which emerged in late-Medieval Muscovy.
The first modern Russian oligarchs emerged as business-sector entrepreneurs under Mikhail Gorbachev (General Secretary 1985–1991) during his period of market liberalization.[2][need quotation to verify] The term "oligarch" derives from the Ancient Greek oligarkhia meaning "the rule of the few".
Thursday, November 14, 2019
From the Brennan Center: The History of Corporate Personhood
Building from Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company.
- Click here for the article.
In McCutcheon v. FEC, handed down last Wednesday, the Supreme Court built on the precedent of Citizens United by invalidating the federal aggregate contribution limit for individuals. But McCutcheon is not the only case that gives the Supreme Court chance to expand Citizens United’s reach this term.
In Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Supreme Court has to choose whether to extend the logic of 2010’s Citizens United to allow a corporation to make a religious objection to a generally applicable law.
How we got to the point where a for-profit corporation – not a church mind you – can lay claim to religious rights is a bit complicated. It all goes back to a legal fiction known as corporate personhood.
Generally, corporate personhood allows companies to hold property, enter contracts, and to sue and be sued just like a human being. But of course some human rights make no sense for a corporation, like the right to marry, to parent a child, or to vote. As Professor Elizabeth Pollman explains when it comes to Constitutional rights for corporations there is a hodgepodge: “corporations enjoy Fourth Amendment safeguards against unreasonable regulatory searches, but do not have a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.”
If you’re a fan of the Colbert Report, “corporate personhood” might sound familiar. Stephen Colbert got a well deserved Peabody Award for his work educating the public about campaign finance laws with his lawyer Trevor Potter. However, Mr. Colbert’s verbal tick of saying that Citizens United granted corporate personhood is a tad misleading.
Citizens United did not grant corporations personhood. Corporations already had it. As lawyer David Gans has documented, despite the fact that the U.S. Constitution never mentions corporations, corporate personhood has been slithering around American law for a very long time. The first big leap in corporate personhood from mere property rights to more expansive rights was a claim that the Equal Protection Clause applied to corporations.
The 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War in 1868 to grant emancipated slaves full citizenship, states, “No state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person ... the equal protection of the laws.”
We have the likes of former U.S. Senator Roscoe Conkling to thank for the extension of Equal Protection to corporations. Conkling helped draft the 14th Amendment. He then left the Senate to become a lawyer. His Gilded Age law practice was going so swimmingly that Conkling turned down a seat on the Supreme Court not once, but twice.
Conkling argued to the Supreme Court in San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the 14th Amendment is not limited to natural persons. In 1882, he produced a journal that seemed to show that the Joint Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment vacillated between using “citizen” and “person” and the drafters chose person specifically to cover corporations. According to historian Howard Jay Graham, “[t]his part of Conkling’s argument was a deliberate, brazen forgery.”
- Click here for the article.
In McCutcheon v. FEC, handed down last Wednesday, the Supreme Court built on the precedent of Citizens United by invalidating the federal aggregate contribution limit for individuals. But McCutcheon is not the only case that gives the Supreme Court chance to expand Citizens United’s reach this term.
In Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Supreme Court has to choose whether to extend the logic of 2010’s Citizens United to allow a corporation to make a religious objection to a generally applicable law.
How we got to the point where a for-profit corporation – not a church mind you – can lay claim to religious rights is a bit complicated. It all goes back to a legal fiction known as corporate personhood.
Generally, corporate personhood allows companies to hold property, enter contracts, and to sue and be sued just like a human being. But of course some human rights make no sense for a corporation, like the right to marry, to parent a child, or to vote. As Professor Elizabeth Pollman explains when it comes to Constitutional rights for corporations there is a hodgepodge: “corporations enjoy Fourth Amendment safeguards against unreasonable regulatory searches, but do not have a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.”
If you’re a fan of the Colbert Report, “corporate personhood” might sound familiar. Stephen Colbert got a well deserved Peabody Award for his work educating the public about campaign finance laws with his lawyer Trevor Potter. However, Mr. Colbert’s verbal tick of saying that Citizens United granted corporate personhood is a tad misleading.
Citizens United did not grant corporations personhood. Corporations already had it. As lawyer David Gans has documented, despite the fact that the U.S. Constitution never mentions corporations, corporate personhood has been slithering around American law for a very long time. The first big leap in corporate personhood from mere property rights to more expansive rights was a claim that the Equal Protection Clause applied to corporations.
The 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War in 1868 to grant emancipated slaves full citizenship, states, “No state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person ... the equal protection of the laws.”
We have the likes of former U.S. Senator Roscoe Conkling to thank for the extension of Equal Protection to corporations. Conkling helped draft the 14th Amendment. He then left the Senate to become a lawyer. His Gilded Age law practice was going so swimmingly that Conkling turned down a seat on the Supreme Court not once, but twice.
Conkling argued to the Supreme Court in San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the 14th Amendment is not limited to natural persons. In 1882, he produced a journal that seemed to show that the Joint Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment vacillated between using “citizen” and “person” and the drafters chose person specifically to cover corporations. According to historian Howard Jay Graham, “[t]his part of Conkling’s argument was a deliberate, brazen forgery.”
The U.S. Foreign Service and the merit system
- United States Foreign Service.
- Rogers Act.
Article II, section 2 of the US Constitution authorized the President to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, "Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls." From 1789 to 1924, the diplomatic service, which staffed US legations and embassies, and the consular service, which was primarily responsible for promoting American commerce and assisting distressed American sailors, developed separately.[2]
With small appropriations from Congress, overseas service could not be sustained based on salary alone. Diplomatic and consular service appointments fell on those with the financial means to sustain their work abroad. That and a government-wide practice of political appointments based on nomination, rather than merit, led to careers for those with relations and wealth, rather than skill and knowledge.
Wilbur J. Carr, the chief of the consular bureau, sought to end the political turmoil that affected both the diplomatic and consular services. Working with his colleague Francois Jones, they composed a congressional bill to change the services into one based on a merit system.[4]
Between 1895 and 1905, the bill was continually defeated. Then Secretary of State Elihu Root in 1905, a reformer himself, discovered Mr. Carr as head of the consular bureau. Taking the original ideas, Root worked with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and succeeded in passing a merit-based bill for the consular service in 1906.[4]
Carr began his initial overseas tour in London in 1916. He noted tensions between the diplomatic and consular corps in London and was "shocked to see the staff still wearing top hats and long-tailed coats to work each day". He was further surprised when he heard some of the American diplomatic staff speaking with British accents. He discovered that some of these officers had been living in London for so long they had become almost identical to the British foreign service members with whom they often met and socialized. Carr would later comment that "I have seen some of these young secretaries, who have had exceptional social opportunities and advantages in the capitals abroad, become the most abject followers of the social regime in the foreign capital. One of the things that I hope is going to follow from this bill is to send some of these de-Americanized secretaries to Singapore as vice consul, or to force them out of the service."[5]
With trade becoming an important foreign relations issue in the 1920s, U.S. Representative John Jacob Rogers of Massachusetts sought to complete reforms started by Carr, now Assistant Secretary of State. The bill passed May 24 as the Foreign Service Act of 1924 although it is also called the Rogers Act in honor of the principal author.
- Rogers Act.
Article II, section 2 of the US Constitution authorized the President to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, "Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls." From 1789 to 1924, the diplomatic service, which staffed US legations and embassies, and the consular service, which was primarily responsible for promoting American commerce and assisting distressed American sailors, developed separately.[2]
With small appropriations from Congress, overseas service could not be sustained based on salary alone. Diplomatic and consular service appointments fell on those with the financial means to sustain their work abroad. That and a government-wide practice of political appointments based on nomination, rather than merit, led to careers for those with relations and wealth, rather than skill and knowledge.
Wilbur J. Carr, the chief of the consular bureau, sought to end the political turmoil that affected both the diplomatic and consular services. Working with his colleague Francois Jones, they composed a congressional bill to change the services into one based on a merit system.[4]
Between 1895 and 1905, the bill was continually defeated. Then Secretary of State Elihu Root in 1905, a reformer himself, discovered Mr. Carr as head of the consular bureau. Taking the original ideas, Root worked with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and succeeded in passing a merit-based bill for the consular service in 1906.[4]
Carr began his initial overseas tour in London in 1916. He noted tensions between the diplomatic and consular corps in London and was "shocked to see the staff still wearing top hats and long-tailed coats to work each day". He was further surprised when he heard some of the American diplomatic staff speaking with British accents. He discovered that some of these officers had been living in London for so long they had become almost identical to the British foreign service members with whom they often met and socialized. Carr would later comment that "I have seen some of these young secretaries, who have had exceptional social opportunities and advantages in the capitals abroad, become the most abject followers of the social regime in the foreign capital. One of the things that I hope is going to follow from this bill is to send some of these de-Americanized secretaries to Singapore as vice consul, or to force them out of the service."[5]
With trade becoming an important foreign relations issue in the 1920s, U.S. Representative John Jacob Rogers of Massachusetts sought to complete reforms started by Carr, now Assistant Secretary of State. The bill passed May 24 as the Foreign Service Act of 1924 although it is also called the Rogers Act in honor of the principal author.
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
From the Texas Tribune: Texas education board likely to approve African American studies course in 2020
- Click here for the article.
After years of bitter debate over whether ethnic studies courses are racially divisive, the Texas State Board of Education appears poised to approve its first African American studies course next year.
The 15-member board, which is responsible for setting curriculum standards and adopting textbooks for Texas public schools, heard from dozens of students, educators and advocates at a public hearing Wednesday, most who favored the new course.
"We will be passing this," said board member Pat Hardy, a Fort Worth Republican.
The board's seeming consensus marks a tremendous shift: In 2014, many Republicans voted down a proposal to create a Mexican American studies course, arguing it would divide instead of unite students. Hardy herself was a skeptic, saying: "We're not about Hispanic history; we're about American history."
Over the next several months, the board will create curriculum standards for the course based on an existing class in the Dallas Independent School District, and is expected to take a final vote in April. It's the same process the board used to approve a Mexican American studies course last year, based on an existing course in Houston ISD.
Hardy told The Texas Tribune on Wednesday that she has always been a proponent of ethnic studies. She said the timing in 2014 was not right for a Mexican American studies course because the board and its staff did not have time to build a set of requirements for it from scratch.
Board member Ruben Cortez, the Brownsville Democrat who first proposed the Mexican American studies course in 2014, has a different theory for the change of heart: "After that long drawn-out five-year fight to get Mexican American studies approved, [Republicans] don't want to deal with it anymore."
It's also possible that fiery debates could reignite when board members meet next January and April to discuss curriculum standards for the new course.
After years of bitter debate over whether ethnic studies courses are racially divisive, the Texas State Board of Education appears poised to approve its first African American studies course next year.
The 15-member board, which is responsible for setting curriculum standards and adopting textbooks for Texas public schools, heard from dozens of students, educators and advocates at a public hearing Wednesday, most who favored the new course.
"We will be passing this," said board member Pat Hardy, a Fort Worth Republican.
The board's seeming consensus marks a tremendous shift: In 2014, many Republicans voted down a proposal to create a Mexican American studies course, arguing it would divide instead of unite students. Hardy herself was a skeptic, saying: "We're not about Hispanic history; we're about American history."
Over the next several months, the board will create curriculum standards for the course based on an existing class in the Dallas Independent School District, and is expected to take a final vote in April. It's the same process the board used to approve a Mexican American studies course last year, based on an existing course in Houston ISD.
Hardy told The Texas Tribune on Wednesday that she has always been a proponent of ethnic studies. She said the timing in 2014 was not right for a Mexican American studies course because the board and its staff did not have time to build a set of requirements for it from scratch.
Board member Ruben Cortez, the Brownsville Democrat who first proposed the Mexican American studies course in 2014, has a different theory for the change of heart: "After that long drawn-out five-year fight to get Mexican American studies approved, [Republicans] don't want to deal with it anymore."
It's also possible that fiery debates could reignite when board members meet next January and April to discuss curriculum standards for the new course.
From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: For Texas candidates, 2020 officially started last weekend
- Click here for the article.
To Texans of a political bent, Saturday was the first day of 2020 — the day candidates started paying their fees, turning in their signatures and declaring their official intention to run for office next year.
This one-month chirp-or-get-off-the-perch exercise separates people who were just testing the waters from those who are actually going to jump in and run.
As the filing period rolls from now to the Dec. 9 deadline, it will reveal which incumbents are seeking reelection, who’s had enough of this public service thing and which ones are drawing serious opposition.
Some of the sentimental favorites who’ve fallen out of other races — you can guess their names — will decide whether to listen to the followers who wanted them to run for something else the whole time.
You know, before that presidential thing didn’t work out.
The election might seem far away, but the candidate filing marks a quickening of the pace of things. Candidates have a month to file. There’s an interruption in their fundraising and politicking during the year-end holidays (but here’s betting they’ll still fill your email box in that last week before the new year). On the other side, there will be just nine weeks until the March 3 primaries. And early voting starts well before then, on Feb. 18.
March 3, 2020 Primary Calendar
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/advisory2019-16.shtml
To Texans of a political bent, Saturday was the first day of 2020 — the day candidates started paying their fees, turning in their signatures and declaring their official intention to run for office next year.
This one-month chirp-or-get-off-the-perch exercise separates people who were just testing the waters from those who are actually going to jump in and run.
As the filing period rolls from now to the Dec. 9 deadline, it will reveal which incumbents are seeking reelection, who’s had enough of this public service thing and which ones are drawing serious opposition.
Some of the sentimental favorites who’ve fallen out of other races — you can guess their names — will decide whether to listen to the followers who wanted them to run for something else the whole time.
You know, before that presidential thing didn’t work out.
The election might seem far away, but the candidate filing marks a quickening of the pace of things. Candidates have a month to file. There’s an interruption in their fundraising and politicking during the year-end holidays (but here’s betting they’ll still fill your email box in that last week before the new year). On the other side, there will be just nine weeks until the March 3 primaries. And early voting starts well before then, on Feb. 18.
March 3, 2020 Primary Calendar
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/advisory2019-16.shtml
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
From Politico: Dreamers get little traction with Supreme Court’s conservative justices
Checks and balances:
- Click here for the article.
The political standoff over the fate of so-called Dreamers loomed large at the Supreme Court Tuesday as the justices wrestled with President Donald Trump’s decision in 2017 to wind down the Obama-era program that gives work permits and quasi-legal status to about 660,000 foreigners who entered the U.S. illegally as children.
The court’s conservative majority gave little sign of openness to the contention by proponents of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program that the Trump administration’s decision to shut down the initiative was legally flawed.
Some liberal justices seemed to endorse Trump’s authority to end the program, but said he needed to embrace the consequences, rather than pawning them off on a disputed legal memo from Attorney General Jeff Sessions that concluded DACA was both illegal and unconstitutional.
“Where’s the political decision that was made that this not about the law, but about our choice to destroy lives?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked.
Justice Elena Kagan said Sessions’ opinion infected the decisionmaking about DACA in a way that made it hard to know what former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen would have done without the attorney general’s declaration that former President Barack Obama’s policy was illegal.
- Click here for the article.
The political standoff over the fate of so-called Dreamers loomed large at the Supreme Court Tuesday as the justices wrestled with President Donald Trump’s decision in 2017 to wind down the Obama-era program that gives work permits and quasi-legal status to about 660,000 foreigners who entered the U.S. illegally as children.
The court’s conservative majority gave little sign of openness to the contention by proponents of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program that the Trump administration’s decision to shut down the initiative was legally flawed.
Some liberal justices seemed to endorse Trump’s authority to end the program, but said he needed to embrace the consequences, rather than pawning them off on a disputed legal memo from Attorney General Jeff Sessions that concluded DACA was both illegal and unconstitutional.
“Where’s the political decision that was made that this not about the law, but about our choice to destroy lives?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked.
Justice Elena Kagan said Sessions’ opinion infected the decisionmaking about DACA in a way that made it hard to know what former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen would have done without the attorney general’s declaration that former President Barack Obama’s policy was illegal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)