How the colonization of the New World was initially financed.
- Click here for the entry.
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
Monday, December 16, 2019
From the East Texas Historical Journal: Civil Law and Common Law in Early Texas
A look at the blending of Spanish and British law. Something I know little of.
- Click here for the article.
Some of the most significant development.s in Texas legal history occurred during the period of the Republic of Texas. One of them, the blending of the civil law systems of Spain and France with the common law system of Anglo-America, produced a unique legal system peculiar t.o Texas. The Spanish civil law evolved from the grafting of Roman law, principally the Justinian Code, upon the customs and usages of the Visigoths as codified in the Codex Eurici. This draft, the Visigothic Code (Fuero Juzgo), issued in Castilian form in 693, withstood seven centuries of Moorish rule and six revisions, the latest in 1805 (the Novisima Recopilacion). It remained the law of the Spanish world through the middle ages and, in large measure, to the time of Spanish colonization of Texas in the Seventeenth Century.1 It was transmitted to Texas during more than a century of Spanish colonial government and administration under the general direction of the Leyes de los Reino!; de las Indias,2 and more than a decade of Mexican rule.
The French civil law also evolved from the Roman codes, principally the Institutes of Gaius and Justinian; from the glosses of such French commentators as Domat, Pothier, and D'Aquesseau; from Frankish customs and usages, especially those of the north of France; and from decisions of the parle1'nent of Paris. From those sources a Napoleonic commission promulgated the Code Civil in 1814; and from those same sources French settlers in Louisiana evolved their civil codes.3 After the Louisiana Purchase the United States generously allowed the people of Louisiana to retain their codes, and as a result many Texans, immigrants from the Louisiana territory, were thoroughly familiar with their contents.
The English common law developed from custom and usage through the work of the common law courts of Exchequer, Common Pleas, and King's Bench. Though influenced slightly by Roman law from time to time, it was never codified; but in later times it was supplemented by legislation enacted by the British Parliament. The common law was brought to the United States by British settlers, primarily in the form of Blackstone's Commentaries. It was transmitted to Texas after 1820 through the agency of lawyers trained in its precepts in the American states of the Old Southwest.'
- Click here for the article.
Some of the most significant development.s in Texas legal history occurred during the period of the Republic of Texas. One of them, the blending of the civil law systems of Spain and France with the common law system of Anglo-America, produced a unique legal system peculiar t.o Texas. The Spanish civil law evolved from the grafting of Roman law, principally the Justinian Code, upon the customs and usages of the Visigoths as codified in the Codex Eurici. This draft, the Visigothic Code (Fuero Juzgo), issued in Castilian form in 693, withstood seven centuries of Moorish rule and six revisions, the latest in 1805 (the Novisima Recopilacion). It remained the law of the Spanish world through the middle ages and, in large measure, to the time of Spanish colonization of Texas in the Seventeenth Century.1 It was transmitted to Texas during more than a century of Spanish colonial government and administration under the general direction of the Leyes de los Reino!; de las Indias,2 and more than a decade of Mexican rule.
The French civil law also evolved from the Roman codes, principally the Institutes of Gaius and Justinian; from the glosses of such French commentators as Domat, Pothier, and D'Aquesseau; from Frankish customs and usages, especially those of the north of France; and from decisions of the parle1'nent of Paris. From those sources a Napoleonic commission promulgated the Code Civil in 1814; and from those same sources French settlers in Louisiana evolved their civil codes.3 After the Louisiana Purchase the United States generously allowed the people of Louisiana to retain their codes, and as a result many Texans, immigrants from the Louisiana territory, were thoroughly familiar with their contents.
The English common law developed from custom and usage through the work of the common law courts of Exchequer, Common Pleas, and King's Bench. Though influenced slightly by Roman law from time to time, it was never codified; but in later times it was supplemented by legislation enacted by the British Parliament. The common law was brought to the United States by British settlers, primarily in the form of Blackstone's Commentaries. It was transmitted to Texas after 1820 through the agency of lawyers trained in its precepts in the American states of the Old Southwest.'
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Office of the Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice: Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation
- Click here for the report.
What is Crossfire Hurricane?
Crossfire Hurricane was the code name for the counterintelligence investigation undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2016 and 2017 into links between Trump associates and Russian officials and "whether individuals associated with the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign were coordinating, wittingly or unwittingly, with the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election."
The investigation was officially opened on July 31, 2016, initially due to information on Trump campaign member George Papadopoulos's early knowledge of Russians having damaging material on Donald Trump's rival candidate Hillary Clinton.
What is Crossfire Hurricane?
Crossfire Hurricane was the code name for the counterintelligence investigation undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2016 and 2017 into links between Trump associates and Russian officials and "whether individuals associated with the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign were coordinating, wittingly or unwittingly, with the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election."
The investigation was officially opened on July 31, 2016, initially due to information on Trump campaign member George Papadopoulos's early knowledge of Russians having damaging material on Donald Trump's rival candidate Hillary Clinton.
From the American Enterprise Institute: The decline of religion in American family life
For our look at agents of socialization, public opinion polls, and generational groups.
- Click here for the article.
Most Americans today continue to be raised in a religious denomination or tradition. Only 12 percent of Americans report being raised outside a formal religious tradition. Half (50 percent) report being raised Protestant, close to three in 10 (29 percent) say they were raised Catholic, and significantly fewer Americans were brought up Mormon (2 percent), Jewish (2 percent), Muslim (1 percent), Orthodox (1 percent), or something else (1 percent).
However, there are significant differences in the religious upbringing of Americans across generations. Young adults (age 18 to 29) are far more likely to have been raised without religion than are seniors (age 65 or older). Roughly one in five (22 percent) young adults report that they were not raised in any particular religion, compared to only 3 percent of seniors. Notably, the proportion of young adults who have always been religiously unaffiliated is nearly as large as those who have left religion to become unaffiliated.
For more commentary, click here: Millennials Are Leaving Religion And Not Coming Back.
. . . many millennials have spouses, children and mortgages — and there’s little evidence of a corresponding surge in religious interest. A new national survey from the American Enterprise Institute of more than 2,500 Americans found a few reasons why millennials may not return to the religious fold. (One of the authors of this article helped conduct the survey.)
For one thing, many millennials never had strong ties to religion to begin with, which means they were less likely to develop habits or associations that make it easier to return to a religious community.
Young adults are also increasingly likely to have a spouse who is nonreligious, which may help reinforce their secular worldview.
Changing views about the relationship between morality and religion also appear to have convinced many young parents that religious institutions are simply irrelevant or unnecessary for their children.
Millennials may be the symbols of a broader societal shift away from religion, but they didn’t start it on their own. Their parents are at least partly responsible for a widening generational gap in religious identity and beliefs; they were more likely than previous generations to raise their children without any connection to organized religion. According to the AEI survey, 17 percent of millennials said that they were not raised in any particular religion compared with only five percent of Baby Boomers. And fewer than one in three (32 percent) millennials say they attended weekly religious services with their family when they were young, compared with about half (49 percent) of Baby Boomers.
A parent’s religious identity (or lack thereof) can do a lot to shape a child’s religious habits and beliefs later in life.
- Click here for the article.
Most Americans today continue to be raised in a religious denomination or tradition. Only 12 percent of Americans report being raised outside a formal religious tradition. Half (50 percent) report being raised Protestant, close to three in 10 (29 percent) say they were raised Catholic, and significantly fewer Americans were brought up Mormon (2 percent), Jewish (2 percent), Muslim (1 percent), Orthodox (1 percent), or something else (1 percent).
However, there are significant differences in the religious upbringing of Americans across generations. Young adults (age 18 to 29) are far more likely to have been raised without religion than are seniors (age 65 or older). Roughly one in five (22 percent) young adults report that they were not raised in any particular religion, compared to only 3 percent of seniors. Notably, the proportion of young adults who have always been religiously unaffiliated is nearly as large as those who have left religion to become unaffiliated.
For more commentary, click here: Millennials Are Leaving Religion And Not Coming Back.
. . . many millennials have spouses, children and mortgages — and there’s little evidence of a corresponding surge in religious interest. A new national survey from the American Enterprise Institute of more than 2,500 Americans found a few reasons why millennials may not return to the religious fold. (One of the authors of this article helped conduct the survey.)
For one thing, many millennials never had strong ties to religion to begin with, which means they were less likely to develop habits or associations that make it easier to return to a religious community.
Young adults are also increasingly likely to have a spouse who is nonreligious, which may help reinforce their secular worldview.
Changing views about the relationship between morality and religion also appear to have convinced many young parents that religious institutions are simply irrelevant or unnecessary for their children.
Millennials may be the symbols of a broader societal shift away from religion, but they didn’t start it on their own. Their parents are at least partly responsible for a widening generational gap in religious identity and beliefs; they were more likely than previous generations to raise their children without any connection to organized religion. According to the AEI survey, 17 percent of millennials said that they were not raised in any particular religion compared with only five percent of Baby Boomers. And fewer than one in three (32 percent) millennials say they attended weekly religious services with their family when they were young, compared with about half (49 percent) of Baby Boomers.
A parent’s religious identity (or lack thereof) can do a lot to shape a child’s religious habits and beliefs later in life.
From Vox: There’s a conservative civil war raging — over porn
This builds off our discussions of Miller v California, and conservatism - at the very least.
- Click here for the article.
Social conservatives are ready to launch a new national war on pornography.
It’s been nearly 50 years since the Nixon administration’s “War on Porn” and more than two decades since the signing of the Communications Decency Act, the first major federal effort to regulate online pornography. But pornography continues to be a target of Republicans at the state level; in addition, the 2016 Republican Party platform stated that “pornography, with its harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the lives of millions.”
This fall, Republican members of Congress asked the Department of Justice to “declare prosecution of obscene pornography a criminal justice priority.” Conservative commentators also argue that government power can — and should — put a stop to pornography for the benefit of the “common good.” By doing so, social conservatives argue that they can alter American culture itself.
Terry Schilling, executive director of the American Principles Project, a conservative think tank, argued in October in the Catholic magazine First Things that efforts to regulate pornography are part of a broader phenomenon. “In our time, a new conservatism is being born — one less interested in managing our nation’s decline than in using political power to promote virtue, public morality, and the common good,” he wrote. “Conservatives need to overcome their fear of governing the nation that elected them.”
In doing so, social conservatives are facing opposition from libertarians as well as fellow conservatives. They argue that efforts to ban or otherwise tighten regulations on pornography is the kind of overreach they have long stood against.
As Reason Magazine editor-in-chief Katherine Mangu-Ward told me, “What you’re seeing now is this rise of a much more authoritarian and state-oriented variant of conservatism and it just says, ‘You know what? Actually, never mind. Let’s take away the bad choices. Let’s make some bad choices illegal.’ This has long been a characteristic of the American left.”
- Click here for the article.
Social conservatives are ready to launch a new national war on pornography.
It’s been nearly 50 years since the Nixon administration’s “War on Porn” and more than two decades since the signing of the Communications Decency Act, the first major federal effort to regulate online pornography. But pornography continues to be a target of Republicans at the state level; in addition, the 2016 Republican Party platform stated that “pornography, with its harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the lives of millions.”
This fall, Republican members of Congress asked the Department of Justice to “declare prosecution of obscene pornography a criminal justice priority.” Conservative commentators also argue that government power can — and should — put a stop to pornography for the benefit of the “common good.” By doing so, social conservatives argue that they can alter American culture itself.
Terry Schilling, executive director of the American Principles Project, a conservative think tank, argued in October in the Catholic magazine First Things that efforts to regulate pornography are part of a broader phenomenon. “In our time, a new conservatism is being born — one less interested in managing our nation’s decline than in using political power to promote virtue, public morality, and the common good,” he wrote. “Conservatives need to overcome their fear of governing the nation that elected them.”
In doing so, social conservatives are facing opposition from libertarians as well as fellow conservatives. They argue that efforts to ban or otherwise tighten regulations on pornography is the kind of overreach they have long stood against.
As Reason Magazine editor-in-chief Katherine Mangu-Ward told me, “What you’re seeing now is this rise of a much more authoritarian and state-oriented variant of conservatism and it just says, ‘You know what? Actually, never mind. Let’s take away the bad choices. Let’s make some bad choices illegal.’ This has long been a characteristic of the American left.”
From Wikipedia: Province of Georgia
A much more interesting story than I had imagined.
- Click here for the entry.
- Click here for info on its founder.
- Click here for the entry.
- Click here for info on its founder.
From the Texas Tribune: Optimism abounds for Texas Democrats in 2020, but campaign staffers are sparse
For, among other things, our look at campaign operatives.
- Click here for the story.
There is, effectively, a lost generation of talent in Texas Democratic politics.
Democrats were in decline in the 1990s, but the death blow came in 2003 at the hand of then-U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Thanks to his successful mid-decade redistricting plan, Republicans destroyed Democrats’ candidate and staffer farm team. With a Republican-favored redrawn map, Republicans targeted five Democratic incumbents in newly-hostile districts. Four of those members lost reelection in 2004. Eventually the fifth, U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, lost reelection in the 2010 wave, along with two other Democratic incumbents.
With this new map, and the next decade's succeeding map, competitive races were mostly eliminated from the state, save for West Texas’ 23rd District currently held by U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, R-Helotes, in a region remote from most of the state's urban Democratic strongholds.
Erin Mincberg was one of those Democratic operatives forced to become Tex-pats. Doors slammed in her face in the late-2000s, like they did for so many other young Texas Democrats. It made no difference that Mincberg had a political pedigree: Her father served in the mid-1990s as Harris County Democratic Party chairman and her mother served on the Houston school board.
Mincberg described a culture of "limited competitive races to get legitimate experience." So she packed up and moved to California to get hands on experience in high stakes races.
. . . Many Texas Democrats put Crystal Kay Perkins, a former state Democratic Party executive director who returned home, in this category. Perkins is now with the Biden campaign, and worked early in her career for the national House and Senate Democratic campaign committees. Otherwise, there are few prodigal sons and daughters returning to the state, and there’s a worry that many of those who are in the game now have daunting learning curves.
- Click here for the story.
There is, effectively, a lost generation of talent in Texas Democratic politics.
Democrats were in decline in the 1990s, but the death blow came in 2003 at the hand of then-U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Thanks to his successful mid-decade redistricting plan, Republicans destroyed Democrats’ candidate and staffer farm team. With a Republican-favored redrawn map, Republicans targeted five Democratic incumbents in newly-hostile districts. Four of those members lost reelection in 2004. Eventually the fifth, U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, lost reelection in the 2010 wave, along with two other Democratic incumbents.
With this new map, and the next decade's succeeding map, competitive races were mostly eliminated from the state, save for West Texas’ 23rd District currently held by U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, R-Helotes, in a region remote from most of the state's urban Democratic strongholds.
Erin Mincberg was one of those Democratic operatives forced to become Tex-pats. Doors slammed in her face in the late-2000s, like they did for so many other young Texas Democrats. It made no difference that Mincberg had a political pedigree: Her father served in the mid-1990s as Harris County Democratic Party chairman and her mother served on the Houston school board.
Mincberg described a culture of "limited competitive races to get legitimate experience." So she packed up and moved to California to get hands on experience in high stakes races.
. . . Many Texas Democrats put Crystal Kay Perkins, a former state Democratic Party executive director who returned home, in this category. Perkins is now with the Biden campaign, and worked early in her career for the national House and Senate Democratic campaign committees. Otherwise, there are few prodigal sons and daughters returning to the state, and there’s a worry that many of those who are in the game now have daunting learning curves.
From the Texas Tribune: Texas executed Travis Runnels for a prison murder. His lawyers said false testimony put him on death row.
The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- Click here for the article.
There was no question of Runnels’ guilt in the 2003 prison murder of Stanley Wiley, a supervisor at the Clement Unit’s boot factory, where Runnels worked while serving a 70-year aggravated robbery sentence. He pleaded guilty at trial, despite knowing the state was seeking the death penalty.
But at his punishment hearing, where jurors in part weigh how likely a capital murder convict is to be dangerous in the future, the state introduced as a witness A.P. Merillat, who at the time was a criminal investigator for the state prosecutors who handle prison crimes. He has testified in at least 15 trials that resulted in death sentences, but his incorrect testimony on the levels of security in prisons has since led to two overturned death sentences in Texas.
Runnels’ lawyers had hoped the state’s reliance on Merillat’s testimony would prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to stop his execution, too.
“As was the case in several other capital trials in which Merillat testified, the purpose of his testimony was to establish for the jury that the state prison system’s security for non-death sentenced inmates was so lax that the defendant would be a danger to others in prison if he received a life sentence,” attorneys Mark Pickett and Janet Gilger-VanderZanden wrote in a petition to the high court.
About 30 minutes after his execution was scheduled to begin at 6 p.m., the high court issued a short ruling denying Runnels' final appeal.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a death sentence based on materially inaccurate evidence is unconstitutional, and a court must overturn a death sentence unless judges determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the falsehood didn't contribute to the punishment, according to a Texas court ruling. Texas and Potter County officials argued that Runnels’ crime and his assaults on guards afterward were more than enough for the jury to have decided he was a future threat, regardless of Merillat’s testimony.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Runnels' appeal without comment or consideration of its merits last week. Potter County argued Texas law did not allow the court to review the appeal because it was filed too near his execution and could have been raised earlier. Pickett pointed plainly to the claim of false testimony in response.
"You shouldn’t be allowed to get a death sentence based on false testimony," he said after the Texas court ruling. "This is testimony that ... no one is disputing is false."
Merillat was called as a witness to describe how the Texas prison system decides the level of supervision and types of restrictions on housing and activity that inmates need. Generally, prisoners are assigned to one of five levels of the general population — G1 is the least restrictive, and G5 is the most — or to solitary confinement. Death row inmates are housed in solitary confinement, which means they are almost always in their cells except for solo recreation or limited visits behind glass.
At trial, Merillat testified that unless they are sentenced to death, capital murder convicts automatically are assigned to the relatively unrestricted housing as G3 inmates. Inmates at that level live in dorms or cells with other prisoners and have less supervision. They also have more job options and recreation time. Merillat said the prison wouldn’t look at previous convictions (Runnels had three) and that after 10 years, he could get an even less restrictive custody level.
Runnels’ lawyers said his testimony was “plainly and patently false.” And Merillat acknowledged in an interview with The Texas Tribune that he might have been wrong in Amarillo.
“When I testified, I testified with the knowledge that I had at the time,” he said.
More from Scotusblog: Runnels v. Texas
- Click here for the page.
Issue: Whether it is a due process violation when the prosecution uses false expert testimony to obtain a death sentence, regardless of whether the prosecution knows of the falsity.
- Click here for the denied writ.
- Click here for the article.
There was no question of Runnels’ guilt in the 2003 prison murder of Stanley Wiley, a supervisor at the Clement Unit’s boot factory, where Runnels worked while serving a 70-year aggravated robbery sentence. He pleaded guilty at trial, despite knowing the state was seeking the death penalty.
But at his punishment hearing, where jurors in part weigh how likely a capital murder convict is to be dangerous in the future, the state introduced as a witness A.P. Merillat, who at the time was a criminal investigator for the state prosecutors who handle prison crimes. He has testified in at least 15 trials that resulted in death sentences, but his incorrect testimony on the levels of security in prisons has since led to two overturned death sentences in Texas.
Runnels’ lawyers had hoped the state’s reliance on Merillat’s testimony would prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to stop his execution, too.
“As was the case in several other capital trials in which Merillat testified, the purpose of his testimony was to establish for the jury that the state prison system’s security for non-death sentenced inmates was so lax that the defendant would be a danger to others in prison if he received a life sentence,” attorneys Mark Pickett and Janet Gilger-VanderZanden wrote in a petition to the high court.
About 30 minutes after his execution was scheduled to begin at 6 p.m., the high court issued a short ruling denying Runnels' final appeal.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a death sentence based on materially inaccurate evidence is unconstitutional, and a court must overturn a death sentence unless judges determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the falsehood didn't contribute to the punishment, according to a Texas court ruling. Texas and Potter County officials argued that Runnels’ crime and his assaults on guards afterward were more than enough for the jury to have decided he was a future threat, regardless of Merillat’s testimony.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Runnels' appeal without comment or consideration of its merits last week. Potter County argued Texas law did not allow the court to review the appeal because it was filed too near his execution and could have been raised earlier. Pickett pointed plainly to the claim of false testimony in response.
"You shouldn’t be allowed to get a death sentence based on false testimony," he said after the Texas court ruling. "This is testimony that ... no one is disputing is false."
Merillat was called as a witness to describe how the Texas prison system decides the level of supervision and types of restrictions on housing and activity that inmates need. Generally, prisoners are assigned to one of five levels of the general population — G1 is the least restrictive, and G5 is the most — or to solitary confinement. Death row inmates are housed in solitary confinement, which means they are almost always in their cells except for solo recreation or limited visits behind glass.
At trial, Merillat testified that unless they are sentenced to death, capital murder convicts automatically are assigned to the relatively unrestricted housing as G3 inmates. Inmates at that level live in dorms or cells with other prisoners and have less supervision. They also have more job options and recreation time. Merillat said the prison wouldn’t look at previous convictions (Runnels had three) and that after 10 years, he could get an even less restrictive custody level.
Runnels’ lawyers said his testimony was “plainly and patently false.” And Merillat acknowledged in an interview with The Texas Tribune that he might have been wrong in Amarillo.
“When I testified, I testified with the knowledge that I had at the time,” he said.
More from Scotusblog: Runnels v. Texas
- Click here for the page.
Issue: Whether it is a due process violation when the prosecution uses false expert testimony to obtain a death sentence, regardless of whether the prosecution knows of the falsity.
- Click here for the denied writ.
Monday, December 9, 2019
The Afghanistan Papers
For our look at the media and policy evaluation - as well as military policy.
- A SECRET HISTORY OF THE WAR.
- AT WAR WITH THE TRUTH.
- Lessons Learned Program.
The interviews are the byproduct of a project led by Sopko’s agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. Known as SIGAR, the agency was created by Congress in 2008 to investigate waste and fraud in the war zone.
In 2014, at Sopko’s direction, SIGAR departed from its usual mission of performing audits and launched a side venture. Titled “Lessons Learned,” the $11 million project was meant to diagnose policy failures in Afghanistan so the United States would not repeat the mistakes the next time it invaded a country or tried to rebuild a shattered one.
The Lessons Learned staff interviewed more than 600 people with firsthand experience in the war. Most were Americans, but SIGAR analysts also traveled to London, Brussels and Berlin to interview NATO allies. In addition, they interviewed about 20 Afghan officials, discussing reconstruction and development programs.
Drawing partly on the interviews, as well as other government records and statistics, SIGAR has published seven Lessons Learned reports since 2016 that highlight problems in Afghanistan and recommend changes to stabilize the country.
But the reports, written in dense bureaucratic prose and focused on an alphabet soup of government initiatives, left out the harshest and most frank criticisms from the interviews.
“We found the stabilization strategy and the programs used to achieve it were not properly tailored to the Afghan context, and successes in stabilizing Afghan districts rarely lasted longer than the physical presence of coalition troops and civilians,” read the introduction to one report released in May 2018.
The reports also omitted the names of more than 90 percent of the people who were interviewed for the project. While a few officials agreed to speak on the record to SIGAR, the agency said it promised anonymity to everyone else it interviewed to avoid controversy over politically sensitive matters.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, The Post began seeking Lessons Learned interview records in August 2016. SIGAR refused, arguing that the documents were privileged and that the public had no right to see them.
The Post had to sue SIGAR in federal court — twice — to compel it to release the documents.
- A SECRET HISTORY OF THE WAR.
- AT WAR WITH THE TRUTH.
- Lessons Learned Program.
The interviews are the byproduct of a project led by Sopko’s agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. Known as SIGAR, the agency was created by Congress in 2008 to investigate waste and fraud in the war zone.
In 2014, at Sopko’s direction, SIGAR departed from its usual mission of performing audits and launched a side venture. Titled “Lessons Learned,” the $11 million project was meant to diagnose policy failures in Afghanistan so the United States would not repeat the mistakes the next time it invaded a country or tried to rebuild a shattered one.
The Lessons Learned staff interviewed more than 600 people with firsthand experience in the war. Most were Americans, but SIGAR analysts also traveled to London, Brussels and Berlin to interview NATO allies. In addition, they interviewed about 20 Afghan officials, discussing reconstruction and development programs.
Drawing partly on the interviews, as well as other government records and statistics, SIGAR has published seven Lessons Learned reports since 2016 that highlight problems in Afghanistan and recommend changes to stabilize the country.
But the reports, written in dense bureaucratic prose and focused on an alphabet soup of government initiatives, left out the harshest and most frank criticisms from the interviews.
“We found the stabilization strategy and the programs used to achieve it were not properly tailored to the Afghan context, and successes in stabilizing Afghan districts rarely lasted longer than the physical presence of coalition troops and civilians,” read the introduction to one report released in May 2018.
The reports also omitted the names of more than 90 percent of the people who were interviewed for the project. While a few officials agreed to speak on the record to SIGAR, the agency said it promised anonymity to everyone else it interviewed to avoid controversy over politically sensitive matters.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, The Post began seeking Lessons Learned interview records in August 2016. SIGAR refused, arguing that the documents were privileged and that the public had no right to see them.
The Post had to sue SIGAR in federal court — twice — to compel it to release the documents.
From Vox: 90 percent of growth in high-tech jobs happened in just 5 metro areas
For our look at cities, as well as economic equality.
- Click here for the article.
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19438613/Map.png)
Technology jobs and the economic prosperity they bring are being concentrated in fewer US cities, according to a new report from The Brookings Institution.
Since 2005, five metro areas — Boston, the San Francisco Bay Area, San Jose, Seattle, and San Diego — accounted for 90 percent of all US growth in “innovation sector” jobs, which Brookings defines as employment in the top science, technology, engineering, and math industries that include extensive research and development spending. Meanwhile, 343 metro areas lost a share of these jobs in that same period.
The result: Wealth and productivity are becoming even more concentrated in fewer, primarily coastal cities. One-third of the nation’s innovation jobs resides in just 16 counties; half are concentrated in 41 counties. These jobs are high-paying and contribute to overall faster wage growth in the areas they’re located, than in areas with fewer innovation jobs. They also result in a lot of secondary work — jobs created to help serve those workers.
These locations draw educated people and investment money from other places. Some 40 percent of adults have Bachelor’s degrees in the top 5 percent of metro areas with innovation job concentration, compared with 26 percent in the bottom three quartiles.
As the report stated: “These places enjoy the benefits of what economists call cumulative causation, through which their earlier knowledge and firm advantages now attract even more talented workers, startups, and investment, creating a gravitational pull toward the nation’s critical innovation sectors while simultaneously draining key talent and business activity from other places.”
Being an innovation city does have costs: These include worsening traffic, ballooning housing prices, and wage growth so high that smaller firms can’t compete. In theory, these spiraling costs should send jobs to cheaper areas, but the report notes that the inflection point is very high, and that when a company does move, its jobs don’t necessarily stay within the US.
- Click here for the article.
Technology jobs and the economic prosperity they bring are being concentrated in fewer US cities, according to a new report from The Brookings Institution.
Since 2005, five metro areas — Boston, the San Francisco Bay Area, San Jose, Seattle, and San Diego — accounted for 90 percent of all US growth in “innovation sector” jobs, which Brookings defines as employment in the top science, technology, engineering, and math industries that include extensive research and development spending. Meanwhile, 343 metro areas lost a share of these jobs in that same period.
The result: Wealth and productivity are becoming even more concentrated in fewer, primarily coastal cities. One-third of the nation’s innovation jobs resides in just 16 counties; half are concentrated in 41 counties. These jobs are high-paying and contribute to overall faster wage growth in the areas they’re located, than in areas with fewer innovation jobs. They also result in a lot of secondary work — jobs created to help serve those workers.
These locations draw educated people and investment money from other places. Some 40 percent of adults have Bachelor’s degrees in the top 5 percent of metro areas with innovation job concentration, compared with 26 percent in the bottom three quartiles.
As the report stated: “These places enjoy the benefits of what economists call cumulative causation, through which their earlier knowledge and firm advantages now attract even more talented workers, startups, and investment, creating a gravitational pull toward the nation’s critical innovation sectors while simultaneously draining key talent and business activity from other places.”
Being an innovation city does have costs: These include worsening traffic, ballooning housing prices, and wage growth so high that smaller firms can’t compete. In theory, these spiraling costs should send jobs to cheaper areas, but the report notes that the inflection point is very high, and that when a company does move, its jobs don’t necessarily stay within the US.
Sunday, December 8, 2019
From Wikipedia: Old Bailey
an early example of a trial court
- Click here for the entry.
The court originated as the sessions house of the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs of the City of London and of Middlesex. The original medieval court was first mentioned in 1585; it was next to the older Newgate Prison, and seems to have grown out of the endowment to improve the gaol and rooms for the sheriffs, made possible by a gift from Richard Whittington. It was destroyed in the Great Fire of London in 1666 and rebuilt in 1674, with the court open to the weather to prevent the spread of disease.
In 1734, it was refronted, enclosing the court and reducing the influence of spectators: this led to outbreaks of typhus, notably in 1750 when 60 people died, including the Lord Mayor and two judges. It was rebuilt again in 1774 and a second courtroom was added in 1824. Over 100,000 criminal trials were carried out at the Old Bailey between 1674 and 1834.[1]
In 1834, it was renamed as the Central Criminal Court and its jurisdiction extended beyond that of London and Middlesex to the whole of the English jurisdiction for trials of major cases. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service manages the courts and administers the trials but the building itself is owned by the City of London Corporation, which finances the building, the running of it, the staff and the maintenance out of their own resources.[2]
The court was originally intended as the site where only criminals accused of crimes committed in the City and Middlesex were tried. However, in 1856, there was public revulsion at the accusations against the doctor William Palmer that he was a poisoner and murderer. This led to fears that he could not receive a fair trial in his native Staffordshire. The Central Criminal Court Act 1856 was passed to enable his trial to be held at the Old Bailey.
In the 19th century, the Old Bailey was a courtroom adjacent to Newgate Prison. Hangings were a public spectacle in the street outside until May 1868. The condemned would be led along Dead Man's Walk between the prison and the court, and many were buried in the walk itself. Large, riotous crowds would gather and pelt the condemned with rotten fruit and vegetables and stones.[2] In 1807, 28 people were crushed to death after a pie-seller's stall overturned. A secret tunnel was subsequently created between the prison and St Sepulchre's church opposite, to allow the chaplain to minister to the condemned man without having to force his way through the crowds.
- Click here for the entry.
The court originated as the sessions house of the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs of the City of London and of Middlesex. The original medieval court was first mentioned in 1585; it was next to the older Newgate Prison, and seems to have grown out of the endowment to improve the gaol and rooms for the sheriffs, made possible by a gift from Richard Whittington. It was destroyed in the Great Fire of London in 1666 and rebuilt in 1674, with the court open to the weather to prevent the spread of disease.
In 1734, it was refronted, enclosing the court and reducing the influence of spectators: this led to outbreaks of typhus, notably in 1750 when 60 people died, including the Lord Mayor and two judges. It was rebuilt again in 1774 and a second courtroom was added in 1824. Over 100,000 criminal trials were carried out at the Old Bailey between 1674 and 1834.[1]
In 1834, it was renamed as the Central Criminal Court and its jurisdiction extended beyond that of London and Middlesex to the whole of the English jurisdiction for trials of major cases. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service manages the courts and administers the trials but the building itself is owned by the City of London Corporation, which finances the building, the running of it, the staff and the maintenance out of their own resources.[2]
The court was originally intended as the site where only criminals accused of crimes committed in the City and Middlesex were tried. However, in 1856, there was public revulsion at the accusations against the doctor William Palmer that he was a poisoner and murderer. This led to fears that he could not receive a fair trial in his native Staffordshire. The Central Criminal Court Act 1856 was passed to enable his trial to be held at the Old Bailey.
In the 19th century, the Old Bailey was a courtroom adjacent to Newgate Prison. Hangings were a public spectacle in the street outside until May 1868. The condemned would be led along Dead Man's Walk between the prison and the court, and many were buried in the walk itself. Large, riotous crowds would gather and pelt the condemned with rotten fruit and vegetables and stones.[2] In 1807, 28 people were crushed to death after a pie-seller's stall overturned. A secret tunnel was subsequently created between the prison and St Sepulchre's church opposite, to allow the chaplain to minister to the condemned man without having to force his way through the crowds.
Friday, December 6, 2019
From the Texas Tribune: Appointees claim Gov. Greg Abbott ousted them from board for voting to sanction judge who refused to perform gay marriages
An example of the power of the governor's ability to appoint people to boards and commissions.
- Click here for the article.
Two former members of the state’s disciplinary board for judges claim they were ousted by Gov. Greg Abbott for initially voting to sanction a Waco judge who refused to officiate same-sex weddings, the Houston Chronicle first reported on Thursday.
Abbott appointed Amy Suhl, a retired technology executive, and Maricela Alvarado, a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, to the commission in June 2018 for a term that was set to expire in 2023. But in a highly unusual move, the governor’s office ultimately excluded them from a list of appointees up for confirmation from the Texas Senate, effectively axing them from the agency.
The appointees told the Chronicle the governor’s office claimed he had “decided to go in a different direction,” but they believe they were ousted because they had favored penalizing Judge Dianne Hensley, who has publicly stated that she officiates heterosexual marriages but not homosexual ones. Earlier this week, the commission announced it had voted to publicly warn Hensley, a relatively light punishment. The commission has the power to suspend judges.
“What the governor’s doing is wrong,” Suhl told The Texas Tribune on Thursday. “They’re not supposed to be trying to coerce people to vote a certain way. It’s just not right.”
- Click here for the article.
Two former members of the state’s disciplinary board for judges claim they were ousted by Gov. Greg Abbott for initially voting to sanction a Waco judge who refused to officiate same-sex weddings, the Houston Chronicle first reported on Thursday.
Abbott appointed Amy Suhl, a retired technology executive, and Maricela Alvarado, a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, to the commission in June 2018 for a term that was set to expire in 2023. But in a highly unusual move, the governor’s office ultimately excluded them from a list of appointees up for confirmation from the Texas Senate, effectively axing them from the agency.
The appointees told the Chronicle the governor’s office claimed he had “decided to go in a different direction,” but they believe they were ousted because they had favored penalizing Judge Dianne Hensley, who has publicly stated that she officiates heterosexual marriages but not homosexual ones. Earlier this week, the commission announced it had voted to publicly warn Hensley, a relatively light punishment. The commission has the power to suspend judges.
“What the governor’s doing is wrong,” Suhl told The Texas Tribune on Thursday. “They’re not supposed to be trying to coerce people to vote a certain way. It’s just not right.”
From the Texas Tribune: San Antonio paid sick leave requirement blocked by state judge
An illustration of the relationship between Texas and local governments.
- Click here for the article.
A district judge blocked a San Antonio ordinance Friday that would have required businesses in the city to provide paid sick leave for employees starting Dec. 1.
In October, the council approved the latest version of the ordinance, calling it the “safe and sick time” ordinance. It would've required companies and nonprofits of all sizes to provide 56 hours’ worth of earned paid sick time per year. Under the rule — approved in an 8-3 vote — workers would've been able to use the leave if they were sick or if they or a family member had suffered domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking.
Multiple business groups, including the Associated Builders and Subcontractors, sued to block the ordinance with the backing of the Austin-based Texas Public Policy Foundation. District Judge Peter Sakai issued a temporary injunction, meaning his ruling is not permanent but will block the implementation of the ordinance while the court case proceeds.
The ruling will affect an estimated 354,000 workers, according to the San Antonio Express-News.
- Click here for the article.
A district judge blocked a San Antonio ordinance Friday that would have required businesses in the city to provide paid sick leave for employees starting Dec. 1.
In October, the council approved the latest version of the ordinance, calling it the “safe and sick time” ordinance. It would've required companies and nonprofits of all sizes to provide 56 hours’ worth of earned paid sick time per year. Under the rule — approved in an 8-3 vote — workers would've been able to use the leave if they were sick or if they or a family member had suffered domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking.
Multiple business groups, including the Associated Builders and Subcontractors, sued to block the ordinance with the backing of the Austin-based Texas Public Policy Foundation. District Judge Peter Sakai issued a temporary injunction, meaning his ruling is not permanent but will block the implementation of the ordinance while the court case proceeds.
The ruling will affect an estimated 354,000 workers, according to the San Antonio Express-News.
Thursday, December 5, 2019
From 538: The Impeachment Hearings Just Confirmed Voters’ Preexisting Opinions
Regarding confirmation bias.
- Click here for the article.
The first phase of the impeachment process is over, and according to our impeachment tracker, public opinion on impeaching and removing President Trump has remained largely steady through most of November, with roughly 47 percent of Americans supporting impeachment and 44 percent opposed. And in our latest survey with Ipsos, where we check back in with the same group of respondents every two weeks using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel, we uncovered a similar trend.
A majority of Americans (57 percent) still think Trump committed an impeachable offense, which is essentially identical to the share who said so in mid-November when we first asked the question. There was one relatively small but noteworthy shift between the first and second rounds of our survey. After the first round of hearings, where witnesses testified that Trump and his allies had been involved in the push for investigations into Joe Biden and his son, respondents were more likely to agree that Trump withheld military aid to pressure the Ukrainians into opening an investigation. In our initial survey, 56 percent of respondents said they believed this happened, but in the latest poll, that number rose to 63 percent. Democrats are still, however, much more likely than Republicans to think that Trump conditioned the aid on the investigations.
Overall, though, opinion on impeachment seems to have hardened as a result of the public testimony instead of persuading people to change their position. For instance, a majority of respondents (58 percent) said that the hearings did shift their thinking on whether Trump committed an impeachable offense, but in almost all cases they simply became more convinced of their original opinion. Ninety-five percent of people who said the hearings made them more likely to think Trump committed an impeachable offense already said they thought he committed an impeachable offense in the first wave of our poll. Similarly, 95 percent of those who said the hearings made them less likely to think Trump committed an impeachable offense already thought his behavior wasn’t impeachable.1
- Click here for the article.
The first phase of the impeachment process is over, and according to our impeachment tracker, public opinion on impeaching and removing President Trump has remained largely steady through most of November, with roughly 47 percent of Americans supporting impeachment and 44 percent opposed. And in our latest survey with Ipsos, where we check back in with the same group of respondents every two weeks using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel, we uncovered a similar trend.
A majority of Americans (57 percent) still think Trump committed an impeachable offense, which is essentially identical to the share who said so in mid-November when we first asked the question. There was one relatively small but noteworthy shift between the first and second rounds of our survey. After the first round of hearings, where witnesses testified that Trump and his allies had been involved in the push for investigations into Joe Biden and his son, respondents were more likely to agree that Trump withheld military aid to pressure the Ukrainians into opening an investigation. In our initial survey, 56 percent of respondents said they believed this happened, but in the latest poll, that number rose to 63 percent. Democrats are still, however, much more likely than Republicans to think that Trump conditioned the aid on the investigations.
Overall, though, opinion on impeachment seems to have hardened as a result of the public testimony instead of persuading people to change their position. For instance, a majority of respondents (58 percent) said that the hearings did shift their thinking on whether Trump committed an impeachable offense, but in almost all cases they simply became more convinced of their original opinion. Ninety-five percent of people who said the hearings made them more likely to think Trump committed an impeachable offense already said they thought he committed an impeachable offense in the first wave of our poll. Similarly, 95 percent of those who said the hearings made them less likely to think Trump committed an impeachable offense already thought his behavior wasn’t impeachable.1
From the Texas Tribune: Retired Texas shrimper wins record-breaking $50 million settlement from plastics manufacturing giant
For our look at dual federalism and civil suits. Maybe also negative externalities.
- Click here for the article.
A federal judge approved a historic settlement agreement Tuesday between Taiwan-based plastics manufacturer Formosa and a scrappy environmental activist represented by indigent legal services nonprofit Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid.
TRLA said the $50 million settlement is the largest in U.S. history involving a private citizen's lawsuit against an industrial polluter under federal clean air and water laws. The money will be poured into a trust over the next five years and used to pay for programs supporting pollution mitigation, habitat restoration, public education and other environmental efforts on the middle Texas Gulf Coast.
Diane Wilson, a retired shrimper and an environmental activist, sued Formosa in July 2017, alleging that its Port Comfort plant had illegally discharged thousands of plastic pellets and other pollutants into Lavaca Bay and other nearby waterways. Environmental group San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper, represented by two private attorneys, joined Wilson in the suit.
In its defense, Formosa — which is in the process of expanding the plant — argued that a $121,875 fine against it by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state's environmental regulatory agency, made the lawsuit moot.
But U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt strongly disagreed in a June ruling, calling the company a "serial offender" and saying that "the TCEQ’s findings and assessment merely shows the difficulty or inability of the TCEQ to bring Formosa into compliance with its permit restrictions."
Hoyt approved the $50 million settlement, which the parties announced in October, on Tuesday during a hearing in Victoria.
“Having the $50 million settlement go to local environmental projects feels like justice,” Wilson said in a statement. “Formosa polluted Lavaca Bay and nearby waterways for years. Now it will pay for strong community projects that will improve the health and welfare of our waterways and beaches.”
- Click here for the article.
A federal judge approved a historic settlement agreement Tuesday between Taiwan-based plastics manufacturer Formosa and a scrappy environmental activist represented by indigent legal services nonprofit Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid.
TRLA said the $50 million settlement is the largest in U.S. history involving a private citizen's lawsuit against an industrial polluter under federal clean air and water laws. The money will be poured into a trust over the next five years and used to pay for programs supporting pollution mitigation, habitat restoration, public education and other environmental efforts on the middle Texas Gulf Coast.
Diane Wilson, a retired shrimper and an environmental activist, sued Formosa in July 2017, alleging that its Port Comfort plant had illegally discharged thousands of plastic pellets and other pollutants into Lavaca Bay and other nearby waterways. Environmental group San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper, represented by two private attorneys, joined Wilson in the suit.
In its defense, Formosa — which is in the process of expanding the plant — argued that a $121,875 fine against it by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state's environmental regulatory agency, made the lawsuit moot.
But U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt strongly disagreed in a June ruling, calling the company a "serial offender" and saying that "the TCEQ’s findings and assessment merely shows the difficulty or inability of the TCEQ to bring Formosa into compliance with its permit restrictions."
Hoyt approved the $50 million settlement, which the parties announced in October, on Tuesday during a hearing in Victoria.
“Having the $50 million settlement go to local environmental projects feels like justice,” Wilson said in a statement. “Formosa polluted Lavaca Bay and nearby waterways for years. Now it will pay for strong community projects that will improve the health and welfare of our waterways and beaches.”
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7049363/dunlap-2016-lcv-scores.png)
Stupid questions 2305 THS4
Okay, so now that you asked Ive been wanted to know why the articles of confederation where thought of in the first place. As well and what made the now US government decide on how the House of Representatives work when each states population is all estimate when thinking about illegal immigrants. do they just not count them?
Okay so i'm confused how congress works in general. I've always been confused about politics and the government and such but i never asked because i thought everyone knew. How all the branches work with each other in a good balance, what the president does other than meetings and signings and speeches, and also how voting works. How long campaigns last and why they do so many debates and the purpose for them. Thank you!
Why have the Republican and Democrat parties become so increasingly divided and hostile towards each other?
Would our government function if we didn’t have a bicameral government?
I still don't really know how the people are chosen to be in the electoral college, and what qualifications they need to be elected
So far throughout the course nothing has been confusing, but the question I have is, what is the subject you honestly really don't care for, or hate that you have to teach?
1. Is there any other websites you recommend for the 1000 word essay?
2. How would you go about researching the topic? (1000 word essay)
My question is why do we still have the electoral college and call ourselves a democratic republic? We still get to vote but why don’t they take the popular vote into consideration because that’s what the people want? Who even makes up the electoral college and why isn’t there any diversity in it to represent the real America, not just the top richest percent? I am just really confused as to why it is still a thing.
The question I have really is: What kind of oversight does the House Oversight Committee do? Is it limited to the House or Senate as well? Is there a similar body in the Senate as well?
Although I have kept up with reading the book, doing the quizzes and tests, turning in the writing assignments, and asking questions in class, I continue to wonder why have a bicameral government with two houses in Congress if we’ve already discussed and agreed that this process takes longer to approve bills that could better our society or veto bills that would worsen it?
Why does the president get to pick members of the cabinet if it means that he’s going to be biased and pick his favorite people and not necessarily people right for the job?
One stupid question I have is what was the main reason why James Madison created the federalist papers?
Everyone says that my generation is the future which is why they encourage us to vote. If we really are the future, then why do you have to be certain ages in order to run for government positions?
Okay, so now that you asked Ive been wanted to know why the articles of confederation where thought of in the first place. As well and what made the now US government decide on how the House of Representatives work when each states population is all estimate when thinking about illegal immigrants. do they just not count them?
Okay so i'm confused how congress works in general. I've always been confused about politics and the government and such but i never asked because i thought everyone knew. How all the branches work with each other in a good balance, what the president does other than meetings and signings and speeches, and also how voting works. How long campaigns last and why they do so many debates and the purpose for them. Thank you!
Why have the Republican and Democrat parties become so increasingly divided and hostile towards each other?
Would our government function if we didn’t have a bicameral government?
I still don't really know how the people are chosen to be in the electoral college, and what qualifications they need to be elected
So far throughout the course nothing has been confusing, but the question I have is, what is the subject you honestly really don't care for, or hate that you have to teach?
1. Is there any other websites you recommend for the 1000 word essay?
2. How would you go about researching the topic? (1000 word essay)
My question is why do we still have the electoral college and call ourselves a democratic republic? We still get to vote but why don’t they take the popular vote into consideration because that’s what the people want? Who even makes up the electoral college and why isn’t there any diversity in it to represent the real America, not just the top richest percent? I am just really confused as to why it is still a thing.
The question I have really is: What kind of oversight does the House Oversight Committee do? Is it limited to the House or Senate as well? Is there a similar body in the Senate as well?
Although I have kept up with reading the book, doing the quizzes and tests, turning in the writing assignments, and asking questions in class, I continue to wonder why have a bicameral government with two houses in Congress if we’ve already discussed and agreed that this process takes longer to approve bills that could better our society or veto bills that would worsen it?
Why does the president get to pick members of the cabinet if it means that he’s going to be biased and pick his favorite people and not necessarily people right for the job?
One stupid question I have is what was the main reason why James Madison created the federalist papers?
Everyone says that my generation is the future which is why they encourage us to vote. If we really are the future, then why do you have to be certain ages in order to run for government positions?
Stupid questions 2305 THS3
What confuses me the most about the subject matter is why its so hard for people to collectively agree on things for the greater good.
How does a bicameral Congress operate?
The most confusing topic that I think we have gone over is most likely interest groups and political parties. The reason why is that I keep confusing these political parties with each other. Sometimes I think that republicans believe that political leaders shouldn’t be elected because of their status and or wealth, and sometimes I believe democrats believe in individual responsibility and entrepreneurialism. I also get the difference between political parties and interest groups. Because I believe they are very similar because they are a group of people who have the same interests in mind and are trying to accomplish something great… I think.
What is the purpose for an interest group?
Out of all the material we have covered I feel like I don’t know much about interest groups. I don’t really understand them. I would also like to know how they effect
The most confusing subject we’ve covered in class by far is about Chapter Ten: Congress. I’ve read threw this chapter and I was stuck on partisan Congress, if you could explain it better than the book I would really appreciate.
I can not really remember any other questions from the past that were stupid, nevertheless, I have one for you about a topic that we talked about recently. Perhaps you explained it, but I could not remember nor find the answer myself. My question is about the 25th amendment and why it is harder to decide if the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” than to impeach a president. I would think that it would be harder to impeach a president because they would be fully removed and unable to resume the job later on (unless they run again). Maybe I got the two mixed up, however, I would like to know the answer.
One other stupid question- is this assignment late? I have been checking every week for a written assignment in the past couple of weeks (after assignment 7 was due) and it has not been shown written assignment 8 and 9. I asked you briefly about it on Tuesday and you said not to worry too much about it, so I was wondering if I could turn it on Thursday or Friday without it being late. Recently, I have been having to go to the hospital lately and it has been a tad bit difficult for me to keep up with everything going on, but I am doing my best to get everything done in time.
How does the Impeachment process work and how does it affect President Trump?
why do people bother going to work.
One thing that confused me is why Congress haven't declared war since 1941, even though we had military engagements over the years?
What confuses me the most about the subject matter is why its so hard for people to collectively agree on things for the greater good.
How does a bicameral Congress operate?
The most confusing topic that I think we have gone over is most likely interest groups and political parties. The reason why is that I keep confusing these political parties with each other. Sometimes I think that republicans believe that political leaders shouldn’t be elected because of their status and or wealth, and sometimes I believe democrats believe in individual responsibility and entrepreneurialism. I also get the difference between political parties and interest groups. Because I believe they are very similar because they are a group of people who have the same interests in mind and are trying to accomplish something great… I think.
What is the purpose for an interest group?
Out of all the material we have covered I feel like I don’t know much about interest groups. I don’t really understand them. I would also like to know how they effect
The most confusing subject we’ve covered in class by far is about Chapter Ten: Congress. I’ve read threw this chapter and I was stuck on partisan Congress, if you could explain it better than the book I would really appreciate.
I can not really remember any other questions from the past that were stupid, nevertheless, I have one for you about a topic that we talked about recently. Perhaps you explained it, but I could not remember nor find the answer myself. My question is about the 25th amendment and why it is harder to decide if the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” than to impeach a president. I would think that it would be harder to impeach a president because they would be fully removed and unable to resume the job later on (unless they run again). Maybe I got the two mixed up, however, I would like to know the answer.
One other stupid question- is this assignment late? I have been checking every week for a written assignment in the past couple of weeks (after assignment 7 was due) and it has not been shown written assignment 8 and 9. I asked you briefly about it on Tuesday and you said not to worry too much about it, so I was wondering if I could turn it on Thursday or Friday without it being late. Recently, I have been having to go to the hospital lately and it has been a tad bit difficult for me to keep up with everything going on, but I am doing my best to get everything done in time.
How does the Impeachment process work and how does it affect President Trump?
why do people bother going to work.
One thing that confused me is why Congress haven't declared war since 1941, even though we had military engagements over the years?
Monday, December 2, 2019
From Wikipedia: St. Clair's defeat
The subject of the first congressional investigation.
- Click here for the entry.
St. Clair's defeat, also known as the Battle of the Wabash, the Battle of Wabash River or the Battle of a Thousand Slain,[1] was a battle fought on November 4, 1791, in the Northwest Territory of the United States of America. The U.S. Army faced the Western Confederacy of Native Americans, as part of the Northwest Indian War. It was "the most decisive defeat in the history of the American military,"[2] and the largest victory ever won by Native Americans.[3]
. . . The House of Representatives began its own investigation into the disaster. This was the first Congressional Special Committee investigation,[14] as well as the first investigation of the executive branch. As part of the proceedings, the House committee in charge of the investigation sought certain documents from the War Department. Knox brought this matter to Washington's attention and because of the major separation of powers issues involved, the president summoned a meeting of all of his department heads; This was one of the first meetings of all of these officials together and may be considered the beginning of the United States Cabinet.[28] Washington established, in principle, the position that the executive branch should refuse to divulge any papers or materials that the public good required them to keep secret and that at any rate they not provide any originals. This is the earliest appearance of the doctrine of executive privilege,[29] which later became a major separation of powers issue.
The final committee report sided largely with St. Clair, finding that Knox, Quartermaster General Samuel Hodgdon and other War Department officials had done a poor job of raising, equipping, and supplying St. Clair's expedition. However, Congress voted against a motion to consider the Committee's findings and issued no final report. St. Clair expressed disappointment that his reputation was not officially cleared.[30]
Within weeks of learning of the disaster, President Washington wrote "We are involved in actual war!"[31] He urged Congress to raise an army capable of conducting a successful offense against the American Indian confederacy, which it did in March 1792 – establishing additional Army regiments (the Legion of the United States), adding three-year enlistments, and increasing military pay.[26] That May, it also passed two Militia Acts. The first empowered the president to call out the militias of the several states. The second required that every free able-bodied white male citizen of the various states, between the ages of 18 and 45, enroll in the militia of the state in which they reside. Washington would utilize the authority to call out the militia in 1794 to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania.
- Click here for the entry.
St. Clair's defeat, also known as the Battle of the Wabash, the Battle of Wabash River or the Battle of a Thousand Slain,[1] was a battle fought on November 4, 1791, in the Northwest Territory of the United States of America. The U.S. Army faced the Western Confederacy of Native Americans, as part of the Northwest Indian War. It was "the most decisive defeat in the history of the American military,"[2] and the largest victory ever won by Native Americans.[3]
. . . The House of Representatives began its own investigation into the disaster. This was the first Congressional Special Committee investigation,[14] as well as the first investigation of the executive branch. As part of the proceedings, the House committee in charge of the investigation sought certain documents from the War Department. Knox brought this matter to Washington's attention and because of the major separation of powers issues involved, the president summoned a meeting of all of his department heads; This was one of the first meetings of all of these officials together and may be considered the beginning of the United States Cabinet.[28] Washington established, in principle, the position that the executive branch should refuse to divulge any papers or materials that the public good required them to keep secret and that at any rate they not provide any originals. This is the earliest appearance of the doctrine of executive privilege,[29] which later became a major separation of powers issue.
The final committee report sided largely with St. Clair, finding that Knox, Quartermaster General Samuel Hodgdon and other War Department officials had done a poor job of raising, equipping, and supplying St. Clair's expedition. However, Congress voted against a motion to consider the Committee's findings and issued no final report. St. Clair expressed disappointment that his reputation was not officially cleared.[30]
Within weeks of learning of the disaster, President Washington wrote "We are involved in actual war!"[31] He urged Congress to raise an army capable of conducting a successful offense against the American Indian confederacy, which it did in March 1792 – establishing additional Army regiments (the Legion of the United States), adding three-year enlistments, and increasing military pay.[26] That May, it also passed two Militia Acts. The first empowered the president to call out the militias of the several states. The second required that every free able-bodied white male citizen of the various states, between the ages of 18 and 45, enroll in the militia of the state in which they reside. Washington would utilize the authority to call out the militia in 1794 to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania.
From the Christian Science Monitor: U.S. Supreme Court to hear its first major gun case since 2010
For our look at the courts.
- Click here for the article.
A legal fight over a New York City handgun ordinance that could give the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority a chance to expand gun rights goes before the nine justices on Monday in one of the most closely watched cases of their current term.
The court is scheduled to hear arguments starting at 10 a.m. in a legal challenge backed by the influential National Rifle Association gun rights lobby group to a regulation that had prevented licensed owners from taking their handguns outside the confines of the most-populous U.S. city.
It is the first major gun case to come before the Supreme Court since 2010.
. . . The dispute centers on New York City's handgun "premises" licenses that allowed holders to transport their firearms only to a handful of shooting ranges within the city, and to hunting areas elsewhere in the state during designated hunting seasons.
Three local handgun owners and the New York state affiliate of the NRA – a national lobby group closely aligned with President Donald Trump and other Republicans – argued that the regulation violated the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
The plaintiffs filed suit in 2013 after they were told by authorities they could not participate in a shooting competition in New Jersey or bring their guns to a home elsewhere in the state. The Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the regulation advanced the city's interest in protecting public safety and did not violate the Second Amendment.
Gun control is a contentious issue in the United States, which has experienced numerous mass shootings. Since 2013, 45 states and the District of Columbia have adopted more than 300 gun control laws, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Republican opposition in Congress has been instrumental in thwarting passage of new federal laws.
City officials argued that controlling guns in public takes on particular urgency in the most densely populated urban center in the United States, where the potential for violence, accidents, or thefts is heightened.
The regulation dated back to 2001 when New York police tightened handgun transport rules because officers had observed license holders improperly traveling with loaded firearms or with their firearms far from any authorized range.
The city argued that the rule did not prevent training as there are plenty of ranges at which to practice within the city, and individuals could rent firearms at competitions farther afield. The rule also did not prevent homeowners from keeping a separate handgun at a second home outside the city.
- Click here for the article.
A legal fight over a New York City handgun ordinance that could give the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority a chance to expand gun rights goes before the nine justices on Monday in one of the most closely watched cases of their current term.
The court is scheduled to hear arguments starting at 10 a.m. in a legal challenge backed by the influential National Rifle Association gun rights lobby group to a regulation that had prevented licensed owners from taking their handguns outside the confines of the most-populous U.S. city.
It is the first major gun case to come before the Supreme Court since 2010.
. . . The dispute centers on New York City's handgun "premises" licenses that allowed holders to transport their firearms only to a handful of shooting ranges within the city, and to hunting areas elsewhere in the state during designated hunting seasons.
Three local handgun owners and the New York state affiliate of the NRA – a national lobby group closely aligned with President Donald Trump and other Republicans – argued that the regulation violated the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
The plaintiffs filed suit in 2013 after they were told by authorities they could not participate in a shooting competition in New Jersey or bring their guns to a home elsewhere in the state. The Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the regulation advanced the city's interest in protecting public safety and did not violate the Second Amendment.
Gun control is a contentious issue in the United States, which has experienced numerous mass shootings. Since 2013, 45 states and the District of Columbia have adopted more than 300 gun control laws, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Republican opposition in Congress has been instrumental in thwarting passage of new federal laws.
City officials argued that controlling guns in public takes on particular urgency in the most densely populated urban center in the United States, where the potential for violence, accidents, or thefts is heightened.
The regulation dated back to 2001 when New York police tightened handgun transport rules because officers had observed license holders improperly traveling with loaded firearms or with their firearms far from any authorized range.
The city argued that the rule did not prevent training as there are plenty of ranges at which to practice within the city, and individuals could rent firearms at competitions farther afield. The rule also did not prevent homeowners from keeping a separate handgun at a second home outside the city.
Court cases establishing that transportation funding by the national government is constitutional.
This adds to a point made throughout the semester.
- Wilson v Shaw.
. . . plaintiff contends that the government has no power to engage anywhere in the work of constructing a railroad or canal. The decisions of this court are adverse to this contention. In California v. Central P. R. Co. 127 U.S. 1, 39 , 32 S. L. ed. 150, 157, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 153, 160, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073, 1080, it was said:
'It cannot at the present day be doubted that Congress, under the power to regulate commerce among the several states, as well as to provide for postal accommodations and [204 U.S. 24, 34] military exigencies, had authority to pass these laws. The power to construct, or to authorize individuals or corporations to construct, national highways and bridges from state to state, is essential to the complete control and regulation of interstate commerce. Without authority in Congress to establish and maintain such highways and bridges, it would be without authority to regulate one of the most important adjuncts of commerce. This power in former times was exerted to a very limited extent, the Cumberland or National road being the most notable instance. Its exertion was but little called for, as commerce was then mostly conducted by water, and many of our statesmen entertained doubts as to the existence of the power to establish ways of communication by land. But since, in consequence of the expansion of the country, the multiplication of its products, and the invention of railroads and locomotion by steam, land transportation has so vastly increased, a sounder consideration of the subject has prevailed and led to the conclusion that Congress has plenary power over the whole subject. Of course the authority of Congress over the territories of the United States, and its power to grant franchises exercisable therein, are, and ever have been, undoubted. But the wider power was very freely exercised, and much to the general satisfaction, in the creation of the vast system of railroads connecting the East with the Pacific, traversing states as well as territories, and employing the agency of state as well as Federal corporations.
For more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Free_Delivery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Road_Act_of_1916
- Wilson v Shaw.
. . . plaintiff contends that the government has no power to engage anywhere in the work of constructing a railroad or canal. The decisions of this court are adverse to this contention. In California v. Central P. R. Co. 127 U.S. 1, 39 , 32 S. L. ed. 150, 157, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 153, 160, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073, 1080, it was said:
'It cannot at the present day be doubted that Congress, under the power to regulate commerce among the several states, as well as to provide for postal accommodations and [204 U.S. 24, 34] military exigencies, had authority to pass these laws. The power to construct, or to authorize individuals or corporations to construct, national highways and bridges from state to state, is essential to the complete control and regulation of interstate commerce. Without authority in Congress to establish and maintain such highways and bridges, it would be without authority to regulate one of the most important adjuncts of commerce. This power in former times was exerted to a very limited extent, the Cumberland or National road being the most notable instance. Its exertion was but little called for, as commerce was then mostly conducted by water, and many of our statesmen entertained doubts as to the existence of the power to establish ways of communication by land. But since, in consequence of the expansion of the country, the multiplication of its products, and the invention of railroads and locomotion by steam, land transportation has so vastly increased, a sounder consideration of the subject has prevailed and led to the conclusion that Congress has plenary power over the whole subject. Of course the authority of Congress over the territories of the United States, and its power to grant franchises exercisable therein, are, and ever have been, undoubted. But the wider power was very freely exercised, and much to the general satisfaction, in the creation of the vast system of railroads connecting the East with the Pacific, traversing states as well as territories, and employing the agency of state as well as Federal corporations.
For more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Free_Delivery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Road_Act_of_1916
From the Texas Tribune: Prison health care costs are higher than ever in Texas. Many point to an aging prison population.
More on the costs of imprisonment in Texas.
- Click here for the article.
Even though Texas' prison population shrank this decade, the publicly funded costs to treat inmates' medical conditions continue to rise.
The state spent over $750 million on prison health care during the 2019 fiscal year, a 53% increase from seven years earlier, when that cost was less than $500 million.
The main reason, according to experts and officials: an older, sicker prison population.
While the total prison population declined by 3%, the number of inmates ages 55 and older increased by 65%, according to Texas Department of Criminal Justice data. Inmates over 55 account for about one-eighth of the population but nearly one-half of the system’s hospitalization costs, according to prison officials.
Nearly 150,000 incarcerated people rely on TDCJ to deliver their health care. Officials say the aging prison population and treatments for expensive diseases like hepatitis, HIV and cancer are driving up costs. Medical costs for the 10 most expensive inmates surpassed $3.1 million in 2019, according to a TDCJ document.
Cost-saving measures include telemedicine and access to discounted pharmaceutical drugs through a federal program. But experts say systemic change — like paroling more aging inmates and keeping people with mental illness or substance abuse out of prison — is needed to curtail expenses.
Texans shouldn't expect costs to come down if the state continues to incarcerate "the same kind of demographics you're sending to prison now," said Owen Murray, vice president for the University of Texas Medical Branch’s Correctional Managed Care.
- Click here for the article.
Even though Texas' prison population shrank this decade, the publicly funded costs to treat inmates' medical conditions continue to rise.
The state spent over $750 million on prison health care during the 2019 fiscal year, a 53% increase from seven years earlier, when that cost was less than $500 million.
The main reason, according to experts and officials: an older, sicker prison population.
While the total prison population declined by 3%, the number of inmates ages 55 and older increased by 65%, according to Texas Department of Criminal Justice data. Inmates over 55 account for about one-eighth of the population but nearly one-half of the system’s hospitalization costs, according to prison officials.
Nearly 150,000 incarcerated people rely on TDCJ to deliver their health care. Officials say the aging prison population and treatments for expensive diseases like hepatitis, HIV and cancer are driving up costs. Medical costs for the 10 most expensive inmates surpassed $3.1 million in 2019, according to a TDCJ document.
Cost-saving measures include telemedicine and access to discounted pharmaceutical drugs through a federal program. But experts say systemic change — like paroling more aging inmates and keeping people with mental illness or substance abuse out of prison — is needed to curtail expenses.
Texans shouldn't expect costs to come down if the state continues to incarcerate "the same kind of demographics you're sending to prison now," said Owen Murray, vice president for the University of Texas Medical Branch’s Correctional Managed Care.
From Brookings: Tracking deregulation in the Trump era
Yet more for New Federalism.
- Click here for the article.
The Trump administration has major deregulatory ambitions. But how much deregulation is actually happening? This tracker helps you monitor a selection of delayed, repealed, and new rules, notable guidance and policy revocations, and important court battles across eight major categories, including environmental, health, labor, and more. For a more thorough explanation of the tracker, including guidance on how to use its interactive features and an explanation of how entries are selected, click here. Sign up here to subscribe to the newsletter, which will include select updates from the Deregulatory Tracker as well as new research from the Center on Regulation and Markets.
- Click here for the article.
The Trump administration has major deregulatory ambitions. But how much deregulation is actually happening? This tracker helps you monitor a selection of delayed, repealed, and new rules, notable guidance and policy revocations, and important court battles across eight major categories, including environmental, health, labor, and more. For a more thorough explanation of the tracker, including guidance on how to use its interactive features and an explanation of how entries are selected, click here. Sign up here to subscribe to the newsletter, which will include select updates from the Deregulatory Tracker as well as new research from the Center on Regulation and Markets.
From the Regulatory Review: A Brief History of Regulation and Deregulation
A look at trends in regulatory activity in American history.
- Click here for the article.
Milestone 1: The Administrative Procedure Act.
Milestone 2: Economic Deregulation.
Milestone 3: Benefit-Cost Analysis.
Milestone 4: White House Review.
Will Regulatory Budgeting be Milestone 5?
- Click here for the article.
Milestone 1: The Administrative Procedure Act.
Milestone 2: Economic Deregulation.
Milestone 3: Benefit-Cost Analysis.
Milestone 4: White House Review.
Will Regulatory Budgeting be Milestone 5?
From Wikipedia: Airline Deregulation Act
For our look at New Federalism, and deregulation.
- Click here for the entry.
The Airline Deregulation Act is a 1978 United States federal law that deregulated the airline industry in the United States, removing the federal government control over such areas as fares, routes, and market entry of new airlines. It introduced a free market in the commercial airline industry and led to a great increase in the number of flights, a decrease in fares, an increase in the number of passengers and miles flown, and a consolidation of carriers. The Civil Aeronautics Board's powers of regulation were phased out, but the regulatory powers of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) were not diminished over all aspects of aviation safety.
Legislative History:
Introduced in the Senate as "Air Transportation Regulatory Reform Act" (S. 2493) by Howard Cannon (D-NV) on February 6, 1978
Committee consideration by Senate Commerce, House Public Works
Passed the Senate on April 19, 1978 (83–9)
Passed the House on September 21, 1978 (363-8 as H.R. 12611)
Reported by the joint conference committee on October 12, 1978; agreed to by the House on October 14, 1978 (356–6) and by the Senate on October 14, 1978 (82–4)
Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 24, 1978
- Click here for the entry.
The Airline Deregulation Act is a 1978 United States federal law that deregulated the airline industry in the United States, removing the federal government control over such areas as fares, routes, and market entry of new airlines. It introduced a free market in the commercial airline industry and led to a great increase in the number of flights, a decrease in fares, an increase in the number of passengers and miles flown, and a consolidation of carriers. The Civil Aeronautics Board's powers of regulation were phased out, but the regulatory powers of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) were not diminished over all aspects of aviation safety.
Legislative History:
Introduced in the Senate as "Air Transportation Regulatory Reform Act" (S. 2493) by Howard Cannon (D-NV) on February 6, 1978
Committee consideration by Senate Commerce, House Public Works
Passed the Senate on April 19, 1978 (83–9)
Passed the House on September 21, 1978 (363-8 as H.R. 12611)
Reported by the joint conference committee on October 12, 1978; agreed to by the House on October 14, 1978 (356–6) and by the Senate on October 14, 1978 (82–4)
Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 24, 1978
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Links today 11-26-19
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
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
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.
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)