- The Judiciary Acts.
- Wikipedia: History of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Sunday, July 31, 2022
The Evolution of the US Courts
From the DOJ: About the DOJ
- Click here for it.
The Office of the Attorney General was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 (ch. 20, sec. 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92-93), as a one-person part-time position. The Act specified that the Attorney General was to be "learned in the law," with the duty "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touching any matters that may concern their departments."
However, the workload quickly became too much for one person, necessitating the hiring of several assistants for the Attorney General. As the work steadily increased along with the size of the new nation, private attorneys were retained to work on cases.
By 1870, after the end of the Civil War, the increase in the amount of litigation involving the United States had required the very expensive retention of a large number of private attorneys to handle the workload. A concerned Congress passed the Act to Establish the Department of Justice (ch. 150, 16 Stat. 162), creating "an executive department of the government of the United States" with the Attorney General as its head.
Officially coming into existence on July 1, 1870, the Department of Justice was empowered to handle all criminal prosecutions and civil suits in which the United States had an interest. To assist the Attorney General, the 1870 Act also created the Office of the Solicitor General, who represents the interests of the United States before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The 1870 Act remains the foundation for the Department’s authority, but the structure of the Department of Justice has changed over the years, with the addition of the offices of Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, and the formation of various components, offices, boards and divisions. From its beginning as a one-man, part-time position, the Department of Justice has evolved into the world's largest law office and the chief enforcer of federal laws.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The most sacred of the duties of government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.” This sacred duty remains the guiding principle for the women and men of the U.S. Department of Justice.
National Association of Attorneys General: What Attorneys General Do
- Click here for the NAAG.
- Click here for the article.
As chief legal officers of the states, commonwealths, District of Columbia, and territories of the United States, the role of an attorney general is to serve as counselor to state government agencies and legislatures, and as a representative of the public interest.
- While varying from one jurisdiction to the next due to statutory and constitutional mandates, the role of attorney general typically includes: Issuing formal opinions to state agencies
- Acting as public advocates in areas such as child support enforcement, consumer protections, antitrust and utility regulation
- Proposing legislation
- Enforcing federal and state environmental laws
- Representing the state and state agencies before the state and federal courts
- Handling criminal appeals and serious statewide criminal prosecutions
- Instituting civil suits on behalf of the state
- Representing the public’s interests in charitable trust and solicitations
- Operating victim compensation programs
Power, Authority, Hierarchy
- Power: In social science and politics, power is the social production of an effect that determines the capacities, actions, beliefs, or conduct of actors.[1] Power does not exclusively refer to the threat or use of force (coercion) by one actor against another, but may also be exerted through diffuse means (such as institutions).[1][2] Power may also take structural forms, as it orders actors in relation to one another (such as distinguishing between a master and a slave), and discursive forms, as categories and language may lend legitimacy to some behaviors and groups over others.
- Authority: In sociology, authority is the legitimate or socially approved power which one person or a group possesses and practices over another. The element of legitimacy is vital to the notion of authority and is the main means by which authority is distinguished from the more general concept of power. Power can be exerted by the use of force or violence. Authority, by contrast, depends on the acceptance by subordinates of the right of those above them to give them orders or directives.
- Hierarchy: A hierarchical organization is an organizational structure where every entity in the organization, except one, is subordinate to a single other entity. This arrangement is a form of a hierarchy. In an organization, the hierarchy usually consists of a singular/group of power at the top with subsequent levels of power beneath them. This is the dominant mode of organization among large organizations; most corporations, governments, criminal enterprises, and organized religions are hierarchical organizations with different levels of management, power or authority. For example, the broad, top-level overview of the general organization of the Catholic Church consists of the Pope, then the Cardinals, then the Archbishops, and so on. Members of hierarchical organizational structures chiefly communicate with their immediate superior and with their immediate subordinates. Structuring organizations in this way is useful partly because it can reduce the communication overhead by limiting information flow.
- British Nobility: Before the 20th century, peerages were generally hereditary and (with a few exceptions) descended in the male line. The eldest son of a duke, marquess or earl almost always uses one of his father's subsidiary titles as a courtesy title; for instance, the eldest son of the Earl of Snowdon is called Viscount Linley. The modern peerage system is a vestige of the custom of English kings in the 12th and 13th centuries in summoning wealthy men (along with church officials and elected representatives for commoners) to form a Parliament. The economic system at the time was manorialism (or feudalism), and the privilege of being summoned to Parliament was related to the amount of land one controlled (a "barony"). In the late 14th century, this right (or "title") began to be granted by decree, and titles also became inherited with the rest of an estate under the system of primogeniture. Non-hereditary positions began to be created again in 1867 for Law Lords, and in 1958 generally. In 1958, the Life Peerages Act 1958 enabled (non-hereditary) life peers to sit in the House of Lords, and from then on the creation of hereditary peerages rapidly became obsolete, almost ceasing after 1964.
- Authority: In sociology, authority is the legitimate or socially approved power which one person or a group possesses and practices over another. The element of legitimacy is vital to the notion of authority and is the main means by which authority is distinguished from the more general concept of power. Power can be exerted by the use of force or violence. Authority, by contrast, depends on the acceptance by subordinates of the right of those above them to give them orders or directives.
- Hierarchy: A hierarchical organization is an organizational structure where every entity in the organization, except one, is subordinate to a single other entity. This arrangement is a form of a hierarchy. In an organization, the hierarchy usually consists of a singular/group of power at the top with subsequent levels of power beneath them. This is the dominant mode of organization among large organizations; most corporations, governments, criminal enterprises, and organized religions are hierarchical organizations with different levels of management, power or authority. For example, the broad, top-level overview of the general organization of the Catholic Church consists of the Pope, then the Cardinals, then the Archbishops, and so on. Members of hierarchical organizational structures chiefly communicate with their immediate superior and with their immediate subordinates. Structuring organizations in this way is useful partly because it can reduce the communication overhead by limiting information flow.
- British Nobility: Before the 20th century, peerages were generally hereditary and (with a few exceptions) descended in the male line. The eldest son of a duke, marquess or earl almost always uses one of his father's subsidiary titles as a courtesy title; for instance, the eldest son of the Earl of Snowdon is called Viscount Linley. The modern peerage system is a vestige of the custom of English kings in the 12th and 13th centuries in summoning wealthy men (along with church officials and elected representatives for commoners) to form a Parliament. The economic system at the time was manorialism (or feudalism), and the privilege of being summoned to Parliament was related to the amount of land one controlled (a "barony"). In the late 14th century, this right (or "title") began to be granted by decree, and titles also became inherited with the rest of an estate under the system of primogeniture. Non-hereditary positions began to be created again in 1867 for Law Lords, and in 1958 generally. In 1958, the Life Peerages Act 1958 enabled (non-hereditary) life peers to sit in the House of Lords, and from then on the creation of hereditary peerages rapidly became obsolete, almost ceasing after 1964.
Ideology
- Merriam-Webster: Ideology.
- Wikipedia: Ideology.
- Stanford: Law and Ideology.
- Wikipedia: Conservatism.
- Wikipedia: Liberalism.
- Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals.
- Conservatives and Liberals Motivated by Different Psychological Factors, New Study Shows.
- Voter Turnout.
Wednesday, July 27, 2022
Links - HCC - 7/27/22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6PcVCqg3tg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Rosenworcel
https://financialservices.house.gov/about/committee-oversight-plan.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle_%28US_politics%29#/media/File:Irontriangle.svg
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/whole-womans-health-v-jackson/
https://www.netflix.com/title/80063867
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_United_States_elections
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2020/house/ideology
https://grist.org/politics/asymmetrical-polarization-the-lefts-gone-left-but-the-rights-gone-nuts/
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/pdf/EL.146.pdf
https://earlyvoting.texas-election.com/Elections/getElectionEVDates.do
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism
https://news.gallup.com/poll/394955/republicans-environmental-worry-varies-age.aspx
From the Houston Chronicle: Texas has $85B plan for expanding highways, but Houston I-45 project foes say no thanks
- Click here for it.
Terms:
- Interstate 45
- Texas Department of Transportation
- public hearing
- Unified Transportation Program.
- transportation spending
- Texas Transportation Commission
- Houston’s TxDOT district
- Beltway 8
- Air Alliance Houston
- LINKHouston
- Stop TxDOT I-45
- transit
- Clayton Homes public housing development
- Federal Highway Administration
- community input efforts
- low-income, Hispanic and Black communities.
- lawsuit
- Harris County
- Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner
- flood-prone areas
- streets
- frontage roads, more palatable to the
- neighborhoods surrounding the freeway.
- Houston’s central business district
- air quality
- road expansion
- urban planning
- virtual public hearing
- American Council of Engineering Companies of Texas’ Houston chapter.
- safety standards
Terms:
- Interstate 45
- Texas Department of Transportation
- public hearing
- Unified Transportation Program.
- transportation spending
- Texas Transportation Commission
- Houston’s TxDOT district
- Beltway 8
- Air Alliance Houston
- LINKHouston
- Stop TxDOT I-45
- transit
- Clayton Homes public housing development
- Federal Highway Administration
- community input efforts
- low-income, Hispanic and Black communities.
- lawsuit
- Harris County
- Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner
- flood-prone areas
- streets
- frontage roads, more palatable to the
- neighborhoods surrounding the freeway.
- Houston’s central business district
- air quality
- road expansion
- urban planning
- virtual public hearing
- American Council of Engineering Companies of Texas’ Houston chapter.
- safety standards
Four periods of expansion of national power
- Reconstruction Amendments.
The Reconstruction Amendments, or the Civil War Amendments, are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, adopted between 1865 and 1870.[1] The amendments were a part of the implementation of the Reconstruction of the American South which occurred after the war.
These amendments were intended to guarantee the freedom of the former slaves and grant certain civil rights to them and protect the former slaves and all citizens of the United States from discrimination. However, the promise of these amendments was eroded by state laws and federal court decisions throughout the late 19th century.
- The Progressive Era.
The Progressive Era (1896–1916) was a period of widespread social activism and political reform across the United States of America that spanned the 1890s to World War I. The main objectives of the Progressive movement were addressing problems caused by industrialization, urbanization, immigration, and political corruption. Social reformers were primarily middle-class citizens who targeted political machines and their bosses. By taking down these corrupt representatives in office, a further means of direct democracy would be established. They also sought regulation of monopolies through methods such as trustbusting and corporations through antitrust laws, which were seen as a way to promote equal competition for the advantage of legitimate competitors. They also advocated for new government roles and regulations, and new agencies to carry out those roles, such as the FDA.
- The New Deal.
The New Deal was a series of programs, public work projects, financial reforms, and regulations enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States between 1933 and 1939. Major federal programs and agencies included the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Farm Security Administration (FSA), the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA) and the Social Security Administration (SSA). They provided support for farmers, the unemployed, youth, and the elderly. The New Deal included new constraints and safeguards on the banking industry and efforts to re-inflate the economy after prices had fallen sharply. New Deal programs included both laws passed by Congress as well as presidential executive orders during the first term of the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
- The Great Society.
The Great Society was a set of domestic programs in the United States launched by Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964–65. The term was first coined during a 1964 commencement address by President Lyndon B. Johnson at Ohio University and came to represent his domestic agenda. The main goal was the total elimination of poverty and racial injustice. New major spending programs that addressed education, medical care, urban problems, rural poverty, and transportation were launched during this period. The program and its initiatives were subsequently promoted by him and fellow Democrats in Congress in the 1960s and years following. The Great Society in scope and sweep resembled the New Deal domestic agenda of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
A few items related to Texas Fiscal Policy
- Multi-billion-dollar Taiwan-based company to build first-of-its-kind factory in North America in Texas.
- Texas Enterprise Fund.
- Veteran Created Job Bonus.
- Chapter 313 of the Texas Tax Code.
- LBB: Texas Infrastructure Fund.
- Border Report: Texas border wall, Operation Lone Star a ‘bottomless pit’ for funds, state senator says.
- The Texan: Texas Officials Approve $100.5 Million Budget Transfer for School Safety Measures.
-
Public Policy
Categories of Public Policies.
Private Goods, Market Failure, and Public Goods.
Private Goods, Market Failure, and Public Goods.
Market Failure.
Tragedy of the Commons │ The Problem with Open Access.
Terms
Public Policy
Public Goods
Externalities
Monopolies
Information
Federalism
National
- Commerce
- - Fiscal Policy
- - Monetary Policy
- Defense
Deficiencies of the Article of Confederation
Statutory Code
- delegated powers
- implied powers
States
- police powers
Texas
- Articles in the Constitution
Statutory Code
Fiscal Size Up
- areas
Local Government
Municipal Code of Ordinances
Links - 7/27/22
https://rollcall.com/2022/07/26/mccarthy-offers-gop-agenda-preview-ahead-of-trumps-return-to-washington/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Agnew#Criminal_investigation_and_resignation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon
https://zoom.us/pricing/zoom-rooms
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/verify-false-viral-claim-about-the-problem-with-congress/507-ae1c3ce4-b8ee-4406-8ede-0f6af1111f1c
https://algreen.house.gov/serving-you/community-project-funding-requests-fiscal-year-2022
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-07-27/pdf/2022-16039.pdf
https://www.dell.com/en-us/dt/industry/education/index.htm#cobrand=intel
Tuesday, July 26, 2022
Amazon and Congress
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/tech/amazon-antitrust-congress/index.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/09/amazon-referred-to-doj-for-potential-criminal-obstruction-of-congress.html
Damages in a defamation case
- Damages in a Defamation Case.
- CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE: TITLE 4. LIABILITY IN TORT.
- Defamation Damages.
- Calculating Damages in a Defamation Case.
Free Speech and Defamation
Commentary on the relationship between the two
- Constitutional Law Reporter.
- Defamation of Character or Free Speech?
- Defamation law and free speech.
- Defamation and False Statements Under the First Amendment.
- Libel, Slander, and Defamation Law: The Basics.
459th District Court - July 25 - August 5, 2022 In Person Jury Trial
https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_District_Courts
https://www.ccl.hctx.net/
https://www.traviscountytx.gov/courts/civil/district
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones
https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/0897673D:US
https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/free-speech-systems-llc-dba-infowarscom-605802-04092020
https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/warning-letters/warning-letter-free-speech-systems-llc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarlett_Lewis
https://chooselovemovement.org/board-of-directors/scarlett-lewis/
Monday, July 25, 2022
Links - HCC 7/25/22
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Porteous#Impeachment_proceedings
https://www.aclu.org/other/what-you-should-know-about-habeas-corpus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._78
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classes_of_United_States_senators
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
The Texas Fair Housing Act
PROPERTY CODE
TITLE 15. FAIR HOUSING PRACTICES
CHAPTER 301. TEXAS FAIR HOUSING ACT
- Click here for it.
Texas Workforce Commission: Housing Discrimination.
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs: Fair Housing 101.
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs: Fair Housing For Renters.
TITLE 15. FAIR HOUSING PRACTICES
CHAPTER 301. TEXAS FAIR HOUSING ACT
- Click here for it.
Texas Workforce Commission: Housing Discrimination.
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs: Fair Housing 101.
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs: Fair Housing For Renters.
From Wikipedia: Civil Rights Act of 1968
- Click here for the entry.
1 - Hate Crimes
2 - Indian Civil Rights Act
3 - Fair Housing Act
4 - Civil Disobedience
HOA and Racial Discrimination
- When homeowners associations were first created, they helped keep Black people out of the neighborhood. They're still doing it today.
For too many Americans, the dream of owning a home has been stymied by a homeowners association. Owning real estate is one of the best ways to build wealth and pass that wealth on to the next generation, but for decades, Black Americans have been excluded from buying in certain neighborhoods.
Jonathan Rothwell, author of "A Republic of Equals," told Business Insider, "There is plenty of evidence from historic records and housing policy discussions that anti-Black racism motivated some of the strategies used by homeowner associations, such as deed restrictions and covenants that explicitly discriminated against Black people by compelling other owners to avoid selling to them. HOAs perpetuate racial and economic segregation by blocking fair participation in housing markets, thus denying wealth-generating opportunities and upward mobility for many Black people and lower-income families."
- DISCRIMINATION: AN OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT AND A STUDY OF DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS FILED AGAINST ASSOCIATIONS.
At one point or another many associations have had discrimination charges filed, or threatened to be filed, against them for violations of either the Fair Housing Act or their state-specific anti-discriminatory laws. In some cases, the discrimination is obvious. For example, an association that refuses people of a particular religious faith to use the community amenities is clearly discriminating based on religion. Or, an association that enforces a restriction that prohibits residents of a particular race from living in the association would be discriminating based on race.
But more often than not discrimination by a homeowners association occurs in a more subtle form – not by direct discrimination but by enforcing a rule, restriction, or practice that has the effect of discriminating against one of the protected categories. Boards are often surprised when faced with a discrimination complaint, as they can clearly show that they’ve acted according to the strict letter of the governing documents. But associations are sued, and liability is sometimes found, just for that very reason: as a direct result of the association strictly enforcing the terms of its governing documents.
The consequences of discrimination, whether the board is aware it is discriminating or not, can be severe. Therefore, it is very important for an association to be able to identify and understand the ways an association can discriminate, so it can take proactive steps to prevent such claims from happening.
- HOA Liability for Discriminatory Harassment: A Primer.
Title VIII of the Civil Rights of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), is a federal law which prohibits discrimination in housing and housing-related services due to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and familial status. Because the FHA applies to entities that set terms and conditions for housing and provide services and facilities in connection with housing, it applies to HOAs and other community associations. By now, most HOAs across the country are already aware (or should be aware) that, in 2016, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) amended its federal housing regulations to firmly establish association liability for discriminatory conduct by its Board, directors, employees, and even by residents. Particularly concerning to HOAs are the new regulations regarding discriminatory harassment and third-party liability, which may also be the most difficult sections to understand for Board members and management.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/07/south-carolina-lawmakers-want-to-banish-abortion-talk-from-the-internet/
https://revcycleintelligence.com/news/200k-to-450k-nursing-shortage-expected-by-2025-without-action
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/how-to-ease-the-nursing-shortage-in-america/
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/pretrial_conference/
https://www.aacnnursing.org/news-information/fact-sheets/nursing-shortage
From KXAN: Jury selection to begin in Alex Jones’ trial
A civil trial this time.
- Click here for the article.
The jury for InfoWars host Alex Jones’ defamation case will be selected Monday.
On Dec. 14, 2012, a gunman killed 20 first-grade students and six staff members at the Connecticut school.
On his media platforms, Jones later said he believed the shooting did happen, but he claimed he had the right to say it did not.
The panel, made up of more than 100 jurors, will be narrowed down through the selection process starting at 9 a.m.
The jury selected Monday will determine how much Jones should pay to the families of the victims of the shooting.
. . . Jones filed for bankruptcy protection for his company in April after losing the defamations lawsuits, and his trial was postponed for three months.
“We have less than $3 million cash and we need that money” to operate, Jones told the Associated Press.
The Associated Press reported the attorneys for Sandy Hook families accused Jones of hiding millions of dollars in assets.
Opening statements for Jones’ trial start at 9 a.m. Tuesday in the 459th District Court. According to an attorney for the plaintiffs, the trial is expected to run through Aug. 5.
A pretrial hearing for Jones was held July 15 at a district court in Austin.
Jones also faces defamation lawsuits in Connecticut related to his comments surrounding the Sandy Hook shooting.
ACC - 2306
7/25 - 7/26
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/pdf/CN.2.pdf
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/pdf/CN.3.pdf
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/pdf/CN.4.pdf
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/pdf/CN.5.pdf
https://library.municode.com/tx/pearland/codes/code_of_ordinances
https://www.lonestarlegal.org/
https://www.texmed.org/template.aspx?id=242
https://www.texasheart.org/education/thi-cardiac-society/
https://www.acc.org/
https://shadowcreekranchhoa.com/
https://www.loc.gov/item/2017656627/
Sunday, July 24, 2022
From Governing: More States Are Forgoing Extra Federal Food Aid
- Click here for the article.
More than 18 million Americans sometimes didn’t have enough to eat last month, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. More than 5 million people often went hungry.
Those numbers would have been higher if millions of families hadn’t received extra food aid through a pandemic-related expansion of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps.
But at least 16 states now have opted out of providing the emergency allotments, with Republican leaders in some of those states arguing that the extra food aid and other pandemic-related help are contributing to worker shortages across the country.
In 2018, the most recent year for which numbers are available, three-quarters of households receiving SNAP benefits had at least one person working, according to the Census Bureau. And some researchers have long argued that while Medicaid and other welfare programs might include disincentives to work, SNAP does not.
But one of those researchers, Baylor University economics professor Craig Gundersen, said in an interview with Stateline that he had a different view of the extra SNAP benefits with unemployment so low.
“I was in favor of increasing everyone to the maximum benefit during the first part of COVID,” said Gunderson, who studies hunger and poverty. “However, now in an era where jobs are plentiful, to be bumping everyone to the maximum may actually discourage people from working.”
Terms:
- U.S. Census Bureau
- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
- Republican leaders
- worker shortages
- Medicaid
- welfare programs
- disincentives to work
- COVID-19 pandemic
- Congress
- food assistance
- Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
- measure of food insecurity
- Great Recession
- federal government
- SNAP benefits
- the federal government and states split the cost of administering the program
- federal public health emergency
- The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- public health emergency order
- disaster declaration
- U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency
- statewide programs
- food banks
- Feeding Georgia
- Food Bank of Northeast Georgia
- U.S. Department of Agriculture
- mRelief
- work requirements
- employment training
- Foundation for Government Accountability
- conservative think tank
- national labor shortage
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
- Section 8 housing vouchers
- Craft of Feeding Georgia
From The Texas Tribune: Black and Latino residents’ complaints about illegal trash dumping in Houston lead to federal investigation
- Click here for the story.
The U.S. Justice Department is investigating whether the city of Houston has illegally violated Black and Latino residents’ civil rights regarding how the city handles unlawful dumping of trash, federal investigators announced Friday.
“Illegal dumpsites not only attract rodents, mosquitos and other vermin that pose health risks, but they can also contaminate surface water and impact proper drainage, making areas more susceptible to flooding,” U.S. Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said in a statement. “No one in the United States should be exposed to risk of illness and other serious harm because of ineffective solid waste management or inadequate enforcement programs.
“We will conduct a fair and thorough investigation of these environmental justice concerns and their impact on Black and Latino communities in the City of Houston.”
The investigation was spurred by a complaint filed late last year by Lone Star Legal Aid on behalf of a neighborhood in northeast Houston that complained about people dumping tires, sofas, mattresses, TVs and other items on the streets, said Amy Dinn, managing attorney for the environmental justice team at Lone Star Legal Aid. Some illegal dumping has clogged drainage ditches, which has increased flooding problems during heavy rains.
Terms:
- The U.S. Justice Department
- the city of Houston
- illegally violated Black and Latino residents’ civil rights
- how the city handles unlawful dumping of trash
- federal investigators
- city’s enforcement
- solid-waste management operations, policies and practices
- residents’ requests for municipal services
- how the city picks up illegally discarded trash
- discriminated against Black and Latino Houston residents in violation of federal civil rights law.
- rodents, mosquitos and other vermin that pose health risks
- contaminate surface water
- impact proper drainage
- flooding,”
- U.S. Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke
- Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division
- environmental justice
- Black and Latino communities in the City of Houston.”
- Investigation
- complaint filed
- Lone Star Legal Aid
- neighborhood in northeast Houston
- tires, sofas, mattresses, TVs and other items
- Houston’s 311 customer service hotline
- city services
- non-emergency concerns
- environmental hazards
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator
- environmental cleanups
- emissions enforcement
- infrastructure investments.
- Biden administration
- Harris County
- state of Texas
From the Texas Tribune: A neighborhood’s new anti-Section 8 rules will push many Black residents out of a North Texas suburb
For our look at civil rights policy, federalism, and local government.
- Click here for the article.
. . . In the months after Threats moved in, homeowners began to turn against the neighborhood’s Section 8 renters — who are predominantly Black. In private Facebook groups, they increasingly blamed tenants for a perceived uptick in criminal activity in Providence Village.
The wave of anti-Section 8 sentiment peaked in June, when the Providence Homeowners Association’s board passed a rule effectively banning Section 8 renters from living in the neighborhood — a move that will displace more than 150 families from the majority-white enclave.
Black families make up 93% of the 157 households with Section 8 vouchers living in Providence Village, according to the Dallas and Denton housing authorities. Women head all but five of those households.
Section 8 tenants have to leave Providence when their current leases end, according to the new rule. The homeowners association and the town are legally separate entities but share much of the same territory. That means within a year, an entire Texas town will mostly be off limits to voucher holders.
Low-income housing advocates have blasted the ban as racial discrimination. Soon after the rule was on the books, a trio of advocacy groups — Texas Housers, Texas Homeless Network and United Way of Denton County — called on the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate whether the rule violated the federal Fair Housing Act.
“This basically says that ‘there’ll be no Section 8 in our city,’” said Ann Lott, executive director of the Dallas-based Inclusive Communities Project. “So for years, we’ve had to deal with the homeowners saying ‘not in my neighborhood.’ But now we have a move afoot that says ‘not even in our city.’ That’s concerning.”
There’s nothing in state or federal law that forbids homeowners associations from enacting such bans, legal experts say, although it’s unusual for HOAs to enact them. The Texas Tribune identified two other Dallas-Fort Worth-area homeowners associations that ban voucher holders.
“I’ve literally read through thousands” of homeowners associations’ rules, said Gregory Cagle, a lawyer who deals with HOA law. “It’s not common.”
Terms:
- Section 8
- subsidizes a portion of a low-income household’s rent.
- Providence Village
- vouchers
- Providence Homeowners Association
- Low-income housing advocates
- racial discrimination
- rule
- advocacy groups
- Texas Housers
- Texas Homeless Network
- United Way of Denton County
- U.S. Department of Justice
- Fair Housing Act.
- Inclusive Communities Project
- 2015 state law essentially allows landlords to ban Section 8 recipients.
- 2017 report by Inclusive Communities Project
- Huffines Communities
- real estate firm
- Don Huffines
- Republican state senator
- developing the neighborhood in 2000.
- residents voted to incorporate Providence Village as its own municipality.
- Facebook groups
- TikTok account
- Section 8 voucher holders
- tenants and housing advocates
- local media attention
- multiple stories by the Denton Record-Chronicle
- Savannah HOA, also in Denton County
- Heartland Community Association in Kaufman County
Washington's Farewell Address
- Click here for it.
Here he focuses on political parties:
. . . I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.
Saturday, July 23, 2022
Equal Treatment / Civil Rights
Civil Rights and Equal Treatment
To begin: a word on hierarchy:
- Hierarchy: hierarchy, in the social sciences, a ranking of positions of authority, often associated with a chain of command and control. The term is derived from the Greek words hieros (“sacred”) and archein (“rule” or “order”). In modern societies, hierarchical organizations pervade all aspects of life. Yet they were increasingly criticized in the early 21st century because the features that made them an effective means of organization were deemed problematic.
Related concepts:
- status
- hierarchy
- order
- power
- privilege
Definitions:
- Civil Rights: guarantees of equal social opportunities and equal protection under the law, regardless of race, religion, or other personal characteristics. Examples of civil rights include the right to vote, the right to a fair trial, the right to government services, the right to a public education, and the right to use public facilities. Civil rights are an essential component of democracy; when individuals are being denied opportunities to participate in political society, they are being denied their civil rights.
- Equal Protection: in United States law, the constitutional guarantee that no person or group will be denied the protection under the law that is enjoyed by similar persons or groups. In other words, persons similarly situated must be similarly treated. Equal protection is extended when the rules of law are applied equally in all like cases and when persons are exempt from obligations greater than those imposed upon others in like circumstances. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, one of three amendments adopted in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War (1861–65), prohibits states from denying to any person “the equal protection of the laws.”
__________
To what degree is equal protection a commonly held value?
Example - The case for hierarchy.
Ideology
- equality
- liberty
- tradition
Political Culture
- Moralism
- Individualism
- Traditionalism
__________
Federal - State conflict regarding equal protection
Federalism:
- national level
- state level
- - local level
__________
Discrimination
- Inevitability
- Justifications
- - a compelling public purpose
- - an important
- - a legitimate governmental objective
Common divisions
- indigenous
- wealth
- education
- gender
- race
- ethnicity
- sexual orientation
- sexual identity
- legal realism
- Civil Rights
- - Jamestown Contract
- - - (click here)
- - - (Lawes ....)
- - Virginia Company
- - - indigenous populations
- - - labor
- - - - indenture
- - - - enslavement
- - - limits on civil liberties
- Women
-
- mentions of native tribes in the constitution
equal protection of the law
equal treatment of the law
equal access to public institutions
equal participation
hierarchy
class
aristocracy
traditionalism
privilege
the noble lie
divine right
The Virginia Company
- contract with James 1
the labor market
- penal labor
- indenture
- enslavement
- domestic labor
- child labor
poverty
development of slave codes
- Barbados
- Virginia
Aspects of slave codes
we the people
Slavery in the U.S. Constitution
Slavery in the Texas Constitutions
- 1836
- 1845
- 1861
The politics of slavery
- the abolition movement
- Missouri Compromise
- Compromise of 1850
- freedom suits
- Dred Scott v Sanford
- Emancipation Proclamation
Civil Wars Amendments
- 13th Amendment
- 14th Amendment
- 15th Amendment
Equal Protection of the laws
- x citizen
- corporate citizens
reconstruction
military rule
Civil Rights Act of 1875
- Civil Rights Cases (1883)
- - public discrimination
- - private discrimination
violence and intimidation
- KKK
Black Codes
- share cropping
- prison labor
- vagrancy, etc…
Jim Crow
- local
- - sundown towns
- - restrictive covenants
- -
Plessy v Ferguson
- separate but equal
- NAACP
- test cases
- Sweatt v Painter
- - TSU / UH
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas
- part 1 – de jure segregation
- part 2 – de facto segregation
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Great Society
- VRA
- EEOC
- 1968
- ADA
- Obergefell
courts
- suspect classification
- strict scrutiny
- intermediate review
- rational basis
Affirmative Action
FDR / Truman / LBJ
U.S. Federal Executive Agencies
- Click here for the Wikipedia.
Focus on when each was established
- State July 27, 1789
- Treasury September 2, 1789
- Defense September 18, 1947
- Justice July 1, 1870
- Interior March 3, 1849
- Agriculture May 15, 1862
- Commerce February 14, 1903
- Labor March 4, 1913
- Health and Human Services April 11,
- Housing and Urban Development September 9, 1965
- Transportation April 1, 1967
- Energy August 4, 1977
- Education October 17, 1979
- Veterans Affairs March 15, 1989
- Homeland Security November 25, 2002
Focus on when each was established
- State July 27, 1789
- Treasury September 2, 1789
- Defense September 18, 1947
- Justice July 1, 1870
- Interior March 3, 1849
- Agriculture May 15, 1862
- Commerce February 14, 1903
- Labor March 4, 1913
- Health and Human Services April 11,
- Housing and Urban Development September 9, 1965
- Transportation April 1, 1967
- Energy August 4, 1977
- Education October 17, 1979
- Veterans Affairs March 15, 1989
- Homeland Security November 25, 2002
From CNBC: Former Trump aide Steve Bannon guilty in Jan. 6 contempt of Congress case
A perfect example of a trial
- Click here for the article.
Terms
- Steve Bannon.
- White House Aide.
- trial.
- federal court.
- jurors.
- conviction.
- subpoenas.
- testimony.
- records.
- House select committee.
- punishment.
- United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.
- E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse.
- jurors.
- appeal.
- presidential election
- popular election
- Electoral Vote
- joint session
- rule of law.
- Mississippi Democrat.
- R-Wyo.
- cief strategist.
- counselor.
- riot.
- obstruction
- pardons.
- criminal charges.
- contempt trial.
- Congressional authority.
- defense.
- jury selection.
- pre-trial rulings
- evidence.
From NPR: The National Archives is looking into reports that the Secret Service deleted texts
A look at the current controversy regarding the Secret Service.
- Click here for the article.
Terms:
- Secret Service.
- Department of Homeland Security.
- National Archives and Records Administration.
- Official Records.
- Chief Records Officer.
- Inspector General.
- 36 CFR 1230.16(b).
- Congress.
- January 6 Committee.
- subpeona.
What is the Secret Service?
- Click here for the Wikipedia entry.
The United States Secret Service (USSS or Secret Service) is a federal law enforcement agency under the Department of Homeland Security charged with conducting criminal investigations and protecting U.S. political leaders, their families, and visiting heads of state or government.[3] Until 2003, the Secret Service was part of the Department of the Treasury, as the agency was founded in 1865 to combat the then-widespread counterfeiting of U.S. currency.
The Secret Service is mandated by Congress with two distinct and critical national security missions: protecting the nation's leaders and safeguarding the financial and critical infrastructure of the United States.
History
With a reported one third of the currency in circulation being counterfeit at the time,[14] Abraham Lincoln established a commission to make recommendations to remedy the problem. The Secret Service was later established on July 5, 1865 in Washington, D.C., to suppress counterfeit currency. Chief William P. Wood was sworn in by Secretary of the Treasury Hugh McCulloch. It was commissioned in Washington, D.C. as the "Secret Service Division" of the Department of the Treasury with the mission of suppressing counterfeiting. At the time, the only other federal law enforcement agencies were the United States Customs Service, the United States Park Police, the U.S. Post Office Department's Office of Instructions and Mail Depredations (now known as the United States Postal Inspection Service), and the United States Marshals Service. The Marshals did not have the manpower to investigate all crime under federal jurisdiction, so the Secret Service began investigating a wide range of crimes from murder to bank robbery to illegal gambling.
After the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901, Congress informally requested that the Secret Service provide presidential protection. A year later, the Secret Service assumed full-time responsibility for presidential protection. In 1902, William Craig became the first Secret Service agent to die while on duty, in a road accident while riding in the presidential carriage.[15]
The Secret Service was the first U.S. domestic intelligence and counterintelligence agency. Domestic intelligence collection and counterintelligence responsibilities were later vested in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) upon the FBI's creation in 1908.
Friday, July 22, 2022
Federalist 51
James Madison's explanation of the logic underlying the system of checks and balances
- Click here for the version in the Avalon Project.
The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks
and Balances Between the Different Departments
From the New York Packet. Friday, February 8, 1788.
HAMILTON OR MADISON
To the People of the State of New York:
TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. Without presuming to undertake a full development of this important idea, I will hazard a few general observations, which may perhaps place it in a clearer light, and enable us to form a more correct judgment of the principles and structure of the government planned by the convention.
In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them.
It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State. But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.
An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own department? If the principles on which these observations are founded be just, as I persuade myself they are, and they be applied as a criterion to the several State constitutions, and to the federal Constitution it will be found that if the latter does not perfectly correspond with them, the former are infinitely less able to bear such a test.
There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.
In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.
It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the REPUBLICAN CAUSE, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the FEDERAL PRINCIPLE.
PUBLIUS.
- Click here for the version in the Avalon Project.
The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks
and Balances Between the Different Departments
From the New York Packet. Friday, February 8, 1788.
HAMILTON OR MADISON
To the People of the State of New York:
TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. Without presuming to undertake a full development of this important idea, I will hazard a few general observations, which may perhaps place it in a clearer light, and enable us to form a more correct judgment of the principles and structure of the government planned by the convention.
In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them.
It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State. But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.
An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own department? If the principles on which these observations are founded be just, as I persuade myself they are, and they be applied as a criterion to the several State constitutions, and to the federal Constitution it will be found that if the latter does not perfectly correspond with them, the former are infinitely less able to bear such a test.
There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.
In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.
It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the REPUBLICAN CAUSE, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the FEDERAL PRINCIPLE.
PUBLIUS.
Foreign Policy
Useful websites:
- Foreign policy of the United States.
- A Foreign Policy for the American People.
Chapter Terms
non-state actors
isolationism
containment
preventive wars
appeasement
deterrence
Cold War
nation-states
World Trade Organization
United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement
Presidency
Commander-in-Chief
expressed powers
delegated powers
inherent powers
Bush Doctrine
executive agreement
National Security Council
State Department
Defense Department
Treasury / Commerce
National Security Agency
Congress
delegated powers
Committees
- Armed Service
- Intelligence
Interest Groups
Military Industrial Complex
Diplomacy
United Nations
International Monetary Fund
Economic Sanctions
Permanent military
hard power
soft power
trade
Social Policy
police powers
granted powers
reserved powers
implied powers
welfare state
poverty
health and welfare
Social Security
contributory programs
indexing
Cost of living adjustments
Medicare
noncontributory programs
means testing
Medicaid
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
in-kind benefits
tax expenditures
entitlement
equality of opportunity
education policies
K-12
higher education
health policies
health insurance
reform
Affordable Care Act
housing policies
Economic Policy
public policy
public goods
gross domestic policy
inflation
tariff
fiscal policy
redistribution
progressive taxation
regressive taxation
budget deficit
national debt
subsidies
contracting
mandatory spending
discretionary spending
monetary policies
Federal Reserve System
federal funds rate
monopoly
antitrust policy
deregulation
free trade
laissez-fair capitalism
Keynesianism
supply side economics
spending
economic regulation
__________________
-
The Judicial Power
Definitions:
- Justia: Judicial power is the power “of a court to decide and pronounce a judgment and carry it into effect between persons and parties who bring a case before it for decision.” It is “the right to determine actual controversies arising between diverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction.” The terms “judicial power” and “jurisdiction” are frequently used interchangeably, with “jurisdiction” defined as the power to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy between parties to a suit or as the “power to entertain the suit, consider the merits and render a binding decision thereon.” The cases and commentary however, support, indeed require, a distinction between the two concepts.
- Wikipedia: The judiciary is the system of courts that interprets, defends, and applies the law in the name of the state. The judiciary can also be thought of as the mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the judiciary generally does not make statutory law (which is the responsibility of the legislature) or enforce law (which is the responsibility of the executive), but rather interprets, defends, and applies the law to the facts of each case. However, in some countries the judiciary does make common law.
In many jurisdictions the judicial branch has the power to change laws through the process of judicial review. Courts with judicial review power may annul the laws and rules of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher norm, such as primary legislation, the provisions of the constitution, treaties or international law. Judges constitute a critical force for interpretation and implementation of a constitution, thus in common law countries creating the body of constitutional law.
- NCSL: Every society has confronted the question of how to resolve disputes. Many early societies chose a private system of revenge for dispute resolution but, as civilizations evolved, communities began designating individuals to resolve disputes impartially in accordance with established norms and customs.
In Ancient Greece, rulers and a group of respected elders in the community were empowered to hear disputes. The judicial powers of these institutions were gradually replaced by an assembly of 6,000 jurors that was divided into smaller panels to hear particular cases.
Juries played a key role in the development of the English judicial system. As more legal disputes were submitted to juries for resolution, however, concerns arose that both judges and juries were rendering biased decisions based on irrelevant and untrustworthy evidence. Trial procedures often were deemed haphazard, arbitrary and unfair. The concerns about the English judicial system affected the development of the U.S. judicial system.
The general blueprint for the U.S. judiciary is laid out in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, and many details of federal judicial power are spelled out in the Judiciary Act of 1789. State judicial systems are created similarly by state constitutional and statutory provisions.
One of the principal characteristics of the U.S. judicial system is that it has a specific role under the separation-of-powers doctrine. Under the doctrine, laws are passed by the legislature and enforced by the executive branch. The judiciary interprets and applies the law, adjudicates legal disputes and otherwise administers justice. This includes the authority to enforce—or void—statutes when disputes arise over their scope or constitutionality.
The power of the judiciary is balanced by the legislature's ability to pass new laws and propose constitutional amendments. Legislatures also may have the power to confirm, select or impeach judicial branch officials.
The Bureaucracy
What is the bureaucracy?
- Britannica: Bureaucracy.
- Wikipedia Bureaucracy.
- Wikipedia: Civil Service.
- Wikipedia: Government Agencies.
- Wikipedia: Administration
- Appointments.
- Patronage.
- Civil Service Reform.
- OPM: Federal Civilian Employment.
- Wikipedia: Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act.
- Wikipedia: United States Civil Service Commission.
- Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.|
- Wikipedia: United States Office of Personnel Management.
- Wikipedia: United States Merit Systems Protection Board.
Common Terms:
implementation
bureaucracy
regulations
street level bureaucrats
civil servants
law enforcement
fire protection
public health
education
public works
rule making
federal registry
delegated power
principal-agent problem
executive departments
independent regulatory commission
government corporation
spoils system
patronage
political appointees
party machines
merit system
Senior Executive Service
privatization
executive control
chief executive
Office of Management and Budget
legislative control
appropriations
oversight
inspector generals
judicial oversight
judicial review
whistle blowers
revolving door
regulatory captures
The Executive Power
Definitions:
- Wikipedia: The executive, also referred as the executive branch or executive power, is the term commonly used to describe that part of government which enforces the law, and has overall responsibility for the governance of a state.
- FindLaw: The Constitution vests the power of the Executive Branch in the President. This power gives the President the responsibility to implement and execute the laws of the land. The President is also the Commander in Chief of the military and the head of state.
- From LII: The President:Is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.They have the power to call into service the state units of the National Guard, and in times of emergency may be given the power by Congress to manage national security or the economy.- Has the power to make treaties with Senate approval. They can also receive ambassadors and work with leaders of other nations.
- Is responsible for nominating the heads of governmental departments, federal judges, and Supreme Court justices. The U.S. Senate is charged with approving these nominations.
- Can issue executive orders, which have the force of law but do not have to be approved by Congress.
- Can issue pardons for federal offenses.
- Can convene Congress for special sessions.
- Can veto legislation approved by Congress. However, the veto is limited.It is not a line-item veto, meaning that the President must veto the entire bill, rather than parts of it.
- Further, a presidential veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote by Congress.
- Delivers the State of the Union address annually to a joint session of Congress.
- The Unitary Executive Theory: The unitary executive theory is a theory of United States constitutional law which holds that the President of the United States possesses the power to control the entire federal executive branch. The doctrine is rooted in Article Two of the United States Constitution, which vests "the executive power" of the United States in the President. Although that general principle is widely accepted, there is disagreement about the strength and scope of the doctrine.[1]
Some favor a "strongly unitary" executive, while others favor a "weakly unitary" executive. The former group argue, for example, that Congress's power to interfere with intra-executive decision-making (such as firing executive branch officials) is limited, and that the President can control policy-making by all executive agencies within the limits set for those agencies by Congress.
Textbook Terms:
presidency
governor
mayor
expressed power
- commander in chief
- military power
- judicial power
- diplomatic power
- executive agreement
- executive privilege
- legislative power
- - agenda setting
implied powers
delegated powers
inherent powers
institutions
The Cabinet
White House Staff
Executive Office of the President
- National Security Council
The Vice Presidency
Party Leader
Growth of Presidential Power
executive agencies
going public
legislative initiative
the permanent campaign
expectations
the modern presidency
regulatory review
executive order
signing statement
limits on presidential power