My Sweet Lord vs. He's So Fine

Go Home Productions "Imagine The Band" (Lennon/Wings)

Powerpuff Girls Title Screen (Drum & Bass Lick)

Judiciary Act of 1789, established the federal judiciary.

Judiciary Act of 1801, also called the Midnight Judges Act

Judiciary Act of 1802, repealed the 1801 Act

Judiciary Act of 1866, gradually reduced circuit and Supreme Court seats

Judiciary Act of 1867, also called the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867.

Judiciary Act of 1869, also called the Circuit Judges Act of 1869

Judiciary Act of 1891, also called the Evarts Act or the Circuit Courts of Appeals Act

Judiciary Act of 1925, also called the Certiorari Act or the Judges' Bill

Dear ChatGPT: What items were patented in the United States between 1790 and 1800?

 Between 1790 and 1800, the United States issued a number of patents, primarily for inventions that focused on practical applications, including machinery, tools, and methods for manufacturing. The U.S. Patent System was established in 1790 under the Patent Act of 1790, and during this period, patents were issued for a variety of innovations. Some notable items patented in the United States between 1790 and 1800 include:

1. The Water Frame (1790) – One of the first patents issued was for a machine to spin cotton, granted to Samuel Slater, who is often referred to as the "Father of the American Industrial Revolution."

2. The Improvement in Sails (1791) – John Fitch, who is best known for his work on steamboats, patented a method of improving sails for boats.

3. The Glass Making Machine (1792) – David Rittenhouse, an astronomer and inventor, patented an improvement in glass-making techniques.

4. The Screw (1795) – A significant development in manufacturing tools, Elijah Craig patented a machine to produce screws.

5. The Cotton Gin (1794) – Eli Whitney famously patented the cotton gin, which revolutionized cotton production in the South by making it easier to separate cotton fibers from seeds. This invention is one of the most significant from this time period and had a lasting impact on American industry.

6. The Improved Method of Constructing a Flour Mill (1796) – Oliver Evans patented a system for automated flour mills, which used a series of mechanical steps to move grain through the milling process, making it more efficient.

7. The Steam Engine (1798) – John Stevens was granted a patent for improvements to steam engines, which were essential in the development of later steam-powered machinery.

8. The Bicycle Pedal Mechanism (1795) – Robert R. H. Clark patented a form of pedal-powered mechanical device, which some see as a precursor to the modern bicycle.

The patents granted during this period were a reflection of the early industrialization of the United States, and the inventions focused heavily on improving manufacturing and production processes.

duties
imposts
excises
capitation
direct tax
tax or duty laid on articles exported from any state

Dear CHatGPT: What is the History of Taxation in the United States?

The history of taxation in the United States is a fascinating journey that reflects the country’s growth, wars, economic shifts, and changing political ideologies. Here's a broad overview of how taxation has evolved from colonial times to the present:

Colonial Era to Early U.S. (1600s–1700s)
- Colonial Taxes: Colonists paid taxes to local governments and sometimes to the British crown. These included property taxes, import duties, and poll taxes.
- Taxation Without Representation: British-imposed taxes like the Stamp Act (1765) and Tea Act (1773) led to widespread protest, fueling the American Revolution.

Post-Independence and Constitution Era (Late 1700s–1800s)
- Articles of Confederation: The federal government had no power to tax directly—only states could levy taxes.
- U.S. Constitution (1787): Gave Congress the power to levy taxes. Initially, the federal government mainly raised revenue through tariffs (taxes on imports) and excise taxes (like the whiskey tax).

Early Federal Taxes and Rebellions
- Whiskey Rebellion (1791–1794): A protest against a federal excise tax on whiskey; it tested the strength of the new federal government.
- Tariffs Dominate: For most of the 19th century, tariffs and excise taxes were the primary federal revenue sources.

Civil War and Income Tax (1861–1872)
- First Income Tax (1861): To fund the Civil War, the Union introduced a temporary income tax.
- Repealed in 1872: After the war, the income tax was repealed, and tariffs once again became the main revenue source.

Push for a Permanent Income Tax
- Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust (1895): Supreme Court struck down a federal income tax as unconstitutional.
- 16th Amendment (1913): Ratified to allow Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states. This was a turning point.

Modern Tax System Begins (1913–Present)
- Revenue Act of 1913: Re-established the federal income tax with low rates for most.
- World War I and II: Income taxes expanded massively to fund the wars, especially WWII. Withholding from paychecks was introduced in 1943.
- Social Security Act (1935): Introduced payroll taxes for Social Security.

Post-War and Reagan Era Reforms
- High Tax Rates: Top marginal tax rates were above 90% in the 1950s.
- Reagan Tax Cuts (1981 & 1986): Significant tax reform reduced rates and simplified the tax code.

Recent Developments
- Bush Tax Cuts (2001, 2003): Lowered income and capital gains taxes.
- Obama-Era Changes (Affordable Care Act): Included tax provisions like the individual mandate penalty.
- Trump Tax Cuts (2017 - TCJA): Lowered corporate tax rates and adjusted individual tax brackets.

Today the U.S. tax system includes:

- Individual income tax (progressive)
- Corporate income tax
- Payroll taxes (for Social Security and Medicare)
- Excise taxes, estate taxes, and various state/local taxes (sales, property, etc.)

 

Whiskey Rebellion: American Whiskey Producers Condemn Federal Tax

Security from Foreign Invasion: Tren de Aragua

Edmund Randolph:

The character of such a government ought to secure, first, against foreign invasion; secondly, against dissensions between members of the Union, or seditions in particular States; thirdly, to procure to the several States various blessings of which an isolated situation was incapable; fourthly, it should be able to defend itself against encroachment; and fifthly, to be paramount to the State Constitutions. - Day by Day Summary: Tuesday May 29.

Dear ChatGPT: How many times has the United States been invaded?

The United States has been invaded only a few times in its history, especially compared to many other nations. Here are the notable instances:

- War of 1812: The British Empire invaded the U.S. during the War of 1812. British forces burned Washington, D.C., including the White House and the Capitol, but they were repelled in other parts of the country, especially at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815.

- Mexican-American War (1846-1848): While this war began as a territorial dispute, parts of what is now the U.S. Southwest were invaded by Mexican forces. In response, the U.S. pushed into Mexico and eventually captured Mexico City.

- Confederate Invasions during the Civil War (1861-1865): The Confederacy invaded Northern states several times during the Civil War, most notably during the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863. However, the Confederacy's efforts were ultimately unsuccessful, and they were repelled by Union forces.

- Attack on Pearl Harbor (1941): Though not an invasion of the continental U.S., the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii was a military strike on American soil. It led to the U.S. entering World War II.

Aside from these events, there haven't been major invasions of the U.S. mainland. While there have been skirmishes, border disputes, and other conflicts, the U.S. has largely been isolated from large-scale invasions.

- What is the Alien Enemies Act? 

- National Archives: Alien and Sedition Acts (1798).

- 50 USC Ch. 3: ALIEN ENEMIES.

- CRS: The Alien Enemy Act: History and Potential Use to Remove Members of International Criminal Cartels.

- What is Tren de Aragua?

- White House Executive Order:  Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua.

- NPR: U.S. deports hundreds of Venezuelans to El Salvador, despite court order.

- NPR: Federal judge blocks Trump's plan to target 'alien enemies' for deportation.

Texas Legislature: Bills By Subject: General Subject Index: Water--Rights.

HB 1501: Relating to a study of the feasibility of using seawater desalination processes in Texas.

Texas Legislature: Bills By Subject: General Subject Index: Education--Junior College Districts.

HB 4443: Relating to the establishment by the Texas Workforce Commission of a pilot program to train workers for careers in energy-efficient technologies.

Bill would ban most edible THC products.

Texas Lobbyist Speaks to us about Hemp

What is "police power?"

ChatGPT: 

Police power refers to the authority of a government, typically the state, to regulate behavior and enforce order within its jurisdiction. This power is exercised to protect and promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community.

In the United States, police power is a concept derived from the state's inherent authority under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people. Police power allows states to pass laws and regulations related to a wide range of issues, including zoning, public health, criminal law, environmental protection, and licensing.

Examples of police power in action include:

1. Health regulations: Enforcing laws related to sanitation, vaccinations, and quarantines to prevent the spread of disease.

2. Criminal law: Making and enforcing laws that prevent criminal behavior and ensure public safety.

3. Land use and zoning: Regulating the way property can be used (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial zones) to ensure orderly development and protect the environment.

4. Public safety measures: Enacting laws related to traffic, fire safety, and building codes to prevent accidents and promote safety.

While police power is broad, it is still subject to constitutional limitations. For instance, it cannot infringe on fundamental rights or be exercised in a way that is overly broad or arbitrary. Courts may review laws and regulations enacted under police power to ensure they meet constitutional standards.


LII: Police Power.

Wikipedia: Police Power.

Cato Institute: State Police Powers and the Constitution.

H.B. No. 641 - relating to digital citizenship instruction in public schools.

 

	89R2265 AMF-D
	By: González of El Paso	H.B. No. 641

	A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
	AN ACT
	relating to digital citizenship instruction in public schools.
	BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
	SECTION 1.  Section 28.002(z), Education Code, is amended to
	read as follows:
	(z)  The State Board of Education by rule shall require each
	school district to incorporate instruction in digital citizenship
	into the district's curriculum, including information regarding
	the potential criminal consequences of cyberbullying, and require
	students enrolled in grade level six to complete instruction in
	digital citizenship as part of the district's social studies
	curriculum. In this subsection:
	(1)  "Cyberbullying" has the meaning assigned by
	Section 37.0832.
	(2)  "Digital citizenship" means the standards of
	appropriate, responsible, and healthy online behavior, including:
	(A)  media literacy and the ability to identify
	credible sources of information, including by analyzing content
	created or modified by generative artificial intelligence
	technology, and to access, analyze, evaluate, create, and act on
	all forms of digital communication;
	(B)  digital ethics, etiquette, respectful
	discourse with people who have differing opinions, safety,
	security, digital footprint, and the identification of rhetoric
	that incites violence based on a person's race, religion, or
	political affiliation; and
	(C)  cyberbullying prevention and response.
	SECTION 2.  This Act applies beginning with the 2025-2026
	school year.
	SECTION 3.  This Act takes effect immediately if it receives
	a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
	provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution.  If this
	Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
	Act takes effect September 1, 2025.

Texas Legislature Online: HB 641.

Dear ChatGPT: What is digital citizenship?

Digital citizenship refers to the responsible use of technology and the internet. It involves understanding and practicing appropriate behavior, online safety, ethics, and engagement in the digital world. Being a good digital citizen means being respectful, kind, and aware of how your actions online affect others and the digital environment.

Key components of digital citizenship include:

1. Digital Etiquette: Understanding and practicing appropriate online behavior, such as using respectful language, avoiding cyberbullying, and being mindful of others' privacy.

2. Digital Security: Protecting personal information, using strong passwords, and being cautious about sharing details online to avoid identity theft or scams.

3. Digital Literacy: Understanding how to use technology and navigate digital tools effectively, such as being able to critically evaluate information found online.

4. Digital Rights and Responsibilities: Recognizing and respecting the rights of others in the digital space, such as intellectual property and freedom of expression, while also understanding the responsibilities that come with those rights.

5. Digital Health and Wellness: Balancing screen time with offline activities and being aware of the impact of technology on mental and physical well-being.

6. Digital Law: Understanding and abiding by the legal implications of digital actions, such as copyright laws, online harassment laws, and respecting the terms of service of websites and platforms.

In essence, digital citizenship promotes a positive, safe, and responsible online community.

For 4/8/25

Teaching American History: Day by Day Summary: Tuesday May 29.

U.S. Constitution: Articles 1, 2, and 3.

Wikipedia: 1788–89 United States House of Representatives elections.

Wikipedia: 1788–89 United States Senate elections.

Wikipedia: 1788–89 United States presidential election.

Wikipedia: The First Congress.

Wikipedia: The Second Congress.

Wikipedia: List of U.S. Congresses.

Wikipedia: United States federal executive departments.

From ScotusBlog: Supreme Court requires noncitizens to challenge detention and removal in Texas

- For review in class:

The case is Trump v. J.G.G. Click here. 

Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should vacate the district court's order blocking the Trump administration from summary removal under the Alien Enemies Act.

The Supreme Court on Monday lifted a pair of orders by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that had barred the government from removing noncitizens who are designated as members of a Venezuelan gang under a March 15 executive order issued by President Donald Trump.

By a vote of 5-4, the justices declined to address the challengers’ contention that they are not covered by the 18th-century law on which Trump relied in issuing the order. Instead, the challengers’ lawsuit must be brought in Texas, where they are being held, rather than in Washington, D.C., the court explained.

The unsigned four-page opinion emphasized that although courts have a limited role in reviewing claims under that law, the plaintiffs and others detained under the law are entitled to “notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a 17-page dissent joined in full by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson and in part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She contended that her colleagues’ “decision to intervene in this litigation is as inexplicable as it is dangerous.”

Jackson wrote her own two-page dissent in which she lamented that the majority’s “fly-by-night approach to the work of the Supreme Court is not only misguided. It is also dangerous.”

The 1798 law at the center of the case is the Alien Enemies Act, which allows the president to detain or deport citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing or any other review by a court if either of two things occurs: Congress declares war, or there is an “invasion” or “predatory incursion.” The law has been invoked only three times – during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.

Trump’s executive order focuses on a large Venezuelan gang named Tren de Aragua, which began in Venezuela’s prisons and then spread into other parts of Latin America and, eventually, the United States. In February, Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated it as a “foreign terrorist organization.”

Trump found in his order that TdA “is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.” Therefore, he concluded, “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies.”

Even before Trump issued the order, a group of Venezuelan nationals in immigration custody went to federal court in Washington. They said that they feared that they would be removed, and they challenged Trump’s attempt to rely on the Alien Enemies Act.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg quickly prohibited the federal government from removing any of the individual plaintiffs for 14 days. In a separate order issued later that day, Boasberg barred the government from removing anyone else under the Alien Enemies Act. During a hearing, Boasberg also ordered any flights to remove noncitizens that had already taken off to return to the United States.

The five individual plaintiffs named in the complaint are still in immigration detention in the United States. However, news reports indicated that more than 200 other noncitizens were taken from the United States on March 15, with their planes landing in El Salvador after Boasberg issued his written order.

The migrants were taken in shackles to a maximum-security “mega” prison in El Salvador, where their heads were shaved. The country’s president, Nayib Bukele, posted a video of the prisoners on social media that Rubio later reposted. The caption of the video read “Ooopsie … too late.”

The Trump administration asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to pause Boasberg’s order. The D.C. Circuit fast-tracked the government’s appeal, but on March 26 it rejected that request by a vote of 2-1.

Sarah Harris, then the acting U.S. solicitor general, came to the Supreme Court on March 28, asking the justices to allow the Trump administration to enforce the March 15 order. The dispute, she contended, “presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security operations in this country – the President … or the Judiciary.” Harris told the justices that the “Constitution supplies a clear answer: the President.”

Lawyers for the Venezuelan nationals urged the court to leave Boasberg’s order in place. They noted that “many (perhaps most) of the men” sent to the El Salvadoran prison in March “were not actually members of” TdA. Boasberg’s order, they told the justices, is therefore “essential to ensure that more individuals who have no affiliation with the gang will not be sent to a notorious foreign prison.”

In an unsigned opinion on Monday evening, five of the court’s conservative justices – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh – indicated that they would “not reach” the plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the application of the AEA to them. Instead, the majority explained, because the relief that they are seeking “necessarily” suggests that their confinement in immigration custody and removal under the AEA is invalid, they must bring their claims as habeas corpus claims – that is, a challenge to the legality of their detention.

The only place that such claims can be brought, the majority continued, is the judicial district where a prisoner is being detained. Because the plaintiffs in this case are now in Texas, rather than in Washington, D.C., the majority concluded, their case cannot be brought in Washington.

The court made clear that – as the government agrees – the plaintiffs, as well as others who may be detained or removed under the AEA, are entitled to be notified “that they are subject to removal under the Act.” Moreover, the court added, addressing an argument made by lawyers for the plaintiffs during oral arguments in the lower courts, the government must provide that notice “within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”

Kavanaugh wrote a brief concurring opinion in which he emphasized that “the Court’s disagreement is not over whether the detainees receive judicial review of their transfers—all nine Members of the Court agree that judicial review is available. The only question,” he concluded “is where that judicial review should occur.”

Sotomayor called the court’s conclusions “suspect.” She wrote that the removal of noncitizens to the prison in El Salvador “presented a risk of extraordinary harm to these” plaintiffs. Referring to the case (also pending at the Supreme Court) of a Maryland man whom the government admits was sent to El Salvador as a result of an administrative error, she observed that the government has contended that “even when it makes a mistake, it cannot retrieve individuals from” the prison in El Salvador.

“The implications of the Government’s position,” Sotomayor stressed, “is that not only noncitizens but also United States citizens could be taken off the streets, forced onto planes, and confined to foreign prisons with no opportunity for redress if judicial review is denied unlawfully before removal. History is no stranger to such lawless regimes, but this Nation’s system of laws is designed to prevent, not enable, their rise.”

Sotomayor concluded by calling the majority’s decision on Monday “indefensible.” “We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this,” she wrote.

In her separate dissent, Jackson explained that she agreed with Sotomayor but also wrote a separate dissent in which she questioned the majority’s decision to step into the dispute now, immediately before Boasberg had scheduled a hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.

Jackson criticized the majority for addressing these issues on their emergency docket and reaching a “rushed conclusion.” Normally, she said, when the justices weigh in on “complex and monumental issues,” they give the lower courts an opportunity to “address those matters first.” Then, she continued, the court “receives full briefing, hears oral argument, deliberates internally, and, finally, issues a reasoned opinion.” When the court departs from that normal practice, she said, “the risk of error always substantially increases” and it does so without “a record so posterity [may] see how it went wrong.”