Thursday, October 2, 2025
What is the Civil Service? How has it developed?
The civil service refers to the permanent, professional branches of a government’s administration, excluding the military, elected officials, and political appointees. In other words, it is the body of government employees who carry out the day-to-day work of governing, implementing laws, and delivering public services.
Key points about the civil service:
- Nonpartisan and professional: Civil servants are hired and promoted based on merit rather than political loyalty. This helps ensure stability and continuity of government, regardless of which party is in power.
- Broad responsibilities: They staff government departments and agencies, handling areas like education, transportation, health, taxation, law enforcement, social services, and foreign relations.
- Different from political leadership: While elected officials and political appointees set policies and priorities, civil servants are responsible for executing those policies.
- Merit system: In most modern democracies, civil service jobs are filled through competitive exams, qualifications, or performance, replacing earlier systems of political patronage (sometimes called the "spoils system" in U.S. history).
How has it developed?
1. Early System: Patronage ("Spoils System")
In the early republic, government jobs were often awarded as political rewards. The phrase "to the victor belong the spoils" summed up the idea: when a new party won the presidency, it filled government positions with its supporters. This created instability (mass turnovers after elections) and encouraged corruption and incompetence.
2. Civil Service Reform & the Pendleton Act (1883)
After President James A. Garfield was assassinated in 1881 by a disgruntled office-seeker, momentum grew to reform the system. Congress passed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act in 1883. Created the Civil Service Commission to oversee hiring. Established that government jobs should be awarded based on merit (competitive exams, qualifications), not political connections. Initially, only about 10% of federal jobs were covered, but this expanded over time.
3. Expansion of the Merit System
Over the 20th century, presidents and Congress gradually extended civil service protections. By the mid-20th century, most federal jobs were classified under the civil service system.
4. Civil Service Reform Act of 1978
Abolished the old Civil Service Commission. Created three new bodies:
- Office of Personnel Management (OPM): handles recruitment, exams, and HR functions.
- Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB): protects employees from unfair practices.
- Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA): oversees labor-management relations.
5. Today
The U.S. civil service is a massive workforce (over 2 million civilian employees). Civil servants are protected from arbitrary firing and political coercion, ensuring continuity of government across administrations. Political appointees (like cabinet secretaries and top agency heads) still exist, but they are a small percentage compared to career civil servants.
Key points about the civil service:
- Nonpartisan and professional: Civil servants are hired and promoted based on merit rather than political loyalty. This helps ensure stability and continuity of government, regardless of which party is in power.
- Broad responsibilities: They staff government departments and agencies, handling areas like education, transportation, health, taxation, law enforcement, social services, and foreign relations.
- Different from political leadership: While elected officials and political appointees set policies and priorities, civil servants are responsible for executing those policies.
- Merit system: In most modern democracies, civil service jobs are filled through competitive exams, qualifications, or performance, replacing earlier systems of political patronage (sometimes called the "spoils system" in U.S. history).
How has it developed?
1. Early System: Patronage ("Spoils System")
In the early republic, government jobs were often awarded as political rewards. The phrase "to the victor belong the spoils" summed up the idea: when a new party won the presidency, it filled government positions with its supporters. This created instability (mass turnovers after elections) and encouraged corruption and incompetence.
2. Civil Service Reform & the Pendleton Act (1883)
After President James A. Garfield was assassinated in 1881 by a disgruntled office-seeker, momentum grew to reform the system. Congress passed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act in 1883. Created the Civil Service Commission to oversee hiring. Established that government jobs should be awarded based on merit (competitive exams, qualifications), not political connections. Initially, only about 10% of federal jobs were covered, but this expanded over time.
3. Expansion of the Merit System
Over the 20th century, presidents and Congress gradually extended civil service protections. By the mid-20th century, most federal jobs were classified under the civil service system.
4. Civil Service Reform Act of 1978
Abolished the old Civil Service Commission. Created three new bodies:
- Office of Personnel Management (OPM): handles recruitment, exams, and HR functions.
- Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB): protects employees from unfair practices.
- Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA): oversees labor-management relations.
5. Today
The U.S. civil service is a massive workforce (over 2 million civilian employees). Civil servants are protected from arbitrary firing and political coercion, ensuring continuity of government across administrations. Political appointees (like cabinet secretaries and top agency heads) still exist, but they are a small percentage compared to career civil servants.
Wednesday, October 1, 2025
From Wikipedia: Third Treaty of San Ildefonso
How did France acquire Louisianna from Spain?
- Click here for the entry.
The Third Treaty of San Ildefonso was a secret agreement signed on 1 October 1800 between Spain and the French Republic by which Spain agreed in principle to exchange its North American colony of Louisiana for territories in Tuscany. The terms were later confirmed by the March 1801 Treaty of Aranjuez.
From AI Overview: What is Propaganda?
Propaganda is the strategic spread of biased or misleading information to manipulate public opinion and achieve a specific goal. While the term often has a negative connotation in Western countries, referring to deceptive tactics, the core concept is the purposeful dissemination of information to influence people's thoughts and actions. Propaganda is distinct from general persuasion because it relies on emotional manipulation and appeals rather than rational debate.
Types and techniques of propaganda
Modern propaganda uses many different techniques, often in combination, to achieve its objectives. - Name-calling: Discredits an opponent by associating them with negative symbols or derogatory words.
Glittering generalities: Uses vague, emotionally appealing phrases or slogans that lack specific detail, such as "Make America Great Again" or "Build Back Better".
- Bandwagon: Creates a sense of widespread support to pressure people into conforming with the majority opinion out of a fear of missing out.
- Testimonial: Uses a celebrity, expert, or respected figure to endorse a particular product, person, or idea.
- Plain folks: Aims to persuade an audience by projecting the image that the communicator is a "regular person" who shares their values.
- Transfer: Associates the positive or negative qualities of one thing (like a respected symbol or a disliked group) with another.
- Card stacking: Selectively presents information to emphasize positive aspects while omitting any negative or contradictory facts.
- Appeal to fear: Exploits existing fears and anxieties to persuade an audience.
- Ad nauseam: Repeats an idea or slogan so frequently that the audience becomes accustomed to it and begins to accept it.
- Scapegoating: Blames a particular person or group for complex problems to divert public attention and outrage.
Modern propaganda in the digital age
New technologies have enabled more sophisticated and rapid dissemination of propaganda.
- Bots and algorithms: Social media bots are used to automatically spread biased information, create fake news, and manipulate online discussions.
- Deepfakes: Highly realistic manipulated videos and audio blur the line between reality and fiction, making it difficult to distinguish real content from falsehoods.
- Micro-targeting: Algorithms and big data allow propagandists to target individuals with tailored messages based on their personal information, beliefs, and online behavior.
- Echo chambers: Personalized content and social media algorithms can reinforce existing beliefs by showing users only content that aligns with their views, limiting their exposure to opposing perspectives.
- Computational propaganda: This strategy involves broadcasting a massive number of messages rapidly and repetitively over multiple channels to overwhelm people with one-sided information.
Examples of modern propaganda
Propaganda exists in many forms, from political messaging to commercial advertising.
- Political advertising: Campaigns use emotional appeals, slogans, and targeted ads to sway voters. For example, the 2016 U.S. presidential election saw disinformation campaigns orchestrated by Russia to spread political rumors on social media.
- State-sponsored campaigns: Governments use propaganda to shape public opinion both domestically and abroad. Examples include the Chinese government's use of media to promote its ideology and terrorist organizations like ISIS using social media to recruit and promote their message.
- Corporate "greenwashing": Companies engage in a form of corporate propaganda by presenting themselves as environmentally friendly through public relations campaigns, despite unsustainable business practices.
- Public health campaigns: Some propaganda can be used for positive ends, such as the Smokey Bear Wildfire Prevention campaign, which uses emotional appeals to promote a responsible public good.
- Media bias: Paid articles or broadcast segments disguised as objective news are a form of covert propaganda designed to persuade rather than inform.
Types and techniques of propaganda
Modern propaganda uses many different techniques, often in combination, to achieve its objectives. - Name-calling: Discredits an opponent by associating them with negative symbols or derogatory words.
Glittering generalities: Uses vague, emotionally appealing phrases or slogans that lack specific detail, such as "Make America Great Again" or "Build Back Better".
- Bandwagon: Creates a sense of widespread support to pressure people into conforming with the majority opinion out of a fear of missing out.
- Testimonial: Uses a celebrity, expert, or respected figure to endorse a particular product, person, or idea.
- Plain folks: Aims to persuade an audience by projecting the image that the communicator is a "regular person" who shares their values.
- Transfer: Associates the positive or negative qualities of one thing (like a respected symbol or a disliked group) with another.
- Card stacking: Selectively presents information to emphasize positive aspects while omitting any negative or contradictory facts.
- Appeal to fear: Exploits existing fears and anxieties to persuade an audience.
- Ad nauseam: Repeats an idea or slogan so frequently that the audience becomes accustomed to it and begins to accept it.
- Scapegoating: Blames a particular person or group for complex problems to divert public attention and outrage.
Modern propaganda in the digital age
New technologies have enabled more sophisticated and rapid dissemination of propaganda.
- Bots and algorithms: Social media bots are used to automatically spread biased information, create fake news, and manipulate online discussions.
- Deepfakes: Highly realistic manipulated videos and audio blur the line between reality and fiction, making it difficult to distinguish real content from falsehoods.
- Micro-targeting: Algorithms and big data allow propagandists to target individuals with tailored messages based on their personal information, beliefs, and online behavior.
- Echo chambers: Personalized content and social media algorithms can reinforce existing beliefs by showing users only content that aligns with their views, limiting their exposure to opposing perspectives.
- Computational propaganda: This strategy involves broadcasting a massive number of messages rapidly and repetitively over multiple channels to overwhelm people with one-sided information.
Examples of modern propaganda
Propaganda exists in many forms, from political messaging to commercial advertising.
- Political advertising: Campaigns use emotional appeals, slogans, and targeted ads to sway voters. For example, the 2016 U.S. presidential election saw disinformation campaigns orchestrated by Russia to spread political rumors on social media.
- State-sponsored campaigns: Governments use propaganda to shape public opinion both domestically and abroad. Examples include the Chinese government's use of media to promote its ideology and terrorist organizations like ISIS using social media to recruit and promote their message.
- Corporate "greenwashing": Companies engage in a form of corporate propaganda by presenting themselves as environmentally friendly through public relations campaigns, despite unsustainable business practices.
- Public health campaigns: Some propaganda can be used for positive ends, such as the Smokey Bear Wildfire Prevention campaign, which uses emotional appeals to promote a responsible public good.
- Media bias: Paid articles or broadcast segments disguised as objective news are a form of covert propaganda designed to persuade rather than inform.
For 10.1.25
For ChatGPT:
- what is a government shutdown?
- when was the federal fiscal year set at October 1 to September 30?
- what was the federal fiscal year prior to 1974?
- what was the federal fiscal year in the first congress?
- how did Henry the 8th use the star chamber?
- what was the longest government shutdown?
- what was the star chamber?
- when all the rail gauges in the us were made the same.
Links:
- Eli Lilly State Lobbying Disclosure Chart.
- Client Profile: Eli Lilly & Co.
- Public policy engagement and political participation.
- Government shutdown begins after federal funding expires.
- Introduction to the Federal Budget Process.
- Appropriations Status Table: FY2026.
- Government shutdowns in the United States.
Tuesday, September 30, 2025
SB 12 (89R) “An Act relating to parental rights in public education, to certain public school requirements and prohibitions regarding instruction, diversity, equity, and inclusion duties, and social transitioning, and to student clubs at public schools.”
- Click here for the bill.
- Dear ChatGPT: Outline Texas SB 12.
On this day on history: September 30
1980 – Ethernet specifications are published by Xerox working with Intel and Digital Equipment Corporation.
1943 – The United States Merchant Marine Academy is dedicated by President Roosevelt.
1938 – The League of Nations unanimously outlaws "intentional bombings of civilian populations".
1935 – The Hoover Dam, astride the border between the U.S. states of Arizona and Nevada, is dedicated.
1882 – Thomas Edison's first commercial hydroelectric power plant (later known as Appleton Edison Light Company) begins operation.
From the Houston Chronicle: Local lawsuits in process.
- Houston conservatives Aubrey Taylor, Steven Hotze file suit accusing ex-DA Kim Ogg of political targeting.
- Houston-based Empower Pharmacy pushes back against Eli Lilly’s effort to block compounded GLP-1 sales.
- Houston’s Second Baptist is a church at legal war with its members. Who will win — and at what cost?
- Houston-based Empower Pharmacy pushes back against Eli Lilly’s effort to block compounded GLP-1 sales.
- Houston’s Second Baptist is a church at legal war with its members. Who will win — and at what cost?
Monday, September 29, 2025
Dear AI Overview: Provide examples of political dirty tricks
Political dirty tricks encompass a wide range of deceptive and unethical tactics used to undermine opponents and manipulate election outcomes. Historically, they have evolved from simple smear campaigns to sophisticated digital disinformation.
Examples include:
Information manipulation and deception
- "October surprise": A negative attack or revelation about a candidate released just before an election, leaving the target little time to respond or recover.
- Whisper campaigns: Spreading negative rumors, innuendo, and slander about a candidate privately to damage their reputation without leaving public fingerprints. If the candidate publicly refutes the claims, it risks amplifying the original false narrative.
- Push polling: A type of telemarketing masquerading as a legitimate survey that spreads false or defamatory information about an opponent under the guise of asking questions.
- Deepfakes and AI-generated disinformation: The use of AI to create fabricated audio, video, and images to slander an opponent or spread false narratives. This can include creating fake footage of a candidate confessing to a crime or misrepresenting their views.
- Forged letters: Circulating fake letters supposedly written by a candidate to misrepresent their views. A notable historical example is the forged "Morey Letter" of 1880, which purported to show presidential candidate James A. Garfield supporting unrestricted Chinese immigration.
Voter suppression and interference
- Confusing voters: Spreading misinformation about voting procedures to suppress voter turnout. This can include sending flyers with the wrong election dates or making robocalls that incorrectly state eligibility requirements.
- Voter intimidation: Using threats or deceptive tactics to discourage certain demographics from voting. Past examples include flyers that falsely warned voters with parking tickets or outstanding child support payments that they could be arrested at polling places.
- Ballot tampering: Engaging in illegal activities such as illegally collecting and altering absentee ballots. In one 2018 case, a Republican operative in North Carolina was involved in a ballot tampering scandal that resulted in a new election.
- Obstructing election officials: Tactics like the "Brooks Brothers riot" in 2000, where paid political operatives created a disturbance at a vote-counting center to force it to shut down.
Campaign sabotage
- Unfair competition for resources: Hiring political consultants simply to prevent a rival campaign from using their services.
- Candidate spoofing: Paying a person with the same name as a rival to run in a primary election to confuse voters and split the vote. Joseph Kennedy used this tactic to help his son John F. Kennedy win his first congressional race in 1946.
- Recruiting "sham" candidates: Backing third-party candidates to run in elections in an attempt to split a rival's votes. In 2010, an Arizona Republican operative recruited homeless individuals to run for office on the Green Party ticket. More recently, reports have highlighted efforts to get liberal academics like Cornel West on the ballot to potentially act as a spoiler.
- Cyberattacks and harassmentHacking: Illegally accessing and leaking a rival's emails and other digital information to cause political damage. The use of hacked Democratic National Committee emails in the 2016 election is a prominent example.
- Digital smear campaigns: Using online platforms to spread false, unprintable definitions or launch other forms of digital harassment against an opponent, as was done in the "Santorum's Google problem" incident.
What is the Unitary Executive Theory?
. . . The unitary executive theory is a constitutional legal theory asserting that the U.S. President has sole, complete authority over the executive branch. While the Constitution clearly establishes a single president rather than a committee, supporters of the theory argue it also grants the president expansive powers to control or remove subordinate officials without interference from Congress. Critics contend this view disregards constitutional checks and balances.
. . . Proponents trace the theory to Article II of the Constitution, particularly the Vesting Clause and the Take Care Clause.
Debate exists on the theory's application, including the president's power to remove executive officials and the status of independent agencies. The Supreme Court's stance has shifted, from supporting presidential removal power in Myers v. United States to allowing Congress to limit it for some independent agencies in Humphrey's Executor v. United States. More recent cases, like Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) and Collins v. Yellen (2021), have leaned towards the unitary executive perspective by deeming some limits on presidential removal power unconstitutional. The Court may revisit Humphrey's Executor precedent.
. . . Proponents trace the theory to Article II of the Constitution, particularly the Vesting Clause and the Take Care Clause.
Debate exists on the theory's application, including the president's power to remove executive officials and the status of independent agencies. The Supreme Court's stance has shifted, from supporting presidential removal power in Myers v. United States to allowing Congress to limit it for some independent agencies in Humphrey's Executor v. United States. More recent cases, like Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) and Collins v. Yellen (2021), have leaned towards the unitary executive perspective by deeming some limits on presidential removal power unconstitutional. The Court may revisit Humphrey's Executor precedent.
From the Texas Tribune: Texas State University professor reinstated by court after being fired for “inciting violence”
- Click here for the article.
A Texas State University professor who was fired after being accused of inciting violence will be reinstated after a judge on Friday granted an injunction in his lawsuit against the university.
Hays County District Judge Alicia Key granted an injunction Friday that allows Alter to be reinstated. The university will now review Alter’s case through its standard faculty investigative process alongside the suit, Alter’s lawyer said.
Alter will not be allowed to teach classes but will be reinstated with pay, according to a statement from Texas State University.
The professor’s firing was one of several recent cases at Texas State University where administration has stepped in to respond to comments made by students and staff on and off campus. A Texas State University student was given the decision to be expelled or withdraw his enrollment after he mocked conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s death. A faculty recruiter was also fired for comments she made online related to the student, according to Rep. Erin Zwiener, D-Driftwood, and a spokesperson for the university.
On Thursday, local politicians and advocacy groups in the San Marcos area held a rally demanding that Alter have his job reinstated. Speakers, including Hays County Judge Ruben Becerra and Zwiener, said Alter’s firing was indicative of authoritarian government overreach and pre-emptive compliance from university officials.
In an interview prior to Alter’s reinstatement, Zwiener said that while she didn’t agree with everything the professor had said at the socialist conference, she still believed in his constitutional right to speak his mind.
“If you actually watch all of Dr. Alter's speech, I think his harsher words are for the Democratic Party and about how organizing within the Democratic Party is a waste of time, which is something I disagree with vociferously,” Zwiener said on Thursday. “I believe the Democratic Party is the way to make change, but Dr. Alter thinking that my political party isn't useful doesn't stop me from advocating for him to have certain rights.”
Sunday, September 28, 2025
Voting Turnout
United States Election Project - Voter Turnout Demographics.
Texas Secretary of State: Turnout and Voter Registration Figures (1970-current).
Ballotpedia: Voter turnout in United States elections.
Wikipedia: Voter turnout in United States presidential elections.
Dear ChatGPT: What supreme court cases have limited the Voting Rights Act?
Several U.S. Supreme Court cases have narrowed or limited the reach of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, especially in recent decades. Here are the major ones, in chronological order:
1. City of Mobile v. Bolden (1980)
- Issue: Whether at-large election systems that diluted minority voting power violated the VRA.
- Ruling: The Court held that proof of discriminatory intent, not just discriminatory effect, was required to prove a violation of the 15th Amendment.
- Impact: This made it much harder to challenge discriminatory voting practices.
- Congress’s Response: In 1982, Congress amended Section 2 of the VRA to make clear that discriminatory results, not just intent, could be unconstitutional.
2. Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board (1997 & 2000)
- Issue: Whether the Department of Justice could block changes in voting laws (under Section 5 preclearance) based on a discriminatory purpose or effect.
- Rulings:
- Bossier Parish I (1997): Section 5 preclearance review applies only to voting changes that make minorities worse off ("retrogression"), not to all discriminatory laws.
- Bossier Parish II (2000): DOJ couldn’t block voting changes just because they were motivated by discriminatory intent unless they were also retrogressive.
- Impact: Narrowed DOJ’s power to deny preclearance.
3. Georgia v. Ashcroft (2003)
- Issue: How to measure "retrogression" in redistricting under Section 5.
- Ruling: The Court said courts should look at the "totality of circumstances," including whether minority voters could still form coalitions, not just the number of majority-minority districts.
- Impact: Made it easier for states to defend redistricting plans that reduced the number of majority-minority districts.
- Congress’s Response: In 2006, Congress reauthorized the VRA and rejected the Court’s looser standard, restoring stronger protections.
4. Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder (2009)
- Issue: A small Texas utility district challenged whether it had to comply with Section 5 preclearance.
- Ruling: The Court avoided the constitutional issue but allowed the district to "bail out" from preclearance.
- Impact: Signaled skepticism about Section 5’s constitutionality, foreshadowing a bigger change.
5. Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
- Issue: The constitutionality of Section 4(b), which set the coverage formula for which jurisdictions had to get DOJ preclearance under Section 5.
- Ruling: The Court struck down Section 4(b) as unconstitutional, saying the formula was outdated.
- Impact: Effectively gutted Section 5 preclearance, freeing previously covered states (mostly in the South) from federal oversight.
- Result: Many states quickly enacted restrictive voting laws (e.g., voter ID, polling place closures, purges).
6. Abbott v. Perez (2018)
- Issue: Texas’s redistricting maps were challenged as racially discriminatory.
- Ruling: The Court presumed legislatures act in "good faith" and placed a higher burden on challengers to prove discriminatory intent.
- Impact: Weakened the ability of courts to strike down racially gerrymandered maps.
7. Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021)
- Issue: Whether Arizona’s restrictions on ballot collection and out-of-precinct voting violated Section 2 of the VRA.
- Ruling: The Court upheld the laws, announcing new "guideposts" that make it harder to prove vote-denial claims under Section 2.
- Impact: Significantly weakened Section 2, the main tool left after Shelby County, by allowing many restrictive laws to survive.
- Click here for the full answer.
1. City of Mobile v. Bolden (1980)
- Issue: Whether at-large election systems that diluted minority voting power violated the VRA.
- Ruling: The Court held that proof of discriminatory intent, not just discriminatory effect, was required to prove a violation of the 15th Amendment.
- Impact: This made it much harder to challenge discriminatory voting practices.
- Congress’s Response: In 1982, Congress amended Section 2 of the VRA to make clear that discriminatory results, not just intent, could be unconstitutional.
2. Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board (1997 & 2000)
- Issue: Whether the Department of Justice could block changes in voting laws (under Section 5 preclearance) based on a discriminatory purpose or effect.
- Rulings:
- Bossier Parish I (1997): Section 5 preclearance review applies only to voting changes that make minorities worse off ("retrogression"), not to all discriminatory laws.
- Bossier Parish II (2000): DOJ couldn’t block voting changes just because they were motivated by discriminatory intent unless they were also retrogressive.
- Impact: Narrowed DOJ’s power to deny preclearance.
3. Georgia v. Ashcroft (2003)
- Issue: How to measure "retrogression" in redistricting under Section 5.
- Ruling: The Court said courts should look at the "totality of circumstances," including whether minority voters could still form coalitions, not just the number of majority-minority districts.
- Impact: Made it easier for states to defend redistricting plans that reduced the number of majority-minority districts.
- Congress’s Response: In 2006, Congress reauthorized the VRA and rejected the Court’s looser standard, restoring stronger protections.
4. Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder (2009)
- Issue: A small Texas utility district challenged whether it had to comply with Section 5 preclearance.
- Ruling: The Court avoided the constitutional issue but allowed the district to "bail out" from preclearance.
- Impact: Signaled skepticism about Section 5’s constitutionality, foreshadowing a bigger change.
5. Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
- Issue: The constitutionality of Section 4(b), which set the coverage formula for which jurisdictions had to get DOJ preclearance under Section 5.
- Ruling: The Court struck down Section 4(b) as unconstitutional, saying the formula was outdated.
- Impact: Effectively gutted Section 5 preclearance, freeing previously covered states (mostly in the South) from federal oversight.
- Result: Many states quickly enacted restrictive voting laws (e.g., voter ID, polling place closures, purges).
6. Abbott v. Perez (2018)
- Issue: Texas’s redistricting maps were challenged as racially discriminatory.
- Ruling: The Court presumed legislatures act in "good faith" and placed a higher burden on challengers to prove discriminatory intent.
- Impact: Weakened the ability of courts to strike down racially gerrymandered maps.
7. Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021)
- Issue: Whether Arizona’s restrictions on ballot collection and out-of-precinct voting violated Section 2 of the VRA.
- Ruling: The Court upheld the laws, announcing new "guideposts" that make it harder to prove vote-denial claims under Section 2.
- Impact: Significantly weakened Section 2, the main tool left after Shelby County, by allowing many restrictive laws to survive.
- Click here for the full answer.
Dear ChatGPT: What exactly did the Voting Rights Act do?
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) is one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history. Its core purpose was to enforce the 15th Amendment, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting, by attacking the practices that states—especially in the South—used to keep Black citizens from voting.
Here’s what it actually did:
1. Banned discriminatory voting practices
- Outlawed literacy tests, “understanding” tests, and other devices that were used to disenfranchise Black voters and other minorities.
- Prohibited intimidation, coercion, or denial of the right to vote based on race or color.
2. Created federal oversight (“preclearance”)
- Certain states and counties with a history of racial discrimination in voting (mainly in the South) had to get approval from the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal court before making any changes to their voting laws or procedures.
- This prevented them from adopting new tricks (like poll taxes, gerrymanders, or voter purges) after old ones were struck down.
3. Authorized federal examiners and registrars
- In areas where discrimination was worst, federal officials could be sent to register voters directly and oversee elections to ensure fairness.
- This bypassed local officials who often blocked Black voter registration.
4. Protected language minorities (added later)
- Amendments in the 1970s expanded protections to groups like Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans, and Alaskan Natives by requiring bilingual election materials in certain areas.
5. Made enforcement permanent
- Initially, some provisions were temporary (set to expire after five years), but Congress repeatedly reauthorized and expanded them because discrimination persisted.
Impact:
- Within a few years, voter registration and turnout among Black citizens in the South surged dramatically. For example, in Mississippi Black voter registration jumped from less than 10% in 1964 to nearly 60% by 1968.
- It gave the federal government real power to enforce voting rights, something that had been promised since 1870 but undermined by Jim Crow laws.
Here’s what it actually did:
1. Banned discriminatory voting practices
- Outlawed literacy tests, “understanding” tests, and other devices that were used to disenfranchise Black voters and other minorities.
- Prohibited intimidation, coercion, or denial of the right to vote based on race or color.
2. Created federal oversight (“preclearance”)
- Certain states and counties with a history of racial discrimination in voting (mainly in the South) had to get approval from the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal court before making any changes to their voting laws or procedures.
- This prevented them from adopting new tricks (like poll taxes, gerrymanders, or voter purges) after old ones were struck down.
3. Authorized federal examiners and registrars
- In areas where discrimination was worst, federal officials could be sent to register voters directly and oversee elections to ensure fairness.
- This bypassed local officials who often blocked Black voter registration.
4. Protected language minorities (added later)
- Amendments in the 1970s expanded protections to groups like Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans, and Alaskan Natives by requiring bilingual election materials in certain areas.
5. Made enforcement permanent
- Initially, some provisions were temporary (set to expire after five years), but Congress repeatedly reauthorized and expanded them because discrimination persisted.
Impact:
- Within a few years, voter registration and turnout among Black citizens in the South surged dramatically. For example, in Mississippi Black voter registration jumped from less than 10% in 1964 to nearly 60% by 1968.
- It gave the federal government real power to enforce voting rights, something that had been promised since 1870 but undermined by Jim Crow laws.
Dear ChatGPT: Is there a constitutionally established right to vote?
The U.S. Constitution does not contain a single, broad guarantee of the right to vote for all citizens. Instead, the Constitution and its amendments protect voting rights indirectly by prohibiting certain forms of discrimination and setting rules for elections.
Here’s the breakdown:
Original Constitution (1787)
- The Framers left the power to decide who could vote mostly to the states.
- Article I, Section 2 ties eligibility to vote for the House of Representatives to the rules for the “most numerous branch of the state legislature.” That meant states set the qualifications.
- There was no blanket federal “right to vote.”
Constitutional Amendments Expanding Protections
- Several amendments prohibit denial of the vote on specific grounds, which effectively establishes protections rather than a universal affirmative right:
- - 15th Amendment (1870): No denial of vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
- - 19th Amendment (1920): No denial of vote based on sex.
- - 23rd Amendment (1961): Grants D.C. residents the right to vote for President.
- - 24th Amendment (1964): No poll taxes in federal elections.
- - 26th Amendment (1971): No denial of vote to citizens 18 or older based on age.
Supreme Court Interpretation
- The Court has recognized voting as a “fundamental right” under the Equal Protection Clause (e.g., Reynolds v. Sims (1964), Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966)).
- However, it remains a protected right derived from prohibitions on discrimination and equal protection guarantees, not an explicit universal guarantee written into the Constitution.
Bottom Line
- The Constitution protects the right to vote against certain forms of discrimination, and courts treat it as fundamental, but it does not explicitly establish a general, affirmative right to vote for all citizens.
- For the full answer click here.
Here’s the breakdown:
Original Constitution (1787)
- The Framers left the power to decide who could vote mostly to the states.
- Article I, Section 2 ties eligibility to vote for the House of Representatives to the rules for the “most numerous branch of the state legislature.” That meant states set the qualifications.
- There was no blanket federal “right to vote.”
Constitutional Amendments Expanding Protections
- Several amendments prohibit denial of the vote on specific grounds, which effectively establishes protections rather than a universal affirmative right:
- - 15th Amendment (1870): No denial of vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
- - 19th Amendment (1920): No denial of vote based on sex.
- - 23rd Amendment (1961): Grants D.C. residents the right to vote for President.
- - 24th Amendment (1964): No poll taxes in federal elections.
- - 26th Amendment (1971): No denial of vote to citizens 18 or older based on age.
Supreme Court Interpretation
- The Court has recognized voting as a “fundamental right” under the Equal Protection Clause (e.g., Reynolds v. Sims (1964), Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966)).
- However, it remains a protected right derived from prohibitions on discrimination and equal protection guarantees, not an explicit universal guarantee written into the Constitution.
Bottom Line
- The Constitution protects the right to vote against certain forms of discrimination, and courts treat it as fundamental, but it does not explicitly establish a general, affirmative right to vote for all citizens.
- For the full answer click here.
The South Sea Bubble - The First Financial Crash
From AI Overview:
The South Sea Bubble was a speculative financial bubble and crash in 1720, centered on the South Sea Company, which involved the monopolization of British trade with South America. The bubble was caused by the company taking over government debt, the rapid rise in its stock price through various speculative schemes, increased investor confidence, and a wave of similar "bubble" companies in the UK and France. The bubble collapsed in September 1720, leading to widespread bankruptcies, financial ruin for investors, a parliamentary inquiry into corruption, and the passage of the Bubble Act to prevent future events.
What Caused the Bubble?
South Sea Company: The company was founded in 1711 to take over British national debt and was given exclusive trading rights in the South Seas (South America).
Speculative Schemes: The company's stock price soared as it issued more shares to absorb government debt and to finance other speculative ventures.
Investor Confidence: New investors entered the market, driven by confidence and the belief in quick fortunes, which further inflated stock prices.
"Bubble" Act: The government passed a law in 1720 that removed competition for the South Sea Company, allowing its stock to rise even higher.
International Context: The bubble was amplified by a boom-and-bust cycle in the French stock market, also known as the Mississippi Bubble, which pushed investors to move their money to London.
How Did the Bubble Collapse?
Loss of Confidence: By the summer of 1720, the high prices were unsustainable, and investors began to sell.
Market Crash: The stock price of the South Sea Company plummeted from over £1,000 to £100 by the end of the year, with a sharp drop in September.
Economic Ruin: Many investors went bankrupt, while others faced financial ruin and even suicides spiked.
Consequences and Legacy
Financial Crisis: The collapse was the first international stock market crash, impacting Britain, France, and the Dutch Republic.
Parliamentary Inquiry: A parliamentary investigation revealed corruption and bribery, leading to the confiscation of personal assets.
The Bubble Act: Parliament passed the Bubble Act to prevent similar speculative events from happening in the future.
Lasting Lesson: The South Sea Bubble remains a cautionary tale about the dangers of speculative bubbles, invented wealth, and the power of groupthink in financial markets.
What is an interest group scorecard?
A consequence of published votes of members of Congress.
From Wikipedia:
Scorecards are usually aggregated on an annual basis, and are often composed by political advocacy groups as educative tools for voters in their decision-making at the ballot box. They are also useful for endorsement of candidates by other organizations.
From ChatGPT: How do interest group scorecards influence elections and policymaking?
- Click here for the full answer.
Influence on Elections
- Voter Information Tool: Many voters don’t follow every bill in Congress. Scorecards give them a shortcut: “This candidate is 90% pro-environment” or “This candidate is 10% pro-gun rights.” Especially in primaries, where voters care strongly about specific issues, scorecards can sway decisions.
- Endorsements & Campaign Ads: Politicians use high ratings in campaign ads (“Rated 100% by the NRA” or “Scored A+ by Planned Parenthood”) to show alignment with key constituencies. Opponents may attack low ratings (“She only voted with veterans’ groups 20% of the time”).
- Mobilization of Supporters: Interest groups share scorecards with their members, encouraging them to volunteer, donate, or vote against candidates who score poorly.
Influence on Policymaking
- Legislator Behavior: Lawmakers know they’re being graded, so they sometimes vote with an eye toward maintaining a good score, especially on high-profile issues. This can lock politicians into consistent ideological stances (to avoid a bad grade).
- Agenda Setting: By selecting which votes to include, interest groups signal which issues they consider most important. Lawmakers pay attention, since being scored low on a “key vote” might cost them politically.
Pressure & Leverage: A group can warn legislators: “If you vote against us on this bill, it will count on our scorecard.” That creates immediate political pressure. Legislators in competitive districts might adjust their voting patterns to avoid looking too extreme.
Real-World Example
- The League of Conservation Voters (LCV): Publishes an annual “Environmental Scorecard.” A senator with a 95% score can advertise themselves as a strong environmental advocate. A 10% score could be used by challengers to paint the incumbent as anti-environment.
- The NRA: Its A-to-F rating system has historically been influential, especially in Republican primaries, where an “A” rating signals strong gun-rights credentials.
Saturday, September 27, 2025
Ask ChatGPT:
These questions are related to the issues mentioned in Sections 4 - 7 of Artiucle 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
- Has Congress ever negated a state election law?
- - Click here for the answer.
- How often did the British monarch suspend colonial legislatures?
- - Click here for the answer.
- How many times has Congress denied someone the ability to sit in Congress? Why?
- - Click here for the answer.
- What penalties has Congress issued for members who refuse to attend?
- - Click here for the answer.
- What types of topics might Congress choose to keep secret?
- - Click here for the answer.
- Has one chamber of Congress ever adjourned without the apporval of the other chamber?
- - Click here for the answer.
- Provide a timeline of the length of sessions of Congress.
- - Click here for the answer.
- Provide a timeline of the pay of members of Congress.
- - Click here for the answer.
- How often have members of Congress been arrested going to and returning from a session?
- - Click here for the answer.
- How often have members of Congress been arrested while in office?
- - Click here for the answer.
- How often have members of Congress been sued for a speech or debate made in either House?
- - Click here for the answer.
- Has a member of Congress ever held executive office at the same time?
- - Click here for the answer.
Friday, September 26, 2025
Thursday, September 25, 2025
From the New York Times: Trump Clears Way for American-Owned TikTok Valued at $14 Billion
Another test of the extent of presidential power.
- Click here for the article.
President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday that would help clear the way for a coalition of investors to run an American version of TikTok, one that is separate from its Chinese owner, ByteDance, so that it can keep operating in the United States.
The deal is aimed at helping TikTok comply with a federal law, which banned the app in the United States in January out of concern that Beijing could use it to gain access to Americans’ sensitive data or to spread propaganda. Mr. Trump has delayed enforcement of the ban repeatedly. The Thursday order gives negotiators until mid-January to finalize the deal.
The White House hasn’t said exactly who would own the U.S. version of TikTok, but the list of potential investors includes several powerful allies of Mr. Trump. The software giant Oracle, whose co-founder is the billionaire Larry Ellison, will take a stake in U.S. TikTok. Mr. Trump has also said that the media mogul Rupert Murdoch is involved. A person familiar with the talks said the Murdoch investments would come through Fox Corporation.
Dear ChatGPT: Did the framers of the U.S. Constitution intend for the president to have direct control of law enforcement?
The framers didn’t lay out a simple, one-sentence answer, so historians and constitutional scholars piece it together from the text of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and early practices. Here’s a breakdown:
1. Constitutional Text
- Take Care Clause (Article II, §3): The president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This was understood as making the president ultimately responsible for execution of the laws, which naturally includes law enforcement.
- Appointment and Removal Powers (Article II, §§2–3):
The president appoints executive officers (with Senate consent) and can remove them (at least those exercising executive functions). That suggests law enforcement officials are extensions of presidential authority.
2. Framers’ Concerns
- The framers wanted an “energetic” executive (Federalist No. 70, Hamilton). Law enforcement was seen as part of that energy—contrasting with the weak executive under the Articles of Confederation.
- At the same time, they feared tyranny. They deliberately separated powers: the president enforces the law but does not make law (Congress) or adjudicate guilt (courts).
- They avoided creating a national police force. Law enforcement in daily life was expected to remain largely in the hands of states and localities. The federal government only had authority over federal law, which was much narrower in scope in the 1790s than today.
3. Early Practice
- George Washington set the precedent: he personally directed federal marshals and even called up militias (e.g., Whiskey Rebellion, 1794). That showed the president had direct control over federal enforcement mechanisms when needed.
- But the day-to-day policing of ordinary crimes (theft, assault, etc.) was left to state and local authorities.
4. Scholarly Consensus
- The framers intended the president to have direct supervisory control over federal law enforcement officers (like marshals, customs collectors, military enforcement of federal law).
- They did not intend for the president to run all law enforcement nationwide. Federal law enforcement was supposed to be limited and bounded by Congress’s lawmaking and the judiciary’s oversight.
In sum: The framers did envision the president as the chief law enforcer of federal law, with direct authority over federal officers. But they did not intend for the president to control all law enforcement across the country — most police power was meant to remain with the states.
- For the full answer click here.
1. Constitutional Text
- Take Care Clause (Article II, §3): The president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This was understood as making the president ultimately responsible for execution of the laws, which naturally includes law enforcement.
- Appointment and Removal Powers (Article II, §§2–3):
The president appoints executive officers (with Senate consent) and can remove them (at least those exercising executive functions). That suggests law enforcement officials are extensions of presidential authority.
2. Framers’ Concerns
- The framers wanted an “energetic” executive (Federalist No. 70, Hamilton). Law enforcement was seen as part of that energy—contrasting with the weak executive under the Articles of Confederation.
- At the same time, they feared tyranny. They deliberately separated powers: the president enforces the law but does not make law (Congress) or adjudicate guilt (courts).
- They avoided creating a national police force. Law enforcement in daily life was expected to remain largely in the hands of states and localities. The federal government only had authority over federal law, which was much narrower in scope in the 1790s than today.
3. Early Practice
- George Washington set the precedent: he personally directed federal marshals and even called up militias (e.g., Whiskey Rebellion, 1794). That showed the president had direct control over federal enforcement mechanisms when needed.
- But the day-to-day policing of ordinary crimes (theft, assault, etc.) was left to state and local authorities.
4. Scholarly Consensus
- The framers intended the president to have direct supervisory control over federal law enforcement officers (like marshals, customs collectors, military enforcement of federal law).
- They did not intend for the president to run all law enforcement nationwide. Federal law enforcement was supposed to be limited and bounded by Congress’s lawmaking and the judiciary’s oversight.
In sum: The framers did envision the president as the chief law enforcer of federal law, with direct authority over federal officers. But they did not intend for the president to control all law enforcement across the country — most police power was meant to remain with the states.
- For the full answer click here.
Wednesday, September 24, 2025
- Affirmative defense.
- SB 412.
- Victims of Violent Crime.
- Chairmen Guthrie and Hudson Announce Hearing on Streamlining Broadband Permitting.
- What projects did Bob Perry build?
- Tiger King.
- Appropriations Status Table: FY2026.
- Identifying Minors Online.
- What is a political consultant?
- Tigers in Texas: Explaining state laws on owning dangerous animals.
- APPLICATION FORCERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION FOR DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS.
- SB 412.
- Victims of Violent Crime.
- Chairmen Guthrie and Hudson Announce Hearing on Streamlining Broadband Permitting.
- What projects did Bob Perry build?
- Tiger King.
- Appropriations Status Table: FY2026.
- Identifying Minors Online.
- What is a political consultant?
- Tigers in Texas: Explaining state laws on owning dangerous animals.
- APPLICATION FORCERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION FOR DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS.
9/24/25
Article 1
- Section 4.
- Section 5.
- Section 6.
- Section 7.
- House Rules and Manual.
- Rules of the Senate.
Congress.gov
Tuesday, September 23, 2025
From the Constitution Annotated: Table of Laws Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court
This is pretty cool.
A list of all the statutory laws struck down the the Supreme Court.
- Click here for it.
Is there a constitutional right to . . . .
be rude?
be disruptive?
be heard?
whisper?
yell?
yell at someone?
From the Houston Chronicle: Meet the Houston megadonors who gave the most campaign cash over 25 years
For our look at campaign finance.
- Click here for the article.
Snippets:
That’s almost $30 million more than the next highest donor, John Nau, who is the former chairman and CEO of Silver Eagle Distributors, the nation’s largest independent distributor of Anheuser-Busch beverages.
. . .
Where the money went
Texans for Greg Abbott received the next largest share of funds from the Houston megadonors, about $24 million since 2001. American Crossroads and Restore Our Future, two federal committees bolstering Republican causes, also received large amounts of money, at $19 million and $13 million, respectively.
Monday, September 22, 2025
Wrongful dismissal?
- Click here for it.
- Teacher Fired for Charlie Kirk Post Sues Iowa School District.
- Disciplinary actions for commentary on the Charlie Kirk assassination.
- Teachers' punishment for social media posts on Charlie Kirk's death prompts free speech debate.
- The Firing of Educators Over Kirk Comments Follows a Familiar Playbook.
- Educators Are Being Fired for Posting About Charlie Kirk. Is That a Problem?
- Houston-area educators face criticism over comments about death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Four Osceola teachers under investigation for social media comments about Charlie KirkFour Osceola teachers under investigation for social media comments about Charlie KirkFour Osceola teachers under investigation for social media comments about Charlie Kirk
Dear AI Overview: Are duties, imposts and excises the same as tariffs?
No, duties, imposts, and excises are not the same as tariffs; however, tariffs are a specific type of duty. Duties are the broadest category, encompassing various government taxes on goods and services, while tariffs are taxes specifically levied on imported and exported goods to regulate trade or generate revenue. Imposts are a type of duty on imported goods, and excises are taxes placed on domestically produced goods or services.
Tariffs
- What they are: Taxes specifically on goods that are imported or exported.
- Purpose: To protect domestic industries, restrict trade with certain countries, or raise government revenue.
- Example: A tax on steel imported into the United States.
Duties
- What they are: A broader term for a tax or fee imposed by a government on specific goods, services, or transactions.
- Scope: Includes tariffs, imposts, and excise duties.
- Purpose: To collect revenue and enforce government policy.
Imposts
- What they are: A type of duty on imported goods. The US Constitution uses the terms "duties" and "imposts" almost interchangeably.
- Relationship to tariffs: Often considered synonymous with tariffs in common usage.
Excises
- What they are:
- - Taxes on specific goods, often domestic, like alcoholic beverages, tobacco, or fuel.
Purpose:
- To raise revenue and sometimes to discourage consumption of certain products.
- How they fit together
- Think of "duties" as the umbrella term for all these specific types of taxes.
"Tariffs" and "imposts" are specific types of duties applied to international trade.
"Excises" are another type of duty, but they apply to domestic goods, not international trade.
Tariffs
- What they are: Taxes specifically on goods that are imported or exported.
- Purpose: To protect domestic industries, restrict trade with certain countries, or raise government revenue.
- Example: A tax on steel imported into the United States.
Duties
- What they are: A broader term for a tax or fee imposed by a government on specific goods, services, or transactions.
- Scope: Includes tariffs, imposts, and excise duties.
- Purpose: To collect revenue and enforce government policy.
Imposts
- What they are: A type of duty on imported goods. The US Constitution uses the terms "duties" and "imposts" almost interchangeably.
- Relationship to tariffs: Often considered synonymous with tariffs in common usage.
Excises
- What they are:
- - Taxes on specific goods, often domestic, like alcoholic beverages, tobacco, or fuel.
Purpose:
- To raise revenue and sometimes to discourage consumption of certain products.
- How they fit together
- Think of "duties" as the umbrella term for all these specific types of taxes.
"Tariffs" and "imposts" are specific types of duties applied to international trade.
"Excises" are another type of duty, but they apply to domestic goods, not international trade.
From the CRS: Executive Branch Tariff Actions in the 119th Congress: CRS Products, Experts, and Points of Contact
- Click here for it.
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to lay and collect tariffs and to regulate commerce with foreign nations.9 The last time that Congress set tariff rates was in 1930.10 Since then, changes to U.S. tariffs have been the result of presidential action using authority Congress delegated through statute to the executive branch.11 Historically, most of these changes have been made by presidential proclamation following U.S. entry into various international trade agreements that generally sought to reduce or eliminate tariffs and nontariff barriers among the parties.12
From the CRS: Executive Order on Elections: Legal Background and Court Challenges
- Click here for it.
On March 25, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14248, "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections." The EO addresses the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and the national uniform voter registration form, mail-in ballot requirements, state election database access by the federal government, federal election funding conditions, and voting systems requirements, among other issues. In April, the District Court for the District of Columbia in League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Executive Office of the President granted, in part, a preliminary injunction pausing some of the provisions of the EO. In June, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an injunction blocking additional provisions in litigation brought by multiple state plaintiffs in State of California v. Trump. Washington and Oregon separately challenged the EO in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in State of Washington v. Trump.
This Legal Sidebar provides background on relevant constitutional authority and federal election laws, summarizes the provisions of EO 14248, discusses the litigation challenging the EO, and offers some considerations for Congress.
Sunday, September 21, 2025
Supreme Court decisions regarding termination for content of speech
Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) - Teacher criticizing school officials
- Facts: A high school teacher wrote a letter to the local newspaper criticizing the school board’s budget decisions.- Result: The Supreme Court said the firing was unconstitutional. The teacher was speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern.
- Key Point: Criticism of government officials is usually protected, unless it seriously disrupts the workplace.
Rankin v. McPherson (1987) - Clerk criticizing the President
- Facts: A county employee (a clerical worker) said after hearing of an attempt on President Reagan’s life: “If they go for him again, I hope they get him.”
- Result: The Supreme Court ruled her firing was unconstitutional. Her statement was made privately, did not disrupt the workplace, and was about a public official.
- Key Point: Even harsh, offensive comments about public figures can be protected if they don’t harm the agency’s function.
Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) - Prosecutor criticizing within his job
- Result: The Supreme Court upheld the discipline because he spoke as part of his official job duties, not as a private citizen.
- Key Point: If the criticism is made in the course of work, the First Amendment does not apply.
Graziosi v. City of Greenville (2015, 5th Cir.) - Police officer criticizing the mayor
- Result: The court upheld her termination. Her comments undermined the chain of command and the department’s functioning.
- Key Point: Speech on public issues can still justify firing if it disrupts government operations.
Dear ChatGPT: Can a state employee be fired for posting negative comments about a public person?
In this case, that person is Charlie Kirk and those people are public school teachers.
The answer suggests the teachers may have a legitimate constitutional case.
Answer:
That depends on who the employee is, what they said, and the context. Here are the key legal principles:
- General Rule: Government employees do not give up their First Amendment rights, but those rights are limited when speech conflicts with the government’s role as an employer.
- The Supreme Court’s Pickering test (Pickering v. Board of Education, 1968) sets the framework:
1 - Was the employee speaking as a private citizen (not as part of their job duties)?
2 - Was the speech on a matter of public concern (politics, public figures, government conduct, etc.)?
3 - If yes to both, then the court balances the employee’s free speech rights against the government’s interest in maintaining efficient, disruption-free operations.
2. Negative Comments About a Public Person
- If the comments are political opinions or criticisms of a public figure (e.g., an elected official, celebrity, activist): Courts usually treat this as speech on a matter of public concern, which leans toward protection.
- If the comments are personal insults, harassment, or threats: Protection is weaker, and the state can discipline or fire if it undermines workplace discipline or the agency’s credibility.
3. Speaking as a Citizen vs. Employee Duty
- If the employee’s comments are made on their own time, on personal social media, not part of their official role, the First Amendment usually applies.
- But if the comments relate to their official job duties (e.g., a state communications officer trashing the governor online), then the employer can discipline without First Amendment limits (per Garcetti v. Ceballos, 2006).
4. Bottom Line
- A state employee can be fired for negative comments about a public person if the employer shows the comments:
- Disrupted the workplace,
- Harmed the agency’s mission, or
- Were made as part of the employee’s official duties.
But if the comments are private speech on public issues, the employee usually has strong constitutional protection.
- If the comments are political opinions or criticisms of a public figure (e.g., an elected official, celebrity, activist): Courts usually treat this as speech on a matter of public concern, which leans toward protection.
- If the comments are personal insults, harassment, or threats: Protection is weaker, and the state can discipline or fire if it undermines workplace discipline or the agency’s credibility.
3. Speaking as a Citizen vs. Employee Duty
- If the employee’s comments are made on their own time, on personal social media, not part of their official role, the First Amendment usually applies.
- But if the comments relate to their official job duties (e.g., a state communications officer trashing the governor online), then the employer can discipline without First Amendment limits (per Garcetti v. Ceballos, 2006).
4. Bottom Line
- A state employee can be fired for negative comments about a public person if the employer shows the comments:
- Disrupted the workplace,
- Harmed the agency’s mission, or
- Were made as part of the employee’s official duties.
But if the comments are private speech on public issues, the employee usually has strong constitutional protection.
Friday, September 19, 2025
From the Houston Chronicle: TEA reviewing 180 complaints against Texas teachers for Charlie Kirk comments
Look for challenges in federal court to these actions.
- Click here for the article.
The Texas Education Agency said Monday it is reviewing at least 180 complaints of public school teachers and staff posting negative comments about conservative activist Charlie Kirk following his assassination last week.
“While the exercise of free speech is a fundamental right we are all blessed to share, it does not give carte blanche authority to celebrate or sow violence against those that share differing beliefs and perspectives,” Morath wrote in a letter to superintendents Friday. “Mr. Kirk was a father and a husband, and tragically, his children no longer have their father, and his wife no longer has her spouse.”
The Texas chapter of the American Federation of Teachers criticized Morath’s comments, calling the resulting investigations a “witch hunt” against teachers.
“What started with lawmakers weaponizing their platforms against civil servants has morphed into a statewide directive to hunt down and fire educators for opinions shared on their personal social media accounts,” said Zeph Capo, the group’s president.
See Also: Roughly 280 complaints filed against Texas teachers for alleged comments on killing of Charlie Kirk.
Thursday, September 18, 2025
On this day in history - 9.18.25
1947 – The National Security Act reorganizes the United States government's military and intelligence services.
1927 – The Columbia Broadcasting System goes on the air.
1873 – The U.S. bank Jay Cooke & Company declares bankruptcy, contributing to the Panic of 1873.
1851 – First publication of The New-York Daily Times, which later becomes The New York Times.
1850 – The U.S. Congress passes the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
1838 – The Anti-Corn Law League is established by Richard Cobden.
1793 – The first cornerstone of the United States Capitol is laid by George Washington.
1927 – The Columbia Broadcasting System goes on the air.
1873 – The U.S. bank Jay Cooke & Company declares bankruptcy, contributing to the Panic of 1873.
1851 – First publication of The New-York Daily Times, which later becomes The New York Times.
1850 – The U.S. Congress passes the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
1838 – The Anti-Corn Law League is established by Richard Cobden.
1793 – The first cornerstone of the United States Capitol is laid by George Washington.
Battles over patents
The patents clause did not eliminate controversies over who invented what. Just over who got to clai it for themselves.
Examples:
- Elisha Gray and Alexander Bell telephone controversy.
- Wright brothers patent war.
- Software patent debate.
- Smartphone patent wars.
See also: Patent Troll.
And also see: Multiple Discovery.
Wednesday, September 17, 2025
Subjects of Election Laws passed by the Texas Legislature
The links take you to the specific bills introduced in the 89th Regular Session.
- Elections--Administration
- Elections--Campaign Financing
- Elections--Candidates
- Elections--Early Voting
- Elections--Election Officers
- Elections--General
- Elections--Initiative, Referendum & Recall
- Elections--Judicial
- Elections--Political Parties
- Elections--Presidential
- Elections--Primaries
- Elections--Registration & Suffrage
- Elections--School District
- Elections--Voting Systems
- Elections--Administration
- Elections--Campaign Financing
- Elections--Candidates
- Elections--Early Voting
- Elections--Election Officers
- Elections--General
- Elections--Initiative, Referendum & Recall
- Elections--Judicial
- Elections--Political Parties
- Elections--Presidential
- Elections--Primaries
- Elections--Registration & Suffrage
- Elections--School District
- Elections--Voting Systems
Copyrightable designs
Dear ChatGPT: Please break down the step-by-step process for registering a design with the U.S. Copyright Office. Thanks again!
Steps to Register a Design Copyright
1. Make sure your design is eligible
- It must be original and show some creative expression.
- It must be fixed in a tangible form (digital file, drawing, painting, sculpture, etc.).
- It must be primarily artistic, not functional. If it’s mainly functional, you may need a design patent instead.
2. Gather the necessary materials
- A copy of the design:
- For 2D works: upload a high-quality image (JPEG, TIFF, or PDF).
- For 3D works: photos showing different angles.
- Information about the creator (name, address).
- Publication details: Whether the design has been published (offered for sale or distributed) and the date, if so.
3. Go to the U.S. Copyright Office website: copyright.gov/registration
- Choose “Visual Arts” as the work type.
4. Complete the application (eCO system)
Fill in:
- Title of the work.
- Name of the author/creator.
- Claimant (usually the same as the author unless transferred to someone else).
- Year of creation.
- Whether it’s published or unpublished.
- You can also list pseudonyms if you want to register under a pen name.
5. Pay the filing fee
- Standard online filing fee: $45–$65 (varies by type of application).
- Paper forms are available, but more expensive ($125+).
6. Upload or send in your design
- If applying online: upload the image(s) directly.
- If applying by mail: send hard copies of the design (known as “deposit copies”).
7. Wait for processing
- Online applications: typically 3–6 months (can be longer if complex).
- Paper applications: can take 12+ months.
- You’ll receive a registration certificate once approved.
8. Keep records
- Save copies of your application, deposit images, and certificate.
- If someone infringes your work, registration allows you to file a lawsuit in federal court and seek damages.
Extra note: If your design is more about branding (like a logo), you might also consider registering it as a trademark with the USPTO. If it’s about product shape or ornamentation that isn’t purely artistic, a design patent may be more appropriate. Sometimes creators use all three forms of protection for different aspects.
Dear ChatGPT: Pretty please - outline the conflict over the meaning of "general welfare" in the U.S. Constitution.
The phrase “general welfare” in the U.S. Constitution appears in two key places:
The Preamble (“promote the general Welfare”), which is more aspirational.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause):
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…”
The conflict over its meaning centers on how broadly Congress’s power to tax and spend may extend.
Here’s an outline of the main points of the debate:
1. Narrow / Madisonian Interpretation
- View: Congress can only tax and spend for the “general welfare” in relation to its other enumerated powers (such as defense, commerce, post offices, etc.).
- James Madison’s position: “General welfare” is a preamble-like statement, not an independent grant of power. Otherwise, it would render the enumeration of powers in Article I meaningless.
- Implication: Federal spending must be tied directly to specific powers listed in the Constitution.
Supporters: Strict constructionists, states’ rights advocates, many Anti-Federalists.
2. Broad / Hamiltonian Interpretation
View: “General welfare” is a substantive, independent power—Congress may tax and spend for any purpose it believes serves the national interest, so long as it benefits the nation as a whole rather than particular states or groups.
Alexander Hamilton’s position: The phrase provides a broad, flexible power necessary for effective national governance.
Implication: Congress can fund things like infrastructure, social programs, or economic supports even if not tied to other enumerated powers.
Supporters: Federalists, nationalists, and later those favoring strong central government.
3. Judicial Treatment
Early reluctance: Courts generally avoided ruling directly on the scope of “general welfare” in the early republic.
United States v. Butler (1936): The Supreme Court explicitly adopted Hamilton’s broad view, recognizing Congress’s power to tax and spend for the general welfare, though it struck down the specific law (Agricultural Adjustment Act) for other reasons.
Subsequent cases (Helvering v. Davis, 1937): Upheld Social Security Act, reinforcing Hamilton’s interpretation and giving Congress wide latitude.
4. Political & Philosophical Conflict
Federal vs. state power: The dispute reflects a deeper struggle between national authority and state autonomy.
Policy debates: Hamilton’s broad view has justified large federal programs (e.g., New Deal, Medicare, infrastructure spending), while Madison’s narrow view is often invoked by critics of federal overreach.
Continuing controversy: Modern debates about the size of government, entitlement programs, and federal mandates still echo this conflict.
Summary:
The conflict over “general welfare” boils down to whether the phrase is a limit (Madison: tied to enumerated powers) or a grant (Hamilton: independent spending power). The Supreme Court and historical practice have largely embraced Hamilton’s broad interpretation, but the Madisonian view remains influential in constitutional and political arguments over federal power.
Would you like me to create a timeline of key moments in this conflict (from Founding debates to modern Supreme Court cases), so you can see how the interpretation evolved step by step?
Please do
Timeline of the “General Welfare” Debate
1787 – Constitutional Convention
The phrase “general welfare” included in the Preamble and the Taxing & Spending Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1).
Delegates disagreed on whether it was merely introductory (a limitation) or a grant of power.
1787–1788 – Ratification Debates
James Madison (Federalist 41): Argued that “general welfare” does not expand federal power—otherwise, enumerating specific powers would be redundant.
Alexander Hamilton (Federalist 30 & Reports as Treasury Secretary): Claimed it gave Congress broad authority to spend for national purposes, subject only to the requirement that it serve the whole union, not local interests.
1791 – Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures
Hamilton invoked the broad “general welfare” view to justify federal support for manufacturing and industry.
Madison and Jefferson objected, arguing this interpretation invited unlimited federal power.
Early 1800s – Jeffersonian & Madisonian Era
Jefferson as president resisted federal spending not tied to enumerated powers (e.g., debated constitutionality of internal improvements).
Bonus Bill (1817): Congress passed a bill funding internal improvements; President Madison vetoed it, citing lack of constitutional authority—classic narrow view.
19th Century – Pre-Civil War
General welfare disputes resurfaced in debates over infrastructure (roads, canals, railroads) and federal aid to states.
Presidents like Jackson and Polk leaned toward the narrow view, vetoing spending they saw as unconstitutional.
Late 19th / Early 20th Century
Federal spending increased gradually, but the constitutional question simmered.
Courts generally avoided directly ruling on the scope of “general welfare.”
1930s – New Deal & Supreme Court Battles
The Great Depression led to unprecedented federal spending programs.
United States v. Butler (1936): Court struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act but, importantly, endorsed Hamilton’s broad view—Congress may tax and spend for the general welfare independently of enumerated powers.
Helvering v. Davis (1937): Upheld the Social Security Act, cementing broad spending power. Justice Cardozo wrote that determining the general welfare is primarily up to Congress.
Post–New Deal Era
The Hamiltonian view became settled law.
Federal programs like Medicare, Medicaid, education funding, and welfare were justified under the Spending Clause.
Challenges typically focused not on the meaning of “general welfare” but on conditions attached to federal funds.
Modern Era
South Dakota v. Dole (1987): Court upheld federal conditions on highway funds (raising drinking age to 21), reaffirming Congress’s broad spending power but noting some limits (must be in pursuit of the general welfare, not coercive).
Current debates (healthcare, education, climate programs, infrastructure bills) continue to echo the tension between Hamiltonian breadth and Madisonian restraint, especially in political arguments about “federal overreach.”
Summary:
Founding–Civil War: Madisonian (narrow) view more dominant in practice.
20th century onward: Hamiltonian (broad) view ascends, confirmed by Supreme Court.
Today: The Hamiltonian interpretation governs, but the Madisonian critique remains a powerful rhetorical tool in constitutional and political debate.
The Preamble (“promote the general Welfare”), which is more aspirational.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause):
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…”
The conflict over its meaning centers on how broadly Congress’s power to tax and spend may extend.
Here’s an outline of the main points of the debate:
1. Narrow / Madisonian Interpretation
- View: Congress can only tax and spend for the “general welfare” in relation to its other enumerated powers (such as defense, commerce, post offices, etc.).
- James Madison’s position: “General welfare” is a preamble-like statement, not an independent grant of power. Otherwise, it would render the enumeration of powers in Article I meaningless.
- Implication: Federal spending must be tied directly to specific powers listed in the Constitution.
Supporters: Strict constructionists, states’ rights advocates, many Anti-Federalists.
2. Broad / Hamiltonian Interpretation
View: “General welfare” is a substantive, independent power—Congress may tax and spend for any purpose it believes serves the national interest, so long as it benefits the nation as a whole rather than particular states or groups.
Alexander Hamilton’s position: The phrase provides a broad, flexible power necessary for effective national governance.
Implication: Congress can fund things like infrastructure, social programs, or economic supports even if not tied to other enumerated powers.
Supporters: Federalists, nationalists, and later those favoring strong central government.
3. Judicial Treatment
Early reluctance: Courts generally avoided ruling directly on the scope of “general welfare” in the early republic.
United States v. Butler (1936): The Supreme Court explicitly adopted Hamilton’s broad view, recognizing Congress’s power to tax and spend for the general welfare, though it struck down the specific law (Agricultural Adjustment Act) for other reasons.
Subsequent cases (Helvering v. Davis, 1937): Upheld Social Security Act, reinforcing Hamilton’s interpretation and giving Congress wide latitude.
4. Political & Philosophical Conflict
Federal vs. state power: The dispute reflects a deeper struggle between national authority and state autonomy.
Policy debates: Hamilton’s broad view has justified large federal programs (e.g., New Deal, Medicare, infrastructure spending), while Madison’s narrow view is often invoked by critics of federal overreach.
Continuing controversy: Modern debates about the size of government, entitlement programs, and federal mandates still echo this conflict.
Summary:
The conflict over “general welfare” boils down to whether the phrase is a limit (Madison: tied to enumerated powers) or a grant (Hamilton: independent spending power). The Supreme Court and historical practice have largely embraced Hamilton’s broad interpretation, but the Madisonian view remains influential in constitutional and political arguments over federal power.
Would you like me to create a timeline of key moments in this conflict (from Founding debates to modern Supreme Court cases), so you can see how the interpretation evolved step by step?
Please do
Timeline of the “General Welfare” Debate
1787 – Constitutional Convention
The phrase “general welfare” included in the Preamble and the Taxing & Spending Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1).
Delegates disagreed on whether it was merely introductory (a limitation) or a grant of power.
1787–1788 – Ratification Debates
James Madison (Federalist 41): Argued that “general welfare” does not expand federal power—otherwise, enumerating specific powers would be redundant.
Alexander Hamilton (Federalist 30 & Reports as Treasury Secretary): Claimed it gave Congress broad authority to spend for national purposes, subject only to the requirement that it serve the whole union, not local interests.
1791 – Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures
Hamilton invoked the broad “general welfare” view to justify federal support for manufacturing and industry.
Madison and Jefferson objected, arguing this interpretation invited unlimited federal power.
Early 1800s – Jeffersonian & Madisonian Era
Jefferson as president resisted federal spending not tied to enumerated powers (e.g., debated constitutionality of internal improvements).
Bonus Bill (1817): Congress passed a bill funding internal improvements; President Madison vetoed it, citing lack of constitutional authority—classic narrow view.
19th Century – Pre-Civil War
General welfare disputes resurfaced in debates over infrastructure (roads, canals, railroads) and federal aid to states.
Presidents like Jackson and Polk leaned toward the narrow view, vetoing spending they saw as unconstitutional.
Late 19th / Early 20th Century
Federal spending increased gradually, but the constitutional question simmered.
Courts generally avoided directly ruling on the scope of “general welfare.”
1930s – New Deal & Supreme Court Battles
The Great Depression led to unprecedented federal spending programs.
United States v. Butler (1936): Court struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act but, importantly, endorsed Hamilton’s broad view—Congress may tax and spend for the general welfare independently of enumerated powers.
Helvering v. Davis (1937): Upheld the Social Security Act, cementing broad spending power. Justice Cardozo wrote that determining the general welfare is primarily up to Congress.
Post–New Deal Era
The Hamiltonian view became settled law.
Federal programs like Medicare, Medicaid, education funding, and welfare were justified under the Spending Clause.
Challenges typically focused not on the meaning of “general welfare” but on conditions attached to federal funds.
Modern Era
South Dakota v. Dole (1987): Court upheld federal conditions on highway funds (raising drinking age to 21), reaffirming Congress’s broad spending power but noting some limits (must be in pursuit of the general welfare, not coercive).
Current debates (healthcare, education, climate programs, infrastructure bills) continue to echo the tension between Hamiltonian breadth and Madisonian restraint, especially in political arguments about “federal overreach.”
Summary:
Founding–Civil War: Madisonian (narrow) view more dominant in practice.
20th century onward: Hamiltonian (broad) view ascends, confirmed by Supreme Court.
Today: The Hamiltonian interpretation governs, but the Madisonian critique remains a powerful rhetorical tool in constitutional and political debate.
Covered in class today - 9/17/25
- Ken Paxton’s legal crusade against Beto O’Rourke is faltering before an all-Republican appeals court.
- Texas GOP may be banking on low Hispanic turnout in new map.
- Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.
- The Intellectual Property Implications of Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands.
- Dear ChatGPT: Can you copyright a costume?
- Dear ChatGPT: What is the useful article doctrine?
- The Evolution of Home Rule in Texas Municipalities.
- nuisance laws
- Sis Boom Bah? Cheerleading Uniforms and Copyright Protection—Star Athletica Case Decided!
- Texas City Charter Research.
Tuesday, September 16, 2025
Monday, September 15, 2025
9/15/25 +
Texas Constitution
US and Texas Bill of Rights
Proposed Amendments to the Texas Constitution
US: Article 1, Section 8
States in the U.S. Constitution
Dillon's Rule
TX: Article 1, Section 56
TX: Article 9: Counties
TX; Article 11: Municipal Corporations
14th Amendment
Criminal Justice
Fiscal Federalism
Sunday, September 14, 2025
Dear ChatGPT: What constitutional limits exist on the freedom of speech?
In the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but that protection is not absolute. Over time, the Supreme Court has recognized several constitutional limits—categories of speech or circumstances where the government may restrict expression without violating the Constitution.
Here are the main limits:
1. Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action
Speech intended and likely to provoke imminent unlawful acts (e.g., riots, violence) is not protected.
Key case: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) – advocacy of violence is protected unless it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it.
2. True Threats and Intimidation
Speech that communicates a serious intent to commit violence against individuals or groups is not protected.
Virginia v. Black (2003) clarified that true threats fall outside First Amendment protection.
3. Fighting Words
Direct, face-to-face insults that are likely to provoke immediate violence from the listener may be restricted.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) established this category, though courts apply it narrowly today.
4. Obscenity
Obscene material is unprotected if it meets the Miller test (Miller v. California, 1973):
Appeals to prurient interest (based on community standards),
Depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way,
Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
5. Child Pornography
Always unprotected, even if not obscene under Miller.
New York v. Ferber (1982) – government has a compelling interest in protecting children from exploitation.
6. Defamation (Libel and Slander)
False statements of fact that harm another’s reputation can be punished, but standards differ:
Public officials/figures: must show "actual malice" (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard).
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
Private individuals: lower standard, usually negligence.
7. Commercial Speech
Protected, but less strongly than political speech.
Government can regulate false, misleading, or harmful advertising.
Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission (1980) provides the current test.
8. National Security and Classified Information
The government can restrict disclosure of sensitive military or national security secrets in some cases.
Near v. Minnesota (1931) and New York Times v. United States (1971) show that prior restraint is almost always unconstitutional—but not absolutely.
9. Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions
Even protected speech may be regulated content-neutrally for order and safety.
Restrictions must be:
- Content-neutral,
- Narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest,
- Leave open alternative channels of communication.
Example: permit requirements for parades, noise limits at night.
In short: The First Amendment protects speech broadly, but when speech directly threatens safety, order, or others’ rights, it can be limited.
For a look at the variety of questison I asked, click here.
Here are the main limits:
1. Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action
Speech intended and likely to provoke imminent unlawful acts (e.g., riots, violence) is not protected.
Key case: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) – advocacy of violence is protected unless it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it.
2. True Threats and Intimidation
Speech that communicates a serious intent to commit violence against individuals or groups is not protected.
Virginia v. Black (2003) clarified that true threats fall outside First Amendment protection.
3. Fighting Words
Direct, face-to-face insults that are likely to provoke immediate violence from the listener may be restricted.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) established this category, though courts apply it narrowly today.
4. Obscenity
Obscene material is unprotected if it meets the Miller test (Miller v. California, 1973):
Appeals to prurient interest (based on community standards),
Depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way,
Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
5. Child Pornography
Always unprotected, even if not obscene under Miller.
New York v. Ferber (1982) – government has a compelling interest in protecting children from exploitation.
6. Defamation (Libel and Slander)
False statements of fact that harm another’s reputation can be punished, but standards differ:
Public officials/figures: must show "actual malice" (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard).
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
Private individuals: lower standard, usually negligence.
7. Commercial Speech
Protected, but less strongly than political speech.
Government can regulate false, misleading, or harmful advertising.
Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission (1980) provides the current test.
8. National Security and Classified Information
The government can restrict disclosure of sensitive military or national security secrets in some cases.
Near v. Minnesota (1931) and New York Times v. United States (1971) show that prior restraint is almost always unconstitutional—but not absolutely.
9. Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions
Even protected speech may be regulated content-neutrally for order and safety.
Restrictions must be:
- Content-neutral,
- Narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest,
- Leave open alternative channels of communication.
Example: permit requirements for parades, noise limits at night.
In short: The First Amendment protects speech broadly, but when speech directly threatens safety, order, or others’ rights, it can be limited.
For a look at the variety of questison I asked, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)