This article is behind a pay wall in the WSJ, but the Atlantic has a summary, which I've copied below. Floyd Abrams is a noted First Amendment Lawyer and he's concerned with the way some cities are dealing with a new phenomenon made possible by social media: flash mob violence. Recall that the recent revolutions in the Middle East and elsewhere have been made possible by social media. It's impact is not yet fully realized. Does government have the right to restrict its use since some might use it to organize criminal activity?
From the Atlantic Five:
Floyd Abrams on flash mobs and First Amendment rights Flash mobs--large groups that assemble by means of text message--sometimes act dangerously or lawlessly. "In doing so, they have raised difficult policy and legal issues, including questions relating to the role of the First Amendment," writes lawyer and author Floyd Abrams in The Wall Street Journal. Recently, mobs have beaten passersby and robbed stores. Official responses to the trend vary. In Cleveland, the city council passed a law banning "improper use of social media to violate ordinances on disorderly conduct, public intoxication and unlawful congregation by promoting illegal flash mob activity." During the British riots, David Cameron considered censoring social network sites. "But by focusing on the newer technological means of communication and not on the illegal conduct and its causes, they miss the point that it is not criminal to meet, let alone to plan to do so--but to engage in criminal conduct." The Cleveland mayor realized this and vetoed the proposed law. But the legality can become ambiguous. In San Francisco, the BART public transit system heard of a planned disruption to their service by groups organizing themselves by cell phone, so they disabled the underground fiber optic network. The plan worked, but the ACLU and others criticized the group for violating the liberties of all BART passengers. "As the proposed Cleveland statute illustrates, barring all people from engaging in constitutionally protected speech, even for a limited time in a limited space, raises troubling First Amendment issues," writes Abrams. "There will be more."
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Regarding the Republican Debate
Republican presidential candidates had another in a series of debates yesterday. Here are a few posts that provide info, commentary and feedback about it. Most attention was paid to the duel between the two front runner - Romney and Perry.
- Andrew Sullivan: Live Blogging the Debate.
- NYT: Live Blogging also.
- Andrew Sullivan: Compilation of Reactions.
- Rick Perry comes out fighting
- Romney-Perry face off
- Andrew Sullivan: Live Blogging the Debate.
- NYT: Live Blogging also.
- Andrew Sullivan: Compilation of Reactions.
- Rick Perry comes out fighting
- Romney-Perry face off
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
From the Washington Post: Why did the GOP turn against stimulus? Ask a psychologist.
Republican attitudes towards stimulus bills today differ from where they were ten years ago when the country suffered through a comparatively mild recession. That's not really the most interesting observation in this story. The author points to research that confirms a point we will make in 2301 when we study both political parties and public opinion (it also fits our analysis of Congress in 2302), it matters who presents information to you.
Psychologists and political scientists talk often of a phenomenon known as motivated skepticism. The idea, basically, is that we believe the evidence and arguments we want to believe, and reject ideas and information that undercut our preferences.
My favorite study (pdf) in this space was by Yale’s Geoffrey Cohen. He had a control group of liberals and conservatives look at a generous welfare reform proposal and a harsh welfare reform proposal. As expected, liberals preferred the generous plan and conservatives favored the more stringent option. Then he had another group of liberals and conservatives look at the same plans, but this time, the plans were associated with parties.
Both liberals and conservatives followed their parties, even when their parties disagreed with their preferences. So when Democrats were said to favor the stringent welfare reform, for example, liberals went right along. Three scary sentences from the piece: “When reference group information was available, participants gave no weight to objective policy content, and instead assumed the position of their group as their own. This effect was as strong among people who were knowledgeable about welfare as it was among people who were not. Finally, participants persisted in the belief that they had formed their attitude autonomously even in the two group information conditions where they had not.”
Psychologists and political scientists talk often of a phenomenon known as motivated skepticism. The idea, basically, is that we believe the evidence and arguments we want to believe, and reject ideas and information that undercut our preferences.
My favorite study (pdf) in this space was by Yale’s Geoffrey Cohen. He had a control group of liberals and conservatives look at a generous welfare reform proposal and a harsh welfare reform proposal. As expected, liberals preferred the generous plan and conservatives favored the more stringent option. Then he had another group of liberals and conservatives look at the same plans, but this time, the plans were associated with parties.
Both liberals and conservatives followed their parties, even when their parties disagreed with their preferences. So when Democrats were said to favor the stringent welfare reform, for example, liberals went right along. Three scary sentences from the piece: “When reference group information was available, participants gave no weight to objective policy content, and instead assumed the position of their group as their own. This effect was as strong among people who were knowledgeable about welfare as it was among people who were not. Finally, participants persisted in the belief that they had formed their attitude autonomously even in the two group information conditions where they had not.”
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
From the Texas Tribune: Comparing the Republican Presidential Contenders
For 2301's report on the 2012 election, The Texas Tribune has an interactive feature that allows for each Republican candidate to be compared.
From the Austin American Statesman: Lawsuit charges racial bias in redistricting maps
Another law passed by the recent legislature - this time redistricting - is being challenged:
A group of plaintiffs made up largely of Latinos and African-Americans is accusing Texas Republican lawmakers of racial discrimination in their effort to secure GOP political power at a time when the state is experiencing significant growth among minorities.
In a case set to begin today , lawyers for minority groups will argue that lawmakers in the Republican-dominated Legislature drew new district boundaries for the U.S. House of Representatives and the Texas House that would dilute the representation of Texas' Latinos and African Americans, keeping the racial and ethnic groups' often Democratic voices muted.
"They did it on the backs of the Latino community," said Jose Garza, a lawyer for the Mexican American Legislative Caucus.
- Why the Redistricting Lawsuit Matters.
- Texas Districting.
A group of plaintiffs made up largely of Latinos and African-Americans is accusing Texas Republican lawmakers of racial discrimination in their effort to secure GOP political power at a time when the state is experiencing significant growth among minorities.
In a case set to begin today , lawyers for minority groups will argue that lawmakers in the Republican-dominated Legislature drew new district boundaries for the U.S. House of Representatives and the Texas House that would dilute the representation of Texas' Latinos and African Americans, keeping the racial and ethnic groups' often Democratic voices muted.
"They did it on the backs of the Latino community," said Jose Garza, a lawyer for the Mexican American Legislative Caucus.
- Why the Redistricting Lawsuit Matters.
- Texas Districting.
From the NYT: Obama Administration Abandons Stricter Air-Quality Rules
We can consider this when we discuss elections, interest groups in 2301 and the executive branch in 2302:
President Obama abandoned a contentious new air pollution rule on Friday, buoying business interests that had lobbied heavily against it, angering environmentalists who called the move a betrayal and unnerving his own top environmental regulators.
The president rejected a proposed rule from the Environmental Protection Agency that would have significantly reduced emissions of smog-causing chemicals, saying that it would impose too severe a burden on industry and local governments at a time of economic distress.
Business groups and Republicans in Congress had complained that meeting the new standard, which governs emissions of so-called ground-level ozone, would cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The White House announcement came barely an hour after another weak jobs report from the Labor Department and in the midst of an intensifying political debate over the impact of federal regulations on job creation that is already a major focus of the presidential campaign.
President Obama abandoned a contentious new air pollution rule on Friday, buoying business interests that had lobbied heavily against it, angering environmentalists who called the move a betrayal and unnerving his own top environmental regulators.
The president rejected a proposed rule from the Environmental Protection Agency that would have significantly reduced emissions of smog-causing chemicals, saying that it would impose too severe a burden on industry and local governments at a time of economic distress.
Business groups and Republicans in Congress had complained that meeting the new standard, which governs emissions of so-called ground-level ozone, would cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The White House announcement came barely an hour after another weak jobs report from the Labor Department and in the midst of an intensifying political debate over the impact of federal regulations on job creation that is already a major focus of the presidential campaign.
From the NYT: Defending the Accused, and Herself, With Vigor
Here's an example of the constitutional right to counsel.
Monday, September 5, 2011
From Andrew Sullivan: Did Osama Win?
This is bound to be controversial, but it's worth debating:
. . . it took me close to a decade to realize just how slickly Osama bin Laden had done his evil work, how insidiously his despicable performance art had reached into my mind and altered it, how carefully he had set the trap and how guilelessly I—we—had walked right into it.
We need to understand that 9/11 worked. It worked as a tactic to induce American self-destruction, even if it failed spectacularly as a strategy to advance Al Qaeda—and its heretical message of suicidal warfare—across the globe. It worked because this was not just another terror attack.. . .
. . . it took me close to a decade to realize just how slickly Osama bin Laden had done his evil work, how insidiously his despicable performance art had reached into my mind and altered it, how carefully he had set the trap and how guilelessly I—we—had walked right into it.
We need to understand that 9/11 worked. It worked as a tactic to induce American self-destruction, even if it failed spectacularly as a strategy to advance Al Qaeda—and its heretical message of suicidal warfare—across the globe. It worked because this was not just another terror attack.. . .
From Politico: Decision time for GOP elites
After staying on the sidelines for a while, the Republican Party establishment may be about to pick sides in the race.
As the GOP presidential field emerges from the traditional Labor Day starting gate, the candidates are confronting a sobering reality: They’re already running out of time.
Though there are still months to go before Republicans start casting real primary ballots, party leaders say the dynamics of the race could be locked in place by the end of October. That’s because the Republican establishment — which has largely stayed neutral in the GOP primary — is about to start picking sides.
After countless attempts to lure new options into their party’s presidential field, GOP fundraisers and power brokers are coming to terms with what looks like an increasingly binary choice between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.
As the GOP presidential field emerges from the traditional Labor Day starting gate, the candidates are confronting a sobering reality: They’re already running out of time.
Though there are still months to go before Republicans start casting real primary ballots, party leaders say the dynamics of the race could be locked in place by the end of October. That’s because the Republican establishment — which has largely stayed neutral in the GOP primary — is about to start picking sides.
After countless attempts to lure new options into their party’s presidential field, GOP fundraisers and power brokers are coming to terms with what looks like an increasingly binary choice between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.
Next set of written assignments
For my 16 week 2301 and 2302 classes, here's the next set of written assignments:
2301: "The consent of the governed" has always seemed to me to be a tricky standard to use to justify governmental activity. As we will see in this section, however, it is the only standard that can be used in a system where people are considered equal - otherwise no one has any authority over anyone else.
But there is nothing said regarding how people offer consent, or withhold it. So how do we? I want you to chew over this question? What does "consent of the governed" mean in our contemporary political landscape? How might people offer it, how might people withhold it? Give examples of each. Insightful commentary is encouraged.
2302: For this first assignment on the legislature I want you to get comfortable with the number of people who represent you in legislative institutions on the local, state and national level and what they do to represent your interests. For information about your local representatives (city council etc), do searches in your city's website. If you are an incorporated area - search the county's website.
State and national information can be found by looking at a site provided by the state of Texas - Who Represents Me?
Find out who these people are and what they do as your representatives. Comment on whether they represent your interests.
They are all loaded up on blackboard and are due next Monday at 8am.
2301: "The consent of the governed" has always seemed to me to be a tricky standard to use to justify governmental activity. As we will see in this section, however, it is the only standard that can be used in a system where people are considered equal - otherwise no one has any authority over anyone else.
But there is nothing said regarding how people offer consent, or withhold it. So how do we? I want you to chew over this question? What does "consent of the governed" mean in our contemporary political landscape? How might people offer it, how might people withhold it? Give examples of each. Insightful commentary is encouraged.
2302: For this first assignment on the legislature I want you to get comfortable with the number of people who represent you in legislative institutions on the local, state and national level and what they do to represent your interests. For information about your local representatives (city council etc), do searches in your city's website. If you are an incorporated area - search the county's website.
State and national information can be found by looking at a site provided by the state of Texas - Who Represents Me?
Find out who these people are and what they do as your representatives. Comment on whether they represent your interests.
They are all loaded up on blackboard and are due next Monday at 8am.
Friday, September 2, 2011
From the Dish: Zero Jobs
Here's a breakdown of the latest, pessimistic, jobs report. In our continuing discussion is what government can and cannot do, we should ask what can and can't be done to create jobs. What function can each level play? How and how do we know it is effective?
New Texas Laws
Yesterday, hundred of new laws took effect in Texas. Grits for Beakfast breaks them down.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
How Reliable is Eyewitness Testimony?
Not as reliable as you might think:
Eyewitness misidentification is a leading factor in wrongful convictions -- according to the Innocence Project, more than 75 percent of DNA exonerations involved cases of eyewitness misidentification. In what the Innocence Project called a landmark ruling earlier this week, New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart J. Rabner wrote a long opinion holding that the legal standards for admissibility of eyewitness evidence should be modified.
The ruling itself is an incredibly compelling recap of the relevant science on memory and the problems with eyewitness testimony over the past 30 years.
For both 2301 and 2302 as we study due process and court procedures.
- Experts weigh in.
Eyewitness misidentification is a leading factor in wrongful convictions -- according to the Innocence Project, more than 75 percent of DNA exonerations involved cases of eyewitness misidentification. In what the Innocence Project called a landmark ruling earlier this week, New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart J. Rabner wrote a long opinion holding that the legal standards for admissibility of eyewitness evidence should be modified.
The ruling itself is an incredibly compelling recap of the relevant science on memory and the problems with eyewitness testimony over the past 30 years.
For both 2301 and 2302 as we study due process and court procedures.
- Experts weigh in.
From the Washington Post: SEC record purges at odds with other agencies
The story:
While the SEC directed its staff for years to purge certain investigative records, other agencies in the United States and abroad that enforce financial laws have instructed that similar documents be kept.
Law enforcement authorities in related lines of work have preserved records of inquiries even if those probes never led to charges against anyone. Regulators and archivists said that the records could be a valuable source of information for investigators probing other cases and could help hold the authorities accountable.
The inspector general at the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating a long-running SEC policy that calls for purging records obtained in certain inquiries when the cases were closed. The probe was prompted by an internal whistleblower, who said the destruction of documents went on for 17 years.
The SEC has long been accused of having been captured by the financial sector. We discuss agency capture in both 2301 and 2302, along with the general topic of iron triangles and subgivernment. Current accusations concern whether the agency has purged files that might implicate it in criminal activity that might have occured that lead to the financial crisis in 2008.
- Wikipedia: The SEC.
While the SEC directed its staff for years to purge certain investigative records, other agencies in the United States and abroad that enforce financial laws have instructed that similar documents be kept.
Law enforcement authorities in related lines of work have preserved records of inquiries even if those probes never led to charges against anyone. Regulators and archivists said that the records could be a valuable source of information for investigators probing other cases and could help hold the authorities accountable.
The inspector general at the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating a long-running SEC policy that calls for purging records obtained in certain inquiries when the cases were closed. The probe was prompted by an internal whistleblower, who said the destruction of documents went on for 17 years.
The SEC has long been accused of having been captured by the financial sector. We discuss agency capture in both 2301 and 2302, along with the general topic of iron triangles and subgivernment. Current accusations concern whether the agency has purged files that might implicate it in criminal activity that might have occured that lead to the financial crisis in 2008.
- Wikipedia: The SEC.
From Deal Book: The Antitrust Battle Ahead
The story:
When President Obama took office, he vowed a new era of antitrust enforcement, promising to crack down on deals that undermined competition.
Now the administration faces its biggest test.
On Wednesday, the Justice Department sued to block AT&T’s $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile USA, a merger that would create the nation’s largest mobile carrier.
“We believe the combination of AT&T and T-Mobile would result in tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower-quality products for their mobile wireless services,” said James M. Cole, the deputy attorney general.
The national government was granted the power to either break apart monopolies or prevent their formation since the passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in the late 19th Century. Monopolies tend to be able to set prices wherever they choose and provide products and services at whatever level of quality they desire since consumers have no other options for where to purchase them.
This fits into several places in our class discussions. In 2301 we can talk about this when we discuss the proper role of government, how the Constitution ought to be interpreted, and federalism. For 2302 this is an example of how Congress has expanded the role of the executive branch over time. We can also discuss this when we talk about the judiciary and what factors lead it to interpret the Constitution one way or the other.
For a general discussion question we might want to speculate on whether it is a proper role of government - and if so what level - to ensure there is competition in the marketplace.
- Wikipedia: Competition Law.
- The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics: Antitrust.
- Department of Justice: Antitrust Division.
When President Obama took office, he vowed a new era of antitrust enforcement, promising to crack down on deals that undermined competition.
Now the administration faces its biggest test.
On Wednesday, the Justice Department sued to block AT&T’s $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile USA, a merger that would create the nation’s largest mobile carrier.
“We believe the combination of AT&T and T-Mobile would result in tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower-quality products for their mobile wireless services,” said James M. Cole, the deputy attorney general.
The national government was granted the power to either break apart monopolies or prevent their formation since the passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in the late 19th Century. Monopolies tend to be able to set prices wherever they choose and provide products and services at whatever level of quality they desire since consumers have no other options for where to purchase them.
This fits into several places in our class discussions. In 2301 we can talk about this when we discuss the proper role of government, how the Constitution ought to be interpreted, and federalism. For 2302 this is an example of how Congress has expanded the role of the executive branch over time. We can also discuss this when we talk about the judiciary and what factors lead it to interpret the Constitution one way or the other.
For a general discussion question we might want to speculate on whether it is a proper role of government - and if so what level - to ensure there is competition in the marketplace.
- Wikipedia: Competition Law.
- The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics: Antitrust.
- Department of Justice: Antitrust Division.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
From the Houston Chronicle: Judge stays sonogram law
An example of checks and balances:
A federal judge in Austin on Tuesday ruled that key components of Texas' abortion-sonogram law are unconstitutional, stopping the state from enforcing it until a court rules on a legal challenge filed on behalf of several obstetrician-gynecologists.
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks said late Tuesday that the law, which was to take effect Thursday, violates the free speech rights of doctors and patients. He ordered that the state cannot impose penalties against doctors who don't fulfill its requirements.
A federal judge in Austin on Tuesday ruled that key components of Texas' abortion-sonogram law are unconstitutional, stopping the state from enforcing it until a court rules on a legal challenge filed on behalf of several obstetrician-gynecologists.
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks said late Tuesday that the law, which was to take effect Thursday, violates the free speech rights of doctors and patients. He ordered that the state cannot impose penalties against doctors who don't fulfill its requirements.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
From The Dish: Legal Protections For Ugly People?
Before we dig into civil rights in a few weeks, here's an early hint of an area where discrimination surely exists, but its difficult to determine whether and/or how that discrimination can be easily addressed.
In addition to whatever personal pleasure it gives you, being attractive also helps you earn more money, find a higher-earning spouse (and one who looks better, too!) and get better deals on mortgages. Each of these facts has been demonstrated over the past 20 years by many economists and other researchers. The effects are not small: one study showed that an American worker who was among the bottom one-seventh in looks, as assessed by randomly chosen observers, earned 10 to 15 percent less per year than a similar worker whose looks were assessed in the top one-third — a lifetime difference, in a typical case, of about $230,000.
A discussion question: If it leads to material differences, why can't it be addressed by legal measures?
In addition to whatever personal pleasure it gives you, being attractive also helps you earn more money, find a higher-earning spouse (and one who looks better, too!) and get better deals on mortgages. Each of these facts has been demonstrated over the past 20 years by many economists and other researchers. The effects are not small: one study showed that an American worker who was among the bottom one-seventh in looks, as assessed by randomly chosen observers, earned 10 to 15 percent less per year than a similar worker whose looks were assessed in the top one-third — a lifetime difference, in a typical case, of about $230,000.
A discussion question: If it leads to material differences, why can't it be addressed by legal measures?
From Wonkbook: Doing nothing is still an option
Interesting post: if Congress does nothing to change existing laws, the deficit improves. This includes not extending the Bush tax cuts.
Islam and Democracy
Here's more background for 2301's written assignment. There are some who argue that one problem facing Middle Eastern countries that try to become democratic is the there is tension between Islam and democracy. Not that many Islamic countries are currently democratic - some are, its just not common.
Its worth noting that the same argument was made about Catholicism at one point as well. The Catholic church has a hierarchical structure that has a monarchic feel to it. Protestants - especially Puritans - in 17th Century Britain and early America argued that Catholics were far more likely, as a result, to favor monarchies rather than republics. Many - though not all - Protestant churches were congregational in structure, which meant that church decisions were decided by a process that leaned towards democracy.
This lead commentators to suggest, as with Islam today, that Catholicism was incompatible with democracy. Protestant countries were more likely to become democratic. Actually until recent decades, there was evidence that Catholic countries were more likely to be monarchic or run by an authoritarian. That was used to support the thesis, but times have changed and many Catholic countries, Italy and Spain for example, have become democratic.
So things change.
Here are links that touch on the tension between Islam and democracy as things stand now:
- Islam and Democracy.
- MIDDLE EAST: Islam and Democracy.
- Can Islam and Democracy Coexist?
- The practice—and the theory
- CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY
Its worth noting that the same argument was made about Catholicism at one point as well. The Catholic church has a hierarchical structure that has a monarchic feel to it. Protestants - especially Puritans - in 17th Century Britain and early America argued that Catholics were far more likely, as a result, to favor monarchies rather than republics. Many - though not all - Protestant churches were congregational in structure, which meant that church decisions were decided by a process that leaned towards democracy.
This lead commentators to suggest, as with Islam today, that Catholicism was incompatible with democracy. Protestant countries were more likely to become democratic. Actually until recent decades, there was evidence that Catholic countries were more likely to be monarchic or run by an authoritarian. That was used to support the thesis, but times have changed and many Catholic countries, Italy and Spain for example, have become democratic.
So things change.
Here are links that touch on the tension between Islam and democracy as things stand now:
- Islam and Democracy.
- MIDDLE EAST: Islam and Democracy.
- Can Islam and Democracy Coexist?
- The practice—and the theory
- CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY
Monday, August 29, 2011
From the NYT: If the Arab Spring Turns Ugly
A cautionary note about what might happen in the wake of rebellion. The author is concerned that thoughts will turn to violence and revenge. There is precedence for this sort of thing.
Some links regarding democratization
For the 2301 assignment on the potential for democracy in the Middle East, you may want to read through the a few items related to democratization (the action of making something democratic). These should cue you in on the factors commonly considered indicators of which countries are and are not likely to successfully become democratic - which is the point of the exercise.
- Wikipedia: Democratization.
- An Essay - RJ Rummel: Democratization.
- Theories of Democratization.
- Starting in Egypt: The Fourth Wave of Democratization?
I'd also suggest looking at some of these sites. They contain data that should help you determine whether a specific country you are looking at - or the region in general - is likely to turn democratic.
- The CIA World Factbook.
- Freedom House.
- Wikipedia: List of freedom indices.
- Wikipedia: Democratization.
- An Essay - RJ Rummel: Democratization.
- Theories of Democratization.
- Starting in Egypt: The Fourth Wave of Democratization?
I'd also suggest looking at some of these sites. They contain data that should help you determine whether a specific country you are looking at - or the region in general - is likely to turn democratic.
- The CIA World Factbook.
- Freedom House.
- Wikipedia: List of freedom indices.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
From the Texas Tribune: Texas Voters Will Consider 10 Constitutional Changes
The story:
In a little celebrated — in fact, hardly noticed — biennial Texas tradition, voters will decide the fate of 10 new proposed constitutional amendments in November.
The amendments are the newest in a long line of legislative proposals to update the state Constitution. Since the Constitution was ratified in 1876, Texas voters have considered 646 proposed amendments and approved 467, according to the Legislative Reference Library. Texas is not alone in its prodigious accumulation of constitutional amendments, however. Alabama leads that contest. Its voters, according to Texas Politics, have amended their constitution almost 800 times since its creation in 1901.
In a little celebrated — in fact, hardly noticed — biennial Texas tradition, voters will decide the fate of 10 new proposed constitutional amendments in November.
The amendments are the newest in a long line of legislative proposals to update the state Constitution. Since the Constitution was ratified in 1876, Texas voters have considered 646 proposed amendments and approved 467, according to the Legislative Reference Library. Texas is not alone in its prodigious accumulation of constitutional amendments, however. Alabama leads that contest. Its voters, according to Texas Politics, have amended their constitution almost 800 times since its creation in 1901.
From the Guardian: Arab spring: an interactive timeline of Middle East protests
Thanks to an intrepid student for the link. This should help 2301s with this week's written assignment.
Texas Tribune: High Court Approves "Pole Tax" on Strip Clubs
A story that touches on the first amendment, checks and balances, and the judicial system:
The Texas Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that a $5-per-patron tax on strips clubs does not violate the First Amendment, adding the latest chapter to a four-year legal battle.
After the 2007 Legislature passed the law known as the Sexually Oriented Business Fee Act — or the "pole tax" in the vernacular — strip club owners challenged the fee in court. They argued it violated their freedom of expression under the First Amendment.
But the court today disagreed, saying that the fee was directed not at the expression of nude dancing, but at the "secondary effects of nude dancing when alcohol is being consumed." Adult entertainment businesses can "avoid the fee altogether simply by not allowing alcohol to be consumed," according to the decision written by Justice Nathan Hecht.
The Texas Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that a $5-per-patron tax on strips clubs does not violate the First Amendment, adding the latest chapter to a four-year legal battle.
After the 2007 Legislature passed the law known as the Sexually Oriented Business Fee Act — or the "pole tax" in the vernacular — strip club owners challenged the fee in court. They argued it violated their freedom of expression under the First Amendment.
But the court today disagreed, saying that the fee was directed not at the expression of nude dancing, but at the "secondary effects of nude dancing when alcohol is being consumed." Adult entertainment businesses can "avoid the fee altogether simply by not allowing alcohol to be consumed," according to the decision written by Justice Nathan Hecht.
From the NYT: Broad Ripples From a PAC on Tort Reform
Some background on one of Texas' strongest interest groups: Texans for Lawsuit Reform.
- The group's website.
- The groups' PAC.
- Topics: Texans for Lawsuit Reform.
- The group's website.
- The groups' PAC.
- Topics: Texans for Lawsuit Reform.
Texas Tribune: 31 Days, 31 Ways
The Texas Tribune has a series of stories on the various laws passed by thr Texas Legislature during the spring. These are all about to take effect September 1st.
How ought we interpret the Constitution's patent clause.
From The Hill, debate over "H.R. 1249, a bill that would mark the first major overhaul of U.S. patent laws in several decades."
At issue is whether changing the U.S. system from a "first-to-invent" system to a "first-inventor-to-file" system violates Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution. That clause grants Congress the power to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Supporters of the bill, called the America Invents Act, argue that moving to a "first-inventor-to-file" system is in line with the Constitution and also has the benefit of moving the U.S. closer to the "first-to-file" system that most of the rest of the world uses.
"The bill's inclusion of a move to a first-inventor-to-file system is absolutely consistent with the Constitution's requirement that patents be awarded to the inventor," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) argued.
But several Republicans and Democrats objected, arguing that the proposed change would put in place a new requirement that inventors file for their patents first in order to be awarded rights that they should already have under the Constitution by having invented a novel product or process.
Recent controversy has kicked up over the patent process, especially the recent tendency of patent trolls to purchase patents and hunt around for anyone who might - even loosely - be violating it.
Thoughts about the bill:
- The America Invents Act (HR 1249) – A Bad Law That Will Change Your Life.
- Rep Conyers Speaks Out Against HR 1249.
- House Debate on Constitutionality of H.R. 1249 – America Invents (NOT) Act.
At issue is whether changing the U.S. system from a "first-to-invent" system to a "first-inventor-to-file" system violates Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution. That clause grants Congress the power to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Supporters of the bill, called the America Invents Act, argue that moving to a "first-inventor-to-file" system is in line with the Constitution and also has the benefit of moving the U.S. closer to the "first-to-file" system that most of the rest of the world uses.
"The bill's inclusion of a move to a first-inventor-to-file system is absolutely consistent with the Constitution's requirement that patents be awarded to the inventor," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) argued.
But several Republicans and Democrats objected, arguing that the proposed change would put in place a new requirement that inventors file for their patents first in order to be awarded rights that they should already have under the Constitution by having invented a novel product or process.
Recent controversy has kicked up over the patent process, especially the recent tendency of patent trolls to purchase patents and hunt around for anyone who might - even loosely - be violating it.
Thoughts about the bill:
- The America Invents Act (HR 1249) – A Bad Law That Will Change Your Life.
- Rep Conyers Speaks Out Against HR 1249.
- House Debate on Constitutionality of H.R. 1249 – America Invents (NOT) Act.
Do we need FEMA?
Ron Paul doesn't think so. This raises a question worth discussing in class: Should the federal government be involved in disaster assistance? And if so, since there is no disaster relief clause in the Constitution, what is the constitutional basis for that power?
Some related reads:
- Wikipedia: FEMA.
- FEMA: FEMA History.
- For the conspiracy minded: FEMA - The Secret Government.
- Mike Lee: Federal Disaster Relief Is Unconstitutional.
Some related reads:
- Wikipedia: FEMA.
- FEMA: FEMA History.
- For the conspiracy minded: FEMA - The Secret Government.
- Mike Lee: Federal Disaster Relief Is Unconstitutional.
Update on state of the budget, and the economy etc...
More of a series of links related to the state of the economy, jobs, the budget etc...
- Budget deficit to hit $1.3 trillion this year, congressional analysts report.
- Bernanke Blames Politics for Financial Upheaval.
- Budget deficit to hit $1.3 trillion this year, congressional analysts report.
- Bernanke Blames Politics for Financial Upheaval.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
From the NYT: Qaddafi Leaves Behind Little to Guide Libya in His Absence
For 2301's written assignment this week, an NYT story on one of the problems the groups that will replace Qaddafi - there are no political or civil institutions to speak of in the country. Democracy is driven by the existence of political parties, a press, interest groups and a vibrant, politically astute population. Nothing like that exists in the country, the all have to created from scratch.
For those of you who have to determine whether democracies will be created in Middle Eastern countries following the Arab Spring, this is something to chew on.
As we will discover, one of the accomplishments of the Constitution was to establish solid institutions that provide stable government and can absorb political changes regularly. We have no similar crises when we have changes the presidency or Congress. That's the point of a constitutional system.
For those of you who have to determine whether democracies will be created in Middle Eastern countries following the Arab Spring, this is something to chew on.
As we will discover, one of the accomplishments of the Constitution was to establish solid institutions that provide stable government and can absorb political changes regularly. We have no similar crises when we have changes the presidency or Congress. That's the point of a constitutional system.
If I Were President ...
The NYT has a fun piece where they asked different people what they would do if they were president. It's worth a quick read, but as you do, its worth wondering whether what they propose is actually feasible. While we tend to think of the president as one of the more powerful - if not the most powerful - positions in the world, we forget that the office exists within a system of checks and balances. Presidents do not have magic wands they can wave and make things happen automatically.
Its also worth remembering that before one can be president, one has to have the political skills - or connections - to become president.
Its also worth remembering that before one can be president, one has to have the political skills - or connections - to become president.
Some random posts on the impact of the ARRA - the stimulus bill.
Just what the title says. I've been researching the impact of Obama's stimulus bill (and stimulus measures in general) and have run into various helpful sources, thought I'd share them if you'd like to dig into them also:
- Bush stimulus may have had only modest impact.
- How We Know the Stimulus Is Working.
- White House Report Claims Stimulus Success -- Despite 3.5 Million Job Losses.
- Obama says stimulus is responsible for 2 million jobs saved or created.
- Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject.
- Wikipedia: Multiplier.
- Wikipedia: Fiscal Multiplier.
- Stimulating Spending with the Fiscal Multiplier.
- CBO Report.
Together these help focus on a question that ought to recur over this semester: What actual impact can government have on economic and social affairs? What role ought government have? It's one thing to wish for a specific outcome, its another to ensure this is likely to occur.
- Bush stimulus may have had only modest impact.
- How We Know the Stimulus Is Working.
- White House Report Claims Stimulus Success -- Despite 3.5 Million Job Losses.
- Obama says stimulus is responsible for 2 million jobs saved or created.
- Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject.
- Wikipedia: Multiplier.
- Wikipedia: Fiscal Multiplier.
- Stimulating Spending with the Fiscal Multiplier.
- CBO Report.
Together these help focus on a question that ought to recur over this semester: What actual impact can government have on economic and social affairs? What role ought government have? It's one thing to wish for a specific outcome, its another to ensure this is likely to occur.
Written Assignments for 2301 and 2302
I've put together the first real written asignments for 2301 and 2302. I'll post a few items related to each over the course of the next few days, but you are welcomed to do your own reading and answer the question your own way. Send me any onformation you'd like to share with others. These will be due September 6th, instead of the 5th since the 5th is Labor Day.
2301: Among the topics covered this week is democracy. As I've mentioned in class, commentators are curious about whether the various revolutions occurring in the Middle East (the Arab Spring) will result in the establishment of democracies, or some other type of of governing system. I will posting various stories on the blog relate to this question. Read through them (as well as anything your find on your own - share them if you like) and weigh in on what the likely outcome will be. Will democracy break out in the Middle East as a result of the Arab Spring, or will these countrys' governments revert back to autocracy?
2302: Before we begin to look into each governing institution - the legislative, executive and judicial -in depth, I want you to come to terms with the decentralized nature of the governing sytem as a whole. In the review, pay special attention to the concept of republicanism, federalism and separated powers. Each divides power in various ways for legitimate reasons, but doing so complicates the ability of government to act efficiently. Our collective difficulty in dealing with problems like immigration, health care, and the environment may come down to this inefficient design.
Think of it this way: The people, or Congress, or the states may want certain things done - but the power of each is checked by some external force.
I'll post some stories on the blog illustrating these areas of conflict, but do your own research as well. Select one and write at least 150 words describing in some detail the conflict, the more detailed and thorough the answer, the better the grade.
2301: Among the topics covered this week is democracy. As I've mentioned in class, commentators are curious about whether the various revolutions occurring in the Middle East (the Arab Spring) will result in the establishment of democracies, or some other type of of governing system. I will posting various stories on the blog relate to this question. Read through them (as well as anything your find on your own - share them if you like) and weigh in on what the likely outcome will be. Will democracy break out in the Middle East as a result of the Arab Spring, or will these countrys' governments revert back to autocracy?
2302: Before we begin to look into each governing institution - the legislative, executive and judicial -in depth, I want you to come to terms with the decentralized nature of the governing sytem as a whole. In the review, pay special attention to the concept of republicanism, federalism and separated powers. Each divides power in various ways for legitimate reasons, but doing so complicates the ability of government to act efficiently. Our collective difficulty in dealing with problems like immigration, health care, and the environment may come down to this inefficient design.
Think of it this way: The people, or Congress, or the states may want certain things done - but the power of each is checked by some external force.
I'll post some stories on the blog illustrating these areas of conflict, but do your own research as well. Select one and write at least 150 words describing in some detail the conflict, the more detailed and thorough the answer, the better the grade.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Should Congress be replaced with a Parliament?
This is provocative (if totally unrealistic), should Congress be replaced with a parliament? Would a different type of government - still democratic but not the presidential system we are familiar with - do a better job of governing?
This subject is good for both 2301 and 2302. Why might this be a better system? Why might it be worse?
This subject is good for both 2301 and 2302. Why might this be a better system? Why might it be worse?
From the Monkey Cage: Politicians Like Constituents Like Them
Some studies suggest that politicians are more likely to respond to constituents that share their ethnicity than those that don't. This is a bit disturbing I think. Does this suggest a need to have a diverse legislature in order to reflect the interests of a diverse population?
We can consider this in both 2301 and 2302. Does this present a civil rights issue - equal protection? And for 2302 what does this tell us about the ability of legislatures to in fact fulfill its role as a representative institution? Are certain interests more likely to be represented than others? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that this is indeed the case, but these studies help us understand how that occurs, and suggests a remedy.
It might be appropriate to consider these argument when we discuss - in both classes - racial gerrymandering.
We can consider this in both 2301 and 2302. Does this present a civil rights issue - equal protection? And for 2302 what does this tell us about the ability of legislatures to in fact fulfill its role as a representative institution? Are certain interests more likely to be represented than others? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that this is indeed the case, but these studies help us understand how that occurs, and suggests a remedy.
It might be appropriate to consider these argument when we discuss - in both classes - racial gerrymandering.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Could Third-Party Tremors Result in a 2012 Political Earthquake? - Matthew Dowd - NationalJournal.com
Could Third-Party Tremors Result in a 2012 Political Earthquake? - Matthew Dowd - NationalJournal.com
Here's more for my 2301 students to consider as you consider the 2011 battle for the Republican nomination, might Jon Huntsman, who is currently running very unsuccessfully for the nomination - consider an independent run?
Here's more for my 2301 students to consider as you consider the 2011 battle for the Republican nomination, might Jon Huntsman, who is currently running very unsuccessfully for the nomination - consider an independent run?
Is There Anything That Can Be Done? A TNR Symposium On The Economy. | The New Republic
Is There Anything That Can Be Done? A TNR Symposium On The Economy. The New Republic
This is for our ongoing discussion this semester about the state of the economy and what sorts of things can and cannot be done about it.
This is for our ongoing discussion this semester about the state of the economy and what sorts of things can and cannot be done about it.
Perry Zooms to Front of Pack for 2012 GOP Nomination
Perry Zooms to Front of Pack for 2012 GOP Nomination.
The Gallup Poll shows that our governor has surged ahead of the pack for the Republican nomination. Now comes the hard part - staying ahead. I'll use this post to start a series my 2301s can use to follow the battle among Republicans and write me a good report to turn in at the end of the semester. Note the tag: 2301 fall 2011 report. I'll use it for similar posts.
The Gallup Poll shows that our governor has surged ahead of the pack for the Republican nomination. Now comes the hard part - staying ahead. I'll use this post to start a series my 2301s can use to follow the battle among Republicans and write me a good report to turn in at the end of the semester. Note the tag: 2301 fall 2011 report. I'll use it for similar posts.
Maybe we are not so polarized after all ...
While we will discuss ideological polarization in this class, there are strong argument to be made that we are far more similar than dissimilar ideologically. We are in fact Lockean Liberals.
Here's an article making that argument.
Here's an article making that argument.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Will members of the House of Representatives have an easier time winning the presidency?
Only James Garfield has done it, and factors associated with the House - where people are elected from small local districts - seem to make it very difficult for someone to win a national office. Factors might have changed however, perhaps they can now:
. . . we should expect Representatives to play larger roles in future presidential campaigns because many of the barriers that once existed for Representatives to mount legitimate campaigns for president no longer exist. And this is particularly true on the Republican side. Between Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the internet, it’s not hard for the conservative media machine to make a rock star out of anyone.
. . . The intensely partisan tone in politics will continue to boost Representatives running for President. House members are often more radical than Senators because House members only have to appeal to voters in their districts. These more radical House members, who might never be able to win statewide office, like Bachmann, have a real advantage in primary contests where Republican primary voters are skewed to the far right of the Republican Party. Even though they don’t appeal to a whole state, they have a chance at winning the nomination just by appealing to conservative Republicans.
Citizens United is also easing the Representatives’ path to the nomination. They no longer need a dedicated state operation or even money from voters; as long as they appeal to the SuperPACs pouring money into campaigns, a history of building donor support becomes less important.
Not everyone is convinced.
. . . we should expect Representatives to play larger roles in future presidential campaigns because many of the barriers that once existed for Representatives to mount legitimate campaigns for president no longer exist. And this is particularly true on the Republican side. Between Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the internet, it’s not hard for the conservative media machine to make a rock star out of anyone.
. . . The intensely partisan tone in politics will continue to boost Representatives running for President. House members are often more radical than Senators because House members only have to appeal to voters in their districts. These more radical House members, who might never be able to win statewide office, like Bachmann, have a real advantage in primary contests where Republican primary voters are skewed to the far right of the Republican Party. Even though they don’t appeal to a whole state, they have a chance at winning the nomination just by appealing to conservative Republicans.
Citizens United is also easing the Representatives’ path to the nomination. They no longer need a dedicated state operation or even money from voters; as long as they appeal to the SuperPACs pouring money into campaigns, a history of building donor support becomes less important.
Not everyone is convinced.
Can housing policy be an effective stimulus?
A major story throughout this semester will be what government (fed, state, and local) can and cannot do to prevent a second recession. I'll highlight stories to that effect as they come along.
Here's one from the Washington Post that asks whether effective housing policy might do the trick. One of the reason why Texas did not suffer as much through the recession as bad as other states is that regulations (greater ability to build lots of homes and restrictions on what one could do with home equity loans) ensured that homes were not overvalued and fewer homes now are underwater (worth less than the mortgage).
Is housing relief an appropriate stimulus to the economy?
Here's one from the Washington Post that asks whether effective housing policy might do the trick. One of the reason why Texas did not suffer as much through the recession as bad as other states is that regulations (greater ability to build lots of homes and restrictions on what one could do with home equity loans) ensured that homes were not overvalued and fewer homes now are underwater (worth less than the mortgage).
Is housing relief an appropriate stimulus to the economy?
Will all countries inevitably adopt western political institutions?
The argument has persisted for a while, and has been revisited in the wake of the Arab Spring, and recent events in Libya.
Both 2301 and 2302 students are aware that I tend to adopt a historical approach to discussing American institutions - their British bases etc... Does this suggest that the historical continuum continues?
Both 2301 and 2302 students are aware that I tend to adopt a historical approach to discussing American institutions - their British bases etc... Does this suggest that the historical continuum continues?
Narcissistic Autocrats
Here's something for both 2301 and 2302 to chew on as we review basic terms and observe the pros and cons of different governing systems. Autocracy tends to be efficient - it can get things done - but is also arbitrary - there are no rules which guide its actions. The autocrat is unpredictable.
Add to that the tendency of autocrats to be narcissistic:
There is a school of thought in politics and international relations which holds that all the bluster from dictators under pressure is propaganda, in the sense that the leaders themselves realize it’s untrue. They are just trying to demoralize their opponents and rally their friends by intentionally overstating how well things are going. In their hearts, autocrats know the jig is up and that means a window for a negotiated settlement with them has opened.
That school of thought is usually wrong.
If you take a human being — particularly a male one — and for most or all of his life give him every material comfort while others are starving, encourage him to believe that other people are his inferior, and nurture a sense of entitlement in him through word and deed (e.g., letting him watch or participate in torture sessions), you will often produce what we shrinks call a malignant narcissist (or “A classic Cleckley psychopath” for those of my colleagues who may be scoring at home). I don’t mean “narcissist” in the colloquial sense of someone who worries too much about his looks and is a bit self-involved, I mean someone who literally believes that other human beings are merely objects for his self-gratification, and, that the usual constraints of human existence (e.g., everyone dies, no one gets everything he wants) do not apply to him.
A nice analysis of human nature and a great compliment to some of the material we will dig through during the first couple of weeks of class.
Add to that the tendency of autocrats to be narcissistic:
There is a school of thought in politics and international relations which holds that all the bluster from dictators under pressure is propaganda, in the sense that the leaders themselves realize it’s untrue. They are just trying to demoralize their opponents and rally their friends by intentionally overstating how well things are going. In their hearts, autocrats know the jig is up and that means a window for a negotiated settlement with them has opened.
That school of thought is usually wrong.
If you take a human being — particularly a male one — and for most or all of his life give him every material comfort while others are starving, encourage him to believe that other people are his inferior, and nurture a sense of entitlement in him through word and deed (e.g., letting him watch or participate in torture sessions), you will often produce what we shrinks call a malignant narcissist (or “A classic Cleckley psychopath” for those of my colleagues who may be scoring at home). I don’t mean “narcissist” in the colloquial sense of someone who worries too much about his looks and is a bit self-involved, I mean someone who literally believes that other human beings are merely objects for his self-gratification, and, that the usual constraints of human existence (e.g., everyone dies, no one gets everything he wants) do not apply to him.
A nice analysis of human nature and a great compliment to some of the material we will dig through during the first couple of weeks of class.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Exclusive: Goldman Sachs VP Changed His Name, Now Advances Goldman Lobbying Interests As Top Staffer To Darrell Issa
Exclusive: Goldman Sachs VP Changed His Name, Now Advances Goldman Lobbying Interests As Top Staffer To Darrell Issa: pHas Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) turned the House Oversight Committee into a bank lobbying firm with the power to subpoena and pressure government regulators? ThinkProgress has found that a Goldman Sachs vice president changed his name, then later went to work for Issa to coordinate his effort to thwart regulations that affect Goldman Sachs’ bottom [...]/p
The Iowa Straw Poll
Before too much time passes, some links related to the recent Iowa Straw poll.
- Wikipedia: Ames Straw Poll.
- Michele Bachmann wins Iowa Straw Poll.
- theiowastrawpoll.org.
- Iowa Straw Poll Drawing Yawns.
- I Love the Iowa Straw Poll—And I’m Not Ashamed to Say It.
- Put an end to the Iowa Straw Poll—please.
- Wikipedia: Ames Straw Poll.
- Michele Bachmann wins Iowa Straw Poll.
- theiowastrawpoll.org.
- Iowa Straw Poll Drawing Yawns.
- I Love the Iowa Straw Poll—And I’m Not Ashamed to Say It.
- Put an end to the Iowa Straw Poll—please.
House Partisanship From 1879 - 2010
More striking graphical evidence of the increase in party polarization since the 1970s - and fluctuations over time. Notice the shift in Southern Democrats especially - that's the story.
See: Polarized America for more detail.
See: Polarized America for more detail.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Archive: The Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act
From ScotusBlog: Debates from all sides regarding constitutionality of health care reform.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
S.&P. Downgrades Debt Rating of U.S. For the First Time
Story in the NYT:
Standard & Poor’s removed the United States government from its list of risk-free borrowers for the first time on Friday night, a downgrade that is freighted with symbolic significance but carries few clear financial implications.
The company, one of three major agencies that offer advice to investors in debt securities, said it was cutting its rating of long-term federal debt to AA+, one notch below the top grade of AAA. It described the decision as a judgment about the nation’s leaders, writing that “the gulf between the political parties” had reduced its confidence in the government’s ability to manage its finances.
Some commentary:
- Standard & Poor’s has been wrong before. But they’re right now.
- The U.S. is downgraded. Now what?
- U.S. Faces Possible Ratings Downgrade From S&P
- Why Has S&P Downgraded the U.S.?
Standard & Poor’s removed the United States government from its list of risk-free borrowers for the first time on Friday night, a downgrade that is freighted with symbolic significance but carries few clear financial implications.
The company, one of three major agencies that offer advice to investors in debt securities, said it was cutting its rating of long-term federal debt to AA+, one notch below the top grade of AAA. It described the decision as a judgment about the nation’s leaders, writing that “the gulf between the political parties” had reduced its confidence in the government’s ability to manage its finances.
Some commentary:
- Standard & Poor’s has been wrong before. But they’re right now.
- The U.S. is downgraded. Now what?
- U.S. Faces Possible Ratings Downgrade From S&P
- Why Has S&P Downgraded the U.S.?
Friday, August 5, 2011
Age, Income Inequality and the Polarized Electorate
While the existence of primary elections and sophisticated gerrymandering remain dominant explanations for political polarization, here is an argument that two socio-demographic factors also drive this tendency.
We have an increasingly old population - who happen to command, and fight to preserve, most of the entitlements - and a larger and larger gap is growing between the wealthy and the poor in the nation. This means that the interests of the elderly and the young are increasingly at odds, as are those of the wealthy and the poor, as are the voter choices (to the degree that the young and the poor vote at all) between both groups.
We have an increasingly old population - who happen to command, and fight to preserve, most of the entitlements - and a larger and larger gap is growing between the wealthy and the poor in the nation. This means that the interests of the elderly and the young are increasingly at odds, as are those of the wealthy and the poor, as are the voter choices (to the degree that the young and the poor vote at all) between both groups.
How competitive woulf Governor Perry be in the general election for president?
Leading Republican consultants aren't sure.
Bu this strong appeal to Republican primary voters makes him a likely nominee.
Bu this strong appeal to Republican primary voters makes him a likely nominee.
Disapproval Rate for Congress at Record 82% After Debt Talks
From the NYT:
The debate over raising the debt ceiling, which brought the nation to the brink of default, has sent disapproval of Congress to its highest level on record and left most Americans saying that creating jobs should now take priority over cutting spending, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
A record 82 percent of Americans now disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job — the most since The Times first began asking the question in 1977, and even more than after another political stalemate led to a shutdown of the federal government in 1995.
The debate over raising the debt ceiling, which brought the nation to the brink of default, has sent disapproval of Congress to its highest level on record and left most Americans saying that creating jobs should now take priority over cutting spending, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
A record 82 percent of Americans now disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job — the most since The Times first began asking the question in 1977, and even more than after another political stalemate led to a shutdown of the federal government in 1995.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Can Obama summon Congress back to work on an FAA bill?
A question regarding executive power over Congress:
This week, members of Congress packed their bags and jetted off on recess without finishing up the FAA funding bill. As Dylan Matthews explained, that means 4,000 FAA workers and 70,000 airport construction workers have been furloughed. Disconcertingly, at least 40 safety inspectors are now working without pay. Some liberals are now suggesting that President Obama should order Congress back to work to finish this up. Can he actually do that?
Technically, yes—though there’s a limit to how much it would achieve. Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president has the power to, “on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them.” The parties would no doubt differ on whether the FAA’s cutbacks count as “extraordinary,” though, as Douglas Linder, a law professor at University of Missouri-Kansas City points out, it’s unlikely the courts would challenge Obama here. “It’s also hard to imagine Congress saying, no, we’re not going to bother showing up,” Linder says.
After that, though, there’s not much Obama can do. “He can call them to session but he can’t lock the House and Senate doors,” says Linder. If Congress chose to remain deadlocked over an FAA bill, that would be that. Obama might win the political battle, but he couldn’t force FAA funding.
This week, members of Congress packed their bags and jetted off on recess without finishing up the FAA funding bill. As Dylan Matthews explained, that means 4,000 FAA workers and 70,000 airport construction workers have been furloughed. Disconcertingly, at least 40 safety inspectors are now working without pay. Some liberals are now suggesting that President Obama should order Congress back to work to finish this up. Can he actually do that?
Technically, yes—though there’s a limit to how much it would achieve. Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president has the power to, “on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them.” The parties would no doubt differ on whether the FAA’s cutbacks count as “extraordinary,” though, as Douglas Linder, a law professor at University of Missouri-Kansas City points out, it’s unlikely the courts would challenge Obama here. “It’s also hard to imagine Congress saying, no, we’re not going to bother showing up,” Linder says.
After that, though, there’s not much Obama can do. “He can call them to session but he can’t lock the House and Senate doors,” says Linder. If Congress chose to remain deadlocked over an FAA bill, that would be that. Obama might win the political battle, but he couldn’t force FAA funding.
Selling A Balanced Budget Amendment
From the NYT:
House Republicans, feeling they have scored significant fiscal victories, are moving on to an even bigger challenge: persuading voters, state legislatures and Democrats to alter the Constitution with a balanced budget amendment.
In a meeting with his conference Monday, Speaker John A. Boehner told members that the best thing they could do during the August recess was to sell their constituents on the idea that the amendment — which essentially stipulates that government cannot spend more than it takes in — is necessary and good.
House Republicans, feeling they have scored significant fiscal victories, are moving on to an even bigger challenge: persuading voters, state legislatures and Democrats to alter the Constitution with a balanced budget amendment.
In a meeting with his conference Monday, Speaker John A. Boehner told members that the best thing they could do during the August recess was to sell their constituents on the idea that the amendment — which essentially stipulates that government cannot spend more than it takes in — is necessary and good.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
How would the Supreme Court rule if Obama uses the 14th Amendment to borrow money if the debt ceiling is not raised?
A few previous posts have highlighted the ongoing dispute concerning the language in the 14th Amendment which mandates that the full faith and credit of the US should be maintained and whether this means that Obama can go ahead and keep borrowing money to meet obligations.
So what if he does and a challenge to that action is brought up in court?
There is reason to believe that the Supreme Court may not even rule on that case since few if any people will be able to state that they have standing before the court:
When it comes to Congress’s ability to stop the Obama administration from ignoring the debt ceiling, legal experts note that the first obstacle standing in its way is the question of standing, or whether a certain party has the right to sue over an issue in the first place. Jonathan Zasloff, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who has discussed this idea on a blog that he writes with several other academics, told me that while an order from the president for the Treasury Department to continue issuing new debt sounded extreme, it was unclear who could prove sufficient injury from the decision that would qualify the person to sue the administration in court. “Who has some kind of particularized injury, in fact?” Zasloff asked, and he could not come up with a satisfying answer.
Part of the reason for Zasloff’s difficulty in identifying an appropriate plaintiff is that members of Congress have tried before to sue the president for diminishing their legislative and appropriating power and have typically failed. . . .
Even if they do decide to hear it, past voting records and philosophies suggest that Most justices - with the exception of Thomas - would side with the president.
A post in Volock Conspiracy argues that a recently decided Supreme Court decision might provide an opportunity for standing to be granted.
All this aside, Andrew Sullivan seems to think this is all an impeachment trap.
So what if he does and a challenge to that action is brought up in court?
There is reason to believe that the Supreme Court may not even rule on that case since few if any people will be able to state that they have standing before the court:
When it comes to Congress’s ability to stop the Obama administration from ignoring the debt ceiling, legal experts note that the first obstacle standing in its way is the question of standing, or whether a certain party has the right to sue over an issue in the first place. Jonathan Zasloff, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who has discussed this idea on a blog that he writes with several other academics, told me that while an order from the president for the Treasury Department to continue issuing new debt sounded extreme, it was unclear who could prove sufficient injury from the decision that would qualify the person to sue the administration in court. “Who has some kind of particularized injury, in fact?” Zasloff asked, and he could not come up with a satisfying answer.
Part of the reason for Zasloff’s difficulty in identifying an appropriate plaintiff is that members of Congress have tried before to sue the president for diminishing their legislative and appropriating power and have typically failed. . . .
Even if they do decide to hear it, past voting records and philosophies suggest that Most justices - with the exception of Thomas - would side with the president.
A post in Volock Conspiracy argues that a recently decided Supreme Court decision might provide an opportunity for standing to be granted.
All this aside, Andrew Sullivan seems to think this is all an impeachment trap.
Does Congress Deserve an A?
Here's a reminder that Congress - even though it has the responsibility to pass laws - is actually set up to make this very, very difficult:
What if Congress is working precisely as designed?
Suppose the purpose of Congress is not to pass laws but to stymie the passage of laws. To be precise, what if the purpose of Congress is to provide us with maximum theater while delivering the least number of new laws? In this alternate universe, we should expect a congressional landscape littered with good initiatives that have gone nowhere. Check. We should expect to see ideologues on both sides deeply disappointed that after all the time and effort they spend campaigning and winning elections, so little of what they want actually happens. Check. We'd expect that the issues on which Congress is decisive are mostly empty and symbolic. Check again.
What if Congress is working precisely as designed?
Suppose the purpose of Congress is not to pass laws but to stymie the passage of laws. To be precise, what if the purpose of Congress is to provide us with maximum theater while delivering the least number of new laws? In this alternate universe, we should expect a congressional landscape littered with good initiatives that have gone nowhere. Check. We should expect to see ideologues on both sides deeply disappointed that after all the time and effort they spend campaigning and winning elections, so little of what they want actually happens. Check. We'd expect that the issues on which Congress is decisive are mostly empty and symbolic. Check again.
Thoughts on Media Bias
If you have the stamina, this is a terrific analysis of a book which purports to measure liberal bias among journalists. It also touches on the ideological bias of various other institutions and professions, and perhaps most important, how we determine whether they are in fact biased. How does one measure bias?
Friday, July 29, 2011
Recession impact revised, it was worse than thought
From the NYT:
Data revisions going back to 2003 . . . showed that the 2007-2009 recession was deeper, and the recovery to date weaker, than originally estimated. Indeed, the latest figures show that the nation’s economy is still smaller than it was in 2007, when the Great Recession officially began.
Data revisions going back to 2003 . . . showed that the 2007-2009 recession was deeper, and the recovery to date weaker, than originally estimated. Indeed, the latest figures show that the nation’s economy is still smaller than it was in 2007, when the Great Recession officially began.
Ranking the Presidents by G.D.P.
From the NYT, a ranking of president since and including Eisenhower based on GDP growth while in office:
They are listed in reverse order of growth.
Barack Obama, 1.2% annual G.D.P. growth rate (previously 1.5%)
George W. Bush, 1.6% (previously 1.7%)
George H.W. Bush, 2.1%
Gerald Ford, 2.2%
Dwight Eisenhower, 2.5%
Richard Nixon, 3.0%
Jimmy Carter, 3.2%
Ronald Reagan, 3.5%
Bill Clinton, 3.8%
Lyndon B. Johnson, 5.0%
John F. Kennedy, 5.4%
They are listed in reverse order of growth.
Barack Obama, 1.2% annual G.D.P. growth rate (previously 1.5%)
George W. Bush, 1.6% (previously 1.7%)
George H.W. Bush, 2.1%
Gerald Ford, 2.2%
Dwight Eisenhower, 2.5%
Richard Nixon, 3.0%
Jimmy Carter, 3.2%
Ronald Reagan, 3.5%
Bill Clinton, 3.8%
Lyndon B. Johnson, 5.0%
John F. Kennedy, 5.4%
Lay Judgments of Judicial Decision-Making
Here's an article exploring how lay people (you and me) evaluate judicial decision-making.
Debt Ceiling Rumble: Business vs. the Tea Party
Debt Ceiling Rumble: Business vs. the Tea Party
Here's more analysis of a key division within the Republican Party. So far, theTea Party faction seems to be winning the debt ceiling debate.
Here's more analysis of a key division within the Republican Party. So far, theTea Party faction seems to be winning the debt ceiling debate.
Judge tosses atheists' lawsuit over Perry rally
If you read this Chron story, you'll notice that the judge did not rule on the merit of the argument - is it in fact a violation of church and state for the governor to be involved and promoting this event - but the fact that the people who brought the suit lacked standing to do so in the state of Texas. The actual argument regarding whether this is or isn't problematic may not be resolved, but here's a link to the group's complaint.
Which of the following is protected speech?
Volokh Conspiracy highlights a few current disputes about what is and is not protected speech:
- Displaying plastic testicles on the back of a car.
- Leaving nasty phone messages.
- Barking at a police dog.
- Soliciting or advocating criminal activity.
- Displaying plastic testicles on the back of a car.
- Leaving nasty phone messages.
- Barking at a police dog.
- Soliciting or advocating criminal activity.
What does "the freedom of" mean?
This is a terrific little article. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech or of the press" among other things. Note that it doesn't say that Congress shall make no law abridging speech of the press absolutely. So any abridgement has to comply with some understanding of what "the freedom of" means.
From the article:
. . . nearly everyone, as best I can tell, saw “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press” as providing less than complete constitutional protection for spoken or printed words. And this suggests that the term “freedom of” referred to some understanding that there is a proper scope of such freedom (even if the scope was unsettled in some particulars), rather to unlimited freedom to say or print anything one pleases. It’s much like, if tomorrow a state enacted a law protecting “the freedom to marry,” we probably wouldn’t think that it means the freedom to marry a 10-year-old, or the freedom to marry one’s daughter, or (depending on the circumstances) even the freedom to marry several people at once. “The freedom to marry” would be seen as referring to a broad but not unlimited concept that is less than the freedom to marry anyone one pleases.
This adds to our discussion of the balance of civil liberties versus the greater interest of society in 2301 - and to a degree to our discussion of how the judiciary acts in 2302 - in addition to the general question of what the Constitution in fact means and how we come to a determination of that meaning.
From the article:
. . . nearly everyone, as best I can tell, saw “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press” as providing less than complete constitutional protection for spoken or printed words. And this suggests that the term “freedom of” referred to some understanding that there is a proper scope of such freedom (even if the scope was unsettled in some particulars), rather to unlimited freedom to say or print anything one pleases. It’s much like, if tomorrow a state enacted a law protecting “the freedom to marry,” we probably wouldn’t think that it means the freedom to marry a 10-year-old, or the freedom to marry one’s daughter, or (depending on the circumstances) even the freedom to marry several people at once. “The freedom to marry” would be seen as referring to a broad but not unlimited concept that is less than the freedom to marry anyone one pleases.
This adds to our discussion of the balance of civil liberties versus the greater interest of society in 2301 - and to a degree to our discussion of how the judiciary acts in 2302 - in addition to the general question of what the Constitution in fact means and how we come to a determination of that meaning.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
About Those Credit Agencies
Some background on the credit agencies that threaten to downgrade the U.S.'s credit rating, which in turn will likely raise interest rates across the board. From the Daily Beast:
How did it come to this—that a trio of private-sector companies could wield such enormous influence? More specifically, a trio that has proven chronically behind the curve, analytically compromised, and complicit in the financial crisis of 2008–09 as well as the more recent euro-zone debt dilemmas? Somehow, these inept groups again find themselves destabilizing the global system in the name of preserving it.
While there are more than 100 credit-rating agencies worldwide, three—Moody’s, Fitch, and Standard & Poor’s—occupy their own particular universe, the products of a New Deal ruling from the SEC that enshrined "nationally recognized statistical rating organizations” to ensure that the bonds held by insurance companies, banks, and broker-dealers were appropriate for their capital requirements.
From this well-intended decision, three new private-sector firms attained the status of government regulators but with none of the oversight
Andrew Sullivan speculates that our credit rating may be toast.
For info about each:
- Moody's.
- Fitch.
- Standard and Poor's.
How did it come to this—that a trio of private-sector companies could wield such enormous influence? More specifically, a trio that has proven chronically behind the curve, analytically compromised, and complicit in the financial crisis of 2008–09 as well as the more recent euro-zone debt dilemmas? Somehow, these inept groups again find themselves destabilizing the global system in the name of preserving it.
While there are more than 100 credit-rating agencies worldwide, three—Moody’s, Fitch, and Standard & Poor’s—occupy their own particular universe, the products of a New Deal ruling from the SEC that enshrined "nationally recognized statistical rating organizations” to ensure that the bonds held by insurance companies, banks, and broker-dealers were appropriate for their capital requirements.
From this well-intended decision, three new private-sector firms attained the status of government regulators but with none of the oversight
Andrew Sullivan speculates that our credit rating may be toast.
For info about each:
- Moody's.
- Fitch.
- Standard and Poor's.
Patent Trolls
The Constitution - as we all should know by now - allows Congress to pass laws providing patent and copyright protection. People have exclusive ownership of these items for a limited time. The intent is to encourage people to invent products with the assumption that they will be driven by the promise of making money off them.
Recent attention has been paid to a new breed of litigant - a patent troll - who acquire patents and then hunt around and try to find people they think might be violating it. There are questions about whether this practice might actually inhibit innovation, which can defeat the entire purpose of the patent clause.
- Patent Troll on Steroids: How America’s Patent System May Hurt Innovation.
- When Patents Attack.
Recent attention has been paid to a new breed of litigant - a patent troll - who acquire patents and then hunt around and try to find people they think might be violating it. There are questions about whether this practice might actually inhibit innovation, which can defeat the entire purpose of the patent clause.
- Patent Troll on Steroids: How America’s Patent System May Hurt Innovation.
- When Patents Attack.
Weber for Congress? And what exactly is an Exploratory Committee?
Now that Ron Paul has announced that he will not run for Congress in 2012, our state representative Randy Weber - who has built some name recognition by running for and serving in the legislature for the past three sessions - is taking "the necessary steps to form an Exploratory Committee for US Congress to gauge his support for a race."
- What is an exploratory committee?
- The Atlantic.
- Huffington Post.
- Perry doesn't need one.
- What is an exploratory committee?
- The Atlantic.
- Huffington Post.
- Perry doesn't need one.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Nearly 4,000 Post Offices Might Close
From the NYT, a story about how the post office plans to adjust the realities of the digital age.
The financially beleaguered Postal Service announced Tuesday that it would consider closing more than 3,600 of its 32,000 post offices.
Continuing efforts to reduce costs by shrinking the organization’s retail network and work force, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe released a list of the targeted offices, which are primarily in rural locations and produce little revenue. There will be a 60-day comment period before the Postal Service makes a final decision, which can be appealed to the Postal Regulatory Commission.
In communities that lose post offices, the Postal Service may outsource basic services, like selling stamps and shipping flat-rate packages, to local businesses like pharmacies and groceries, Mr. Donahoe said.
“The Postal Service of the future will be smaller, leaner and more competitive,” he said in a statement.
The post office is one of the few agencies that can trace itself to a delegated constitutional power. As we argue in both 2301 and 2302, the post office has served a commercial function since its early days by providing cheap means of sending items from any address in the nation to any other. A perennial question is whether this service is too cheap.
- 21st Century Coalition: Focusing the Impact of the Mailing Industry In a Time of Crisis
The financially beleaguered Postal Service announced Tuesday that it would consider closing more than 3,600 of its 32,000 post offices.
Continuing efforts to reduce costs by shrinking the organization’s retail network and work force, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe released a list of the targeted offices, which are primarily in rural locations and produce little revenue. There will be a 60-day comment period before the Postal Service makes a final decision, which can be appealed to the Postal Regulatory Commission.
In communities that lose post offices, the Postal Service may outsource basic services, like selling stamps and shipping flat-rate packages, to local businesses like pharmacies and groceries, Mr. Donahoe said.
“The Postal Service of the future will be smaller, leaner and more competitive,” he said in a statement.
The post office is one of the few agencies that can trace itself to a delegated constitutional power. As we argue in both 2301 and 2302, the post office has served a commercial function since its early days by providing cheap means of sending items from any address in the nation to any other. A perennial question is whether this service is too cheap.
- 21st Century Coalition: Focusing the Impact of the Mailing Industry In a Time of Crisis
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Study Shows Racial Wealth Gap Grows Wider
From NPR:
There's long been a big gap between the wealth of white families and the wealth of African-Americans and Hispanics. But the Great Recession has made it much worse — the divide is almost twice what it used to be.
That's according to a new study by the Pew Research Center, which says that the decline in the housing market is the main cause.
The numbers are astounding. The median wealth of a white family in 2009 was 20 times greater than that of the average black family, and 18 times greater than the average Hispanic family. In other words, the average white family had $113,149 in net worth, compared to $6,325 for Hispanics and $5,677 for blacks.
That's the largest gap since the government began collecting the data a quarter of a century ago, and twice what it was before the start of the Great Recession.
Click here for the study from the Pew center.
There's long been a big gap between the wealth of white families and the wealth of African-Americans and Hispanics. But the Great Recession has made it much worse — the divide is almost twice what it used to be.
That's according to a new study by the Pew Research Center, which says that the decline in the housing market is the main cause.
The numbers are astounding. The median wealth of a white family in 2009 was 20 times greater than that of the average black family, and 18 times greater than the average Hispanic family. In other words, the average white family had $113,149 in net worth, compared to $6,325 for Hispanics and $5,677 for blacks.
That's the largest gap since the government began collecting the data a quarter of a century ago, and twice what it was before the start of the Great Recession.
Click here for the study from the Pew center.
After Aiding Republicans, Business Groups Press Them on Debt Ceiling
From the NYT, an example of interest group pressure on the legislature, perhaps the most potent of the interest groups.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent millions of dollars last year helping elect Republicans to Congressional seats, is struggling to convince the House it helped to build that the debt ceiling must be increased.
The chamber and other business groups have pressed with increasing urgency for Congress to raise the maximum amount that the government can borrow. They have cataloged the consequences of default at meetings, parties and dinners and over drinks.
On Tuesday, the chamber threw its weight behind the proposal of the House speaker, John A. Boehner, telling recalcitrant Republicans that a pending vote on the plan was a with-us-or-against-us moment that would be remembered during the next election campaign.
I find the last sentence to be striking. The next part of the story highlights a growing tension within the Republican Party:
But as the government runs out of money, those efforts have not produced the desired result. The freshman class of House Republicans, along with longer-serving members, is balking at Mr. Boehner’s plan, let alone anything that Senate Democrats and the White House might be willing to accept.
The tension highlights the distance between the pro-business stalwarts of the traditional Republican Party and the populism of its newer representatives, many of whom seem to view Wall Street and Washington with equal suspicion.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent millions of dollars last year helping elect Republicans to Congressional seats, is struggling to convince the House it helped to build that the debt ceiling must be increased.
The chamber and other business groups have pressed with increasing urgency for Congress to raise the maximum amount that the government can borrow. They have cataloged the consequences of default at meetings, parties and dinners and over drinks.
On Tuesday, the chamber threw its weight behind the proposal of the House speaker, John A. Boehner, telling recalcitrant Republicans that a pending vote on the plan was a with-us-or-against-us moment that would be remembered during the next election campaign.
I find the last sentence to be striking. The next part of the story highlights a growing tension within the Republican Party:
But as the government runs out of money, those efforts have not produced the desired result. The freshman class of House Republicans, along with longer-serving members, is balking at Mr. Boehner’s plan, let alone anything that Senate Democrats and the White House might be willing to accept.
The tension highlights the distance between the pro-business stalwarts of the traditional Republican Party and the populism of its newer representatives, many of whom seem to view Wall Street and Washington with equal suspicion.
Unemployment Discrimination
Apparently applicants are being denied consideration for jobs due to being unemployed. The question is whether this is type of discrimination is a civil rights violation subject to redress.
- Manpower Blog: Unemployment Discrimination?
- EEOC Holds Public Hearing on Unemployment Discrimination.
- FAQ: The Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
- Discriminating Against the Unemployed.
- Manpower Blog: Unemployment Discrimination?
- EEOC Holds Public Hearing on Unemployment Discrimination.
- FAQ: The Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
- Discriminating Against the Unemployed.
Transportation as a Civil Rights Issue
From Wired, a provocative claim:
Many things come to mind when you think about transportation: Traffic, congestion, mass transit and the cost of fuel, to name a few. You might also think about the economy, urban planning and the environment. Yet one thing often is left out of the discussion: civil rights.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights lays out the case for transportation as a civil right in a report, Where We Need to Go: A Civil Rights Roadmap for Transportation Equity.
The way the conference sees it, access to transportation is key to connecting the poor, seniors and those with disabilities to jobs, schools, health care and other resources. It is essential to widening opportunities for all. Many of us take our mobility for granted, but getting around can be a real challenge for millions of Americans.
Many things come to mind when you think about transportation: Traffic, congestion, mass transit and the cost of fuel, to name a few. You might also think about the economy, urban planning and the environment. Yet one thing often is left out of the discussion: civil rights.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights lays out the case for transportation as a civil right in a report, Where We Need to Go: A Civil Rights Roadmap for Transportation Equity.
The way the conference sees it, access to transportation is key to connecting the poor, seniors and those with disabilities to jobs, schools, health care and other resources. It is essential to widening opportunities for all. Many of us take our mobility for granted, but getting around can be a real challenge for millions of Americans.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Imaginative Constitutional Histories, Executive Unilateralism, and the Debt Ceiling
From Balkinization, more thoughts about presidential power during a time of crisis, such as the possibility that Congress might allow the nation to default on its debt.
The author points out that previous presidents - Lincoln and FDR, though there were others - had to wrestle with situations where massive damage could have been done to the nation through perfectly constitutional and legal means. They choose to do the (probably) unconstitutional thing, in order to maintain the constitutional and economic system.
Its an interesting question. In order to preserve the constitution, might a president have to - on extraordinary occasions, violate it?
A side note: Should we just get rid of the debt ceiling?
- Smash the Ceiling
- How we got into this fine mess
The author points out that previous presidents - Lincoln and FDR, though there were others - had to wrestle with situations where massive damage could have been done to the nation through perfectly constitutional and legal means. They choose to do the (probably) unconstitutional thing, in order to maintain the constitutional and economic system.
Its an interesting question. In order to preserve the constitution, might a president have to - on extraordinary occasions, violate it?
A side note: Should we just get rid of the debt ceiling?
- Smash the Ceiling
- How we got into this fine mess
A Liberal Reads the Great Conservative Works
A nice brief interview in the National Review which helps lay out one man's understanding of the difference between liberalism and conservatism:
. . . what separates us at the most fundamental level may be our different conceptions of liberty. Conservatives value above all else what Berlin called the negative vision of liberty, namely, freedom from coercion. Liberals are more willing to balance that against the positive vision of liberty — that is, having a reasonable opportunity to realize one’s potential. The negative vision focuses conservatives on restricting the government’s ability to interfere in people’s lives. The positive vision leads liberals to believe that government has a role in guaranteeing baseline minimums in education, medical care, and healthy communities. Most of us probably accept both visions to some extent, but how we balance the two may be built into our DNA. It is not to be expected, therefore, that a liberal will be converted by reading the great works of conservatism, or vice versa. But there are rewards to be gained from doing so nonetheless. Often, we get a better understanding of what we believe by reading about a philosophy with which we have disagreements than by reading congenial literature. More important, reading its great works helps us better understand — and respect — the other side. That, at least, has been my experience.
. . . what separates us at the most fundamental level may be our different conceptions of liberty. Conservatives value above all else what Berlin called the negative vision of liberty, namely, freedom from coercion. Liberals are more willing to balance that against the positive vision of liberty — that is, having a reasonable opportunity to realize one’s potential. The negative vision focuses conservatives on restricting the government’s ability to interfere in people’s lives. The positive vision leads liberals to believe that government has a role in guaranteeing baseline minimums in education, medical care, and healthy communities. Most of us probably accept both visions to some extent, but how we balance the two may be built into our DNA. It is not to be expected, therefore, that a liberal will be converted by reading the great works of conservatism, or vice versa. But there are rewards to be gained from doing so nonetheless. Often, we get a better understanding of what we believe by reading about a philosophy with which we have disagreements than by reading congenial literature. More important, reading its great works helps us better understand — and respect — the other side. That, at least, has been my experience.
A Cold Civil War?
That's what Andrew Sullivan thinks we're going through right now. He thinks Republicans are focused on destroying Obama's presidency and are willing to sacrifice the economy in order to do it. They seem to have gotten everything they want in the debt ceiling show-down, but "can't take yes for an answer."
Not that party polarization is argued to be one of the driving forces leading the antagonism.
Not that party polarization is argued to be one of the driving forces leading the antagonism.
Behind Battle Over Debt, a War Over Government
From the NYT, the battle over the debt ceiling is simply the latest battle over the larger question of the size scope and purpose of government - especially the national government.
Republicans have shown that their higher priority is not lower deficits, as it was for the party through most of the last century, but a smaller government. House Republicans in the spring passed a plan that would not balance the budget for three decades despite deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid — largely because it also deeply cut taxes, adding debt.
For Republicans, “reducing the deficit implies tax increases, or the possibility of tax increases, and that’s not something they want to do under any circumstances because it doesn’t suit their political needs,” said Stan Collender, a longtime federal budget analyst and a partner at Qorvis Communications.
The party’s dynamic in the debt talks reflects the culmination of a 30-year evolution in Republican thinking, dating to the start of President Ronald Reagan’s administration. The change is from emphasizing balanced budgets — or at least lower deficits — to what tax-cutting conservatives have called “starve the beast,” that is, cut taxes and force government to shrink.
Republicans have shown that their higher priority is not lower deficits, as it was for the party through most of the last century, but a smaller government. House Republicans in the spring passed a plan that would not balance the budget for three decades despite deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid — largely because it also deeply cut taxes, adding debt.
For Republicans, “reducing the deficit implies tax increases, or the possibility of tax increases, and that’s not something they want to do under any circumstances because it doesn’t suit their political needs,” said Stan Collender, a longtime federal budget analyst and a partner at Qorvis Communications.
The party’s dynamic in the debt talks reflects the culmination of a 30-year evolution in Republican thinking, dating to the start of President Ronald Reagan’s administration. The change is from emphasizing balanced budgets — or at least lower deficits — to what tax-cutting conservatives have called “starve the beast,” that is, cut taxes and force government to shrink.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
'Super Congress': Debt Ceiling Negotiators Aim To Create New Legislative Body
I have no idea what this is about.
Debt ceiling negotiators think they've hit on a solution to address the debt ceiling impasse and the public's unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work: Create a new Congress.
This "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.
Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has made a Super Congress a central part of his last-minute proposal, multiple news reports and people familiar with his plan say.
Debt ceiling negotiators think they've hit on a solution to address the debt ceiling impasse and the public's unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work: Create a new Congress.
This "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.
Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has made a Super Congress a central part of his last-minute proposal, multiple news reports and people familiar with his plan say.
Unfavorable Ratings for Both Major Parties Near Record Highs
From Nate Silver, commentary on the results of a new CNN poll on political parties:
A new CNN poll finds that 55 percent of voters have a negative view of the Republican Party, tied for their second-highest unfavorable score since CNN began asking this question in 1992. The Republicans also achieved a 55 percent unfavorable rating in a poll conducted in April 2009, although the party’s all-time high, 57 percent, was recorded as the House of Representatives was in the process of impeaching Bill Clinton in December, 1998.
The news for Democrats is not any better. Some 49 percent of voters now hold a negative view of the party, according to the poll. Although this figure is slightly better than for Republicans, it matches the Democrats’ record high unfavorable rating of September 2010 and is part of an upward trajectory that has persisted for the past three years.
The combined unfavorable score for both parties — 104 percent — is also a record, and represents the first time that the figure has been above 100.
A new CNN poll finds that 55 percent of voters have a negative view of the Republican Party, tied for their second-highest unfavorable score since CNN began asking this question in 1992. The Republicans also achieved a 55 percent unfavorable rating in a poll conducted in April 2009, although the party’s all-time high, 57 percent, was recorded as the House of Representatives was in the process of impeaching Bill Clinton in December, 1998.
The news for Democrats is not any better. Some 49 percent of voters now hold a negative view of the party, according to the poll. Although this figure is slightly better than for Republicans, it matches the Democrats’ record high unfavorable rating of September 2010 and is part of an upward trajectory that has persisted for the past three years.
The combined unfavorable score for both parties — 104 percent — is also a record, and represents the first time that the figure has been above 100.
Polarized Parties
Given the current stalemate on raising the debt ceiling, and the degree to which it might be due to the fact that neither party has any incentive to compromise with each other since they are each dominated by ideologues who have little in common with other, it makes sense to use this as background for this week's written assignment for my 2301 11 week class. We are covering political parties this week, so the topic is relevant.
I'll have the precise question on backboard soon. I want you to click on the blog tag labelled "party polarization" for background on the topic, but here are a few additional posts to help out:
- Why political polarization has gone wild in America (and what to do about it)
- Polarized America.
- Party polarization is not the same as ideological polarization.
- Can a Polarized American Party System Be “Healthy”?
- Debating the Causes of Party Polarization in America
I'll have the precise question on backboard soon. I want you to click on the blog tag labelled "party polarization" for background on the topic, but here are a few additional posts to help out:
- Why political polarization has gone wild in America (and what to do about it)
- Polarized America.
- Party polarization is not the same as ideological polarization.
- Can a Polarized American Party System Be “Healthy”?
- Debating the Causes of Party Polarization in America
Friday, July 22, 2011
Public Opinion on Tax Increases
If polls are to be believed, a majority of Americans support a compromise on the debt ceiling impasse that contains a balance of spending cuts and tax increases. They also suggest that people prefer policies that focus on jobs, not the deficit.
Here are three articles supporting this argument:
- G.O.P.’s No-Tax Stance Is Outside Political Mainstream.
- Concerns About Economy, Jobs Outweigh Worries About Deficit.
- Dueling Debt Ceiling Polls.
Nevertheless, Republicans are pushing - seemingly with success - a spending only package. These policies seem to not comport with those supported by the general public. Our basic understanding of democracy is that policies will follow the will of the majority. That does not seem to be what's happening here, so what's up?
There are two ways to address this question.
First, recall that we are a democratic republic, meaning that people voted into institutions are responsible for passing policies, not the general public. Federalist #10 explains the reasoning behind this and it boils down to ensuring that policymakers are removed from the direct, and often irrationally passionate, preferences of the general public. This allows for policy making to be immune from the "mob" and hopefully based on rational, sober thinking.
But one might argue that this is not a satisfactory explanation, since members of the House especially do seem to be closely connected to at least a segment of the general population. So perhaps the better explanation is that the current electoral environment is such that the preferences of the general population do not matter to members of Congress - especially members of the House of Representatives.
Prior to running in the general election, they have to run in primary elections. They do so every two years, and the districts they run in are gerrymandered so that they are dominated by people affiliated with either of the two major political parties. Members of the House do not need to worry - primarily - about making the general population happy, they need to worry about the preferences of the primary voters in their districts. It is their opinions - and their electoral support - that matter most. So even though the general population may not support what is happening in Congress, it is rational - based on the design of our electoral process - for incumbents to discount that opinion in favor of the more immediate preferences of primary voters.
So the more important question for us is whether the current electoral process distorts democracy.
This is a point we hit - party polarization - in both 2301 and 2302.
Here are three articles supporting this argument:
- G.O.P.’s No-Tax Stance Is Outside Political Mainstream.
- Concerns About Economy, Jobs Outweigh Worries About Deficit.
- Dueling Debt Ceiling Polls.
Nevertheless, Republicans are pushing - seemingly with success - a spending only package. These policies seem to not comport with those supported by the general public. Our basic understanding of democracy is that policies will follow the will of the majority. That does not seem to be what's happening here, so what's up?
There are two ways to address this question.
First, recall that we are a democratic republic, meaning that people voted into institutions are responsible for passing policies, not the general public. Federalist #10 explains the reasoning behind this and it boils down to ensuring that policymakers are removed from the direct, and often irrationally passionate, preferences of the general public. This allows for policy making to be immune from the "mob" and hopefully based on rational, sober thinking.
But one might argue that this is not a satisfactory explanation, since members of the House especially do seem to be closely connected to at least a segment of the general population. So perhaps the better explanation is that the current electoral environment is such that the preferences of the general population do not matter to members of Congress - especially members of the House of Representatives.
Prior to running in the general election, they have to run in primary elections. They do so every two years, and the districts they run in are gerrymandered so that they are dominated by people affiliated with either of the two major political parties. Members of the House do not need to worry - primarily - about making the general population happy, they need to worry about the preferences of the primary voters in their districts. It is their opinions - and their electoral support - that matter most. So even though the general population may not support what is happening in Congress, it is rational - based on the design of our electoral process - for incumbents to discount that opinion in favor of the more immediate preferences of primary voters.
So the more important question for us is whether the current electoral process distorts democracy.
This is a point we hit - party polarization - in both 2301 and 2302.
Ideology Among Governors
Here's analysis by Nate Silver. Republican governors are as rigidly and consistently conservative as those in the U.S. House and Senate. Democratic Governors tend to be a bit more ideologically diverse.
The Founders, Taxes, and the National Debt
Here's an argument that the founders - at least those who supported the ratification of the Constitution - did so with the idea that it would be better able to tax, and assume the debt necessary to develop projects that would enhance the safety and well being of the nation.
I'll track down counter-arguments.
I'll track down counter-arguments.
Barack Obama: The Democrats’ Richard Nixon?
Barack Obama: The Democrats’ Richard Nixon?
Bruce Bartlett has quickly become one of my favorite commentators and the story linked to above is a reason why. He quickly and neatly summarizes the ideological nature of almost every president since FDR and explains why Obama is best seen as being to conservatism, what Nixon was to liberalism.
2302s ought to read this in order to get familiar with the nature of recent presidents, 2301s ought to read it in order to understand not only the ideological shifts that the nation has gone through in the past seven or eight decades, but the elections that facilitate this shift.
Bruce Bartlett has quickly become one of my favorite commentators and the story linked to above is a reason why. He quickly and neatly summarizes the ideological nature of almost every president since FDR and explains why Obama is best seen as being to conservatism, what Nixon was to liberalism.
2302s ought to read this in order to get familiar with the nature of recent presidents, 2301s ought to read it in order to understand not only the ideological shifts that the nation has gone through in the past seven or eight decades, but the elections that facilitate this shift.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
The American Legislative Exchange Council
Attention is being focused on a recently established interest group, the American Legislative Exchange Council, which is helping coordinate policies - primarily conservative policies - across the states. It has helped drive tort reform, opposition to health care reform and environmental regulations, and the balanced budget amendment.
Obviously with that agenda, people are polarized about it's influence on the states, but it has emerged as a leading source for much of the legislation that has been promoted through the states.
Here are a handful of links related to the group. Some of my 2301s will see a written assignment based on these, something that ties the subjects of federalism, elections and interest groups together. My 2302s might want to read through some of these stories to get an idea about the origins of legislation.
- ALEC Exposed: The Koch Connection.
- ALEC: Democracy's Arch-Nemesis.
- Koch, Exxon Mobil Among Corporations Helping Write State Laws Across U.S.
- Who's Really Writing States' Legislation?
- Right-wing group brings together pols & corps to write 'model bills'
- ALEC’s influence in West Virginia
Obviously with that agenda, people are polarized about it's influence on the states, but it has emerged as a leading source for much of the legislation that has been promoted through the states.
Here are a handful of links related to the group. Some of my 2301s will see a written assignment based on these, something that ties the subjects of federalism, elections and interest groups together. My 2302s might want to read through some of these stories to get an idea about the origins of legislation.
- ALEC Exposed: The Koch Connection.
- ALEC: Democracy's Arch-Nemesis.
- Koch, Exxon Mobil Among Corporations Helping Write State Laws Across U.S.
- Who's Really Writing States' Legislation?
- Right-wing group brings together pols & corps to write 'model bills'
- ALEC’s influence in West Virginia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)