Blue Mountain School District. v. J.S. : SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court will once again weigh in on students speech - whether it is covered by the First Amendments free speech clause - and in this case whether it applies to internet speech.
Here's some background:
In March 2007, the Blue Mountain School District suspended two eighth-grade students after they created a fake MySpace profile for James McGonigle, principal of the Blue Mountain Middle School in Pennsylvania. The MySpace page did not identify McGonigle by name, but it included his picture from the school district's website and identified the person depicted as a "principal." According to court documents, the profile characterized the principal as a sex-obsessed pedophile, and it was laced with profanity and other negative comments about McGonigle and his family.
The school determined that, based on the creation of the fake profile, the two students had violated the school discipline code, which prohibits making false accusations against school staff members. It also determined that the students violated the school's computer use policy, which informs students that they cannot use copyrighted material without permission, by obtaining McGonigle's photo from the school district's website. As a result, the school suspended the two students for ten days out-of-school.
One of the students, going by the initials "J.S.", sued the school district, McMonigle, and the school district superintendent for violating her First Amendment rights. She argued, among other things, that the school could not constitutionally punish her for out-0f-school speech that did not cause a disruption of classes or school administration.
Now the fun begins. The court is set to hear arguments on the case later this spring.
Monday, January 16, 2012
First challenge on new Obama appointees : SCOTUSblog
First challenge on new Obama appointees : SCOTUSblog
Legal challenges to Obama's recess appointments have begun. Business groups are pursuing the challenge largely because the appointments allowed the National Labor Relations Board to start doign business again. Replicans had hoped to defange the board by reducing it to two people - denyign it quorum, meaning it would not be able to issue rules concerning labor unions.
Constitutional questiosn aside, that's what the fight is about:
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington is hearing business challenges to a rule, not yet put into effect by the NLRB, that would require as many as six million employers to put up in their workplaces a permanent poster that notifies their employees of the legal rights they have under federal labor law. That requirement, the so-called “notice posting” rule, is now due to go into effect on April 30. It had been set to go into effect at the end of this month, but the Board postponed it in December at Judge Jackson’s specific request while she ponders the challenge (pending in National Association of Manufacturers, et al., v. NLRB, District Court docket 11-1629).
Although that rule was put into final form by the Board before the President early this month gave “recess appointments” to three new members, the motion filed Friday argued that those appointments are “unconstitutional, null and void,” reducing the Board to only two members, and thus the Board “no longer has authority to implement or enforce the Notice Rule on its purported effective date of April 30, 2012.” (Under the Supreme Court decision in 2010, in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, the Board cannot take action with only two of its allotted five members.)
The recess appointments were meant to provide the NLRB with the memebers necessary to constitute a quorum.
By the way, the simple constitutional questions seem to be: Is a "pro-forma session" of Congress a "session." No legislative business is condicted during these sessions, and there is no quorum to conduct business. The only purpose seems to be to deny the presient the chance to make recess appointments and to preent the exectuive branch from conducting business. Does the president not have recourse to act in that situation?
Legal challenges to Obama's recess appointments have begun. Business groups are pursuing the challenge largely because the appointments allowed the National Labor Relations Board to start doign business again. Replicans had hoped to defange the board by reducing it to two people - denyign it quorum, meaning it would not be able to issue rules concerning labor unions.
Constitutional questiosn aside, that's what the fight is about:
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington is hearing business challenges to a rule, not yet put into effect by the NLRB, that would require as many as six million employers to put up in their workplaces a permanent poster that notifies their employees of the legal rights they have under federal labor law. That requirement, the so-called “notice posting” rule, is now due to go into effect on April 30. It had been set to go into effect at the end of this month, but the Board postponed it in December at Judge Jackson’s specific request while she ponders the challenge (pending in National Association of Manufacturers, et al., v. NLRB, District Court docket 11-1629).
Although that rule was put into final form by the Board before the President early this month gave “recess appointments” to three new members, the motion filed Friday argued that those appointments are “unconstitutional, null and void,” reducing the Board to only two members, and thus the Board “no longer has authority to implement or enforce the Notice Rule on its purported effective date of April 30, 2012.” (Under the Supreme Court decision in 2010, in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, the Board cannot take action with only two of its allotted five members.)
The recess appointments were meant to provide the NLRB with the memebers necessary to constitute a quorum.
By the way, the simple constitutional questions seem to be: Is a "pro-forma session" of Congress a "session." No legislative business is condicted during these sessions, and there is no quorum to conduct business. The only purpose seems to be to deny the presient the chance to make recess appointments and to preent the exectuive branch from conducting business. Does the president not have recourse to act in that situation?
What went wrong with Huntsman's candidacy?
The consensus seems to be that he made a mistake running for the presidency as a moderate in a party that is not open to moderates at the moment.
- Andrew Sullivan.
- The Arena.
- Andrew Sullivan.
- The Arena.
Who is Sheldon Adelson? Does it matter that we know?
He's the billionaire casino/hotel magnate that has pumped $5 million into the pro-Newt Gingrich Super PAC: Winning our Future. The organization is about a month old. Shows you what unlimited cash can do. A single check and a politician has new legs. Should people like Adelson be subject to the same amount of scrutiny as the candidates themselves?
This appears to be the future of campaigning.
- A Big Check, and Gingrich Gets a Big Lift.
- Why Sheldon Adelson's foreign ties are reason for concern.
- The struggle for Adelson's affections.
This appears to be the future of campaigning.
- A Big Check, and Gingrich Gets a Big Lift.
- Why Sheldon Adelson's foreign ties are reason for concern.
- The struggle for Adelson's affections.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Is the end of autocracy at hand?
The UN secretary argued as much:
“The old way, the old order, is crumbling – one-man rule and the perpetuation of family dynasties ... monopolies of wealth and power ... the silencing of the media ... the deprivation of fundamental freedoms that are the birthright of every man, woman and child on this planet. To all of this, the people say: enough!”
Is this true? And if it is, what forces are driving this? Is the shift permanent? Might we see a backlash at some point and a re-emergence of autocracies in the future? For 2301, remember that we will be touching on the idea that governing systems go through cycles. Is this simply a stage in the cycle?
“The old way, the old order, is crumbling – one-man rule and the perpetuation of family dynasties ... monopolies of wealth and power ... the silencing of the media ... the deprivation of fundamental freedoms that are the birthright of every man, woman and child on this planet. To all of this, the people say: enough!”
Is this true? And if it is, what forces are driving this? Is the shift permanent? Might we see a backlash at some point and a re-emergence of autocracies in the future? For 2301, remember that we will be touching on the idea that governing systems go through cycles. Is this simply a stage in the cycle?
This Week in the 2012 Election
Some random stories to cover in class:
- Despite Romney's wealth and difficulty connecting with middle and lower class voters, blue collar whites - while they have not supported his as much as wealthier voters in the Republican primaries, or as much as other Republican candidates - still support him more than they do Obama in crucial swing states. The question is whether this is due to economic status or race.
- Maybe Romney isn't that unpopular among Republicans after all.
- Efforts continue among social conservative and Tea Party Republicans to find an alternative to Romney, who may prove weaker in the general election than hoped.
- Ron Paul is a dangerous man.
- Even though he has increased criticism of the financial sector, Obama is still receiving large donations from Wall Street. In part this is because the sector has done well since the end of the recession. In part, the social conservatism of the Republican candidates - opposition to abortion, immigration and gay marriage - puts them off. While they are conservative in economic matters, they remain liberal in social matters. Relaxed contribution rules (post Citizens United) have made it possible that a few cranky billionaires could have an out sized impact on the election. Obama has made pains to mollify them.
- Stephen Colbert goes for the jugular.
- At a Brenham ranch, social conservative leaders held a meeting and voted to unify behind Rick Santorum. Governor Perry came in a distant third. The ranch was owned by local leaders in the community: Paul and Nancy Pressler.
- Jon Hunstman is about to quit the race and back Romney. This may free more moderate Republicans to support Romney.
- Despite Romney's wealth and difficulty connecting with middle and lower class voters, blue collar whites - while they have not supported his as much as wealthier voters in the Republican primaries, or as much as other Republican candidates - still support him more than they do Obama in crucial swing states. The question is whether this is due to economic status or race.
- Maybe Romney isn't that unpopular among Republicans after all.
- Efforts continue among social conservative and Tea Party Republicans to find an alternative to Romney, who may prove weaker in the general election than hoped.
- Ron Paul is a dangerous man.
- Even though he has increased criticism of the financial sector, Obama is still receiving large donations from Wall Street. In part this is because the sector has done well since the end of the recession. In part, the social conservatism of the Republican candidates - opposition to abortion, immigration and gay marriage - puts them off. While they are conservative in economic matters, they remain liberal in social matters. Relaxed contribution rules (post Citizens United) have made it possible that a few cranky billionaires could have an out sized impact on the election. Obama has made pains to mollify them.
- Stephen Colbert goes for the jugular.
- At a Brenham ranch, social conservative leaders held a meeting and voted to unify behind Rick Santorum. Governor Perry came in a distant third. The ranch was owned by local leaders in the community: Paul and Nancy Pressler.
- Jon Hunstman is about to quit the race and back Romney. This may free more moderate Republicans to support Romney.
1 - Written Assignment GOVT 2302 Spring Semester
Remember to input your answer to this question in blackboard!!!
A good way to set us up for the semester - where we will look at each individual governing institution separately - is to look at how they relate to each other. A major point made in 2301 was that a defining feature of American government is the separated powers, and the main factor which maintains the separated powers is the checks and balances which is driven by personal ambition.
If you need to reread Federalist #51 to remind yourself of the point, please do. As we will see this semester - the design of each institution takes into consideration how each institution is likely attacked by the others two and is given powers to resist this encroachment.
I want you to look at the contemporary governing landscape and find examples of ambitious individuals in each institution attacking the other two. Also determine how these institutions are in a position to protect themselves. I want you to find examples within each of the three governing institutions. You can look at the national or state levels. I'd suggest looking through the New York Times or the Washington Post for information, but many other sources are fine.
The goal is two fold - first to get you used to the manner in which the governing institutions operate and second to get you familiar with how to get access to that information.
A good way to set us up for the semester - where we will look at each individual governing institution separately - is to look at how they relate to each other. A major point made in 2301 was that a defining feature of American government is the separated powers, and the main factor which maintains the separated powers is the checks and balances which is driven by personal ambition.
If you need to reread Federalist #51 to remind yourself of the point, please do. As we will see this semester - the design of each institution takes into consideration how each institution is likely attacked by the others two and is given powers to resist this encroachment.
I want you to look at the contemporary governing landscape and find examples of ambitious individuals in each institution attacking the other two. Also determine how these institutions are in a position to protect themselves. I want you to find examples within each of the three governing institutions. You can look at the national or state levels. I'd suggest looking through the New York Times or the Washington Post for information, but many other sources are fine.
The goal is two fold - first to get you used to the manner in which the governing institutions operate and second to get you familiar with how to get access to that information.
1 - Written Assignment GOVT 2301 Spring Semester
Remember to input your answer to this question in blackboard!!!
Dear 2301s: For your introductory written assignment I want you to be a bit introspective and take these two quizzes available in the Pew Research Center's website:
- The News IQ Quiz.
- Political Typology Quiz.
The first is designed to determine your level of political knowledge while the second is designed to determine what your ideological leanings are. Before you begin, jot down on a piece of paper how much you think you know about the political world, and what you think your political leanings are. Then take the tests and see how accurate your predictions were. Do you have the level of political knowledge you assumed you had? Yes or no? And based on the questions you answered on the political typology quiz, are your ideological leanings what you thought they were?
Comment on your findings.
Dear 2301s: For your introductory written assignment I want you to be a bit introspective and take these two quizzes available in the Pew Research Center's website:
- The News IQ Quiz.
- Political Typology Quiz.
The first is designed to determine your level of political knowledge while the second is designed to determine what your ideological leanings are. Before you begin, jot down on a piece of paper how much you think you know about the political world, and what you think your political leanings are. Then take the tests and see how accurate your predictions were. Do you have the level of political knowledge you assumed you had? Yes or no? And based on the questions you answered on the political typology quiz, are your ideological leanings what you thought they were?
Comment on your findings.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
The public knows little about the Republican field and the nominating process
This continues is an ongoing theme on this blog. Do people have the knowledge necessary to make the decisions necessary to sustain a democratic republic? What do we know and what do we not know?
More bad news from the Pew Research Center - via the Washington Post:
A new Pew Research Center poll suggests that most voters have little idea about even the most basic facts regarding the backgrounds of the men seeking the Republican presidential nomination this year.
Pretty basic stuff right? Um, no.
Just 43 percent of all registered voters — these people are actually registered to vote — got at least three of those questions right.
Upcoming students ought to be prepared to discuss whether this presents a real problem.
Here's a chart from the Pew report:
More bad news from the Pew Research Center - via the Washington Post:
A new Pew Research Center poll suggests that most voters have little idea about even the most basic facts regarding the backgrounds of the men seeking the Republican presidential nomination this year.
Pretty basic stuff right? Um, no.
Just 43 percent of all registered voters — these people are actually registered to vote — got at least three of those questions right.
Upcoming students ought to be prepared to discuss whether this presents a real problem.
Here's a chart from the Pew report:
Friday, January 13, 2012
From the NYT: Religious Groups Given ‘Exception’ to Work Bias Law
We covered this case last semester:
In what may be its most significant religious liberty decision in two decades, the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the first time recognized a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws, saying that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference.
The decision was unanimous. This means that a church can discriminate against its employees, as long as the employee can be claimed to be a minister.
- The full story from ScotusBlog.
In what may be its most significant religious liberty decision in two decades, the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the first time recognized a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws, saying that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference.
The decision was unanimous. This means that a church can discriminate against its employees, as long as the employee can be claimed to be a minister.
- The full story from ScotusBlog.
The Justice Department argues the Obama's recess appointments are constitutional
From the Washington Post:
President Obama’s decision to issue recent recess appointments
is constitutional, because recent pro forma sessions of the U.S. Senate
— some lasting just a few seconds — didn’t constitute legitimate
sessions that could block such appointments, the Justice Department said
in a memo released Thursday.
Congressional Republicans have assailed Obama’s decision to issue recess appointments last week of Richard Cordray to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and of three nominees to serve on the National Labor Relations Board. Several GOP lawmakers criticized the move as disregarding the history and legality of Senate procedure.
In a 23-page memo dated Jan. 6,
Virginia A. Seitz, the assistant attorney general for the Office of
Legal Counsel, wrote that although the Senate held pro forma sessions
from Jan. 3 to Jan. 23, “those sessions do not interrupt the
intrasession recess in a manner that would preclude the President from
determining that the Senate remains unavailable throughout to ‘receive
communications from the President or participate as a body in making
appointments.’ ”
It all depends on what the word "session" means. This could make for a good written assignment.
Congressional Republicans have assailed Obama’s decision to issue recess appointments last week of Richard Cordray to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and of three nominees to serve on the National Labor Relations Board. Several GOP lawmakers criticized the move as disregarding the history and legality of Senate procedure.
It all depends on what the word "session" means. This could make for a good written assignment.
Obama Seeks to Consolidate Federal Agencies
From the Washington Post:
President Obama asked Congress on Friday for the power to
consolidate parts of the federal government, proposing a first step of
merging several trade- and commerce-related agencies under a plan that
the White House said could eliminate more than 1,000 jobs and save $3
billion over 10 years.
Obama said he would focus initially on entities that deal with small business, but ultimately would like to get rid of inefficiencies throughout the federal government. He noted to an audience of small business leaders that the bureaucracy included five different entities involved in housing, and more than a dozen agencies that regulate food safety.
Commentators suggest that one problem this proposal faces is that each agency is protected by a constituency in Congress and in the general public. Iron Triangles are tough to dismantle once created. This will be an interesting test case of that theory. Here are the affected agencies:
Obama proposed combining the functions and staff of six trade- and commerce-related agencies and offices: the Small Business Administration; the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; the Export-Import Bank; the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; and the Trade and Development Agency. The move would ease the regulatory burden on businesses and save money by eliminating duplicative functions such as human resources, the White House official said.
Obama said he would focus initially on entities that deal with small business, but ultimately would like to get rid of inefficiencies throughout the federal government. He noted to an audience of small business leaders that the bureaucracy included five different entities involved in housing, and more than a dozen agencies that regulate food safety.
Commentators suggest that one problem this proposal faces is that each agency is protected by a constituency in Congress and in the general public. Iron Triangles are tough to dismantle once created. This will be an interesting test case of that theory. Here are the affected agencies:
Obama proposed combining the functions and staff of six trade- and commerce-related agencies and offices: the Small Business Administration; the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; the Export-Import Bank; the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; and the Trade and Development Agency. The move would ease the regulatory burden on businesses and save money by eliminating duplicative functions such as human resources, the White House official said.
Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow
This might be best opportunity ever to watch the internal workings of Super PACs. Stephen Colbert founded Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow (Wikipedia) to influence the election, but now that he is considering making a run himself, he has to distance himself from organization. He cannot "coordinate" his activities with its. So he handed off the reins of the PAC to a disinterested observer.
The Economy and the 2012 Elections
In a post below I mentioned that some argue that presidential campaigns do not matter and that votes for or against sitting presidents are driven purely by the economy. If they believe it is improving, they vote for re-election, if it is not, they don't Charlie Cook builds off this in light of some numbers which suggest the rebound might be impacting the unemployment rate:
Although the presidential race is dominating the media this week, other events are worth watching: the recent spate of brighter economic news and lower unemployment numbers. These trends could change the trajectory of the general election. The latest Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey of 56 top economists forecasts an 8.7 percent unemployment rate for calendar year 2012 and an 8.5 rate for the fourth quarter, when Election Day occurs.
My rule of thumb has been that if unemployment is near 9 percent on Election Day, President Obama would very likely lose. If it’s near 8 percent, he would likely win. But if it’s around 8.5 percent, the race would be a toss-up. Worthy of note, the Blue Chip survey was conducted on January 4-5, before the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the December unemployment numbers that dropped to 8.5 percent from an upwardly revised 8.7 percent in November. This means that the jobless rate has inched downward four months in a row, from 9.1 percent in August to 8.5 percent in December.
While we talk about the unemployment rate, the number that researchers have stated most closely predicts voting decisions is real disposable income, more specifically, which direction the number is heading. Roughly this means whether you feel that you have more to spend, or less to spend. It seems to be the most tangible way for individuals to feel whether the state of the economy is affecting them positively or negatively.
Although the presidential race is dominating the media this week, other events are worth watching: the recent spate of brighter economic news and lower unemployment numbers. These trends could change the trajectory of the general election. The latest Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey of 56 top economists forecasts an 8.7 percent unemployment rate for calendar year 2012 and an 8.5 rate for the fourth quarter, when Election Day occurs.
My rule of thumb has been that if unemployment is near 9 percent on Election Day, President Obama would very likely lose. If it’s near 8 percent, he would likely win. But if it’s around 8.5 percent, the race would be a toss-up. Worthy of note, the Blue Chip survey was conducted on January 4-5, before the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the December unemployment numbers that dropped to 8.5 percent from an upwardly revised 8.7 percent in November. This means that the jobless rate has inched downward four months in a row, from 9.1 percent in August to 8.5 percent in December.
While we talk about the unemployment rate, the number that researchers have stated most closely predicts voting decisions is real disposable income, more specifically, which direction the number is heading. Roughly this means whether you feel that you have more to spend, or less to spend. It seems to be the most tangible way for individuals to feel whether the state of the economy is affecting them positively or negatively.
Something to Ponder: What exactly of "free" about a free market?
I'll try to formulate a question around this theme at some point, probably for 2301 in terms of ideology. Freedom - and liberty in general - is an ongoing value in the American mindset, but its a slippery term and can mean different things to different people. This can impact how the term is used in elections.
The internal debate among Republican candidates about whether Romney's activities with Bain Capital is a case in point. Are his actions then beyond reproach now because what he did is work within the free market (or free enterprise) or are the consequence of those decisions - closed businesses, fired workers, raided pensions, etc . . - fair game?
What does it mean for a market to be free? Does it mean that business people can do whatever they want - freedom only applies to them? - or should rules be established and applied in order to ensure that the freedom of everyone is protected?
Most of the words we use to describe values get slippery after awhile. I want to dig into this at some point.
The internal debate among Republican candidates about whether Romney's activities with Bain Capital is a case in point. Are his actions then beyond reproach now because what he did is work within the free market (or free enterprise) or are the consequence of those decisions - closed businesses, fired workers, raided pensions, etc . . - fair game?
What does it mean for a market to be free? Does it mean that business people can do whatever they want - freedom only applies to them? - or should rules be established and applied in order to ensure that the freedom of everyone is protected?
Most of the words we use to describe values get slippery after awhile. I want to dig into this at some point.
King of Bain
The 30 minute video produced by pro-Newt Gingrich Super PAC Winning Our Future may be having an effect on front runner Mitt Romney.
The National Journal calls it over the top but possibly lethal. The non-Romney's have begun focusing their attacks on the predatory nature of Romney's activities, with Rick Perry calling it "vulture capitalism."
One of the themes we will hit this semester is the nature of the coalitions within each party, with special attention paid to growing rifts within the Republican Party. While the party has traditionally united around support for "free market capitalism" some apparently see an opportunity in taking a more populist approach to the economy and using it against the financial sector and those who benefited from it at the expense of others. It's Main Street vs. Wall Street.
While the party has a great opportunity to do well this November, it can only do so if all parts of the party are unified. Should this rift continue, that might not be the case.
The National Journal calls it over the top but possibly lethal. The non-Romney's have begun focusing their attacks on the predatory nature of Romney's activities, with Rick Perry calling it "vulture capitalism."
One of the themes we will hit this semester is the nature of the coalitions within each party, with special attention paid to growing rifts within the Republican Party. While the party has traditionally united around support for "free market capitalism" some apparently see an opportunity in taking a more populist approach to the economy and using it against the financial sector and those who benefited from it at the expense of others. It's Main Street vs. Wall Street.
While the party has a great opportunity to do well this November, it can only do so if all parts of the party are unified. Should this rift continue, that might not be the case.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Oklahoma's ban on Sharia Law violate the establishment clause
So says an appellate court:
A federal appeals court today blocked a measure that would’ve made Oklahoma the first state in the nation to ban the Sharia law in its court system.
The court ruled in favor of Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Oklahoma, who filed a lawsuit against the Oklahoma election board on the grounds that the voter-approved constitutional amendment violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution forbidding the government from favoring one religion over another.The Oklahoma law passed with 70 percent of the vote, but constitutional ruling do not take this into consideration. Protecting the liberty of the individual generally involves restricting the preferences of the majority.
Here's more from the Atlantic, the decision was unanimous, and apparently not a big surprise. And two from the Volokh Conspiracy here and here.
A federal appeals court today blocked a measure that would’ve made Oklahoma the first state in the nation to ban the Sharia law in its court system.
The court ruled in favor of Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Oklahoma, who filed a lawsuit against the Oklahoma election board on the grounds that the voter-approved constitutional amendment violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution forbidding the government from favoring one religion over another.The Oklahoma law passed with 70 percent of the vote, but constitutional ruling do not take this into consideration. Protecting the liberty of the individual generally involves restricting the preferences of the majority.
Here's more from the Atlantic, the decision was unanimous, and apparently not a big surprise. And two from the Volokh Conspiracy here and here.
The New Hampshire Primary Results
For comprehensive info on yesterday's vote click on the links below:
- The NYT has the full results here.
- Wikipedia: New Hampshire Primary.
- Andrew Sullivan complies reactions to the results, and live-blogs the event.
- The NYT's delegate counter is here.
- The NYT has the full results here.
- Wikipedia: New Hampshire Primary.
- Andrew Sullivan complies reactions to the results, and live-blogs the event.
- The NYT's delegate counter is here.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Does Texas' new Abortion Law Violate Free Speech?
A second speech case is in the news today, in this case an injunction of the enforcement of a recently passed Texas law requiring doctors to show sonograms to women seeking abortions was overturned. The injunction was imposed since challenges to the law are going forward in the courts. Opponents argued that the law infringes on the free speech rights of doctors and allows the state to intervene in the doctor - patient relationship.
File this under civil liberties, checks and balances and the judiciary.
File this under civil liberties, checks and balances and the judiciary.
Are Fleeting Expletives Protected under the First Amendment?
We will soon find out. The Supreme Court heard arguments today in FCC v Fox about whether the FCC can punish broadcasters for fleeting expletives - or brief nudity, or whether the rules allowing for such punishment are either a violation of free speech, or too vague.
From the USA Today:
The case arises from Federal Communications Commission findings against expletives uttered by Cher and by Nicole Richie at Fox Television's Billboard Awards and a brief shot of a woman's buttocks on ABC's NYPD Blue.
Broadcasters say the FCC policy is unconstitutionally vague and violates free speech rights. Fox Television Stations, going further than ABC in its arguments, has asked the high court to abandon a longtime rule that allows more government regulation of broadcast, compared with cable TV, because of the scarcity of the airwaves and the pervasiveness of broadcast TV and radio.
From the USA Today:
The case arises from Federal Communications Commission findings against expletives uttered by Cher and by Nicole Richie at Fox Television's Billboard Awards and a brief shot of a woman's buttocks on ABC's NYPD Blue.
Broadcasters say the FCC policy is unconstitutionally vague and violates free speech rights. Fox Television Stations, going further than ABC in its arguments, has asked the high court to abandon a longtime rule that allows more government regulation of broadcast, compared with cable TV, because of the scarcity of the airwaves and the pervasiveness of broadcast TV and radio.
The FDA and Bayer
The FDA recently approved the continued use of birth control manufactured by Bayer. The Washington Monthly found out that some of the members of the panel that approved this, had financial ties with the company.
For 2301, file this under interest groups, agency capture and iron triangles. This applies to 2302's discussion of the presidency as well.
For 2301, file this under interest groups, agency capture and iron triangles. This applies to 2302's discussion of the presidency as well.
Record High Number of Americans Identify as Independents
So finds the Gallup Poll. 40%. Democrats - 31%, Republicans - 27%.
This includes independents who lean towards one of the two major parties. When the leaners are included among the party identifiers, things tighten up considerably:
This includes independents who lean towards one of the two major parties. When the leaners are included among the party identifiers, things tighten up considerably:
The Economy and Obama's Approval Ratings
In the sections on public opinion (2301) and Presidential Approval, as well as persuasion (2302) we mention that presidential approval tends to rise and fall with the economy.
Here's proof that this still holds true:
The Gallup Poll shows that economic confidence has rebounded considerably in the past three month. and so has Obama's numbers. Some argue that attitudes about the economy are the only real factor explaining people's votes for or against a president. All this talk about campaign strategy and whatnot might be immaterial.
Here's proof that this still holds true:
The Gallup Poll shows that economic confidence has rebounded considerably in the past three month. and so has Obama's numbers. Some argue that attitudes about the economy are the only real factor explaining people's votes for or against a president. All this talk about campaign strategy and whatnot might be immaterial.
White House Chief of Staff Steps Down
Story from the NYT:
President Obama announced Monday that the White House chief of staff, William M. Daley, was stepping down, jolting the top ranks of his administration less than a year before he faces a difficult re-election. Mr. Daley will be replaced by Jacob J. Lew, the budget director and a seasoned Washington insider with ties to Capitol Hill.
Jacob Lew had been the head of the Office of Management and Budget, which of course means he is a budget guy.
President Obama announced Monday that the White House chief of staff, William M. Daley, was stepping down, jolting the top ranks of his administration less than a year before he faces a difficult re-election. Mr. Daley will be replaced by Jacob J. Lew, the budget director and a seasoned Washington insider with ties to Capitol Hill.
Jacob Lew had been the head of the Office of Management and Budget, which of course means he is a budget guy.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Supreme Court to hear Texas redistricting cases tomorrow
ScotusBlog outlines the expected arguments, which will include a challenge to the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The three cases under review are Perry v. Perez (11-713), on redistricting the state house, Perry v. Davis (11-714), on redistricting the state senate, and Perry v. Perez (11-715), on redistricting of seats in the U.S. House, expanded for Texas this year from 32 to 36 to account for expanded population in the state since 2000, especially among Hispanics. The dispute revolves around new districts that the state legislature fashioned earlier this year — in May for the two houses of the state legislature, and in June for the U.S. House seats.
Although the cases as they reached the Supreme Court are focused closely on the special requirements imposed on some states — mostly in the South — by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, their implications range well beyond that provision and raise fundamental questions about the division of power between state legislatures and federal courts in the crafting of new districts following each ten-year federal census, and about how far federal courts may go in that process to assure election opportunities for minority races or ethnic groups.
This dispute is, at its core, a fundamental test of historic questions about federalism — that is, the roles of federal vs. state governments in managing election processes.
The three cases under review are Perry v. Perez (11-713), on redistricting the state house, Perry v. Davis (11-714), on redistricting the state senate, and Perry v. Perez (11-715), on redistricting of seats in the U.S. House, expanded for Texas this year from 32 to 36 to account for expanded population in the state since 2000, especially among Hispanics. The dispute revolves around new districts that the state legislature fashioned earlier this year — in May for the two houses of the state legislature, and in June for the U.S. House seats.
Although the cases as they reached the Supreme Court are focused closely on the special requirements imposed on some states — mostly in the South — by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, their implications range well beyond that provision and raise fundamental questions about the division of power between state legislatures and federal courts in the crafting of new districts following each ten-year federal census, and about how far federal courts may go in that process to assure election opportunities for minority races or ethnic groups.
This dispute is, at its core, a fundamental test of historic questions about federalism — that is, the roles of federal vs. state governments in managing election processes.
Get Rich Quick Time
A Houston Chronicle writer suggests that political consultants were a driving force in persuadign Governor Perry to run for presdient, not necessarily because they though he coudl win, or be a good president, but because they saw it was a great way to make alot of money:
From a consultant's perspective . . . a Perry presidential campaign "is retirement. This is a get-rich deal." Landing such a contract is better than one's ship coming in, Miller said: "It's, my ship is docked."
Campaign consulting is big business. According to a study of the 2004 election cycle by the Center for Public Integrity, national political candidates paid $1.78 billion to campaign consultants. Of that, $1.2 billion "went to media-buying consultants who handle ads." Most of that money pays for commercial airtime, the study noted, "but buried in those reported sums are the percentage-based commissions that consultants keep."
From a consultant's perspective . . . a Perry presidential campaign "is retirement. This is a get-rich deal." Landing such a contract is better than one's ship coming in, Miller said: "It's, my ship is docked."
Campaign consulting is big business. According to a study of the 2004 election cycle by the Center for Public Integrity, national political candidates paid $1.78 billion to campaign consultants. Of that, $1.2 billion "went to media-buying consultants who handle ads." Most of that money pays for commercial airtime, the study noted, "but buried in those reported sums are the percentage-based commissions that consultants keep."
The KH-9 Hexagon Satellite
One of the concerns expressed over cuts to the Defense Department is that it may undermine research and development. One of the by-products of defense spending has been the promotion of technology that first aids defense and then eventually hits the private sector and leads to the development of new products and industries. The list is long - the telegraph, radio, airplanes, jet engines, rocketry, computers, and the internet.
Recently information has been declassified about the KH-9 Hexagon satellite, a cold war era surveillance satellite that took high resolution photographs of the Soviet Union during the 1960s and beyond. While attention was paid to the race to the moon, the real advance in space had less to do with exploration and more to do with the increasingly sophisticated satellites placed in orbit that began performing - and continue to perform - variety of functions.
Here are two stories related to the program:
- TOP SECRET: Your Briefing on the CIA's Cold-War Spy Satellite, 'Big Bird'
- Declassified US Spy Satellites . . .
The story points out the role the public sector has played in promoting basic research and development, and how this in turn promotes the viability of the commercial republic.
Recently information has been declassified about the KH-9 Hexagon satellite, a cold war era surveillance satellite that took high resolution photographs of the Soviet Union during the 1960s and beyond. While attention was paid to the race to the moon, the real advance in space had less to do with exploration and more to do with the increasingly sophisticated satellites placed in orbit that began performing - and continue to perform - variety of functions.
Here are two stories related to the program:
- TOP SECRET: Your Briefing on the CIA's Cold-War Spy Satellite, 'Big Bird'
- Declassified US Spy Satellites . . .
The story points out the role the public sector has played in promoting basic research and development, and how this in turn promotes the viability of the commercial republic.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Two stories related to equality
1 - The Justice Department has expanded its definition of rape to include sexual assaults of men.
2 - A major player in the battle against school segregation died recently.
2 - A major player in the battle against school segregation died recently.
Does Congress really represent the American people?
The Washington Post reports that a far higher percentage of members of Congress are millionaires than the general population. As we consider elections and the nature pf representation, is it proper to wonder if Congress can in fact make decisions that benefit the general population if it does not look like the general population?
Read the full report here.
The average American’s net worth has dropped 8 percent during the past six years, while members of Congress got, on average, 15 percent richer, according to a New York Times analysis of financial disclosure. The median net worth of members of Congress is about $913,000, compared with about $100,000 for the country at large, the Times’ analysis found.
This wealth disparity between lawmakers and the people they represent seems to be continually growing. Nearly half of Congress — 249 members — are millionaires, while only 5 percent of American households can make the same claim.
Even among the super rich, members of Congress fare better than other wealthy Americans. While the net worth of the richest 10 percent of Americans has remained stagnant since 2004, lawmakers’ net worth has seen double-digit growth, the Times reports.
Members of the House have fared especially well. From 1984 to 2009, the average net worth of the 435 House reps more than doubled, from $280,000 to $725,000, not including home equity, according to a Washington Post analysis of financial disclosures.
And while lawmakers in the “people’s house” grew significantly richer, the people they represent became slightly poorer, with the average wealth of an American household dropping from $20,600 to $20,500 over the same time period, the Post reports.
This growing disparity may be due, in part, to the rising cost of campaigning, which may deter less-affluent citizens from seeking public office.
Read the full report here.
The average American’s net worth has dropped 8 percent during the past six years, while members of Congress got, on average, 15 percent richer, according to a New York Times analysis of financial disclosure. The median net worth of members of Congress is about $913,000, compared with about $100,000 for the country at large, the Times’ analysis found.
This wealth disparity between lawmakers and the people they represent seems to be continually growing. Nearly half of Congress — 249 members — are millionaires, while only 5 percent of American households can make the same claim.
Even among the super rich, members of Congress fare better than other wealthy Americans. While the net worth of the richest 10 percent of Americans has remained stagnant since 2004, lawmakers’ net worth has seen double-digit growth, the Times reports.
Members of the House have fared especially well. From 1984 to 2009, the average net worth of the 435 House reps more than doubled, from $280,000 to $725,000, not including home equity, according to a Washington Post analysis of financial disclosures.
And while lawmakers in the “people’s house” grew significantly richer, the people they represent became slightly poorer, with the average wealth of an American household dropping from $20,600 to $20,500 over the same time period, the Post reports.
This growing disparity may be due, in part, to the rising cost of campaigning, which may deter less-affluent citizens from seeking public office.
Obama Proposes Military Policy
President Obama announced his military policy yesterday. NYT coverage can be found here. A little snippet:
Mr. Obama outlined a new national defense strategy driven by three realities: the winding down of a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a fiscal crisis demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in Pentagon budget cuts and a rising threat from China and Iran.
Slate argues that the cuts will pose "existential" problems for the army and the marines.
The report containing the recommendations can be found here
Mr. Obama outlined a new national defense strategy driven by three realities: the winding down of a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a fiscal crisis demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in Pentagon budget cuts and a rising threat from China and Iran.
Slate argues that the cuts will pose "existential" problems for the army and the marines.
The report containing the recommendations can be found here
Maybe not such an objective press after all . . .
One of the points we hit in 2301 - when we discuss the media - is the development of the objective, independent press, and how it arose from the ashes of the partisan press (when newspapers were merely appendages of political parties) and the yellow press (which used sensationalism to boost sales). The "objective press" was intended to reorient the media so that it became a source of unbiased information that citizens could use to make rational, solid decisions about current matters and vote accordingly. It assumed - as the founders did - that the press was an essential component of a properly functioning democracy.
But then again, maybe this is just a story we like to tell ourselves.
Ezra Klein reports on a recent study suggesting that the press merely became independent because it helped lure more advertising dollars. This doesn't mean that the change didn't occur, but it sheds light on the factors leading to the change.
But then again, maybe this is just a story we like to tell ourselves.
Ezra Klein reports on a recent study suggesting that the press merely became independent because it helped lure more advertising dollars. This doesn't mean that the change didn't occur, but it sheds light on the factors leading to the change.
The Club for Growth's Presidential White Papers
For our ongoing look at interest groups - and their influence on the 2012 elections - you might want to glance through the Club for Growth's Presidential White Papers. They are organized as a 527 organization created specifically to support or oppose the election of candidates to public office.
The white paper evaluates presidential candidates based on how closely they reflect the positions supported by the club.
The white paper evaluates presidential candidates based on how closely they reflect the positions supported by the club.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
How Romney Won
It involved a great deal of data which allowed his campaign to target specific voters. Modern campaign techniques involves data, high powered processing and sophisticated algorithms
Ron Paul's long term influence on the Republican Party
. . . may be profound: The authors wonders if he might be leading a generational shift within the party, and the efactions within it - one that undoubtedly would affect Democrats as well.
Five years ago, no one, not even Congressman Paul, would have imagined that 21 percent of voters in a hotly contested Republican caucus would support the Texas congressman’s brand of antiwar, constitutional conservatism and libertarianism. Paul didn’t just improve on his 2008 showing last night, he’s brought his philosophy from an asterisk in the Republican Party of George W. Bush to as much as a fifth of the vote in the GOP of 2012; there’s a fair chance he’ll win 20 percent again, or close to it, in New Hampshire.
. . . More significant than the overall percentage Paul claimed last night, however, is the 48 percent he won of the under-30 vote. This augurs more than just a change in the factional balance within the GOP. It’s suggestive of a generational realignment in American politics. The fact that many of these young people do not consider themselves Republican is very much the point: Paul’s detractors cite that as a reason to discount them, but what it really means is that the existing ideological configuration of U.S. politics doesn’t fit the rising generation. They’re not Republicans, but they’re voting in a Republican primary: at one time, that same description applied to Southerners, social conservatives, and Reagan Democrats, groups that were not part of the traditional GOP coalition and whose participation completely remade the party.
Five years ago, no one, not even Congressman Paul, would have imagined that 21 percent of voters in a hotly contested Republican caucus would support the Texas congressman’s brand of antiwar, constitutional conservatism and libertarianism. Paul didn’t just improve on his 2008 showing last night, he’s brought his philosophy from an asterisk in the Republican Party of George W. Bush to as much as a fifth of the vote in the GOP of 2012; there’s a fair chance he’ll win 20 percent again, or close to it, in New Hampshire.
. . . More significant than the overall percentage Paul claimed last night, however, is the 48 percent he won of the under-30 vote. This augurs more than just a change in the factional balance within the GOP. It’s suggestive of a generational realignment in American politics. The fact that many of these young people do not consider themselves Republican is very much the point: Paul’s detractors cite that as a reason to discount them, but what it really means is that the existing ideological configuration of U.S. politics doesn’t fit the rising generation. They’re not Republicans, but they’re voting in a Republican primary: at one time, that same description applied to Southerners, social conservatives, and Reagan Democrats, groups that were not part of the traditional GOP coalition and whose participation completely remade the party.
What is a recess anyway?
Senate Republicans continue to block President Obama's nominees to executive agencies and he responded recently by making recess appointments to two of them. The trouble is, Congress is technically still in session. It's not actually doing anything - it is in pro forma session, which the Senate glossary defines as:
A brief meeting (sometimes only several seconds) of the Senate in which no business is conducted. It is held usually to satisfy the constitutional obligation that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other.
Republicans are simply trying to make it impossible for two agencies they do not care for - the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Board - from conducting business. The Constitution allows for the President to make appointments over the objections - or the inactivity - of Congress, but as with many things in the Constitution, it does not define the key term, in this case "recess."
Republicans, backed by business groups that also do not care for these agencies, are crying foul, claiming that Obama is exceeding his authority, and promise to contest this activity in court. The head of the executive branch should not be able to say when the legislature is and is not in session. But Obama's point is that the legislature is preventing the executive from carrying out its constitutional responsibility to execute the laws of the nation.
Here are more full and interesting takes on this issue:
- Jonathan Bernstein, and here.
- Ezra Klein (who wonders why Obama didn't make 200 rather than 4).
- Slate offers some history of the conflict over recess appointment.
A brief meeting (sometimes only several seconds) of the Senate in which no business is conducted. It is held usually to satisfy the constitutional obligation that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other.
Republicans are simply trying to make it impossible for two agencies they do not care for - the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Board - from conducting business. The Constitution allows for the President to make appointments over the objections - or the inactivity - of Congress, but as with many things in the Constitution, it does not define the key term, in this case "recess."
Republicans, backed by business groups that also do not care for these agencies, are crying foul, claiming that Obama is exceeding his authority, and promise to contest this activity in court. The head of the executive branch should not be able to say when the legislature is and is not in session. But Obama's point is that the legislature is preventing the executive from carrying out its constitutional responsibility to execute the laws of the nation.
Here are more full and interesting takes on this issue:
- Jonathan Bernstein, and here.
- Ezra Klein (who wonders why Obama didn't make 200 rather than 4).
- Slate offers some history of the conflict over recess appointment.
About the Iowa Caucus
The Iowa Caucus was over a couple days back and before too much time passes here are some useful links detailing the results and trying to make sense of the event.
The NYT wraps up the event. Mitt Romney wins by 8 votes and the newest non-Romney, Rick Santorum, comes in second. Michelle Backmann drops out, Rick Perry does not.
Andrew Sullivan live-blogged it - so you can get a minute by minute account of how the event went, and how it was reported. He links to various reactions to the outcome here. Many point out that Romney won not only by the narrowest margin ever, but by the lowest percentage of the vote ever. Does this mean that Republicans are still searching for an additional candidate?
The NYT wraps up the event. Mitt Romney wins by 8 votes and the newest non-Romney, Rick Santorum, comes in second. Michelle Backmann drops out, Rick Perry does not.
Andrew Sullivan live-blogged it - so you can get a minute by minute account of how the event went, and how it was reported. He links to various reactions to the outcome here. Many point out that Romney won not only by the narrowest margin ever, but by the lowest percentage of the vote ever. Does this mean that Republicans are still searching for an additional candidate?
Monkey Bars Are Dangerous
Sorry to be behind in my postings. One of my sons broke his arm falling from some monkey bars and we had to spend a couple days in the hospital. I'll catch up with items related to elections and parties, then with the subjects for this week.
Friday, December 30, 2011
3 - Written Assignment GOVT 2301 Fall Mini
After a debate filled fall, the competition for the Republican nomination is about to get serious. Actual elections will be held and delegates will begin to be allocated to each candidate. Eventually we will get a clear idea of who the Republcian nominee will be. As you probably know, no Democrat has chosen to challenge President Obama for the Democratic nomination - so there's not much to follow there, but I want you to investigate and describe what is going happen in Iowa and New Hampshire for each party nevertheless.
So tell me the following: What is the Iowa Caucus and what is the new Hamsphire Primary? More importantly, how do each work? How do Democrats and Republicans in each state determine what level of support will be given to each candidate? Their processes are not the same, so give me some detail here. I'm interested in the mechanics of each event, not an assessment of who is likely to win - that's the easy part.
Let me know if you need me to clear this question up, but the goal is for you to become familiar with these two events.
So tell me the following: What is the Iowa Caucus and what is the new Hamsphire Primary? More importantly, how do each work? How do Democrats and Republicans in each state determine what level of support will be given to each candidate? Their processes are not the same, so give me some detail here. I'm interested in the mechanics of each event, not an assessment of who is likely to win - that's the easy part.
Let me know if you need me to clear this question up, but the goal is for you to become familiar with these two events.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
The state of civil liberities - 2011
To add to this week's coverage of civil liberties, John Whitehead reviews the year in civil liberties and does not like what he sees. A combination of increasingly sophisticated surveillance technologies as well as laws and court decisions that allow for more aggressive policing, in his view, have led us to the brink of a police state.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Are Polls Magic?
One author wonders; another debunks him thoroughly.
2301s: within a couple weeks we will be looking at polls and explaining that there is nothing magical about basic probability theory. It's a shame that people in the media do not realize this. Perhaps this explains ignorance in the general population.
2301s: within a couple weeks we will be looking at polls and explaining that there is nothing magical about basic probability theory. It's a shame that people in the media do not realize this. Perhaps this explains ignorance in the general population.
Ideological extremisn and the 2012 primaries
This column hits a often repeated political theme - candidates for the presdiency must first win their party's nomination before they can run for the general election. Nothing new here. Generally one has to take more ideologically "extreme" positions to win the support of the party identifiers than is necessary to win the genewral election. Sometimes this ca the promary has adopted too many extreme positions to be competitive ion the general election.
The author wonders whether the Republican primary process might to this to the eventual nominee. As we approach our section on elections, it is worth sondering whether this is the best way to ensure that we elect the best posible people president.
The author wonders whether the Republican primary process might to this to the eventual nominee. As we approach our section on elections, it is worth sondering whether this is the best way to ensure that we elect the best posible people president.
Will SOPA break the internet?
This builds off posts far below, but might an exhuberant proposal to protect copyright holders online ruin the internet? People on the left and the right seem to be rallying against the proposal.
Does the public have consistent opinions on the gap between the rich and the poor?
An ongoing theme in this class (one of them anyway) is whether the general public has the disposition necessary to be the basis for a system of government. My 2301 winter students will slog through Federalist #10 this week and consider this question and how the constitutional system is designed to compensate for the deficiencies of the public.
Here is the latest example. Andrew Gellman points to two well reasoned, well supported arguments that hold (1) that the public does not really care about the gap between the rich and the poor and (2) that it does.
A vast majority of Americans — including half of all self-identified Republicans — think there is “too much power in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations.” And a solid majority believes that “the country’s economic system unfairly favors the wealthy.” On the other hand, close to 60 percent of Americans do not see the country as “divided into haves and have-nots” and over 60 percent see “big government” as the biggest threat to the country in the future. What gives?
What seems to give is our ambiguity about certain issues compounded by the fact that public opinion polls ask questions that attempt to simplify issues, perhaps a bit much. Two questions, worded differently, which attempt to determine how people think about a specific item, can come up with two different opinions. Neither is wrong necessarily, we are all internally conflicted.
As we begin to dig into elections, parties and political conflict in general, we will see how these internal contradictions influence how political campaigns are organized and how people can be persuaded to see the same things in different ways.
Here is the latest example. Andrew Gellman points to two well reasoned, well supported arguments that hold (1) that the public does not really care about the gap between the rich and the poor and (2) that it does.
A vast majority of Americans — including half of all self-identified Republicans — think there is “too much power in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations.” And a solid majority believes that “the country’s economic system unfairly favors the wealthy.” On the other hand, close to 60 percent of Americans do not see the country as “divided into haves and have-nots” and over 60 percent see “big government” as the biggest threat to the country in the future. What gives?
What seems to give is our ambiguity about certain issues compounded by the fact that public opinion polls ask questions that attempt to simplify issues, perhaps a bit much. Two questions, worded differently, which attempt to determine how people think about a specific item, can come up with two different opinions. Neither is wrong necessarily, we are all internally conflicted.
As we begin to dig into elections, parties and political conflict in general, we will see how these internal contradictions influence how political campaigns are organized and how people can be persuaded to see the same things in different ways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)