9 - Written Assignment GOVT 2305 #9

Voter ID Laws - those that have photo requirements - are based on the premise that there's lots of voter fraud out there, so much so that the possibility that some eligible voters may be denied the ability to vote is out weighed by the need to ensure that those who are not eligible do not vote.

But is the premise true?

I want you to research this and try to get a handle on whether there is in fact a lot of verified voter fraud in Texas and the US in general. If so, what type of fraud is there? Are photo ID requirements the best way to combat that fraud? What other options are there? Be sure to cite your sources. How do we know that there is in fact rampant voter fraud in the country?

9 - Written Assignment GOVT 2306 #9

Next week we will look at education policy in the state of Texas, this assignment is intended to give us a head start. As you may know, a significant amount of money was cut from the budget of K-12 in Texas in the recent session of the legislature. Some propose cutting more, arguing that public education is inefficient and could stand to be cut. Others argue the cuts will further undermine an already poor educational system - one that especially underserves minority populations.

I want you to do some research and weigh in on the question of whether too much or too little is spent on public K-12 in the state. This is an opinion question - but back either side up with some facts related to what the impact of budgets cuts mean to public education in the state.

4 - Summer 2 GOVT 2302 Written Assignment #4

A couple week's back I asked you to consider Chief Justice John Roberts recent ruling on the Affordable Care Act and what his motivation may have been for deciding as he did.

This week - since you will be looking at social welfare policy among other things - I want to return to that decision, or at least its consequences. One of the decisions made by the court was that state could not be punished for not expanding Medicaid. States like Texas - which tend to provide few services to the poor - have no interest in expanding Medicaid and may even seek to restrict it.

I want you to look at the conflict between the national government and the Texas government regarding this social welfare issue - what level of health care ought to be provided to the poor - and detail it as best you can. What does this tell us about the current state of affairs between the national and state governments regarding social welfare policy?

4 - Summer 2 GOVT 2301 Written Assignment #4

Let's stick with Supreme Court decisions. Last week I asked you to consider the right of association as it applies to the Boy Scouts. This week - while the Aurora shooting is still fresh - let's consider the Second Amendment.

Renewed calls for gun control have led the gun lobby to argue - again - that limits on gun ownership violate the Second Amendment. But these arguments seem to suggest that gun rights are absolute and that no restrictions on guns - arms actually - are ever justifiable. Does this mean you can own a rocket propelled grenade launcher or a tank? As we know from the section on civil liberties, speech is limited for certain reasons. Does the same hold true for the right to bear arms? If so - or if not - why? What are the reasons it does or does not apply? What reasoning allows us to own a handgun and not a tank? How much does this reasoning allow?

I recommend looking at recent Supreme Court decisions like DC v. Heller and McDonald v Chicago at the least. Focus your attention as much as you can on arguments made by Supreme Court justices since they are the ones whose opinions matter - but other commentators are worth perusing as well.

As with all these assignments, provide a rational and objective overview of the debate first, and after doing so you may provide your personal opinion.

8 - Written Assignment GOVT 2305 #8

Now that we've had another mass shooting - this one complete with an arsenal of weapons and protective gear - gun control is on the policy agenda, but only in a very limited way. No commentator seems to think that there is a likelihood that any meaningful gin control legislation will be introduced or passed in Congress. Its suggested that this might be due to the increased strength of the gun lobby broadly and the National Rifle Association specifically. They seem to do an effective job ensuring that policies they disagree with are kept off the legislative agenda.

Since we spend time speculating on the nature of interest groups and what factors contribute to interest group strength, it might be worth looking into how the gun lobby has responded to this event - or perhaps better, preconditioned a response to it - in order to ensure that gun control stays off the public policy agenda despite the inevitable calls that follow events like this.

Search away.

8 - Written Assignment GOVT 2306 #8

There are proposals afloat for the state of Texas to switch its tax base from a reliance primarily on property taxes to one based on sales taxes. I want you to read through the information below and try to determine what is driving the change and what impact it might have on the state's revenue.

Is this a good idea or a bad idea in you considered opinion?

- Wikipedia: Property Tax.
- Wikipedia: Sales Tax.
- Tax Foundation: Facts on Texas' Tax Climate.
- SA: Time for property tax reform in Texas.

- SA: Switching from property tax to sales tax a shell game.

Feel free to do your own searches - let me know where you get your information.

3 - Summer 2 GOVT 2302 Written Assignment #3

A few posts below you'll see a link to a story to the "Lethal Presidency." I want you to detail what that might be, and how this ties into a principle topic regarding the power of the presidency over American history - it has increased substantively, especially in regard to foreign and military power. Often this has been a result of the increasingly sophisticated technology available to the president, unmanned drones and who knows what?

Here's the article that kicks this off:
- The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama.

I want you to read it and some of the responses to it and comment on whether technology - and the reality of the war on terror - have marked a permanent change in the nature of presidential power. Is Obama acting any differently than President McCain would have acted?

Put this into context with the rise of military and presidential power following the end of WW2. is this just part of ongoing increase in the power of the presidency?

3 - Summer 2 GOVT 2301 Written Assignment #3

Last week or so, the Boy Scouts reaffirmed a ban on openly gay youths and adults becoming scouts and leaders. The Supreme Court had previously argued - in 2000 - that they were free to do so under the assembly clause of the Constitution (BSA v. Dale). This challenge to the policy comes in the wake of a sea change in attitudes about gays and lesbians, but the challenge failed.

Since you are looking at civil liberties and civil rights this week, this case provides us a good opportunity to look at how these intersect. One on hand, the Boy Scouts - as an organization - claim the right to assemble as they choose (with and without whomever they choose) and they are protected by First Amendment language that restricts them from governmental interferences.

On the other hand, the Constitution also contains language that mandates that people not be denied the equal protection of the law. The scouts get benefits from government, and if they discriminate they may be subject to losing those benefits.

I want you to look - narrowly - at the Constitutional issues associated with this case and try to figure out how the courts are interpreting constitutional language in order to determine how to reconcile the competing claims of liberty and equity in this case.

This might give you a good start:

- Constitution Check: Do the Boy Scouts . . .

As with other assignments, I;m far less interested in your personal opinions on the case than in your ability to understand how the courts wrestle with constitutional language in order to address this issue.

7 - Written Assignment GOVT 2305 #7 and Summer 2 GOVT 2302 Assignment #2

Since the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare - and Chief Justice Roberts surprise vote upholding it - a lot of speculation has focused on why Roberts voted as he did. Apart from any opinions he may have had on the case itself, some have argued that he was driven at least in part by a desire to ensure that the Supreme Courts' integrity not be compromised by what could be seen as a political decision.

This may or may not be the case, but it points out that part of what the Chief Justice is attuned to is the court's reputation, which in a sense is its major source of power. More than other members of the court, Roberts is tasked with preserving the strength of the court. That may help explain his decision, or not. Regardless, it points out the unique role of the chief justice on the court, which is what I want you to consider in this week's assignment.

What are commentators saying about John Roberts in the wake of the decision on the Affordable Care Act? What may have motivated his reasoning? What does it say about his goals for the court and his strategy for obtaining it?

Here are a few places to start your thinking on this matter:
- The Real Reason John Roberts Upheld ObamaCare?

- WSJ: A Vast New Taxing Power.
- Newt Gingrich: John Roberts' Obamacare Ruling 'Probably Healthy For The Country'
- ScotusBlog: Law Before Politics.

As always - find your own sources as well. Make it good - thanks.

7 - Written Assignment GOVT 2306 #7 and Summer 2 GOVT 2301 Assignment #2

Last week, attorneys from the state of Texas had to defend the voter ID law passed by the Texas Legislature last year during the 82nd Session before a federal court. Opponents to the law have argued that the law violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act by establishing a procedure that will affect eligible minorities more than Anglos. If the court agrees then the case will be appealled to the Supreme Court, but probably not before the election, so there's a good chance that the law will not be applied this election cycle regardless.

As a way to understand this conflict, I want you to look through avalaible news and outline the process (how the case got to this point?) and the debate (what arguments is each side making about the impact of voter ID laws?)

What can you tell me about the court that is hearing the case?

Here are a few links to get you going:
- Chron: Trial set to begin today in Texas’ battle with feds over state Voter ID law.
- Fox: Texas' attorney faces tough questions from judges on final day of voter ID case.
- NextGen: The Politics of Voter ID Laws.

- Lone Star Project (look for transcripts of the argument at the bottom of the page)

Feel free to add what you wish.

Summer 2 GOVT 2302 Written Assignment #1

This class focuses on the institutions of government. We look at each individually and in relationship with each other. As we will see, much of what each institution is designed to do is to negate what the other two do. In order to get a handle on the complex relationship that exists between the three branches, I want you to investigate the ongoing saga involving The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and describe what each institution (legislative, executive, and judicial) has done to impact the law.

Also provide a reasonable assessment of what each is likely to do in the future and bring the state governments into the mix.

The more thorough the detail, the better the grade.

Summer 2 GOVT 2301 Written Assignment #1

Hello Summer 2 2301s. Here is your first brief written assignment (minimum 150 words - but you may go over).

If you review the news, you will note that the latest conflict between our Governor and President concerns the expansion of Medicaid. The federal government is encouraging the states to expand the number of people covered by Medicaid from those who earn less than the poverty line to those earning 133% of the poverty line. Governor Perry doesn't want to do that and has announced that Texas will not expand coverage.

Some of the dispute, on either side of the issue, involves an ideological disagreement about what should be done about poverty - including conflict over what the causes of poverty are. Since part of the subject this week is ideology (what it is and how it helps us understand political conflict) I want you to look into the Medicaid dispute and fully state the liberal position and the conservative position - or any other positions you may note.

If you want to take sides on the issue, you may, but only after you provide a full objective description of the ideological dispute.

For information, refer to the slides and the web.

Presidents are getting very good at killing people

That seems to be the result of technological advancements and the pre-emptive mindset of the post 9/11 Bush presidency. But they are coming to a head in Obama's Administration.

This author calls it the Lethal Presidency.

Economic trends, campaign advertising, the ground game

In response to a question about what matters between now and election day for Obama and Romney, smart guy John Sides lists the three factors above. Equally smart guy Jonathan Bernstein chimes in.

Commentators are suggesting that a very large percentage of the electorate has made a decision about who they will support and their positions will not change. Any shifts will happen among a very small number of people.

The June Jobs Report

This is a few days late.

- The news release from the Department of Labor.
- Related story in the NYT.
- A compilation of reactions from Andrew Sullivan.

Since this is election season, there's no guarantee that Congress will do anything to remedy this - but the Federal Reserve - unaffected by elections - can.

Ezra Klein:

The question now is whether these numbers will change our economic policy. In Congress, the answer is almost certainly not. So, much as the data makes an overwhelming case for, say, hiring hundreds of thousands of workers to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure, or passing a large employer-side payroll tax cut to goose hiring, there’s little chance House Republicans will greenlight either policy response.

But with Congress largely on the sidelines, inflation low, and the labor market recovering, there’s a stronger and stronger case for the Federal Reserve to step in more aggressively. “The big question is whether this is a weak enough report to get the Fed to move,” writes economist Justin Wolfers. “I think it is, and they will.”

Thirteen Religious Societies

Here's a reminder that the American colonies - and the early states - were each oriented around their own unique religious identity. One that did not necessarily fit the identities of other states. The federal government prohibited religious tests, established churches and limits on free exercise - as well as not requireing religious oaths to hold office - as a way to be neutral towards religion. To not pick sides between the different denominations in the states.

The author brings this up to draw parallels between the religious parties in the Middle East, and what the US went through two centuries ago:

We should remember that the Thirteen Colonies that made the revolution starting in 1776 were religious societies. They had undergone the Evangelical Great Awakening, and millenarian and anti-papal movements were rife. Religious Americans fought the British for religious as well as material reasons. While the framers of much Federal law and of the Constitution were most often Enlightenment Deists and relatively secular in outlook, the mass of Americans were otherwise. Even the First Amendment to the Constitution, which forbade Congress to designate an official American religion, was considered solely a Federal initiative, and states often had Established religions. Massachusetts had an established church until 1833, and its constitution still mentions requiring state and local institutions to raise money for and support the Protestant church.

The Founding Fathers mostly wanted a separation of religion and state (Thomas Jefferson certainly did), and this aspiration won out in American law and practice over time. The people who deny this separation are being silly. I’m making a different point, that Federal constitutional law covered a relatively small part of society.

So, religious Americans fought for the Revolution, and the post-revolutionary states often used state resources to support Protestantism. Anti-Catholicism was an unfortunate enthusiasm of many of the revolutionaries, and King George III was often seen as having Catholic tendencies, because of the offer of religious freedom to Catholics in Quebec once it was added to Canada, and because high church Anglicanism was hated by American dissidents.
Here are other resources regarding religion in colonial America:

- LOC: Religion and the Founding of the American Republic.
- Religion in Colonial America.
- Religion in Colonial America: Trends, Regulations and Beliefs.
- Religion in the Original 13 Colonies.

The latest crop of articles on Voter ID

Fuel for the fire:

- A panel of federal judges is reviewing Texas' Voter ID law to see if it violates the Voting Rights Act. The law is argued to have a disparate impact on the ability of minorities to vote.

- Politifact says that Greg Abbott's claim that there have been 50 election fraud convictions in Texas is half true, many were not actually convictions, but were granted deferred adjudication.

- The Texas Attorney General claims Voter ID is necessary to fight voter fraud and submitted a list of those accused. The US Justice Department argues there is little evidence of wide-spread, organized fraud.

- Are these laws simply a means of influencing the 2012 election by making it more difficult for groups that vote Democrat to vote than groups that vote Republican?

- The US Attorney General thinks Voter ID laws are a type of poll tax: "Holder charged that many voters would be forced to travel “great distances” to obtain a government-issued photo ID and that many minority voters would “struggle” to pay for the required paperwork. “We call these poll taxes"

- Politifact says it is mostly true that more African Americans than Whites lack government issued photo IDs.

- The Austin American Statesman reports that the bill passed last year requiring that voters show photo identification was rushed through the legislature and the debate over it was racially polarized.

Term Limits to be Extended in Houston? Not just yet.

Houston's city council voted down a measure that would have allowed the city's voters to extend term limits on council members and the mayor from six years to twelve, and the term lengths from 2 to 4 years. We discuss term limits in a few places in this class, primarily in the sections on democracy, legislatures and elections.
Term limits were promoted heavily in the 1980s and 90s as ways to reign in legislators who allegedly had grown too powerful and distant from their constituents. Other pointed out that if they had grown too distant from their constituents, they could easily be voted out and that term limits actually limited democracy more than anything else. There seems to be a small developing backlash against term limits though, and this effort may be indicative of this movement.

The proposal's chief advocate in Houston argues that limiting elected officials to three two year terms empowers lobbyists at the expense of rank and file constituents. It also makes long term decision making difficult. A 2 years election cycle makes governing difficult and places a priority on campaigning instead.

Whether or not he had a point, the proposal was handily defeated. I won't be surprised to see it brought up again.

Related stories:

- Longer term limits could go on fall ballot
- City Council panel nixes proposal to expand term limits
- Burks blasts opposition to longer Council terms

If not us, who?

The NYT has a review of a book (so does the Washington Times) that should help students understand how the Republican Party became such an effective vehicle for the modern conservative movement. It was once a much more staid, establishment oriented party.

If not us, who? is subtitled: William Rusher, National Review and the Conservative Movement. It details the people and events that rallied behind Barry Goldwater's candidacy first in 1960, and then 1964, and would eventually promote Ronald Reagan's successful run for the White House. in so doing it would reshape and redefine the Republican Party.

For me the most interesting aspect of this story is the effort of Rusher to reorient the conservative movement from one that focused principally on elites, to one that had a populist flavor. Rusher apparently played a huge role in developing the Southern Strategy, which peeled poor southern whites away from their century and a half allegiance to the Democratic Party towards the party of Lincoln, Hoover and Wall Street. Prior to this the Republican Party did not care to connect to the "people" and was apologetically elitist. It promoted the interests of business classes, it did not promote an ideological agenda.

No mean feat. The consequences of their effort defines politics today.

- Wikipedia: William Rusher.
- Wikipedia: National Review.
- Wikipedia: Movement Conservatism. 

A rebuttal to the Declaration of Independence

Dave Ross posts a link to a 142 page rebuttal written by "a Tory pamphleteer named John Lind titled 'Answer to the Declaration of the American Congress.'" It addresses the charges made in the Declaration of Independence against the crown - specifically the grievances against the king.

Interesting, and problematic, observation:

You remember the part where the Declaration says King George (quote) "has incited domestic insurrections among us..."?

John Lind points out that what the rebels were really upset about was that the King had "offered freedom to the slaves."

(QUOTE) "Is it for them to say that it is tyranny to bid a slave be free?"

Lind goes on to mock the founders for writing noble words stating, "all men are created equal" and asserting "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" and then in the same document, complaining about the King for encouraging the slaves to rise up.

"Is it for them to complain of the offer of freedom held out to these wretched beings? of the offer of reinstating that equality, which, in this very paper, is declared to be the gift of God to all?"

Of course the British knew a wedge issue when they saw it, and they also had a military agenda in wanting to free the slaves, but even as we celebrate our separation from the mother country, we have to acknowledge, as Jefferson himself would have, that on this point at least, Mom was right.

The Most Influential Novel Ever Written by an American: Uncle Tom's Cabin

So says the author of Mightier than the Sword. This is useful to consider in the section on Freedom of the Press and the influence of the media in general. In fact, it would be useful to add content to class material that walked through history tying govermental actions with popular novels of the time.

Offer candidates if you will. Regarding Uncle Tom's Cabin (quote lifted from The Dish):

The heart of the book covers the debates over race, slavery, and the extent to which Uncle Tom's Cabin—or any novel, for that matter—can be said to "change" history. Reynolds argues vehemently in favor of fiction's ability to do so, and he makes a very good case for it. In fact, Reynolds takes the argument for the powerful impact of Uncle Tom's Cabin to greater lengths than any previous critic. If at times he might be said to exaggerate, I think his basic point is accurate: yes, the novel has probably had a more profound effect, and has spurred more reaction, both positive and negative, than any other book in American history. Reynolds has always been one to go to painstaking lengths in supporting such assertions. His analysis of the deeply racist underpinnings of the culture, extending on into the early and middle parts of the 20th century, and his coverage of the abolitionist debates, while not surprising for experts in the field, are nonetheless excellent.
It wasn't always well regarded.

It could have happened in Texas

Recent discoveries in Switzerland could have happened south of Dallas had the Superconducting Super Collider not been cancelled.

The Texas Tribune and the Washington Post explain.

It saved money at the time, but was it a good idea in the long run? Would it have spurred innovations that paid for itself?

Don't know much about the health care ruling

The Pew Center reports that many Americans do not know how the court ruled on health care.

"Despite extensive public interest in the court's ruling, just 55% of the public knows that the Supreme Court upheld most of the health care law's provisions; 45% say either that the court rejected most provisions (15%) or do not know what the court did (30%)."
- The report, commentary from Pew.

- Commentary from the Washington Post.

The rise of mega-cities

A past mayor of Chicago thinks that regions (mega areas) will be more important than cities in the future.

Its a good talk.

More on the topic here. You might be interested in the State of the World Cities. Houston is considerd to be in two separate mega regions: The Texas Triangle (Wikipedia) and the Gulf Coast.

America 2050 appears to tbe the go-to website for information on this topic.

John Roberts: Burkean Conservative

Andrew Sullivan argues that the chief justice's ACA decision reveals that he's the only conservative on the court dedicated to the preservation of strong institutions - which was once the defining principle of conservatism. The rest seems committed to using the court to promote conservative political positions - which tend to shift. This strain is associated with Edmund Burke, whose Reflections on the Revolution in France was once required reading.

Here's a primer on Burke's brand of thought:

Burke is the father of modern conservatism, and still its wisest oracle. Tradition-minded but (contrary to stereotype) far from reactionary, he believed in balancing individual rights with social order. The best way to do that, for Burke, was by respecting long-standing customs and institutions while advancing toward liberty and equality. Society’s traditions, after all, embody an evolved collective wisdom that even (or especially) the smartest of individuals cannot hope to understand comprehensively, much less reinvent successfully.
Sullivan wonders of the other conservatives on the court share this vision of a strong judiciary independent of political parties. Here's a similar point.

Mass Transit v Road Subsidies

Here's a look at a major issue for state and local governments - with some federal involvement also: subsidies for transportation, both road and mass transit. Here's a critical look at where transportation dollars come from and where do they go.

Texas House Committee Membership

The Texas Tribune has an interactive feature that highlights the districts of the members of different House Committees. Its a good look at how power and influence is distributed geographically in the state.

Texas "Voter ID" Timeline

I stumbled accross this useful page in the Texas Legislative Library. It walks through the major events in the life of Texas' recent voter id law. This should be helpful for any research projects students might wish to pursue.

Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills

Here's something I'm adding to the material on budgetting and fiscal policy. A Treasury Department study on the impact of major tax bills since 1940.

- Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills: Updated Tables for all 2010 Bills

It was prepared by the Office of Tax Analysis in the Treasury Department. Click here for a list of past analyses.

Attention 2301 and 2302

No class tomorrow - 7/2/12

From Scotusblog: The October 2011 Term Statpack

At the end of each Supreme Court term, Scotusblog releases a statistical analysis of that term. You can find it here.

Attention 2302

Class will start late tomorrow - 9am. I'll post this announcement separately on Blackboard.

The Jefferson Institute / Patchwork Nation

I ran across a couple great looking websites. I'm adding them to my list of links.

- The Jefferson Institute.
- Patchwork Nation.

They are affiliated. The latter is one of a series of sites run by the former. Patchwork nation provides county by county information about policy and politics and could be a good resource for our occasional forays into local government.

5 - Written Assignment GOVT 2305

In the ACA decision, the Supreme Court (unanimously) defined both the commerce clause and the necessary and proper by placing explicit limits on what they do not allow. The five person majority did continue to allow for an expansive interpretation of the tax and spending clause of the Constitution. This is what allowed them to find the individual mandate unconstitutional.

Notice that these are the elastic clauses. This decision - it seems to me - is an authoritative statement of the nature of the elastic powers of the national government at this moment in time.

I want you to read through the decision and detail exactly what they says about each of these. I want thorough analysis of the court actually said. That is what you will be graded on. Personal opinions may be offered only if you have done so - but since they're easy to give, they wont be graded.

- NFIB v. Sebelius.

5 - Written Assignment GOVT 2306

While most of the attention given to last week's ACA decision focused on the individual mandate the decision on the expansion of Medicaid was just as important - if not more so. The federal government's ability to mandate state policies by threatening to remove federal funding has been curtails. This was a tool used to expand national power during the New Deal and ever since. Now it seem to have been considerably weakened.

We just spent a little time looking at federalism and how it impacts the states, and Texas specifically. Things appear to have changed. I want you to outline this change and speculate in what this means for the relationship between the states and the national government. How does this impact Texas?

Here some readings:
- After Supreme Court ruling, Medicaid expansion faces uncertainty.
- A guide to the Supreme Court's Review of the ACA.
- Uncertain future for Medicaid expansion.
- If Texas Doesn't Expand Medicaid....
- After Health Care Ruling, TX Has Big Decisions to Make.
- With Health Reform Cnstitutional, What Happens in TX?

No more weekly written assignments for Summer 1 2301 and 2302

I mentioned this in class and wanted to reinforce the point here. Get the first drafts of your 1000 word essays in to me by Moday and be prepared to make the necessary improvements by the 9th. There's lots due on the 9th, plus the fnal so start preparing now.

Thanks

Free Speech Violation?

You tell me: ‘Speed trap’ sign lands Houston pedestrian in jail.

Is the oversight function being corrupted?

Jonathan Bernstein thinks scandal mongering has replaced traditional oversight:

By focusing exclusively on scandals, the House inevitably does less of the real, tough oversight that they should be doing.

As many have noted (see for example Mann and Ornstein’s The Broken Branch), Congressional oversight slumped in the 1990s and then collapsed during the stretch of unified Republican control during the George W. Bush years. The problem is that instead of the traditional oversight, two types of partisanship have emerged: Members of Congress stopped taking their institutional role seriously when the White House was in their party’s hands, and when it’s not they focused on discovering huge scandals instead of just making sure that executive branch departments and agencies were doing what they’re supposed to do.

House Votes to Hold Attorney General in Criminal and CIvil Contempt

From the Hill:

Seventeen Democrats bucked party lines and voted with Republicans to pass a criminal contempt resolution in a 255-67 vote. House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) pushed that resolution as part of his 16-month investigation into the botched "Fast and Furious" gun-tracking operation.

Only two Republicans voted "no" on the measure, while 65 Democrats recorded "no" votes and 108 Democrats didn't cast votes. Most of them were protesting the fact that the House GOP was holding the vote
The Washington Post reports that the Justice Department will not prosecute him:

The Justice Department declared Friday that Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to withhold information about a bungled gun-tracking operation from Congress does not constitute a crime and he won’t be prosecuted for contempt of Congress.

The House voted Thursday afternoon to find Holder in criminal and civil contempt for refusing to turn over the documents. President Barack Obama invoked his executive privilege authority and ordered Holder not to turn over materials about executive branch deliberations and internal recommendations.

In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, the department said that it will not bring the congressional contempt citation against Holder to a federal grand jury and that it will take no other action to prosecute the attorney general. Dated Thursday, the letter was released Friday.

Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the decision is in line with long-standing Justice Department practice across administrations of both political parties.

“We will not prosecute an executive branch official under the contempt of Congress statute for withholding subpoenaed documents pursuant to a presidential assertion of executive privilege,” Cole wrote.

Darryll Issa's possession of sealed wiretaps almost led to a criminal offense:

Issa entered the sensitive, and previously undisclosed, information into the Congressional Record on Thursday during the floor debate leading up to the passage of his resolution placing Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.

The powerful Republican might be protected from what otherwise would be a criminal offense under Congress’s speech and debate clause because the remarks were written into the public record during chamber proceedings.

Absolute poverty in the US is getting worse.

Something to tack onto 2302s look at social welfare policy. Via Andrew Sullivan.

- The Recession and Extreme Poverty.
- Poor and Getting Poorer.

Recessions, in fact, appear to affect disproportionately the extreme poor, rather than those closer to the federal poverty threshold or the "near poor," those whose income is less than twice the federal poverty threshold.

Consider this: in 2010, 6.7 percent of Americans were among the extreme poor, as compared to 5.2 percent in 2007 and 4.5 percent in 2000. That's a 50 percent increase in the fraction of extremely poor individuals -- the greatest increase, by far, of any income group relative to the poverty threshold.
The comments are worth perusing.

The ACA decision

Here are A few links related to yesterday's decision:

The breaking story from the NYT: Supreme Court Lets Health Law Largely Stand, in Victory for Obama.

The text of the decision here: NFIB v. Sebelius.

An interactive look at the decision.

Andrew Sullivan's compilation of reactions here.

We read through the syllabus in class yesterday, but expect more soon. Analysis is pervasive. I'll link to some of the better comments. 01s and 02s will be hitting this hard next week (especially 02s since we start looking at the judiciary next week). 05s and 06s can expect written assignments on this later this weekend.

Why Good People Can't Find Jobs

More from the Fiscal Times: A conversation with an author that claims that the hiring practices of companies make it difficult for skilled job applicants to connect with the right job.

Files this under: What factors cause - or sustain - unemployment.

From the Fiscal Times: The Poor: Not As Bad Off As They Once Were?

This story illustrates a point made in our lectures on social welfare policy. Poverty in the US is more relative than absolute. If one measures it in terms of access to consumer products - that get cheaper all the time - there's little poverty in the US, but the story is different when inequality is taken into consideration. But there's no clear cut, non controversial way to measure inequallity.

As with many other phenomena, data can be found to support various positions.

From Reason: Texas Man Faces 10 Years in Prison for Recording Cops

Scary but true:

An Iraq War veteran faces ten years in prison after snapping photos of police making an arrest.

Antonio Buehler was pumping gas last New Year’s Eve when he caught sight of two Austin, TX cops “manhandling a woman” during a DUI investigation. Buehler, a resident of Austin, pulled out his cell phone and began taking pictures of the arrest. This is where the trouble began.

According to a Pixiq.com article by Carlos Miller, a veteran cops and cameras journalist, police then stormed over to Buehler and accused him of interfering with the investigation. When Buehler stood his ground, the cops argued that the Texan was “getting in [their] faces”. In the police report, Officer Pat Oborski claims Buehler proceeded to “spit in [his] face”. This, of course, gave officers the right to put Buehler under arrest for harassment of a public servant—a third degree felony charge.

What Officer Oborski didn’t realize, however, is that other cameras were rolling during the altercation with Buehler. And video shot by a witness standing across the street show a different scene than what was painted in the police reports.

The right to record has been a subject of major debate recently. For 2301s might want to note this:

The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department took an important stand last week, declaring that citizens have a First Amendment right to videotape the actions of police officers in public places and that seizure or destruction of such recordings violates constitutional rights.

We recently discussed this agency in our lecture on civil rights.

Executive Privilege 101

I just ran across this primer about executive privilege. All you need to know.

EPA greenshouse emmission regulations upheld by appellate court

From the NYT:

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a finding by the Environmental Protection Agency that heat-trapping gases from industry and vehicles endanger public health, dealing a decisive blow to companies and states that had sued to block agency rules.

. . . The judges unanimously dismissed arguments from industry that the science of global warming was not well supported and that the agency had based its judgment on unreliable studies. “This is how science works,” they wrote. “The E.P.A. is not required to reprove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.”

In addition to upholding the E.P.A.’s so-called endangerment finding, the court let stand related rules setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars and limiting emissions from stationary sources. Opponents had also challenged the agency’s timetable for enforcement and its rules singling out big polluters, but the court said the plaintiffs lacked the standing to do so.

Fourteen states, led by Virginia and Texas, had sued to block the rules. Fifteen states, including New York, California and Massachusetts, went to court to support the agency.



More from the Volokh Conspiracy.

RegBlog

I justr became aware of this website. Should be useful for our look at the executive branch and regulatory agencies. Its affilitated with the university of Pennsylvania's Program on Regulation.

One area of interest: Romney's regulatory proposals.

Redefining American Government

A Washington Post writer argues that the Supreme Court is using Obamacare and other current cases to redefine American government in much the same way as was done during the New Deal:

President Franklin Roosevelt’s alphabet soup of federal programs ran counter to established doctrine denying the constitutionality of economic and social legislation, state or federal. Steeped in that tradition, many legal experts recoiled in horror at FDR’s plans.

Amid a Great Depression, and under tremendous pressure from a popular president and his huge congressional majority, however, this expert consensus gave way. The Supreme Court abandoned its laissez faire understanding of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (among other provisions) so as to permit New Deal programs.

I don’t think this history proves that “politics, money, party and party loyalty” crassly determined the decisions of the 1930s. If that were true, why accord them precedential weight today?

Rather, what it shows is that the United States periodically redefines the role of the federal government in society, in a process that is both political and legal — and, sometimes, more revolutionary than evolutionary. In that sense, we do have a “living Constitution.”

In the 1930s, expanding federal power was innovative, promising. By blessing it, the court aligned itself with the wave of the future, in this country and globally. Ditto for the 1960s. Much of the legislation that resulted — from Social Security to the Voting Rights Act — was indeed progressive.

Today, however, there is nothing new about federal intervention — and much evidence from the past 70 years that big programs produce inefficiencies and unintended consequences.

Galveston mayors race hinged on housing policy

The incumbent - as well as a member of the city council - appear to have been defeated because of their support of a Galveston Housing Authority proposal to rebuild subsidized housing rather than provide vouchers for rental units.

Its been quite the story on the island - and it hits many nerves including race.

Was Abraham Lincoln really a vampire killer?

That's your call, but we briedly discussed the new movie in one of the classes yesrterday. Then I stumbled across this story which claims that slaves were concerned that southern slave masters were cannibals and - yes - vampires.

Slaves in the colonial era created a complex folklore about the southern master class, worrying that slave traders were cannibals. My research uncovered at least one case in Louisiana which newly imported slaves became convinced that the masters were witches and vampires (after watching them drink red wine).

These tales of terror illuminate rather than obscure important truths. Slavery did represent a kind of dark magic in which legal fictions transmogrified the bodies of human beings into property. The institution of slavery did become a kind of cannibalism, swallowing millions from the African continent, digesting them in the rice and cotton fields in the relentless pursuit of wealth that characterized the alleged southern "aristocrats."

America needed a vampire hunter in 1860. 

Citizens United decision affirmed

The court threw out a Montana case which challenged the ruling.

The Supreme Court's Arizona Ruling

A split decision. Three out of four provisions were judged to be unconstitutional violations of federalism (state interference with national powers), but the major component of it - which allowed local police to inquire about the citizenship status of people they stop or arrest - was found constitutional, unanimously.

From the NYT:

The court unanimously sustained the law’s centerpiece, the one critics have called its “show me your papers” provision, though they left the door open to further challenges. The provision requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if they have reason to suspect that the individual might be in the country illegally.

The justices parted ways on three other provisions, with the majority rejecting measures that would have subjected illegal immigrants to criminal penalties for activities like seeking work.

The ruling is likely to set the ground rules for the immigration debate, with supporters of the Arizona law pushing for “show me your papers” provisions in more states and opponents trying to overturn criminal sanctions for illegal immigrants.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”
An interactive look at the decision.

Scotusblog has several posts on the subject.

Do police care about "preservation of life?"

From the Austin American Statesman: are police too quick to kill? Is this a civil rights issue?

Preservation of life is not just a matter of policy. It is a constitutional mandate. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1989's Graham v. Conner ruling that the proper way to determine whether a law enforcement officer's use of force is excessive is the "objective reasonableness" test under the Fourth Amendment. The Austin Police Department routinely violates this requirement through its current use-of-force policy called the "reasonable officer standard."

This standard is highly subjective and relies on the officer's "state of mind" at the time of the incident. The primary reason given for using deadly force in most incidents is that the officer feared for his life or the life of his partner. This is considered "reasonable" use of deadly force under the policy. This standard is nothing less than a "get out of jail free" card as evidenced by no grand jury indictments of police.

Most of the extrajudicial killings by APD have been of minorities. Since 2000, 16 minorities have been killed, the majority in East Austin.

Mandatory life without parole sentences for juvenile defedants are cruel and unusual according to the Supreme Court

From the NYT:

The ruling left open the possibility of judges' sentencing juveniles to life imprisonment without parole in individual circumstances but said state laws could not automatically impose such sentences.

“Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features — among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority. “It prevents taking into account the family and home environment that surrounds him — and from which he cannot usually extricate himself — no matter how brutal or dysfunctional.”

Justice Kagan’s opinion argued that the cases, involving 14-year-old boys who had taken part in murders in Arkansas and Alabama, were an extension of the court’s recent rulings on the young, which asserted that they still had unformed emotional and moral structures and that treating them as adults violated “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

From Scotusblog:

. . . . there presently are approximately seventy-nine individuals currently serving life-without-parole sentences for crimes they committed at age thirteen or fourteen. The Court further explains that approximately 2500 people are serving life without parole for crimes they committed before they were eighteen.
The Court’s opinion brings together two strands of precedent to hold that a mandatory life-without-parole sentence for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment. The first strand holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits punishments that enact a mismatch between the culpability of a class of offenders and the severity of the penalty. Citing, among cases, Roper and Graham, the Court explains that juveniles have always been regarded as less culpable because the distinctive attributes of youth diminish the penological justifications for imposing the harshest penalties on juvenile offenders, even when they commit severe crimes.  The second line of precedent holds that life without parole shares key characteristics with the death penalty, and thus raises similar Eighth Amendment concerns, most notably that defendants are entitled to individualized consideration when facing such a severe sanction.

Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012

The US Senate passed its version of this bill last week, the House will follow at some point.

Let's walk through the bill making process in class. You can find the steps detailed on Govtrack and Thomas.

We'll walk through the commentary about the bill soon enough, but this was one of those large omnibus bills that dealt with multiple issues that are being unpacked by the media. All of this can be negated by the House. Over a dozen Republicans voted for the bill - that may be les likely to happen in the more partisan House.

Knox v. Service Employees International Union

In an ideologically split 5-4 vote (with Kennedy siding with the conservatives) the Supreme Court ruled the public sector unions cannot collect an "agency fee" from non-members in order to help advance political measures that benefit the employees collectively. This severely weakens the ability of unions to enable all public sector employees to act collectively, but enhances the ability of public sector employees to opt out of these efforts if they choose. The majority argued that forcing non-members to pay for the unions efforts violated their free speech rights.

Scotusblog has a rundown of the case, here's an analysis from Cornell's Law School. The opinion can be found here.

Opinions about it are mixed.

- The New York Times calls the Roberts Court. anti-union.
- A Washington Post writer argues that this is a victory for the free speech rights of non-union members.
- The American Prospect argues this is conservative judicial activism, they decided on an issue that was not argued before the court.
- A Forbes writer wonders if this ruling will apply to shareholders. Do they have to subsidize poliitcal speech?

4 - Written Assignment GOVT 2306

The runoff for the Republican Party's nominee for the U.S. Senate pits the current Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst against former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz. The former has the support of what might be considered the Texas Republican Party "establishment" while the latter is supported by the Texas Tea Party - whatever that might mean at the moment. Their respective candidacies represent an interesting fault line within the party, and I want you to investigate it in this week's assignment.

What are the major differences between the supporters of Dewhurst as opposed to the supporters of Cruz? What does their conflict tell us about the future direction of the party?

4 - Written Assignment GOVT 2305

Last week the House Oversight Committee voted to hold the Attorney General in Contempt of Congress. There's nothing in the Constitution about these things so review its history and describe how the power was established and what it is intended to accomplish. Is its current use in synch with its use in the past? Is it a legitimate power in your view? Does it fit properly within the broad heading of checks and balances?

4 - Written Assignment GOVT 2301 and 2302

This week's assignment is simple. Give me a rough draft of your 1000 word paper. Send it to me in a word document through blackboard. Use appropriate formatting etc... blah, blah, blah.

Fast and Furious for Dummies

Here's a quick look at the program at the heart of this particular conflict between Congress - or at least the House Oversight Committee's chair Darryl Issa - and the Obama Administration - or at least the Attorney General Eric Holder.

Gunrunning programs have been around for a while apparently.

And here's an analysis of the current conflict (the checking and the balancing and the ambition counteracting ambition) in light of past conflicts between Congress and the executive over similar matters. This ain't this first time and it ain't the last. tha author suggests that if the House wants to get at Holder, it should impeach him. That's what its for. A contempt citation is cheap talk.

Random founding quotes

I stumbled across this collection of quotes from the founders. Some touch on the importance of education so I'll add a few into my introductory slides, but I though you might get a kick out of reviewing them. Quotes are always taken out of context, so it's touch to say how they fit into whatever point was being made by them, but they're fun nevertheless.

Feudal Rights

I have no idea how accurate the information is on this site, but it purports to list the rights of the nobility, and the lack thereof on the part of vassals and serfs, in feudal systems and provides a good point of comparison for our look at civil rights and liberties.

From Texas Tribune: Texans Sound Off on "Fast and Furious" Hearing

Little surprise, Texas Republicans support the contempt of Congress vote against the attorney general.

Supreme Court rules against FCC in fleeting explitive cases

They ruled that the FCC changed its rules arbitrarily and they could not punish Fox television stations for profanities uttered on live shows it covered. It did not rule on whether such utterance are constitutionally protected speech.

From the NYT:

The case, Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, No. 10-1293, arose from the broadcast of fleeting expletives by celebrities on awards shows on Fox and partial nudity on the police drama “NYPD Blue” on ABC. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for seven justices, said the commission had changed the rules in the middle of the game.

“The commission failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent,” Justice Kennedy wrote.

That left the larger free speech questions unresolved.

“This opinion leaves the commission free to modify its current indecency policy in light of its determination of the public interest and applicable legal requirements,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “And it leaves the courts free to review the current policy or any modified policy in light of its content and application.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor recused herself from the case.

Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who voted with the majority but did not join its reasoning, was prepared to address the First Amendment issues raised by changes in the world of broadcasting and related media since 1978, when the Supreme Court decided the leading case in this area, Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica.

That decision said the government could restrict George Carlin’s famous “seven dirty words” monologue, which had been broadcast on the radio in the afternoon. The court relied on what it called the uniquely pervasive nature of broadcast media and its unique accessibility to children.

From the Texas Tribune: In a More Urban Texas, Farmers Face Uncertain Future

I posted new material for GOVT 2306 - Texas and Local Government - which touches on Texas' ongoing transition from a rural to an urban state. This story suggests that the change marks a crisis for agrarian interests in the state.

The drought continues to wreck havoc on farmers, and the increased clout of cities raise questions about whether water intensive crops will be able to draw the water necessary to survive. Will cities get it instead?

The Immigration Directive

 A few random posts regarding it:

- GOP Senators send letter to Obama challenging directive. The letter requests documents from President Obama proving that he sought legal counsel to ensure that he had the right to issue the immigration directive.


- Republican Representative King thinks the directive is unconstitutional because it violates the checks and balances. He promises to sue the administration.

- Homeland Security Secretary clarifies the directive. It is not an executive order, it is a directive authorizing "prosecutorial discretion" in who they bring deportation proceedings against.

- Lyle Denniston doubts the courts can hear King's lawsuit. Courts customarily do not second-guess the use of "prosecutorial discretion," unless that has been done in a "malicious" way that is somehow discriminatory or punitive in a special way.

What rankled Rep. King, and other members of Congress, was that Congress itself had refused last year to pass the so-called "DREAM Act" that would have achieved the same kind of deportation reprieve, so -- they argued -- the President was defying congressional will in going ahead on his own.

But the failure to pass legislation, or the explicit refusal to enact a bill, does not limit Executive discretion in enforcing laws already on the books. Congress does have the power, of course, to pass a new piece of legislation to undo what DHS did last week. But the votes are not there to do that and, in any event, such a bill would be subject to presidential veto even if it had cleared Congress.
- A commentator argues that Congress should pass immigration reform - maybe the Dream Act - if it want to adjust the policy.

Fed to extend Operation Twist

From the Washington Post:

The Federal Reserve on Wednesday renewed a program designed to provide a push to economic growth amid a warning that hiring is slowing.

The Fed said it would extend “Operation Twist,” a program that seeks to reduce long-term interest rates, through the end of the year. The decision was a sign that the Fed is not pulling back from its years-long campaign to support the U.S. economy.

In its policymaking statement, the Fed said “growth in employment has slowed in recent months” and made clear it is “prepared to take further action” in the future.

The Fed “anticipates that the unemployment rate will decline only slowly toward levels that it judges to be consistent with its dual mandate,” the statement said. “Furthermore, strains in global financial markets continue to pose significant downside risks to the economic outlook.”
- Definition: Operation Twist

Should voting be mandatory?

It is in Australia and a few other countries. Why not here?

William Galston wonders: JURY duty is mandatory; why not voting?

Do computers have free speech rights?

A provocative piece from the NYT. There is a move afoot to say that they do, and that the results of searches, on Google for example, are speech and should be protected in the same sense that any act of speech is.  

The argument that machines speak was first made in the context of Internet search. In 2003, in a civil suit brought by a firm dissatisfied with the ranking of Google’s search results, Google asserted that its search results were constitutionally protected speech. (In an unpublished opinion, the court ruled in Google’s favor.) And this year, facing increasing federal scrutiny, Google commissioned Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, to draft a much broader and more elaborate version of the same argument. As Professor Volokh declares in his paper: “Google, Microsoft’s Bing, Yahoo! Search, and other search engines are speakers.”

[See a related article here.]

To a non-lawyer the position may sound bizarre, but here is the logic. Take a newspaper advice columnist like Ann Landers: surely her answers to readers’ questions were a form of speech. Likewise, when you turn to Google with a question, the search engine must decide, at that moment, what “answers” to give, and in what order to put those answers. If such answers are speech, then any government efforts to regulate Google, like any efforts to bowdlerize Ann Landers, must be examined as censorship.

But the authors balks at the idea that a non-organic entity - a creature created by an algorithm developed by a corporation - should have the same speech rights as an actual person:

Is there a compelling argument that computerized decisions should be considered speech? As a matter of legal logic, there is some similarity among Google, Ann Landers, Socrates and other providers of answers. But if you look more closely, the comparison falters. Socrates was a man who died for his views; computer programs are utilitarian instruments meant to serve us. Protecting a computer’s “speech” is only indirectly related to the purposes of the First Amendment, which is intended to protect actual humans against the evil of state censorship. The First Amendment has wandered far from its purposes when it is recruited to protect commercial automatons from regulatory scrutiny.

It is true that the First Amendment has been stretched to protect commercial speech (like advertisements) as well as, more controversially, political expenditures made by corporations. But commercial speech has always been granted limited protection. And while the issue of corporate speech is debatable, campaign expenditures are at least a part of the political system, the core concern of the First Amendment.

The line can be easily drawn: as a general rule, nonhuman or automated choices should not be granted the full protection of the First Amendment, and often should not be considered “speech” at all.

Executive Privilege exerted by Obama over Fast and Furious program

Just in time for our discussion about executive power.

Story in the Washington Post, and the NYT.

The House Oversight Committee is set to vote on contempt citation.

Greek coalition formed

This builds off yesterday's story about the Greek elections. A coalition has been formed and parliament can now meet and do its magic.

Members of the House Public Education Committee hold hearings on STARR tests

And it doesn't seem to have been a pleasant meeting:


There is a growing frustration among parents and educators — and apparently legislators — with the new State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, known as STAAR. Many say the sheer volume of high-stakes tests and how those tests affect students have become hugely problematic.

"The only people that are being hurt this school year are children," said Wanda Bamberg, the superintendent of the Aldine Independent School District.

Superintendents from across the state testified that the number of high school dropouts could skyrocket in the coming years because almost three-quarters of the students who failed the exams this spring were already considered at risk of dropping out.

File this under oversight, among other things.

Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearing on solitary confinement

Is it cruel and unusual punishment?

The hearings can be found here: “Reassessing Solitary Confinement: The Human Rights, Fiscal and Public Safety Consequences”

From the NYT:

The hearing, held before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, represents the first time lawmakers on Capitol Hill have taken up the issue of solitary confinement, a form of imprisonment that many human rights advocates believe violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment” and that has drawn increasing scrutiny in recent months in the United States and internationally.

The practice, which is widespread in American prisons, has also been the target of a growing number of lawsuits, including a class-action suit filed on Monday on behalf of mentally ill inmates held in solitary at ADX, the federal super-maximum-security prison in Florence, Colo.

Last month, civil rights lawyers representing prisoners held for more than 10 years in isolation at Pelican Bay State Prison in California filed suit in federal court, arguing that solitary confinement is unconstitutional.

The politics of the individual mandate

An instructive story for students who are wrestling with the question whether Congress is dysfunctional.

The individual mandate was once supported by a large cross section of members of Congress, but this changed fast. Ezra Klein walks us through the process. Republicans came up with the idea of a mandate and supported it until Democrats began to embrace the idea. Sane with cap and trade and stimulus bills.

The War of 1812

I missed a major event yesterday: the 200th anniversary of our declaration of war against the British Empire. We know this now as the War of 1812, and apparently little else about it. The Star Spangled Banner was composed during the Battle of Baltimore and Andrew Jackson became a household name due to his victory in the Battle of New Orleans.

One consistent rumor is that the United States intended to use the war to annex Canada. Canada apparently thinks so and their ability to repel American forces remains a point of pride for the nation. NPR has an interesting piece detailing how each nation teaches the war to its students. The US, hardly at all. Canada, quite a bit.

I suppose British students don;t learn much about the Revolutionary War.

The Fed unlikley to act on the economy when it meets this week.

The story is in the Fiscal Times. Last week - in 2302 - we discussed monetary policy and the role of the Fed in regulating the macro economy. We especially noted that since it is an executive institution that already has a mandate to act by Congress, it is free from the political constraints common in Congress. That doesn't mean it will always act however.

Here's proof:

Even though the jobless rate is far above that mark, don’t expect any bold new steps this week. Here are the three main reasons why the Fed won’t act:

1. The Slow-Boil Euro Crisis
2. Growth has Slowed, not Stopped
3. The Fiscal Cliff Ahead.

We should discuss in class. This adds to our query about whether government can actually work.

Elections in Greece

The recent elections in Greece us another opportunity to contrast American elections - and the entire presidential system established in the Constitution - with that of most other democracies. Greece has a parliamentarian system with a legislature selected by proportional representation. Generally this means that people vote for a party - not a person - and the party is awarded seats in the legislature in proportion to its share of the total vote. Often this means that a single party cannot get a majority and cannot therefore control parliament. A coalition has to be put together in order to do so.

That's where Greece seems to be right now. The conservative - pro bailout - party won a plurality of the vote, but now has to put a ruling coalition together in order to government. This cannot happen in a two party system. We will touch on the various differences between the two systems soon.

- Greek Elections.

Can presidents reverse executive orders?

A good question posed in class today. Here's an answer. Yes.

3 - Written Assignment GOVT 2302 and 2305

Correction: I made a mistake when I originally wrote this assignment. The policy change was made by a directive, not an executive order. The general question about presidential power is still relevant.
President Obama's recent decision to change immigration policy by using an executive order highlights an increasing trend. Presidents - especially those hamstrung by Congress - have been using executive orders to establish and implement policies despite the objections of the legislative branch. Is this an example of executive overreach and an increasingly imperial executive, or is it an inevitable consequence of gridlock and a dysfunctional Congress? Regardless, it does indicate an increase in the powers and discretion of the presidency, but is it an unconstitutional expansion of presidential power?

Wade into this debate and let me know what you think. First, place Obama's recent actions in historical perspective. Is he doing anything that recent president - notably W Bush and Clinton - didn't do as well. Is this part of a trend?

A few helpful links:

- Executive Orders and Presidential Directives.
- List of United States federal executive orders.
- Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index.
- APP: Executive Orders.

3 - Written Assignment GOVT 2301 and 2306

In this week's assignment I want you to look at the platforms recently passed by the Texas Democratic and Republican Parties and compare them. How are they similar and distinct and what does this tell us about the conflict that exists between the two parties? How does this help us understand the different constituencies that make up each party?

Click here for the post below that provides links to each party's platform.

New Textualism

For decades, conservatives have embraced an originalist approach to the constitution. Either the intent or the text of the Constitution should be the guiding force determining constitutional meaning. Liberals are apparently embracing originalism now and calling it "New Textualism."

Jeffrey Rosen comments on the development, and suggests that it would have helped the administration's argument supporting the individual mandate before the Supreme Court, but at a cost:

. . . the New Textualists—insist that arguments grounded in constitutional text and history can be deployed just as effectively to support liberal policies as conservative ones.

So far, the New Textualists have an impressive track record of winning over conservative justices and judges. But their ideas are being strenuously resisted by the liberal legal establishment—both by administration lawyers like Verrilli and an older generation of scholars, who fear their approach will ultimately lead to the downfall of landmark precedents, including Roe v. Wade.

More commentary on this approach:

- The Promise of New Textualism.
- The Case for New Textualism.
- Old Dictionaries and New Textualists.
- Laying Claim to the Constitution.

Do political parties matter anymore?

The post Citizens United world has witnessed an unprecendented amount of money being spent on political campaigns, money injected directly to campaigns, not through the medium of the political party. Which leads one to wonder why even have the political party anymore?

Major donors - the Koch Brothers - seem ready to put this idea to the test. They are scheduled to have their own political convention in San Diego soon. Its not a public affair apparently. Its worth wondering what direction politics is heading.

Obama uses executive order to effectively implement the Dream Act

Story in the NYT. We'll elaborate on this more this week since we will be digging into the executive branch.

Under the change, the Department of Homeland Security will no longer initiate the deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the United States before age 16, have lived here for at least five years, and are in school, are high school graduates or are military veterans in good standing. The immigrants must also be under 30 and have clean criminal records.



. . . The group of illegal immigrants that will benefit from the policy is similar to those who would have been eligible to become legal permanent residents under the Dream Act, legislation that Mr. Obama has long supported. An effort by the White House to pass the bill in late 2010 was blocked by Republicans in the Senate. Mr. Obama called on Congress again Friday to pass that legislation.

The president was facing growing pressure from Latino leaders and Democrats who warned that because of his harsh immigration enforcement, his support was lagging among Latinos who could be crucial voters in his race for re-election.

Something to consider: Is this executive overreach or an inevitable consequence of gridlock? Maybe both?

JP Morgan Chase chief faces Senate Banking Committee

For 2302, an example of last week's discussion of committees, especially their oversight authority. Recent trading losses led the Senate Banking Committee to compel testimony from Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan's president and CEO. At issue is whether the trades involved undue risk with depositors money. These were the types of activities that helped lead to the financial crash in 2008.

Video of the entire testimony can be found here, and the opening statement of the chair here. You can follow the testimony through this liveblog.

Part of the purpose of the testimony was for members of the Senate to determine whether regulations limiting such activities needed to be strengthened. Special attention focused on the merits of the Volcker Rule rule, which is meant to limit the ability of banks to trade with depositors funds in a manner that does not benefit the institution as a whole. Support and opposition for the rule - as well as the general demeanor of senators towards Dimon, hinge on ideological dispositions towards regulations. Democrats support the rule and argue that the regulations are necessary in order to limit careless trading, Republicans oppose them and claim that the rule is an unnecessary infrngment on financial innovation and the free market in general.

Here are general comments on the testimony:

- John Stewart thought the committee went easy with Dimon.  
- The CRP points out that JP Morgan Chase has contributed plenty to members of the committee.
- Bill Moyers sees evidence of a revolving door between committee staffers and the lobbyists representing the industry.

The Vatican censors best-seller written by nun

Which is probably why its a best seller. These things happen.

Story here.

Egyptian Parliament is dissoved by the nation's Supreme Constitutional Court

Backsliding towards tyranny? A military coup? This seems unusual to me since its ususally the executive that dissolves the legislature, but in this case tis the judiciary. Of course they may be controlled by the military, which controls the executive as well, so the distinction may mark no real difference.

Story in the NYT:

“From a democratic perspective, this is the worst possible outcome imaginable,” said Shadi Hamid, research director of the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar. “This is an all-out power grab by the military.”

The timing of the ruling seems like a transparent attempt to undermine the Islamists just two days before Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood is set to compete in the runoff against Ahmed Shafik, a former air force general and Mr. Mubarak’s last prime minister.

If the ruling is carried out, whoever wins the presidential race would take power without the check of a sitting Parliament and could exercise significant influence over the elections to form a new one. The new president will also take office without a permanent constitution to define his powers or duties. A 100-member constitutional assembly appointed by Parliament and including dozens of lawmakers may also be dissolved. And in any event, the ruling generals are expected to issue their own interim charter during the drafting.

Electing a president without either a constitution or a parliament is like “electing an ‘emperor’ with more power than the deposed dictator. A travesty,” Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Prize-winning diplomat and former presidential candidate, said in a comment online.
I hope students can place this event in historical context and understand the precise problem this event poses for Egypt's attempt to transition into democracy.

What will American democracy look like in 2024?

Some smart people hash it out in a special edition of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas.

Ethnic violence breaks out in Myanmar

Regrettably, this is not unprecedented. Riots are breaking out in Myanmar after its military rulers loosened their grip on power. 

The story is common: An autocratic, totalitarian regime relinquishes power and society tumbles into chaos. Long standing tensions that had been repressed under the previous regime are then free to flourish. What had been a peaceful repressed society becomes a violent free society.

Helps us understand why some populations favor dictatorial rule. This helps explain the framers' concerns over the "excesses of democracy." 

Are Millenials less religious than older generations?

Apparently so. Less than 70% say they've never doubted the existence of God. Older generations are less likely to have a similar doubt - the figure gets higher the older generation. Is this a trend? If so, what impact will this have on politics in upcoming decades?

Can Congress do Immigration Reform?

To follow a theme: No. At least according to this author:

In a breakfast interview with Bloomberg View on Monday, Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, expressed general disappointment with the Republican Party’s rightward drift since his brother left the White House in 2009. He also cited a specific place where his party needs to return to the center: The issue of immigration reform. According to Bush, Mitt Romney’s focus on border enforcement has placed him “in a box” and limited his appeal to Hispanic voters.

Similarly, in a piece in this week’s New Yorker on President Obama’s potential second-term agenda, Ryan Lizza reported that many White House aides believe that comprehensive immigration reform offers the president his best chance of “achieving a major piece of domestic legislation in his second term.” If Obama wins re-election narrowly while Romney runs poorly among Hispanics, the White House theory runs, Republican leaders will feel that they have a strong political incentive to accept some kind of path to citizenship for the nation’s illegal immigrant population.

To the extent that Republican lawmakers are influenced by the conventional wisdom of the city they inhabit, then this theory might be correct. But there’s a reason the push for some sort of amnesty or earned legalization for illegal immigrants failed repeatedly under George W. Bush, and a reason it wasn’t much of a priority for Democrats during their Obama-era window of Beltway dominance. At the grass-roots level of both parties, the politics of the issue are simply more fraught, and the advantages of the pro-legalization position less obvious, than the elite consensus tends to assume.
What follows is a good breakdown of the politics of immigration. It's not that Congress is broken, we've simplified the issue and made it seem easier than it really is. Conflict in Congress is a manifestation of this hidden complexity.

Catching up with the fight over security leaks

Recent revelations about drone strikes, kill lists and cyber attacks have led some in Congress to call foul and demand investigation about who leaked this information. It also raises questions about the propriety of such leaks, are they necessarily bad?

I'll try to catch up with recent stories so we can follow this as it plays out. Here's a chronology based on newspaper stories going back to April: 

- April 30, 2012: Top U.S. Security Official Says 'Rigorous Standards' Are Used for Drone Strikes.
- May 29, 2012: Secret 'Kill List' Proves a Test of Obama's Principles and Will.
- June 1, 2012: Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyber Attacks Against Iran.
- June 7, 2012: Bipartisan congressional group calls for legislative action on leaks.
- June 8, 2012: Holder Directs U.S. Attorneys to Track Down Paths of Leaks.
- June 8, 2012: Obama: 'Zero tolerance' for leaking classified information.
- June 9, 2012: For U.S. Inquiries on Leaks, a Difficult Road to Prosecution.
- June 10, 2012: New York Times journalist defends national security leaks.
- June 12, 2012: Attorney General Grilled over Security Leaks.
- June 12, 2012: Republicans say special counsel - not US Attorneys - should run leak probes; Holder resists.

Stay tuned for more. A couple related items: What does a 'kill list' tell us about the current state of executive power? Does leaking security secrets damage national security?