-1% bounce for Romney

The Gallup Poll shows Romney to have 1% less support after, than before the convention.



But it also shows that independents are slightly more likely to support him than they were before the convention - so perhaps the overall result is positive. This is before the Democrats have their convention, so the total effect is unknown.

From the New Republic: Romney’s Convention Aimed for Swing Voters, but Lost the Tea Party

I can't vouch for whether the point made in the article is in fact true, but it does highlight a central fact about campaigns for the presidency. They are won by whoever is able to both retain their base and lure a majority of the swing voters.

The term "the base" refers to the hard core party identifiers, many of whom are members of the tea party movement. They tend to hold extreme ideological positions on issues and are resistant to compromise. The term "swing voter" refers to the small group of independents that can switch their votes from party to party based on the unique circumstances presented in each election.

We spend time when we discuss elections and parties discussing these terms more fully - as well as the issues associated with each (example: is there such a thing as a truly independent voter?) - but for now its useful to think of each party's convention as their effort to both solidify support by the party base while reaching out to the middle.

The problem is, what excites the base may drive away the center, and what interests the center may repel the base. The article linked to above argues that Romney's effort to reach out to the middle, may cause the Tea Party folks to sit this election out. They may see actually it more beneficial to wait until 2016 to support a candidate they find more appealing than Romney.

It's just a hunch though - but not a bad one.

Is solitary confinement cruel and unusual punishment?

A movement is underfoot attempting to make that argument.

From the Opinionator:

There are many ways to destroy a person, but the simplest and most devastating might be solitary confinement. Deprived of meaningful human contact, otherwise healthy prisoners often come unhinged. They experience intense anxiety, paranoia, depression, memory loss, hallucinations and other perceptual distortions. Psychiatrists call this cluster of symptoms SHU syndrome, named after the Security Housing Units of many supermax prisons. Prisoners have more direct ways of naming their experience. They call it “living death,” the “gray box,” or “living in a black hole.”
A recent Senate Subcomittee focused on this issue.

The committee was the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Human Rights, and Civil Rights.

Click here for the testimony before the committee.

This applies to future discussions about both the Constitution (US or Texas) and what it means (and how we figure that out), but the role of legislative committees in highlighting issues by having hearings on issues, and conducting oversight over executive agencies. That last part brings up checks and balances.

From the AAS: Public-sector job cuts leave mark on Texas, Austin economies

Something to hit harder in 2306 when we discuss the Texas budget and the bureaucracy. Public sector employment has decreased substantively in the state due to cuts made in the 82nd session of the legislature.

Are we witnessing a changing philosophy concerning governance in the state?

From the DMN: Texas lost its own case on voter ID

In an editorial the Dallas Morning news states what it considerd the fatal flaw in Texas' arguments:

In the end, however, this critical case was decided on factual evidence that was unchallenged by both sides. That is very important because the debate over voter ID laws is fiercely partisan and easily derailed by allegations of widespread fraud at the polls, a phantom argument that nevertheless sways public opinion.

Texas had to prove that minorities in the state could obtain the required photo identification without major cost or inconvenience. Had it done so, the state would have met the standard under Section 5 of the federal law, which applies to Texas because of its history of voter discrimination. The state’s argument was doomed because the law it passed — the strictest in the nation — provided all the uncontested evidence needed to show that minorities would be adversely affected.

. . . . Texas . . . greatly limits the choices for those who do not have the required identification. The judges noted that legislators tabled or defeated amendments that would have greatly improved access and reduced costs — in effect bringing the law closer to Georgia’s version. Most damaging, however, was the decision in Texas to have the voter ID card issued only by the Department of Public Safety, which does not have offices in 81 counties.

All of this imposed a “substantial burden” on the right to vote, the judges ruled. That is a resounding condemnation of the GOP-controlled Legislature, which now bears the burden of righting this wrong.
Texas made obtaining a photo ID far more difficult than in other states. The court ruled that this created a substantial burden that other states with photo ID laws dis not impose.

The legislature overreached.

The Austin American Statesman agrees.

School vouchers likely to be on the agenda for the next Texas Legislative session.

From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

Voucher plans, in which some parents have access to state money to help send their kids to a private school, didn't play a big role in the 2011 legislative session. But for several sessions before that, vouchers were a perennial favorite of some of the conservative Republicans who held the top leadership posts and a voting majority in both legislative chambers.


So, how did voucher proponents manage to lose on that issue every year? Strong lobbying from public school teachers, wise legislative maneuvering by opponents and reluctance among some Republicans to fully embrace the idea all played a role.

Now a lot of things are different, maybe different enough to see a voucher bill approved and sent to Gov. Rick Perry.
The newspaper editorializes against them, stating that they will take money away from public schools, but they note that support for the program appears to be falling into place.

We cover education policy in 2306, so this might be a fruitful topic later this semester. This is a very likely future written assignment.

- Wikipedia: School Vouchers.
- NEA opposition to school vouchers.
- ADL opposition to school vouchers.
- School Choices: Issues and Arguments.
- Time: 5 myths about vouchers.
- Pro and Con from Balanced Politics.

“swilling the planters with bumbo”

Here's a fun little story about elections from years back.

In Washington’s day, elections were largely an excuse to party. Voting presented a rare opportunity for people to gather from miles around, catch up with their neighbors, and imbibe liberally. Crafty politicians capitalized on the festive climate to rack up votes. In fact, it was difficult for anyone to win an election without wining and dining his constituents. Though it was technically illegal to explicitly purchase gifts for voters, it was perfectly appropriate for a politician to buy a round for two hundred of his closest friends on Election Day.

Some random stories about political conventions

We are at half time in convention season. I still need to provide some detail about what happened at the RNC and what it means since this will help us when we cover political parties later this semester, but here are a few stories that touch on different aspects of these affairs:

- The Week thinks its time to cancel political conventions. Presidential candidates have already been selected, and all that is decided are the rules for the next primary season and the selection of the party's platform.

- The Monkey Cage looks at the history of Presidential nominee's speeches at convention and how they have changed over time. They note that until FDR, nominees didn't even speak at conventions. They also note that the speeches have become very touchy-feely recently.

- 538 looks at the "bumps" candidates get from each convention. They vary historically, but t predicts only small bump for either candidate this year.

- The Smithsonian Magazine goes back in time and looks at the 10 most consequential Political Conventions. None since 1976 make the cut.

- ABCNews traces how they have changed over time. It points out that conventions play less a role in selecting presidents than they have in the past.

- Digital Trends would like to see - of course - more hi tech at these affairs.

Week Two Written Assignment - GOVT 2302 / 2306

The national government dealt a blow to Texas' plans to alter the electoral landscape this fall by not approving (preclearing) two major laws passed in the 82nd Legislature. One was the law that redistricted the states following the 2010 census, the other required photo ID prior to voting. Due to past discriminatory activities, any changes to Texas elections has to be ok'd by a panel of Federal judges - specifically judges in the DC Circuit Court.

They didn't. Since this fits the subject of your 1000 word essay, it would be helpful to understand exactly what was said by the courts and why they denied to preclear Texas' plans. So I want you to plow through the court decisons - and the commentary surrounding them - and explain exactly what the court is saying and not saying.

Click on these for the actual court decisions:

- Texas v. US (this concerns redistricting)
- Texas v Holder (concerns photo ID)

Commentary on each is easy to find.

Week Two Written Assignment - GOVT 2301 / 2305

One of the topics covered in the opening sections was ideology, and how it helps explain political conflict. Conflict in presidential elections is often ideological as well, and of course there is plenty of ideological disagreement over the subject of your 1000 word essay - health care.

In order to combine all of these, I want you to give me at least 150 words on the ideological conflict between Obama and Romney over health care. Search through their respective positions, and related statements on the issue and describe where they seem to fit on the ideological spectrum. Try to go beyond the typical liberal/conservative debate and encompass any subtleties each sides view of the subject might embrace.

The goal of this assessment is to get you increasingly familiar with the terminology used to describe ideological positions in general, to get use caught up with the presidential race, and to get you moving on your 1000 word assignment.

From the NYT: Fed Chairman Makes Case, in Strong Terms, for New Action

For a future discussion of monetary policy, mostly in Govt 2305 and 2302. While the Congress has stalemated, the Federal Reserve still has the ability to impact the economy:

The Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, delivered a detailed and forceful argument on Friday for new steps to stimulate the economy, reinforcing earlier indications that the Fed is on the verge of action.

Calling the persistently high rate of unemployment a “grave concern,” language that several experts described as unusually strong, Mr. Bernanke made clear that a recent run of tepid rather than terrible economic data had not altered the Fed’s will to act, because the pace of growth remained too slow to reduce the number of people who lack jobs.

Bernacke did so despite opposition from Congressional Republicans:

. . . Mr. Bernanke appeared to defy political pressure from Republicans to refrain from new measures. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, has said such action would be counterproductive, and has pledged to replace Mr. Bernanke at the earliest opportunity.

“Policies from Congress, not more short-term stimulus from the Fed, are the ingredients necessary for restoring growth in the American economy,” Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, said in a statement after Mr. Bernanke’s speech.

On the other hand, Democrats welcomed Mr. Bernanke’s remarks. There is little prospect that Fed action will lift the economy before the election, but party officials fear the opposite possibility — that inaction could undermine economic confidence — and so they greeted the speech with relief.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said Mr. Bernanke “should not let any political backlash deter him from following through and doing the right thing.”

We will spend time in upcoming classes looking at the specific steps he proposes, but for now its useful to note the differences in these two branches. The legislative branch is geared towards inaction, while the executive branch is designed to act.

From the WP: Texas voter ID law struck down

This is huge:

A federal court on Thursday blocked a controversial new voter ID law in Texas, ruling that the state failed to show that the law would not harm the voting rights of minorities.

The three-judge panel in the historic case said that evidence also showed that costs of obtaining a voter ID would fall most heavily on poor African Americans and Hispanics in Texas.

Evidence submitted by Texas to prove that its law did not discriminate was “unpersuasive, invalid, or both,” wrote David. S. Tatel, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in the panel’s 56-page opinion.

The ruling will likely have political implications in the coming elections. Republicans and Democrats have been arguing over whether increasingly tough voter ID laws discriminate against African Americans and Hispanics.

From the Texas Tribune: Report: Mass Deportation Could Cost Texas Billions

This complicates the debate about illegal immigrants:

A study released Thursday by the Center for American Progress concludes that the Texas economy would suffer a net economic loss in the billions if group deportations of illegal immigrants occurred at even moderate levels.

The progressive think tank concluded that even if as few as 15 percent of Texans living in the state illegally were removed at once, it would mean an annual $11.7 billion loss for Texas’ gross state product, increasing to more than $77 billion if all 1.65 million estimated illegal immigrants were removed from the state.

- Click here for the study.

From the AAS: New study: Tort reform has not reduced health care costs in Texas

This applies to a few sections in class, primarily in our discussion of public policy. It fits in our broader look at health policy as well as policy evaluation.

The story:

A new study found no evidence that health care costs in Texas dipped after a 2003 constitutional amendment limited payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits, despite claims made to voters by some backers of tort reform.

The researchers, who include University of Texas law professor Charles Silver, examined Medicare spending in Texas counties and saw no reduction in doctors' fees for seniors and disabled patients between 2002 and 2009. A 2003 voter campaign in Texas, and some congressional backers of Texas-style tort reform in every state, however, argued that capping damage awards would not only curb malpractice lawsuits and insurance costs for doctors, it would lower costs for patients while boosting their access to physicians.
But this goes beyond public policy, because its argued that tort reform was proposed as a way to minimize the financial power of trial lawyers, and their incentives to provide campaign contributions to Democrats. Was it a way to help Republicans dominate state elections? Some argue that Republican attacks on labor unions - which tend to skew Democrat as well - have the same intentions.

There are also claims that tort reform - by reducing damage awards - has made it more difficult for claimants to take cases to court. That adds an additional dimension to the story.

Since tort reform, some Texas residents have complained that they cannot find a lawyer to pursue a malpractice case because of the $750,000 cap on payouts for pain, suffering, disfigurement and mental anguish. The limit often makes litigation cost prohibitive, patients and lawyers said. That concern was not raised in the paper, although the researchers said claims of huge malpractice payouts and rampant "frivolous" lawsuits before tort reform are greatly exaggerated by its advocates.

Obama Vote: 2008 v 2012

Here's a graph that shows state-by-state comparisons of Obama's vote in 2008 versus his current polling numbers. Note that despite the changes, only two states seems to have shifted from one side to the other.

From WonkBlog: Defense spending in the U.S., in four charts

Here's useful data for a future look at foreign policy and defense spending.

Worth a preliminary look.

From the Texas Tribune: Court: Texas Political Maps Don't Protect Minority Vote

This is huge. Texas' history of racial discrimination made it subject to pre-clearance when the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. This is to ensure that discriminatory decisions are checked. The original map drawn up in the 82nd session of the Texas legislature had already been tossed out, but this confirms the previous decision and sets up a Supreme Court challenge to pre-clearance itself.

This should be provocative

And it could be a good springboard for class discussion. What kinds of things can government do better than you?

Here's an argument for five specific things:

The big four?

- retirement insurance
- health care
- addressing poverty
- disaster relief

Then there are the little things like road construction etc....

From the story:

The conservative approach to government stems from a basic tenet of free-market economics: that people always act rationally to maximize their own benefits, and that from this rises a general state of well-being for society as a whole. But this isn’t always true. One of the hottest academic disciplines to arise in the last few decades is behavioral economics, which explores the ways in which people behave irrationally. In addition, easy-predictable problems with certain markets prevent us from achieving the best outcomes. These two facts have consequences for how we should think about government in certain instances. There are many ways in which the government can make better decisions with our money than we can, and there are many ways that the Ryan budget would make society worse off by getting rid of government programs.

Texas Looses Clout at the RNC

Story in the HC:

The Bush family will have no presence and Governor Perry will be keeping a low profile. The state's influence nationally - which has been huge in the past - is at a low ebb.

Governor Perry Appoints ex Railroad Commission Chair to head Texas Education Agency

Micheal Williams will be the first African American to hold the position. He lacks a background in education, but has held multiple positions in state and national government and hews closely to the governor's business oriented policies.

For further info:
- The Fort Worth Star Telegram
- The Austin American Statesman.

Williams assumes leadership of the Texas Education Agency during a time of political, legal and financial tumult. He will have to contend immediately with school finance litigation that goes to trial this fall, battles over a controversial standardized testing system, a continuing budget crunch and an in-depth review of the agency by the Legislature.

A staunch conservative, Williams has long been a vocal advocate of providing public school students with vouchers to attend private school. He could serve as an important ally for lawmakers who plan to push for a voucher program in the next legislative session.

From My SA: Rules for towing companies differ, city to city

Something to consider when we look at local governments, and their place in the federal system.

What rules apply for towing automobiles? And who gets to establish them? I'm unaware of any national policies regarding this, or what it would take to justify such policies. This seems to fit comfortably in the "many and undefined" powers of the state governments, which then delegate them to the local governments.

From the story:

Want to tow a car parked illegally in an apartment complex lot in Houston? You can charge a $155 base fee. In Dallas, that will be $121, please. In San Antonio, the most the city allows companies to charge for private property tows is $85. The city set that cap in 2002. A decade later, it remains unchanged.

In that same time period, Dallas, Austin and Houston all raised their limits on private property tows.

But San Antonio has distinguished itself from the rest of the pack in another way: A war has erupted between the city and Bexar Towing, the largest company doing private property tows here. Bexar Towing has sued the city, arguing officials failed to raise the private property tow fee to a reasonable amount in a reasonable period of time, and did not perform what's called a tow fee study, required by the state, to determine where to set the cost.

In case you are wondering what a tow fee study is, click here and enjoy.

The Gender Gap 2012

Women have a tendency to vote Democrat and men a tendency to vote Republican. This trend seem to be continuing this year according to the Gallup Poll.

Male voters currently prefer Mitt Romney over Barack Obama by an eight-percentage-point margin, while female voters prefer Obama over Romney by an identical eight points. These gender-gap figures, based on Gallup Daily tracking conducted July 30-Aug. 19, are virtually identical to what they were four months ago.

From the WP: Texas counties consider going it alone on Medicaid expansion

For a future discussion of federalism, and especially the relationship that the national government can forge with local governments - by passing the states, comes a story from the Washington Post on how some Texas counties are looking to go along with the national governments efforts to expand Medicaid by going around the state.

Governor Perry has vowed to not expand the program.

From the WP:

Local officials in Texas are discussing whether to band together to expand Medicaid coverage in some of the state’s biggest counties, making an end run around Gov. Rick Perry’s opposition to the expanded program included in President Obama’s health-care law.

For years, Texas’s six most populous counties, as well as some smaller localities, have offered free or low-cost health care for uninsured residents with incomes as much as three times the federal poverty level, or about $57,000 for a family of three. The cost of the programs: about $2 billion a year.

George Hernandez Jr., CEO of University Health System in San Antonio, came up with the idea of the alternative, county-run Medicaid expansion, and said he has been discussing it with other officials in his county, Bexar. “They are all willing,” he said. He added that he has also been talking up the proposal with officials in other big counties, such as those including Houston and Dallas, and is optimistic they’ll support the idea.

Robert Earley, CEO of JPS Health Network, the public hospital system serving Tarrant County, which includes the Fort Worth area, said he could see the idea catching on.

- Click here for Fact Checker info on Medicaid.
- Wikipedia: Medicaid.
- Texas Medicaid Program.

From BuzzFeed: Romney Executes Republican Party Power Grab

I'll be posting a few items on the internal workings of each of the national party conventions. Here's a story regarding the Republican National Convention Rules Committee and the apparent effort of the Romney team to control the convention and minimize the impact of grassroot Republicans. ABCnews reports this is meant to avoid a potential floor fight, especially from Ron Paul supporters. Tea Party Republicans are not pleased:

The move came at the encouragement of Mitt Romney supporters on the committee, including Romney's top lawyer Ben Ginsberg, who stressed that it would grant "flexibility" to Romney and the committee to adapt to changing political environments. The rule allows the RNC to amend the party's rules without a vote by the full Republican National Convention. And it offers the Republican Establishment a new tool to keep at by Tea Party initiatives that threaten to embarrass or contradict party leadership and stray from a planned message.

Romney, as his party's nominee, exerts significant influence over the RNC, which is made up of elected party officials from all 50 states, while the larger Convention Rules Committee is larger and has a more grassroots membership.

"This is necessary for the world in which we find ourselves in," Ginsberg told the committee, adding that it is "important for the political survival of the party in the electoral context," for the committee to be able to change the rules as it sees fit in the intervening four years between conventions.

Virginia delegate and RNC member Morton Blackwell strenuously objected to the proposed rule change, calling it "the most awful proposed amendments I’ve seen presented to this committee.”

"This is dangerous, it amounts to a power grab," he said. "We are abandoning the historic process by which are rules are adopted."
- Click here for the rules of the 2008 Republican Convention.

Michael Barone on the Evolution of the Republican Party Voter

This build off a previous post and should help us understand what's going on among Republicans in the election and the convention. In the WSJ, Barone traces recent changes in the base of the Republican Party since its founding.

As with other analysts, the big story has been the transition of the South from solid Democrat to mostly - but not solidly - Republican. The dominant groups in the party are now the white working class and evangelicals. He's unconvinced that the current Republican coalition is sufficient to build a majority party. If elected Romney's task will be to increased the party's base.

Exciting the Base, Winning the Independents

The DMN outlines Romney's goal in the Republican Convention this week:

For many Republican activists, Mitt Romney wasn’t the conservative they hoped for in the next president, and support remains a bit begrudging.

Among voters who haven’t made up their minds, Romney has a different problem — an image as a stiff, wavering politician portrayed by a relentless Democratic attack machine as callous toward the poor and middle class.

To improve his standing with both groups, Romney faces a balancing act at the GOP convention this week in Tampa, Fla. He must become more likable to woo the broad electorate while showing a feistier side to keep a lid on conservative angst.
This is a common objective. All presidential candidates have to do so in order to win. We will cover this in a few parts of class - especially when we cover elections.

In case you're wondering what the Republican base is - the Gallup Poll gives us a hint. Think about it as the committed, passionate members of the party. in brief - and simplistically - religious white conservatives. They skew slightly male as well. We will get more detailed soon, and add information about Democrats when they meet next week.

From The Daily Beast: When Did the GOP Get So White?

John Avlon comments on the Republican Party's increasingly monolithic complexion and reminds us that this was not always the case. The GOP was once the party of diversity and civil rights and many provided many minority groups their first opportunity to get elected to office. He speculates on what happened.

When we discuss political parties, we do the same. Both our major political parties went through major changes during the civil rights era in the 1960s - notably the consequence of the decision of a Texas Democrat to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Each saw opportunity in pilfering identifiers from the other. What has emerged is a diverse Democratic Party and a relatively Anglo Republican Party.

Avlon's article allows us to look at this a bit early.

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.