A for real academic article: Etch-a-Sketching: Testing the Post-Primary Moderation Hypothesis

The previous post links to it.

- Click here to check it out.

Its commonly assumed that candidates for the presidency - and by extension any office that involves a primary - have to moderate their stances on issues in order to win general elections. The rule of thumb is that candidates campaign to either extreme in order to win their party's nomination. This id because party identifiers dominate the primaries, but they are only a minority of voters in the general election. Extreme position do not help in general elections, so moderation is necessary.

But is this in fact true?

The author finds evidence that it is.

Here's his conclusion:

This research project moves American political research forward in two major ways. First, the research provides the first systematic evidence for the academic and popular intuition behind a substantial moderation in candidate messages after the primary campaign. By employing text analytic tools, this research gains leverage on a question that evaded empirical measurement for decades. Second, and perhaps more excitingly, this approach opens a new and fruitful area for future study. It remains an open question how well voters may, or may not, perceive subtle rhetorical differences. As with any campaign message, the fact that candidates seem to carefully craft their ideological moderation may not mean that the strategy has much of an effect on voters.

From the Washington Post: Who is the most conservative Republican candidate for president?

For 2305 students as you prep for the final. Have some familiarity with ideological terminology, as well as the two step electoral process. The chart above provides information about both - in addition to a list of many of the current candidates for the 2016 presidency, as well as information related to the 114th Congress most notably the degree of polarization between Democratic and Republican members.

- Click here for the accompanying article.

Ideology can be measured in many different ways, The author of the article uses Twitter followership, which allows for a dynamic measurement because people can follow and unfollow people regularly.

What stick out to me is the lack of candidates in the middle. Each is more likely to adopt positions that correspond to those of party identifiers. This makes sense since each candidate is running for their party's nomination for the presidency, not the presidency itself. The eventual nominees will concern themselves with the nominees in the few months between their nomination and the election in November 2016.

For purposes of the final, think of these topics in relationship to this material.

- ideology
- party polarization
- political parties
- primary elections
- party identification
- general elections

Joseph Ellis: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution

Did the "united states" really become the "Unites States of America" on July 4th 1776?

This is a subject we touch on in the section on the Declaration of Independence which, if read literally, establishes the separate independence of each colony, not a unified group.

Historian Joseph Ellis builds upon this argument and challenges the idea that a national was really formed on July 4th, 1776. He recently published a book on that subject. He argues that the effort to develop the current constitution marks a "Second American Revolution" and is more properly considered the point when the United States of America became a nation.

Further, he argues that four key figures - George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison - were responsible for this change. This helps put into context what was and was not accomplished by the Second Continental Congress in July 1776.

If you're interested:

- PBS NewsHour: A ‘quartet’ of patriots who brought the United States together.
- Boston Globe: ‘The Quartet’ by Joseph J. Ellis.
- Amazon: The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789.
- Wikipedia: Joseph Ellis.

Main points from 2305 - A post from earlier this year

This is intended to be less a review than a review of key points made over the course of the semester.

Some things to consider as my 5 week 2305 students prep for the final. 

• An educated public is considered essential to the preservation of a democratic republic

• American governing institutions and systems are based on history dated back at least to the Magna Carta.

• A side effect of this history is a governing arrangement is individual liberty.

• The government is legitimized by its resting on the authority of the general population, but the people  do not rule directly. 

• Governments do three basic things: they make, execute and adjudicate the law. Tyranny occurs if these three powers are controlled by one entity. The point of the separated powers is to ensure that these powers do not accumulate.

• The people who wrote the Constitution took human nature into consideration in how they designed each branch.

• Any action of the national government has to be justified by the Constitution – either directly or indirectly. This is not true of the states.

• The United States Constitution is written with vague terminology, which makes it subject to interpretation. Battles rage over how the Constitution should be interpreted.

• The Constitution says very little about the internal workings of each branch. They have evolved considerably over the years, and continue to evolve. 

• Some phrases in the Constitution can be traced to Magna Carta and the British Bill of Rights. 

• The Constitution says nothing about political parties, but parties developed very quickly as effective ways to organize Congress and then to organize the electorate.

• The Constitution allows the states to make rules concerning elections, and until the 15^th Amendment states has full power to determine who go to vote. This also includes the power to design House districts, which has led to gerrymandering on the state level.

• The Bill of Rights applied only to the national government prior to the passage of the 14^th Amendment.

• The Bill of Rights is focused primarily on limited the substantive and procedural powers of the national government. 

• The rights established in the Bill of Rights are generally balanced against the greater interests of society. They can all be limited. 

• The First Amendment is focused primarily on limiting the ability of Congress to pass laws regarding religion and political participation.

• States have the power to pass laws which organize political parties, primaries and how electoral votes are awarded.

• The right to vote - suffrage - was very limited in the early years of the republic but has expanded gradually over time. This has occurred largely because the national government has forced the states to expand suffrage.

• Some of the most important – or consequential anyway – checks and balances are not written in the Constitution.

• Voter turnout tends to be low in the United States.

• The relationship between the national government and the states was impacted significantly by the Civil War and the Great Depression.

• Equality was not a dominant concept in the Constitution until the 14^th Amendment.

• The bulk of elections in the United States are winner take all. This led to the development of a two party system. While there are multiple parties in the United States, only two are competitive.

• The two major competitive parties are not monolithic – they are composed of various factions which compete to determine what the parties actually stand for each election cycle.

• The Supreme Court has made it increasingly difficult for Congress to regulate campaign finance.

• Not all interests are effectively represented by groups. The most powerful groups are those that can overcome the free rider problem.

• Interest groups are especially effective when they are able to work themselves into the decision making processes of each of the branches of government.

Keeping track of the 2016 money trail

For our occasional look at the subject.

The National Journal: How To Win Friends And Influence Elections.

This provides a breakdown of the range of potential sources of money.

NBC News: The 2016 Money Chase: Everything You Need to Know.

This lists which organizations are allied with which candidates. 

From the Washington Post: America’s most gerrymandered congressional districts

This is relevant in light of the recent decision finding independent redistricting commissions constitutional. They are designed to prevent districts like these above.

- Click here for the article.

The 2014 GUIDE TO TEXAS LAWS FOR COUNTY OFFICIALS

Here's a fun read.

- Click here for it.

Memorize it and impress your friends with your knowledge of what county officials can and cannot do according to state law.

What is a county clerk anyway?

The website of the Texas Association of Counties provides the following definition.

- Click here for the TAC site.
- Click here for the page on county clerks.

The county clerk administers all the county and state elections unless the commissioners’ court has transferred those duties to the tax assessor-collector or a county election administrator. The county clerk may contract with local political subdivisions to conduct their elections. The county clerk conducts the primary early voting and, at the party’s request, may contract to conduct the general primary and the runoff primary elections.

The county clerk also serves as clerk of the court for all misdemeanor county, criminal and civil courts including commissioners’ court and probate court; maintaining the official records of the courts they serve. The county clerk records the acts and proceedings of each of these courts, entering all judgments, recording all executions issued and the returns issued on the executions as applicable, and administers trust accounts for minors and registry accounts; additionally, the clerk must keep an index of the parties to all suits filed in the court, and make reference to any judgment made in each case. As clerk of the county courts, the county clerk collects and is responsible for money paid in court costs, fines and fees and for the payment of juror fees.

The clerk is the custodian of all county records including birth, death, cattle brands, hospital liens, deeds, deeds of trust, liens, Certificates of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD 214), and a variety of other important records both public and non-public. The county clerk also issues and maintains marriage licenses and records assumed name certificates.

In Texas counties with a population of fewer than 8,000, unless there has been a special election, the county clerk also serves as the district clerk, assuming all constitutional and statutory duties of the district clerk, along with those of county clerk.

As with all elected county officials, both the county clerk and the district clerk have ultimate authority over the operations of the office, including the authority to hire and fire personnel and direct their daily activities. Both the county clerk and district clerk also have authority to determine how to use all other resources allocated to the office during the budget process.

County Clerks also have their own interest group.

- The County and District Clerks' Association of Texas.

The Texas Secretary of State's Office has a full list of county clerks.

- You can find it here.

County Clerks are in the news

Obviously the reason is that some are claiming that issuing same sex marriage licenses violates their religious beliefs, and the legal questions that raises. The national government is telling them to do one thing - the state government is trying to give them cover to not do it.

I'll provide some detail on the position since its suddenly topical, but to catch up on the specifics of the controversy, click on these:

- Texas AG tells clerks they can flout Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage.
- Court clerks can't take licenses with their duties.
- There Are Still at Least 60 Texas Counties Not Issuing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses.
- Gay Couple to Sue Hood County Clerk Over Marriage License.
- Texas county clerks felt betrayed by Texas leaders on gay marriage, emails show.
- 5th Circuit tells courts to issue same-sex marriage rulings.
- Gay Marriage Issue Roils Texas Town.

Random Items for GOVT 2306

File this under "bill making"

- Abbott lets scores of bills, the most in decades, become law without his signature.

Just more than 1,400 bills reached Abbott’s desk in the session that ended June 1, his first as governor. Of them, Abbott signed 1,203 and vetoed 42.

The 163 he let take effect, without signing, accounted for nearly 12 percent.

File these under 'Voting in Texas"

- HC: Texas needs to modernize its registration process to make it easier to cast a ballot.

Imagine a simple voting reform that would drastically cut administrative costs, decrease the possibility of voter fraud and almost surely increase turnout. Who could be against such a reform? Candidates and officeholders who like to pick their own voters through gerrymandering and other tools to tamp down opposition turnout may be opposed, but most folks interested in seeing democracy work more effectively would endorse the reform immediately. We're talking about online voter registration.

- Voting Rights Bill Would Address, Not Invalidate TX Law.

A voting rights bill introduced in Congress last week would subject Texas elections to new levels of federal scrutiny, but it would not invalidate the state’s controversial 2011 voter photo ID law that helped inspire it.

The federal measure is designed to restore and improve protections to minority voters granted by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, provisions that were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2013. The ruling found that key sections of the act unfairly targeted southern states and did not reflect current conditions.

Heads Up!

The 5 week GOVT 2305 class is about to end so I'm going to focus on a variety of posts that will get them going on the final next week. This will include a look at the Supreme Court cases that 2305 students are writing about for their essays.

- Here's a link to an old review.

The summer final is a bit different, so this won't completely apply.

Before I do so, I'll post a few items related to 2306 so you folks don't feel left out.

From Vox: 3 reasons the American Revolution was a mistake

This is provocative.

- Click here for the article.

It's always instructive to look at "what-ifs?"

1 - Abolition would have come faster without independence.
2 - Independence was bad for Native Americans.
3 - America would have a better system of government if we'd stuck with Britain.

Discuss

A couple long items related to gay marriage

The first presents a conservative argument in favor of gay marriage.

- Not Whether but How: Gay Marriage and the Revival of Burkean Conservatism.

It's based on what we called Burkean Conservatism in the section on ideology. It highlights the importance of institutions that evolve organically on providing stability in society. Here's a taste of the argument:

Now, for Burkean conservatives same-sex marriage is a particular conundrum because it presents so many competing narratives and so many uncertainties. In the Jonathan Rauch narrative, for example, same-sex marriage is a Burkean no-brainer. It is good for social order because it provides gay couples with caregivers and helps them build stable families that are integrated into their communities. Why, after all, would anyone want same-sex couples to raise their children out of wedlock? How can society possibly benefit from denying these couples (and their kids) the manifold increases in health, economic security, and happiness which marriage brings? Why not tie them to each other and their communities? Moreover, in the Rauch narrative, gay marriage also advances the causes of equality, liberty, and individual dignity. And still more: given the ways in which marriage has changed over the past century, gay marriage, in the Rauch view, is a natural, bottom-up evolution, whose deep social logic is revealed in the multiple ways in which gay couples are already acting and being treated as if married. On this narrative, what is not to like?

The second article is a simple look at the political process.

- How Gay Marriage Became a Constitutional Right.

The author traces the history of the effort to establish marriage as a fundamental right that cannot denied to people based on sexual orientation without a compelling reason to do so. In 1970 it was assumed that this could be done. As of last week, it could not. Again, a chunk of the argument:

In the span of 43 years, the notion had gone from ridiculous to constitutionally mandated. How did that happen?

I put the question to Mary Bonauto, who arguedObergefell before the Supreme Court in April. A Boston-based staff lawyer for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, Bonauto won the Massachusetts case that made the state the first to allow gay couples to wed in 2004. In 1971, she noted, sodomy was a crime in every state, gays were routinely persecuted and barred from public and private employment, and homosexuality was classified as a mental illness. “We were just as right then as we are now,” she said. “But there was a complete lack of understanding of the existence and common humanity of gay people.”

What changed, in other words, wasn’t the Constitution—it was the country. And what changed the country was a movement.

Friday’s decision wasn’t solely or even primarily the work of the lawyers and plaintiffs who brought the case. It was the product of the decades of activism that made the idea of gay marriage seem plausible, desirable, and right.

Do you want to comment on the proposed changes to overtime rules?

You can. All rules changes go through a period of public comment, including this one.

- Click here to see how you can add you two cents.

Where did the proposal to increase overtime pay come from?

According to the New York Times, it came from an economist - Jared Bernstein - who had worked in the White House as the Chief Economist and Economic Adviser to Vice President Joseph Biden.

Upon leaving wrote a report describing the benefits of increasing the number of people who qualify for overtime pay. His idea was to set the level to where it as in 1975 and inflation-adjust it to today, and keep it set at the level of inflation. They also allow white collar workers - executives - to be eligible for overtime.

- Click here for the report.

Increasing overtime pay fits within the overall goals of increasing middle class incomes.

Liberal interest groups have been pushing this proposal for some time. Their arguments can be sumarized here:

- fixoverime.org.
- What the New Proposed Overtime Rules Mean for Workers.

For more:

- Obama's new overtime rules: How they'd work and who they'd affect.
- One Industry That Will Hate Obama’s New Overtime Rules: The Media.
- Republicans will hate Obama’s new overtime rule, but they can’t do anything about it.

This might help place the FLRA in context - but maybe not. Regardless, it's stuff about the New Deal

And what authorizes the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938? The Commerce Clause of course

That was the unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court in the 1940 case of United States v. Darby.

For detail:

- Oyez: United States v. Darby.
- Wikipedia: United States v. Darby.

The facts of the case from Wikipedia:

The issue was whether Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority in creating the Fair Labor Standards Act. An American lumber company in Georgia that did not meet these standards was charged with violating the law, but had won an appeal, where the appellate judge found that the federal government is barred by the 10th Amendment from interfering in matters that are strictly local, that is, within state boundaries. The Act also required the keeping of records to verify compliance; the appellee argued that this violated his 5th Amendment right protecting him from self-incrimination.

The Court reversed the appellate court decision. It affirmed the constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, which power "can neither be enlarged nor diminished by the exercise or non-exercise of state power." FindLaw. The Court held that the purpose of the Act was to prevent states from using substandard labor practices to their own economic advantage through interstate commerce. In the Dagenhart case, the Court had made the distinction between manufacturing and interstate commerce, so that a business could argue it was engaging in the former, but had not intended the latter. Twenty-two years later, the Court found that earlier argument facile, explaining that Congress was well aware that businesses produce their goods without thought to where they will go; product is pulled and shipped to meet the orders of the day. The Court also found that the requirement of record keeping was entirely appropriate as a matter of enforcing the Act.

What Authorizes the President to issue an Executive Order expanding overtime Pay? The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

Franklin Roosevelt called it the most important piece of New Deal legislation following the Social Security Act.

In addition to establishing overtime pay, it also established the minimum wage, the 8 hour day and the 40 hour work week. It also placed age limits on work, thereby ensuring that kids under 16 went to school primarily - not a job site.

For more detail:

- United States Department of Labor: Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938: Maximum Struggle for a Minimum Wage.
- US History: Fair Labor Standards Act.
- Legislative History of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
- Wikipedia: Fair Labor Standards Act.
- US Code: Fair Labor Standards Act.

Interesting Trivia: The law was originally written by Hugo Black when he was a Senator from Alabama. He would later be appointed to the Supreme Court in 1937 and would serve until 1971.

Obama Issues Executive Order Expanding Overtime Pay

For 2305's look at presidential powers:

- President Obama overtime rule could raise wages for 5 million: The threshold to qualify for overtime pay, now $23,660, will rise to $50,440.

President Barack Obama will this week propose giving millions of Americans a raise.
On Tuesday the White House will begin releasing the details of a long-awaited overtime rule aimed at lifting wages for up to five million people as soon as 2016, according to sources familiar with the plans. The president will announce the rule formally during a trip Thursday to La Crosse, Wisconsin.

The proposed rule would more than double the salary level under which virtually all workers qualify for overtime pay whenever they work more than 40 hours in any given week. That threshold, now $23,660, would rise to $50,440 — a number that the administration believes would encompass many workers now classified as managers—and would increase automatically in future years.

“In this country, a hard day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay,” Obama wrote in an op-ed published Monday evening by the Huffington Post — an outreach to the president’s base on the left. “That’s at the heart of what it means to be middle class in America.”

Meanwhile, the Chamber of Commerce, a major White House ally in the recent trade fight, is deeply opposed, with Randy Johnson, senior vice president of Labor, Immigration and Employee Benefits calling the rule “another example of the administration being completely divorced from reality and adding more burdens to employers and expecting them to just absorb the impact.”

What is an Executive Order?

- Wikipedia: Executive Order.
- American Presidency Project: Executive Orders - Summary Table.

From the Texas Tribune: An Animated Look Back at the 84th Session

The Texas Two Step is no more: The National Democratic Party tells the Texas Democratic Party to change how it allocated delegates to presidential candidates

Another indication that each party is setting itself up for the 2016 presidential election

This story is for 2306 students as they look at the nature of elections in Texas.

The Texas Two Step is the term used to refer to the peculiar way that Texas Democratic Party selects its presidential delegates. Simply put, 2/3rds of the delegates are selected in the primary election while the remaining 1/3rd are selected in the precinct convention held when the polls closed. This process is discussed in the section on the temporary party organization.

For more detail:

- A guide to Texas' electoral two-step.
- Texas Democratic primary and caucuses, 2008.

The unusual process allowed Obama to get more delegates from Texas than Hillary Clinton despite having lost the popular vote. Supporters of Clinton seemingly don't want to see that repeated in 2016.
Previous efforts to change the process had been unsuccessful. Here's a story about a failed attempt to do so in the 2010 Texas Democratic Convention:

- Democrats Keep Controversial "Texas Two-Step"

For more detail on the current effort:

- Saying goodbye to the Texas two-step.
- Texas Dems Dropping 'Two-Step' Presidential Primary.
- Texas Democrats ditching the “Texas 2-step;” no more primary caucus.

The Texas Republican Party simply uses the results of the popular election.

What is the "Mercury and Air Toxics Standard?"

This was the rule in question in Michigan v EPA. It was passed in 2012 - here's a description of it:

The 2012 mercury and air toxics standards, which apply to about 600 power plants, established emissions limits for mercury, filterable particulate matter as a surrogate for toxic metals, and hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for acid gases. The EPA estimates that the standards will cost the power industry $9.6 billion annually.

- Click here for a more thorough explanation.

The simple issue the court ruled on - and was divided over - was whether the benefits from the rule were compatible with the $9.6 billion cost. The majority said it didn't, the minority said it did.

The rulemaking process is discussed in both 2305 and 2306 in the sections on the executive branch - especially the bureaucracy.It's the mechanism through which laws are clarified so that they can be implemented by the appropriate agency.

For specifics on the EPA's rulemaking process click here:

- EPA: The Basics of the Regulatory Process.

For a more thorough look at the rulemaking process click here:

- A Guide to the Rulemaking Process.

For detail on the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard click here.

The Supreme Court argued that these rules did not properly take into consideration the costs imposed on industry and that a lower court had to re argue the case with that in mind.

For more on the rule:

- Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenges To EPA’s Mercury Standards for Power Plants.
- The Dangerous Consequences of the Supreme Court's Ruling on Mercury Pollution.
- Mercury and Air Toxics Standards: 25 Years in the Making.

What is the Clean Air Act?

Since Michigan v EPA involved questions about the propriety of how the Clean Air Act was implemented, it's worth linking to some background on the Act itself - in addition to some history of air pollution legislation.

1955 - Air Pollution Control Act. Provided funding for research into the study of the causes and health consequences of air pollution, in addition to how it could be controlled. The research was to be done for 5 years by the Public Health Service. It was amended in 1960 and 1962 to extend funding and to authorize the Surgeon General's Office to student the effects of motor vehicle exhaust.The act did not establish a mechanism for implementing any solution to the problem.

1963: Clean Air Act of 1963. Created emission standards that could be applied to "stationary sources" which is the fancy term for factories and industry. It highlighted high sulfur coal as a source of pollution. It furthered funding of research and investigations of suspected polluters. It was amended to establish standards for automobile emissions in 1965. It was also amended in 1966 to assist local air pollution control programs, in 1967 to create air control regions and establish timetables for implementing state pollution plans and in 1969 to fund research into low emission fuels.

1970: National Environmental Policy Act. Creates President's Council on Environmental Quality.

1970: Clean Air Act of 1970. This is the most important of the bunch.Establishes the National Ambient Quality Standards which focuses on the reduction of a set of pollutants including carbon monoxide and ozone. Amendments added in 1977 modified the act's goals.

1970: Richard Nixon establishes the Environmental Protection Agency with an executive order. It is established to implement the requirements contained in the Clean Air Act.

1990: Clean Air Act Amendments. Focuses on the reduction of acid rain and leaded gasoline.

- EPA: History of the Clean Air Act.
- Clean Air Act Implementation in Houston: An Historical Perspective 1970-2005.
- EPA: Understanding the Clean Air Act.
- Clean Air Timeline.

Is this what brought air pollution to the public agenda?

I'll post a few items related to the previous post on Michigan v EPA, including a look at the history of air pollution regulations and how they've been implemented. Most legislation tends to follow an event that brings an issue to the public's attention - here's the event that is commonly argued to have brought the problem of air pollution to the public's attention.

For more:

- Donora Death Fog: The Crisis that Led to Modern Air Pollution Laws.
- Wikipedia: 1948 Donora Smog.

The Supreme Court rules that the EPA has to consider costs and benefits when it issues rules under the Clean Air Act

The case is Michigan v EPA, and is yet another 5-4 decision with Justice Kennedy deciding which side wins.

- ScotusBlog: Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency.
- Oyez: Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency.
- Click here for the decision.

Here is the issue presented to the court from ScotusBlog:

Whether the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities.

And the facts of the case according to Oyez:

The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act require that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) if it finds that such regulation was “appropriate and necessary” after conducting a utility study. In December 2000, the EPA issued a notice that such regulation was necessary based on the results of the utility study, which showed that the mercury emissions from EGUs were a threat to public health. In 2005, the EPA reversed its findings and determined that it was not “appropriate and necessary” to regulate coal- and oil-fired EGUs. States and other groups petitioned for review, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the EPA’s attempt to reverse its findings was unlawful because it could not remove pollutant sources from the regulation list once they were on it. In 2012, the EPA confirmed that EGU regulation was necessary and promulgated emission standards. State, industry, and labor groups petitioned the appellate court for review of the EPA’s interpretation of the “appropriate and necessary” requirement with respect to these regulations. The appellate court denied the petition.

For media coverage:

- NYT: Supreme Court Blocks Obama’s Limits on Power Plants.


- The Hill: Supreme Court overturns landmark EPA air pollution rule.
- WaPo: Supreme Court: EPA erred in rule on toxic emissions from power plants.

The Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution - and - What is a legislature anyway?

The Arizona Case below involved an interpretation of the following language:

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Seems simple enough, but the case boils down to what "the Legislature thereof" refers to. The majority decision describes the conflict here:

The Arizona Legislature’s complaint alleged that “[t]he word ‘Legislature’ in the Elections Clause means [specifically and only] the representative body which makes the laws of the people,” App. 21, ¶37; so read, the Legislature urges, the Clause precludes resort to an independent commission, created by initiative, to accomplish redistricting. The AIRC responded that, for Elections Clause purposes, “the Legislature” is not confined to the elected representatives; rather, the term encompasses all legislative authority conferred by the State Constitution, includ­ Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 3 Opinion of the Court ing initiatives adopted by the people themselves.

Some background info on the clause itself:

- The Heritage Foundation:  Election Regulations.
- The Founders' Constitution: Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1.

The Supreme Court rules that independent redistricting boards are constitutional

The case is Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. It's another 5-4 ideological vote with Anthony Kennedy as the tie breaker.

For more:

ScotusBlog: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.
Oyez: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

We spent some time on this case in the spring when it was argued because it allowed us to look at the elections clause of the constitution as well as investigate what the word "legislature" could possibly mean. Such commissions allow a non-partisan group to draw congressional district, which makes them more competitive since there is no stake in the outcome. The majority party in state legislatures has an incentive to pad its lead over the minority party and tends to draw districts that are not competitive, This tends to suppress voter turnout since there's little need to show up in general elections.

Here are the facts of the case from Oyez:

Until 2000, the Arizona State Constitution granted the State Legislature the ability to draw congressional districts, subject to the possibility of a gubernatorial veto. In 2000, the Arizona voters passed Proposition 106, which amended the state constitution to remove the congressional redistricting power from the legislature and vest it in the newly created Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC).

In 2012, after the IRC approved a new congressional district map, the legislature sued the IRC and argued that Proposition 106 violated the Elections Clause of the federal Constitution (Art I, Sec. 4, Clause 1)--which declares that "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof...."--removed redistricting authority from the legislature and therefore that the new district map was unconstitutional and void. The legislature also requested that the district court permanently enjoin the IRC from adopting, implementing, or enforcing the new congressional district map. The district court held that Proposition 106 did not violate the Elections Clause of the federal Constitution.

And the question posed to the court:

Did Proposition 106 violate the Elections Clause of the federal Constitution by removing the congressional districting power from the state legislature?

- Click here for the decision.

Statewide officials in Texas push back against the gay marriage decision - but seem to accept that it is here to stay

As 2306 students learned - the state of Texas delegates the handling of the bulk of its paperwork to the counties, much of this is handled by the county clerk's office. This includes the processing of marriage licenses, which now have to be open to same-sex couples in addition to opposite sex couples.

State officials have written rules providing opportunities for clerks to not due so if they argue that this conflicts with their religious convictions.

A few items along those lines:

- Paxton: County clerks may refuse — on religious grounds — to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican social conservative, offered at least moral support Sunday for county clerks and their employees who feel their religious beliefs dictate that they decline to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

In a nonbinding legal opinion, Paxton said religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment “may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses.”

The clerks who balk at licensing gay marriage “may well face litigation and/or a fine,” Paxton warned.

“Importantly, the strength of any particular religious accommodation claim depends on the particular facts of each case,” he concluded.

“But,” he added in a press release, “numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs, in many cases on a pro-bono basis, and I will do everything I can from this office to be a public voice for those standing in defense of their rights.”

- Can a Texas county clerk refuse to issue a gay marriage license? It’s complicated.

. . . For an accommodation to be made, certain questions arise. "Is their religious belief substantially burdened?" Robson asked. "Is it overridden by their status as a public employee? Where is that line? Because as a public employee, you swear to uphold the Constitution." Public employees "don't have full 1st Amendment rights," she said, "because it's balanced against the interest of their employer, which in this case is the government." 

What's not allowed, in Robson's estimation, is for a clerk to shut down the issuance of licenses across the board over a personal objection. "The question in terms of accommodation has to do with individuals," Robson said. "So if the entire courthouse closed, that would not be an accommodation."

- First same-sex marriage licenses issued in Brazoria County.

After an opinion from the District Attorney's office this afternoon, County Clerk Joyce Hudman said Brazoria County is officially issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Hudman said her offices have been issuing licenses since 1:30 p.m. and will throughout the day.

District Attorney Jeri Yenne gave the county clerk's office a one-sentence opinion that issuing same-sex marriage licenses is mandatory based on the Supreme Court's decision today.

"As a follow-up to your inquiry regarding marriage licenses, please be advised that on today's date, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion indicating the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex," Yenne's memo reads.

Some random news items related to Obergefell

- Republicans Vow a Religious Liberty Fight.

In a somber and defiant statement, Attorney General Ken Paxton proclaimed his next battlefront would be in defense of religious liberty.

“The truth is that the debate over the issue of marriage has increasingly devolved into personal and economic aggression against people of faith who have sought to live their lives consistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage,” he said. “It is not acceptable that people of faith be exposed to such abuse.”

Hours later, Gov. Greg Abbott sent a memo to the heads of state agencies directing them to “preserve, protect, and defend the religious liberty of every Texan." That order “applies to any agency decision,” including granting or denying benefits, the memo says.

- Texas Counties' Responses to Marriage Ruling Vary.

Elated couples across Texas hurried into county clerks' offices Friday to apply for marriage licenses following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

Some offices quickly began issuing licenses, including those in Travis, Harris, Tarrant, Bexar, Dallas, El Paso, Hidalgo and Midland counties. Other counties — including Maverick, Ector, Victoria, Potter and Bastrop — were waiting to hear from State Attorney General Ken Paxton on how to proceed.

- What Are States With Same-Sex Marriage Bans Doing Now?

With the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling Friday morning, same-sex marriage is legal nationwide. For the 36 states, plus the District of Columbia, where such unions are already permitted, the ruling is cause for celebration for the LGBT community, and won't have any actual effect.

But what about the 14 states where gay marriage hasn't been fully implemented—where there are laws banning it, for example, or it's in legal limbo? Governors and attorneys general are facing a decision: Will they abide by the Court's ruling, or will they try to fight it?

- How Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Won America.

For more than 20 years, the campaign to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide has been inching strategically toward the Supreme Court. And Friday, that strategy paid off: Same-sex couples can now get married in every state.

The Court's 5-4 ruling wasn't that surprising; for the past year or two, it even looked like a foregone conclusion. But the historic victory for gay couples didn't just happen; Justice Anthony Kennedy didn't simply wake up one day and decide it was time. It was the culmination of a long, intensive, and deliberate campaign.

Part of the strategy was to build public support; part of it was to win legislative victories in the states. But the ultimate target was always the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage

The argument - as best I can determine it - is that marriage is a fundamental liberty, which means that the government, state governments in this case, have to clear a very high hurdle in order to discriminate between same sex and opposite sex couples. The court effectively ruled that the state's have not done so. they do not have a compelling reason to deny same sex couples the right to so something other couples get to do.

The dissenters disagreed. Aside from arguing that the majority went beyond what the court should be allowed to do, they argued that there are legitimate reasons for why states could deny same sex couples the right to marry. Among these reasons was procreation and the usefulness of a man and woman in the household in order to raise children.

Here is the official holding of the court:

The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.

For more intelligent coverage:

- Click here for the court's opinion.
- Oyez: Obergefell v. Hodges.
- ScotusBlog. Obergefell v. Hodges.

More detail in upcoming days.

The Supreme Court rules on Obamacare (again) and on housing discrimination

More on this later - some students are writing on these topics, so heads up if you are.

King v. Burwell: The court ruled 6-3 that federal subsidies to state insurance exchanges were legal under the wording of the ACA.

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project:  The court ruled 5-4 that a non-profit group could sue the state of Texas under Fair Housing Act for disparate treatment.

Clarity to follow, but you might want to check these sites out for now:

- ScotusBlog: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.
- ScotusBlog: King v Burwell.
- Oyez: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.
- Oyez: King v Burwell.

Supreme Court rulings on the Mann Act

Wikipedia lists the following Supreme Court decisions which were related to the Mann Act and clarified what was and what was not - constitutionally - covered under the law. The law made it a felony to engage in interstate commerce of "any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose". But there's ambiguity in the terminology here that led to court challenges.

The biggest issue seems to be defining what an "immoral purpose" is. Note that the first case deals with the general question of whether the powers claimed by the act falls within constitutional parameters.

These cases led to that clarification:

- Hoke v. United States, (1913). The Court held that Congress could not regulate prostitution per se, as that was strictly the province of the states. Congress could, however, regulate interstate travel for purposes of prostitution or "immoral purposes".

- Athanasaw v. United States, (1913). The Court decided that the law was not limited strictly to prostitution, but to "debauchery" as well.

- Caminetti v. United States, (1917). The Court decided that the Mann Act applied not strictly to purposes of prostitution, but to other noncommercial consensual sexual liaisons. Thus consensual extramarital sex falls within the genre of "immoral sex".

- Gebardi v. United States, (1932). The Court held that the statutory intent was not to punish a woman's acquiescence; therefore, consent by the woman does not expose her to liability.

- Cleveland v. United States, (1946). The Court decided that a person can be prosecuted under the Mann Act even when married to the woman if the marriage is polygamous. Thus polygamous marriage was determined to be an "immoral purpose".

- Bell v. United States, (1955). The Supreme Court decided that simultaneous transportation of two women across state lines constituted only one violation of the Mann Act, not two violations.

This day in History - Congress passes the White-Slave Traffic Act - aka - the Mann Act

The year was 1910 and it marks the entry of the national government into the enforcement of morality laws - most prostitution. It also reflects the nature of attitudes about race at that moment.

I mention this law in sections that cover the increasing power of the national government in areas that had previously been reserved solely to the states. Given that prostitution is a commercial act that can involve commerce over state lines - the national government can claim a constitutional right to lass laws related to it. It's focus also on "immoral purposes" made it a flexible law that could be used for whatever purpose authorities wished.

For some links:

- History.com: Congress passes Mann Act.
- Wikipedia: the Mann Act.
- NPR: The Long, Colorful History of the Mann Act.

Cities in the United States had a large number of brothels up until this time. The passage of the bill was helped by a sudden moral panic that swept the nation that was wrapped up in attitudes about immigrants, the proper social order and the causes of prostitution.

One of the people trapped in the enforcement of the law was Galveston native Jack Johnson who flaunted conventional attitudes about race.

A hint about written assignment #4

I'll have these ready early Thursday, but this is what I'm considering.

For the 5 week GOVT 2305 I'll want a first draft of your 1000 word paper.

For both the 11 week classes (2305 and 2306) I'll likely have something related to the current controversy over the confederate flag - who saw that coming? For 2305 I'll probably ask how the candidates for the 2016 presidential election - especially the Republicans - will deal with this issue. For 2306, I'll likely ask something related to how the symbolism of the issue in Texas - especially in light of the recent Supreme Court decision over the flag on Texas license plates. Recall that last week the Supreme Court decided that if Texas doesn't want it, it can;t be forced to have it.

I hope this helps get going. Future posts will follow.

The Battle over the Tariff and the Second Party System

For 2305 students that have reached the section on political parties.

Here are links that describe the role that conflict over tariffs played party politics in the 19th Century. Remember that before the United States opted to support free trade, it protected its economy from, foreign competition - but not all sectors of the economy supported that policy.

- The Second Party System.
- The Whig Party.
- Slavery or Tariff?

The latest on the trade deal

Some random items for 2305 students. These might help put the bill making process in some context.

- Senate Hands a Victory to Obama on Trade Pact.
- Senate advances fast-track trade bill for Obama.
- Boehner: Trade process has been 'bizarre'.
- Ted Cruz Flips on Fast-Track.
- Obama's Fast-Track Bill Inches Another Step Forward.

The governor uses line item veto authority to cut almost $300 million from the Texas Budget.

That amounts to .3% out of a total budget of $209 billion.

Background:

- Abbott wields veto pen to trim nearly $300 million from Texas budget.

For more on the budget itself go to the web site of the Legislative Budget Board.

The day after the veto deadline

The deadline to veto bills has passed. We now know what has passed and what has not.


- Click here for the official list of vetoed legislation.


Here's the latest on what went down over the weekend.


- Abbott vetoes business tax break bill.

Gov. Greg Abbott on Saturday vetoed a bill that would have made it easier for big corporations to win breaks on school property taxes. It would have allowed a company to make one application for projects strung across multiple school districts. One opponent said the bill began as an effort to help energy giant ConocoPhillips qualify a salt dome storage facility for subsidies it was seeking for a natural gas plant and barge terminal near Houston. With his veto, Abbott disclosed publicly that he had misgivings about a 2001 law. The law promises the state will repay school districts if they reduce appraisals for big new manufacturing plants and other facilities.

- Abbott vetoes 42 bills.

With a Sunday deadline looming to decide on legislation, Abbott finished Saturday with vetoes that included killing two bills on ethics reform, one of his top priority issues. Both bills created a loophole for a spouse’s financial dealings that he couldn’t accept.

“At the beginning of this legislative session, I called for meaningful ethics reform. This legislation does not accomplish that goal. Provisions in this bill would reduce Texans' trust in their elected officials, and I will not be a part of weakening our ethics laws. Serious ethics reform must be addressed next session - the right way. Texans deserve better,” Abbott said in a veto statement.

In all, Abbott killed 42 of the 1,408 bills and resolutions approved by lawmakers, not counting his line-item vetoes in the budget. That puts his vetoes in the middle of the pack for Texas governors, tying then-Gov. Mark White in 1983. Gov. Ann Richards vetoed 35 in 1991, and Gov. Preston Smith vetoed 66 in 1969.

The Best and Worst Legislators of the 84th Session

Its a biennial tradition.

- Texas Monthly.
- The Texas Tribune.

FYI: Angleton Republican House member Dennis Bonnen made the list of best legislators.

And a few criminal justice reform bills signed by the governor

He didn't veto everything.

- Abbott Signs Bill Decriminalizing Truancy.

House Bill 2398, which will go into effect as the upcoming school year begins in Texas, effectively ends the practice of jailing students for skipping school. Critics say it disproportionately affects minority and poor students.

"Criminalizing unauthorized absences at school unnecessarily jeopardizes the futures of our students," Abbott said in a statement Friday, explaining he signed HB 2398 as part of his broader mission to boost the state's education system.

- Abbott Signs Grand Jury Reform Legislation.

Gov. Greg Abbott has signed legislation reforming Texas' grand juries, officially scrapping the state's controversial "pick-a-pal" method of selecting people to sit on the panels.

Under House Bill 2150, the state will no longer use the outdated system that lets judge-appointed commissioners pick jurors, a nationally uncommon practice that critics say is rife with potential for conflicts of interest. Authored by Democratic state Rep. Carol Alvarado of Houston, HB 2150 institutes a more random process drawing jurors from broader pools of potential candidates.

- Abbott OKs Venue Change for Political Corruption Cases.

Ignoring calls for a veto, Gov. Greg Abbott signed controversial legislation this week that will allow elected and appointed state officials and state employees to bypass Austin prosecutors when they are accused of public corruption.

Abbott, a Republican, signed the bill Thursday without making a statement or staging a public signing ceremony. His press office did not respond to requests for comment left via email and over the phone.

- Click here for Texas Tribune's page on all Law and Order topics dealt with by the legislature.

From The Texas Tribune: Abbott Vetoes Four Criminal Justice, Public Safety Bills

For 2306 students thinking about next week's written assignment. Criminal justice reform was a dominant issue this past session. Here are areas where reform fell short - or at least was not supported by the governor.

- Click here for the article.

The latest round of vetoes, made public Friday morning, includes House Bill 1015, which would have required the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to notify a court sentencing a convicted felon when he or she has spent 75 days in a state jail. Supporters of the legislation said it would have kept offenders from falling outside of judges' radar and heightened awareness of rehabilitation programs, which tend to be less costly to the state than jail.

. . .  Another veto hit House Bill 1119, which would have directed the Texas Department of Transportation to work with researchers at Texas A&M University to study "fallen or damaged mile markers" along interstate highways in Texas. HB 1119 backers said it would have prompted mile-marker replacements that could help first responders find stranded motorists. Abbott said it would have been redundant.

. . . Abbott also vetoed House Bill 973, which he said would have doubled the compensation for emergency services commissioners in Harris County. The governor called the bill an "unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer money and an inappropriate departure" from laws already in effect.

The fourth veto struck House Bill 3291, an effort to make it easier to prosecute those who possess, purchase or sell oil or gas without proper permits from the state, according to its supporters, who appear to have included Railroad Commissioner Christi Craddick. In his veto statement, Abbott said he supports increased criminal penalties for oilfield theft, but said HB 3291 contained "overly broad language" that could lead to prosecutions that have nothing to do with that crime.

If you have an hour and a half to kill - Magna Carta: Myth and Meaning

The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles does not have to issue license plates with Confederate Flags on them

So says the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote.

More on this soon  but some 2305 students are writing this thing up.

- ScotusBlog: Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans.
- Oyez: Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans.
- The Supreme Court decision.

The court ruled that a license plate is government speech, which it can regulate, rather than private speech, which it cannot.

More on this soon.

A partial list of protectionist policies

In the previous posts, primary attention was given to tariffs. The shift from protectionism to free trade is accomplished by limiting not only tariffs, but a number of other domestic policies which interrupt the free flow of goods and services across international borders.

This should give you an idea of the types of policies free trade agreements attempt to minimize.

- Click here for a more descriptive list in Wikipedia.

- Tariffs
- Import quotas
- Administrative barriers
- Anti-dumping legislation
- Direct subsidies
- Export subsidies
- Exchange rate manipulation
- International patent systems
- Employment-based immigration restrictions
- Political campaigns advocating domestic consumption
- Preferential governmental spending

From Michael Lind: Free Trade Fallacy

Lind walks through the transition from America's commitment to protectionism to free trade.

- Click here for more on Michael Lind.

- Click here for the essay.

And a brief snippet:

. . . the US protected and subsidised its industries while it was a developing country, switching to free trade only in 1945, when most of its industrial competitors had been wiped out by the second world war and the US enjoyed a virtual monopoly in many manufacturing sectors. The revival of Europe and Japan by the 1970s eliminated these monopoly profits, and the support for free trade of industrial-state voters in the American midwest and northeast declined. Today, support for free-trade globalism in the US comes chiefly from the commodity-exporting south and west and from US multinationals which have moved their factories to low-wage countries like Mexico and China. Like 19th-century Britain, 21st-century America tells countries that are trying to catch up: do what we say, not what we did.

Has the United States always promoted free trade?

In a word, no.

Until the end of World War 2 the United States actively protected domestic industry through tariffs in addition to a series of policies collectively known as the American School of Economics, which can be traced back to policies initiated by Alexander Hamilton.

The simple reason for the switch was that prior to the end of the war, the economy United States was still relatively small - albeit growing. Protecting emerging industries from larger, more powerful competitors was politically necessary. After the war - thanks to the needs of war production coupled with the destruction of its economic competitors - the United States was the world's dominant economy and did not have to worry about foreign competition. It was in a better position to turn the tables and dominate those economies that it has previously feared. It was also in a better position to establish and dominate international trading organizations in order to ensure that the rules it established would benefit domestic industry.

That said, it is still commonly pointed out that the United States still protects domestic industry, often due to the political pressures that those industries can place on elected officeholders. Economic policy is not set by economists immune from public pressure, but by politicians subject to removal from office in each and every election.

- 25 American Products That Rely On Huge Protective Tariffs To Survive.

For background:

- Economic Nationalism.
- American School.
- American System.
- Tariffs in United States history.

Some historical milestones - I'll add some commentary later:

Protectionist Period:

1789 - Tariffs of 1789.
1791 - Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures.
1812 - War of 1812.
1816 - Tariff of 1816.
1828 - The Tariff of Abominations:
1842 - Tariff of 1842.
1844 - James Polk elected on a platform that opposed high tariffs.
1860 - Republican Party platform includes support for high tariffs.
1861 - The Morrill Tariff.
1905 - Taft-Katsura Agreement.
1913 - the Underwood Tariff - AKA - Revenue Act of 1913. The establishment of the income tax reduced the need for tariffs.
1922 - Fordney–McCumber Tariff.
1930 - The Smoot-Hawley Tariff.
1934 - Reciprocal Tariff Act.

Free Trade Period:
1944 - The Bretton Woods Conference.
1944 - World Bank.
1944 - International Monetary Fund.
1948 - General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
1986 to 1994 - Uruguay Round.
1994 - Marrakesh Agreement.
1994: North American Free Trade Agreement.
1995: World Trade Organization.

The Department of Commerce has a list of all the free trade agreements the United States has. It states that there are 14 in force with 20 countries.

- Click here for them.

A few items related to Governor Abbott's vetoes

For GOVT 2306's most recent written assignment.

Don't limit your search to these.

- From the governor's office: Governor's Veto Statements.
- Texas Legislature Online: List of Bills Vetoed by Governor.
- Amid Veto Period, Lobbyists Keep Working Abbott.
- Abbott Vetoes Overdose Defense, Emergency Detention Bills.
- Abbott Nixes Water Conservation, Contract Bidding Bills.
- Abbott veto lands in the middle of 'David and Goliath' fight.

What is free trade and what is the point of it?

I'll start posting now items relate to the Trans Pacific Partnership, as promised. Since the agreement promotes free trade, it's not unwise to define what that means and how it differs from alternatives.

Here's a quick definition from Investopedia:

The unrestricted purchase and sale of goods and services between countries without the imposition of constraints such as tariffs, duties and quotas.

Along with a justification of it:

Free trade is a win-win proposition because it enables nations to focus on their core competitive advantage(s), thereby maximizing economic output and fostering income growth for their citizens. Free trade enables nations to concentrate their efforts on manufacturing products or providing services where they have a distinct comparative advantage, according to the theory first espoused by economist David Ricardo two centuries ago. A free trade policy should enable a nation to generate enough foreign currency to purchase the products or services that it does not produce indigenously.

Free trade allows nations to concentrate on what they do best. It is then assumed that that increases overall wealth in the nation better than if it made everything itself. Countries that engage in free trade with other nations control their economies less than those that do. Free trade might then be best described as what it lacks than what it has. It protects its domestic businesses less than other nations meaning that it is less likely to impose protective tariffs and duties. But nations that engage in free trade are more likely to see outside forces disrupt internal institutions.

It is closely related to the ideas put forward in classical economics, which held that government should disrupt the economy as little as possible. The wealth of a nation had less to do with how much gold it had, or how much it did on its own, but in the value of the trade it could engage in.

Some definitions:

- Protectionism: These are trade policies which seek to protect domestic businesses and workers that might be harmed by external competition.
- Protective Tariff: A duty imposed on imports to raise their price, making them less attractive to consumers and thus protecting domestic industries from foreign competition.
- Tariffs: A tariff is a tax on imports or exports.
- Subsidies: A form of financial aid or support extended to an economic sector (or institution, business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy.

For more:

- Library of Economics and Liberty: Free Trade.

From Monty Python's Terry Jones - What is Magna Carta? A brief explainer.

Happy Belated 800th Birthday Magna Carta

It's not an especially fancy document. As you can see. This has been argued to be a reflection of its utilitarian character.

We cover the document repeatedly in class, so no reason to hammer on it.

More - random - observations and evaluations of the 84th Session

- The 84th marathon ends with a major lesson. The authors points out what bills did not pass, that we might see in the 85th Session. He names constitutional carry, a ban on "sanctuary cities," and a repeal of the Dream Act.

- Moody's lauds Texas move to shore up public pensions. Moody's Investors Services rates the credit worthiness of borrowers. The worse the credit, the higher the costs of borrowing - some of you know this. Many state and local pensions funds are under funded, which creates future financial obligations for each. Credit rating agencies don't like this so the legislature passed and the governor signed HB 9 which increased employee contributions to the Employment Retirement System of Texas.

- Abbott signs $4 billion, two-year tax cuts package. See also Abbott Predicts "New Era of Job Growth" With Tax Cuts. The governor signed a series of bills related to taxes and fees, including HB 32, HB 7 and SB 1.

- Freshman teasing behind, Burrows pleased with accomplishments of session. A Lubbock paper provides an inside look at the first term of an area legislator.

- Is Texas spending $800M to create its own border patrol? Increased funding on the border was one of the governor's emergency items as the legislature began, and the legislature responded. Critics questioned the need for the increased presence by state forces given that national ad local authorities are already in place.

- Abbott Signs Bill to Limit Pollution Lawsuits. HB 1974 seems focused on efforts of Harris County to sue area polluters. Environmental regulations seems to have taken a step back this session.

Is the United States ruled by 31,976 people?

One of the themes in the early material in this class was that keep a republic - a government based, indirectly, on the people was tough to do. There are forces at work that attempt to constrict power to a smaller handful of elites.

We referred to this as oligarchy, which is a general term describing any system that allows a small elite to rule. More recently the term plutocracy has been used. It refers to ruled by the wealthy. Some argue that the US is becoming more a plutocracy than a democracy. Here's an example.

- Click here for 5 signs America is devolving into a plutocracy.

2305 students will note that the Supreme Court has made recent rulings allowing wealthy people to spend more and more funds on elections. The Center for Responsive Politics conducted a study recently that argued that the increase in spending on elections is driven by the 1% of the 1%.

It might be worth a quick read:

- The Political One Percent of the One Percent in 2014: Mega Donors Fuel Rising Cost of Elections.

Presidential Hairstyles

Can't be serious all the time ya know.

Can you name them?

Magna Carta and the Emergence of Parliament

Can a Board of Dental Examiners prevent non-dentists from offering teeth whitening services?

One of the cases up for grabs dealt with this question.

- Click here for North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission.

The direct answer was no. They - and any other similar licensing board - can be sued for trying arbitrarily to stifle competition.

The reason - as best I can tell - is that doing so allows for monopolistic practices and therefore violates federal anti-trust laws. Normally a state can make its agencies immune from such lawsuits, but the court ruled that that is not necessarily the case if the agency is controlled by a group of professionals that can regulate themselves. In this case, dentists in the state could issue regulations protecting their control of a service. While there can be good reasons for doing so - we don't want just anyone to be able to perform surgery - that same power should not be used to unduly control the market place.

Students interested in writing up this decision might want to look at how the court
struck that balance.

Some useful related terminology.

- License: a document that allows for an activity to be performed - by the holder of the license - the would otherwise be specific. The licensee can be private of public entity.

-  State Licensing: Permission granted by the state for a person or organization to perform a service or engage in an activity or profession. This falls under the reserved powers of the state. Aside from issues raised in cases like this one, the national government giver states leeway in these matters.  For information regard the licensing process in Texas click here for the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. 

- State Licensing Board: The relatively small group of individuals affiliated with a profession that are allowed to determine who can practice that profession. These are established by the state legislature and can be found in the Texas Occupations Code - click here for it. Most of these boards are composed of members who are appointed by the governor - which explains why professional associations get involved in politics. The ability to be able to regulate one's profession is a principle source of power. Click here for a list of the positions that the Texas Governor can appoint.

- Professional Association: Similar to a state licensing board except that they have no governing power. They are nonprofit organizations that seek to further the interests of a particular profession. This includes using the political process to have state boards established and having influence over who is on those boards.

- State Action Antitrust Immunity: A doctrine stating that "state and municipal authorities are immune from federal antitrust lawsuits for actions taken pursuant to a clearly expressed state policy that, when legislated, had foreseeable anti competitive effects. When a state approves and regulates certain conduct, even if it is anti competitive under FTC or DOJ standards, the federal government must respect the decision of the state.' - Source. 

- Antitrust Law: "Legislation enacted by the federal and various state governments to regulate trade and commerce by preventing unlawful restraints, price-fixing, and monopolies; to promote competition; and to encourage the production of quality goods and services at the lowest prices, with the primary goal of safeguarding public welfare by ensuring that consumer demands will be met by the manufacture and sale of goods at reasonable prices." - Source.

- Sherman Antitrust Act: " . . . a landmark federal statute in the history of United States antitrust law (or "competition law") passed by Congress in 1890. It prohibits certain business activities that federal government regulators deem to be anti-competitive, and requires the federal government to investigate and pursue trusts." - Source.

- Federal Trade Commission: "an independent agency of the United States government, established in 1914 by the Federal Trade Commission Act. Its principal mission is the promotion of consumer protection and the elimination and prevention of anticompetitive business practices, such as coercive monopoly." - Source.

- Regulatory Capture: ". . . a form of political corruption that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating." - Source.

From Super Houston: A Garden for Houston? Or a Community Bamboozled?

A local blogger provides a fascinating - and depressing - look at the local decision-making process.

- Click here for the story.

A local community was effectively shut out of the process for determining whether a local golf course would be allowed to develop into a botanical garden. She call this a failed public process, and provides a useful reminder of who runs Houston.

The more I learn, the more frustrated and infuriated I become. My frustration is not related to whether we should have a Botanic Garden, though I remain ambivalent on this topic, it is more because of the absolute absence of a public process. Frankly, even calling it a public process is misleading, as there was nothing public about it. Increasingly decisions at the city level, and in fact at all levels of government, are made for many of the wrong reasons and without a public vetting process. In our city government agencies cater to tourists and visitors instead of supporting Houstonians; and instead of building our neighborhoods, the City gives away millions to Wal-mart and budgets a $75 million slush fund for private developers to build luxury living downtown. How did we get here? And what does it have to do with the proposed Houston Botanic Garden?