Looking ahead to the visual communications assessment

This is all part of my evil plan

If you were irrational, would you know it?

Ahhh! This assignment is driving me bonkers. Irrationality is not my strong point. I pride myself on being a rational thinker, looking at facts, and most, if not all sides of a situation before making a decision on something. Trying to think of something to irrationally rant about for me has been more stressful over this past week than having to do research and make a rational argument for a paper. My actions, that I can control, are usually calculated and deliberate. Maybe this topic is making me irrational, it is definitely putting me under emotional duress and impairing my ability to think of a proper topic to rant about. I looked up types of irrational thoughts to try and decide if there was a topic that I could effectively be irrational about. I cannot think of a single topic that I feel that would fit into one of the categories listed, except one. Irrational people don’t know that they are making irrational arguments because to them, their logic is rational… So maybe I am more irrational than I think.

Topics covered in class today

I'll make this a regular feature. It'll help you stay abreast of what we went over in class - and it'll help me remember.

GOVT 2305- 01/02
- The Critical Thinking Assignment
- The latest on Kim Davis
- Employment Division v Smith
- Lukumi Babalu Aye v Hialeah
- The new lawsuit against the ACA
- US Constitution: Article 1, Section 8
- The delegated and implied powers
- A quick read of the Bill of Rights (will start on the Wednesday)

GOVT 2306-01
- The Critical Thinking Assignment
- The latest on Kim Davis
- Reviewed political culture
- Read through the Texas Declaration of Independence
- Discussed the section on state constitutions
- Quick skim of the content of the Texas Constitution

Catching up - Congressional process on the Iran Nuclear Deal

Some odds and ends for 2305 - we'll make sense of these in class.

- Democrats Block Iran Deal Disapproval.
- Why House Republicans Are Excited About New Iran Strategy.
- House Takes Symbolic Stand Against Iran Deal.
- House Republicans Say Obama Failed to Comply on Iran Deal.

Two important national laws related to religious liberty

Drawing the line between religious liberty and the neutral application of general laws has been tricky recently. The following two laws were meant to make this process easier, but that might have been wishful thinking.

We will look at these in class this week - in 2305 mostly.

- Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
- Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Aside from helping out with formulating answers to this week's written assignment, these will help us walk through the bill making process.

About week 4's "critical thinking" written assignment

You'll see this posted in Blackboard also - thought I'd add it here so we can discuss this in class.

The ongoing controversy involving Kentucky County Clerks Kim Davis' refusal to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples can be framed in ways that apply to both 2305 and 2306.

For 2305:

The controversy allows us to look at a conflict embedded with the Constitution (there are many such conflicts). In this case it is the free exercise of religious belief on the one hand and the guarantee to be protected equally by the laws on the other. Think of it this way, while you may wish to be treated equally before the law - and you can point to a clause in the 14th Amendment that guarantees it - someone else may have a religious objection to some characteristic about you, and wish to deny you a service as a result.

I want you to consider the extent of such objections and ask whether people can use any religious objection to deny a person equal protection, or whether there are some limits on them. Perhaps religious objections are acceptable in some cases, but not others. If this is the case - explain the argument that justifies it. Or perhaps you wish to make the case that no religious belief can be used to deny equal protection of the laws. If that is the case, explain why this value is superior to the freedom against restrictions on the free exercise of religion.

For 2306:

The twist in this case is the fact that the person denying equal protection is a government official, albeit one at the local level - but a position directly impacted by the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision. This means that we can look at the case under the lens of federalism. The general idea is that the manner in which the law is implemented in the United States ought to be consistent, but this isn't always the case. Plenty of policies in the United States vary from state to state - some argue that this is a benefit of a federal system.

What I want you to consider is why this policy - gay marriage - is to be applied equally across the states, while others are not. What makes this one distinct? When you consider your answer, I want you to consider it in terms of the Kentucky County Clerk. Obviously the Supreme Court is arguing that a government official has to comply with the court's decision - though I have a hunch this will itself wind up in the Supreme Court. Why do county clerks have to comply with this type of ruling when they are allowed to implement other laws - voting rules for example.

For info:

- Regarding Kin Davis.
- Wikipedia: Miller v. Davis.

I'll add content and links soon, and let me know what questions you have, but start thinking about this. And keep in mind that unlike last week's rant, this is to be an objective, analytical work.

Now this is a rant

Please join me in admiring this work of art:

How I felt about doctors until recently – you went to four years of undergrad then four years of medical school then completed a three to seven year residency then a fellowship and you have been practicing medicine for over a decade and you don’t know what’s wrong with me? From the endocrinologist to the cardiologist to the neurologist to the rheumatologist each and every one of them can tell me something is wrong but can’t tell me what. The people in the ER know me by name. Blood work and urine samples were taken weekly (and I HATE needles), stress tests were done monthly, body scans with contrast were done quarterly, exploratory surgeries were performed and still none of these idiots could tell me why I was having episodes where the pain in my stomach was so bad I couldn’t move why my hands and feet would turn purple and I would lose feeling in my legs and become unable to walk and then my chest would begin to burn and I couldn’t breathe. No one could tell me why I went from running 10 miles a day to barley being able to walk up the stairs without passing out, why my hair was fallen out in clumps, why I gained 25 pounds in less than three weeks or why my knees and wrists and face swell so much that I look like a damn chipmunk. It was nearly four years of doctors telling me I was crazy – of doctors throwing pain meds and anti- depressants at me only to apologize when my labs came back with a combination of the lowest and highest numbers they had ever seen. Seriously how can you not tell what is going on do you not have a brain?! These Doctors think they are God; I mean you certainly cannot ride in an elevator with them because their ego is much too large to fit another human being in there. But still they couldn’t fix me. I went to a functional medicine doctor who in 45 minutes (Not even an hour) determined my spleen was not functioning at all, my adrenal glands were barley functioning, my ovaries were about to shut down, I had a leaky gut, and I was allergic to medication, chlorine, wheat, dairy, soy, corn, strawberries, bananas, cane sugar, brown sugar, oatmeal, honey and maple syrup – since I stopped eating those foods I have not had a single episode, or problem walking, and the pain in my joints is gone. ARE YOU KIDDING ME – I am having allergic reactions? Doctors who graduated from Harvard couldn’t figure out I was having an allergic reactions! Prior to my health problems I was healthy woman with less than 15% body fat who ate healthy diet that consisted of protein, ‘healthy’ grains, fruits, veggies, milk, good fats, and an occasional splurge meal. Why did no doctor catch this why were they not trained on proper nutrition? My health issues took away my confidence, independence, and the little money I had. My health issues and the doctor’s inability to treat me made me incapable of attending my dream art school in London - having been accepted and not being able to attend nearly killed me. Last week one of my doctor told that he thinks a good portion of my health problems were caused by stress. I didn’t respond I just nodded – no shit Sherlock, I was in an abusive relationship for years and the person I was closest to died and the house I was living in was yanked out from under my feet and the 50K in their will that was supposed to go to me, the executor kept for himself. I won’t let him win or ruin my chances; I refuse to be a victim. I am becoming stronger every day, I’m running, and lifting and boxing. I am becoming more spiritual and centered. I am volunteering and learning to think more of others issues than to focus on my own. I am launching my own business at the end of this year, and I am attending art school in NYC in the spring – which are two of my biggest dreams. But most of all I am learning that not only am I worthy of love but that I can love myself again. I am ____ effing _____ and I will not be pushed down!

No. You. Will. Not.

A List of United States Senators from Texas

From Wikipedia of course.

- Click here for it.

Notice that Texas' Senators fall into class 1 or class 2. This establishes when these senators face re-election. The manner in which senators face the electorate is established in the Constitution - click here for it - and is meant to ensure that the general population only has a minimal impact on the institution. 2/3rds are immune from the electorate in each election.

- Click here for a description of the process.

And.....

- For a full list of senators in class 1 click here.
- For a full list of senators in class 2 click here.
- For a full list of senators in class 3 click here.

Texas' 14th and 22nd congressional districts

2305 students have seen these already, but I'll add them so we can start talking about the re-districting process - including gerrymandering - on both 2305 and 2306.

Here's the map of the 14th Congressional district:



- Wikipedia: Texas's 14th congressional district.

And here's the 22nd Congressional District




- Wikipedia: Texas's 22nd congressional district.

If you scroll down to ACC - click here for District Viewer -  you'll see that the campus straddles both districts. We'll look at the people who hold each office, and factors about them, in the next week or two.

Substantive Rant of the Day

From one of your fellow students:

I use the road both as an automobile driver and a cyclist. I’ll begin with my perspective from a raging war between automobile drivers and cyclists.

Drivers seem to have forgotten basic rules of the road when they took the driving test so many years ago. Bicycles are considered a vehicle and have equal rights to the road. However, that doesn’t seem to matter to most drivers, especially in Houston. I’ve been swerved at, yelled at, smoked out by country bumpkins in their giant diesel pickup trucks, and run off the road on several instances. Check out any cycling video or news story and you will see the amount of hate in the comments. Cyclists are a minority here especially and drivers feel they are entitled to the entire road. They complain that cyclists hold them up, that we should ride on the sidewalk, that we don’t stop at stop signs, and we don’t pay taxes. The ignorance is appalling.

Sure, there are some cyclists who don’t follow the law like stopping at stop signs, just like there are drivers who fail to stop. The problem is a clear bias toward the automobile that leads to drivers failing to see those who do actually follow the law, of which I am one. It’s almost laughable to consider the complaint that we should ride on the sidewalk. They simply fail to consider the WORDS they’re saying…”sideWALK”! In the city, it’s actually illegal to ride on the sidewalk, however as a road cyclist riding ~20+ mph, it’s also incredibly dangerous. Sidewalks are just that, for walking. Also the argument that cyclists don’t pay taxes is complete crap. Most cyclists, especially here, are recreational, which means we also own car(s). We ride for physical fitness, for the comadre of others who share the interest and competitive nature of the sport, and for a sense of freedom. We therefore pay taxes, have insurance, and share the road with all road users alike.

Another problem is the lack of legal support when a cyclist is hit by an automobile. The classic line, “He came out of no where” seems to be a get out of jail free card for a driver hitting a cyclist, yet use that same line when they hit another automobile and they are cited for causing a collision. Too often a cyclist is hit and injured or killed while the driver escapes with no penalty at all. It seems when someone is behind the wheel, they forget that fellow road users are also human beings; fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, etc. Which brings me to the second part.

As another automobile driver, I can’t count how many inconsiderate pricks I’ve seen on the road. The most annoying are those who cut all the way to the front of a long line of cars in traffic, crossing the solid lines, just to cut right in front of the line. My second rant is the failure to use a turn signal. So annoying sitting there waiting at a stop sign when someone pulls up, then turns on you with no warning. Really?! I could go on, but that about covers the bulk of my rants about drivers. I hear other parts of the country are worse, but Houston I believe was recently ranked as one of the worst.

For related items. Click on Houston Ghost Bike.
And I think this is an interesting read: The forgotten history of how automakers invented the crime of "jaywalking"

A federal district judge allows another lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act to go forward

ScotusBlog describes the case - and states that it breaks new Constitutional ground. This should be of interest to 2305 students who are starting to dig into Article One of the U.S. Constitution. It involves who controls the national purse strings. this story also illustrates the checks and balances - albeit one of the more unusual ones.

- Click here for the article.
- Click here for the ruling.

It looks at a key part of Article One - one we talked about in class last week, the appropriations clause - and asks whether the House of Representatives has standing to sue the executive branch in how it is implementing the law it passed a few years back.

From the decision: 

Article I of the United States Constitution established the Congress, which comprises a House of Representatives and a Senate. U.S. Const. art. I, § 1. Only these two bodies, acting together, can pass laws—including the laws necessary to spend public money. In this respect, Article I is very clear: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . . .” U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7.

Through this lawsuit, the House of Representatives complains that Sylvia Burwell, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Jacob Lew, the Secretary of the Treasury, and their respective departments (collectively the Secretaries) have spent billions of unappropriated dollars to support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The House further alleges that Secretary Lew and Treasury have, under the guise of implementing regulations, effectively amended the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate by delaying its effect and narrowing its scope.  

The Secretaries move to dismiss, arguing that the House lacks standing to sue. They argue that only the Executive has authority to implement the laws, and urge this Court to stay out of a quintessentially political fight in which the House is already well armed. The House opposes, adamant that it has been injured in several concrete ways, none of which can be ameliorated through the usual political processes. The only issue before the Court is whether the House can sue the Secretaries; the merits of this lawsuit await another day

And the judge says it can go forward with that issue.

ScotusBlog explains the nuances of the House of Representatives complaint:

As part of the ACA’s policy of helping millions of lower-income Americans to obtain health insurance at affordable rates, the law has a variety of subsidy provisions. The Supreme Court in June upheld the system that provides lower-income consumers with a form of tax credit to help them afford policies that are sold on insurance marketplaces (or “exchanges”); that financial provision is not at issue in the House’s lawsuit. But the lawsuit explicitly targets a mechanism to encourage health insurance companies to reduce the costs of coverage for lower-income individuals.

The House claimed in court that, although Congress has in fact voted the funds to pay for the subsidy system keyed to the insurance exchanges, it has never approved any funds to cover the expense of the cost-sharing approach — technically, the “cost-sharing offsets.” The ACA required insurance companies taking part in the new program to specifically reduce the co-pays charged to consumers when they visit doctors’ offices or other health facilities. The federal government then steps in to reimburse the insurers for absorbing those costs.

In going to court, the House contended that the Obama administration has asked for, but never obtained, actual legislation appropriating those reimbursement funds, but instead has simply taken the money out of accounts at the Treasury and sent checks to the insurers. This, it argued, was a direct violation of the Constitution’s command that no federal funds may be spent unless approved, in advance, by Congress.

The administration has argued in response that the ACA itself provided all the authority that the government needed to finance the cost-sharing provision, so there was no need to ask Congress explicitly to put up the money. Officials also have disputed the House claim that they did, in fact, ask for appropriations.

The NYT has a great graphic with a history of party primaries since 1972

Specifically it shows when candidates for each part announced and ended their campaigns.

- Click here for it.

These links might also be good sources for your essays:

- NYT: Who Is Running for President?
- NYT: Which Presidential Candidates Are Winning the Money Race.
- NYT: 2016 Primary Calendar and Results.

From Vox: Tea Party Republicans want to fire John Boehner

This has been brewing for a while

- Click here for the article.

John Boehner has been through debt-ceiling fights, a government shutdown, and increasingly bitter challenges to his authority. But never has his job as speaker of the House seemed to be in so much jeopardy as right now.

Top Republicans expect that one of Boehner's adversaries within the Republican conference will try to force a vote on whether to dump him from the speakership this fall, according to Politico. If he survives that, which might require support from some House Democrats, many Republicans think Boehner should or will step down at the end of this Congress.

On the surface, it's an odd fix for Boehner to find himself in: He came to Congress as a reformer and rose to the speakership as an antidote to the big-government conservative ways of leaders who pushed the No Child Left Behind and Medicare prescription drug programs into law. He's even presided over a permanent extension of most of the Bush tax cuts and significant reductions in federal spending.

But on a deeper level, Boehner has long been the last sentry for the party, using charm, strategic superiority, and his control over House rules to prevent the Tea Party wing from crashing through the gates of the establishment and putting Washington on total legislative lockdown. That has made Boehner the immediate proxy for the war grassroots conservatives are waging against the GOP's Washington insiders, and his enemies are emboldened by Donald Trump's ability to galvanize an anti-establishment fervor that shows no signs of subsiding.

Wikipedia: Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

From the Baltimore Sun: The death of the congressional committee

This is a few years old, but it illustrates how things change in Congress.

- Click here for it.

Woodrow Wilson once observed: "Congress in committee is Congress at work." But what was once a keen observation is now little more than an anachronism describing a Congress that no longer exists. In theory, the committee structure is crucial to a functioning Congress. By dividing the work among specialized "mini-congresses," the committee system allows Congress to become greater than the sum of its parts. Committees allow Congress to overcome the challenges of managing a diverse and numerous body through specialization and structure. Perhaps of greater import, committees offer the promise of deliberation, moderation and compromise as a multitude of voices contribute to the crafting of legislation … in theory.

In reality, the committee system in Congress has become increasingly irrelevant, especially with regard to what might be considered major or controversial legislation. Instead, most major policy decisions are made, not through a process of deliberation, but through the concerted efforts of party leadership and often with the total exclusion of not only minority party members but most of the rank and file membership of the majority party as well.

For more:

- Wikipedia: United States congressional committee.

Rant of the day

I'll post more - I like this assignment.

My rant is going to be about the excessive amount of cellphone use that my generation has begun to indulge in. I go to concerts, rivers, parties, it doesn't matter. Anywhere I go, I see kids my age on their phones. I could'nt stand to miss something exciting and beautiful because my gaze is stuck on a two by four inch cell phone screen. It bothers me so much that people at volleyball, football, and basketball games are taking pictures for instagram or snapchat. How do you even enjoy the experience of an outing this way? Stuck behind your cell phone. It is obnoxious as a waitress, to be standing at a table waiting to take an order from a 17 year old who is stuck behind a cell phone and ignoring their parents for the entire meal. It makes me wonder what beautiful intellectual conversations people were forced to have before the cell phone was invented. It is like the people around me are zombies, when I talk to them, they just tune out to my words and tune into their cell phones. Seriously kids, disconnect yourselves, so we can reconnect to what matters, the people and experiences around us. "I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots."-Albert Einstein

From the TSHA: On this day in history: The Jaybird-Woodpecker War heats up

This is from this past Sunday, but its a good early look at parties in the state of Texas, in addition to race relations.

- Click here for detail about the war.

On this day in 1888, white members of a political association known as the Jaybirds held a mass meeting in Richmond, Texas, and ordered Charles Ferguson and several other black political leaders to leave Fort Bend County within ten hours. The so-called Jaybird-Woodpecker War was a feud between two political factions for the control of Fort Bend County. The Jaybirds, representing most of the white population, were the regular Democrats who sought to rid the county of the Republican government that had gained control during Reconstruction. The Woodpeckers, numbering about forty persons and also claiming to be Democrats, were the officials and former officials who held office as a result of the black vote for the Republican ticket. Former friends, neighbors, and relatives became bitter enemies as a result of the feud. The election of 1888 engendered much bitterness. After one Jaybird leader was killed and another wounded, the party met in Richmond and expelled a number of Woodpecker leaders. The Woodpeckers won the election in spite of this, and the violence continued. After the riot known as the "Battle of Richmond" in 1889, the Woodpeckers were driven from office. In October a further series of meetings in Richmond established the Jaybird Democratic Organization of Fort Bend County. The whites-only organization dominated Fort Bend County politics for the next seventy years.

In the news: Cuts to funding for child therapy

In recent days, this has become more and more controversial. The legislature cut a sizable amount of money from the budget that had gone to reimburse doctors who provided - through Medicaid - physical therapy to poor and disabled children.

- For background click here:
- Medicaid Budget Kicks Can Down Road, Experts Say.
- Texas to Move Forward With Cuts to Children's Therapy.

Now there's a backlash. Republicans in Texas are joining Democrats in questioning the wisdom of the cuts. (This makes me wonder if members of the legislature knew exactly what they were doing when they voted on the General Appropriations Bill last spring.) The cuts were in response to increased spending on health care on the state - increases are happening nationally as well - in addition to a now disputed study which argued that Texas pay more on therapy than other states.
- Click here for the study.

Some of the initial push back against the cuts is coming from health care providers - and reveals a battle between in-patient and out-patient providers.
- For detail: Behind Medicaid Cuts, a Fight Over Child Therapy.

Here's a look at how this conflict is playing out:
- Families of Disabled Children Sue Texas Over Medicaid Cuts.
- GOP opposition emerges to huge cuts in Medicaid services for disabled Texas children.

From the TSHA - On this day in history East Dallas was incorporated and the border of

OK, its a day late, but it's a look at how cities are both developed and terminated.

- Click here for Texas Day by Day.
- Click here for the TSHA entry on East Dallas.

On this day in 1882, East Dallas was incorporated. In 1872 William H. Gaston had begun promoting settlement in the area and had persuaded the railroads to go through East Dallas. In the 1870s East Dallas became a popular recreation destination on the streetcar lines that ran from Dallas to the state fairs and the horse-racing track. East Dallas was considered the most luxurious place to live in Dallas County; 90 percent of its houses had running water by 1889. The main thoroughfares were well maintained, and a speed limit of eighteen miles an hour was set to slow down swift horses. In 1886 the first all-brick schoolhouse in Dallas County was built in East Dallas. In 1887 another boom occurred there when the Texas State Fair and Dallas Exposition at Fair Park opened. In 1889 the legislature revoked the charter of East Dallas so it could become part of Dallas. Some claimed that those who revoked the charter did so to make Dallas the largest town in Texas. The city of Dallas took over all the debt of East Dallas in addition to its streets, schools, and public buildings. On December 31, 1889, the day before East Dallas officially became part of Dallas, the city council of East Dallas passed $45,000 in street improvements, which Dallas was forced to finance.

So what is the Iranian nuclear deal all about anyway?

It's one of the items that Congress had on its agenda as it came back to DC this week. Republicans had the opportunity to derail it, but enough Democrats seem to have lined up behind the president to prevent that from happening. We will discuss that procedural issue in a separate post, but here are links where you get background about the deal itself.

First, what are the existing sanctions?
- Wikipedia: U.S. sanctions against Iran.
- CFR: International Sanctions on Iran.

And what is in the deal?
- Vox: Here's the full text of the Iran nuclear deal.
- Vox: The Iran deal, explained in clear language by a nuclear expert.
- Wikipedia: Iran nuclear deal framework.
- PolitiFact Sheet: 6 things to know about the Iran nuclear deal.

Some basic facts about the 114th Congress

Before I post too many items related to Congress, here are links to basic info about the current Congress. It is called the 114th because it is the 114th Congress elected since the ratification of the Constitution.

Of course there's a Wikipedia page devoted to it.

- Click here to get to it.

If you scroll to the bottom of the page you'll see links to separate pages of all the Congresses dating back to the first which met from 1789 to 1791. Here's more, we'll discuss basic facts about it in class.

- Ballotpedia: 114th Congress.
- Congressional Research Service: Membership of the 114th Congress: A Profile.

And for the institutions themselves:

- U.S. House.
- U.S. Senate.

Will there be a government shutdown over funding to Planned Parenthood?

Some news sources think that is where Congress is headed. The Republican rank and file seems to angling for one, the leadership seems resistant, but that may lead to a move against them - John Boehner's speakership may be on the line

- Politico: Countdown to shutdown begins: It's not clear how Republican leaders plan to resolve the standoff over Planned Parenthood funding.

Congress returned from its long summer vacation Tuesday to an all-out, three-week sprint to avert a government shutdown – and no apparent plan yet to quell the conservative rebellion over Planned Parenthood that has dramatically increased the odds of a closure.

The mad dash – just 11 legislative work days left to solve the shutdown crisis, in between major votes on the Iran nuclear deal and the first-ever papal address to a joint session of Congress – presents a major test for Republican leaders in both chambers who vowed to end crisis-driven legislating.

The smart money is on Congress doing what it typically does when it’s up against a deadline: Find a short-term fix and delay the fight for later. But the dynamics are so fluid and passions high that no one truly knows how it will wind up on Sept. 30, the final day of the fiscal year and last day to extend funding or have the government close its doors.

- National Journal: Republican Leaders’ Stressful September: They’ve already lost the Iran fight, and more infighting over Planned Parenthood funding awaits.

Repub­lic­an Con­gres­sion­al lead­ers are fa­cing a stress­ful Septem­ber, burdened with a best-case out­come of main­tain­ing the status quo in gov­ern­ment fund­ing and a worst-case out­come of an­oth­er gov­ern­ment shut­down.

Adding to their head­aches, a flurry of Demo­crat­ic sen­at­ors pledged late last week to sup­port the Ir­an deal, elim­in­at­ing the pos­sib­il­ity that Con­gress could over­ride a pres­id­en­tial veto of a res­ol­u­tion dis­ap­prov­ing of the mul­tina­tion­al deal.

And as dis­sat­is­fac­tion with their lead­er­ship peaks on the right, it re­mains un­clear what con­sequences could arise for top Re­pub­lic­ans in they fail to de­liv­er on sought-after con­ser­vat­ive de­mands, par­tic­u­larly strip­ping Planned Par­ent­hood of roughly $500 mil­lion in an­nu­al fed­er­al fund­ing.

- The Atlantic: The Plot Against Planned Parenthood and John Boehner.

It has become an annual harbinger of autumn in this era of divided government: The calendar swings from August to September, Congress returns from its long summer break, and Republican leaders try to figure out how to keep the federal lights on past the end of the month.

In 2013, John Boehner gave in to Senator Ted Cruz and his conservative allies in the House, and the government shut down for two weeks in a failed fight over Obamacare. A year ago, Boehner and Mitch McConnell succeeded in twiceputting off a losing battle over immigration until after they could wrest control of the Senate from the Democrats.

With federal funding set to expire on September 30, conservatives are once again demanding a standoff that Boehner and McConnell are hell-bent on avoiding. This time around, the issue that might prevent an orderly—if temporary—extension of funding is Planned Parenthood. Along with Cruz, House conservativesinsist that any spending bill sent to President Obama’s desk explicitly prohibit taxpayer dollars from going to the women’s health organization, which has come under fire over undercover videos that purportedly show its officials discussing the sale of fetal tissue. Democrats have rallied around Planned Parenthood, and an effort to ax its approximately $500 million in annual funding is likely to fall short, either by running into a filibuster in the Senate or a presidential veto.

Why does Congress recess each August?

Congress is back in session as of 9/8/15 - it takes each August off. Why?

- Here's an explanation from the U.S.Senate's website.

It's about the heat:

Each year, Congress recesses for the month of August. During the Senate's early years, senators typically convened a session in December and adjourned in the spring, before the summer heat overwhelmed them and their small staff. When the Senate moved to its current chamber in 1859, senators were optimistic about its "modern" ventilation system, but they found the new system ineffective. The 1920s brought "manufactured weather" to the Senate chamber, but even modern climate control could not cope with the hottest days, forcing 20th-century senators to find ways to escape the summer heat. By the mid-20th century, a more modern air conditioning system brought relief, but year-long sessions presented new problems. By the 1950s the job of a U.S. senator was a full-time, year-round job and there were very few breaks built into the legislative calendar. In 1963, for example, the Senate met from January to December without a break longer than a three-day weekend. Consequently,members of Congress sought a way to establish a summertime recess. In 1970, finally facing the reality of year-long sessions, Congress mandated a summer break as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act. Today, the August recess continues to be a regular feature of the Senate schedule, a chance for senators to spend time with family, meet with constituents in their home states, and catch up on summer reading.

A congressional staffer argues that the recess makes life better for everyone.

Since the explanation mentioned the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, here's a bit on it:
- Wikipedia: Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970.
- Public Law 91-510.
- Here is the description of the reorganization from House.gov:

Proposed by the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, the legislation overhauled congressional internal procedures and administration for the first time in a generation. The House passed the final version of the bill on October 8, 1970. The reforms made House and Senate processes more transparent by making all committee hearings (excluding national security meetings and Appropriations) public, as well as by permitting televised broadcasts of many of these committee hearings. The most extraordinary change to the House of Representatives was the addition of electronic voting to the House Chamber. The state of the art million-dollar system eventually went into operation on January 23, 1973. The first vote was a 15 minute roll call vote of Members, which prior to the electronic system took on average 30 to 45 minutes.

If you feel ambitious read the following:
- A Brief History of Congressional Reform Efforts.

Past posts on political culture

The links below takes you to previous posts that touched on political culture in Texas

- Click here for it.

It may help illuminate some of the material in the section on political culture across the state, especially those that focus on political conflict. There's a reason Texas like to fight the feds so much. I'm not sure how much more Texas is than other states though - that might be a good research project.

Texas House District 29

If you are in 2306 you may have also found that you live in Texas House District 29. Since House districts are smaller, there's a greater chance that you live in an adjoining district, Since ACC is in the 29th, I'll focus on it. Right now Ed Thompson holds the seat.

Here's more about it:

- The map of HD 29.
- District Viewer. For zooming in.
- District Profile.
- Texas Tribune: Texas House District 29.
- BallotPedia: Texas State House District 29.

Texas Senate District 11

Many of you in 2306 found out that you live in Texas Senate District 11 - and are now represented by Larry Taylor. More on Senator Taylor later, but here are a links that contain maps and demographic info about the district. We'll look through these in class.

- The map of SD 11.
- District Viewer. You can zoom into the district here.
- District Profile.
- Texas Tribune: Texas Senate District 11.
- BallotPedia: Texas State Senate District 11.

Redistricting in the State

Some of what we will be doing this week is to look at the surrounding legislative districts - both US and Texas - and the people who represent them. Its the subject of the second written assignment, so this should be old news to most of you.

We'll be looking at the redistricting process later this semester, but to get a head start on it click below:

- Texas Legislative Council: Texas Redistricting.
- District Viewer.

The TLC has a page devoted to the history of redistricting in the state.

- Click here for it.

It's worth a look. As with other - mostly southern - states, Texas' redistricting plans have been challenged repeatedly based on the argument that majorities in the legislature attempt to limit the voting strength of racial and ethnic minorities statewide. The Supreme Court is set to consider a Texas yet another case involving redistricting in the state this coming term

- Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan.
- U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Texas Redistricting Case.
- Texas accused of purposely excluding minorities in redistricting.

This week in 2305

First I'd like to make sure that we are comfortable with the layout of the Constitution, Then I want to hit the major points made in the sections focused on constitutional principles. I'll save a look at the section on religious liberty for next week - unless we make a lot of headway this week. This might be a bit too ambitious for my MW classes because we lost Monday to Labor Day, but we'l do what we can.

I'd like to also make sure we are comfortable with the arguments made in the Federalist Papers that I highlight for each section. We should also try to get comfortable with the arguments the Anti-Federalists made against them.

As far as news events go - I'll continue to throw out links to items related to the election - I'll try to narrow these down to the topics you've decided to write about, but I'll spread the net wide since come of you are undecided, and other might decide to change your focus.

Congress is back in session tomorrow after their August recess enters, so we will begin to follow them - conveniently enough, this will be right before we start looking at the legislative branch next week.

This week in 2306

I want to hit a few points about federalism before we continue with new material.I want to review those parts of the US Constitution that impact the states - they will help makes sense of any controversy that arises between the US and Texas as the class continues. And I want to make sure we are clear about what the stages of federalism are all about. Often it has to do with the shifts in the understanding of the parts of the US Constitution we covered in the previous section.

As soon as we do - I want to run through the section on political culture and make sure we are comfortable with the idea of an individualistic, moralistic and traditionalistic cultures and how they help explain political debate across the nation. This sets us up for a look at the Texas Declaration of Independence which - at least in part - contains cultural conflict between the Texans and the Mexican Government.

The latest on the 2016 Campaign

Some stories worth a look:

- From Politico: How Trump Exposed the Tea Party: The proof is in: the GOP base isn’t small-government libertarian; it’s old-fashioned populist. This interested me more than the rest. It looks at the things Trump is saying right now and uses it to call into question what the Tea Party has been argued to be over the past 6 or 7 years: The success of Trump’s campaign has, if nothing else, exposed the Tea Party for what it really is; Trump’s popularity is, in effect, final proof of what some of us have been arguing for years: that the Tea Party is less a libertarian movement than a right-wing version of populism.

- From 538: The Republican Establishment Is Waiting On The Sidelines. We mentioned the establishment wind of the Republican Party previously, and here's a story focused on them and their strategy ahead. They tend to wait out insurgent movements like Trump's, and rally behind a consensus candidate eventually. The author argues that the lack of one candidate they can rally behind might explain Trump's popularity.

- From 538: The Endorsement Primary. This is from a link in the previous story. I'm a sucker for anything that reads "the ____ primary." This lists the number of endorsements the presidential candidates have received so far.

- From Politico: How Trump Can Ensure Democratic Dominance for Generations: It happened before, 90 years ago, when the GOP cracked down hard on immigrants. Republicans never recovered. There's nice history here. The author compares the current anti-immigration positions of the Republican candidates with those of Republican Presidents in the 1920s. Democrats went on an electoral tear after that period. Might they do it again?

Regarding Kim Davis

Davis is the Clerk of Rowan County Kentucky who has been in the news for refusing to issue marriage license to same sex couples - or anyone else for that matter - due to her religious beliefs, despite the fact that a recent Supreme Court case mandates that she do so.

There are a few aspects of this issue that apply to both 2305 and 2306. In 2305 I see us looking at the case next week when we get further into religious liberty - which is the subject of one of the sections that opened up this week.

One is the role of the county clerk in state government. A second related issue is whether religious liberty is a legitimate excuse - as defined by the court - for nor performing a political duty. A third involves speculation about where this case goes from here, and finally how this might impact the presidential race - where have the candidates aligned themselves on this issue and what does this tell us about their campaign strategies?

Here are few links for background purposes:
- Wikipedia: Kim Davis.
- Wikipedia: Rowan County, Kentucky.
- The Weaker Party: What is a county clerk anyway?

And background about the case from the NYT:
- Clerk in Kentucky Chooses Jail Over Deal on Same-Sex Marriage.
- Kentucky Clerk Defies Court on Marriage Licenses for Gay Couples.

Since her opposition stems form the recent gay marriage decision, here's some detail on the case it was based on. We'll discuss it in depth when we cover civil rights soon:
- Wikipedia: Obergefell v. Hodges.

A couple items on religious liberty:
- Will Kentucky clerk's jailing move needle on debate over religious liberty?
- The Fatal Flaw in Kim Davis’s Appeal.

And for the impact of the issue on the presidential election:
- Do GOP Hopefuls Care More About the Law or “Religious Liberty”? A Kim Davis Roundup.
- Presidential Candidates Take Sides On Support For Kentucky Clerk.
- Here is Where All the Republican Presidential Candidates Stand on Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis.
- Here's How GOP Presidential Candidates Are Responding to County Clerk Kim Davis' Arrest.
- Clerk’s gay marriage protest divides the Republican field.

Looking ahead to the US Budgeting Process

The following page from Congress.gov lists the various appropriations bills that are waiting to be considered one Congress ends its recess. None are close to being passed.

- Click here to see them.

The U.S. Constitution does not contain the word Budget - but it does state that money cannot be drawn from the treasury with an appropriation made by Congress. That what these are. We will discus them further because the national government's fiscal year is about to end, and if these are not passed - or something called a supplemental appropriations is not passed - money cannot be drawn and affected agencies have to be shutdown.

The fiscal year starts October 1st.

For more background and relevant links:

- Wikipedia: Appropriations bill.
- Wikipedia: United States budget process.
- U.S. Budget for fiscal year 2016.
- 2015 Economic Report of the President.
- US House: Committee on Appropriations.
- US Senate: Committee on Appropriations.          

Best Of Enemies - Official Trailer

Building off the post below - ABC hired Buckley and Vidal to comment on each party's convention - back when they were still worth watching. It was good TV. Clips of almost all of their work can be found floating around You Tube.

By the way, you wouldn't know it from listening to them,. but Buckley's parents were from south Texas and Vidal's were from Oklahoma.

William Buckley v Gore Vidal

In 2305 we discussed the debate between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine as being the starting point in the debate between what we now call "liberalism" and "conservatism." More recently, the debate between William Buckley and Gore Vidal did the same, and in a manner we might recognize better since they fought from the 60s through the early 2000s. Understanding these two helps us get acquainted with how we got to where we are now.

A recent article in Politico discusses -unfavorably - a current documentary on the debate between the two. It's worth a read.

- Buckley vs. Vidal: The Real Story.

More on the 2016 race

- From Politico: Trump will sign GOP loyalty pledge: The Donald made the stunning decision to avoid complications in getting listed on primary ballots.

A close associate tells POLITICO that Donald Trump plans to sign a loyalty pledge Thursday that would bind him to endorsing the Republican nominee and would preclude a third-party run. Trump made the stunning decision, which he has long resisted, to avoid complications in getting listed on primary ballots, and to take away an attack line in the next debate, the associate said.

- Slate: Texas Two-Steps All Over Voting Rights: It says it can make voting as difficult as it wants to, and any law that says otherwise is unconstitutional.

In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, one of the most important pieces of legislation in U.S. history. It contained key protections for minority voters, especially blacks, who had been effectively disenfranchised in the South. The act was a remarkable success, increasing minority voter registration and turnout rates within a few years. In 1982, an important amendment made it much easier for minority voters to elect candidates of their choice. Then, following the contested 2000 elections, states started passing new voting rules along partisan lines. As part of these voting wars, conservative states began passing laws making it harder to register and vote, restrictions that seemed to fall most on poor and minority voters.

- The Hill: DNC chief faces perilous fall.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has a tough fall ahead. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) chief is under fire from some of the top Democratic presidential hopefuls over her handling of the primary debates, and she's facing a huge decision over whether to support President Obama's historic nuclear deal with Iran.

Those issues highlight the difficulties facing the six-term Florida Democrat as she juggles her responsibilities to the president she supports, the constituents she represents and the broader party she's leading into the high-stakes 2016 elections. Wasserman Schultz's primary role as DNC head is to devise a campaign message that unifies the Democrats and distinguishes their priorities from those of the Republicans in the eyes of voters. But both the debate controversy and the Iran vote have distracted from that objective, threatening to undermine the show of Democratic unity even as party leaders are calling attention to the deep divisions in the GOP.

-  Inside Jeb Bush’s fall strategy to deflate Trump and court conservatives.

This is not how Jeb Bush thought his summer would end. The candidate once seen as the most likely Republican presidential nominee is languishing in the polls, his fundraising has slowed, and he endures daily taunts from the rival who unseated him as the front-runner, Donald Trump. Through it all, Bush is sticking to the same strategy that he and his advisers laid out months ago: Establish himself as a tested ­conservative reformer who served eight years as Florida governor, ride out the chaotic pre-primary season and wait for the party to coalesce around him.

Even as he shifts tactics over the short term to fight back against Trump, Bush is plodding forward, returning time and again in his appearances to the comfort zone of his years in Tallahassee, Florida’s capital, when he was an alpha leader and fellow Republicans showed him deference rather than defiance.

The Texas Supreme Court hears arguments from the oil industry against the right of Houston to regulate pollution.

State limits on local autonomy have been in the news all year - mostly in the legislature - but now the judiciary weighs in. An industry group wants Houston's clean air ordinance declared unconstitutional

The case is called BCCA Appeal Group Inc. v City of Houston.

- Click here for the oral arguments before the Texas Supreme Court.
- A description of the case from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
- Case file.
- Houston’s environmental protection ordinances go to the Supreme Court.

- Some detail from the Texas Tribune: Houston Argues for Right to Regulate Pollution.

Two ordinances passed by the city of Houston to regulate air pollution reflect the spirit of the Texas Clean Air Act and state environmental regulations and should be allowed to stand, lawyers for the city argued on Wednesday before the Texas Supreme Court.

The ordinances, passed in 2007 and 2008, require industrial polluters to register with the city and follow state emission guidelines, at risk of being fined. The local rules are necessary, attorney Robert Higgason argued on Houston's behalf, so the city can plug gaps in environmental enforcement left by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
“The point of all this is to protect the public and the environment, to have clean air, and the TCEQ, for the Texas Clean Air Act, envisions that it be vigorously enforced,” Higgason said. “This is what the statute makes reference to — cities being allowed to enact and enforce their own ordinances to achieve the goal of the Texas Clean Air Act.”
BCCA Appeal Group, a coalition of industrial facility owners including ExxonMobil, the Dow Chemical Company and ConocoPhillips, has sued to strike down the ordinances, arguing Houston is exceeding its authority under state law.

“The Legislature has already addressed what cities can do to address this problem...and they’ve turned what should be an administrative and civil regime, that should be consistently applied, into a local criminal statute,” BCAA attorney Evan Young argued. “To convert it from something very different from what the Legislature intended degrades and erodes the meaning of the act.”

What does the U.S. Constitution say about states?

Some detail for this week in 2306. This is a companion piece to the post below about the text of Article Four of the U.S. Constitution. Here are highlights of the parts of the U.S. Constitution that have the largest impact on the states, or allow the states to have the largest impact on it.

It related to the subject matter of the set of slides labelled Federalism in the United States Constitution.

The Preamble: "We the People" Established that the nation has an equal sovereign footing as the states.

Article 1, Section 2: "the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature." States had full power to determine who was able to vote in elections for national office. This power becomes modified in a series of amendment beginning with the 15th, and proceeding through the 19th, 24th and 26th.

Article 1, Section 3: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote." The Senate was composed of individuals who represented the interests of the states, not the people of the states/ This would change with the ratification of the 17th Amendment.

Article 1, Section 4: :The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof." Electoral laws are the responsibility of the states. This includes registration requirements, rules concerning political parties, primary elections, voter ID requirements, and the drawing of house districts and a variety of other matters. All these can be impacted by the Voting Rights Act, which rests on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Article 1, Section 8: This section contains the delegated powers, some of which - though not all - are shared with the states.

Article 1, Section 10: This section lists the powers denied to the states. Its meant to ensure that the states do not have national powers.

Article 2, Section 1: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." As with congressional elections, the presidential election is based on rules established within each state determining how electoral college votes are allocated.

Article 4: All of it, click here.

Article 5: 3/4ths of the states have to ratify a constitutional amendment in order for it to be added to the constitution, which is a very high bar to clear.

Article 6: All of it, click here.

Article 7: "The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same." The document was not sent to the state legislatures fro ratification - as originally promised, but instead went to conventions in each state. The Federalists thought they;d have a better chance of stacking the deck in their favor in conventions.

The 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law . . ." This did not limit state governments until the 14th Amendment. This applied to the rest of the Bill of Rights as well - it did not limit state power as originally written.

The 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." State powers have no limits - appart from those established in section 10 of article 1.

The 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." This placed a limit on what had been previously considered a state prerogative.

The 14th Amendment: Limits state power in a number of ways:

1 - "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." For the first time the national government establishes what it means to become a citizens of the nation. Citizenship has a dual nature.

2 - "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" All the protections citizens had from the national government also apply to the state governments.

3 - "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The national government can oversee the laws implemented by the states in order to ensure that they apply equally, but nothing is said about the scope of this power or what it means to equally protected.

The full text of Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution

More to chew on for 2306 - and 2305 soon enough.

- Click here for the text from findlaw - complete with annotations:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

For background:

- HOW WAS THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR PAID FOR?
- Heritage Foundation: Supremacy Clause.
- Wikipedia: Supremacy Clause.
- FindLaw: National Supremacy.
- The Founders Constitution: Article 6, Clause 3.

We the People? or We the States?

Patrick Henry raises questions about the opening three word of the Constitution's Preamble.

- Click here for his speech to the Virginia Ratification Convention.

. . . here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking.

I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them--a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor [George Washington], I would have a reason for his conduct: that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information.

The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration. You must, therefore, forgive the solicitation of one unworthy member to know what danger could have arisen under the present Confederation, and what are the causes of this proposal to change our government.

From the Texas Tribune: Texans to Have Starring Role in Congressional Showdowns

We haven't talked much about Congress in 2305, largely because it's in recess, but it'll reconvene soon and another shutdown might be in order. The Texas delegation might drive the charge.

The Tribune reports on it - and other potential items on the agenda.

- Click here for the article.

One of the most chaotic and frenetic congressional sessions in recent times is expected to play out this fall. And thanks to the size and rank of Texas' delegation, the state is expected to play an outsized role in the drama.

With the state's 38 delegation members, including the second-ranking Senate Republican and a presidential candidate, it should be easy to find a Texan in the middle of the action as debates emerge on abortion, a possible government shutdown and President Obama's controversial foreign policy. Texans also run five House committees and form sizable voting blocs in both parties.

Here's a look at upcoming policy debates on Capitol Hill and how Texans could play key roles. One caveat: U.S. Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn is not listed in these categories because, as the top Republican vote counter in the Senate, he will probably be involved in nearly every piece of legislation.

Here are the separate issues the story focuses on - which gives us something specific to focus on the rest of the semester:

- The Iran Deal- Defunding Planned Parenthood/Funding the Government- Lifting the Crude Oil Export Ban- Raising the Debt Ceiling- Export-Import Bank Reauthorization- Highway Funding Bill

We'll try to catch up on each of these items soon.

The Texas Supreme Court hears arguments on the constitutionality of the cuts to public school financing in Texas

The story begins with $5.4 billion in cuts made by the 82nd legislative session in 2011. It's just now getting to Texas' top civil court.

The case is titled:

Michael Williams, Commissioner of Education, et al. v. Texas TaxPpayer and STudent Fairness Coalition et al., Calhoun County Independent School District, et al., Texas Charter School Association et al,. Joyce Coleman et al.

For links:

- State lawyers defend broad attack on school finance.
- Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Most Epic School Finance Showdown Yet.
- State Asks Supreme Court to Drop School Finance Lawsuit.
- Texas Supreme Court to again hear that state is shortchanging schools.

For a look at the oral argument click here.

The state is trying to get the case thrown out of court.

This is a list of the principle issues presented to the court:

Whether the district court correctly denied the state's request to dismiss the constitutional claims on grounds that they are not capable of judicial resolution, the plaintiffs do not have standing to bring them and the claims are not ripe. The state argues in essence that financing schools is a policy consideration reserved to the Legislature and, even if the claims are justiciable, the school-district plaintiffs by seeking to enjoin the state from operating an unconstitutional public-school system do not have standing and the claims are not ripe because the Legislature has constructed a more-demanding system that is only in its beginning stages and cannot be evaluated yet.

Whether the school-finance system is inadequate as a whole under the state constitution's Article VII, section 1 adequacy requirement and particularly whether it provides adequately for educating so-called English language learners – ELL students – and economically disadvantaged students. The state responds that the trial court's inadequacy ruling is based on financial "inputs" and not student performance – outputs – the standard it argues the Court has used in previous school-finance cases to evaluate adequacy.

Whether the state's school system is constitutionally unsuitable under Article VII, section 1's suitability requirement. In response the state argues that suitability, the means to achieve a constitutionally adequate school system, is satisfied if the system is adequate. But the school-district plaintiffs contend an adequate school system can be unsuitable if the state fails to finance it sufficiently to meet the state's educational goals – they insist funding is not sufficient – and by the state's alleged failure to calculate the costs of providing an adequate education.

Whether the school system fails the constitutional requirement that it be financially efficient. The state maintains that the gap between what so-called property-poor districts can raise by taxes and what property-wealthy districts raise has narrowed from when the Court held in the last school-finance decision that the school system was efficient.

Whether the trial court erred by rejecting charter schools' particular claims that their state financing is inadequate, unsuitable and inefficient and that the state's provision for charters is unequal, relative to public schools'.

Whether the trial court erred by denying intervenors' claims that the school system is "qualitatively" inefficient – that is, they argue among other factors, that mandated class sizes, limits on available charter schools and state teacher certifications breed waste, limit competition and further inefficiency.

Whether the state's school-finance scheme imposes an unconstitutional statewide property tax. The standard for a statewide ad valorem tax, as the Court determined in the last school-finance decision, is whether essentially the state imposes a tax "cap" that leaves school districts with no meaningful discretion in raising and spending money

Regarding San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez

The previous post mentioned this case from Texas so it's worth a closer look.

- Click here for the Wikipedia on it.

The case is notorious in that it did not accept the argument that education is not a fundamental right.

This lawsuit was brought by members of the Edgewood Concerned Parent Association representing their children and similarly situated students. The suit was filed on June 30, 1968 in the federal district court for the Western District of Texas. In the initial complaint, the parents sued San Antonio ISD, Alamo Heights ISD and five other school districts, the Bexar County School Trustees and the State of Texas contending the “Texas method of school financing violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.” The lawsuit alleged that education was a fundamental right and that wealth-based discrimination in the provision of education (e.g., a fundamental right), created in the poor, or those of lesser wealth, a constitutionally suspect class, who were to be protected from the discrimination. Eventually, the school districts were dropped from the case leaving only the State of Texas as the defendant. The case advanced through the courts system, providing victory to the Edgewood parents until it reached the Supreme Court in 1972. The school districts in the San Antonio area, and generally in Texas, had a long history of financial inequity. Rodriguez presented evidence that school districts in the wealthy, and primarily white, areas of town, most notably the north-side Alamo Heights Independent School District, were able to contribute a much higher amount per child than Edgewood, which was a poor minority area. From the trial brief, Dr. Jose Cardenas, Superintendent of Schools, Edgewood Independent School District testified to the problem in his affidavit, the following information:

From the Atlantic: Why Doesn't the Constitution Guarantee the Right to Education? Every country that outperforms the U.S. has a constitutional or statutory commitment to this right.

For 2305 students as we start wading into the U.S. Constitution.

The Texas Constitution has such a right. The lack of one - the author argues - has consequences for the level of education in the nation.

- Click here for the article.

Every country that bests us in the education rankings either has a constitutional guarantee to education, or does not have a constitution but has ensured the right through an independent statute. Each has constructed law around education as a fundamental right of citizens, at least until the age of adulthood. Finland, the world leader, succinctly asserts, “Everyone has the right to basic education free of charge.”(Chapter 2, Section 16). South Korea’s Article 31 on Education has six sections. Switzerland’s constitution mentions education more than two dozen times. For countries with no formal constitution, many have included the right in supplementary documents like the Human Rights Act of the United Kingdom (1998) or the Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act (2005). Others still, like New Zealand, form the basis for the right to education by incorporating international laws like the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, whose Article 13 provides expansive assurances of education. In addition, each of these countries—well, almost every country in the world—is also party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most widely accepted human rights treaty in history. The convention, which prohibits among other things the kidnapping and sexual exploitation of children, vigorously asserts the right of a child to education. Of UN members, only Somalia and the United States have not ratified that agreement.

There simply hasn’t been a movement in the U.S. to establish the rights of children in respect to equal, free, and adequate education. One of the few pending constitutional amendments (meaning approved by Congress but not by 3/4ths of States) is the Child Labor Amendment of 1924, limiting and prohibiting labor for those under 18. Though the amendment failed to gain ratification from enough states, including Louisiana who rejected it multiple times, child labor was effectively nixed by FDR in the Fair Labor Standards Act, 14 years later. When it comes to the rights of children in education, traditional interpretation has deemed the 10th amendment sufficient to shift responsibility to the states, and the 14th amendment adequate to ensure fairness. The Supreme Court decision in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), though, ran directly counter to that logic, denying appellant claims that unequal education funding violated a fundamental right and the Equal Protection Clause. Even as America assumes the responsibility for education rests somewhere, its clear that the right to that education has clearly fallen through the cracks.

For 2305 today (and this week)

I want to walk through the circumstances surrounding the execution of Charles 1st:

- click here for info from UK's Parliament.

This event helps set the stage for the rise of legislative power and the separated powers.

I also want to walk through the following key documents:

- Petition of Right.
- British Bill of Rights.
- US Declaration on Independence.
- Articles of Confederation.
- US Constitution.

The next sections dig further into specific aspects of the Constitution. This material should help us understand - roughly - why the document looks the way it does.

The full text of Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

For GOVT 2306 this week.

SECTION. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

SECTION. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. (This was nullified in by the 13th Amendment)

SECTION. 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

SECTION. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

For back ground on it:

- National Constitution Center.
- Justicia.
- GPO.

Warning: 700 New Laws Take Effect in Texas Today

For a full list of the laws taking effect today click below:

- Texas Legislature: Bills Effective on September 1, 2015.

You might want to look through it to make sure that whatever you were going legally yesterday is illegal today.

For detail:

- Houston Chronicle: New Texas laws taking effect September 1: How some will affect Texas.
- Fort Worth Start Telegram: Heads up! Nearly 700 new laws take effect Tuesday.
- Houston Matters: New Texas Laws Go Into Effect Sept. 1 — How Will They Affect You?

We'll open up one of these and walk through a few.

These are now on their way to being written into the Texas Code.

Now attention will turn to the proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution. Some laws can only take effect if parts of the constitution are changed in order to allow for it. Voters in the state will determine if they will pass this November 3rd.

For more on the proposals:

- Texas Legislative Council: Analyses of Proposed Constitutional Amendments.
- House Research Organization: Amendments Proposed.
- BallotPedia: Texas 2015 Ballot Measures.

Happy Fiscal New Year!

Texas' fiscal year starts today. Which might explain the festive atmosphere around the state, that and all the Blue Bell Ice Cream floating around. The fiscal year is when the budgetary cycle begins, meaning that the budget worked out in the 84th legislative session this spring takes effect. It's actually a two year budget as we will discuss when we get to the Texas budget later this semester. It's called the 2016 - 2017 budget.

For items related to it click here - we'll cover these in a few weeks.
- 84th Legislative Budget Documents.
- The Legislative Budget Board.

Now there is conflict between the city of Houston and the state of Texas over the enforcement of pollution rules

Not only the national government opposes Texas' approach to pollution control - or lack thereof. So does Houston. Again, the Texas Tribune:

- Houston Seeks to Keep Power to Police Air Pollution.

State environmental regulators don't adequately enforce air pollution laws, the city of Houston believes, and on Wednesday it will ask the state's highest civil court to let it keep trying to do the job itself.

The state Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case challenging a pair of ordinances the city enacted in 2007 and 2008 requiring industrial polluters within Houston to register with the city, and subjecting the polluting companies to fines if they operate without registering.

BCCA Appeal Group, a coalition of industrial facility owners including ExxonMobil and the Dow Chemical Company, sued the city seven years ago, claiming the ordinances improperly preempt state law. The First District Court of Appeals has already weighed in on Houston's side, finding in 2013 that the Legislature had not foreclosed such local regulations with anything resembling "unmistakable clarity."

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, BCCA argues that the city is allowed to enforce air regulations only if it uses the weaker enforcement tools laid out by the state.

But Houston, and a host of environmental groups filing amicus briefs in the city's support, say it is perfectly within its rights to enforce state laws using alternative regulatory strategies, including levying fines where the state won’t.

“The city’s looking for accountability, and this is a streamlined way of trying to do that,” said Rock Owens, who co-authored an amicus brief submitted by the Harris County Attorney’s Office. “There should be something that happens if you don’t follow the law, and the [Texas Commission on Environmental Quality] isn’t in a position where they can provide enforcement. They don’t have the resources, or, frankly, the will.”