From the Congressional Budget Office: An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2016 to 2026

For our look at budgeting in 2305.

- Click here for it.

From Slate: Phoenix Has Beef With Arizona - From guns to puppies, the state keeps telling its citizens they can’t have the laws they want.

Terrific stuff on preemption. Something similar could be written about the Texas legislature and cities in Texas.

- Click here for the article.

Over the past five years, conservative states have been in a lawmaking frenzy to overrule local ordinances on issues as diverse as the minimum wage, taxicab licensing, workplace discrimination, and who may use which bathroom.

It’s called pre-emption, and as I wrote earlier this month, it has become the most powerful statehouse tactic of our time. What began as an industry-driven attempt to abolish cities’ restrictions on guns and smoking has evolved into a reflex to restrain virtually any local initiative that a statehouse doesn’t like.

North Carolina’s homophobic and transphobic HB2, passed by a heavily gerrymandered statehouse to abolish a Charlotte anti-discrimination law, is a notable recent example. But the capital of pre-emption may be Arizona, whose statehouse has been uniquely aggressive in its drive to dismantle local control in Tempe, Tucson, and Phoenix, three left-leaning cities.

Arizona’s Legislature has quashed local laws on everything from puppies to guns. It has pre-emptively pre-empted cities from making laws about plastic bags or employee scheduling (i.e. requiring employers to give advance notice of shift changes). And this year, it passed a law that suspends city funding for services like police and fire if the state attorney general finds conflict between city and state laws.

From National Priorities: President’s 2016 Budget in Picture

For perusal in 2305.

- Click here for it.

Cut to the fancy graphs and pie charts:

From the NYT: Obama, Pressing Senators, Delays Veto of Bill Exposing Saudis to 9/11 Suits

Veto alert. It has to happen by Friday or the bill becomes law without a signature - as we know.

- Click here for the article.

President Obama is delaying a planned veto of a bill that would allow the families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot, hoping to tap into an unusual well of buyer’s remorse among senators who passed the measure unanimously in the spring.

The measure sailed through the House last week after a surprise last-minute vote, raising the prospect of the first veto showdown between Mr. Obama and a bipartisan coalition in Congress. But an intense lobbying campaign by the White House and Saudi Arabia, among others, has cast doubt on what had appeared to be an inevitable override of the president’s long-expected veto.

Officials have refused to say when Mr. Obama would veto the bill, and he has until next Friday to do so. His advisers are considering whether he should wait until then, after Congress is expected to recess on Thursday for the November elections, which could give him weeks to persuade lawmakers to drop their support for the measure before they return and consider the veto override.

Already, cracks are showing, even among Republicans who generally would love to exercise the first veto override against Mr. Obama.

“I have tremendous empathy for the victims,” said Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, who, like the rest of his colleagues, agreed to the measure in May. “But at the same time, I have concerns about the precedent it would set,” fearing, as many lawmakers now do, that Americans could be sued by other nations in retaliation, or by the families of innocent people killed in drone attacks.

The trepidation about overriding a presidential veto is shared by Republicans and Democrats alike. Many lawmakers apparently had believed that the House would never pass the bill, as it hastily did after the House speaker, Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, encountered families of the Sept. 11 victims at a fund-raiser on Long Island.

From the Houston Chronicle: Turner: White Oak Music Hall needs a permanent stage

City atuff.

- Click here for the article.

Mayor Sylvester Turner said Wednesday that the White Oak Music Hall development team will not receive a new temporary permit for its outdoor stage.

Turner's statement suggests that unless the developers get a permanent permit and stage for its outdoor venue, the shows scheduled on that stage after Oct. 5 will not legally be able to be held at the new Near Northside music complex.

Turner responded at a City Council meeting Wednesday to developers' comments in a Chronicle article in which developer Will Garwood indicated he planned to take down and then re-erect the temporary stage and request another 6-month temporary permit for the structure. The developers previously told the Chronicle that have "eventual plans" to build a permanent stage but planned to operate the temporary stage in the meantime.
Turner made it clear that plan would not work for his administration.

"No one is going to tear down a stage and come back and get a temporary permit," Turner said. "That's not happening.

"They need to work on a permanent permit and I expect them to take the steps to do that."

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/Mayor-promises-to-investigate-the-White-Oak-Music-7377654.php

http://www.houstonpress.com/music/white-oak-music-hall-owners-insist-theyre-playing-by-citys-rules-8749026

http://www.houstonpress.com/music/not-everyone-is-looking-forward-to-white-oak-music-halls-opening-on-saturday-8305456

From the Texas Monthly: A Hard Look at the Harris County District Attorney’s Office

For our look at counties - plus the upcoming election.

- Click here for the article.

The recent revelation that Harris County deputies improperly disposed of evidence from hundreds of criminal cases—forcing the dismissal of ninety drug cases, with more dismissals likely to come—is merely the latest blow to the county’s embattled district attorney, Devon Anderson. Anderson was appointed to the position in 2013 by Governor Rick Perry following the death of her husband, former District Attorney Mike Anderson. Although she won election to the office in her own right in 2014, Anderson faces a strong challenge this fall from lawyer Kim Ogg, whom the Houston Chronicle endorsed this weekend.

Although she’s only been in office three years, Anderson has faced more than her share of issues, including:

- Jailing rape victims
- Holding a man in jail after his conviction was tossed out
- Questionable behavior by prosecutors
- Stoking racial fears

From the Pew Research Center: Presidential job approval ratings from Ike to Obama

Obama's have been remarkably stable.

- Click here for the article.

From the National League of Cities: State of the Cities 2016

For 2306 as we start to look at municipal governments this week.

- Click here for the report.

From the Pew Research Center: The Parties on the Eve of the 2016 Election: Two Coalitions, Moving Further Apart

This helps explain much of the animosity in contemporary politics.

- Click here for the article.

Ahead of the presidential election, the demographic profiles of the Republican and Democratic parties are strikingly different. On key characteristics – especially race and ethnicity and religious affiliation – the two parties look less alike today than at any point over the last quarter-century.

The fundamental demographic changes taking place in the country – an aging population, growing racial and ethnic diversity and rising levels of education – have reshaped both party coalitions. But these changes, coupled with patterns of partisan affiliation among demographic groups, have influenced the composition of the two parties in different ways. The Democratic Party is becoming less white, less religious and better-educated at a faster rate than the country as a whole, while aging at a slower rate. Within the GOP the pattern is the reverse: Republican voters are becoming more diverse, better-educated and less religious at a slower rate than the country generally, while the age profile of the GOP is growing older more quickly than that of the country.

From NBC - 2: ACLU reaches out to Collier school district over anthem protestor ban

Possible test case?

Do students have a right to protest?

- Click here for the article.

The Collier County School District is reacting to a principal's announcement that he would ban students from sporting events if they sit during the national anthem.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida has reached out to the school district after what they call a restriction of freedom of speech. In response, the district said it recognizes a student's First Amendment right to express thoughts and ideas as long as the student isn't being disruptive.

NBC2 first told you Wednesday about Lely High School's new policy, but the school district said Thursday it's a misunderstanding, saying Principal Ryan Nemeth's message was taken out of context and he regrets what he said.

Last Friday morning, Lely High students watched as their principal took to the morning announcements to speak about the national anthem.

"You will stand, you will stay quiet. If you don't, you're going to be sent home. No refund."

Is there a constitutional right to protest?

The word does not exist in the Constitution, so it requires interpretation.

- From the ACLU of Oregon:

You have a constitutionally protected right to engage in peaceful protest in “traditional public forums” such as streets, sidewalks or parks. But in some cases the government can impose restrictions on this kind of activity by requiring permits. This is constitutional as long as the permit requirements are reasonable, and treat all groups the same no matter what the focus of the rally or protest.

The government cannot impose permit restrictions or deny a permit simply because it does not like the message of a certain speaker or group.

- More from the ACLU of Northern California.

How far doe this right extend? Did it apply to the Occupy Movement?

- Detail from ProPublica: Just How Much Can the State Restrict a Peaceful Protest?

The First Amendment is not absolute. Government can make reasonable stipulations about the time, place and manner a peaceable protest can take place, as long as those restrictions are applied in a content-neutral way.

But what constitutes a reasonable time, place and manner restriction? "It depends on the context and circumstances," said Geoffrey Stone, a professor specializing in constitutional law at the University of Chicago. "Things like noise, blockage of ordinary uses of the place, blockage of traffic and destruction of property allow the government to regulate speakers."

Stone gave a few examples of impeding ordinary usage: disturbing patients at a hospital, preventing students from going to school, or, more relevant for the Occupy movement, disrupting the flow of traffic for a long period of time.

Protests are fine, occupation is not.

- So says the Federalist Blog.

. . . the federal right to assemble was “to protect the petitioners in their right to get up the petition, circulate it for signatures, and have it presented.” The Supreme Court case of United States v. Cruikshank observed the purpose of assembly was for petitioning government: “The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or the duties of the National Government.”

In England, the right of assembly existed from early times and was strictly tied to the right of petitioning Parliament for political purposes, which the crown had always strongly contested. Different acts of the Tudors and Stuarts sought to limit and restrict assembly.

There is a big difference between gathering to draw public attention to some grievance or message through disruption of the public peace and peacefully gathering to address common public concerns and to circulate a petition for signature. The later requires no mob occupation or disruption of the peace or laws.

From a purely historical standpoint, “Occupy Wall Street” is nothing more than rebellion, and as such generally been dealt with by use of the militia to suppress.

From the New Yorker: Colin Kaepernick and a Landmark Supreme Court Case

For 2305 - the right to not be coerced to make displays of patriotism was only established by the Supreme Court in the 1940s. It features a court case central to our discussion of both religious freedom and free speech.

Here's the story:

- Click here for the article.

Kaepernick refused to stand as a form of political expression—to protest, he said, the oppression of African-Americans by the police and others. The Supreme Court case arose out of a related First Amendment right—to exercise the freedom of religion. In 1943, at the height of the Second World War, the court heard a challenge by a Jehovah’s Witness family to the expulsion of their daughters, Marie and Gathie Barnette, from a school in West Virginia. The sisters had been punished for refusing to salute the flag and repeat the Pledge of Allegiance, something state law required of students. (As Jehovah’s Witnesses, the parents did not believe in making such salutes and oaths.) Precedent was not on the Barnettes’ side. In 1940, the Court had heard a very similar case involving Lillian Gobitis, age twelve, and her brother William, age ten, whose parents were also Jehovah’s Witnesses and who were expelled from the public schools of the town of Minersville, Pennsylvania, for refusing to salute the national flag. In an eight-to-one decision in Minersville v. Board of Education, written by Felix Frankfurter, the court rejected students’ claim that their freedom of religion and speech should void the school’s decision to expel them. (Justice Harlan Stone was the lone dissenter.) “National unity is the basis of national security,” Frankfurter wrote. “Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.”

What followed, three years later, was one of the great reversals in Supreme Court history. The Court had a new member—Robert Jackson.* More important, even amid the patriotic displays associated with the mobilization for war, the degradations of Nazi Germany had impressed themselves upon the American conscience. The result of the case flipped the result to a six-to-three victory for the family, and Jackson’s opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette stands as perhaps the greatest defense of freedom of expression ever formulated by a Supreme Court Justice—and, not incidentally, a useful message for the N.F.L.

The core idea in Jackson’s opinion is that freedom demands that those in power allow others to think for themselves. In nearly every line, Jackson’s opinion is haunted by the struggle on the battlefield against, in his phrase, “our present totalitarian enemies.” “Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good, as well as by evil, men,” Jackson wrote. “Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.” Such melodramatic phrasing may feel more appropriate for the worldwide crisis of that era than for the present one, but the message of tolerance also resonates on the less fraught setting of a football gridiron.

For more on West Virgina v Barnette click here.

For the decision in the case click here.

Rant of the Day

Lot's to pick from.

I'll post more.

What really drives me insane is slow walkers. My rant is about those type of people. When I go to the mall I plan to shop, not spend four hours walking behind a turtle!! I really do not understand why you would go to the mall and walk slow? There is a million people at the mall why would you want to spend your time walking slow and getting bumped into??? When I go to the mall I want to get what I need and leave, and I do that by speed walking to each store and“shooting the gap”. If you want to walk slow and talk and blah blah GO WALK ON THE BEACH,or even a park, maybe even up and down your street, but the mall is not the place. Ok I understand not everyone can walk fast I know slow walkers like to shop to, and if you are as low walker don’t stand in the middle of the aisle SCOOT TO THE SIDE! It is just like a road there is a fast lane and a slow lane pick your choose and get on with it. Even worse than malls are high schools. When you are in high school and the bell ring you have 10 minutes to get to your next class. I do not want to be stuck behind you and your boyfriend making out and trying to walk, I am trying to get an education here, LIKE GO HOME!! I do not want to be tardy and I really do not want to be watching you and your boyfriend being a little to friendly in school.Thank goodness those days are over and I am in college and that does not happen here…. I hope… So just a little tip to all you slow walkers out there, GET IN THE SLOW LANE 

Ps. Have you even thought about internet shopping? #slowwalkers

For 2305 today - Public Laws passed by the 114th Congress

- Here's the link.

We will look through a few and compare the process they went through on their way to becoming law with the textbook version.

From the Texas Tribune: Ted Cruz Takes Dead Aim at Obama Administration in Internet Dispute

More checks and balances - staring our junior senator. Free speech concerns play a role here, as well as questions over the legitimate functions of government. In this case it appears the senator is in favor of U.S. governmental control over a key aspect of the internet - one mentioned below.

He has introduced a bill blocking an Obama proposal to let go of ICANN.

- Click here for the story.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz might be laying low politically, but this fall he's taking the lead on an obscure issue that could affect ongoing federal budget negotiations: Who should control how the Internet is organized?

Cruz is fighting an impending move by the federal government to relinquish oversight of a nonprofit organization that determines the way domain names are organized on the Internet.

It’s an issue on the minds of many conservatives, who charge that giving up that power would allow authoritarian regimes like China and Russia to further censor free speech on the Web.

"Once the government's out of the picture, First Amendment protections go away," Cruz said Wednesday morning at a Senate hearing he chaired.

"Why risk it? The Internet works. It's not broken," he later added. "What is the problem that is trying to be solved here?"

But those advocating for the move toward privatization, a group that includes the Obama administration and a number of technology companies, say that the U.S. ceded de facto control of the Internet decades ago and that such concern is overstated.

From XKCD: A History of the United States Congress

One of the great graphics of all time.

It's worth devoting an entire class.

- Click here for the full version.

From Courthouse News Service: Houston Loses Appeal in Firefighter Pension Fight

For an upcoming look at local government, as well as the judicial system in the state.

- Click here for the article.

Houston can't overhaul a state-governed firefighter pension system that the mayor claims is pushing the city towards insolvency, a Texas appeals court ruled.

Houston sued the Houston Firefighters' Relief and Retirement Fund in January 2014, seeking a declaration that a state law setting how the fund is operated, and giving the city no control over the amount of its contributions, is unconstitutional.

The city paid $350 million in pensions to firefighters, police and city workers in 2015, but its unfunded pension debt is $6 billion and growing.

A state judge sided with the fund in May 2014 and granted it summary judgment.

The city appealed, pressing its argument that the subject state law, passed in 1997, gives too much power to the pension fund's board that is comprised of a majority of firefighters who are beneficiaries of the fund, and thus are inherently self-interested in maximizing firefighter pension benefits to the detriment of the city's financial health.

The 10-member board is made up of six active or retired firefighter fund members who are elected by other firefighters, the mayor or an appointed representative of the mayor, the city treasurer and two citizens who are elected by the other trustees.

Houston claimed on appeal the state law violates the separation-of-powers principle in the Texas Constitution by delegating authority to a nonlegislative entity, the fund board.

The city cited Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Fund v. Lewellen. In that case, the Texas Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that a foundation established by the Texas Legislature to exterminate boll weevils that were threatening to destroy the Texas cotton industry unconstitutionally gave too much authority to the foundation to tax private farmers to pay for weevil killing.

But the 14th Texas Court of Appeals decided Thursday that the boll weevil foundation is fundamentally different from the pension fund board because the board includes public employees.

Reader needed. Pays $10 an hour.

Here are the details:

Job Description

As a blind student, I need assistance in having government read to me and written for me. I will also need explanations of images from PowerPoint presentations. I am currently taking GOVT 2306. Readers get paid $10 an hour. Your payment will be once a month and will be paid through DARS.

Qualifications

I prefer someone who has passed ENGL 1301 and GOVT 2305. In Fall 2016, I will be available to meet on Mondays and Wednesdays at 11:00 a.m. and Tuesdays and Thursdays from 8:00 to 9:20 a.m.

If you have any questions or concerns please contact Tamer Zaid at 832-421-1581 or e-mail me at tamerz@stu.alvincollege.edu .

From the Texas Tribune: Documentary Examines 35 Years of Higher Ed Defunding

More on what has driven the rise in college tuition.

More support for the idea that it has primarily been due to a reduction in state spending.

- Click here for the article.

Are public universities nationwide regarded as a public good, or have politicians maneuvered them into becoming business-oriented models where students are the consumers?

That's the central question of "Starving the Beast," a documentary by Austin-based filmmaker Steve Mims that premiered Tuesday night at Austin's Violet Crown Cinema.

The film looks into how Texas officials perceive higher education as a commodity, linking the decrease in state funding — and coinciding increase in tuition and fees — to massive reductions in government spending, an idea introduced by think tanks that have pushed for education reform in Texas and four other states.

“Over time, the burden of the cost is being shifted from the state over to the students,” Mims said in an interview prior to the premiere. “We started shooting interviews from the [House Select Committee on Transparency in State Agency Operations], and as we started to do interviews with people we realized the story was bigger than UT-Austin and Texas A&M.”

- Click here for the documentary's website.

From the Fort Worth Star Telegram: What are some of the top priorities for Texas’s 85th Legislature?

- Click here for the article.

Texas’ youth are at the top of House Speaker Joe Straus’s priority list for the next legislative session.

Straus said Tuesday that he wants to help improve the embattled child welfare system, find a better funding system for public schools and ensure that college-bound youths can make their higher-education journey no matter what their family’s financial situation.

Rounding out the top of his 2017 early to-do list are improving the state’s approach to mental health illnesses, encouraging entrepreneurship in Texas and considering property tax reform.

The challenge will be getting both chambers to agree on how best to address these issues, particularly in a year where dollars may be tight due to slumping oil and gas revenues.

“Members of the Texas House certainly aren’t going to agree on everything,” Straus told a crowd of hundreds gathered for a Dallas Regional Chamber luncheon at the Fairmont Dallas hotel. “Texans don’t agree on everything.”
But there is “plenty of common ground.”

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article101612852.html#storylink=cpy

The Science Committee argues that it's subpoena of New York's climate change investigation material is valid

This related to the story below.

The letter contains an exhaustive explanation about why they believe their subpoena is constitutionally valid and does not violate First or Tenth Amendment rights.

- Click here for the letter.

The letter mentions Wilkinson v Unites States, a Supreme Court case which sets out the three prong test that determines whether a congressional subpoena is legal.

- Click here for the case.

For more there's this law review article:

- Congressional Investigations and the SupremeCourt  

From the Washington Examiner: Hearing a showdown between First Amendment and Congress

The story raises federalism issues as well, and highlights recent activities involving the House Science Committee chaired by Texas Republican Lamar Smith.

- Click here for the article.

Wednesday hearing in the House is shaping up to be a battle between First Amendment rights and Congress' subpoena authority in its own investigations.

The House Science, Space and Technology Committee will hold a hearing assessing subpoenas issued by Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, to two state attorneys general and a number of scientific groups. Smith issued the subpoenas earlier this summer to get documents related to the climate change investigations of Exxon Mobil by New York and Massachusetts attorneys general.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and a number of scientific groups, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, have refused to comply with Smith's subpoenas. The attorneys general cite federalism concerns, while the groups say their First Amendment rights are being infringed upon.

On Wednesday, four law professors will go in front of the committee and assess whether Smith's subpoenas are valid. A committee aide said the goal is to show the subpoenas are valid and to force the groups into complying with them given that some of them have not shown they're willing to work with the committee.

"We're really seeing an obstruction of a congressional investigation," the aide said.

Eight organizations, in addition to the two attorneys general, received subpoenas from Smith in July. None has complied, though negotiations are ongoing.

Smith will hope to show that the subpoenas are valid under the three-pronged test set out by the Supreme Court for congressional investigations. According to that test, the subpoenas need to be issued by a committee with legislative jurisdiction over the subject matter, have a valid legislative purpose and be asking questions pertinent to the investigation.

Smith argued in a letter to the attorneys general this summer that his committee is investigating if Schneiderman and Healey are taking actions that would have a chilling effect on research and development funding. Research and development funding is, with the exception of military and medical funding, under the committee's purview.

- Click here for the hearing.

The title is: Full Committee Hearing - Affirming Congress’ Constitutional Oversight Responsibilities: Subpoena Authority and Recourse for Failure to Comply with Lawfully Issued Subpoenas.

For news coverage:

- House Science Committee Hearing an Attempt to Justify Unconstitutional Investigation.
- Constitutional scholars to House climate deniers: No witch hunt of Exxon critics.
- Congress should ask what Exxon knew about climate change.

Hearing - Protecting the 2016 Elections from Cyber and Voting Machine At...

If you have a couple hours to kill.

This hearing was held yesterday in response to recent hackings of the Democratic National Committee and the elections officials in Illinois and Arizona.

- Click here for the committee's page on the hearing.
- Click here for the committee's full page.

For news coverage:

- Voting experts call fears of election hacking overblown, insist process is secure.
- LAWMAKERS: HOW SECURE ARE VOTING MACHINES?

From 538: Fancy Dorms Aren’t The Main Reason Tuition Is Skyrocketing

There's an ongoing debate about what is driving up the costs of higher education. Nicer student amenities and higher salaries for administrators are two popular culprits, as is reduced state support.

This author focuses on the latter explanation - the argument applies to Texas as well.

- Click here for the article.

At most, about a quarter of the increase in college tuition since 2000 can be attributed to rising faculty salaries, improved amenities and administrative bloat. By comparison, the decline in state support accounts for about three-quarters of the rising cost of college.

Consider Pennsylvania’s four public research institutions,2 one of which is Temple.3 Average tuition revenue per student (adjusted for inflation) increased by $5,880 between the 2000-01 and 2013-14 academic years (the most recent available data). State appropriations per student have declined nearly $4,000 over the same period, from about $7,750 to $3,900. Put another way, if Pennsylvania restored funding for higher education to its 2000 levels, Pennsylvania’s public research institutions could reduce tuition by nearly $4,000 per year without altering their budgets. For students, the impact could be even greater once loan fees and interest were taken into account.

By contrast, imagine that each of these institutions cut per-student spending for student services, administration and instruction back to 2000 levels, then passed those savings on to students in the form of lower tuition. How much would students save? Reducing student services would save each student $380 per year. Dropping all those new administrators would save $150 per student per year. And rolling back spending on faculty salaries would save $850 per year for the average student. Together, those three categories have added $1,380 to the cost of attendance since 2000, about a quarter of the total increase. At least some of that spending benefits students directly: Student-service spending has been found to increase the likelihood of graduating, and increased spending on instruction leads to higher earnings later in life.

Catching up with the House Committee on Energy and Commerce

ACC rep Pete Olson is on it. Here's what it's up to.

- Click here for its website.

Here are links to Olson's subcommittees

- Energy and Power.
- Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade.
- Communications and Technology.

And for random news:

- Bill Blocking Lawsuits for Negative Web Reviews Passes House.
- Rep. Fred Upton wants NHTSA to look at vehicle hacking.
- Moniz to talk fracking, energy security with House panel.
- Seat on Energy & Commerce panel helped determine donations to Whitfield.

From GovTrack: Pete Olson's Profile

- Click here for it.

The line between his district and Randy Weber's divide ACC.

- Click here for info about the entire Texas delegation.

538: 2016 Election Forecast

Worth a look in class to catch up. And the graphics are pretty sweet.

- Click here for it.

From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: Pointing the Finger When It Comes to Low Texas Voter Turnout

Maybe voters aren't at fault. And maybe political leaders really don't want people to vote.

- Click here for the article.

If voter turnout is really going to be used as the measure of civic health in Texas, legislators should make voting compulsory.

You know that’s not going to happen — and that’s okay because not voting is also a way of registering your opinion. Perhaps you don’t care who wins, you don’t put much importance on a particular election or a particular lineup of candidates makes you want to hold a pillow over your face and scream.

So don’t vote if you don’t want to. It’s your franchise, to do with as you will.

Yours, that is, except when lawmakers impose regulations that make voting more difficult: restricting when people are allowed to register to exercise their right to vote, limiting early voting times and locations and which kinds of proof of identification the authorities will allow.

If lawmakers wanted everybody to vote, they would make it easier.

They would be working to find and remove impediments to voting, the same way successful businesses smooth the path between their customers and their products.

For 2306 today - all from the Texas Tribune

- Federal Regulators Take Teladoc’s Side in Medical Board Suit.

Teladoc, the Dallas-based company that sued Texas over its telemedicine regulations, has a new ally in the Federal Trade Commission.

In a letter sent to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court late Friday, the federal antitrust agency sided with Teladoc in the company’s legal battle, criticizing the Texas Medical Board for allegedly misinterpreting case law.

The telehealth company sued last year to block board rules that in most cases require face-to-face contact between a patient and a physician before a physician can issue a prescription.

That threatened Teladoc’s business model, which virtually connects Texas patients to remote, Texas-licensed doctors, some of whom are based out-of-state. The company says its physicians consult patients over the phone for routine medical issues, and patients can upload photos or other information describing their symptoms and medical history.

Teladoc filed an antitrust lawsuit against the regulatory Texas Medical Board in federal courtlast year, alleging that the 19-member board made up mostly of doctors had behaved like a cartel by passing rules intended to limit competition.

- Empower Texans Escalates Battle With Ethics Commission.

The influential conservative group Empower Texans is escalating its long-running battle against the Texas Ethics Commission, accusing a former member of the state watchdog agency of improperly seeking to influence state legislation.

Empower Texans President Michael Quinn Sullivan on Thursday lodged a criminal complaint against Tom Harrison, who abruptly resigned in June as the commission's vice chairman. The complaint, filed with the Travis County district attorney's office, alleges that Harrison illegally gave gifts to lawmakers in his role as deputy director of the Texas County and District Retirement System, one of the state's largest pension funds.

Sullivan says that activity should have required Harrison to register with the state as a lobbyist. And even if Harrison did register, he still would have been in violation of another rule saying lobbyists cannot serve on the ethics commission.

- Lawmakers to Examine Ballooning Cost of Tuition Program for Texas Veterans.

State university leaders have long complained about what they call an underfunded mandate to provide an increasing number of veterans and their dependents a free college education under the Hazlewood Act. After failed attempts in the last legislative session to restrict eligibility, school officials will meet with House lawmakers Tuesday at the Capitol to discuss ways to pay for it, including tapping the state’s savings account.

From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: Texas Politics is So Boring in 2016, Folks Are Already Talking 2018

This deserves special notice.

If we want to increase turnout, lets make the races more competitive.

- Click here for the article.

The presidential race is a big deal, generating plenty of talk. The debates are coming. The ads are coming. The race is on every screen in sight. Polls are everywhere, like candy pouring out of a piñata. Some, like the recent Washington Post/Survey Monkey survey that found Clinton and Trump in a virtual tie, suggest a close race in Texas.

Even if that’s not what happens — and it’s highly unlikely to happen — it’s fun to talk about.

But the rest of the ballot is sort of a snoozer. That flippant assessment comes with a built-in scold: These offices, from Congress to the courts, from regulatory commissions to the Legislature, are important and deserve your attention. Be an adult about it.

But many of them are completely noncompetitive. The candidates and campaigns, as usual, are out-shouted by the national race. But it’s hard to get voters ginned up about the Texas Railroad Commission or the state’s Court of Criminal Appeals. It’s even harder to elicit the interest of normal humans in races that didn’t even interest candidates from the political minority.

In 10 of the races for 36 U.S. House seats from Texas, only one major party entered a candidate. Unless the minor parties — the Greens and the Libertarians — do something historic, those contests are over.

It’s the same down the ballot. Ten of the 16 state Senate seats on the ballot feature only one major-party contestant. The same is true of 97 of the 150 Texas House seats on the ballot.

Whether that brings cheers or lamentations, this is a safe assessment: It’s not the kind of development that generates conversation and excitement leading into an election.

Catching up with Congress

NBCNews: Congress Faces Five Big Issues Following Summer Recess.

- Funding Zika Vaccines
- Tackling Appropriations
- Appointing a Supreme Court Member
- Impeaching IRS Commissioner
- Finally Addressing Gun Control?

Roll Call: Freedom Caucus to Force Vote on IRS Impeachment Next Week.

House Freedom Caucus member John Fleming told reporters Friday that he plans to go to the floor Tuesday to set up a vote on a resolution to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.

By noticing his intent to file the privileged resolution on Tuesday, the Louisiana Republican would start a two-day legislative time clock for the House to take up the matter, meaning a floor vote on impeachment would occur no later than Thursday.

The expectation is that Democrats will offer a motion to table the matter or to refer it back to committee and that enough Republicans would join them to make the motion successful.

Reuters: Obama to meet U.S. Congress leaders Monday on spending.

U.S. President Barack Obama has invited congressional leaders to the White House on Monday in an attempt to break deadlocks over government spending plans and funding the fight against the Zika virus.

Congress must pass a temporary spending bill by Sept. 30 or much of the federal government will shut down. With the deadline approaching, Obama is set to meet with House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, both Republicans. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and his House counterpart Nancy Pelosi will also be present, White House and congressional officials said on Friday.

Of particular urgency is a program to fight the Zika virus which is running out of money, U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention Director Tom Frieden told reporters.

Roll Call: Congress Turning a New Leaf on Marijuana - Burgeoning business in states with legal sales sparks momentum for reform.

Just two years ago, pot lobbyist Michael Collins was a pariah on Capitol Hill.

Marijuana reform was too much of a risk.

Lawmakers wouldn’t meet with him.

Not anymore.

“I’ve got offices reaching out to me,” said Collins, the deputy director of national affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance, a nonprofit group that supports the legalization of marijuana. “It’s definitely a big change.”

Marijuana-related legislation was on a fast track to nowhere until 2014. That was the year Republicans and Democrats alike approved a measure that kept federal authorities from interfering in states that allowed marijuana use for medical purposes.

Since then, both houses of Congress have seen a flood of similar proposals.

Lobbyists, policy experts and lawmakers who spoke to Roll Call said the trajectory is clear: Congress is leaning toward decriminalizing marijuana at the federal level — and it’s going to happen soon.

CNN: Congress looks to end standoff over Zika.

The big battle over Zika could be coming to an abrupt end on Capitol Hill.

A growing number of House and Senate Republicans now expect Congress will soon pass a $1.1 billion funding package to combat the Zika virus without restrictions on Planned Parenthood, a move designed to overcome a filibuster by Senate Democrats and end the pre-election season with as little drama as possible.

Such a move would represent a win for the White House and congressional Democrats.
No final decisions have been made, particularly in the House where the dynamics are more complicated than the Senate. But negotiations have intensified over the last several days and final votes could occur as soon as next week in both chambers, according to senior GOP lawmakers and Republican officials.

The idea: To tie a must-pass bill to keep the government open beyond the September 30 fiscal year deadline with language to fund vaccines and research to combat the spread of the Zika virus. Senators are likely to reach such a deal, and many Republicans now expect the House to go along as well.

Forbes: How Congress Can Make Drug Pricing More Rational.

The public reproach over the price of Mylan lifesaving drug EpiPen is the latest imbroglio in a much broader debate over drug costs. At issue is the rising list price on drugs. But as Mylan argued, these high reported prices often bear little relation to the real price actually paid, after rebates and discounts, by most health plans.

The question is how we can bring more prudence to this complex system, in which drug discounts don’t flow evenly to the patients who need access to these medicines.

Mylan pointed to a long sequence of drug supply middlemen who get a series of rebates, mostly as economic inducements for helping drug makers sell their medicines. To fund these rebates, drug makers push up the list price of their pills, only to furtively pay much of the money back to pharmacy benefit managers later.

This byzantine model for selling drugs aids both parties – the drug makers who use the rebates to buy access on restrictive drug formularies, and the pharmacy benefit managers that take a cut from these rebates to improve their profit margins.

From Politico: The Friday Cover ‘We’re the Only Plane in the Sky’ Where was the president in the eight hours after the Sept. 11 attacks? The strange, harrowing journey of Air Force One, as told by the people who were on board.

A great inside story of the president's activities - and who was in charge of them - on the morning of 9/11. A nice look at the workings of the White House and the president's relationship to the Secret Service and the military.

- Click here for the article.

A small taste:

Staff Sgt. Paul Germain, airborne communications system operator, Air Force One: We thought it was weird even just when the first plane hit. People who know airplanes, that’s some real stuff right there. Big airplanes just don’t hit little buildings. Then, as soon as that second plane hit, that switchboard lit up like a Christmas tree.

Col. Mark Tillman: Everything started coming alive. We were hooked into the PEOC [the White House bunker] and the JOC [Joint Operations Center], for the Secret Service. They’re all in the link now.

Andy Card: Another plane hit the other Tower. My mind flashed to three initials: UBL. Usama bin Laden. Then I was thinking that we had White House people there—my deputy, Joe Hagin, and a team were in New York preparing for the U.N. General Assembly. I was thinking that Joe was probably at the World Trade Center, that’s where the Secret Service office was, in the basement.

Mike Morell: I was really worried that someone was going to fly a plane into that school. This event had been on schedule for weeks, anyone could have known about it. Eddie [Marinzel, the lead Secret Service agent] wanted to get the hell out of there as fast as possible.

Rep. Adam Putnam: There’s some debate within the staff that I can hear about how the president needs to address the nation. They’re saying, “We can’t do it here. You can’t do it in front of fifth-graders.” The Secret Service is saying, “You’re doing it here or you’re not doing at all. We’re not taking the time to do it somewhere else. We need to get him secure.”

Dave Wilkinson: We’re talking to folks back at the White House, we’re beginning to get the motorcade up and running, getting the motorcycle cops back, we’re ready to evacuate at a moment’s notice. All of a sudden it hits me: The president’s the only one who doesn’t know that this plane has hit the second building.

From the NYT: House Passes Bill Allowing 9/11 Lawsuits Against Saudi Arabia; White House Hints at Veto

Great checking and balancing going on here. Congress is expanding the jurisdiction of the judiciary, the president is promising to veto, but the bill passed with more than enough votes to override it. Shows the control the general public has over the House - its tough to vote against this sort of thing just prior to the anniversary of 9/11, Even though it it may not be the wisest thing to do. Critics worry about nations allowing their citizens to sue the US in their courts.

- Click here for the article.

Here;s a chunk of it:

The bill “is a politically cost-free way for Congress to send a signal of seeming seriousness about terrorism on the dawn of the 15th anniversary of 9/11,” said Jack Goldsmith, a professor of law at Harvard who served in the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush. “Congress itself could have investigated lingering questions about 9/11, but instead is delegating those tasks to the unelected judiciary. The costs of the law will be borne by courts, which are an awkward place to ascertain Saudi responsibility for 9/11, and especially the president, who will have to deal with the diplomatic fallout with Saudi Arabia and other nations.”

The bill addresses a 1976 law that gives other countries broad immunity from American lawsuits. It amends the law to allow for nations to be sued in federal courts if they are found to have played any role in terrorist attacks that killed Americans on home soil. It also allows Americans to direct financial claims against those who funded the attacks.

The administration has argued that it would put Americans at legal risk overseas. That position seemed at least somewhat validated when Pierre Lellouche, a member of the French Parliament who is chairman of the rough equivalent in France of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he would pursue legislation that would permit French citizens to sue the United States with cause.

"I have sympathy with the notion of hitting those countries which actively support terrorism,” Mr. Lellouche said Friday. But the American bill “will cause a legal revolution in international law with major political consequences.”

From Vox: To understand the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, you need to understand tribal sovereignty

Sovereignty is one of our key terms. And the status of indigenous people in the republic is complicated. Here's a look at a recent controversy with a focus on both.

- Click here for the article.

VM: A major component of the Dakota Access Pipeline protests is the fact that the pipeline isn’t just an environmental hazard; it’s one that is being implemented with pretty much no regard for the Standing Rock Sioux. How does this fit into a broader discussion of tribal sovereignty?

AB: This is such a great question, because the issue of tribal sovereignty, which is just as important as the environmental hazard, is getting lost in the pipeline story.

Too many people tend to think of tribal sovereignty as something that’s allocated, which can be given or taken away depending on the circumstance. But it’s not. The Standing Rock Sioux Nation’s tribal sovereignty, which essentially precedes colonization, is permanent, and it’s recognized (as opposed to granted) by the federal government.

The nation is concerned that its waters would be contaminated and that its sacred sites will be desecrated by this pipeline project. On the surface, that claim can easily look like a specific racial group got together to lodge an environmental complaint, but there’s a lot more than that: It’s actually a tribal sovereign nation that’s making an important claim about self-determination and its ability to survive and exist in the future.

But this isn’t just lost on journalists. It extends to the highest office in the federal government. During his trip to Laos this week, President Obama was asked about the pipeline. He issued, at best, a lackluster answer. Obama gave great lip service to his culturally appropriate communication with indigenous peoples, but he added that he couldn’t even provide an answer "on this particular case."

Aside from asserting ignorance on a topic I can’t help but think he’s already been briefed on, Obama also missed an opportunity to publicly recognize the Standing Rock Sioux Nation’s tribal sovereignty. That’s a real shame, as is his decision to skirt the environmental and climate hazards the pipeline presents.

From the Heritage Foundation: Guarantee Clause

Added this link to the slides for 2306's section on State Constitutions and the Texas Constitution. It provides insight into the meaning of the part of the U.S. Constitution that guarantees to the states a republican government. Apparently there was debate over what exactly that meant. Here's info you might find useful.

- Click here for the post.

Participants in the Constitutional debate of 1787–1788 expressed varying views over exactly what constituted the "Republican Form" of government. However, there was a consensus as to three criteria of republicanism, the lack of any of which would render a government un-republican.

The first of these criteria was popular rule. The Founders believed that for government to be republican, political decisions had to be made by a majority (or in some cases, a plurality) of voting citizens. The citizenry might act either directly or through elected representatives. Either way, republican government was government accountable to the citizenry. To a generation immersed in Latin learning and looking to pre-imperial Rome for inspiration, a republic was very much res publica—the people's affair.

The second required element of republican government was that there be no monarch. The participants in the constitutional debates believed that monarchy, even constitutional monarchy, was inconsistent with republican government. In fact, when Alexander Hamilton proposed a President with lifetime tenure, the delegates so disagreed that they did not even take the time to respond.

The third criterion for a republic was the rule of law. Ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, extreme debtor-relief measures—most kinds of retroactive legislation, for example, were deemed inconsistent with the rule of law, and therefore un-republican.

Many participants in the post-Convention debates (such as James Iredell of North Carolina) suggested an additional criterion of republicanism: absence of a titled aristocracy. This criterion was not part of the consensus; other participants observed that some previous republics (e.g., pre-imperial Rome) and some contemporary republics (e.g., Holland) featured titled aristocracies. Indeed, the most influential contemporary foreign political writer, Baron de Montesquieu, had divided republics into aristocratic and democratic varieties. To assure, therefore, that the American states remained more purely democratic republics, the drafters of the Constitution inserted Article I, Section 10, which forbids states from conferring titles of nobility.

For 2305 today

Checks and balances:

- Cruz kicks off Internet oversight countdown with subcommittee hearing.

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz today announced that he’ll hold a Senate subcommittee hearing to explore the “dangers” of an Obama administration plan to turn over technical internet oversight to a nonprofit just weeks before the plan is to take effect.

There are just 23 days left until the U.S. Commerce Department cedes oversight of the technical functions that make the internet work to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). But the plan is not guaranteed to go through, given that Republicans, led by Cruz, continue to fight it.

Cruz’s latest move is scheduling a Sept. 14 hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, which he chairs, to investigate the “possible dangers” of the transition plan, he announced Sept. 7.

- Click here for the subcommittee's website.


And more checks and balances:

- 5 Texas judge nominees have broad support but won't be confirmed anytime soon.

Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz lavished praise on them. President Barack Obama said they had displayed an “unwavering commitment” to justice and integrity. They are desperately needed in Texas, where 10 long-standing vacancies on the federal bench have created a lengthy backlog of cases.

But when will the five recent nominees to serve as Texas district judges get a confirmation vote in the Senate?

“We’re going to have to work that out,” Cornyn said Wednesday. “If we can’t get it done before the election, then perhaps after the election that’s something we could work on.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings for the five nominees, ostensibly providing hope that the long-open vacancies could soon be addressed.

Texas has more judicial openings than any other state. All 10 have been designated “emergencies” by the federal government, based on the backlog of cases each district faces, and seven have been empty more than a year.

- Click here to see the hearing - if you wish.
- Click here for American Association for Justice - which was mentioned in the article.
- Judicial Confirmation and the Constitution.


A story about federalism:

- Closure of private prisons could hit Texas in pocketbook.

Thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in lucrative government contracts could be in jeopardy in Texas with the Department of Justice's decision to phase out the use of privately run prisons.

Of the 14 private prisons facing the loss of federal contracts, five are in Texas - the most of any state. The impact will be felt not only in prison yards but also in the tax rolls and cash registers of small towns and local communities.

"We are very concerned about what is going to happen," said Howard County Judge Kathryn Wiseman in Big Spring, where the GEO Group employs 480 people at its detention facility.

Wiseman said she fears that nearly all the jobs at the prison will be lost when the company's federal contract expires in March.

"These are our friends and neighbors; these are people who coach Little League baseball and belong to our civic organization," she said. "They will leave a hole not just in our economy because they pay taxes, but in our community."

The Department of Justice recently directed the Bureau of Prisons to phase out its business with private corporations as contracts expire over the next five years. The Department of Homeland Security followed the move by announcing it would also evaluate its partnerships with private companies in running more than two dozen immigrant detention centers.

- Click here for the website of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
- Review of the Federal Bureau ofPrisons’ Monitoring of Contract Prisons.


And one more about federalism.

- In Debate Over ‘Sanctuary Cities,’ a Divide on the Role of the Local Police.

Mr. Trump is coming down on one side of a vigorous partisan debate over the degree to which local law enforcement should be involved in enforcing immigration laws. There is a deep split among law enforcement officials, not to mention elected officials. Just last year, after a young woman was shot by an immigrant here illegally with a criminal record who had been released by the authorities in San Francisco, the Republican-led House voted to withhold some federal funding from jurisdictions that shield undocumented immigrants from federal officials. In the Senate, Democrats this summer blocked a similar bill, which the White House had vowed to veto.

In limiting cooperation with the federal immigration authorities, some local law enforcement officials contend that they are making their jurisdictions safer by encouraging undocumented immigrants to take the risk of coming forward to report crimes. But those who see immigration violations as serious offenses contend that such policies lead to criminality.

The issue has bedeviled the Obama administration for years. In his first term, President Obama expanded nationwide a program allowing the Department of Homeland Security to receive the fingerprints of every person booked by the state and local police. After many immigrant communities rebelled, the administration canceled some of its efforts in 2014, and replaced them with a single, less intrusive one, hoping to court big cities to cooperate rather than to coerce them.

From Slate: Texas Supreme Court Justice: States Can Deny Same-Sex Spousal Benefits to “Encourage Procreation”

More conflict between the dominant political cultures in Texas and the United States. This fits material we've been discussing in 2306. It also illustrates the tension inevitable in federal systems. Texas continues to chafe against the requirement that they recognize same sex marriages.

- Click here for the article.

On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court refused to review a lower court ruling holding that cities may not deprive married same-sex couples the benefits it provides to opposite-sex couples. The court’s decision leaves in place a pro-equality ruling that forbids the government from discriminating against gay people for no good reason. But one judge, Justice John Devine, argued that his court should have taken the case and reversed the lower court’s judgment. His opinion is an ominous sign that conservative judges are striving to work around Obergefell v. Hodges and affirm the constitutionality of state-sponsored anti-gay discrimination.

Devine is clearly no fan of Obergefell, and his dissent attempts to minimize that decision to an almost dishonest degree. “Marriage is a fundamental right,” Devine wrote. “Spousal benefits are not.” Devine insisted that Obergefell’s affirmation of same-sex couples’ constitutional right to wed does not preclude Texas from discriminating against married, same-sex couples in other ways. Obergefell, the justice argued, was strictly limited to gay people’s fundamental right to marry. So long as a state does not revoke that right, it can deprive same-sex couples of other benefits guaranteed to opposite-sex couples. Specifically, Devine wrote, the government can refuse to give spousal benefits to its gay employees because they are gay.

Why should Texas be permitted to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits provided to opposite-sex couples? Because the state has an “interest in encouraging procreation.” Devine speculates that “offering certain benefits to opposite-sex couples would encourage procreation within marriage.”

The Invasion of America

American Empire

From the NYT: Major Supreme Court Cases in 2015

For 2305 today, so we can see recent rulings related to constitutional language.

- Click here for the article.

Area Texas Rep Ed Thompson authored 27 bills in the 84th session of the legislature

By my count, seven became laws.

- Click here to see the list.

From Recycling Today: Texas to study economic impacts of recycling

All due to a bill out area Texas House Rep Ed Thompson introduced to the 84th Session of the Texas Legislature.

- Click here for HB 2763.

- Click here for the article.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has retained the consulting and engineering firm Burns & McDonnell, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, to conduct a statewide survey that seeks to quantify the amount of recycling occurring throughout Texas and assess the economic state of the recycling industry in Texas.

The study is the result of House Bill 2763, sponsored by Rep. Ed Thompson (R-Pearland) and Sen. José Rodríguez (D-El Paso), which requires the development of the study. The bill’s authors say the results will build on the efforts of prior recycling studies, but will also include more robust economic information, such as current market conditions and associated job creation.

Burns & McDonnell will work in partnership with the State of Texas Alliance for Recycling (STAR) to complete and release the Texas Recycling Data Initiative (TRDI) in 2015. TRDI provided a benchmark recycling rate of 18.9 percent in Texas and established the methodology that the economic impact study will build on.

"As with TRDI, industry participation is paramount for this study to successfully provide updated information on recycling quantities, as well as important economic impact and market drivers," says Scott Pasternak, Burns & McDonnell senior project manager, and who is managing the study.

The survey, to launch Aug. 15, 2016, will focus on data from processors and end users of recyclables. Since the study will request recycling and economic data from private recycling companies, Burns & McDonnell say it will take every reasonable measure allowed by law to protect business-sensitive information and will have a confidentiality plan available for survey participants.

The study seeks to not only assess current recycling efforts but also identify methods to increase recycling, as well as funding methods to increase recycling and associated job creation and infrastructure needs that will result from a more robust materials recovery industry in Texas.

"This study will provide to policymakers the information they need to make educated decisions on recycling and materials management in Texas," says Sara Nichols, STAR executive director.

The survey will allow participants to report their recycling data for the 2015 calendar year in a confidential, online survey. The results will be included in the TCEQ report, Municipal Solid Waste in Texas: A Year in Review, 2016 Data Summary and Analysis.

Govtrack and Vote Smart fill us in on Randy Weber

Worth looking at in 2305.

- Click here for his page on Govtrack.
- Click here for his page on Vote Smart.

Since you probably want to know, here are the last ten bills he has introduced:

- H.R. 5905: POSSE Act
- H.R. 5246: To remove the Federal claim to navigational servitude for a parcel of land in Texas City, Texas, and for other purposes.
- H.R. 5225: COAST Act
- H.R. 5004: Stop Animal Fat Tax Credits Act of 2016
- H.R. 4550: PASS Act
- H.R. 4084: Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act
- H.R. 3425: FREE Act
- H.R. 3113: Empowering Our Veterans Act of 2015
- H.Res. 316: Observing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day.
- H.R. 1332: Deny Amnesty Credits Act of 2015

And for info on his district - Texas 14 - click here.

Randy Weber introduces the POSSE Act

He did it in July, so the news is a bit dated.

And in case you want to know, POSSE stands for Protect Our Southwestern States Enforcement.

- From the Dallas Morning News:

He may not be proposing a giant wall, but Rep. Randy Weber does have a few other fixes in mind to enhance security on the nation’s southern border with Mexico.

Weber, a Republican from Friendswood, introduced the Protect Our Southwestern States Enforcement Act, or Posse, on Thursday, which would compel the border patrol to address staffing shortages in stations at focal points along the perimeter.

“Our nation’s southern border has been left unprotected for far too long,” Weber said in a written statement. “The Posse Act will direct the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to keep every border patrol station open and fully staffed to effectively halt the flow of illegal aliens, and combat the domestic criminality associated with our current lack of border security.”

In addition to keeping Border Patrol stations open, the Posse Act would mandate double-layer fencing along the southwestern border. Currently, Weber said, that border has “numerous gaps that have allowed for illegal immigrants and potential terrorists to easily cross into the United States.”

Weber’s bill highlights nine specific areas where border patrol stations should be fully staffed, including five in Texas: Big Bend, Del Rio, El Paso, Laredo and the Rio Grande Valley.

When Weber was a member of the Texas Legislature from 2009 to 2013, he served on the Border and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee. In the U.S. House, he now serves on the foreign affairs and science committees.

Weber is seeking his third term in office this fall and is expected to win handily over Democrat Michael Cole.

For details, click here:

- Congress.gov.
- Govtrack.

It has been referred to the House Home Homeland Security Committee, which then sent it to its Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security.

- Click here for the webpage of the subcommittee.

The bill has yet to be considered.

From Sapiens: Rules of the Underworld - We often think of gangs, mafias, and drug cartels as chaotic and lawless. But rational rules govern the underworld to create a dark order.

I think a story like this lends some credence to Locke's argument - and Jefferson;s interpretation of it in the Declaration of Independence. It just shows that not everyone consents to the same system.

The author explains why public displays of violence are a rational act for organized crime.

- Click here for the article.

The primary rule of the underworld is that the cartel (or the mafia or the warlord) makes the rules, and disobedience is a capital crime. Public displays of death convey the cartel’s power to impose the kind of lethal punishment typically reserved for the state. The public setting in Uruapan symbolizes that the Mexican government no longer has jurisdiction over matters of criminal justice in this municipality. Through these practices, the cartel reanimates the dead and compels them to speak to the living one last time: “Obey, or you will end up like us.”

These draconian rules are necessary because underworld organizations subsist by trafficking in illicit commodities. When products are illegal they are scarce, so prices remain high and profits can be enormous. It is easy to make big money by manufacturing, distributing, and selling drugs, guns, or other forms of contraband. The hard part is holding on to that money once it has been made. As Italian social scientist Diego Gambetta astutely observed in hisstudies of the Sicilian Mafia, thieves do not like to be robbed any more than the rest of us.

This is a problem because thieves like to rob other thieves. Arnold Rothstein, a famous bootlegger in the 1920s, allegedly made a fortune when he sold his entire fleet of rum-running ships to rival gangsters and then repeatedly hijacked their cargoes of contraband liquor. In other words, he successfully offloaded the maintenance and overhead expenses of his shipping fleet to rivals and then turned around and stole their profits.

For an underworld enterprise to be economically successful, it must protect itself from internal theft and external raiding. Gangsters can’t call the police to help defend their property, so they create their own armies to protect cargo, punish stealing, and enforce contracts. Thievery is typically punished with extreme violence and, oftentimes, public humiliation.

Gus Tyler, editor of the 1962 book Organized Crime in America, described public spectacles of violence as a form of Mafia “branding.” “The killing of a person would be a great waste,” he wrote, “unless it were established publicly that this particular individual was killed because he defied the demands of the underworld. And so the gang leaves its trademark on the victim. … The underworld has found that it pays to advertise.”

This is not the violence of anarchy. Such killings are purposeful, deliberate, and theatrically staged to achieve specific organizational goals. One objective is to deter employee theft; another is to give pause to rival cartels considering a raid; and a third objective, illustrated perfectly by the display of bodies in Uruapan, is to reassure residents of the community that they are now under the protection of the cartel. By staging public displays of death branded with the cartel’s signature weapon (in this case, ice picks), the underworld broadcasts its laws and signs its orders.

From Houston Public Media: Galveston County Holds First Ever Transportation Conference

Area rep Randy Weber attended, along with other national, state and local figures. Transportation is one of the policy areas impacted the most by federalism. Not only is each level of government involved, the impact is horizontal as well since the decisions of one local government impact the traffic in others. This was an attempt to begin an ongoing dialogue among the stakeholders in Galveston County.

One take-away: more constriction on I-45!

A second: It's tough to tell people when they can and can't evacuate from a hurricane.

- Click here for the article.

The U.S. Census Bureau says Galveston County’s population grew by close to 11-percent between 2010 and 2015.

And while the county is happy to add to its tax base, local officials say there’s still worried: How do you evacuate all those people before a major hurricane?

That was one of the big topics at the first-ever Galveston County Transportation Summit.
Precinct 2 Commissioner Joe Giusti says it’s extremely important for Galveston to evacuate first. Because history shows that it will be very difficult for residents to leave the coast.

“Then I have a situation like we did during Hurricane Rita when Galveston County’s at the back of a stack when Harris County and everybody else is leaving early,” Giusti says. “And we have people dying in traffic, that’s my biggest fear.”

But officials say some new road projects should help more people evacuate faster.
In 2019, TxDOT hopes to start the process of widening I-45 from FM 1764 to the Galveston Causeway. It will go from six lanes to eight.

Precinct 4 Commissioner Ken Clark believes it will help

“If we can get people to leave in a staged fashion, it should really make an evacuation not only efficient but very smooth also,” Clark says.
State Highway 146 is also being widened in Seabrook and that includes a new bridge near the Kemah Boardwalk.

From the Washington Post: Election forecasters try to bring some order to a chaotic political year

For a handful of political scientists, presidential elections can be forecast with a properly designed algorithm. The debate is over what algorithm works best.

- Click here for the article.

One model, by Robert Erikson of Columbia University and Chris Wlezien of the University of Texas, points to Clinton winning with 52 percent of the two-party popular vote. (Actual vote percentages for Clinton and Trump will be lower because of the presence of Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Party’s Jill Stein on the ballot.) That model combines post-convention polls with the results from the index of leading economic indicators.

Michael Lewis-Beck of the University of Iowa and Charles Tien of Hunter College also see a Clinton victory, with just 51 percent of the two-party popular vote. Tien said that translates to a narrow electoral college majority for Clinton of 274 votes.

Andreas Graefe of LMU Munich and J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania cite four different models, all of which point to a victory by Clinton larger than some of the other forecasts.

One outlier is Helmut Norpoth of Stony Brook University. His model takes into account sentiment for a change in parties, but most important, and unusual, is his reliance on performance by the major-party candidates during the early presidential primaries, in this case New Hampshire and South Carolina. On that basis, he predicted last spring that Trump would win the election and said the prediction came with an 87 percent certainty.

When I spoke with Norpoth a few days ago, he was admittedly nervous. “I do worry. . . . I’m clearly sort of the odd man out,” he said. But, he added, “it’s not a foregone conclusion that he’s [Trump] going down the tubes.”

Alan Abramowitz of Emory University uses what he calls a Time for Change Forecasting Model. His model does not rely on polling data but instead takes into account the incumbent president’s approval rating at midyear, the growth rate of real gross domestic product in the second quarter of the election year and whether the incumbent president’s party has held the White House for one term or more than a term.

On that basis, his model predicts a narrow victory for Trump. But Abramowitz also suggests that Trump could underperform. “A model like mine that relies entirely on fundamentals is likely to miss the result because Trump is such an atypical candidate,” he said.

From the New Republic: The Birth of Conservative Media as We Know It

For 2305 - this fits with our coverage of conservatism in a previous section, as well as our upcoming look at the media.

- Click here for the article.

Henry Regnery flipped through his notes a final time as he waited for the rest of the group to arrive. In a few minutes Room 2233 in New York City’s Lincoln Building would be packed with some of the brightest lights of the conservative movement, gathered together at his request. Writers, publishers, and editors made up most of the guest list, including William F. Buckley Jr., the enfant terrible of the right; Frank Hanighen, cofounder of Human Events; Raymond Moley, Newsweek columnist and author of the anti–New Deal book After Seven Years (1939); and John Chamberlain, former editor of the Freeman and an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal.

When everyone was settled, Regnery explained why he had called the meeting. As 1953 came to a close, he observed the men in Room 2233 were unquestionably on the losing side of politics. And that puzzled him. “The side we represent controls most of the wealth in this country,” he told those gathered. “The ideas and traditions we believe in are those which most Americans instinctively believe in also.” Why then was liberalism ascendant and conservatism relegated to the fringes? Because, Regnery argued, the left controlled institutions: the media, the universities, the foreign policy establishment. Until the right had a “counterintelligence unit” that could fight back, conservatives would remain a group of elites raging against a system that by all rights they should control.

- Click here for the magazine they produced: Human Events.

From the NYT: Islam Karimov Dies at 78; Ruthlessly Ruled Uzbekistan for Decades

An example of an autocrat ruling a totalitarian system. One the US had to deal with from time to time due to the complexities of the middle east.

- Click here for the article.

Mr. Karimov rose through the ranks of the local Communist Party until the Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev named him first secretary and effectively Uzbekistan’s chief in 1989. He won a presidential election after independence in 1991 and used Soviet methods to govern the country.

“He is the state and the state is him, and it has been that way for at least 25 years,” said Steve Swerdlow, the director of Central Asia research at Human Rights Watch.

. . . The immediate succession is expected to follow the Constitution, which mandates that the head of the Senate run the country for three months until new presidential elections can be organized. Mr. Karimov repeatedly manipulated elections or referendums to extend his rule well beyond the two terms mandated by the Constitution.
Such voting, which critics called fraudulent, always had a preordained conclusion. He won his latest presidential term in March 2015 with over 90 percent of the vote.

Mr. Karimov jailed or exiled his political opponents and muzzled the news media. Political prisoners were estimated to number in the thousands. Torture was rife. He brushed aside any criticism that managed to bubble up despite the oppression.Continue reading the main story

“I am one of those who is criticized for staying too long,” he said in 2014. “But I want to keep working. What’s wrong with that?”

An estimated one million Russians still live in Uzbekistan, though the population of more than 31 million is overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim. Mr. Karimov, who crushed an Islamic insurgency after surviving anassassination attempt by Islamic militants in 1999, was considered a bulwark against the spread of any jihadist threat in the region.

With him gone, there was some question whether the Islamic State or other groups might try to exploit the transition to re-emerge. “Whether or not the Islamic State sees a succession as an opportunity to create risks for the much-hated Russians remains an open question,” said Cliff Kupchan, an expert on Russia and chairman of the Eurasia Group, a risk advisory firm based in Washington.

In 1999, Mr. Karimov made his position toward radical Islam abundantly clear.
“I am prepared to rip off the heads of 200 people, to sacrifice their lives, in order to save peace and calm in the republic,” he told reporters. “If my child chose such a path, I myself would rip off his head.”

For more:

- Human Rights Watch – Uzbekistan is a totalitarian regime.
- Human rights activists’ dismay as Uzbekistan autocrat clings to power.
- The Most Hated Woman in Uzbekistan Can Do Anything.