The revolving door:
- Click here for the article.
Sean Duffy, the former Republican congressman who has aggressively defended President Donald Trump, is heading to K Street after resigning from Congress in September.
Duffy will become a senior counsel at BGR Group, a Republican-leaning lobbying firm that’s also home to former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. The firm’s lobbyists represent corporate clients such as Comcast and Pfizer, as well as the governments of Bahrain, Bangladesh, India and South Korea, according to disclosure filings.
Duffy, the former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee’s housing subcommittee, will head up BGR’s financial services practice. BGR lobbies for Credit Suisse and MassMutual, among other financial clients. He plans to register as a lobbyist, according to the firm.
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
Monday, November 11, 2019
Objectives of the Texas Penal Code
Sec. 1.02. OBJECTIVES OF CODE. The general purposes of this code are to establish a system of prohibitions, penalties, and correctional measures to deal with conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably causes or threatens harm to those individual or public interests for which state protection is appropriate. To this end, the provisions of this code are intended, and shall be construed, to achieve the following objectives:
(1) to insure the public safety through:
(A) the deterrent influence of the penalties hereinafter provided;
(B) the rehabilitation of those convicted of violations of this code; and
(C) such punishment as may be necessary to prevent likely recurrence of criminal behavior;
(2) by definition and grading of offenses to give fair warning of what is prohibited and of the consequences of violation;
(3) to prescribe penalties that are proportionate to the seriousness of offenses and that permit recognition of differences in rehabilitation possibilities among individual offenders;
(4) to safeguard conduct that is without guilt from condemnation as criminal;
(5) to guide and limit the exercise of official discretion in law enforcement to prevent arbitrary or oppressive treatment of persons suspected, accused, or convicted of offenses; and
(6) to define the scope of state interest in law enforcement against specific offenses and to systematize the exercise of state criminal jurisdiction.
(1) to insure the public safety through:
(A) the deterrent influence of the penalties hereinafter provided;
(B) the rehabilitation of those convicted of violations of this code; and
(C) such punishment as may be necessary to prevent likely recurrence of criminal behavior;
(2) by definition and grading of offenses to give fair warning of what is prohibited and of the consequences of violation;
(3) to prescribe penalties that are proportionate to the seriousness of offenses and that permit recognition of differences in rehabilitation possibilities among individual offenders;
(4) to safeguard conduct that is without guilt from condemnation as criminal;
(5) to guide and limit the exercise of official discretion in law enforcement to prevent arbitrary or oppressive treatment of persons suspected, accused, or convicted of offenses; and
(6) to define the scope of state interest in law enforcement against specific offenses and to systematize the exercise of state criminal jurisdiction.
Objectives of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
Art. 1.03. OBJECTS OF THIS CODE. This Code is intended to embrace rules applicable to the prevention and prosecution of offenses against the laws of this State, and to make the rules of procedure in respect to the prevention and punishment of offenses intelligible to the officers who are to act under them, and to all persons whose rights are to be affected by them. It seeks:
1. To adopt measures for preventing the commission of crime;
2. To exclude the offender from all hope of escape;
3. To insure a trial with as little delay as is consistent with the ends of justice;
4. To bring to the investigation of each offense on the trial all the evidence tending to produce conviction or acquittal;
5. To insure a fair and impartial trial; and
6. The certain execution of the sentence of the law when declared.
1. To adopt measures for preventing the commission of crime;
2. To exclude the offender from all hope of escape;
3. To insure a trial with as little delay as is consistent with the ends of justice;
4. To bring to the investigation of each offense on the trial all the evidence tending to produce conviction or acquittal;
5. To insure a fair and impartial trial; and
6. The certain execution of the sentence of the law when declared.
From the Texas Tribune: Kay Granger is the most senior Republican woman in the U.S. House. But her reelection could turn into an intra-GOP battle.
For our look at primary elections, among other things - the iron triangle for one.
- Click here for the article.
It’s the question on the minds of Republicans from Washington to Cowtown: Is one of Texas’ most powerful U.S. House members in political trouble?
Enough people think so that many in the GOP political class are bracing for Fort Worth to serve as the setting of the next nationalized battle between the party's establishment and rebellious conservative factions.
U.S. Rep. Kay Granger, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, is running for reelection in her Fort Worth district. But at least one well-funded primary challenger has emerged: Chris Putnam, who shot out of the gate this fall with a burst of cash and accusations that Granger is not sufficiently loyal to President Donald Trump.
Unseating Granger would undoubtedly be a tall task — she’s a 12-term member of Congress who has been a force in Fort Worth politics since before she was mayor in the early 1990s.
. . . From her position on the Appropriations Committee, she spearheaded the development of the F-35 fighter plane, which is in part manufactured in Fort Worth’s Lockheed Martin plant, and a massive Fort Worth waterworks project called the Trinity River Vision Authority. Both the F-35 and the Trinity River project have come under heavy criticism for cost overruns. Granger has also withstood years of allegations that the TRVA, which has been run by her son J.D. Granger, is a source of nepotism.
A year ago, the Texas Republican delegation rallied behind her in a successful — but narrowly won — bid as the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee is where decisions are made on how the government spends money.
It is the most sought-after committee among members, and a leadership post like that of Granger’s is usually the capstone of a long Congressional career.
But her position on the Appropriations Committee cuts both ways. While she can argue that her status puts her in a unique position to help her district and Congress, she depleted her campaign accounts to get to that point.
As she vied for the role, she raised and distributed millions of dollars to House GOP efforts to win races elsewhere in the country. According to Federal Election Commission records, she has directly transferred over $3 million from her own campaign to the House GOP campaign arm since 2002. That sum does not include donations directly to colleagues and candidates, fundraisers she has hosted on behalf of colleagues and the National Republican Congressional Committee and money directly raised for the NRCC. Two Republicans who support Granger estimated the unknown sum to be millions more.
Once the top slot at the committee opened up, Granger escalated her fundraising, and that effort proved key in her victory last year. Now, as the ranking member, she has already transferred $435,000 to the NRCC this year alone.
- Earmarks.
- Political Action Committees (PACs) 2019 - 2020.
- JD Granger, Trinity River Vision Authority, Executive Director
- Click here for the article.
It’s the question on the minds of Republicans from Washington to Cowtown: Is one of Texas’ most powerful U.S. House members in political trouble?
Enough people think so that many in the GOP political class are bracing for Fort Worth to serve as the setting of the next nationalized battle between the party's establishment and rebellious conservative factions.
U.S. Rep. Kay Granger, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, is running for reelection in her Fort Worth district. But at least one well-funded primary challenger has emerged: Chris Putnam, who shot out of the gate this fall with a burst of cash and accusations that Granger is not sufficiently loyal to President Donald Trump.
Unseating Granger would undoubtedly be a tall task — she’s a 12-term member of Congress who has been a force in Fort Worth politics since before she was mayor in the early 1990s.
. . . From her position on the Appropriations Committee, she spearheaded the development of the F-35 fighter plane, which is in part manufactured in Fort Worth’s Lockheed Martin plant, and a massive Fort Worth waterworks project called the Trinity River Vision Authority. Both the F-35 and the Trinity River project have come under heavy criticism for cost overruns. Granger has also withstood years of allegations that the TRVA, which has been run by her son J.D. Granger, is a source of nepotism.
A year ago, the Texas Republican delegation rallied behind her in a successful — but narrowly won — bid as the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee is where decisions are made on how the government spends money.
It is the most sought-after committee among members, and a leadership post like that of Granger’s is usually the capstone of a long Congressional career.
But her position on the Appropriations Committee cuts both ways. While she can argue that her status puts her in a unique position to help her district and Congress, she depleted her campaign accounts to get to that point.
As she vied for the role, she raised and distributed millions of dollars to House GOP efforts to win races elsewhere in the country. According to Federal Election Commission records, she has directly transferred over $3 million from her own campaign to the House GOP campaign arm since 2002. That sum does not include donations directly to colleagues and candidates, fundraisers she has hosted on behalf of colleagues and the National Republican Congressional Committee and money directly raised for the NRCC. Two Republicans who support Granger estimated the unknown sum to be millions more.
Once the top slot at the committee opened up, Granger escalated her fundraising, and that effort proved key in her victory last year. Now, as the ranking member, she has already transferred $435,000 to the NRCC this year alone.
- Earmarks.
- Political Action Committees (PACs) 2019 - 2020.
- JD Granger, Trinity River Vision Authority, Executive Director
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident (1964)
For our look at the expanded powers of the commander in chief..
- Case Closed: The Gulf of Tonkin Incident
From The U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:
Ground zero of the impeachment process.
- Click here for the committee.
Press Releases
House Intelligence Committee Announces First Week of Open Hearings With William Taylor, George Kent and Marie Yovanovitch
Washington, November 6, 2019
Washington, DC — Today, Chairman Adam Schiff announced that on Wednesday, November 13, 2019, and Friday, November 15, 2019 the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will hold its first open hearings as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald J. Trump.
On Wednesday, November 13, 2019, the Committee will hear from Ambassador William Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent. Taylor currently serves as the Chargé D'affaires for the U.S. State Department in Ukraine. Kent serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the European and Eurasian Bureau at the U.S. Department of State.
On Friday, November 15, 2019, the Committee will hear from former Ambassador Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch. Until May 2019, Yovanovitch served as the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine.
Additional details will be released in the coming days.
- Click here for the committee.
Press Releases
House Intelligence Committee Announces First Week of Open Hearings With William Taylor, George Kent and Marie Yovanovitch
Washington, November 6, 2019
Washington, DC — Today, Chairman Adam Schiff announced that on Wednesday, November 13, 2019, and Friday, November 15, 2019 the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will hold its first open hearings as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald J. Trump.
On Wednesday, November 13, 2019, the Committee will hear from Ambassador William Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent. Taylor currently serves as the Chargé D'affaires for the U.S. State Department in Ukraine. Kent serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the European and Eurasian Bureau at the U.S. Department of State.
On Friday, November 15, 2019, the Committee will hear from former Ambassador Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch. Until May 2019, Yovanovitch served as the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine.
Additional details will be released in the coming days.
From the National Park Service: The Articles of Impeachment Against Andrew Johnson
- Click here for the site.
March 7, 1868
The Senate of the United States to Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, Greetings:
Whereas the House of Representatives of the United States of America, did on the Fourth day of March, 1868, exhibit to the Senate articles of impeachment against you the said Andrew Johnson, in the words following:
ARTICLE I.
ARTICLE II.
ARTICLE III.
ARTICLE IV.
ARTICLE V.
ARTICLE VI.
ARTICLE VII.
ARTICLE VIII.
ARTICLE IX.
ARTICLE X.
ARTICLE XI,
and demand that you, the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, shall be put to answer the accusations as set forth in said articles, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgments might be thereupon had as are agreeable to law and justice, as demanded by the House of Representatives through their managers.
And whereas, the House of Representatives through their Managers did, also, on the sixth day of March instant, demand that process be taken against you, that you may answer at the bar of the Senate, upon the articles of impeachment theretofore preferred.
Now therefore, you, the said Andrew Johnson President of the United States, are hereby summoned to be and appear before the Senate of the United States of America, sitting on the trial of the said impeachment, at their chamber in the City of Washington, on Friday the Thirteenth day of March instant, at one O'clock after noon, then and there to answer to the said articles of impeachment, and then and there to abide by, obey, and perform such orders, directions and Judgments as the said Senate of the United States, sitting as aforesaid, shall make in the premises, according to the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Hereof you are not to fail.
Witness Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the United States and President of said Senate sitting on the trial of the said impeachment, at the City of Washington, this Seventh day of March, in the year of Our Lord One thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, and of the independence of the United States the Ninety Second.
(signed) Salmon P. Chase
Chief Justice of the United States
March 7, 1868
The Senate of the United States to Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, Greetings:
Whereas the House of Representatives of the United States of America, did on the Fourth day of March, 1868, exhibit to the Senate articles of impeachment against you the said Andrew Johnson, in the words following:
ARTICLE I.
ARTICLE II.
ARTICLE III.
ARTICLE IV.
ARTICLE V.
ARTICLE VI.
ARTICLE VII.
ARTICLE VIII.
ARTICLE IX.
ARTICLE X.
ARTICLE XI,
and demand that you, the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, shall be put to answer the accusations as set forth in said articles, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgments might be thereupon had as are agreeable to law and justice, as demanded by the House of Representatives through their managers.
And whereas, the House of Representatives through their Managers did, also, on the sixth day of March instant, demand that process be taken against you, that you may answer at the bar of the Senate, upon the articles of impeachment theretofore preferred.
Now therefore, you, the said Andrew Johnson President of the United States, are hereby summoned to be and appear before the Senate of the United States of America, sitting on the trial of the said impeachment, at their chamber in the City of Washington, on Friday the Thirteenth day of March instant, at one O'clock after noon, then and there to answer to the said articles of impeachment, and then and there to abide by, obey, and perform such orders, directions and Judgments as the said Senate of the United States, sitting as aforesaid, shall make in the premises, according to the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Hereof you are not to fail.
Witness Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the United States and President of said Senate sitting on the trial of the said impeachment, at the City of Washington, this Seventh day of March, in the year of Our Lord One thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, and of the independence of the United States the Ninety Second.
(signed) Salmon P. Chase
Chief Justice of the United States
From Landmark Supreme Court Cases: Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton, 1998
- Click here for the site.
(While four articles of impeachment were created by the House Judiciary Committee, only the two below were approved by the full House. In the Senate, the vote fell short of the 2/3 majority that was required to convict Clinton and remove him from office.)
RESOLVED, That William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors . . .
Article One: In his conduct while President of the United States . . . in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of the President . . . has . . . undermined the integrity of his office . . . betrayed his trust as President . . . and acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law by:
willfully corrupting and manipulating the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration
willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to his relationship with an employee
willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to prior perjurious testimony in a civil rights action brought against him
allowing his attorney to make false and misleading statements in the same civil rights action
attempting to influence witness testimony and slow the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action
Article Three: . . . has [in the Paula Jones Case] prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice by:
encouraging a witness to give a perjurious affidavit
encouraging a witness to give false testimony if called to the stand
allowing and/or encouraging the concealment of subpoenaed evidence
attempting to sway a witness testimony by providing a job for that witness
allowing his attorney to make misleading testimony
giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a potential witness in a Federal civil rights action
giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a witness in a grand jury investigation
(While four articles of impeachment were created by the House Judiciary Committee, only the two below were approved by the full House. In the Senate, the vote fell short of the 2/3 majority that was required to convict Clinton and remove him from office.)
RESOLVED, That William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors . . .
Article One: In his conduct while President of the United States . . . in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of the President . . . has . . . undermined the integrity of his office . . . betrayed his trust as President . . . and acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law by:
willfully corrupting and manipulating the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration
willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to his relationship with an employee
willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to prior perjurious testimony in a civil rights action brought against him
allowing his attorney to make false and misleading statements in the same civil rights action
attempting to influence witness testimony and slow the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action
Article Three: . . . has [in the Paula Jones Case] prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice by:
encouraging a witness to give a perjurious affidavit
encouraging a witness to give false testimony if called to the stand
allowing and/or encouraging the concealment of subpoenaed evidence
attempting to sway a witness testimony by providing a job for that witness
allowing his attorney to make misleading testimony
giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a potential witness in a Federal civil rights action
giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a witness in a grand jury investigation
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
HARRIS COUNTY - HOUSTON SPORTS AUTHORITY HISTORY
An outline of the development of a local single purpose government.
- Click here for the story.
On September 14, 1996, Harris County, the City of Houston, the Houston Astros Baseball Club and Sports Facilities, L.P. ("SFLP") executed a Letter of Intent regarding the development of a proposed new baseball stadium for the Houston Astros to be located in downtown Houston. The Letter of Intent, among other things, stated that the downtown stadium would be developed through a "county-wide sports authority or other similar non-profit corporation" and outlined plans for financing the design, construction and operation of the Ballpark.
The financing plan described in the Letter of Intent included a joint commitment from the County, the City, the Houston Astros and SFLP to support legislation in the 1997 session of the Texas Legislature that would authorize the creation of the county-wide sports authority, provide public revenue sources to finance the ballpark, and capitalize the sports authority. The terms of the Letter of Intent were subject to a number of conditions, including (a) securing the approval of voters of the County in a referendum regarding the establishment and operation of the proposed Ballpark, and (b) passage of the legislation described above.
On November 5, 1996, the first condition was satisfied when the voters of Harris County authorized the establishment and operation of "new or renovated stadiums, arenas or other facilities for professional baseball and football teams." The second condition was satisfied on May 20, 1997, when the Texas Legislature enacted H.B. 92, which, among other things, authorizes (a) counties with a population in excess of 2.2 million and cities with a population in excess of 1.2 million to adopt concurrent orders to create a "sports and community venue district" under Chapter 335 of the Texas Local Government Code, and (b) the imposition by any such district of certain taxes, including a hotel occupancy tax and short-term motor vehicle rental tax to finance "approved venue projects" such as the proposed ballpark.
On July 29 and 30, 1997, Harris County Commissioners Court and Houston's City Council adopted Concurrent Orders creating, effective September 1, 1997, the sports and community venue district known as the Harris County - Houston Sports Authority. Shortly thereafter, pursuant to the Concurrent Orders, the County Judge and the Mayor jointly appointed the Chairman of the Sports Authority and twelve other Directors as the initial governing body.
- Click here for the story.
On September 14, 1996, Harris County, the City of Houston, the Houston Astros Baseball Club and Sports Facilities, L.P. ("SFLP") executed a Letter of Intent regarding the development of a proposed new baseball stadium for the Houston Astros to be located in downtown Houston. The Letter of Intent, among other things, stated that the downtown stadium would be developed through a "county-wide sports authority or other similar non-profit corporation" and outlined plans for financing the design, construction and operation of the Ballpark.
The financing plan described in the Letter of Intent included a joint commitment from the County, the City, the Houston Astros and SFLP to support legislation in the 1997 session of the Texas Legislature that would authorize the creation of the county-wide sports authority, provide public revenue sources to finance the ballpark, and capitalize the sports authority. The terms of the Letter of Intent were subject to a number of conditions, including (a) securing the approval of voters of the County in a referendum regarding the establishment and operation of the proposed Ballpark, and (b) passage of the legislation described above.
On November 5, 1996, the first condition was satisfied when the voters of Harris County authorized the establishment and operation of "new or renovated stadiums, arenas or other facilities for professional baseball and football teams." The second condition was satisfied on May 20, 1997, when the Texas Legislature enacted H.B. 92, which, among other things, authorizes (a) counties with a population in excess of 2.2 million and cities with a population in excess of 1.2 million to adopt concurrent orders to create a "sports and community venue district" under Chapter 335 of the Texas Local Government Code, and (b) the imposition by any such district of certain taxes, including a hotel occupancy tax and short-term motor vehicle rental tax to finance "approved venue projects" such as the proposed ballpark.
On July 29 and 30, 1997, Harris County Commissioners Court and Houston's City Council adopted Concurrent Orders creating, effective September 1, 1997, the sports and community venue district known as the Harris County - Houston Sports Authority. Shortly thereafter, pursuant to the Concurrent Orders, the County Judge and the Mayor jointly appointed the Chairman of the Sports Authority and twelve other Directors as the initial governing body.
From Wikipedia: United States admiralty law
One of the enumerated powers of the national government, and a source of federal criminal law.
The Congress shall have the power: 10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:
- Click here for the entry.
The Congress shall have the power: 10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:
- Click here for the entry.
From Wikipedia: The DREAM Act / and DACA
A subject of the GOVT 2305 textbook.
An example of an attempt by a president to establish a policy against the wishes of Congress by claiming that existing law allows him to do so.
- Click here for the entry for the DREAM Act.
- Click here for the entry for DACA.
- see also: Immigration to the United States.
From the latter:
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is an American immigration policy that allows some individuals with unlawful presence in the United States after being brought to the country as children to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and become eligible for a work permit in the U.S. To be eligible for the program, recipients cannot have felonies or serious misdemeanors on their records. Unlike the proposed DREAM Act, DACA does not provide a path to citizenship for recipients, known as Dreamers.[1][2] The policy, an executive branch memorandum, was announced by President Barack Obama on June 15, 2012. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications for the program on August 15, 2012.
In November 2014, President Obama announced his intention to expand DACA to cover additional undocumented immigrants. Multiple states immediately sued to prevent the expansion which was ultimately blocked by an evenly divided Supreme Court. Under President Trump the Department of Homeland Security rescinded the expansion on June 16, 2017, while continuing to review the existence of the DACA program as a whole. Plans to phase out DACA were announced by the Trump Administration on September 5, 2017; implementation was put on hold for six months to allow Congress time to pass the Dream Act or some other legislative protection for Dreamers. Congress failed to act and the time extension expired on March 5, 2018, but the phase-out of DACA has been put on hold by several courts. On August 31, 2018, District Court Judge Andrew Hanen ruled that DACA is likely unconstitutional. However, he let the program remain in place as litigation proceeds.[3][4] As of October 2019, the cancellation of the program was on hold by court order; a Supreme Court decision on the matter was not expected until 2020.[5]
An example of an attempt by a president to establish a policy against the wishes of Congress by claiming that existing law allows him to do so.
- Click here for the entry for the DREAM Act.
- Click here for the entry for DACA.
- see also: Immigration to the United States.
From the latter:
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is an American immigration policy that allows some individuals with unlawful presence in the United States after being brought to the country as children to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and become eligible for a work permit in the U.S. To be eligible for the program, recipients cannot have felonies or serious misdemeanors on their records. Unlike the proposed DREAM Act, DACA does not provide a path to citizenship for recipients, known as Dreamers.[1][2] The policy, an executive branch memorandum, was announced by President Barack Obama on June 15, 2012. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications for the program on August 15, 2012.
In November 2014, President Obama announced his intention to expand DACA to cover additional undocumented immigrants. Multiple states immediately sued to prevent the expansion which was ultimately blocked by an evenly divided Supreme Court. Under President Trump the Department of Homeland Security rescinded the expansion on June 16, 2017, while continuing to review the existence of the DACA program as a whole. Plans to phase out DACA were announced by the Trump Administration on September 5, 2017; implementation was put on hold for six months to allow Congress time to pass the Dream Act or some other legislative protection for Dreamers. Congress failed to act and the time extension expired on March 5, 2018, but the phase-out of DACA has been put on hold by several courts. On August 31, 2018, District Court Judge Andrew Hanen ruled that DACA is likely unconstitutional. However, he let the program remain in place as litigation proceeds.[3][4] As of October 2019, the cancellation of the program was on hold by court order; a Supreme Court decision on the matter was not expected until 2020.[5]
Links opened for GOVT 2305
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyright_Office
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-877
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/18-877
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-877/117348/20190927155909608_Allen%20State%20Amicus.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-877/87418/20190207123314429_18-877acRIAA.PDF
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/allen-v-cooper/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyright_Office
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-877
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/18-877
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-877/117348/20190927155909608_Allen%20State%20Amicus.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-877/87418/20190207123314429_18-877acRIAA.PDF
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/allen-v-cooper/
Tuesday, November 5, 2019
Monday, November 4, 2019
Lone Star Rally 2016 - Economic Impact Study - May 9th, 2017
For our look at city finances: the costs and benefits of the Lone Star Rally in 2016.
- Click here for the study.
- Click here for the study.
Who is paying for the expansion of 288?
Some answers from the Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration.
- Click here for info.
- Private Activity Bonds (PABs) (senior debt) - $298.6 million
- TIFIA Loan - $357.0 million
- Private Equity - $375.3 million
- TxDOT Funds (for the Texas Medical Center Connector) - $17.1 million
- TIFIA Capitalized Interest - $14.9 million
- Interest Income - $0.7 million
- Click here for info.
- Private Activity Bonds (PABs) (senior debt) - $298.6 million
- TIFIA Loan - $357.0 million
- Private Equity - $375.3 million
- TxDOT Funds (for the Texas Medical Center Connector) - $17.1 million
- TIFIA Capitalized Interest - $14.9 million
- Interest Income - $0.7 million
ISD takeovers
It can happen, and it may
- This school district has been at risk of state takeover for years. Some blame white flight.
Every weekday, school buses emblazoned with “MUMFORD ISD” roll their way north on a winding farm-to-market road lined by sparse, tractor-dotted fields. They pick up children in neighboring Hearne and take them back to Mumford’s public schools.
Mumford, an unincorporated community 25 miles from College Station, has 300 residents, but its schools have nearly twice as many students — almost all of them live in nine nearby school districts. The highest number comes from Hearne Independent School District.
Hearne ISD administrators and teachers see the Mumford buses around town, constant reminders of what they’re up against. They’ve long insisted — in private and in courtrooms — that the transfers are bleeding them dry financially, sapping them of high-achieving students and contributing to the district’s low performance over the last couple of decades.
For years, Mumford has been a high-performing, racially diverse school district. Meanwhile, Hearne has become a majority black and Hispanic district, and its elementary school has been low performing for longer than almost any school in Texas. Unless Hearne ISD turns things around in the next couple of years, the state will take over the district or forcibly close its elementary school.
- HISD lawyers seek injunction to block TEA takeover, allow superintendent search.
Lawyers for Houston ISD’s school board have asked a federal judge to preemptively stop the Texas Education Agency from stripping power from the district’s elected trustees and allow board members to select a permanent superintendent, the latest maneuver in a growing legal battle between the district and state.
In a motion filed Tuesday, the HISD board’s lawyers argued agency officials have discriminated against voters in predominantly black and Hispanic cities, overstepped their authority in suspending the district’s superintendent search and misinterpreted a new state law that requires dramatic intervention in districts with long-struggling schools.
The filing comes as TEA officials are on the brink of finalizing their investigation into allegations of trustee misconduct and ruling on an appeal of Wheatley High School’s seventh consecutive failing grades — with both outcomes expected to trigger the ouster of HISD’s elected school board in the coming months.
- This school district has been at risk of state takeover for years. Some blame white flight.
Every weekday, school buses emblazoned with “MUMFORD ISD” roll their way north on a winding farm-to-market road lined by sparse, tractor-dotted fields. They pick up children in neighboring Hearne and take them back to Mumford’s public schools.
Mumford, an unincorporated community 25 miles from College Station, has 300 residents, but its schools have nearly twice as many students — almost all of them live in nine nearby school districts. The highest number comes from Hearne Independent School District.
Hearne ISD administrators and teachers see the Mumford buses around town, constant reminders of what they’re up against. They’ve long insisted — in private and in courtrooms — that the transfers are bleeding them dry financially, sapping them of high-achieving students and contributing to the district’s low performance over the last couple of decades.
For years, Mumford has been a high-performing, racially diverse school district. Meanwhile, Hearne has become a majority black and Hispanic district, and its elementary school has been low performing for longer than almost any school in Texas. Unless Hearne ISD turns things around in the next couple of years, the state will take over the district or forcibly close its elementary school.
- HISD lawyers seek injunction to block TEA takeover, allow superintendent search.
Lawyers for Houston ISD’s school board have asked a federal judge to preemptively stop the Texas Education Agency from stripping power from the district’s elected trustees and allow board members to select a permanent superintendent, the latest maneuver in a growing legal battle between the district and state.
In a motion filed Tuesday, the HISD board’s lawyers argued agency officials have discriminated against voters in predominantly black and Hispanic cities, overstepped their authority in suspending the district’s superintendent search and misinterpreted a new state law that requires dramatic intervention in districts with long-struggling schools.
The filing comes as TEA officials are on the brink of finalizing their investigation into allegations of trustee misconduct and ruling on an appeal of Wheatley High School’s seventh consecutive failing grades — with both outcomes expected to trigger the ouster of HISD’s elected school board in the coming months.
From the Texas Tribune: Empower Texans helped topple House Speaker Dennis Bonnen. Did it further the conservative movement?
For 2306's look at interest groups, in this case a conservative group which is attempting to shift the Republican Party further towards the right.
- Click here for the article.
Empower Texans’ impact on the Texas GOP is difficult to overstate. With Bonnen on his way out, House Republicans are left headless as they fight to maintain their majority in a tight 2020 election. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — a top recipient of Empower Texans’ campaign cash, and, once upon a time, its top legislative ally — has accused the group of “destroying our party.”
Now, some warn, in addition to risking a new speaker who is even less sympathetic to its cause, the group behind a now-infamous secret recording may lose the trust of other Republican lawmakers.
But Luke Macias, a conservative political consultant often aligned with Empower Texans, said, “We’ve already won.”
“I definitely don’t think that conservatives are going to be in a worse position politically regarding ability to usher in conservative policies as a result of ridding themselves of a really corrupt speaker,” Macias said. “Some of Dennis Bonnen’s closest supporters are still trying to make the argument that keeping the corrupt speaker would have been better for Republicans. … At the end of the day, I think the Republican Party is going to be better off if we unite against dishonesty and not try to take down the guy who was actually quite forthright with how this entire meeting went down.”
“Shooting the whistleblower seems like a really bad idea for the Republican Party,” he added.
Several Republican members of the Texas House declined to be interviewed about the group, but some were less reluctant to privately name-call and dismiss it. A Republican House committee chairman compared the group’s recent surge in relevance to what market analysts call a “dead cat bounce” — a temporary surge in price that makes a stock look revitalized just before it spirals downward for good.
Disdain for the group has also been the clear message from the speaker’s office, whose spokeswoman, Cait Meisenheimer, has re-shared numerous tweets critical of Sullivan, including one arguing that his legacy “will be that of a treacherous snake.”
“It is unfortunate that a surreptitiously obtained 64-minute recording turned into a ten week investigation and ultimately ended with the defamation of a man’s quarter-century in public service,” she said in a statement last week.
- Click here for the article.
Empower Texans’ impact on the Texas GOP is difficult to overstate. With Bonnen on his way out, House Republicans are left headless as they fight to maintain their majority in a tight 2020 election. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — a top recipient of Empower Texans’ campaign cash, and, once upon a time, its top legislative ally — has accused the group of “destroying our party.”
Now, some warn, in addition to risking a new speaker who is even less sympathetic to its cause, the group behind a now-infamous secret recording may lose the trust of other Republican lawmakers.
But Luke Macias, a conservative political consultant often aligned with Empower Texans, said, “We’ve already won.”
“I definitely don’t think that conservatives are going to be in a worse position politically regarding ability to usher in conservative policies as a result of ridding themselves of a really corrupt speaker,” Macias said. “Some of Dennis Bonnen’s closest supporters are still trying to make the argument that keeping the corrupt speaker would have been better for Republicans. … At the end of the day, I think the Republican Party is going to be better off if we unite against dishonesty and not try to take down the guy who was actually quite forthright with how this entire meeting went down.”
“Shooting the whistleblower seems like a really bad idea for the Republican Party,” he added.
Several Republican members of the Texas House declined to be interviewed about the group, but some were less reluctant to privately name-call and dismiss it. A Republican House committee chairman compared the group’s recent surge in relevance to what market analysts call a “dead cat bounce” — a temporary surge in price that makes a stock look revitalized just before it spirals downward for good.
Disdain for the group has also been the clear message from the speaker’s office, whose spokeswoman, Cait Meisenheimer, has re-shared numerous tweets critical of Sullivan, including one arguing that his legacy “will be that of a treacherous snake.”
“It is unfortunate that a surreptitiously obtained 64-minute recording turned into a ten week investigation and ultimately ended with the defamation of a man’s quarter-century in public service,” she said in a statement last week.
From C-Span: House Republicans Leaders News Conference
A good example of opinion leaders outlining arguments for party identifiers.
- Click here for the video.
- Click here for the video.
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
The first federal law against cyber crime, passed in 1986.
- Click here for the wikipedia entry on it.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is a United States cybersecurity bill that was enacted in 1986 as an amendment to existing computer fraud law (18 U.S.C. § 1030), which had been included in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The law prohibits accessing a computer without authorization, or in excess of authorization.[1] Prior to computer-specific criminal laws, computer crimes were prosecuted as mail and wire fraud, but the applying law was often insufficient.
The original 1984 bill was enacted in response to concern that computer-related crimes might go unpunished.[2] The House Committee Report to the original computer crime bill characterized the 1983 techno-thriller film WarGames—in which a young teenager (played by Matthew Broderick) from Seattle breaks into a U.S. military supercomputer programmed to predict possible outcomes of nuclear war and unwittingly almost starts World War III—as "a realistic representation of the automatic dialing and access capabilities of the personal computer."[3]
The CFAA was written to extend existing tort law to intangible property, while, in theory, limiting federal jurisdiction to cases "with a compelling federal interest-i.e., where computers of the federal government or certain financial institutions are involved or where the crime itself is interstate in nature.", but its broad definitions have spilled over into contract law. (see "Protected Computer", below). In addition to amending a number of the provisions in the original section 1030, the CFAA also criminalized additional computer-related acts. Provisions addressed the distribution of malicious code and denial of service attacks. Congress also included in the CFAA a provision criminalizing trafficking in passwords and similar items.[1]
Since then, the Act has been amended a number of times—in 1989, 1994, 1996, in 2001 by the USA PATRIOT Act, 2002, and in 2008 by the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act. With each amendment of the law, the types of conduct that fell within its reach were extended.
In January 2015 Barack Obama proposed expanding the CFAA and the RICO Act in his Modernizing Law Enforcement Authorities to Combat Cyber Crime proposal.[4] DEF CON organizer and Cloudflare researcher Marc Rogers, Senator Ron Wyden, and Representative Zoe Lofgren have stated opposition to this on the grounds it will make many regular Internet activities illegal, and moves further away from what they were trying to accomplish with Aaron's Law.[5][6]
- Click here for the wikipedia entry on it.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is a United States cybersecurity bill that was enacted in 1986 as an amendment to existing computer fraud law (18 U.S.C. § 1030), which had been included in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The law prohibits accessing a computer without authorization, or in excess of authorization.[1] Prior to computer-specific criminal laws, computer crimes were prosecuted as mail and wire fraud, but the applying law was often insufficient.
The original 1984 bill was enacted in response to concern that computer-related crimes might go unpunished.[2] The House Committee Report to the original computer crime bill characterized the 1983 techno-thriller film WarGames—in which a young teenager (played by Matthew Broderick) from Seattle breaks into a U.S. military supercomputer programmed to predict possible outcomes of nuclear war and unwittingly almost starts World War III—as "a realistic representation of the automatic dialing and access capabilities of the personal computer."[3]
The CFAA was written to extend existing tort law to intangible property, while, in theory, limiting federal jurisdiction to cases "with a compelling federal interest-i.e., where computers of the federal government or certain financial institutions are involved or where the crime itself is interstate in nature.", but its broad definitions have spilled over into contract law. (see "Protected Computer", below). In addition to amending a number of the provisions in the original section 1030, the CFAA also criminalized additional computer-related acts. Provisions addressed the distribution of malicious code and denial of service attacks. Congress also included in the CFAA a provision criminalizing trafficking in passwords and similar items.[1]
Since then, the Act has been amended a number of times—in 1989, 1994, 1996, in 2001 by the USA PATRIOT Act, 2002, and in 2008 by the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act. With each amendment of the law, the types of conduct that fell within its reach were extended.
In January 2015 Barack Obama proposed expanding the CFAA and the RICO Act in his Modernizing Law Enforcement Authorities to Combat Cyber Crime proposal.[4] DEF CON organizer and Cloudflare researcher Marc Rogers, Senator Ron Wyden, and Representative Zoe Lofgren have stated opposition to this on the grounds it will make many regular Internet activities illegal, and moves further away from what they were trying to accomplish with Aaron's Law.[5][6]
From Florida Tech: A Brief History of Cyber Crime
A look at the origins of laws against cyber crime.
- Click here for it.
The malicious association with hacking became evident in the 1970s when early computerized phone systems became a target. Technologically savvy individuals, called “phreakers” discovered the correct codes and tones that would result in free long distance service. They impersonated operators, dug through Bell Telephone company garbage to find secret information, and performed countless experiments on early telephone hardware in order to learn how to exploit the system. They were hackers in every sense of the word, using their resourcefulness to modify hardware and software to steal long distance telephone time.
This innovative type of crime was a difficult issue for law enforcement, due in part to lack of legislation to aid in criminal prosecution, and a shortage of investigators skilled in the technology that was being hacked. It was clear that computer systems were open to criminal activity, and as more complex communications became available to the consumer, more opportunities for cyber crime developed.
In 1986 the systems administrator at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Clifford Stoll, noted certain irregularities in accounting data. Inventing the first digital forensic techniques, he determined that an unauthorized user was hacking into his computer network. Stoll used what is called a “honey pot tactic,” which lures a hacker back into a network until enough data can be collected to track the intrusion to its source. Stoll’s effort paid off with the eventual arrest of Markus Hess and a number of others located in West Germany, who were stealing and selling military information, passwords and other data to the KGB.
The Berkeley lab intrusion was soon followed by the discovery of the Morris worm virus, created by Robert Morris, a Cornell University student. This worm damaged more than 6,000 computers and resulted in estimated damages of $98 million. More incidents began to follow in a continuous, steady stream. Congress responded by passing its first hacking-related legislation, the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, in 1986. The act made computer tampering a felony crime punishable by significant jail time and monetary fines.
- Click here for it.
The malicious association with hacking became evident in the 1970s when early computerized phone systems became a target. Technologically savvy individuals, called “phreakers” discovered the correct codes and tones that would result in free long distance service. They impersonated operators, dug through Bell Telephone company garbage to find secret information, and performed countless experiments on early telephone hardware in order to learn how to exploit the system. They were hackers in every sense of the word, using their resourcefulness to modify hardware and software to steal long distance telephone time.
This innovative type of crime was a difficult issue for law enforcement, due in part to lack of legislation to aid in criminal prosecution, and a shortage of investigators skilled in the technology that was being hacked. It was clear that computer systems were open to criminal activity, and as more complex communications became available to the consumer, more opportunities for cyber crime developed.
In 1986 the systems administrator at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Clifford Stoll, noted certain irregularities in accounting data. Inventing the first digital forensic techniques, he determined that an unauthorized user was hacking into his computer network. Stoll used what is called a “honey pot tactic,” which lures a hacker back into a network until enough data can be collected to track the intrusion to its source. Stoll’s effort paid off with the eventual arrest of Markus Hess and a number of others located in West Germany, who were stealing and selling military information, passwords and other data to the KGB.
The Berkeley lab intrusion was soon followed by the discovery of the Morris worm virus, created by Robert Morris, a Cornell University student. This worm damaged more than 6,000 computers and resulted in estimated damages of $98 million. More incidents began to follow in a continuous, steady stream. Congress responded by passing its first hacking-related legislation, the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, in 1986. The act made computer tampering a felony crime punishable by significant jail time and monetary fines.
Links related to the impeachment
Expect more - much of this relates to various items in the textbook, as you would expect. Let's try to connect the dots in future classes.
- House resolution outlines public phase of impeachment inquiry, gives GOP subpoena powers.
- The very simple reason why Democrats switched strategy on an impeachment vote.
- House votes to formalize impeachment inquiry procedures.
- House resolution outlines public phase of impeachment inquiry, gives GOP subpoena powers.
- The very simple reason why Democrats switched strategy on an impeachment vote.
- House votes to formalize impeachment inquiry procedures.
Thomas Porteous
For our look at impeachments in 2305.
This is the last official removed by being convicted of an impeachable offense.
https://www.politico.com/story/2010/12/senate-removes-louisiana-judge-046134
Friday, November 1, 2019
ln addition to the vote on the impeachment process ....
...was another party line vote.
- The vote.
- The bill: H.R.823 - Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act.
- The vote.
- The bill: H.R.823 - Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act.
Links opened during a recent 2305 class
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Electoral-Commission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_United_States_Congress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/politics/house-impeachment-inquiry-resolution-floor-vote/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/politics/impeachment-vote-strategy/index.html
https://library.municode.com/tx/houston/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_CH25SPEV_ARTIISTFU
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/Could-Houston-be-a-protest-city-10896713.php
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Electoral-Commission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_United_States_Congress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/politics/house-impeachment-inquiry-resolution-floor-vote/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/politics/impeachment-vote-strategy/index.html
https://library.municode.com/tx/houston/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_CH25SPEV_ARTIISTFU
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/Could-Houston-be-a-protest-city-10896713.php
The vote on H.Res.660
An example of a party line vote.
Two Democrats voted nay.
No Republican voted yea.
The only independent (an ex-Republican) voted yeah.
- Click here for it.
Two Democrats voted nay.
No Republican voted yea.
The only independent (an ex-Republican) voted yeah.
- Click here for it.
The text of H.Res.660
- Click here for the source.
H. Res. 660
In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
October 31, 2019.
Resolved, That the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committees on Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, the Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means, are directed to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America.
SEC. 2. OPEN AND TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATIVE PROCEEDINGS BY THE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE.
For the purpose of continuing the investigation described in the first section of this resolution, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (referred to in this resolution as the “Permanent Select Committee”) is authorized to conduct proceedings pursuant to this resolution as follows:
(1) The chair of the Permanent Select Committee shall designate an open hearing or hearings pursuant to this section.
(2) Notwithstanding clause 2(j)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, upon recognition by the chair for such purpose under this paragraph during any hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1), the chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee shall be permitted to question witnesses for equal specified periods of longer than five minutes, as determined by the chair. The time available for each period of questioning under this paragraph shall be equal for the chair and the ranking minority member. The chair may confer recognition for multiple periods of such questioning, but each period of questioning shall not exceed 90 minutes in the aggregate. Only the chair and ranking minority member, or a Permanent Select Committee employee if yielded to by the chair or ranking minority member, may question witnesses during such periods of questioning. At the conclusion of questioning pursuant to this paragraph, the committee shall proceed with questioning under the five-minute rule pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(A) of rule XI.
(3) To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for the first hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1). Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution.
(4) (A) The ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair, to require, as deemed necessary to the investigation—
(i) by subpoena or otherwise—
(I) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition); and
(II) the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents; and
(ii) by interrogatory, the furnishing of information.
(B) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to subparagraph (A), the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision, subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.
(C) Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be signed by the ranking minority member, and may be served by any person designated by the ranking minority member.
(5) The chair is authorized to make publicly available in electronic form the transcripts of depositions conducted by the Permanent Select Committee in furtherance of the investigation described in the first section of this resolution, with appropriate redactions for classified and other sensitive information.
(6) The Permanent Select Committee is directed to issue a report setting forth its findings and any recommendations and appending any information and materials the Permanent Select Committee may deem appropriate with respect to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution. The chair shall transmit such report and appendices, along with any supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views filed pursuant to clause 2(l) of rule XI, to the Committee on the Judiciary and make such report publicly available in electronic form, with appropriate redactions to protect classified and other sensitive information. The report required by this paragraph shall be prepared in consultation with the chairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Oversight and Reform.
SEC. 3. TRANSMISSION OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS.
The chair of the Permanent Select Committee or the chair of any other committee having custody of records or other materials relating to the inquiry referenced in the first section of this resolution is authorized, in consultation with the ranking minority member, to transfer such records or materials to the Committee on the Judiciary.
SEC. 4. IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PROCEDURES IN THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.
(a) The House authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct proceedings relating to the impeachment inquiry referenced in the first section of this resolution pursuant to the procedures submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the chair of the Committee on Rules, including such procedures as to allow for the participation of the President and his counsel.
(b) The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to promulgate additional procedures as it deems necessary for the fair and efficient conduct of committee hearings held pursuant to this resolution, provided that the additional procedures are not inconsistent with the procedures referenced in subsection (a), the Rules of the Committee, and the Rules of the House.
(c) (1) The ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, to require, as deemed necessary to the investigation—
(A) by subpoena or otherwise—
(i) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition); and
(ii) the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents; and
(B) by interrogatory, the furnishing of information.
(2) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to paragraph (1), the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision, subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.
(3) Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be signed by the ranking minority member, and may be served by any person designated by the ranking minority member.
(d) The Committee on the Judiciary shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.
Attest:
H. Res. 660
In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
October 31, 2019.
Resolved, That the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committees on Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, the Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means, are directed to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America.
SEC. 2. OPEN AND TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATIVE PROCEEDINGS BY THE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE.
For the purpose of continuing the investigation described in the first section of this resolution, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (referred to in this resolution as the “Permanent Select Committee”) is authorized to conduct proceedings pursuant to this resolution as follows:
(1) The chair of the Permanent Select Committee shall designate an open hearing or hearings pursuant to this section.
(2) Notwithstanding clause 2(j)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, upon recognition by the chair for such purpose under this paragraph during any hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1), the chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee shall be permitted to question witnesses for equal specified periods of longer than five minutes, as determined by the chair. The time available for each period of questioning under this paragraph shall be equal for the chair and the ranking minority member. The chair may confer recognition for multiple periods of such questioning, but each period of questioning shall not exceed 90 minutes in the aggregate. Only the chair and ranking minority member, or a Permanent Select Committee employee if yielded to by the chair or ranking minority member, may question witnesses during such periods of questioning. At the conclusion of questioning pursuant to this paragraph, the committee shall proceed with questioning under the five-minute rule pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(A) of rule XI.
(3) To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for the first hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1). Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution.
(4) (A) The ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair, to require, as deemed necessary to the investigation—
(i) by subpoena or otherwise—
(I) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition); and
(II) the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents; and
(ii) by interrogatory, the furnishing of information.
(B) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to subparagraph (A), the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision, subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.
(C) Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be signed by the ranking minority member, and may be served by any person designated by the ranking minority member.
(5) The chair is authorized to make publicly available in electronic form the transcripts of depositions conducted by the Permanent Select Committee in furtherance of the investigation described in the first section of this resolution, with appropriate redactions for classified and other sensitive information.
(6) The Permanent Select Committee is directed to issue a report setting forth its findings and any recommendations and appending any information and materials the Permanent Select Committee may deem appropriate with respect to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution. The chair shall transmit such report and appendices, along with any supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views filed pursuant to clause 2(l) of rule XI, to the Committee on the Judiciary and make such report publicly available in electronic form, with appropriate redactions to protect classified and other sensitive information. The report required by this paragraph shall be prepared in consultation with the chairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Oversight and Reform.
SEC. 3. TRANSMISSION OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS.
The chair of the Permanent Select Committee or the chair of any other committee having custody of records or other materials relating to the inquiry referenced in the first section of this resolution is authorized, in consultation with the ranking minority member, to transfer such records or materials to the Committee on the Judiciary.
SEC. 4. IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PROCEDURES IN THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.
(a) The House authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct proceedings relating to the impeachment inquiry referenced in the first section of this resolution pursuant to the procedures submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the chair of the Committee on Rules, including such procedures as to allow for the participation of the President and his counsel.
(b) The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to promulgate additional procedures as it deems necessary for the fair and efficient conduct of committee hearings held pursuant to this resolution, provided that the additional procedures are not inconsistent with the procedures referenced in subsection (a), the Rules of the Committee, and the Rules of the House.
(c) (1) The ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, to require, as deemed necessary to the investigation—
(A) by subpoena or otherwise—
(i) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition); and
(ii) the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents; and
(B) by interrogatory, the furnishing of information.
(2) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to paragraph (1), the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision, subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.
(3) Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be signed by the ranking minority member, and may be served by any person designated by the ranking minority member.
(d) The Committee on the Judiciary shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.
Attest:
From Congress.gov: H.Res.660 - Directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes.
This provides the process for the passage of the resolution outlining the process for the impeachment investigation.
- Click here for the entry.
- Click here for the entry.
Thursday, October 31, 2019
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/brief_history_congressional_reform_efforts.pdf
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-filibuster-that-almost-killed-the-civil-rights-act/
https://www.rules.senate.gov/rules-of-the-senate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority_in_the_United_States_Senate
https://energycommerce.house.gov/about-ec/membership
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Clay#Speaker_of_the_House
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Rule
https://homeland.house.gov/about/committee-history
https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/civil-rights-1964/senate-roll-call.html
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-filibuster-that-almost-killed-the-civil-rights-act/
https://www.rules.senate.gov/rules-of-the-senate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority_in_the_United_States_Senate
https://energycommerce.house.gov/about-ec/membership
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Clay#Speaker_of_the_House
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Rule
https://homeland.house.gov/about/committee-history
https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/civil-rights-1964/senate-roll-call.html
Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act
From GOVT THS3 today:
- What is the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act?
- Timeline.
- Congress.gov - H.R.1373 - Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act.
- House votes to permanently ban uranium mines near the Grand Canyon.
- Floor vote.
- What is the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act?
- Timeline.
- Congress.gov - H.R.1373 - Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act.
- House votes to permanently ban uranium mines near the Grand Canyon.
- Floor vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_Act_of_1792
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_Census
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/31/707899218/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-2020-census
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/2020-census.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_United_States_Congress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_Census
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/31/707899218/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-2020-census
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/2020-census.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_United_States_Congress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
From CNBC: Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter program gets $34 billion Pentagon contract, its biggest yet
Lobbying pays off.
- Click here for the article.
The Pentagon on Tuesday announced a $34 billion F-35 contract with Lockheed Martin, the largest contract yet for the defense company’s costly fighter program.
The deal is for the delivery of 478 of the aircraft.
The F-35, the crown jewel in the defense giant’s portfolio, has become one of the most challenged programs in the history of the Department of Defense. The laundry list of setbacks includes faulty ejection seats, software delays and significant helmet-display issues. The program had an initial acquisition cost of $406.5 billion.
Yet the Pentagon touted reduced costs and a quicker timetable in its announcement Tuesday.
“This agreement achieves an average 12.7% cost reduction across all three variants and gets us below $80 million for a USAF F-35A by Lot 13 – one lot earlier than planned,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Eric Fick, F-35 program executive officer, said Tuesday.
- Click here for the article.
The Pentagon on Tuesday announced a $34 billion F-35 contract with Lockheed Martin, the largest contract yet for the defense company’s costly fighter program.
The deal is for the delivery of 478 of the aircraft.
The F-35, the crown jewel in the defense giant’s portfolio, has become one of the most challenged programs in the history of the Department of Defense. The laundry list of setbacks includes faulty ejection seats, software delays and significant helmet-display issues. The program had an initial acquisition cost of $406.5 billion.
Yet the Pentagon touted reduced costs and a quicker timetable in its announcement Tuesday.
“This agreement achieves an average 12.7% cost reduction across all three variants and gets us below $80 million for a USAF F-35A by Lot 13 – one lot earlier than planned,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Eric Fick, F-35 program executive officer, said Tuesday.
From the Texas Tribune: Austin ISD sex ed battle could be preview of state-level debate
For our look at local governments and interest groups, among other things.
- Click here for the article.
There was a line down the sidewalk to get into the Austin Independent School District's school board meeting Monday. Under jackets and cardigans, many opponents wore red T-shirts with "AUSTIN SEXXX ED" circled and slashed out.
During a raucous three hours from Monday night into Tuesday morning, about 100 people stepped up to the microphone for a minute each to explain to nine Austin school board members why they should or should not approve a new comprehensive sexual education program for third through eighth grade.
This marks the first time the district has evaluated its sex education curriculum in more than 10 years, and the lessons include topics like gender identity, reproductive anatomy, and body image, tailored for each grade.
Opponents of the program, many organized by conservative statewide advocacy group Texas Values, said the curriculum violated Christian family values and included lessons — including on sexual orientation and sexual health — that parents should tackle at home. Proponents, who showed up to the meeting in smaller numbers, argued the lessons would be valuable tools to help LGBTQ students feel supported by teachers and administrators, and would help all students learn to build healthy relationships.
After midnight, Austin ISD board members unanimously approved the revised curriculum, which is expected to go into effect by next May. The dramatic scene that unfolded in Austin could be a preview a larger battle at the State Board of Education, which is expected next year to revise its policies on how school districts across the state should teach health and sex to students.
The state board last approached the topic in 2004, when it adopted abstinence-only health textbooks. Abstinence-only advocates have successfully kept information on birth control and STD prevention out of textbooks for decades.
Committees of educators and experts are now preparing a set of recommendations for how the board should revise its standards. The board is expected to make a final decision next year, setting the stage for how teachers and textbook publishers will approach the controversial subject in years to come.
Public schools are not required to teach sexual education. But if they do, state law requires they stress abstinence as the preferred choice for unmarried young people and spend more time on it than any other sexual behavior. Parents can opt out of any lesson if they don't feel comfortable with it.
- Click here for the article.
There was a line down the sidewalk to get into the Austin Independent School District's school board meeting Monday. Under jackets and cardigans, many opponents wore red T-shirts with "AUSTIN SEXXX ED" circled and slashed out.
During a raucous three hours from Monday night into Tuesday morning, about 100 people stepped up to the microphone for a minute each to explain to nine Austin school board members why they should or should not approve a new comprehensive sexual education program for third through eighth grade.
This marks the first time the district has evaluated its sex education curriculum in more than 10 years, and the lessons include topics like gender identity, reproductive anatomy, and body image, tailored for each grade.
Opponents of the program, many organized by conservative statewide advocacy group Texas Values, said the curriculum violated Christian family values and included lessons — including on sexual orientation and sexual health — that parents should tackle at home. Proponents, who showed up to the meeting in smaller numbers, argued the lessons would be valuable tools to help LGBTQ students feel supported by teachers and administrators, and would help all students learn to build healthy relationships.
After midnight, Austin ISD board members unanimously approved the revised curriculum, which is expected to go into effect by next May. The dramatic scene that unfolded in Austin could be a preview a larger battle at the State Board of Education, which is expected next year to revise its policies on how school districts across the state should teach health and sex to students.
The state board last approached the topic in 2004, when it adopted abstinence-only health textbooks. Abstinence-only advocates have successfully kept information on birth control and STD prevention out of textbooks for decades.
Committees of educators and experts are now preparing a set of recommendations for how the board should revise its standards. The board is expected to make a final decision next year, setting the stage for how teachers and textbook publishers will approach the controversial subject in years to come.
Public schools are not required to teach sexual education. But if they do, state law requires they stress abstinence as the preferred choice for unmarried young people and spend more time on it than any other sexual behavior. Parents can opt out of any lesson if they don't feel comfortable with it.
Links from 10/29/19
- Congressional Overrides of Presidential Vetoes.
- Star Chamber.
- NRA - Political Victory Fund.
- RULES of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
- Choosing the Nominee: How Presidential Primaries Came To Be and Their Future in American Politics.
- House Committee on Appropriations.
- Senate Committee on Appropriations.
- War Powers Resolution.
- Star Chamber.
- NRA - Political Victory Fund.
- RULES of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
- Choosing the Nominee: How Presidential Primaries Came To Be and Their Future in American Politics.
- House Committee on Appropriations.
- Senate Committee on Appropriations.
- War Powers Resolution.
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
From 538: Primary Challenges Might Keep These Republican Senators From Voting To Remove Trump
For our look at elections - primarying.
- Click here for the article.
Much has been made about whether Republicans will ever cut ties with President Trump over his attempt to hold up military aid to Ukraine to get political dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden. And although there are some signs of the party breaking with Trump, one important reason why we haven’t seen GOP senators break with Trump en masse is because many are up for reelection — in total, there are 23 Republican-held seats up in 2020.
And in five of these races, Republicans face particularly tough reelection battles. Election forecasters have rated these races as the most competitive Senate contests in the 2020 cycle, and in each race, the partisan lean of their states is less than 10 points more Republican than the country as a whole. In fact, in the case of Maine and Colorado, they actually lean slightly Democratic.1 These senators are especially vulnerable in a general election if Trump’s standing declines, but they’re also in a position where they can’t afford to alienate their party’s base.
So a vote on whether to remove Trump from office could really complicate things for them, especially if the current timeline for a vote on impeachment holds. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell anticipates the House will vote by the end of the year, which means the Senate could vote in January or February, before the filing deadlines to mount a bid in most of these races have passed. This means many of these Republicans could find themselves facing a last-minute primary challenger if they voted to remove, making the electoral calculus of casting such a vote even more fraught with peril.
- 2020 United States Senate elections.
- Click here for the article.
Much has been made about whether Republicans will ever cut ties with President Trump over his attempt to hold up military aid to Ukraine to get political dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden. And although there are some signs of the party breaking with Trump, one important reason why we haven’t seen GOP senators break with Trump en masse is because many are up for reelection — in total, there are 23 Republican-held seats up in 2020.
And in five of these races, Republicans face particularly tough reelection battles. Election forecasters have rated these races as the most competitive Senate contests in the 2020 cycle, and in each race, the partisan lean of their states is less than 10 points more Republican than the country as a whole. In fact, in the case of Maine and Colorado, they actually lean slightly Democratic.1 These senators are especially vulnerable in a general election if Trump’s standing declines, but they’re also in a position where they can’t afford to alienate their party’s base.
So a vote on whether to remove Trump from office could really complicate things for them, especially if the current timeline for a vote on impeachment holds. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell anticipates the House will vote by the end of the year, which means the Senate could vote in January or February, before the filing deadlines to mount a bid in most of these races have passed. This means many of these Republicans could find themselves facing a last-minute primary challenger if they voted to remove, making the electoral calculus of casting such a vote even more fraught with peril.
- 2020 United States Senate elections.
Monday, October 28, 2019
From the Texas Tribune: Texas House panel considers fixes for glitches in school finance law
For out look at finance, and the state legislature.
- Click here for it.
Several months after a major school finance law rewired how billions of dollars get funneled into hundreds of school districts across the state, educators and state officials are still trying to untangle the threads.
House Bill 3, an $11.6 billion measure, gave school districts more money for employee salaries and programs like full-day pre-K and dual language. But at a House Public Education hearing Monday, educators and advocates pointed to problems with the way the law was written that have resulted in unexpected increases or decreases in funding for individual school districts.
While lawmakers gave the state education agency power to correct those glitches, it's still unclear exactly how broad that power is. Meanwhile, some school officials are holding back on spending their money until they get more clarity on how much they really have.
"The problem is, districts don't have the data," said Lonnie Hollingsworth, general counsel for the Texas Classroom Teachers Association. "They basically have to guess as to what their funding is going to be."
Educators have been directly affected by this lack of clarity. School districts were required by the new law to use a chunk of their additional money to give teachers and other employees raises. But Hollingsworth said some have chosen to "lowball" those raises until they get final calculations from the state on things like tax revenue and funding for low-income students, promising to increase salaries once there is more financial certainty.
Beyond questions of financial clarity, another question that bubbled up at Monday's hearing was how much power the state’s education agency has to resolve problems in the law now that lawmakers have gaveled out until 2021. HB 3 explicitly gave Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath significant authority to "resolve unintended consequences" if school districts saw unexpected losses or gains in funding. But it requires Morath to provide an explanation to lawmakers and then get approval from the governor and state budget board before making any changes.
Morath himself acknowledged the complicated position he is in: "One thing is what's for y'all to address next session," he said to lawmakers. "And another thing is what's for me to surface as an unintended consequence this interim."
- Click here for it.
Several months after a major school finance law rewired how billions of dollars get funneled into hundreds of school districts across the state, educators and state officials are still trying to untangle the threads.
House Bill 3, an $11.6 billion measure, gave school districts more money for employee salaries and programs like full-day pre-K and dual language. But at a House Public Education hearing Monday, educators and advocates pointed to problems with the way the law was written that have resulted in unexpected increases or decreases in funding for individual school districts.
While lawmakers gave the state education agency power to correct those glitches, it's still unclear exactly how broad that power is. Meanwhile, some school officials are holding back on spending their money until they get more clarity on how much they really have.
"The problem is, districts don't have the data," said Lonnie Hollingsworth, general counsel for the Texas Classroom Teachers Association. "They basically have to guess as to what their funding is going to be."
Educators have been directly affected by this lack of clarity. School districts were required by the new law to use a chunk of their additional money to give teachers and other employees raises. But Hollingsworth said some have chosen to "lowball" those raises until they get final calculations from the state on things like tax revenue and funding for low-income students, promising to increase salaries once there is more financial certainty.
Beyond questions of financial clarity, another question that bubbled up at Monday's hearing was how much power the state’s education agency has to resolve problems in the law now that lawmakers have gaveled out until 2021. HB 3 explicitly gave Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath significant authority to "resolve unintended consequences" if school districts saw unexpected losses or gains in funding. But it requires Morath to provide an explanation to lawmakers and then get approval from the governor and state budget board before making any changes.
Morath himself acknowledged the complicated position he is in: "One thing is what's for y'all to address next session," he said to lawmakers. "And another thing is what's for me to surface as an unintended consequence this interim."
Friday, October 25, 2019
a few links related to the Clinton impeachment
- CUNY: The Clinton Impeachment.
- The Guardian: Clinton impeachment timeline.
- Wikipedia: Impeachment of Bill Clinton.
- The Guardian: Clinton impeachment timeline.
- Wikipedia: Impeachment of Bill Clinton.
From Texas Monthly: Street Fight: Inside Austin’s Bitter Brawl Over Homelessness
For our look at local government, and their conflict with state government.
- Click here for the article.
Austin’s summer of discontent began with a sixteen-hour city council meeting. Council hearings are often marathon affairs, running into the wee hours, after sense and patience have gone to bed. The June 20 meeting was certainly a slog. By 2:20 a.m., the council had voted to effectively legalize sleeping, camping, and panhandling on sidewalks and in other public spaces. In doing so, city leaders upended an unspoken arrangement with the public that had persisted for more than two decades, one that criminalized homelessness and made the homeless less visible.
Here’s how the bargain had worked: Without enough shelter space to get people off the streets, Austin had tasked the police with enforcing ordinances that made it illegal to aggressively panhandle, sit or lie on sidewalks, and camp in public. In a never-ending game, the police would move the homeless around, sometimes pushing them into out-of-the-way, dangerous places like the banks of creeks. Those who refused to move along were given citations, which often then led to arrest and jail.
The Austin City Council, which has been moving to the left in recent years, deemed this an unacceptable situation. So at the June meeting, the council voted overwhelmingly to weaken the ordinances. Panhandling was now legal as long as supplicants did not engage in “aggressive confrontation.” So was sitting and lying on sidewalks, as long as the person in question didn’t block rights-of-way. Camping was no longer illegal in public spaces, including sidewalks and under bridges, though it was still expressly prohibited in places like public parks.
Proponents sold the move as smart, compassionate policy that would decriminalize homelessness and bring homeless folks out of the shadows, part of a broader push to add hundreds of new shelter beds, expand affordable housing, and increase funding for homeless outreach. Progressive, forward-thinking Austin would lead the way. “You and I spend millions of taxpayer dollars playing this perverse game of moving people around and solving nothing,” wrote Mayor Steve Adler in an op-ed in the Austin American-Statesman. “I refuse to play any longer.” For the first time in a long while, Austin’s homeless were able to get a good night’s sleep. Then all hell broke loose.
- Click here for the article.
Austin’s summer of discontent began with a sixteen-hour city council meeting. Council hearings are often marathon affairs, running into the wee hours, after sense and patience have gone to bed. The June 20 meeting was certainly a slog. By 2:20 a.m., the council had voted to effectively legalize sleeping, camping, and panhandling on sidewalks and in other public spaces. In doing so, city leaders upended an unspoken arrangement with the public that had persisted for more than two decades, one that criminalized homelessness and made the homeless less visible.
Here’s how the bargain had worked: Without enough shelter space to get people off the streets, Austin had tasked the police with enforcing ordinances that made it illegal to aggressively panhandle, sit or lie on sidewalks, and camp in public. In a never-ending game, the police would move the homeless around, sometimes pushing them into out-of-the-way, dangerous places like the banks of creeks. Those who refused to move along were given citations, which often then led to arrest and jail.
The Austin City Council, which has been moving to the left in recent years, deemed this an unacceptable situation. So at the June meeting, the council voted overwhelmingly to weaken the ordinances. Panhandling was now legal as long as supplicants did not engage in “aggressive confrontation.” So was sitting and lying on sidewalks, as long as the person in question didn’t block rights-of-way. Camping was no longer illegal in public spaces, including sidewalks and under bridges, though it was still expressly prohibited in places like public parks.
Proponents sold the move as smart, compassionate policy that would decriminalize homelessness and bring homeless folks out of the shadows, part of a broader push to add hundreds of new shelter beds, expand affordable housing, and increase funding for homeless outreach. Progressive, forward-thinking Austin would lead the way. “You and I spend millions of taxpayer dollars playing this perverse game of moving people around and solving nothing,” wrote Mayor Steve Adler in an op-ed in the Austin American-Statesman. “I refuse to play any longer.” For the first time in a long while, Austin’s homeless were able to get a good night’s sleep. Then all hell broke loose.
From the Washington Post: Trump’s pollster releases the worst impeachment poll ever
This builds on topics covered in 2305's public opinion chapter. The author argues the questions are slanted
- Click here for the article.
Look at the question:
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “Impeaching President Trump is a waste of time and tax dollars and it will ultimately go nowhere, so the Democrats should focus on working with Republicans to solve our nation’s problems rather than focusing on trying to impeach President Trump.”
So the options are essentially: Do something that is costly and pointless, or work together to “solve our nation’s problems.” Who wouldn’t choose the latter? The question, of course, ignores that fact that Congress was gridlocked regardless of impeachment, so it’s kind of a false choice. And very few people are going to disagree with the idea that Congress should focus on curing the nation’s ills.
The first finding is that Americans say 52 percent to 36 percent that impeachment is being done for political reasons rather than legal ones. Here, again, the phrasing is something:
Do you think that Nancy Pelosi and the House Demcrats are moving forward with their impeachment inquiry against President Trump mainly for political reasons to stop him from being re-elected or mainly for legal reasons?
This is a neat trick. Other polls have suggested that, regardless of how many Americans support impeachment, they do see it as a political process. And that’s probably because, well, it is. So McLaughlin takes that and adds the phrase “to stop him from being re-elected.” Suddenly, all those people who pretty rightly see this as a political process are also signing on to the premise that Democrats are mostly just trying to unseat Trump. (Which, maybe! But why wouldn’t they want to prevent the reelection of someone they view as having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”?)
The most offensive of the questions, though, is this one. It may sound like an exaggerated paraphrase, but this is how the question was posed, verbatim:
Historic precedent has always been that to begin an impeachment inquiry the House of representatives [sic] has always held a vote. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are now breaking with precedent to conduct a purely partisan impeachment. In your opinion do you think that unless Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats hold a vote, the President is right NOT to cooperate with this inquiry?
Where to even begin? First off, it’s true that the House held votes to launch impeachment inquiries in the cases of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. But it’s less apparent that it was explicitly authorized in the third case, the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in the 1860s. Plus, there is very little precedent here, period, and there is no requirement that the House conduct such a vote.
Second, the idea that this is a “purely partisan impeachment” isn’t even in the question; instead, it’s thrown out as an ironclad fact. This is … not how polling is done. If you’re going to assert something like that, you at least give a people a chance to agree or disagree with the premise.
- Click here for the article.
Look at the question:
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “Impeaching President Trump is a waste of time and tax dollars and it will ultimately go nowhere, so the Democrats should focus on working with Republicans to solve our nation’s problems rather than focusing on trying to impeach President Trump.”
So the options are essentially: Do something that is costly and pointless, or work together to “solve our nation’s problems.” Who wouldn’t choose the latter? The question, of course, ignores that fact that Congress was gridlocked regardless of impeachment, so it’s kind of a false choice. And very few people are going to disagree with the idea that Congress should focus on curing the nation’s ills.
The first finding is that Americans say 52 percent to 36 percent that impeachment is being done for political reasons rather than legal ones. Here, again, the phrasing is something:
Do you think that Nancy Pelosi and the House Demcrats are moving forward with their impeachment inquiry against President Trump mainly for political reasons to stop him from being re-elected or mainly for legal reasons?
This is a neat trick. Other polls have suggested that, regardless of how many Americans support impeachment, they do see it as a political process. And that’s probably because, well, it is. So McLaughlin takes that and adds the phrase “to stop him from being re-elected.” Suddenly, all those people who pretty rightly see this as a political process are also signing on to the premise that Democrats are mostly just trying to unseat Trump. (Which, maybe! But why wouldn’t they want to prevent the reelection of someone they view as having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”?)
The most offensive of the questions, though, is this one. It may sound like an exaggerated paraphrase, but this is how the question was posed, verbatim:
Historic precedent has always been that to begin an impeachment inquiry the House of representatives [sic] has always held a vote. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are now breaking with precedent to conduct a purely partisan impeachment. In your opinion do you think that unless Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats hold a vote, the President is right NOT to cooperate with this inquiry?
Where to even begin? First off, it’s true that the House held votes to launch impeachment inquiries in the cases of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. But it’s less apparent that it was explicitly authorized in the third case, the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in the 1860s. Plus, there is very little precedent here, period, and there is no requirement that the House conduct such a vote.
Second, the idea that this is a “purely partisan impeachment” isn’t even in the question; instead, it’s thrown out as an ironclad fact. This is … not how polling is done. If you’re going to assert something like that, you at least give a people a chance to agree or disagree with the premise.
From the Texas Tribune: Texas House Speaker Dennis Bonnen won't face criminal prosecution, Brazoria County DA says
For our look at local government and law enforcement.
- Click here for the article.
Texas House Speaker Dennis Bonnen will not be criminally prosecuted for the things he said during a secretly recorded June meeting with a hardline conservative activist, the district attorney in his hometown announced Thursday.
"As repugnant as Speaker Bonnen's actions and statements are," Brazoria County District Attorney Jeri Yenne said in a statement, "I do not believe there is sufficient evidence from the June 12, 2019 meeting to warrant a criminal prosecution of Speaker Bonnen for Bribery or Solicitation of a Gift by a Public Servant, therefore no criminal charges will be brought."
Bonnen, an Angleton Republican, announced Tuesday he will not seek reelection to the lower chamber — and, consequentially, to the speakership — after activist Michael Quinn Sullivan secretly recorded a meeting with Bonnen in June. In the meeting, Bonnen and a top lieutenant, state Rep. Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, asked Sullivan's group, Empower Texans, to target a list of 10 House Republicans in the upcoming primary elections, and said he could get Empower Texans media access to the House floor. Bonnen also made a handful of disparaging comments about House Democrats and local leaders.
In August, the Texas Rangers launched an investigation into the matter and submitted their report to Yenne earlier this week.
A spokesperson for Bonnen said Yenne's decision "deflates Michael Quinn Sullivan's entire reason for going public three months ago — that, according to him, the Speaker solicited a bribe and broke the law."
"Unfortunately, we now live in a political climate where one is guilty until proven innocent, and not only has that thrown the ability of Republicans to hold onto our House majority into jeopardy, it sets a dangerous precedent moving forward," Cait Meisenheimer, the speaker's press secretary, said in a statement. "While justice prevailed today, unfortunately, the damage has been done."
Although Yenne doesn't plan to prosecute the speaker, the speaker could be punished in legislative ways. The House General Investigating Committee, which first asked the Rangers to investigate the matter, recently retained three legal advisers to help members review the final report and advise them "on the most appropriate next steps."
Legal matters aside, Yenne in her statement Thursday didn't hold back on criticizing Bonnen for his inflammatory remarks made during the June meeting.
- Click here for the article.
Texas House Speaker Dennis Bonnen will not be criminally prosecuted for the things he said during a secretly recorded June meeting with a hardline conservative activist, the district attorney in his hometown announced Thursday.
"As repugnant as Speaker Bonnen's actions and statements are," Brazoria County District Attorney Jeri Yenne said in a statement, "I do not believe there is sufficient evidence from the June 12, 2019 meeting to warrant a criminal prosecution of Speaker Bonnen for Bribery or Solicitation of a Gift by a Public Servant, therefore no criminal charges will be brought."
Bonnen, an Angleton Republican, announced Tuesday he will not seek reelection to the lower chamber — and, consequentially, to the speakership — after activist Michael Quinn Sullivan secretly recorded a meeting with Bonnen in June. In the meeting, Bonnen and a top lieutenant, state Rep. Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, asked Sullivan's group, Empower Texans, to target a list of 10 House Republicans in the upcoming primary elections, and said he could get Empower Texans media access to the House floor. Bonnen also made a handful of disparaging comments about House Democrats and local leaders.
In August, the Texas Rangers launched an investigation into the matter and submitted their report to Yenne earlier this week.
A spokesperson for Bonnen said Yenne's decision "deflates Michael Quinn Sullivan's entire reason for going public three months ago — that, according to him, the Speaker solicited a bribe and broke the law."
"Unfortunately, we now live in a political climate where one is guilty until proven innocent, and not only has that thrown the ability of Republicans to hold onto our House majority into jeopardy, it sets a dangerous precedent moving forward," Cait Meisenheimer, the speaker's press secretary, said in a statement. "While justice prevailed today, unfortunately, the damage has been done."
Although Yenne doesn't plan to prosecute the speaker, the speaker could be punished in legislative ways. The House General Investigating Committee, which first asked the Rangers to investigate the matter, recently retained three legal advisers to help members review the final report and advise them "on the most appropriate next steps."
Legal matters aside, Yenne in her statement Thursday didn't hold back on criticizing Bonnen for his inflammatory remarks made during the June meeting.
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
John Punch: the "first official slave in the English colonies,"
Interesting story.
- From Wikipedia.
John Punch (fl. 1630s, living 1640) was an enslaved African who lived in the Colony of Virginia. Thought to have been an indentured servant, Punch attempted to escape to Maryland and was sentenced in July 1640 by the Virginia Governor's Council to serve as a slave for the remainder of his life. Two European men who ran away with him were sentenced to longer indentures but not the permanent loss of their freedom. For this reason, historians consider John Punch the "first official slave in the English colonies," and his case as the "first legal sanctioning of lifelong slavery in the Chesapeake." Historians also consider this to be one of the first legal distinctions between Europeans and Africans made in the colony, and a key milestone in the development of the institution of slavery in the United States.
- From Wikipedia.
John Punch (fl. 1630s, living 1640) was an enslaved African who lived in the Colony of Virginia. Thought to have been an indentured servant, Punch attempted to escape to Maryland and was sentenced in July 1640 by the Virginia Governor's Council to serve as a slave for the remainder of his life. Two European men who ran away with him were sentenced to longer indentures but not the permanent loss of their freedom. For this reason, historians consider John Punch the "first official slave in the English colonies," and his case as the "first legal sanctioning of lifelong slavery in the Chesapeake." Historians also consider this to be one of the first legal distinctions between Europeans and Africans made in the colony, and a key milestone in the development of the institution of slavery in the United States.
From Wikipedia: James City County, Virginia
Apparently, this was the first county in the British Colonies
- Click here for the entry.
The Virginia Company of London was granted a proprietorship (charter) by King James I of England to attempt to establish a colony in the area we now know as Virginia. England had been at war with Spain and was seeking both capital funds and income in the form of royalties. In December, 1606, three ships set sail from England, led by Captain Christopher Newport. Upon reaching the New World at Cape Henry, they selected a site to settle about 40 miles (64 km) inland from the coast along a river to be better protected from attacks by sea from other Europeans. Soon after the establishment of Jamestown in 1607 in the new Colony of Virginia, English settlers first explored and then began settling more of the areas adjacent to Hampton Roads and along the James River.
The first five years were very difficult, and the majority of the colonists perished. In 1612, imported strains of tobacco cultivated in Virginia by colonist John Rolfe were successfully exported and a cash crop had been identified.
In 1619, the Virginia Company of London under a new leader, Sir Edwin Sandys, instituted a number of changes, to help stimulate more investment and attract settlers from England. In the long view, foremost among these was the establishment of what became the House of Burgesses, the first representative legislative body in the European settlement of North America, predecessor of today's Virginia General Assembly, first convened by a Royal Governor, Sir George Yeardley, of Flowerdew Hundred Plantation. Also in 1619, the plantations and developed portions of the Colony were divided into four "incorporations" or "citties," as they were then called. These were (east to west) Elizabeth Cittie (initially known as Kecoughtan), James Cittie, Charles Cittie, and Henrico Cittie. Each cittie covered a very large area. Elizabeth Cittie not only included land on both side of the James River, but most of what we now know as South Hampton Roads and also included Virginia's Eastern Shore.
The Virginia Company's "James Cittie" stretched across the Peninsula to the York River, and included the seat of government for the entire colony at Jamestown Island. Each of the four citties extended across the James River, the major thoroughfare of commerce for the settlers, and included land on both the north and south shores. With the incentives of 1619, many new developments, known as "hundreds" were established.
More on the early history of counties from Wikipedia.
- Click here for the entry.
Counties were among the earliest units of local government established in the Thirteen Colonies that would become the United States. Virginia created the first counties in order to ease the administrative workload in Jamestown. The House of Burgesses divided the colony first into four "incorporations" in 1617 and finally into eight shires (or counties) in 1634: James City, Henrico, Charles City, Charles River, Warrosquyoake, Accomac, Elizabeth City, and Warwick River.[11] America's oldest intact county court records can be found at Eastville, Virginia, in Northampton (originally Accomac) County, dating to 1632.[12] Maryland established its first county, St. Mary's, in 1637, and Massachusetts followed in 1643. Pennsylvania and New York delegated significant power and responsibility from state government to county governments and thereby established a pattern for most of the United States, although counties remained relatively weak in New England.[13]
When independence came, "the framers of the Constitution did not provide for local governments. Rather, they left the matter to the states. Subsequently, early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state." In the twentieth century, the role of local governments strengthened and counties began providing more services, acquiring home rule and county commissions to pass local ordinances pertaining to their unincorporated areas.
- See also: History of County Government.
- Click here for the entry.
The Virginia Company of London was granted a proprietorship (charter) by King James I of England to attempt to establish a colony in the area we now know as Virginia. England had been at war with Spain and was seeking both capital funds and income in the form of royalties. In December, 1606, three ships set sail from England, led by Captain Christopher Newport. Upon reaching the New World at Cape Henry, they selected a site to settle about 40 miles (64 km) inland from the coast along a river to be better protected from attacks by sea from other Europeans. Soon after the establishment of Jamestown in 1607 in the new Colony of Virginia, English settlers first explored and then began settling more of the areas adjacent to Hampton Roads and along the James River.
The first five years were very difficult, and the majority of the colonists perished. In 1612, imported strains of tobacco cultivated in Virginia by colonist John Rolfe were successfully exported and a cash crop had been identified.
In 1619, the Virginia Company of London under a new leader, Sir Edwin Sandys, instituted a number of changes, to help stimulate more investment and attract settlers from England. In the long view, foremost among these was the establishment of what became the House of Burgesses, the first representative legislative body in the European settlement of North America, predecessor of today's Virginia General Assembly, first convened by a Royal Governor, Sir George Yeardley, of Flowerdew Hundred Plantation. Also in 1619, the plantations and developed portions of the Colony were divided into four "incorporations" or "citties," as they were then called. These were (east to west) Elizabeth Cittie (initially known as Kecoughtan), James Cittie, Charles Cittie, and Henrico Cittie. Each cittie covered a very large area. Elizabeth Cittie not only included land on both side of the James River, but most of what we now know as South Hampton Roads and also included Virginia's Eastern Shore.
The Virginia Company's "James Cittie" stretched across the Peninsula to the York River, and included the seat of government for the entire colony at Jamestown Island. Each of the four citties extended across the James River, the major thoroughfare of commerce for the settlers, and included land on both the north and south shores. With the incentives of 1619, many new developments, known as "hundreds" were established.
More on the early history of counties from Wikipedia.
- Click here for the entry.
Counties were among the earliest units of local government established in the Thirteen Colonies that would become the United States. Virginia created the first counties in order to ease the administrative workload in Jamestown. The House of Burgesses divided the colony first into four "incorporations" in 1617 and finally into eight shires (or counties) in 1634: James City, Henrico, Charles City, Charles River, Warrosquyoake, Accomac, Elizabeth City, and Warwick River.[11] America's oldest intact county court records can be found at Eastville, Virginia, in Northampton (originally Accomac) County, dating to 1632.[12] Maryland established its first county, St. Mary's, in 1637, and Massachusetts followed in 1643. Pennsylvania and New York delegated significant power and responsibility from state government to county governments and thereby established a pattern for most of the United States, although counties remained relatively weak in New England.[13]
When independence came, "the framers of the Constitution did not provide for local governments. Rather, they left the matter to the states. Subsequently, early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state." In the twentieth century, the role of local governments strengthened and counties began providing more services, acquiring home rule and county commissions to pass local ordinances pertaining to their unincorporated areas.
- See also: History of County Government.
From the Brennan Center: New Voting Restrictions in America
- Click here for it.
Here's what they have for restrictions in Texas:
Texas
New law enacted in 2019: Cut back use of mobile early voting sites.
New restriction in place since 2016 election: Photo ID required if a voter has one, but an alternative will be available for those who present a non-photo ID from a preset list and execute an affidavit claiming to have certain, enumerated reasonable impediments to obtaining photo ID. Reasonable impediment alternative is more restrictive than the alternative in place in 2016.
Click here to see the types of ID required under Texas’s law.
New restriction(s) in place for the first time in 2016: Photo ID required if a voter has one, but an alternative will be available for those who have a reasonable impediment to obtaining ID.
Restriction(s) in place for the first time in 2012: Curbed voter registration drives.
Background: In 2012, a federal court blocked the 2011 photo ID law under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The state then implemented the requirement after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted Section 5 in 2013, and a photo ID was required to vote for the first time in a federal election in 2014.
In July 2016, the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the strict photo ID law discriminates against minority voters, and therefore cannot be enforced against those who lack ID. In August 2016, a federal court approved an agreement that will allow voters with an obstacle to obtaining photo ID to cast a regular ballot in November 2016 after showing one of a much larger number of IDs and signing a declaration. In June 2017, in response to the litigation, Texas enacted a new voter ID law that is currently in place.
A Republican-controlled legislature passed the restriction on voter registration drives and the strict photo ID law in 2011, and both were signed by a GOP governor.
Here's what they have for restrictions in Texas:
Texas
New law enacted in 2019: Cut back use of mobile early voting sites.
New restriction in place since 2016 election: Photo ID required if a voter has one, but an alternative will be available for those who present a non-photo ID from a preset list and execute an affidavit claiming to have certain, enumerated reasonable impediments to obtaining photo ID. Reasonable impediment alternative is more restrictive than the alternative in place in 2016.
Click here to see the types of ID required under Texas’s law.
New restriction(s) in place for the first time in 2016: Photo ID required if a voter has one, but an alternative will be available for those who have a reasonable impediment to obtaining ID.
Restriction(s) in place for the first time in 2012: Curbed voter registration drives.
Background: In 2012, a federal court blocked the 2011 photo ID law under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The state then implemented the requirement after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted Section 5 in 2013, and a photo ID was required to vote for the first time in a federal election in 2014.
In July 2016, the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the strict photo ID law discriminates against minority voters, and therefore cannot be enforced against those who lack ID. In August 2016, a federal court approved an agreement that will allow voters with an obstacle to obtaining photo ID to cast a regular ballot in November 2016 after showing one of a much larger number of IDs and signing a declaration. In June 2017, in response to the litigation, Texas enacted a new voter ID law that is currently in place.
A Republican-controlled legislature passed the restriction on voter registration drives and the strict photo ID law in 2011, and both were signed by a GOP governor.
From Wikipedia: Wasted Vote
- Click here for the entry.
Efficiency gap
Wasted votes are the basis for computing the efficiency gap, a measure devised by University of Chicago law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos and political scientist Eric McGhee in 2014. This statistic has been used to quantitatively assess the effect of gerrymandering, the assigning of voters to electoral districts in such a way as to increase the number of districts won by one political party at the expense of another. The heart of the computation is to add up, over all electoral districts, the wasted votes of each party's candidates. The efficiency gap is the difference between the two parties' wasted votes, divided by the total number of votes. Stephanopoulos and McGhee argued that in a non-partisan redistricting with two roughly equally popular parties, the efficiency gap would be zero, with an equal number of wasted votes from either party. If the gap exceeded 7%, then Stephanopoulos and McGhee argued that this could ensure the party with fewer wasted votes would be able to control the state for the duration of the validity of the district map.
Citing in part an efficiency gap of 11.69% to 13% in favor of the Republicans, a U.S. District Court ruling in Whitford v. Gill in 2016 ruled against the 2011 drawing of Wisconsin legislative districts. It was the first U.S. Federal court ruling to strike down a redistricting on the grounds of favoring a political party. In the 2012 election for the state legislature, Republican candidates had 48.6% of the two-party votes but won 61% of the 99 districts. The court found that the disparate treatment of Democratic and Republican voters violated the 1st and 14th amendments to the US Constitution. The State has challenged the District Court's ruling, and in June 2017, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in this case. The state is expected to challenge the validity of the efficiency gap measure.
Efficiency gap
Wasted votes are the basis for computing the efficiency gap, a measure devised by University of Chicago law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos and political scientist Eric McGhee in 2014. This statistic has been used to quantitatively assess the effect of gerrymandering, the assigning of voters to electoral districts in such a way as to increase the number of districts won by one political party at the expense of another. The heart of the computation is to add up, over all electoral districts, the wasted votes of each party's candidates. The efficiency gap is the difference between the two parties' wasted votes, divided by the total number of votes. Stephanopoulos and McGhee argued that in a non-partisan redistricting with two roughly equally popular parties, the efficiency gap would be zero, with an equal number of wasted votes from either party. If the gap exceeded 7%, then Stephanopoulos and McGhee argued that this could ensure the party with fewer wasted votes would be able to control the state for the duration of the validity of the district map.
Citing in part an efficiency gap of 11.69% to 13% in favor of the Republicans, a U.S. District Court ruling in Whitford v. Gill in 2016 ruled against the 2011 drawing of Wisconsin legislative districts. It was the first U.S. Federal court ruling to strike down a redistricting on the grounds of favoring a political party. In the 2012 election for the state legislature, Republican candidates had 48.6% of the two-party votes but won 61% of the 99 districts. The court found that the disparate treatment of Democratic and Republican voters violated the 1st and 14th amendments to the US Constitution. The State has challenged the District Court's ruling, and in June 2017, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in this case. The state is expected to challenge the validity of the efficiency gap measure.
From Jurist: Supreme Court rejects oil companies’ bid for stay in Baltimore climate change suit
Another lawsuit by a city against industry.
- Click here for the article.
The US Supreme Court declined to grant a stay to BP Plc and several other oil and gas companies Tuesday in a Baltimore lawsuit against the companies, solidifying a remand order issued by the US District Court for the District of Maryland.
The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore sued in state court last year against BP and 25 other oil companies for contributing to climate-related harm. BP removed to the federal district court, which granted Baltimore’s motion to remand to state court.
The oil companies asked the Supreme Court on October 1 for an emergency stay of the remand order until the US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in on their appeal of the district court’s decision. This triggered the Federal Officer Removal statute, which allows federal agencies and officials to remove state cases to federal court. Baltimore officials asked the US Supreme Court to deny BP Plc and other oil and gas companies’ attempt to stay Friday.
The oil companies argued that irreparable harm would result from the costs of simultaneously litigating the case in federal and state courts. Baltimore counter-argued that expensive legal proceedings are unlikely given the cases are in early stages and would result in endless requests for review by the Supreme Court.
Justice Sam Alito recused himself from weighing in on this case.
- Click here for the article.
The US Supreme Court declined to grant a stay to BP Plc and several other oil and gas companies Tuesday in a Baltimore lawsuit against the companies, solidifying a remand order issued by the US District Court for the District of Maryland.
The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore sued in state court last year against BP and 25 other oil companies for contributing to climate-related harm. BP removed to the federal district court, which granted Baltimore’s motion to remand to state court.
The oil companies asked the Supreme Court on October 1 for an emergency stay of the remand order until the US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in on their appeal of the district court’s decision. This triggered the Federal Officer Removal statute, which allows federal agencies and officials to remove state cases to federal court. Baltimore officials asked the US Supreme Court to deny BP Plc and other oil and gas companies’ attempt to stay Friday.
The oil companies argued that irreparable harm would result from the costs of simultaneously litigating the case in federal and state courts. Baltimore counter-argued that expensive legal proceedings are unlikely given the cases are in early stages and would result in endless requests for review by the Supreme Court.
Justice Sam Alito recused himself from weighing in on this case.
From Roll Call: Supreme Court erases Michigan gerrymandering ruling
For our look at the courts, redistricting, gerrymanderings, etc ...
- Click here for the article.
The Supreme Court on Monday officially wiped out a lower court ruling from April that had struck down Michigan’s congressional map as giving an unconstitutional boost to Republicans.
The high court’s move was expected, since the justices decided in June that federal courts can’t rein in politicians who draw political maps to entrench a partisan advantage.
If it had stood, Michigan would have had to redraw state legislative and congressional districts ahead of the 2020 elections, and it could have set up a more favorable battlefield for House Democrats.
In April, a panel of three federal judges had invalidated portions of the state and congressional maps drawn by the GOP-controlled Legislature in 2011 as violating the rights of Democratic voters.
After the 2018 midterms, Michigan’s 14-district House delegation was evenly split between the two parties, 7-7. (Republicans have since dropped to six seats after Justin Amash became an independent in July.)
The League of Women Voters and some Democrats challenged the 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th districts, and the three-judge panel found that all nine of them were partisan gerrymanders “because they dilute the views of Democratic voters.”
But the ruling never went into effect. Republican members of Michigan’s congressional delegation and state lawmakers appealed to the Supreme Court, which put the ruling on hold as the justices decided two other cases about partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina and Maryland.
In June, the justices, in a 5-4 opinion, found the Constitution did not give federal courts the authority to strike down maps as partisan gerrymanders. Instead, the majority wrote, that was a political question and a task for Congress and the states.
- Wikipedia: Gill v Whitford.
- Wikipedia: Rucho v. Common Cause.
- Click here for the article.
The Supreme Court on Monday officially wiped out a lower court ruling from April that had struck down Michigan’s congressional map as giving an unconstitutional boost to Republicans.
The high court’s move was expected, since the justices decided in June that federal courts can’t rein in politicians who draw political maps to entrench a partisan advantage.
If it had stood, Michigan would have had to redraw state legislative and congressional districts ahead of the 2020 elections, and it could have set up a more favorable battlefield for House Democrats.
In April, a panel of three federal judges had invalidated portions of the state and congressional maps drawn by the GOP-controlled Legislature in 2011 as violating the rights of Democratic voters.
After the 2018 midterms, Michigan’s 14-district House delegation was evenly split between the two parties, 7-7. (Republicans have since dropped to six seats after Justin Amash became an independent in July.)
The League of Women Voters and some Democrats challenged the 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th districts, and the three-judge panel found that all nine of them were partisan gerrymanders “because they dilute the views of Democratic voters.”
But the ruling never went into effect. Republican members of Michigan’s congressional delegation and state lawmakers appealed to the Supreme Court, which put the ruling on hold as the justices decided two other cases about partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina and Maryland.
In June, the justices, in a 5-4 opinion, found the Constitution did not give federal courts the authority to strike down maps as partisan gerrymanders. Instead, the majority wrote, that was a political question and a task for Congress and the states.
- Wikipedia: Gill v Whitford.
- Wikipedia: Rucho v. Common Cause.
From ScotusBlog: Recent polls show confidence in Supreme Court, with caveats
For our look at polling, public opinion, and the Supreme Court.
- Click here for the article.
Public faith in government has fallen to historic lows. The Supreme Court, however, appears to have bucked the trend. A number of recent polls demonstrate broad public support for the job the justices are doing, though this approval appears influenced by party alignment.
Surveys of public opinion on the court were released this month by Gallup and the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center, and Marquette Law School released another yesterday. Although the results depend to some degree on how the questions are framed, the polls share two central findings: The Supreme Court enjoys an appreciable level of public support, and this support is higher among political conservatives.
Annenberg found that 68 percent of the public trusts the court to act in the public’s best interest, while Gallup found that a more modest 54 percent approve of the job the court is doing. Of respondents to the Marquette survey, 80 percent possess at least “some” confidence in the Supreme Court, while nearly 40 percent rank their confidence level at “quite a lot” or “a great deal.” Marquette also found that, of the three branches of government, 57 percent find the Supreme Court most trustworthy, compared with 22 percent for Congress and 21 percent for the president.
This confidence is split by ideology. According to Marquette’s poll, 52 percent of “very conservative” respondents have high confidence in the court, compared to 31 percent of “very liberal” voters – 36 percent of those “very liberal” voters report low confidence. Gallup found a drastic shift in these relative levels of support under President Donald Trump, with conservative support for the court nearly tripling since 2016 and liberal support reduced by more than half.
- Click here for the article.
Public faith in government has fallen to historic lows. The Supreme Court, however, appears to have bucked the trend. A number of recent polls demonstrate broad public support for the job the justices are doing, though this approval appears influenced by party alignment.
Surveys of public opinion on the court were released this month by Gallup and the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center, and Marquette Law School released another yesterday. Although the results depend to some degree on how the questions are framed, the polls share two central findings: The Supreme Court enjoys an appreciable level of public support, and this support is higher among political conservatives.
Annenberg found that 68 percent of the public trusts the court to act in the public’s best interest, while Gallup found that a more modest 54 percent approve of the job the court is doing. Of respondents to the Marquette survey, 80 percent possess at least “some” confidence in the Supreme Court, while nearly 40 percent rank their confidence level at “quite a lot” or “a great deal.” Marquette also found that, of the three branches of government, 57 percent find the Supreme Court most trustworthy, compared with 22 percent for Congress and 21 percent for the president.
This confidence is split by ideology. According to Marquette’s poll, 52 percent of “very conservative” respondents have high confidence in the court, compared to 31 percent of “very liberal” voters – 36 percent of those “very liberal” voters report low confidence. Gallup found a drastic shift in these relative levels of support under President Donald Trump, with conservative support for the court nearly tripling since 2016 and liberal support reduced by more than half.
From Newsweek: THESE CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE GOING AFTER BIG PHARMA IN THE OPIOID CRISIS
Dated 3/12/18
- Click here for the article.
Miami-Dade County announced this week that it was planning to take legal action against drug manufacturers and distributors for their role in the opioid crisis there—and joined a host of counties and cities across the country taking Big Pharma to court in the wake of one of the worst addiction crises in American history.
The county retained a law firm to investigate claims that drug manufacturers and distributors contributed to the opioid crisis and increased health care and policing costs for the community. The law firm, Podhurst Orseck, pointed to the nearly $1 billion in yearly costs to Florida hospitals for treatment of the crisis and Miami's 228 overdose deaths in the year 2016 alone in a release.
"Drug manufacturers and distributors are obligated by federal and state laws to properly monitor and control the supply and distribution of opioids," Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos A. Giménez said in a statement about the investigation. "Their collective failure to do so has flooded our communities with these highly addictive drugs and crippled the resources of our municipalities, which have had to bear the heavy costs."
The state of Florida has long struggled with the opioid crisis, and Governor Rick Scott in May declared a public health emergency in response. Miami-Dade, like many counties and cities, is alleging that drug companies used deceptive marketing that downplayed the dangers of opioids, and is pointing to the costs its community has incurred because of those drugs.
The local momentum builds upon recent federal action taken against the pharmaceutical industry. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Tuesday that he would be filing a statement of interest in a lawsuit against some manufacturers, and announced a new task force that would investigate those companies and the claims against them.
For more:
- OPIOID MANUFACTURERS PAID MILLIONS TO GROUPS THAT LOBBIED FOR MORE OPIOID USAGE, SENATE INVESTIGATION CLAIMS.
- Click here for the article.
Miami-Dade County announced this week that it was planning to take legal action against drug manufacturers and distributors for their role in the opioid crisis there—and joined a host of counties and cities across the country taking Big Pharma to court in the wake of one of the worst addiction crises in American history.
The county retained a law firm to investigate claims that drug manufacturers and distributors contributed to the opioid crisis and increased health care and policing costs for the community. The law firm, Podhurst Orseck, pointed to the nearly $1 billion in yearly costs to Florida hospitals for treatment of the crisis and Miami's 228 overdose deaths in the year 2016 alone in a release.
"Drug manufacturers and distributors are obligated by federal and state laws to properly monitor and control the supply and distribution of opioids," Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos A. Giménez said in a statement about the investigation. "Their collective failure to do so has flooded our communities with these highly addictive drugs and crippled the resources of our municipalities, which have had to bear the heavy costs."
The state of Florida has long struggled with the opioid crisis, and Governor Rick Scott in May declared a public health emergency in response. Miami-Dade, like many counties and cities, is alleging that drug companies used deceptive marketing that downplayed the dangers of opioids, and is pointing to the costs its community has incurred because of those drugs.
The local momentum builds upon recent federal action taken against the pharmaceutical industry. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Tuesday that he would be filing a statement of interest in a lawsuit against some manufacturers, and announced a new task force that would investigate those companies and the claims against them.
For more:
- OPIOID MANUFACTURERS PAID MILLIONS TO GROUPS THAT LOBBIED FOR MORE OPIOID USAGE, SENATE INVESTIGATION CLAIMS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)