- Click here for the text of the bill.
- Click here for the summary of the bill.
For more detail: Democrats Release Legislation To Overhaul Policing.
Monday, June 8, 2020
From NBC: Congressional Democrats unveil sweeping police reform bill that would ban chokeholds, no-knock warrants in drug cases
Now that police reform seems to be on the policy agenda, it goes to the legislature for the policy formation stage. This allows you to take a look ahead to the governing institutions, which we will cover next week. In this case, Congress.
Notice that much of what is discussed here deals with due process issues, searches and seizures specifically.
- Click here for the article.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other top Democrats in the House and Senate on Monday unveiled far-reaching legislation to overhaul policing in the U.S. as protests over excessive force by law enforcement have gripped the nation.
The bill, called the “Justice in Policing Act,” would ban chokeholds, including the kind used by a police officer in the Minneapolis death of George Floyd last month, as well as no-knock warrants in drug cases, as was used in the incident leading to the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky, in March, according to a a House Democratic aide and a bill summary obtained by NBC News.
The legislation, which has more than 200 Democratic co-sponsors in the House and Senate, would require local police departments to send data on the use of force to the federal government and create a grant program that would allow state attorneys general to create an independent process to investigate misconduct or excessive use of force, according to the five-page summary of the bill. Further, the bill would make it easier for people to recover damages when police departments violate their civil rights and, for the first time, would make lynching a federal hate crime.
"The martyrdom of George Floyd gave the American experience a moment of national anguish as we grieve for the black Americans killed by police brutality today," Pelosi said at a news conference on the bill. "This moment of national anguish is being transformed into a movement of national action as Americans from across the country peacefully protest to demand an end to injustice."
Select key terms:
- House Speaker
- legislation
- excessive force
- law enforcement
- police officer
- no-knock warrant
- House Democratic Aide
- co-sponsor
- Senate
- local police departments
- federal government
- grant program
- state attorney generals
- damages
- civil rights
- lynching
- federal hate crime
Notice that much of what is discussed here deals with due process issues, searches and seizures specifically.
- Click here for the article.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other top Democrats in the House and Senate on Monday unveiled far-reaching legislation to overhaul policing in the U.S. as protests over excessive force by law enforcement have gripped the nation.
The bill, called the “Justice in Policing Act,” would ban chokeholds, including the kind used by a police officer in the Minneapolis death of George Floyd last month, as well as no-knock warrants in drug cases, as was used in the incident leading to the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky, in March, according to a a House Democratic aide and a bill summary obtained by NBC News.
The legislation, which has more than 200 Democratic co-sponsors in the House and Senate, would require local police departments to send data on the use of force to the federal government and create a grant program that would allow state attorneys general to create an independent process to investigate misconduct or excessive use of force, according to the five-page summary of the bill. Further, the bill would make it easier for people to recover damages when police departments violate their civil rights and, for the first time, would make lynching a federal hate crime.
"The martyrdom of George Floyd gave the American experience a moment of national anguish as we grieve for the black Americans killed by police brutality today," Pelosi said at a news conference on the bill. "This moment of national anguish is being transformed into a movement of national action as Americans from across the country peacefully protest to demand an end to injustice."
Select key terms:
- House Speaker
- legislation
- excessive force
- law enforcement
- police officer
- no-knock warrant
- House Democratic Aide
- co-sponsor
- Senate
- local police departments
- federal government
- grant program
- state attorney generals
- damages
- civil rights
- lynching
- federal hate crime
- protest
- hearings
- mark up
- Democratic leaders
- Senate Majority Leader
- Senate Minority Leader
- criminal justice system
- police budgets
- reforms
- Congressional Black Caucus
- chairwoman
- press conference
- accountable
- transparency
- House Majority Whip
- D - S.C.
- law and order
- racial bias
- bill
- House Judiciary Committee
- vice presidential pick
- Democratic nominee
- federal prosecutor
- independent investigations
- district attorneys
- use of force
- hearings
- mark up
- Democratic leaders
- Senate Majority Leader
- Senate Minority Leader
- criminal justice system
- police budgets
- reforms
- Congressional Black Caucus
- chairwoman
- press conference
- accountable
- transparency
- House Majority Whip
- D - S.C.
- law and order
- racial bias
- bill
- House Judiciary Committee
- vice presidential pick
- Democratic nominee
- federal prosecutor
- independent investigations
- district attorneys
- use of force
From The Guardian: 'This is just a start': states announce police reforms as protests enter second weekend
When we get into public policy, we will discuss the policy process which includes agenda setting. The recent protests can be considered such an event.
- Click here for the article.
Nationwide protests hurtled toward a second weekend following the police killing of George Floyd, as several cities and states took steps to reform controversial policing tactics.
In Minneapolis, where Floyd died last Monday after a white officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes, the city agreed to ban chokeholds and neck restraints by police and to require officers to try to stop any other officers they see using improper force. They marked the first concrete steps to remake the city’s police force since Floyd’s death.
The state human rights commissioner, Rebecca Lucero, said the changes were necessary to stop continuing harm to people of color “who have suffered generational pain and trauma as a result of systemic and institutional racism”.
“This is just a start,” Lucero said. “There is a lot more work to do here, and that work must and will be done with speed and community engagement.”
Floyd’s death has promoted the re-examination of police techniques elsewhere. In California, Gavin Newsom on Friday ordered the state’s police training program to stop teaching officers how to use a neck hold that blocks the flow of blood to the brain, known as a carotid hold or sleeper hold. Fifteen law enforcement agencies in San Diego county banned the practice earlier this week.
- Click here for the article.
Nationwide protests hurtled toward a second weekend following the police killing of George Floyd, as several cities and states took steps to reform controversial policing tactics.
In Minneapolis, where Floyd died last Monday after a white officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes, the city agreed to ban chokeholds and neck restraints by police and to require officers to try to stop any other officers they see using improper force. They marked the first concrete steps to remake the city’s police force since Floyd’s death.
The state human rights commissioner, Rebecca Lucero, said the changes were necessary to stop continuing harm to people of color “who have suffered generational pain and trauma as a result of systemic and institutional racism”.
“This is just a start,” Lucero said. “There is a lot more work to do here, and that work must and will be done with speed and community engagement.”
Floyd’s death has promoted the re-examination of police techniques elsewhere. In California, Gavin Newsom on Friday ordered the state’s police training program to stop teaching officers how to use a neck hold that blocks the flow of blood to the brain, known as a carotid hold or sleeper hold. Fifteen law enforcement agencies in San Diego county banned the practice earlier this week.
A few items on police unions
These are topical considering recent events. And they bridge one of the topics of this week - interest groups, specifically labor unions.
- How Police Unions Became Such Powerful Opponents to Reform Efforts.
Over the past five years, as demands for reform have mounted in the aftermath of police violence in cities like Ferguson, Mo., Baltimore and now Minneapolis, police unions have emerged as one of the most significant roadblocks to change. The greater the political pressure for reform, the more defiant the unions often are in resisting it — with few city officials, including liberal leaders, able to overcome their opposition.
They aggressively protect the rights of members accused of misconduct, often in arbitration hearings that they have battled to keep behind closed doors. And they have also been remarkably effective at fending off broader change, using their political clout and influence to derail efforts to increase accountability.
While rates of union membership have dropped by half nationally since the early 1980s, to 10 percent, higher membership rates among police unions give them resources they can spend on campaigns and litigation to block reform. A single New York City police union has spent more than $1 million on state and local races since 2014.
- Floyd killing shows police unions abuse power. We need radical reform: Former union lawyer.
I have spent my career working in and around the labor movement, first as a lawyer for a community-based workers center, then in the general counsel’s office of a major labor union, and for the past dozen years researching and teaching labor law at Harvard. I am of the firm belief that unions are the single most important and effective voice for working people we have ever known and the best chance we have for building a more equitable economy and politics. In recent years, collective bargaining has enabled teachers to win funding for their classrooms, fast-food workers to increase the minimum wage, and nurses to negotiate staffing ratios that have helped ensure adequate care for COVID-19 patients. Collective bargaining is, in my view, a treasure that deserves fierce protection.
Nonetheless, collective bargaining is, at bottom, just a tool. And like all such tools, it can be abused. When unions use the power of collective bargaining for ends that we, as a democratic society, deem unacceptable it becomes our responsibility — including the responsibility of the labor movement itself — to deny unions the ability to use collective bargaining for these purposes.
- As protests grow, big labor sides with police unions.
Labor unions exist to protect workers, but most workers aren’t authorized to use deadly force as part of their jobs.
Police unions have written labor contracts that bar law enforcement agencies across the country from immediately interrogating or firing officers after egregious acts of misconduct.
Leaders of the country’s other labor unions are tiptoeing around the subject as their members join protests in hundreds of U.S. cities this week over the killing of George Floyd. Labor leaders have strongly denounced police officers’ actions in that case and called on lawmakers to address systemic racism. But they’re suggesting that collective bargaining agreements shouldn’t be on the table. They’ve been careful not to blame police unions for the problem, choosing to embrace them instead.
Police union contracts are not normal collective bargaining agreements. Police unions have crafted a complex web of disciplinary rules that critics say makes it impossible to hold police accountable for killing unarmed Black citizens. After a Minneapolis police officer pinned Floyd’s neck to the ground for more than 8 minutes while fellow officers stood by and watched, many want to see these union contract rules reformed or dismantled.
“The short answer is not to disengage and just condemn,” Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO labor federation, said Wednesday on a press call about racial justice. “The answer is to totally re-engage and educate.”
- How Police Unions Became Such Powerful Opponents to Reform Efforts.
Over the past five years, as demands for reform have mounted in the aftermath of police violence in cities like Ferguson, Mo., Baltimore and now Minneapolis, police unions have emerged as one of the most significant roadblocks to change. The greater the political pressure for reform, the more defiant the unions often are in resisting it — with few city officials, including liberal leaders, able to overcome their opposition.
They aggressively protect the rights of members accused of misconduct, often in arbitration hearings that they have battled to keep behind closed doors. And they have also been remarkably effective at fending off broader change, using their political clout and influence to derail efforts to increase accountability.
While rates of union membership have dropped by half nationally since the early 1980s, to 10 percent, higher membership rates among police unions give them resources they can spend on campaigns and litigation to block reform. A single New York City police union has spent more than $1 million on state and local races since 2014.
- Floyd killing shows police unions abuse power. We need radical reform: Former union lawyer.
I have spent my career working in and around the labor movement, first as a lawyer for a community-based workers center, then in the general counsel’s office of a major labor union, and for the past dozen years researching and teaching labor law at Harvard. I am of the firm belief that unions are the single most important and effective voice for working people we have ever known and the best chance we have for building a more equitable economy and politics. In recent years, collective bargaining has enabled teachers to win funding for their classrooms, fast-food workers to increase the minimum wage, and nurses to negotiate staffing ratios that have helped ensure adequate care for COVID-19 patients. Collective bargaining is, in my view, a treasure that deserves fierce protection.
Nonetheless, collective bargaining is, at bottom, just a tool. And like all such tools, it can be abused. When unions use the power of collective bargaining for ends that we, as a democratic society, deem unacceptable it becomes our responsibility — including the responsibility of the labor movement itself — to deny unions the ability to use collective bargaining for these purposes.
- As protests grow, big labor sides with police unions.
Labor unions exist to protect workers, but most workers aren’t authorized to use deadly force as part of their jobs.
Police unions have written labor contracts that bar law enforcement agencies across the country from immediately interrogating or firing officers after egregious acts of misconduct.
Leaders of the country’s other labor unions are tiptoeing around the subject as their members join protests in hundreds of U.S. cities this week over the killing of George Floyd. Labor leaders have strongly denounced police officers’ actions in that case and called on lawmakers to address systemic racism. But they’re suggesting that collective bargaining agreements shouldn’t be on the table. They’ve been careful not to blame police unions for the problem, choosing to embrace them instead.
Police union contracts are not normal collective bargaining agreements. Police unions have crafted a complex web of disciplinary rules that critics say makes it impossible to hold police accountable for killing unarmed Black citizens. After a Minneapolis police officer pinned Floyd’s neck to the ground for more than 8 minutes while fellow officers stood by and watched, many want to see these union contract rules reformed or dismantled.
“The short answer is not to disengage and just condemn,” Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO labor federation, said Wednesday on a press call about racial justice. “The answer is to totally re-engage and educate.”
From the Texas Tribune: Conspiracy theories and racist memes: How a dozen Texas GOP county chairs caused turmoil within the party
County chairs are mentioned in the 2306 textbook. Both 2305 and 2306 discuss the decentralized nature of political parties, and the difficulty this poses for the ability of each party to establish unified message.
- Click here for the article.
On Friday morning, Texas’ top Republican officials, including Gov. Greg Abbott, had condemned four GOP chairs for proliferating conspiracy theories on Facebook. The posts, from chairs of some of the largest counties in Texas, suggested George Floyd’s death was staged to erode black support for President Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, a fifth chairperson, Harris County GOP chair-elect Keith Nielsen, announced Saturday he will not take office as planned after coming under fire for posting a Martin Luther King Jr. quote — "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" — on a background with a banana.
On Friday afternoon, The Texas Tribune identified similar posts from seven more GOP chairs across the state. Some of these posts suggested people who have been protesting Floyd’s death across the state and the country were being paid by Jewish billionaire George Soros — an oft-used anti-Semitic trope.
GOP county chairs are elected leaders of the Republican Party who help oversee local elections and head up county-level meetings and events. News circulating about the first five chairs’ posts sparked concern — both internal and external — about the Texas GOP.
- Click here for the article.
On Friday morning, Texas’ top Republican officials, including Gov. Greg Abbott, had condemned four GOP chairs for proliferating conspiracy theories on Facebook. The posts, from chairs of some of the largest counties in Texas, suggested George Floyd’s death was staged to erode black support for President Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, a fifth chairperson, Harris County GOP chair-elect Keith Nielsen, announced Saturday he will not take office as planned after coming under fire for posting a Martin Luther King Jr. quote — "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" — on a background with a banana.
On Friday afternoon, The Texas Tribune identified similar posts from seven more GOP chairs across the state. Some of these posts suggested people who have been protesting Floyd’s death across the state and the country were being paid by Jewish billionaire George Soros — an oft-used anti-Semitic trope.
GOP county chairs are elected leaders of the Republican Party who help oversee local elections and head up county-level meetings and events. News circulating about the first five chairs’ posts sparked concern — both internal and external — about the Texas GOP.
From the Texas Tribune: Appeals court tosses order that required face masks, hand sanitizer for inmates at geriatric Texas prison
For 2306 primarily, but the concepts apply to 2305 as well. A great example of federalism in the courts.
- Click here for the article.
The U.S 5th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed a lower court’s temporary ruling Friday that ordered Texas officials to enact a slew of policy changes at a geriatric prison, including providing inmates hand sanitizer and cloth face masks to slow the spread of coronavirus. The appeals judges noted that many of the district judge’s orders had already been met by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
The lawsuit claimed inmates were not adequately protected from the coronavirus at the Pack Unit near Navasota, where 166 inmates actively had the coronavirus on Thursday, according to data from TDCJ. At least five have died from the virus, a state’s attorney said during a hearing in front of the appeals court judges last week.
Judge Eugene Davis said he “reluctantly” concurred with Friday’s ruling since conditions at the prison have changed since the lawsuit was filed in March. But he emphasized the inability to practice social distancing in a prison.
“Holding these elderly, ill inmates jammed together in their dormitories, unable to socially distance as the virus continues to rapidly spread, is nothing short of a human tragedy,” Davis wrote.
Key terms:
- federalism
- judicial federalism
- 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
- appeals judge
- district judge orders
- TDCJ
- lawsuit
- state's attorney
- concurred
- cruel and unusual punishment
- attorney general
- CDC
- trial
- permanent injunction
- Click here for the article.
The U.S 5th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed a lower court’s temporary ruling Friday that ordered Texas officials to enact a slew of policy changes at a geriatric prison, including providing inmates hand sanitizer and cloth face masks to slow the spread of coronavirus. The appeals judges noted that many of the district judge’s orders had already been met by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
The lawsuit claimed inmates were not adequately protected from the coronavirus at the Pack Unit near Navasota, where 166 inmates actively had the coronavirus on Thursday, according to data from TDCJ. At least five have died from the virus, a state’s attorney said during a hearing in front of the appeals court judges last week.
Judge Eugene Davis said he “reluctantly” concurred with Friday’s ruling since conditions at the prison have changed since the lawsuit was filed in March. But he emphasized the inability to practice social distancing in a prison.
“Holding these elderly, ill inmates jammed together in their dormitories, unable to socially distance as the virus continues to rapidly spread, is nothing short of a human tragedy,” Davis wrote.
Key terms:
- federalism
- judicial federalism
- 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
- appeals judge
- district judge orders
- TDCJ
- lawsuit
- state's attorney
- concurred
- cruel and unusual punishment
- attorney general
- CDC
- trial
- permanent injunction
Sunday, June 7, 2020
From Politico: The Story Behind Bill Barr’s Unmarked Federal Agents: The motley assortment of police currently occupying Washington, D.C., is a window into the vast, complicated, obscure world of federal law enforcement.
A look at the complex world of law enforcement during the recent troubles. Note that this just refers to federal law enforcement. There are even more at the state and local level.
- Click here for the article.
To understand the police forces ringing Trump and the White House it helps to understand the dense and not-entirely-sensical thicket of agencies that make up the nation’s civilian federal law enforcement. With little public attention, notice and amid historically lax oversight, those ranks have surged since 9/11—growing by roughly 2,500 officers annually every year since 2000. To put it another way: Every year since the 2001 terrorist attacks, the federal government has added to its policing ranks a force larger than the entire Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Nearly all of these agencies are headquartered in and around the capital, making it easy for Attorney General William Barr to enlist them as part of his vast effort to “flood the zone” in D.C. this week with what amounts to a federal army of occupation, overseen from the FBI Washington area command post in Chinatown. Battalions of agents were mustered in the lobby of Customs and Border Protection’s D.C. headquarters—what in normal times is the path to a food court for federal workers. The Drug Enforcement Administration has been given special powers to enable it to surveil protesters. It is the heaviest show of force in the nation’s capital since the protests and riots of the Vietnam War.
As large as the public show of force on D.C.’s streets has turned out to be—Bloomberg reported Thursday that the force includes nearly 3,000 law enforcement—it still represents only a tiny sliver of the government’s armed agents and officers. The government counts up its law enforcement personnel only every eight years, and all told, at last count in 2016, the federal government employed over 132,000 civilian law enforcement officers—only about half of which come from the major “brand name” agencies like the FBI, ATF, Secret Service, DEA and CBP. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, which serves as the general academy for federal agencies who don’t have their own specialized training facilities, lists around 80 different agencies whose trainees pass through its doors in Georgia, from the IRS’ criminal investigators and the Transportation Security Administration's air marshals to the Offices of the Inspector General for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Railroad Retirement Board. Don’t forget the armed federal officers at the Environmental Protection Agency or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Law Enforcement, whose 150 agents investigate conservation crime like the Tunas Convention Act of 1975 (16 USC § 971-971k) and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (16 USC § 773-773k)
- Click here for the article.
To understand the police forces ringing Trump and the White House it helps to understand the dense and not-entirely-sensical thicket of agencies that make up the nation’s civilian federal law enforcement. With little public attention, notice and amid historically lax oversight, those ranks have surged since 9/11—growing by roughly 2,500 officers annually every year since 2000. To put it another way: Every year since the 2001 terrorist attacks, the federal government has added to its policing ranks a force larger than the entire Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Nearly all of these agencies are headquartered in and around the capital, making it easy for Attorney General William Barr to enlist them as part of his vast effort to “flood the zone” in D.C. this week with what amounts to a federal army of occupation, overseen from the FBI Washington area command post in Chinatown. Battalions of agents were mustered in the lobby of Customs and Border Protection’s D.C. headquarters—what in normal times is the path to a food court for federal workers. The Drug Enforcement Administration has been given special powers to enable it to surveil protesters. It is the heaviest show of force in the nation’s capital since the protests and riots of the Vietnam War.
As large as the public show of force on D.C.’s streets has turned out to be—Bloomberg reported Thursday that the force includes nearly 3,000 law enforcement—it still represents only a tiny sliver of the government’s armed agents and officers. The government counts up its law enforcement personnel only every eight years, and all told, at last count in 2016, the federal government employed over 132,000 civilian law enforcement officers—only about half of which come from the major “brand name” agencies like the FBI, ATF, Secret Service, DEA and CBP. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, which serves as the general academy for federal agencies who don’t have their own specialized training facilities, lists around 80 different agencies whose trainees pass through its doors in Georgia, from the IRS’ criminal investigators and the Transportation Security Administration's air marshals to the Offices of the Inspector General for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Railroad Retirement Board. Don’t forget the armed federal officers at the Environmental Protection Agency or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Law Enforcement, whose 150 agents investigate conservation crime like the Tunas Convention Act of 1975 (16 USC § 971-971k) and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (16 USC § 773-773k)
The Atlantic: There’s No Historical Justification for One of the Most Dangerous Ideas in American Law The Founders didn’t believe that broad delegations of legislative power violated the Constitution, but conservative originalists keep insisting otherwise.
A look at the conflict between originalism and pragmatism.
- Click here for the article.
Most government activity in the United States rests on a simple idea: that it’s okay for the legislature to authorize the executive branch to regulate basically anything the legislature itself could reach—working conditions, pollution, elections, financial products, mask wearing, you name it. That idea is now under attack. Relying on a so-called nondelegation doctrine, conservative originalists insist that the Founders never intended for government to work this way. They call for courts to strike down any laws that delegate too much power—and much of the federal bureaucracy along with them.
Their argument is grounded in a cursory, selective review of the historical record; it simply falls apart under any kind of serious scrutiny. Americans in 1789 didn’t share the view that broad delegations of legislative power violated the Constitution. Indeed, they would have been baffled by the claim, because governments throughout the Anglo-American world had long relied on this very technique without controversy. There wasn’t any nondelegation doctrine at the founding, and the question isn’t close.
To understand why this matters, and just how wrong these critics are, start with the practicalities. Legislative delegations pervade just about every area of policy: air quality, drug testing, business regulation, health care, education, and so on. Legislatures have neither the bandwidth nor the expertise to write every detail of complex government programs, least of all when those programs need to adapt nimbly to technological changes, economic disruptions, and new information about the world.
- Click here for the article.
Most government activity in the United States rests on a simple idea: that it’s okay for the legislature to authorize the executive branch to regulate basically anything the legislature itself could reach—working conditions, pollution, elections, financial products, mask wearing, you name it. That idea is now under attack. Relying on a so-called nondelegation doctrine, conservative originalists insist that the Founders never intended for government to work this way. They call for courts to strike down any laws that delegate too much power—and much of the federal bureaucracy along with them.
Their argument is grounded in a cursory, selective review of the historical record; it simply falls apart under any kind of serious scrutiny. Americans in 1789 didn’t share the view that broad delegations of legislative power violated the Constitution. Indeed, they would have been baffled by the claim, because governments throughout the Anglo-American world had long relied on this very technique without controversy. There wasn’t any nondelegation doctrine at the founding, and the question isn’t close.
To understand why this matters, and just how wrong these critics are, start with the practicalities. Legislative delegations pervade just about every area of policy: air quality, drug testing, business regulation, health care, education, and so on. Legislatures have neither the bandwidth nor the expertise to write every detail of complex government programs, least of all when those programs need to adapt nimbly to technological changes, economic disruptions, and new information about the world.
From Roll Call: Trump Challenges Federal Judge to High Court Duel Over Sanctuary Cities
Here's some checking and balancing
- Click here for the article.
President Donald Trump has a message for the federal judge who blocked his executive orders tailored to keep some so-called “sanctuary” cities from receiving federal funds: “See you in the Supreme Court!”
Trump took to Twitter before 7 a.m. Wednesday morning to blast a federal judge in California who on Tuesday issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against provisions in an executive order signed by Trump that is meant to block federal funding for “sanctuary” jurisdictions that decline to assist federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws.
Trump’s order, signed Jan. 25, directed the Justice and Homeland Security departments to “ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply” with a law mandating communication between local law enforcement officials and federal immigration agents are deemed ineligible for federal grants.
Selected Key Terms:
- president
- federal judge
- executive orders
- federal funds
- fiscal federalism
- preliminary injunction
- immigration laws
- Justice Department
- Homeland Security Department
- jurisdictions
- local law enforcement officials
- federal immigration agents
- federal grants
- U.S. District Judge
- Northern District of California
- Ninth Circuit
- U.S. Supreme Court
- precedent
- overturned
- White House Chief of Staff
- Click here for the article.
President Donald Trump has a message for the federal judge who blocked his executive orders tailored to keep some so-called “sanctuary” cities from receiving federal funds: “See you in the Supreme Court!”
Trump took to Twitter before 7 a.m. Wednesday morning to blast a federal judge in California who on Tuesday issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against provisions in an executive order signed by Trump that is meant to block federal funding for “sanctuary” jurisdictions that decline to assist federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws.
Trump’s order, signed Jan. 25, directed the Justice and Homeland Security departments to “ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply” with a law mandating communication between local law enforcement officials and federal immigration agents are deemed ineligible for federal grants.
Selected Key Terms:
- president
- federal judge
- executive orders
- federal funds
- fiscal federalism
- preliminary injunction
- immigration laws
- Justice Department
- Homeland Security Department
- jurisdictions
- local law enforcement officials
- federal immigration agents
- federal grants
- U.S. District Judge
- Northern District of California
- Ninth Circuit
- U.S. Supreme Court
- precedent
- overturned
- White House Chief of Staff
Saturday, June 6, 2020
From Wikipedia: Bacon's Rebellion
Here's some terrific history, including mention of deliberate efforts to use race to drive groups apart for political purposes.
- Click here for the article.
It was the first rebellion in the American colonies in which discontented frontiersmen took part (a somewhat similar uprising in Maryland involving John Coode and Josias Fendall took place shortly afterwards). The alliance between European indentured servants and Africans (many enslaved until death or freed), united by their bond-servitude, disturbed the ruling class. The ruling class responded by hardening the racial caste of slavery in an attempt to divide the two races from subsequent united uprisings with the passage of the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705.
While on the subject, here's info from the entry on the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705.
- Click here for that article.
The Virginia Slave Codes of 1705 were a series of laws enacted by the Colony of Virginia's House of Burgesses regulating activities related to interactions between slaves and citizens of the crown colony of Virginia. The enactment of the Slave Codes is considered to be the consolidation of slavery in Virginia, and served as the foundation of Virginia's slave legislation.
These codes effectively embedded the idea of white supremacy into law by the following devices:
- Established new property rights for slave owners
- Allowed for the legal, free trade of slaves with protections granted by the courts
- Established separate courts of trial
- Prohibited blacks, regardless of free status, from owning arms [weapons]
- Whites could not be employed by blacks
- Allowed for the apprehension of suspected runaways
The law was devised to establish a greater level of control over the rising African slave population of Virginia. It also served to socially segregate white colonists from black slaves making them disparate groups hindering their ability to unite. A unity of the commoners was a perceived fear of the Virginia aristocracy which had to be addressed, and who wished to prevent a repeat of events such as Bacon's Rebellion, occurring 29 years prior
- Click here for the article.
It was the first rebellion in the American colonies in which discontented frontiersmen took part (a somewhat similar uprising in Maryland involving John Coode and Josias Fendall took place shortly afterwards). The alliance between European indentured servants and Africans (many enslaved until death or freed), united by their bond-servitude, disturbed the ruling class. The ruling class responded by hardening the racial caste of slavery in an attempt to divide the two races from subsequent united uprisings with the passage of the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705.
While on the subject, here's info from the entry on the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705.
- Click here for that article.
The Virginia Slave Codes of 1705 were a series of laws enacted by the Colony of Virginia's House of Burgesses regulating activities related to interactions between slaves and citizens of the crown colony of Virginia. The enactment of the Slave Codes is considered to be the consolidation of slavery in Virginia, and served as the foundation of Virginia's slave legislation.
These codes effectively embedded the idea of white supremacy into law by the following devices:
- Established new property rights for slave owners
- Allowed for the legal, free trade of slaves with protections granted by the courts
- Established separate courts of trial
- Prohibited blacks, regardless of free status, from owning arms [weapons]
- Whites could not be employed by blacks
- Allowed for the apprehension of suspected runaways
The law was devised to establish a greater level of control over the rising African slave population of Virginia. It also served to socially segregate white colonists from black slaves making them disparate groups hindering their ability to unite. A unity of the commoners was a perceived fear of the Virginia aristocracy which had to be addressed, and who wished to prevent a repeat of events such as Bacon's Rebellion, occurring 29 years prior
From 538: Where Democrats And Republicans Live In Your City
For next week's look at political institutions.
This touches on both the public opinion and parties chapters.
- Click here for the article.
We’ve heard it over and over: Democratic candidates win cities. Researchers have tracked the way Democrats have dominated in cities since the ’90s. Politicians bring up America’s deep-blue cities constantly, including in stump speeches and in every debate over the Electoral College. Even FiveThirtyEight couldn’t resist joining in: In December, Galen Druke and I showed how America’s cities and tightly packed suburbs shifted toward Democrats in the most recent midterm election. The more densely populated the place, the more Democratic the voters.
But just because Republicans aren’t winning in cities doesn’t mean that no Republicans live there. Much has been made of the country’s urban-rural political divide, but almost every Democratic city has Republican enclaves, especially when you think about cities as more than just their downtowns. It’s a sign of our polarized times that these Republicans aren’t evenly distributed across the city, of course. But it’s also a sign of how centuries of American history have shaped and continue to shape where we live — and who our neighbors are.
This touches on both the public opinion and parties chapters.
- Click here for the article.
We’ve heard it over and over: Democratic candidates win cities. Researchers have tracked the way Democrats have dominated in cities since the ’90s. Politicians bring up America’s deep-blue cities constantly, including in stump speeches and in every debate over the Electoral College. Even FiveThirtyEight couldn’t resist joining in: In December, Galen Druke and I showed how America’s cities and tightly packed suburbs shifted toward Democrats in the most recent midterm election. The more densely populated the place, the more Democratic the voters.
But just because Republicans aren’t winning in cities doesn’t mean that no Republicans live there. Much has been made of the country’s urban-rural political divide, but almost every Democratic city has Republican enclaves, especially when you think about cities as more than just their downtowns. It’s a sign of our polarized times that these Republicans aren’t evenly distributed across the city, of course. But it’s also a sign of how centuries of American history have shaped and continue to shape where we live — and who our neighbors are.
Friday, June 5, 2020
Background on three more constitutional framers
John Dickinson
- Click here for the article.
Dickinson was born[note 1] at Croisadore, his family's tobacco plantation near the village of Trappe in Talbot County, Province of Maryland.[2] He was the great-grandson of Walter Dickinson who emigrated from England to Virginia in 1654 and, having joined the Society of Friends, came with several co-religionists to Talbot County on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay in 1659.
. . . Dickinson was educated at home, by his parents and by recent immigrants employed for that purpose. Among them was the Presbyterian minister Francis Alison, who later established New London Academy in Chester County, Pennsylvania.[5] Most important was his tutor, William Killen, who became a lifelong friend and who later became Delaware’s first Chief Justice and Chancellor. Dickinson was precocious and energetic, and in spite of his love of Poplar Hall and his family, was drawn to Philadelphia.
At 18 he began studying the law under John Moland in Philadelphia. There he made friends with fellow students George Read and Samuel Wharton, among others. By 1753, John went to London for three years of study at the Middle Temple. He spent those years studying the works of Edward Coke and Francis Bacon at the Inns of Court, following in the footsteps of his lifelong friend, Pennsylvania Attorney General Benjamin Chew, and in 1757 was admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar beginning his career as barrister and solicitor.
Elbridge Gerry
- Click here for the article.
Dickinson was born[note 1] at Croisadore, his family's tobacco plantation near the village of Trappe in Talbot County, Province of Maryland.[2] He was the great-grandson of Walter Dickinson who emigrated from England to Virginia in 1654 and, having joined the Society of Friends, came with several co-religionists to Talbot County on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay in 1659.
. . . Dickinson was educated at home, by his parents and by recent immigrants employed for that purpose. Among them was the Presbyterian minister Francis Alison, who later established New London Academy in Chester County, Pennsylvania.[5] Most important was his tutor, William Killen, who became a lifelong friend and who later became Delaware’s first Chief Justice and Chancellor. Dickinson was precocious and energetic, and in spite of his love of Poplar Hall and his family, was drawn to Philadelphia.
At 18 he began studying the law under John Moland in Philadelphia. There he made friends with fellow students George Read and Samuel Wharton, among others. By 1753, John went to London for three years of study at the Middle Temple. He spent those years studying the works of Edward Coke and Francis Bacon at the Inns of Court, following in the footsteps of his lifelong friend, Pennsylvania Attorney General Benjamin Chew, and in 1757 was admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar beginning his career as barrister and solicitor.
Elbridge Gerry
- Click here for the article.
Born into a wealthy merchant family, Gerry vocally opposed British colonial policy in the 1760s and was active in the early stages of organizing the resistance in the American Revolutionary War. Elected to the Second Continental Congress, Gerry signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. He was one of three men who attended the Constitutional Convention in 1787 who refused to sign the United States Constitution because it did not then include a Bill of Rights. After its ratification he was elected to the inaugural United States Congress, where he was actively involved in drafting and passage of the Bill of Rights as an advocate of individual and state liberties.
. . . Elbridge Gerry was born on July 17, 1744, in Marblehead, Massachusetts. His father, Thomas Gerry, was a merchant operating ships out of Marblehead, and his mother, Elizabeth (Greenleaf) Gerry, was the daughter of a successful Boston merchant.[1] Gerry's first name came from John Elbridge, one of his mother's ancestors.[2] Gerry's parents had 11 children in all, although only five survived to adulthood. Of these, Elbridge was the third.[3] He was first educated by private tutors and entered Harvard College shortly before turning 14. After receiving an AB in 1762 and an AM in 1765, he entered his father's merchant business. By the 1770s the Gerrys numbered among the wealthiest Massachusetts merchants, with trading connections in Spain, the West Indies, and along the North American coast.[1][4] Gerry's father, who had emigrated from England in 1730, was active in local politics and had a leading role in the local militia
Edmund Randolph
Upon the death of his uncle Peyton Randolph in October 1775, Randolph returned to Virginia to act as executor of the estate, and while there was elected as a representative to the Fourth Virginia Convention. He was later mayor of Williamsburg, and then Attorney general of Virginia, a post he held until 1786.[1] He was married on August 29, 1776 to Elizabeth Nicholas (daughter of Robert C. Nicholas), and had a total of six children, including Peyton Randolph, Governor of Virginia from 1811 to 1812.
Thursday, June 4, 2020
From SCOTUS: The Court and Constitutional Interpretation
An inside look at how the court interprets the Constitution. Hint: There is no one way. Each justice has their own approach. Remember the terms originalist and pragmatists.
- Click here for the article.
. . . it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."
- Click here for the article.
. . . it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."
Constitutional Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts
Article 3
1. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states, between a state and Citizens of another state, between Citizens of different states, between Citizens of the same state, claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign states, Citizens or subjects. (This section modified by Amendment XI)
2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before-mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Article 6
2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
3. The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
1. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states, between a state and Citizens of another state, between Citizens of different states, between Citizens of the same state, claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign states, Citizens or subjects. (This section modified by Amendment XI)
2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before-mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Article 6
2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
3. The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Court cases for 2305 - 6/4
Chapter 3: Federalism
- Dual Federalism: McCullough v Maryland.
- Cooperative Federalism: NLRB v Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp.
- New Federalism: United States v Lopez.
Chapter 4: Civil Liberties
The Bill of Rights: Click here.
- Dual Federalism: Barron v. Baltimore.
The 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Selective Incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States
Substantive protections
- Privacy: Griswold v Connecticut.
- Establishment: Lemon v Kurtzman.
- Free Exercise: Sherbert v. Verner.
- Political Speech: Schenck v the United States.
- Symbolic Speech: Texas v. Johnson.
- Hate Speech: Snyder v. Phelps.
- Student Speech: Tinker v Des Moines ISD.
- Prior Restraint: New York Times Co. v. United States.
- Obscenity: Miller v. California.
- Libel: NYT v. Sullivan.
- Second Amendment: McDonald v. Chicago.
Procedural protections
- Search and seizures: Mapp v Ohio.
- Search and seizures: Terry v Ohio.
- Rights at trials: Miranda v Arizona.
- Right to counsel: Gideon v. Wainwright.
- Death Penalty: Furman v Georgia.
- Dual Federalism: McCullough v Maryland.
- Cooperative Federalism: NLRB v Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp.
- New Federalism: United States v Lopez.
Chapter 4: Civil Liberties
The Bill of Rights: Click here.
- Dual Federalism: Barron v. Baltimore.
The 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Selective Incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States
Substantive protections
- Privacy: Griswold v Connecticut.
- Establishment: Lemon v Kurtzman.
- Free Exercise: Sherbert v. Verner.
- Political Speech: Schenck v the United States.
- Symbolic Speech: Texas v. Johnson.
- Hate Speech: Snyder v. Phelps.
- Student Speech: Tinker v Des Moines ISD.
- Prior Restraint: New York Times Co. v. United States.
- Obscenity: Miller v. California.
- Libel: NYT v. Sullivan.
- Second Amendment: McDonald v. Chicago.
Procedural protections
- Search and seizures: Mapp v Ohio.
- Search and seizures: Terry v Ohio.
- Rights at trials: Miranda v Arizona.
- Right to counsel: Gideon v. Wainwright.
- Death Penalty: Furman v Georgia.
From the Supreme Court of the United States: Opinions
I'd like to walk through some of the court cases mentioned in Chapters 3 and 4. Supreme Court opinions are important ways of determining whether an act of Congress, or a action made by the executive branch is in sync with the Constitution - at least how a majority of the members of the Supreme Court at one period of time interpret it.
- Click here for the Supreme Court's page on opinions.
The term "opinions," as used here, refers to several types of writing by the Justices.
The most well known are the opinions of the Court announced in cases in which the Court has heard oral argument. Each sets out the Court’s judgment and its reasoning. The Justice who authors the majority or principal opinion summarizes the opinion from the bench during a regularly scheduled session of the Court. Shortly thereafter, a copy of the opinion is posted on this website.
The Court may also dispose of cases in per curiam opinions, which do not identify the author. These opinions frequently resolve cases summarily, often without oral argument, but they have been issued in important argued cases, such as Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S. 98, and the campaign finance case of Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1.
In-chambers opinions are written by an individual Justice to dispose of an application by a party for interim relief, e.g., for a stay of the judgment of the court below, for vacation of a stay, or for a temporary injunction.
Justices may also write opinions relating to the orders of the Court, e.g., to dissent from a denial of certiorari or to concur in that denial.
All opinions are later compiled and printed in the United States Reports, the Court’s official publication. Electronic versions of the bound volumes are posted on this website.
- Click here for the Supreme Court's page on opinions.
The term "opinions," as used here, refers to several types of writing by the Justices.
The most well known are the opinions of the Court announced in cases in which the Court has heard oral argument. Each sets out the Court’s judgment and its reasoning. The Justice who authors the majority or principal opinion summarizes the opinion from the bench during a regularly scheduled session of the Court. Shortly thereafter, a copy of the opinion is posted on this website.
The Court may also dispose of cases in per curiam opinions, which do not identify the author. These opinions frequently resolve cases summarily, often without oral argument, but they have been issued in important argued cases, such as Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S. 98, and the campaign finance case of Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1.
In-chambers opinions are written by an individual Justice to dispose of an application by a party for interim relief, e.g., for a stay of the judgment of the court below, for vacation of a stay, or for a temporary injunction.
Justices may also write opinions relating to the orders of the Court, e.g., to dissent from a denial of certiorari or to concur in that denial.
All opinions are later compiled and printed in the United States Reports, the Court’s official publication. Electronic versions of the bound volumes are posted on this website.
Texas Municipal League
This organization does for cities what The TAC doe for counties.
- Click here for it.
The League exists solely to provide services to Texas cities. Since the first day of its existence, the League's mission has remained the same: to serve the needs and advocate the interests of cities and city officials. Indeed, the TML Constitution states that the purpose of the League is "to render services which individual cities have neither time, money nor strength to do alone." In practice, that mission translates into the following services:
To represent the interests of member cities before legislative, administrative, and judicial bodies at the state and federal levels.
To sponsor and conduct an annual conference and other conferences, seminars, meetings, and workshops for the purpose of studying municipal issues and exchanging information regarding municipal government.
To provide administrative services to the Texas Municipal League risk pools so that quality coverages at reasonable and competitive prices can be made available to member cities and their employees.
To publish and circulate an official magazine and other publications, reports, and newsletters of interest to member cities.
To serve as a repository of literature, analyses, research, and data related to municipal operations and make that information available to member cities.
To alert member cities of important governmental or private sector actions or proposed actions which may affect municipal operations.
To promote the interests of League affiliates (departments) and regions by providing organizational and technical assistance as directed by the Board and consistent with financial resources.
To promote constructive and cooperative relationships among cities and between the League and other levels of government, councils of governments, the National League of Cities, educational institutions, and the private sector.
To provide for and conduct training in relevant and timely topics related to municipal government.
To provide, in a timely manner, any additional services or information which individual members may request, consistent with the member cities' common interests and the League's resources.
- Click here for it.
The League exists solely to provide services to Texas cities. Since the first day of its existence, the League's mission has remained the same: to serve the needs and advocate the interests of cities and city officials. Indeed, the TML Constitution states that the purpose of the League is "to render services which individual cities have neither time, money nor strength to do alone." In practice, that mission translates into the following services:
To represent the interests of member cities before legislative, administrative, and judicial bodies at the state and federal levels.
To sponsor and conduct an annual conference and other conferences, seminars, meetings, and workshops for the purpose of studying municipal issues and exchanging information regarding municipal government.
To provide administrative services to the Texas Municipal League risk pools so that quality coverages at reasonable and competitive prices can be made available to member cities and their employees.
To publish and circulate an official magazine and other publications, reports, and newsletters of interest to member cities.
To serve as a repository of literature, analyses, research, and data related to municipal operations and make that information available to member cities.
To alert member cities of important governmental or private sector actions or proposed actions which may affect municipal operations.
To promote the interests of League affiliates (departments) and regions by providing organizational and technical assistance as directed by the Board and consistent with financial resources.
To promote constructive and cooperative relationships among cities and between the League and other levels of government, councils of governments, the National League of Cities, educational institutions, and the private sector.
To provide for and conduct training in relevant and timely topics related to municipal government.
To provide, in a timely manner, any additional services or information which individual members may request, consistent with the member cities' common interests and the League's resources.
Texas Association of Counties
This is the interest group that lobbies the state legislature on behalf of counties in the state. They also provide resources to county office holders.
- Click here for its website.
Here is their description of counties:
Across the state, 254 counties serve the needs of more than 28 million Texans. County populations range in size from just under 100 residents (Loving County) to more than 4.6 million (Harris County).
- The major responsibilities of Texas county government include:
- Providing public safety and justice
- Holding elections at every level of government
- Maintaining Texans’ most important records
- Building and maintaining roads, bridges and in some cases, county airports
- Providing emergency management services
- Providing health and safety services
- Collecting property taxes for the county and sometimes for other taxing entities
- Issuing vehicle registration and transfers
- Registering voters.
Some counties are able to offer libraries, parks and other programs that add to the quality of life for local residents. Many play a vital role in the economic development of their local areas.
Effective, Efficient, Local Solutions
County government is the functional arm of state government and delivers many state services at the local level.
As more federal and state responsibilities are mandated to local government, counties meet these demands and efficiently deliver a growing list of services while keeping local property taxes as low as possible.
County government and county officials also understand and respond to address the problems and priorities of their local communities. Officials are neighbors serving neighbors. They are elected by the communities in which they live and work.
- Click here for its website.
Here is their description of counties:
Across the state, 254 counties serve the needs of more than 28 million Texans. County populations range in size from just under 100 residents (Loving County) to more than 4.6 million (Harris County).
- The major responsibilities of Texas county government include:
- Providing public safety and justice
- Holding elections at every level of government
- Maintaining Texans’ most important records
- Building and maintaining roads, bridges and in some cases, county airports
- Providing emergency management services
- Providing health and safety services
- Collecting property taxes for the county and sometimes for other taxing entities
- Issuing vehicle registration and transfers
- Registering voters.
Some counties are able to offer libraries, parks and other programs that add to the quality of life for local residents. Many play a vital role in the economic development of their local areas.
Effective, Efficient, Local Solutions
County government is the functional arm of state government and delivers many state services at the local level.
As more federal and state responsibilities are mandated to local government, counties meet these demands and efficiently deliver a growing list of services while keeping local property taxes as low as possible.
County government and county officials also understand and respond to address the problems and priorities of their local communities. Officials are neighbors serving neighbors. They are elected by the communities in which they live and work.
Wednesday, June 3, 2020
Day 3 of the Constitutional Convention: Tuesday, May 29
More debate on the rules.
John Dickerson and Elbridge Gerry (of gerrymander fame) joined the convention.
Opening statement by Edmund Randolph.
He presents the Virginia Plan.
- Click here for detail.
The first part of Randolph's Comments:
He expressed his regret, that it should fall to him, rather than those who were of longer standing in life and political experience, to open the great subject of their mission. But as the Convention had originated from Virginia, and his colleagues supposed that some proposition was expected from them, they had imposed this task on him.
He then commented on the difficulty of the crisis, and the necessity of preventing the fulfilment of the prophecies of the American downfall.
He observed, that, in revising the federal system we ought to inquire, first, into the properties which such a government ought to possess; secondly, the defects of the Confederation; thirdly, the danger of our situation; and fourthly, the remedy.
1. The character of such a government ought to secure, first, against foreign invasion; secondly, against dissensions between members of the Union, or seditions in particular States; thirdly, to procure to the several States various blessings of which an isolated situation was incapable; fourthly, it should be able to defend itself against encroachment; and fifthly, to be paramount to the State Constitutions.
2. In speaking of the defects of the Confederation, he professed a high respect for its authors, and considered them as having done all that patriots could do, in the then infancy of the science of constitutions, and of confederacies; when the inefficiency of requisitions was unknown — no commercial discord had arisen among any States — no rebellion had appeared, as in Massachusetts — foreign debts had not become urgent — the havoc of paper-money had not been foreseen — treaties had not been violated — and perhaps nothing better could be obtained, from the jealousy of the States with regard to their sovereignty.
He then proceeded to enumerate the defects: — First, that the Confederation produced no security against foreign invasion; Congress not being permitted to prevent a war, nor to support it by their own authority. Of this he cited many examples; most of which tended to show, that they could not cause infractions of treaties, or of the law of nations, to be punished; that particular States might by their conduct provoke war without control; and that, neither militia nor drafts being fit for defence on such occasions, enlistments only could be successful, and these could not be executed without money.
Secondly, that the Federal Government could not check the quarrel between States, nor a rebellion in any, not having constitutional power nor means to interpose according to the exigency.
Thirdly, that there were many advantages which the United States might acquire, which were not attainable under the Confederation — such as a productive impost — counteraction of the commercial regulations of other nations — pushing of commerce ad libitum, &c. &c.
Fourthly, that the Federal Government could not defend itself against encroachments from the States.
Fifthly, that it was not even paramount to the State Constitutions, ratified as it was in many of the States.
John Dickerson and Elbridge Gerry (of gerrymander fame) joined the convention.
Opening statement by Edmund Randolph.
He presents the Virginia Plan.
- Click here for detail.
The first part of Randolph's Comments:
He expressed his regret, that it should fall to him, rather than those who were of longer standing in life and political experience, to open the great subject of their mission. But as the Convention had originated from Virginia, and his colleagues supposed that some proposition was expected from them, they had imposed this task on him.
He then commented on the difficulty of the crisis, and the necessity of preventing the fulfilment of the prophecies of the American downfall.
He observed, that, in revising the federal system we ought to inquire, first, into the properties which such a government ought to possess; secondly, the defects of the Confederation; thirdly, the danger of our situation; and fourthly, the remedy.
1. The character of such a government ought to secure, first, against foreign invasion; secondly, against dissensions between members of the Union, or seditions in particular States; thirdly, to procure to the several States various blessings of which an isolated situation was incapable; fourthly, it should be able to defend itself against encroachment; and fifthly, to be paramount to the State Constitutions.
2. In speaking of the defects of the Confederation, he professed a high respect for its authors, and considered them as having done all that patriots could do, in the then infancy of the science of constitutions, and of confederacies; when the inefficiency of requisitions was unknown — no commercial discord had arisen among any States — no rebellion had appeared, as in Massachusetts — foreign debts had not become urgent — the havoc of paper-money had not been foreseen — treaties had not been violated — and perhaps nothing better could be obtained, from the jealousy of the States with regard to their sovereignty.
He then proceeded to enumerate the defects: — First, that the Confederation produced no security against foreign invasion; Congress not being permitted to prevent a war, nor to support it by their own authority. Of this he cited many examples; most of which tended to show, that they could not cause infractions of treaties, or of the law of nations, to be punished; that particular States might by their conduct provoke war without control; and that, neither militia nor drafts being fit for defence on such occasions, enlistments only could be successful, and these could not be executed without money.
Secondly, that the Federal Government could not check the quarrel between States, nor a rebellion in any, not having constitutional power nor means to interpose according to the exigency.
Thirdly, that there were many advantages which the United States might acquire, which were not attainable under the Confederation — such as a productive impost — counteraction of the commercial regulations of other nations — pushing of commerce ad libitum, &c. &c.
Fourthly, that the Federal Government could not defend itself against encroachments from the States.
Fifthly, that it was not even paramount to the State Constitutions, ratified as it was in many of the States.
From Lawfare: Can Trump Use the Insurrection Act to Deploy Troops to American Streets?
A look at the extent of presidential power.
The answer seems to be a qualified yes.
- Click here for the article.
The president cannot invoke the Insurrection Act secretly or ambiguously. Before doing so, he is required to make a public proclamation directing “the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time,” thereby providing anyone involved in the civil unrest an opportunity to retreat. Perhaps more importantly, this requirement ensures that the president publicly acknowledges and discloses his decision to invoke the Insurrection Act, allowing Congress and the public to respond accordingly.
Substantively, the Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy the military domestically in four sets of circumstances:
Where the president receives a request for assistance from the legislature of a state that is experiencing “an insurrection ... against its government[,]” or that state’s governor if its legislature cannot be convened, under 10 U.S.C. § 251.
Where the president “considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” under 10 U.S.C. § 252.
Where “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” either “so hinders the execution of the laws of [a] State, and of the United States within th[at] State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by Law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection,” under 10 U.S.C. § 253(1)—in which cases, the statute notes, that state “shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.”
Where “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy ... opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws,” under 10 U.S.C. § 253(2).
The answer seems to be a qualified yes.
- Click here for the article.
The president cannot invoke the Insurrection Act secretly or ambiguously. Before doing so, he is required to make a public proclamation directing “the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time,” thereby providing anyone involved in the civil unrest an opportunity to retreat. Perhaps more importantly, this requirement ensures that the president publicly acknowledges and discloses his decision to invoke the Insurrection Act, allowing Congress and the public to respond accordingly.
Substantively, the Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy the military domestically in four sets of circumstances:
Where the president receives a request for assistance from the legislature of a state that is experiencing “an insurrection ... against its government[,]” or that state’s governor if its legislature cannot be convened, under 10 U.S.C. § 251.
Where the president “considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” under 10 U.S.C. § 252.
Where “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” either “so hinders the execution of the laws of [a] State, and of the United States within th[at] State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by Law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection,” under 10 U.S.C. § 253(1)—in which cases, the statute notes, that state “shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.”
Where “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy ... opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws,” under 10 U.S.C. § 253(2).
2305 - 6/3
For today
- The original constitution.
- The Bill of Rights.
- The amendment 11 - 27.
Select key terms
Chapter 2: The Constitution
- federalism
- national government
- state government
- bicameralism
- the president
- electoral college
- separation of powers
- checks and balances
- classical republicanism
- bill of rights
- incorporate
- originalism
- pragmatism
Chapter 3: Federalism and Nationalism
- federalism
- unitary government
- diffusion
- delegated powers
- commerce clause
- necessary and proper clause
- implied powers
- supremacy clause
- inherent powers
- reserved powers
- concurrent powers
- full faith and credit
- dual federalism
- cooperative federalism
- grants in aid
- new federalism
- block grants
- unfunded mandate
- devolution
- preemption
Chapter 4: Civil Liberties
- civil liberties
- civil rights
- selective incorporation
- privacy
- penumbras and emanations
- judicial rule
- establishment clause
- free exercise clause
- strict separation
- accommodation
- clear and present danger
- symbolic expression
- hate speech
- fighting words
- limited protections
- prior restraint
- Miller test
- rights of the accused
- search and seizure
- exclusionary rule
- rights at trial
- double jeopardy
- miranda warnings
- right to counsel
- The original constitution.
- The Bill of Rights.
- The amendment 11 - 27.
Select key terms
Chapter 2: The Constitution
- federalism
- national government
- state government
- bicameralism
- the president
- electoral college
- separation of powers
- checks and balances
- classical republicanism
- bill of rights
- incorporate
- originalism
- pragmatism
Chapter 3: Federalism and Nationalism
- federalism
- unitary government
- diffusion
- delegated powers
- commerce clause
- necessary and proper clause
- implied powers
- supremacy clause
- inherent powers
- reserved powers
- concurrent powers
- full faith and credit
- dual federalism
- cooperative federalism
- grants in aid
- new federalism
- block grants
- unfunded mandate
- devolution
- preemption
Chapter 4: Civil Liberties
- civil liberties
- civil rights
- selective incorporation
- privacy
- penumbras and emanations
- judicial rule
- establishment clause
- free exercise clause
- strict separation
- accommodation
- clear and present danger
- symbolic expression
- hate speech
- fighting words
- limited protections
- prior restraint
- Miller test
- rights of the accused
- search and seizure
- exclusionary rule
- rights at trial
- double jeopardy
- miranda warnings
- right to counsel
Introducing: The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement
A highly relevant state agency
- Click here for their website.
- Click here for their Wikipedia entry.
The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement or TCOLE, serves as the regulatory agency for all peace officers in Texas, which includes sheriffs and their deputies, constables and their deputies, police officers, marshals, troopers, Texas Rangers, enforcement agents of the Alcoholic Beverage Commission, investigators of the Attorney General, and game wardens. County jailers and public security officers are also regulated by TCOLE.
With the passage of Senate Bill 686 in the 83rd Legislative Session, the commission's name was changed from "Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Education" to "Texas Commission on Law Enforcement" on January 1, 2014.
- Click here for their most recent report from the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission.
- Self evaluation.
Established in 1965 by the 59th Texas Legislature, the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education was created to conduct studies and make recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature for the establishment of training, education, and certification standards to improve law enforcement performance. Today, the Commission, which was renamed the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE) in 2013, has evolved into a contemporary regulatory agency with six key functions:
1. Establishing minimum standards to obtain and maintain a peace officer, county jailer, telecommunicator, or school marshal license, and issuing licenses to qualified applicants;
2. Overseeing basic training and continuing education requirements to maintain an active license and ensuring compliance;
3. Auditing agencies and training providers for compliance with hiring standards and providing technical assistance;
4. Taking enforcement action against licenses in the event of criminal or administrative violations; Self-Evaluation Report Texas Commission on Law Enforcement 2 September 2019
5. Approving the creation of new law enforcement agencies that meet minimum standards established by the Legislature; and
6. Maintaining TCOLE’s database containing licensee and agency records.
- Click here for their website.
- Click here for their Wikipedia entry.
The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement or TCOLE, serves as the regulatory agency for all peace officers in Texas, which includes sheriffs and their deputies, constables and their deputies, police officers, marshals, troopers, Texas Rangers, enforcement agents of the Alcoholic Beverage Commission, investigators of the Attorney General, and game wardens. County jailers and public security officers are also regulated by TCOLE.
With the passage of Senate Bill 686 in the 83rd Legislative Session, the commission's name was changed from "Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Education" to "Texas Commission on Law Enforcement" on January 1, 2014.
- Click here for their most recent report from the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission.
- Self evaluation.
Established in 1965 by the 59th Texas Legislature, the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education was created to conduct studies and make recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature for the establishment of training, education, and certification standards to improve law enforcement performance. Today, the Commission, which was renamed the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE) in 2013, has evolved into a contemporary regulatory agency with six key functions:
1. Establishing minimum standards to obtain and maintain a peace officer, county jailer, telecommunicator, or school marshal license, and issuing licenses to qualified applicants;
2. Overseeing basic training and continuing education requirements to maintain an active license and ensuring compliance;
3. Auditing agencies and training providers for compliance with hiring standards and providing technical assistance;
4. Taking enforcement action against licenses in the event of criminal or administrative violations; Self-Evaluation Report Texas Commission on Law Enforcement 2 September 2019
5. Approving the creation of new law enforcement agencies that meet minimum standards established by the Legislature; and
6. Maintaining TCOLE’s database containing licensee and agency records.
Worth a look:
All from the Texas Tribune
- As coronavirus hits Texas, the state's top health official is spending 30 hours a week on a second job — that pays $600,000.
The acting head of Texas’ massive health and human services bureaucracy, who is leading a 36,600 employee agency during a global pandemic, is also working a second job as the well-paid general manager of the Lower Colorado River Authority, a quasi-state agency — funded without state tax dollars — that provides water and electricity to more than a million Texans.
- Long a GOP voice on health care, U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess seeks a higher post.
For the last seven months or so, longtime U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess of Lewisville has run a quiet campaign to be the top Republican of a House committee that is so powerful that a past chairman kept an enormous photo of the Earth in the committee's offices to illustrate its jurisdiction.
Burgess is running to be the GOP leader of the House Energy and Commerce Committee next term — or, if the 2020 elections break Republicans' way, the chair. The committee is the congressional arm that regulates all interstate commerce, lending to it the power to investigate everything from Major League Baseball to Silicon Valley. But now, thanks to a pandemic and oil bust, the world is falling in on Congress and Texas, and Burgess is running for what is likely to be one of the hardest jobs in Washington next term.
- Texas Democrats' convention begins online-only Monday, while state GOP officials stick to in-person plans in July.
The Texas Democratic and Republican parties are planning very different conventions this summer as the coronavirus pandemic persists — and drawing a growing national spotlight along the way.
The state Democratic Party is holding an exclusively virtual convention that kicks off Monday, while the Texas GOP is pressing forward with an in-person convention in mid-July in Houston. Both events are serving as instructive precursors — if not templates — for the respective national parties, which are wrestling with how to safely hold their own conventions later this summer.
- As coronavirus hits Texas, the state's top health official is spending 30 hours a week on a second job — that pays $600,000.
The acting head of Texas’ massive health and human services bureaucracy, who is leading a 36,600 employee agency during a global pandemic, is also working a second job as the well-paid general manager of the Lower Colorado River Authority, a quasi-state agency — funded without state tax dollars — that provides water and electricity to more than a million Texans.
- Long a GOP voice on health care, U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess seeks a higher post.
For the last seven months or so, longtime U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess of Lewisville has run a quiet campaign to be the top Republican of a House committee that is so powerful that a past chairman kept an enormous photo of the Earth in the committee's offices to illustrate its jurisdiction.
Burgess is running to be the GOP leader of the House Energy and Commerce Committee next term — or, if the 2020 elections break Republicans' way, the chair. The committee is the congressional arm that regulates all interstate commerce, lending to it the power to investigate everything from Major League Baseball to Silicon Valley. But now, thanks to a pandemic and oil bust, the world is falling in on Congress and Texas, and Burgess is running for what is likely to be one of the hardest jobs in Washington next term.
- Texas Democrats' convention begins online-only Monday, while state GOP officials stick to in-person plans in July.
The Texas Democratic and Republican parties are planning very different conventions this summer as the coronavirus pandemic persists — and drawing a growing national spotlight along the way.
The state Democratic Party is holding an exclusively virtual convention that kicks off Monday, while the Texas GOP is pressing forward with an in-person convention in mid-July in Houston. Both events are serving as instructive precursors — if not templates — for the respective national parties, which are wrestling with how to safely hold their own conventions later this summer.
From the Texas State Historical Society: EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Seems pertinent
- Click here for the entry.
With the beginning of the nuclear arms race in the late 1940s, national and state civil defense acquired a greater urgency than it had had during World War II. Despite the founding of new federal bureaus in the 1950s, authority and responsibility for civil defense remained highly decentralized. Decentralization also characterized the state civil-defense program. In 1951 the Texas legislature unanimously passed the Civil Protection Act, establishing the governor as head of the Disaster Relief Council, which was composed of the directors of the various state agencies. The state program duplicated the national in that each agency retained responsibility for its respective relief function. The governor also appointed a state coordinator of defense and disaster relief, who operated at civil defense headquarters in Austin, served as a liaison among the state agencies, and took command during emergencies. William L. McGill served as state coordinator for the first eight years of the organization's existence.
Decentralization also characterized the local level, where mayors, county judges, or locally appointed civil-defense directors received responsibility for disaster planning in their cities, towns, or counties. In the 1980s the state channeled aid-in the form of funds and training-through sixteen state disaster districts coterminous with State Highway Patrol districts. Local civil-defense organizations provided manpower-chiefly volunteers-and implemented relief plans during disasters or practice drills.
In 1963 the Office of Defense and Disaster Relief was moved from the executive department to the Texas Department of Public Safety. The Texas Disaster Act of 1975 renamed the office the Division of Disaster Emergency Services, established the governor's Disaster Emergency Services Council, and provided for greater integration of state and local civil-defense functions. In August 1981 the division, while remaining within the DPS, became the Division of Emergency Management.
- Click here for the entry.
With the beginning of the nuclear arms race in the late 1940s, national and state civil defense acquired a greater urgency than it had had during World War II. Despite the founding of new federal bureaus in the 1950s, authority and responsibility for civil defense remained highly decentralized. Decentralization also characterized the state civil-defense program. In 1951 the Texas legislature unanimously passed the Civil Protection Act, establishing the governor as head of the Disaster Relief Council, which was composed of the directors of the various state agencies. The state program duplicated the national in that each agency retained responsibility for its respective relief function. The governor also appointed a state coordinator of defense and disaster relief, who operated at civil defense headquarters in Austin, served as a liaison among the state agencies, and took command during emergencies. William L. McGill served as state coordinator for the first eight years of the organization's existence.
Decentralization also characterized the local level, where mayors, county judges, or locally appointed civil-defense directors received responsibility for disaster planning in their cities, towns, or counties. In the 1980s the state channeled aid-in the form of funds and training-through sixteen state disaster districts coterminous with State Highway Patrol districts. Local civil-defense organizations provided manpower-chiefly volunteers-and implemented relief plans during disasters or practice drills.
In 1963 the Office of Defense and Disaster Relief was moved from the executive department to the Texas Department of Public Safety. The Texas Disaster Act of 1975 renamed the office the Division of Disaster Emergency Services, established the governor's Disaster Emergency Services Council, and provided for greater integration of state and local civil-defense functions. In August 1981 the division, while remaining within the DPS, became the Division of Emergency Management.
For 2306 - 6/3
After perusing through a few news items on the blog I'd like to review the following key terms
Chapter Two: Texas Constitution
- constitution
- popular sovereignty
- unitary system
- federal system
- enumerated powers
- implied powers
- concurrent powers
- supremacy clause
- reserved powers
- privileges and immunities
- full faith and credit
- extradition
- dual federalism
- cooperative federalism
- devolution
- matching grants
- categorical grants
- block grants
Chapter 11: Local Governments
- Dillon's Rule
- fiscal federalism
- counties
- partisan elections
- cities
- partisan elections
- incorporation
- city charter
- municipal bond
- public education
- special districts
Chapter 12: Fiscal Policy
- policy-making process
- fiscal policy
- subsidies
- revenue
- tax
- general sales taxes
- property taxes
- appraisal
- federal grants
- legislative budget board
- pay as you go
- rainy day fund
I'd also like to go over the following:
- The Texas Constitution and Statutes.
- The Alvin City Charter.
Chapter Two: Texas Constitution
- constitution
- popular sovereignty
- unitary system
- federal system
- enumerated powers
- implied powers
- concurrent powers
- supremacy clause
- reserved powers
- privileges and immunities
- full faith and credit
- extradition
- dual federalism
- cooperative federalism
- devolution
- matching grants
- categorical grants
- block grants
Chapter 11: Local Governments
- Dillon's Rule
- fiscal federalism
- counties
- partisan elections
- cities
- partisan elections
- incorporation
- city charter
- municipal bond
- public education
- special districts
Chapter 12: Fiscal Policy
- policy-making process
- fiscal policy
- subsidies
- revenue
- tax
- general sales taxes
- property taxes
- appraisal
- federal grants
- legislative budget board
- pay as you go
- rainy day fund
I'd also like to go over the following:
- The Texas Constitution and Statutes.
- The Alvin City Charter.
Tuesday, June 2, 2020
From Wikipedia: Posse Comitatus Act
Also in the news, this act draws a line between the military and police.
- Click here for the entry.
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1956 and 1981.
The act specifically applies only to the United States Army and, as amended in 1956, the United States Air Force. Although the act does not explicitly mention the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps, the Department of the Navy has prescribed regulations that are generally construed to give the act force with respect to those services as well. The act does not prevent the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The United States Coast Guard (under the Department of Homeland Security) and United States Space Force (under the Department of the Air Force) are not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act either, primarily because although both are armed services, they also have maritime and space law enforcement missions respectively.
The title of the act comes from the legal concept of posse comitatus, the authority under which a county sheriff, or other law officer, conscripts any able-bodied person to assist in keeping the peace.
- Click here for the entry.
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1956 and 1981.
The act specifically applies only to the United States Army and, as amended in 1956, the United States Air Force. Although the act does not explicitly mention the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps, the Department of the Navy has prescribed regulations that are generally construed to give the act force with respect to those services as well. The act does not prevent the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The United States Coast Guard (under the Department of Homeland Security) and United States Space Force (under the Department of the Air Force) are not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act either, primarily because although both are armed services, they also have maritime and space law enforcement missions respectively.
The title of the act comes from the legal concept of posse comitatus, the authority under which a county sheriff, or other law officer, conscripts any able-bodied person to assist in keeping the peace.
From Wikipedia: Insurrection Act of 1807
This is suddenly topical
- Click here for the entry.
The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255; prior to 2016, 10 U.S.C. §§ 331–335) that empowers the president of the United States to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion.
The act provides the "major exception" to the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of the U.S. military within the United States for law enforcement purposes.[1] The President must firstly issue a proclamation ordering the insurgents to immediately disperse (per 10 U.S.C. § 254).
This is the original text of the act.
An Act authorizing the employment of the land and naval forces of the United States, in cases of insurrections
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual state or territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect.
APPROVED, March 3, 1807.
- Click here for the entry.
The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255; prior to 2016, 10 U.S.C. §§ 331–335) that empowers the president of the United States to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion.
The act provides the "major exception" to the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of the U.S. military within the United States for law enforcement purposes.[1] The President must firstly issue a proclamation ordering the insurgents to immediately disperse (per 10 U.S.C. § 254).
This is the original text of the act.
An Act authorizing the employment of the land and naval forces of the United States, in cases of insurrections
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual state or territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect.
APPROVED, March 3, 1807.
From Roll Call: Trump floats invoking 1807 Insurrection Act to ‘dominate’ protests
The response to the current protests provides another test of the limits of executive power.
- Click here for the article.
President Donald Trump on Monday night threatened to use the full power of the federal government, including the military through the use of the more than 200-year-old Insurrection Act, to quell protests that have erupted in dozens of cities across the country in the last week.
Trump’s comments from the Rose Garden, his first addressing the nation on the escalating racial unrest in the wake of the May 25 death of George Floyd at the hand of a Minneapolis police officer, came as a battalion of active duty troops were reportedly en route to Washington from North Carolina to provide support to local law enforcement.
Trump did not address the reports of deploying Army soldiers from Fort Bragg within the District of Columbia but said he believed governors and mayors were not responding aggressively enough to the protests.
“These are not acts of peaceful protest. These are acts of domestic terror,” the president said.
“We are putting everybody on warning, our 7 o’clock curfew will be strictly enforced,” Trump said, as federal law enforcement officials were deployed across Washington to assist in enforcing a curfew announced earlier in the day by Mayor Muriel Bowser.
Relevant key terms.
- president
- full power
- federal government
- military
- Insurrection Act
- protests
- cities
- police
- troops
- local law enforcement
- governors
- mayors
- peaceful protest
- curfew
- federal law enforcement
- D.C. National Guard
- law enforcement duties
- arrest
- detention
- civilian law enforcement duties
- open ended
- checks
- domestic
- House
- Armed Services
- Chairman
- Washington Democrat
- Secretary of Defense
- democracy
- dictatorship
- local politicians
- citizens
- Republican Senator
- Posse Comitatus
- Justice Department
- Pentagon
- active duty units
- law and order
- U.S. Park Police
- demonstrators
- Click here for the article.
President Donald Trump on Monday night threatened to use the full power of the federal government, including the military through the use of the more than 200-year-old Insurrection Act, to quell protests that have erupted in dozens of cities across the country in the last week.
Trump’s comments from the Rose Garden, his first addressing the nation on the escalating racial unrest in the wake of the May 25 death of George Floyd at the hand of a Minneapolis police officer, came as a battalion of active duty troops were reportedly en route to Washington from North Carolina to provide support to local law enforcement.
Trump did not address the reports of deploying Army soldiers from Fort Bragg within the District of Columbia but said he believed governors and mayors were not responding aggressively enough to the protests.
“These are not acts of peaceful protest. These are acts of domestic terror,” the president said.
“We are putting everybody on warning, our 7 o’clock curfew will be strictly enforced,” Trump said, as federal law enforcement officials were deployed across Washington to assist in enforcing a curfew announced earlier in the day by Mayor Muriel Bowser.
Relevant key terms.
- president
- full power
- federal government
- military
- Insurrection Act
- protests
- cities
- police
- troops
- local law enforcement
- governors
- mayors
- peaceful protest
- curfew
- federal law enforcement
- D.C. National Guard
- law enforcement duties
- arrest
- detention
- civilian law enforcement duties
- open ended
- checks
- domestic
- House
- Armed Services
- Chairman
- Washington Democrat
- Secretary of Defense
- democracy
- dictatorship
- local politicians
- citizens
- Republican Senator
- Posse Comitatus
- Justice Department
- Pentagon
- active duty units
- law and order
- U.S. Park Police
- demonstrators
GOVERNMENT CODE TITLE 4. EXECUTIVE BRANCH SUBTITLE B. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC PROTECTION CHAPTER 418. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Also known as the Texas Disaster Act of 1975
- Click here for it.
It clarifies what the governor can do during an emergency.
- Click here for it.
It clarifies what the governor can do during an emergency.
From the Texas Tribune: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declares state of disaster after George Floyd protests
For 2306, an example of the emergency powers of the governor.
- Click here for the article.
Gov. Greg Abbott announced Sunday afternoon that the entire state of Texas will be placed under a disaster declaration in response to demonstrators in several Texas cities protesting the death of George Floyd, a black man who was killed Monday in Minneapolis police custody.
The declaration allowed Abbott to designate federal law enforcement officers to perform the duties of peace officers in Texas.
Thousands of protesters marched in Texas cities on Friday and Saturday, outraged after Floyd was filmed crying out for help as a white police officer pinned him to the ground with a knee to his neck. The officer, Derek Chauvin, was later arrested and charged with third-degree murder and manslaughter.
“Every Texan and every American has the right to protest and I encourage all Texans to exercise their First Amendment rights,” Abbott said in a statement. “However, violence against others and the destruction of property is unacceptable and counterproductive.”
His announcement comes a day after he activated the Texas National Guard “in response to protest violence” across the state. In several of the state’s large metropolitan areas — including Houston, Austin, Dallas and San Antonio — protesters clashed with police who sometimes used rubber bullets and tear gas.
Key terms:
- governor
- police
- federal law enforcement
- peace officers
- protesters
- film
- arrested
- charged
- third degree murder
- manslaughter
- right to protest
- First Amendment
- Texas National Guard
- metropolitan areas
- state resources
- cities
- FBI
- state and local law enforcement
- Texas Department of Public Safety
- local police departments
- National Guard
- Click here for the article.
Gov. Greg Abbott announced Sunday afternoon that the entire state of Texas will be placed under a disaster declaration in response to demonstrators in several Texas cities protesting the death of George Floyd, a black man who was killed Monday in Minneapolis police custody.
The declaration allowed Abbott to designate federal law enforcement officers to perform the duties of peace officers in Texas.
Thousands of protesters marched in Texas cities on Friday and Saturday, outraged after Floyd was filmed crying out for help as a white police officer pinned him to the ground with a knee to his neck. The officer, Derek Chauvin, was later arrested and charged with third-degree murder and manslaughter.
“Every Texan and every American has the right to protest and I encourage all Texans to exercise their First Amendment rights,” Abbott said in a statement. “However, violence against others and the destruction of property is unacceptable and counterproductive.”
His announcement comes a day after he activated the Texas National Guard “in response to protest violence” across the state. In several of the state’s large metropolitan areas — including Houston, Austin, Dallas and San Antonio — protesters clashed with police who sometimes used rubber bullets and tear gas.
Key terms:
- governor
- police
- federal law enforcement
- peace officers
- protesters
- film
- arrested
- charged
- third degree murder
- manslaughter
- right to protest
- First Amendment
- Texas National Guard
- metropolitan areas
- state resources
- cities
- FBI
- state and local law enforcement
- Texas Department of Public Safety
- local police departments
- National Guard
Monday, June 1, 2020
From the Texas Tribune: As Texas sales tax revenue dips 13.2% in May, the largest year-over-year decline in a decade
2306 students take note.
- Click here for the article.
Texas collected about $2.6 billion in state sales tax revenue in May, leading to the steepest year-over-year decline in over a decade, Comptroller Glenn Hegar announced Monday.
The amount is 13.2% less than the roughly $3 billion the state collected in the same month last year.
A majority of the revenue collected last month was from purchases made in April and reflect the state's first full-month look at how the novel coronavirus impacted businesses. That is when Texans lived under a statewide stay-at-home order and Gov. Greg Abbott, like leaders across the globe, ordered businesses across several sectors to close to combat the spread of the virus.
"Significant declines in sales tax receipts were evident in all major economic sectors, with the exception of telecommunications services," Hegar said in a news release. "The steepest decline was in collections from oil and gas mining, as energy companies cut well drilling and completion spending following the crash in oil prices."
Key terms
- sales tax revenue
- comptroller
- governor
- oil and gas
- motor fuels taxes
- hotel occupancy taxes
- legislative session
- lieutenant governor
- House speaker
- R - Angleton
- agencies
- Texas Department of State Health Services
- Texas Workforce Commission
- school districts
- state general revenue funding
- Legislative Budget Board
- GOP
- Republicans
- House Freedom Caucus
- Agriculture Commissioner
- Department of Agriculture
- state representative
- Austin democrat
- House Appropriations Committtee
- Legislature
- Click here for the article.
Texas collected about $2.6 billion in state sales tax revenue in May, leading to the steepest year-over-year decline in over a decade, Comptroller Glenn Hegar announced Monday.
The amount is 13.2% less than the roughly $3 billion the state collected in the same month last year.
A majority of the revenue collected last month was from purchases made in April and reflect the state's first full-month look at how the novel coronavirus impacted businesses. That is when Texans lived under a statewide stay-at-home order and Gov. Greg Abbott, like leaders across the globe, ordered businesses across several sectors to close to combat the spread of the virus.
"Significant declines in sales tax receipts were evident in all major economic sectors, with the exception of telecommunications services," Hegar said in a news release. "The steepest decline was in collections from oil and gas mining, as energy companies cut well drilling and completion spending following the crash in oil prices."
Key terms
- sales tax revenue
- comptroller
- governor
- oil and gas
- motor fuels taxes
- hotel occupancy taxes
- legislative session
- lieutenant governor
- House speaker
- R - Angleton
- agencies
- Texas Department of State Health Services
- Texas Workforce Commission
- school districts
- state general revenue funding
- Legislative Budget Board
- GOP
- Republicans
- House Freedom Caucus
- Agriculture Commissioner
- Department of Agriculture
- state representative
- Austin democrat
- House Appropriations Committtee
- Legislature
From Lawfare: Can the Federal Government Override State Government Rules on Social Distancing to Promote the Economy?
This is a terrific look at federalism during coronavirus.
The answer seems to be, no.
- Click here for the article.
2. No, the president cannot simply order state and local officials to change their policies
Here we have issues that fall under the headings of both federalism and separation of powers. Let’s start with federalism.
Most readers will appreciate this already, but it needs to be said: Our constitutional order has a federal structure, meaning that (a) federal powers are supreme, yes, but limited in scope and (b) the state governments are independent entities, not mere subordinate layers under and within the federal government (that is, the federal-state relationship is not similar to the way that counties and cities are subordinate layers under the state governments).
What follows from this? The federal government cannot commandeer the machinery of the state governments (or, by extension, of local governments). That is, the federal government cannot coerce the states into taking actions to suit federal policy preference. See, e.g., New York v. United States and Printz v. United States. And so, the federal government cannot compel state and local officials to promulgate different rules on social distancing and the like.
3. But could the federal government override contrary state and local rules?
As noted above, federal law is supreme over state law in our system. And so, if there is an otherwise-constitutional federal law compelling an outcome that runs contrary to a state or local rule, the federal law prevails. But it does not follow that President Trump can therefore override state and local rules on matters like shelter-in-place.
First, no currently existing statute plausibly can be read to confer such an authority on the president. The Stafford Act, the Defense Production Act, the Public Health Service Act, and the various statutes triggered by a declaration under the National Emergencies Act—none of these come close to authorizing something like this.
Second, there is little chance that this Congress is going to pass a statute that even purports to confer authority on the president to override state and local rules. I just do not see the House cooperating in such an effort.
Third, the president cannot plausibly claim inherent Article II authority to accomplish an override. Recall that President Truman, in the midst of the Korean War and facing the prospect of a strike in the steel industry that might disrupt the flow of arms and ammunition, asserted emergency Article II authority in order to temporarily nationalize the steel industry. The Supreme Court famously struck down that action as an unconstitutional usurpation of the authority of Congress, notwithstanding the exigency, in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer.
The answer seems to be, no.
- Click here for the article.
2. No, the president cannot simply order state and local officials to change their policies
Here we have issues that fall under the headings of both federalism and separation of powers. Let’s start with federalism.
Most readers will appreciate this already, but it needs to be said: Our constitutional order has a federal structure, meaning that (a) federal powers are supreme, yes, but limited in scope and (b) the state governments are independent entities, not mere subordinate layers under and within the federal government (that is, the federal-state relationship is not similar to the way that counties and cities are subordinate layers under the state governments).
What follows from this? The federal government cannot commandeer the machinery of the state governments (or, by extension, of local governments). That is, the federal government cannot coerce the states into taking actions to suit federal policy preference. See, e.g., New York v. United States and Printz v. United States. And so, the federal government cannot compel state and local officials to promulgate different rules on social distancing and the like.
3. But could the federal government override contrary state and local rules?
As noted above, federal law is supreme over state law in our system. And so, if there is an otherwise-constitutional federal law compelling an outcome that runs contrary to a state or local rule, the federal law prevails. But it does not follow that President Trump can therefore override state and local rules on matters like shelter-in-place.
First, no currently existing statute plausibly can be read to confer such an authority on the president. The Stafford Act, the Defense Production Act, the Public Health Service Act, and the various statutes triggered by a declaration under the National Emergencies Act—none of these come close to authorizing something like this.
Second, there is little chance that this Congress is going to pass a statute that even purports to confer authority on the president to override state and local rules. I just do not see the House cooperating in such an effort.
Third, the president cannot plausibly claim inherent Article II authority to accomplish an override. Recall that President Truman, in the midst of the Korean War and facing the prospect of a strike in the steel industry that might disrupt the flow of arms and ammunition, asserted emergency Article II authority in order to temporarily nationalize the steel industry. The Supreme Court famously struck down that action as an unconstitutional usurpation of the authority of Congress, notwithstanding the exigency, in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer.
Policing Through History
Considering recent events, I'll post a variety of stories related to policing and the establishment of police forces at the local level.
Sunday, May 31, 2020
From Roll Call: Trump’s order on social media meets swift resistance
For 2305
- Click here for the article.
Relevant terms
- executive order
- social media
- legal immunity
- coalition
- federal agencies
- Communications Decency Act
- free speech
- expression
- conservative
- monopolies
- Attorney General
- original intent
- Commerce Department
- Federal Communications Commission
- independent agency
- Federal Trade Commission
- regulations
- White House
- Office of Management and Budget
- state authorities
- state laws
- Texas Republican Senator
- political agendas
- industry groups
- Democratic lawmakers
- Consumer Technology Association
- trade group
- D-Ore
- power of the courts
- Congress
- chill speech
- non partisan
- Center for Democracy and Technology
- First Amendment
- President
- policy analyst
- Americans for Prosperity
- House Speaker
- disinformation
- federal government
- Click here for the article.
Relevant terms
- executive order
- social media
- legal immunity
- coalition
- federal agencies
- Communications Decency Act
- free speech
- expression
- conservative
- monopolies
- Attorney General
- original intent
- Commerce Department
- Federal Communications Commission
- independent agency
- Federal Trade Commission
- regulations
- White House
- Office of Management and Budget
- state authorities
- state laws
- Texas Republican Senator
- political agendas
- industry groups
- Democratic lawmakers
- Consumer Technology Association
- trade group
- D-Ore
- power of the courts
- Congress
- chill speech
- non partisan
- Center for Democracy and Technology
- First Amendment
- President
- policy analyst
- Americans for Prosperity
- House Speaker
- disinformation
- federal government
From the Texas Tribune: GOP voter registration group shutters amid coronavirus challenges
For both 2305 and 2306 - but mostly 2306.
- Click here for the article.
Relevant terms
- Super PAC
- voter registration
- political action committee
- GOP
- donors
- staff
- conservative
- Republican Party of Texas
- Federal Election Commission
- likely Republicans
- party chairman
- Republican National Committee
- tort reform
- advocate
- Texas Democrats
- 2.6 million unregistered
- El Paso congressman
- state party executive director
- Click here for the article.
Relevant terms
- Super PAC
- voter registration
- political action committee
- GOP
- donors
- staff
- conservative
- Republican Party of Texas
- Federal Election Commission
- likely Republicans
- party chairman
- Republican National Committee
- tort reform
- advocate
- Texas Democrats
- 2.6 million unregistered
- El Paso congressman
- state party executive director
Saturday, May 30, 2020
Day Two Constitutional Convention: May 28, 1787
- Click here.
The rules governing the convention were determined. Click on the link to go over them.
These stuck out to me:
“Every member, rising to speak, shall address the President; and, whilst he shall be speaking, none shall pass between them, or hold discourse with another, or read a book, pamphlet, or paper, printed or manuscript. And of two members rising to speak at the same time, the President shall name him who shall be first heard.
. . . “A member may be called to order by any other member, as well as by the President; and may be allowed to explain his conduct, or expressions, supposed to be reprehensible. And all questions of order shall be decided by the President, without appeal or debate.
. . . A letter from sundry persons of the State of Rhode Island, addressed to the Chairman of the General Convention, was presented to the Chair by Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS; and, being read, was ordered to lie on the table for further consideration
. . . Mr. BUTLER moved that the House provide against interruption of business by absence of members, and against licentious publications of their proceedings.
Here's more about Gouverner Morris:
Morris' father, Lewis Morris, was a wealthy landowner and judge. Gouverneur Morris was born on the family estate, Morrisania, on the north side of the Harlem river, which was at the time in Westchester County, but is now part of the Bronx. Morris, a gifted scholar, enrolled at King's College, now Columbia University in New York City, at age 12. He graduated in 1768 and received a Master's degree in 1771. He studied law with Judge William Smith and attained admission to the bar in 1775.
. . . In 1779, he was defeated for re-election to Congress, largely because his advocacy of a strong central government was at odds with the decentralist views prevalent in New York. Defeated in his home state, he moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to work as a lawyer and merchant.
. . . It is said by some that Morris was "an aristocrat to the core," who believed that "there never was, nor ever will be a civilized Society without an Aristocracy".[9] It is also alleged that he thought that common people were incapable of self-government because he feared that the poor would sell their votes to the rich and that voting should be restricted to property owners. Duff Cooper wrote of Morris that although he "had warmly espoused the cause of the colonists in the American War of Independence, he retained a cynically aristocratic view of life and a profound contempt for democratic theories."
Here's more about Pierce Butler:
Pierce Butler was born on July 11, 1744, in Garryhundon, County Carlow, Ireland. He was the third son of Sir Richard Butler, 5th Baronet, of Cloughgrenan (1699–1771) and his wife Henrietta Percy.
. . . As one of the largest slaveholders in the United States, he defended American slavery for both political and personal motives, even though he had private misgivings about the institution and particularly about the African slave trade. He introduced the Fugitive Slave Clause into a draft of the U.S. Constitution, which gave a federal guarantee to the property rights of slaveholders. He supported counting the full slave population in state totals for the purposes of Congressional apportionment. The Constitution's Three-Fifths Compromise counted only three-fifths of the slave population in state totals, but still led to Southern states having disproportionate power in the U.S. Congress.
. . . Military operations in the final months of the Revolutionary War left Butler a poor man. Many of his plantations and ships were destroyed, and the international trade on which the majority of his income depended was in shambles. He traveled to Europe when the war ended in an effort to secure loans and establish new markets. He enrolled his son Thomas in a London school run by Weeden Butler, and engaged a new minister from among the British clergy for his Episcopal church in South Carolina.[1][2]
In late 1785 Butler returned to the United States. He became an outspoken advocate of reconciliation with former Loyalists and of equal representation for the residents of the backcountry. Testifying to his growing political influence, the South Carolina legislature asked Butler to represent the state at the Constitutional Convention that met in Philadelphia in 1787.[1] At the convention, he urged that the president be given the power to initiate war; however, he did not receive a second proponent for his motion and all the other delegates overwhelmingly rejected his proposal.[3][4]
Butler's experiences as a soldier and planter-legislator led to his forceful support for a strong union of the states. At the same time, he looked to the special interests of his region. He introduced the Fugitive Slave Clause (Article 4, Section 2), which established protection for slavery in the Constitution. In addition, while privately criticizing the international trade in African slaves, he supported the passage in the Constitution that prohibited regulation of the trade for 20 years. He advocated counting the full slave population in the states' totals for the purposes of Congressional apportionment, but had to be satisfied with the compromise to count three-fifths of the slaves toward that end. It ensured that the Southern planter elite exerted a strong influence in national politics for decades.
Butler displayed inconsistencies that troubled his associates. He favored ratification of the Constitution, yet did not attend the South Carolina convention that ratified it. Later, he was elected by the South Carolina state legislature to three separate terms in the United States Senate, but changed his party allegiance: beginning as a Federalist, he switched to the Jeffersonian party in 1795. In 1804 he declared himself a political independent.
Vice President Aaron Burr was Butler's guest at his St. Simons plantations in September 1804. Burr was, at the time, lying low after shooting Alexander Hamilton in the July 1804 duel. The states of New York and New Jersey had each indicted the Vice President for murder in the wake of the post-duel controversy. Burr had traveled during August, to Butler's plantation under the pseudonym Roswell King, which was Butler's overseer's name. During Burr's stay in early September, one of the worst hurricanes in history hit the area, and Burr's first-hand description documents both his stay and this event. Butler's politics and public involvement mirror the political rise and fall of his friend Burr.
The rules governing the convention were determined. Click on the link to go over them.
These stuck out to me:
“Every member, rising to speak, shall address the President; and, whilst he shall be speaking, none shall pass between them, or hold discourse with another, or read a book, pamphlet, or paper, printed or manuscript. And of two members rising to speak at the same time, the President shall name him who shall be first heard.
. . . “A member may be called to order by any other member, as well as by the President; and may be allowed to explain his conduct, or expressions, supposed to be reprehensible. And all questions of order shall be decided by the President, without appeal or debate.
. . . A letter from sundry persons of the State of Rhode Island, addressed to the Chairman of the General Convention, was presented to the Chair by Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS; and, being read, was ordered to lie on the table for further consideration
. . . Mr. BUTLER moved that the House provide against interruption of business by absence of members, and against licentious publications of their proceedings.
Here's more about Gouverner Morris:
Morris' father, Lewis Morris, was a wealthy landowner and judge. Gouverneur Morris was born on the family estate, Morrisania, on the north side of the Harlem river, which was at the time in Westchester County, but is now part of the Bronx. Morris, a gifted scholar, enrolled at King's College, now Columbia University in New York City, at age 12. He graduated in 1768 and received a Master's degree in 1771. He studied law with Judge William Smith and attained admission to the bar in 1775.
. . . In 1779, he was defeated for re-election to Congress, largely because his advocacy of a strong central government was at odds with the decentralist views prevalent in New York. Defeated in his home state, he moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to work as a lawyer and merchant.
. . . It is said by some that Morris was "an aristocrat to the core," who believed that "there never was, nor ever will be a civilized Society without an Aristocracy".[9] It is also alleged that he thought that common people were incapable of self-government because he feared that the poor would sell their votes to the rich and that voting should be restricted to property owners. Duff Cooper wrote of Morris that although he "had warmly espoused the cause of the colonists in the American War of Independence, he retained a cynically aristocratic view of life and a profound contempt for democratic theories."
Here's more about Pierce Butler:
Pierce Butler was born on July 11, 1744, in Garryhundon, County Carlow, Ireland. He was the third son of Sir Richard Butler, 5th Baronet, of Cloughgrenan (1699–1771) and his wife Henrietta Percy.
. . . As one of the largest slaveholders in the United States, he defended American slavery for both political and personal motives, even though he had private misgivings about the institution and particularly about the African slave trade. He introduced the Fugitive Slave Clause into a draft of the U.S. Constitution, which gave a federal guarantee to the property rights of slaveholders. He supported counting the full slave population in state totals for the purposes of Congressional apportionment. The Constitution's Three-Fifths Compromise counted only three-fifths of the slave population in state totals, but still led to Southern states having disproportionate power in the U.S. Congress.
. . . Military operations in the final months of the Revolutionary War left Butler a poor man. Many of his plantations and ships were destroyed, and the international trade on which the majority of his income depended was in shambles. He traveled to Europe when the war ended in an effort to secure loans and establish new markets. He enrolled his son Thomas in a London school run by Weeden Butler, and engaged a new minister from among the British clergy for his Episcopal church in South Carolina.[1][2]
In late 1785 Butler returned to the United States. He became an outspoken advocate of reconciliation with former Loyalists and of equal representation for the residents of the backcountry. Testifying to his growing political influence, the South Carolina legislature asked Butler to represent the state at the Constitutional Convention that met in Philadelphia in 1787.[1] At the convention, he urged that the president be given the power to initiate war; however, he did not receive a second proponent for his motion and all the other delegates overwhelmingly rejected his proposal.[3][4]
Butler's experiences as a soldier and planter-legislator led to his forceful support for a strong union of the states. At the same time, he looked to the special interests of his region. He introduced the Fugitive Slave Clause (Article 4, Section 2), which established protection for slavery in the Constitution. In addition, while privately criticizing the international trade in African slaves, he supported the passage in the Constitution that prohibited regulation of the trade for 20 years. He advocated counting the full slave population in the states' totals for the purposes of Congressional apportionment, but had to be satisfied with the compromise to count three-fifths of the slaves toward that end. It ensured that the Southern planter elite exerted a strong influence in national politics for decades.
Butler displayed inconsistencies that troubled his associates. He favored ratification of the Constitution, yet did not attend the South Carolina convention that ratified it. Later, he was elected by the South Carolina state legislature to three separate terms in the United States Senate, but changed his party allegiance: beginning as a Federalist, he switched to the Jeffersonian party in 1795. In 1804 he declared himself a political independent.
Vice President Aaron Burr was Butler's guest at his St. Simons plantations in September 1804. Burr was, at the time, lying low after shooting Alexander Hamilton in the July 1804 duel. The states of New York and New Jersey had each indicted the Vice President for murder in the wake of the post-duel controversy. Burr had traveled during August, to Butler's plantation under the pseudonym Roswell King, which was Butler's overseer's name. During Burr's stay in early September, one of the worst hurricanes in history hit the area, and Burr's first-hand description documents both his stay and this event. Butler's politics and public involvement mirror the political rise and fall of his friend Burr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)