- Click here for the website.
- Naval League of America.
- Wikipedia: Naval League of America.
Thursday, June 16, 2022
Seapower: The Official Publication of the Naval League of America
Wednesday, June 15, 2022
Peonage aka Debt Bondage
Maybe something we all fall into?
- Click here for the entry.
Debt bondage, also known as debt slavery, bonded labour, or peonage, is the pledge of a person's services as security for the repayment for a debt or other obligation. Where the terms of the repayment are not clearly or reasonably stated, the person who holds the debt has thus some control over the laborer, whose freedom depends on the undefined debt repayment.[1] The services required to repay the debt may be undefined, and the services' duration may be undefined, thus allowing the person supposedly owed the debt to demand services indefinitely.[2] Debt bondage can be passed on from generation to generation.[2]
- Raymondville Peonage Case.
The Raymondville peonage cases, which were the first of their kind in Texas history, were tried in the Nueces County federal court in January 1927. Residents of Willacy County were arraigned for violation of federal statutes prohibiting peonage. Among the defendants were Sheriff Raymond Teller, Carl Brandt, Frank Brandt, Justice of the Peace Floyd Dodd, L. K. Stockwell, C. S. Stockwell, Roger F. Robinson, Deputy Sheriff William Hargrove, C. A. Johnson, and R. D. Riesdorph. Although the practice was illegal, peonage labor was used during the early twentieth century in some counties of South Texas, where it had become common to force laborers, usually Mexican or African Americans but also Whites, to work off debts owed to farmers. During times of labor shortage the practice included charging individuals with vagrancy in order to force them into labor; "friendly farmers" paid off their fines and then had the prisoners work off the debt by picking cotton, often under armed guard. The government investigation found more than 400 such vagrancy cases filed in the Raymondville court.
- Debtors Prisons.
A debtors' prison is a prison for people who are unable to pay debt. Through the mid-19th century, debtors' prisons (usually similar in form to locked workhouses) were a common way to deal with unpaid debt in Western Europe.[1] Destitute people who were unable to pay a court-ordered judgment would be incarcerated in these prisons until they had worked off their debt via labour or secured outside funds to pay the balance. The product of their labour went towards both the costs of their incarceration and their accrued debt. Increasing access and lenience throughout the history of bankruptcy law have made prison terms for unaggravated indigence obsolete over most of the world.
Modern versions of peonage?
- Student debtors slide deeper into peonage.
- The New Debt Peonage in the Era of Mass Incarceration.
Chattel Slavery
Slavery takes many forms, this is what dominated in the US.
- Click here for the link.
As a social institution, chattel slavery classes slaves as chattels (personal property) owned by the enslaver; like livestock, they can be bought and sold at will.[16] While some form of slavery was common throughout human history, the specific notion of chattel slavery reached its modern extreme in the Americas during European colonization.[17] Beginning in the 18th century, a series of abolitionist movements saw slavery as a violation of the slaves' rights as people ("all men are created equal"), and sought to abolish it. Abolitionism encountered extreme resistance but was eventually successful; the last Western country to abolish slavery, Brazil, did so in 1888.[18] The last third-world country to abolish slavery, Mauritania, did not do so until 1981.
The Voting Rights Act in context
- 15th Amendment.
The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government and each state from denying or abridging a citizen's right to vote "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was ratified on February 3, 1870,[1] as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments.
- Literacy Tests.
A literacy test assesses a person's literacy skills: their ability to read and write have been administered by various governments to immigrants. In the United States, between the 1850s[1] and 1960s, literacy tests were administered to prospective voters, and this had the effect of disenfranchising African Americans and others with diminished access to education. Other countries, notably Australia, as part of its White Australia policy, and South Africa adopted literacy tests either to exclude certain racialized groups from voting or from immigrating.
- Poll Taxes.
Payment of a poll tax was a prerequisite to the registration for voting in a number of states until 1965. The tax emerged in some states of the United States in the late nineteenth century as part of the Jim Crow laws. After the right to vote was extended to all races by the enactment of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a number of states enacted poll tax laws as a device for restricting voting rights. The laws often included a grandfather clause, which allowed any adult male whose father or grandfather had voted in a specific year prior to the abolition of slavery to vote without paying the tax. [3] These laws, along with unfairly implemented literacy tests and extra-legal intimidation,[4] achieved the desired effect of disenfranchising Asian-American, Native American voters and poor whites as well, but in particular the poll tax was disproportionately directed at African-American voters.
- The White Primary.
White primaries were primary elections held in the Southern United States in which only white voters were permitted to participate. Statewide white primaries were established by the state Democratic Party units or by state legislatures in South Carolina (1896),[1] Florida (1902),[2] Mississippi and Alabama (also 1902), Texas (1905),[3] Louisiana[1] and Arkansas (1906),[4] and Georgia (1900).[5] Since winning the Democratic primary in the South almost always meant winning the general election, barring black and other minority voters meant they were in essence disenfranchised. Southern states also passed laws and constitutions with provisions to raise barriers to voter registration, completing disenfranchisement from 1890 to 1908 in all states of the former Confederacy.
In 1944, in Smith v. Allwright, the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 against the Texas white primary system.[7] In that case, the Court ruled that the 1923 Texas state law was unconstitutional, because it allowed the state Democratic Party to racially discriminate
- Voting Rights Act.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting.[7][8] It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the civil rights movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections.[7] Designed to enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act sought to secure the right to vote for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of federal civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country.[9] It is also "one of the most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history."
- Coverage and Preclearance.
Section 5[134] requires that covered jurisdictions receive federal approval, known as "preclearance", before implementing changes to their election laws. A covered jurisdiction has the burden of proving that the change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating on the basis of race or language minority status; if the jurisdiction fails to meet this burden, the federal government will deny preclearance and the jurisdiction's change will not go into effect.
- Shelby County v Holder.
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), was a landmark decision[1] of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and Section 4(b), which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subject to preclearance based on their histories of discrimination in voting.
- John R Lewis Voting Rights Act.
The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 (H.R. 4) is proposed legislation that would restore and strengthen parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, certain portions of which were struck down by two Supreme Court decisions of Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee.[1][2] Particularly, it would restore the Voting Rights Act's requirement that certain states pre-clear certain changes to their voting laws with the federal government.[3] It was re-introduced in the 117th Congress, and is named after late Georgia Representative and voting rights activist John Lewis.
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
Links 6/14
http://archive.fairvote.org/index.php?page=2100
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tumult
http://afrotexan.com/freedmen/codes/vagrancy_law.htm
https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/28/the-missing-right-a-constitutional-right-to-vote/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States
https://www.brazoriacountyclerktx.gov/departments/elections/current-election-information
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/index.shtml
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-1107
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_president_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_(United_States)
Monday, June 13, 2022
The Development of Labor in the Colonial Era
A brief look at the development of a labor force in the colonial era.
Colonial settlements needed labor - and preferred free labor.
Three groups:
First Group: American Indians.
Not successful.
- Tribes decentralized
- Societies more egalitarian
- difficult to contain
Second Group: European Indentured Servants.
- initially successful
- aligned with African Indentured Servants
- efforts made to drive wedges between the two
- allowed to advance up social ladder
- penal labor?
Third Group: African Slavery.
- easier to control
- slave codes became more detailed and restrictive over time
- chattel slavery / labor involved in maintaining slave labor
- labor and penal codes set up to retain labor after the end of chattel slavery
Other sources:
- The Emergence of American Labor.
From Wikipedia: Jacksonian Democracy
An era when property requirements were eliminated - by the states, not by constitutional amendment. This reduced the power of freeholders.
- Click here for the entry.
Jacksonian democracy was a 19th-century political philosophy in the United States that expanded suffrage to most white men over the age of 21, and restructured a number of federal institutions. Originating with the seventh U.S. president, Andrew Jackson and his supporters, it became the nation's dominant political worldview for a generation. The term itself was in active use by the 1830s.[6]
This era, called the Jacksonian Era or Second Party System by historians and political scientists, lasted roughly from Jackson's 1828 election as president until slavery became the dominant issue with the passage of the Kansas–Nebraska Act in 1854 and the political repercussions of the American Civil War dramatically reshaped American politics. It emerged when the long-dominant Democratic-Republican Party became factionalized around the 1824 United States presidential election. Jackson's supporters began to form the modern Democratic Party. His political rivals John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay created the National Republican Party, which would afterward combine with other anti-Jackson political groups to form the Whig Party.
Broadly speaking, the era was characterized by a democratic spirit. It built upon Jackson's equal political policy, subsequent to ending what he termed a monopoly of government by elites. Even before the Jacksonian era began, suffrage had been extended to a majority of white male adult citizens, a result which the Jacksonians celebrated.[7] Jacksonian democracy also promoted the strength of the presidency and the executive branch at the expense of the United States Congress, while also seeking to broaden the public's participation in government. The Jacksonians demanded elected, not appointed, judges and rewrote many state constitutions to reflect the new values. In national terms, they favored geographical expansionism, justifying it in terms of manifest destiny. There was usually a consensus among both Jacksonians and Whigs that battles over slavery should be avoided.
Jackson's expansion of democracy was largely limited to European Americans, and voting rights were extended to adult white males only. There was little or no progress, and in many cases a regression, for the rights of African Americans and Native Americans during the extensive period of Jacksonian democracy, spanning from 1829 to 1860.
- Click here for the entry.
Jacksonian democracy was a 19th-century political philosophy in the United States that expanded suffrage to most white men over the age of 21, and restructured a number of federal institutions. Originating with the seventh U.S. president, Andrew Jackson and his supporters, it became the nation's dominant political worldview for a generation. The term itself was in active use by the 1830s.[6]
This era, called the Jacksonian Era or Second Party System by historians and political scientists, lasted roughly from Jackson's 1828 election as president until slavery became the dominant issue with the passage of the Kansas–Nebraska Act in 1854 and the political repercussions of the American Civil War dramatically reshaped American politics. It emerged when the long-dominant Democratic-Republican Party became factionalized around the 1824 United States presidential election. Jackson's supporters began to form the modern Democratic Party. His political rivals John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay created the National Republican Party, which would afterward combine with other anti-Jackson political groups to form the Whig Party.
Broadly speaking, the era was characterized by a democratic spirit. It built upon Jackson's equal political policy, subsequent to ending what he termed a monopoly of government by elites. Even before the Jacksonian era began, suffrage had been extended to a majority of white male adult citizens, a result which the Jacksonians celebrated.[7] Jacksonian democracy also promoted the strength of the presidency and the executive branch at the expense of the United States Congress, while also seeking to broaden the public's participation in government. The Jacksonians demanded elected, not appointed, judges and rewrote many state constitutions to reflect the new values. In national terms, they favored geographical expansionism, justifying it in terms of manifest destiny. There was usually a consensus among both Jacksonians and Whigs that battles over slavery should be avoided.
Jackson's expansion of democracy was largely limited to European Americans, and voting rights were extended to adult white males only. There was little or no progress, and in many cases a regression, for the rights of African Americans and Native Americans during the extensive period of Jacksonian democracy, spanning from 1829 to 1860.
What is a freeholder?
A basic requirement to vote in Colonial America and the early decades of the US.
- Click here for one definition.
Freeholders were free persons who owned land. The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina in 1669 required that, among other things, candidates must be freeholders to qualify for office holding and membership in the colonial Assembly. In some cases the requisite minimum amount of land held was 500 acres. In 1681 instructions to the governor from London directed that five freeholders be elected as representatives in the Assembly.
From the Constitutional Rights Foundation: Who Voted in Early America?
More on the original eligibility to vote during colonial days.
- Click here for the article.
Becoming a freeholder was not difficult for a man in colonial America since land was plentiful and cheap. Thus up to 75 percent of the adult males in most colonies qualified as voters. But this voting group fell far short of a majority of the people then living in the English colonies. After eliminating everyone under the age of 21, all slaves and women, most Jews and Catholics, plus those men too poor to be freeholders, the colonial electorate consisted of perhaps only 10 percent to 20 percent of the total population.
Voting fraud and abuses were common in the colonies. Sometimes large landowners would grant temporary freeholds to landless men who then handed the deeds back after voting. Individuals were paid to vote a certain way or paid not to vote at all. Corrupt voting officials would allow unqualified persons to vote while denying legitimate voters the right to cast their ballots. Intimidation and threats, even violence, were used to persuade people how to vote. Ballots were faked, purposely miscounted, "lost," and destroyed.
After declaring independence on July 4, 1776, each former English colony wrote a state constitution. About half the states attempted to reform their voting procedures. The trend in these states was to do away with the freehold requirement in favor of granting all taxpaying, free, adult males the right to vote. Since few men escaped paying taxes of some sort, suffrage (the right to vote) expanded in these states. Vermont's constitution went even further in 1777 when it became the first state to grant universal manhood suffrage (i.e., all adult males could vote). Some states also abolished religious tests for voting. It was in New Jersey that an apparently accidental phrase in the new state constitution permitted women to vote in substantial numbers for the first time in American history.
From Colonial Williamsburg: Voting in Early America
For our look at suffrage.
- Click here for the article.
Among the first things the Jamestown voyagers did when they set up English America's first permanent settlement was conduct an election. Nearly as soon as they landed—April 26, 1607, by their calendar—the commanders of the 105 colonists unsealed a box containing a secret list of seven men picked in England to be the colony's council and from among whom the councilors were to pick a president. Captain John Smith, reporting from Jamestown, wrote that about eighteen days later, "arriving at the place where wee are now seated, the Counsell was sworne, the President elected, which for that yeare was Maister Edw. Maria Wingfield."
. . . The first representative assembly in English America convened in Jamestown's church July 30, 1619, with two burgesses from each of Virginia's twenty-one plantations and corporations. From the 1600s to the 1700s, the republican approach to polity spread along the seaboard and developed. By the mid-1700s, Hayden wrote, representative government had become a tradition in the thirteen colonies that became the United States. Voting was commonplace, though not uniform. Each colony pursued its methods, policies, restrictions, and exceptions. But, by modern standards, the right to vote in colonial America was narrow, and there were fewer opportunities for its exercise.
Before the Revolution, colonists generally did not vote for their governors—the chief executives of what they thought of as their countries. The English king appointed most governors, though there were exceptions. Connecticut and Rhode Island voters elected governors. Many colonists did not choose their local officials. Some governors, like Virginia's, appointed justices of the peace, sheriffs, coroners, and clerks. Some towns in such colonies as New Jersey and Pennsylvania, however, had local elections.
Colonists could vote for legislators to the lower house of their assemblies. In 1730, the number of those legislators ranged from seventeen in New Hampshire to ninety-one in Massachusetts. Legislatures tended to pass few laws. Their greatest power was their power to tax. Governors needed colonial politicians to provide funds for their initiatives, government administration, and their salaries.
Typically, white, male property owners twenty-one or older could vote. Some colonists not only accepted these restrictions but also opposed broadening the franchise. Duke University professor Alexander Keyssar wrote in The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States:
Thursday, June 9, 2022
S.1260 - United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021
Support for semi conductor chips manufacturing in the US.
- Click here for it.
---
Related links:
- Semiconductor Industry Association.
- TechTarget.
Wednesday, June 8, 2022
From the Texas Tribune: Texas Republicans want to arm more school employees, but few districts are opting in
Lot's goin on here.
- Click here for the article.
Nearly a decade ago, Texas lawmakers created the school marshal program, a way for educators to carry weapons inside schools. It was the state’s rapid-fire legislative response to an unthinkable national horror 2,000 miles away when 20 first graders and six adults were shot and killed in a Sandy Hook, Connecticut, classroom just before Christmas 2012.
The legislation empowers school districts to identify employees with a license to carry a firearm to volunteer as school protectors. Those individuals would undergo an 80-hour training and psychological exam, granting them access to a gun on campus. It is otherwise against federal law to have a firearm in a school zone.
Click here for the School Marshall Program.
From Wikipedia: Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1972
Well it turns out that the national government has a noise policy after all.
- Click here for the entry.
The Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1972 is a statute of the United States initiating a federal program of regulating noise pollution with the intent of protecting human health and minimizing annoyance of noise to the general public.
Congress ended funding of the federal noise control program in 1981, which curtailed development of further national regulations. Since then, starting in 1982, the primary responsibility to addressing noise pollution shifted to state and local governments. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) retains authority to conduct research and publish information on noise and its effects on the public, which is often included nowadays in environmental impact assessments for new urban developments. The initial EPA regulations and programs provided a basis for development of many state and local government noise control laws across the United States.
See also
- Noise Pollution.
- Noise Regulation.
Question: Why did the national government become involved in what had previously been a local issue?
Tuesday, June 7, 2022
From Thomas Jefferson: A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge, 18 June 1779
One of the reasons why you are taking this class. You are supposed to be able to spot attempts to consolidate power.
- Click here for it.
Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes;
And whereas it is generally true that that people will be happiest whose laws are best, and are best administered, and that laws will be wisely formed, and honestly administered, in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting the publick happiness that those persons, whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance;
but the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so educating, at their own expence, those of their children whom nature hath fitly formed and disposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better that such should be sought for and educated at the common expence of all, than that the happiness of all should be confided to the weak or wicked
What is a top-four primary?
It's a type of ranked choice voting system that promises to allow more choices than the typical two party elections.
For more on the top-four primary itself, click here.
A top-four primary is a type of primary election in which all candidates are listed on the same primary ballot. The top four vote-getters, regardless of their partisan affiliations, advance to the general election. Consequently, it is possible for four candidates belonging to the same political party to win in a top-four primary and face off in the general election.
Alaska is using it for the first time June 11, 2022. Click here for info on that.
It was adopted by Alaska voters in a ballot initiative (Texans are not allowed to place initiatives on the state ballot).
More on the initiative here:
On November 3 2020, Alaska voters approved a ballot initiative establishing a top-four primary for state executive, state legislative, and congressional elections. The initiative also established ranked-choice voting for general elections for the aforementioned offices and the presidency. Under Alaska's top-four primary system, all candidates for a given office run in a single primary election. The top four vote-getters, regardless of partisan affiliation, then advance to the general election. In general elections, voters rank the four candidates that advanced from the primaries. A candidate needs a simple majority of the vote (50 percent + 1) to be declared the winner of an election. If no candidate wins a simple majority of votes cast, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated from the running. Voters who selected that candidate as their first choice have their votes redistributed to their second choices. The tabulation process continues in rounds until a candidate receives a simple majority.
For more on the effort to establish these elections, click here.
In 2020, Alaska voters made history by becoming the first state to adopt top-four nonpartisan primaries, and the second to vote in favor of ranked choice voting. Yet, the fight to implement the reform began immediately. Within days of the amendment passing, a lawsuit was filed to challenge the measure. Some lawmakers are opposed to the policy, and the legislature can hold a vote to repeal the election reform following the 2022 election. Finally, it will be the first time an election system of this nature is ever used in the United States, requiring a robust public education effort grounded in new research and prolonged outreach campaigns.
Noise!!!
https://pacificlegal.org/houston-chronicle-make-busking-protected-speech-in-all-of-houston-not-just-the-theater-district/
https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1578&context=ublr#:~:text=FREEDOM%20OF%20SPEECH%20%2D.,State%2C%20318%20Md.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1204/breach-of-peace-laws
https://www.epa.gov/history/epa-history-noise-and-noise-control-act
https://home.uchicago.edu/~mstaisch/Sharad/papers/Legislative%20Aspects%20of%20Noise%20Pollution.pdf
https://www.erictorberson.com/texas-noise-violation/#:~:text=The%20only%20Texas%20state%20law,a%20magistrate%20or%20peace%20officer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_Control_Act
https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/Noise_Control_Act_of_1972.pdf
Monday, June 6, 2022
Sunday, June 5, 2022
https://rollcall.com/2022/06/03/jacobs-ends-campaign-after-support-for-gun-ban-riled-gop/
https://rollcall.com/2022/06/02/biden-renews-call-for-gun-laws-as-house-democrats-plan-votes/
https://rollcall.com/2022/06/02/house-judiciary-committee-debates-gun-control-bill-amid-recent-deadly-shootings/
https://rollcall.com/2022/06/02/new-debate-over-gun-laws-will-test-the-gun-lobbys-influence/
From the Pew Research Center: What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.
For out look at the effectiveness of gun control laws.
- Click here for it.
From the Texas Tribune: Some Texas GOP donors urge Congress to act on gun control measures like “red flag” laws, expanded background checks
Interesting that the story highlights donors.
- Click here for the article.
Major Republican donors, including some that have contributed to Gov. Greg Abbott’s campaigns, joined other conservative Texans in signing an open letter supporting congressional action to increase gun restrictions in response to the mass shooting in Uvalde that left 19 children and two teachers dead last week.
“Most law enforcement experts believe these measures would make a difference,” the letter reads. “And recent polls of fellow conservatives suggest that there is strong support for such gun-safety measures.”
The letter voices support for Texas’ senior senator, John Cornyn, who has been tapped to lead bipartisan negotiations in Congress over possible gun reform measures.
“We are grateful that our Senator John Cornyn is leading efforts to address the recent tragedies in Uvalde and elsewhere across our great Country,” the letter says. “He’s the right man to lead this bipartisan effort, as he has demonstrated throughout his career.”
In an interview with Politico, Cornyn stressed that he was not interested in “restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens under the Second Amendment,” but said it would be “embarrassing” if Uvalde didn’t spark Congress to reach some sort of bipartisan legislative response.
The letter was paid for by Todd Maclin, a former senior executive at J.P. Morgan Chase who now runs the Dallas-based finance firm Maclin Management. Maclin said he is a conservative gun owner who has been stirred to action by the shooting in Uvalde.
From the constitutional convention - May 29: The deficiencies of the confederated system
The best way - I think - to understand why the Articles of Confederation was replaced is to read through the reasons presented in the opening meeting of the Constitutional Convention. Edmund Randolph - apparently speaking for James Madison - lists them below. Look for the bold text.
For a look at the Articles of Confederation, click here.
- Click here for the Wikipedia entry.
- Who was Edmund Randolph?
- Who was James Madison?
- Click here for a source for the text below.
For a look at the Articles of Confederation, click here.
- Click here for the Wikipedia entry.
- Who was Edmund Randolph?
- Who was James Madison?
- Click here for a source for the text below.
Mr. RANDOLPH then opened the main business: –
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.
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.
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 American Heritage: America’s Top 10 Public Works Projects
- Click here for the article.
Here's the list, its a good one, but I can think of a few more:
- The National Road
- First Transcontinental Railroad
- Hoover Dam
- Oregon Coastal Highway Bridge System
- Air Traffic Control
- Lincoln Tunnel Nearly
- The Tennessee Valley Authority
- Interstate Highway System
- The Big Dig
- The Internet
Constitutions in Texas
- Click here for them.
Spanish and Mexican
- 1821
- 1824
- 1827
Texas
- 1836: Independent Nation
- 1845: US State
- 1861: Confederate State
U.S. State
- 1866
- 1869
- 1876
From Teaching American History: Day-by-Day Summary of the Convention - May 14 - June 9
In 2305, we will walk through this each week.
- Click here for it.
Monday May 14 Date fixed for start of Convention.
Only eight delegates are present.
Friday May 25
1. Convened and elected officers. (Washington as President, William Jackson as Secretary).
2. Chose a committee to prepare rules. (Wythe, Hamilton, and C. Pinckney)
Monday May 28
1. Committee on Rules reported. 16 rules were adopted and additional suggested rules referred to the committee.
Tuesday May 29
1. Committee on Rules reported and 5 additional rules, including secrecy, were adopted.
2. Randolph submitted and defended a set of Fifteen Resolutions, known as The Virginia Plan.
3. The Convention agreed to meet the following day as a Committee of The Whole.
Wednesday May 30
1. The Convention resolves itself into Committee of the Whole; Gorham in the Chair.
2. Discussed Virginia Plan Resolutions:
Resolution 1: After discussion, agreed (6 – 1 – 1) that a national government consisting of a supreme legislature, judiciary, and executive should be formed (Connecticut voting against, New York divided).
Resolution 2: Discussed whether representation should be based on population or the amount of each State’s financial contribution.
Thursday May 31 1. Discussed Virginia Plan Resolutions:
Resolution 3: Decided on a bicameral legislature.
Resolution 4a: Agreed (6 – 2 – 2) on election of First Branch by the people.
Resolution 5a: Defeated (7 – 3) Second Branch elected by the First Branch.
— Madison’s reaction: “a chasm (was) left in this part of the plan.”
— Sherman’s suggestion: “election of one member by each of the State Legislatures.”
Resolution 6: Agreed that either house could initiate legislation. Agreed to incompetence clause and negative on State laws.
Friday June 1 1. Discussed Virginia Plan Resolutions:
Resolution 7: Agreed to institute a national Executive with power to carry into effect the national laws and to appoint officers not otherwise provided for.
— Agreed (5 – 4 – 1) on a seven-year term for Executive.
— Postponed consideration of single or plural Executive.
Saturday June 2
1. Discussed Virginia Plan Resolutions:
Resolution 7: Confusing day on the Executive.
— Agreed to selection of Executive by Legislature.
— Agreed (8 – 2) on seven-year term, and ineligibility after one term (7 – 2 – 1).
— Defeated (9 – 1) Dickinson’s motion that Executive be subject to impeachment.
— Franklin: Executive should receive no salary. (Motion postponed)
Monday June 4 1.
Discussed Virginia Plan Resolutions:
Resolution 7: Another confusing day on the Executive.
— Agreed (7 – 3) on single Executive.
Resolution 8: Council of Revision postponed.
— Agreed (8 – 2) to give Executive a veto over legislation subject to override by 2/3 of each branch of Legislature.
Resolution 9: Agreed to establish a National Judiciary consisting of a Supreme Court and one or more inferior tribunals. (Compare with July 21 and August 15.)
Tuesday June 5 1.
Discussed Virginia Plan Resolutions:
Resolution 9: Agreed to delete “one or more” and change to “a Supreme Court and inferior tribunals.”
— Debated judicial selection and postponed decision, but agreed (8 – 2) to reject approval of judicial appointments by Legislature.
— Agreed on judicial tenure during good behavior.
— Agreed on a salary provision.
— Reconsidered inferior tribunals and agreed to eliminate reference to them, then agreed to empower the Legislature to establish such courts.
Resolution 10: Agreed (8 – 2) on admitting new states (on equal footing with original states).
Resolution 11: Postponed republican guarantee clause until representation is settled.
Resolution 12: Passed (8 – 2) an Interim Government provision.
Resolution 13: Postponed (7 – 3).
Resolution 14: Postponed (6 – 4 – 1) (New Jersey not voting).
Resolution 15: Postponed.
Wednesday June 6
1. Discussed Virginia Plan Resolutions:
Resolution 4a: Defeated (8 – 3) motion to have State Legislature elect First Branch of National Legislature.
— Sherman: “The people are more happy in small than large states.” His argument invokes the traditional understanding of republicanism.
— Madison: We need to “enlarge the sphere.” His argument points back to “Vices” and forward to Federalist 10.
Thursday June 7
1. Discussed Virginia Plan Resolutions:
Resolution 5a: Agreed (11 – 0) to a proposal by Dickinson and Sherman that the State Legislatures elect the Second Branch of the National Legislature.
— Madison and Dickinson differ on the purpose of the Senate.
Friday June 8
1. Discussed Virginia Plan Resolutions:
Resolution 6: Defeated (7 – 3 – 1) a motion by Madison and C. Pinckney to extend the Congressional negative to all state laws.
Saturday June 9
1. Discussed Virginia Plan Resolutions:
Resolution 7: Defeated (10 – 1) a motion by Gerry that State Executives elect the National Executive.
Resolution 4a: Debated voting procedures within the National Legislature.
- Click here for it.
Monday May 14 Date fixed for start of Convention.
Only eight delegates are present.
Friday May 25
1. Convened and elected officers. (Washington as President, William Jackson as Secretary).
2. Chose a committee to prepare rules. (Wythe, Hamilton, and C. Pinckney)
Monday May 28
1. Committee on Rules reported. 16 rules were adopted and additional suggested rules referred to the committee.
Tuesday May 29
1. Committee on Rules reported and 5 additional rules, including secrecy, were adopted.
2. Randolph submitted and defended a set of Fifteen Resolutions, known as The Virginia Plan.
3. The Convention agreed to meet the following day as a Committee of The Whole.
Wednesday May 30
1. The Convention resolves itself into Committee of the Whole; Gorham in the Chair.
2. Discussed Virginia Plan Resolutions:
Resolution 1: After discussion, agreed (6 – 1 – 1) that a national government consisting of a supreme legislature, judiciary, and executive should be formed (Connecticut voting against, New York divided).
Resolution 2: Discussed whether representation should be based on population or the amount of each State’s financial contribution.
Thursday May 31 1. Discussed Virginia Plan Resolutions:
Resolution 3: Decided on a bicameral legislature.
Resolution 4a: Agreed (6 – 2 – 2) on election of First Branch by the people.
Resolution 5a: Defeated (7 – 3) Second Branch elected by the First Branch.
— Madison’s reaction: “a chasm (was) left in this part of the plan.”
— Sherman’s suggestion: “election of one member by each of the State Legislatures.”
Resolution 6: Agreed that either house could initiate legislation. Agreed to incompetence clause and negative on State laws.
Friday June 1 1. Discussed Virginia Plan Resolutions:
Resolution 7: Agreed to institute a national Executive with power to carry into effect the national laws and to appoint officers not otherwise provided for.
— Agreed (5 – 4 – 1) on a seven-year term for Executive.
— Postponed consideration of single or plural Executive.
Saturday June 2
1. Discussed Virginia Plan Resolutions:
Resolution 7: Confusing day on the Executive.
— Agreed to selection of Executive by Legislature.
— Agreed (8 – 2) on seven-year term, and ineligibility after one term (7 – 2 – 1).
— Defeated (9 – 1) Dickinson’s motion that Executive be subject to impeachment.
— Franklin: Executive should receive no salary. (Motion postponed)
Monday June 4 1.
Discussed Virginia Plan Resolutions:
Resolution 7: Another confusing day on the Executive.
— Agreed (7 – 3) on single Executive.
Resolution 8: Council of Revision postponed.
— Agreed (8 – 2) to give Executive a veto over legislation subject to override by 2/3 of each branch of Legislature.
Resolution 9: Agreed to establish a National Judiciary consisting of a Supreme Court and one or more inferior tribunals. (Compare with July 21 and August 15.)
Tuesday June 5 1.
Discussed Virginia Plan Resolutions:
Resolution 9: Agreed to delete “one or more” and change to “a Supreme Court and inferior tribunals.”
— Debated judicial selection and postponed decision, but agreed (8 – 2) to reject approval of judicial appointments by Legislature.
— Agreed on judicial tenure during good behavior.
— Agreed on a salary provision.
— Reconsidered inferior tribunals and agreed to eliminate reference to them, then agreed to empower the Legislature to establish such courts.
Resolution 10: Agreed (8 – 2) on admitting new states (on equal footing with original states).
Resolution 11: Postponed republican guarantee clause until representation is settled.
Resolution 12: Passed (8 – 2) an Interim Government provision.
Resolution 13: Postponed (7 – 3).
Resolution 14: Postponed (6 – 4 – 1) (New Jersey not voting).
Resolution 15: Postponed.
Wednesday June 6
1. Discussed Virginia Plan Resolutions:
Resolution 4a: Defeated (8 – 3) motion to have State Legislature elect First Branch of National Legislature.
— Sherman: “The people are more happy in small than large states.” His argument invokes the traditional understanding of republicanism.
— Madison: We need to “enlarge the sphere.” His argument points back to “Vices” and forward to Federalist 10.
Thursday June 7
1. Discussed Virginia Plan Resolutions:
Resolution 5a: Agreed (11 – 0) to a proposal by Dickinson and Sherman that the State Legislatures elect the Second Branch of the National Legislature.
— Madison and Dickinson differ on the purpose of the Senate.
Friday June 8
1. Discussed Virginia Plan Resolutions:
Resolution 6: Defeated (7 – 3 – 1) a motion by Madison and C. Pinckney to extend the Congressional negative to all state laws.
Saturday June 9
1. Discussed Virginia Plan Resolutions:
Resolution 7: Defeated (10 – 1) a motion by Gerry that State Executives elect the National Executive.
Resolution 4a: Debated voting procedures within the National Legislature.
Thursday, June 2, 2022
Wednesday, June 1, 2022
https://www.croplifeamerica.org/federal-pesticide-regulation
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/croplife-america/summary?id=D000025187
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/bills/specific_issues?client_id=D000025187&cycle=2020&id=hr230-116
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CropLife_International
https://www.senate.gov/senators/Class_III.htm
From Texas Tribune: Narratives, and blame, shift again as dysfunction engulfs shooting probe
An example of state and local conflict
- Click here for the article.
Relevant terms:
Uvalde school district’s police chief
Texas Department of Public Safety
Robb Elementary School
teacher’s lawyer
Texas Rangers
Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District
The Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District’s police department
Uvalde Police Department
Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT)
U.S. Department of Justice
Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steven McCraw
San Antonio Express-News
The Texas Tribune
Gov. Greg Abbott
U.S. Border Patrol
Uvalde City Council
Uvalde Mayor
Uvalde Police Department
Texas Commission on Law Enforcement
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick
Tuesday, May 31, 2022
For 6/1/22
The Weaker Party: The Social Studies TEKS - Kindergarten.
The Weaker Party: An overview of public policy.
Avalon Project: Colonial Charters, Grants and Related Documents.
Avalon Project: U.S. Constitution.
From the Texas Slavery Project: "Translation of the General Law of Colonization, No. 72," August 18, 1824.
From the Tarlton Law Library: 1876 Constitution.
From the Texas Legislature Online: Texas Constitution.
The Weaker Party: An overview of public policy.
Avalon Project: Colonial Charters, Grants and Related Documents.
Avalon Project: U.S. Constitution.
From the Texas Slavery Project: "Translation of the General Law of Colonization, No. 72," August 18, 1824.
From the Tarlton Law Library: 1876 Constitution.
From the Texas Legislature Online: Texas Constitution.
From the TSHA: Special Tax Districts
For 2306 - mostly - and our look at small local governments.
- Click here for the entry
Special tax districts are those units of local government, exclusive of the county and incorporated municipality, which have separate governing bodies, independent, in general, of other local governments, with power to provide some governmental or quasi-governmental service and to raise revenue by taxation, special assessment, or charges for services. Soil conservation districts are not properly classified as local government units, as they do not raise their own revenue. With the exception of school districts, historically most special districts have as their constitutional basis two amendments to the Constitution of 1876: (1) Article III, section 52 (1904), allowing the formation of special districts that could incur indebtedness up to one-fourth of the assessed property valuation, and (2) the conservation amendment, Article XVI, section 59 (1917), allowing the establishment of conservation and reclamation districts with no limit as to amount of debt or taxation.
By 1994 a considerable number of special districts had been established for junior or community colleges. Forty-nine districts operated sixty-seven colleges in Texas, and the method had become the fastest growing style of post-secondary education. Not fully state supported, they are paid for in part by local taxes. About 17 percent of revenues come from local taxes, 61 percent from state appropriations, 15 percent from tuition and fees, and the remainder from federal aid and miscellaneous sources.
Other special districts include
- over 900 water and utility districts
- 326 housing authorities
- 210 soil and water conservation districts
- 86 hospital districts
- 46 hospital authorities
- 10 rural fire prevention districts
- 8 mosquito control districts
- 8 health districts
- 5 noxious weed control districts
- 3 three urban renewal agencies
- 3 wind erosion conservation districts
- one waste disposal authority
- and one ground water subsidence district.
Emergency medical and jail districts may also be established by counties.
Municipal utility districts have been established by developers and have aroused criticism. Some claim that the structure manipulates the indebtedness so that unsuspecting home buyers end up with the financial burden.
From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: History suggests attention on gun policy will fade well before the November elections
For our link at the public attention cycle.
- Click here for the article.
From the Texas Tribune: Decades after Texas took part of its historic farm, a family fights again to save its land from a highway expansion
An example of eminent domain, as well as racial discrimination in Texas.
- Click here for the entire article.
TxDOT plans to add more lanes to the highway that already abuts the Alexander Farm and Cemetery. But this time around, Alexander-Kasparik is determined to see a different outcome. Her fight isn’t only about keeping the private property intact. It’s about preserving one of America’s remaining Black-owned farms — and the legacy of her ancestors who founded the farm while enslaved and defied the odds to keep it in the family across several generations.
The widening project is still in the planning stages, making it unknown how much, if any, of the Alexander Farm will be needed to support the added concrete. The agency is noncommittal on what it may want, despite Alexander-Kasparik asking for specifics for years.
If the road intrudes on the land or cemetery any farther, it could overtake the entrance to the cemetery and demolish two of the farm’s three houses, by Alexander-Kasparik’s estimation.
Territorial History of the USA: Every Month for 400 Years
I'd like you to start by watching this brief video below. It shows the development of governing institutions in the United States - including Texas. The principle story is effectively over by the 1850s when the United States government completes its acquisition of the territory that becomes the lower 48 states. The story the video tells is how these land claims are turned into governing entities, primarily counties.
For more detail and info I've compiled a list of links that provide more information about the gradual process of acquiring the land that eventually becomes the 50 states.
These are roughly in order.
- Native American Tribes and Nations: A History.
- Spanish Empire.
- French Colonization of the Americas.
- British America.
- The London (or Virginia) Company.
- The First Virginia Charter 1606.
- Jamestown Settlement.
- American Indian Wars.
- Thirteen Colonies.
- French and Indian War.
- American Revolutionary War.
- Northwest Territory.
- Southwest Territory.
- Mississippi Territory.
- Alabama Territory.
- Louisiana Purchase.
- Oregon Territory.
For more detail and info I've compiled a list of links that provide more information about the gradual process of acquiring the land that eventually becomes the 50 states.
These are roughly in order.
- Native American Tribes and Nations: A History.
- Spanish Empire.
- French Colonization of the Americas.
- British America.
- The London (or Virginia) Company.
- The First Virginia Charter 1606.
- Jamestown Settlement.
- American Indian Wars.
- Thirteen Colonies.
- French and Indian War.
- American Revolutionary War.
- Northwest Territory.
- Southwest Territory.
- Mississippi Territory.
- Alabama Territory.
- Louisiana Purchase.
- Oregon Territory.
- Adams–OnÃs Treaty.
- Texas Revolution.
- Mexican–American War.
- Treaties of Velasco.
- Mexican Cession.
- Gadsden Purchase.
- Alaska Purchase.
- Territory of Hawaii.
___________
- 3 Overseas Expansion.
- 1898: Birth of an Overseas Empire.
- The Post World War II Boom: How America Got Into Gear.
- The Jefferson Grid.
- Westward Expansion (1801-1861).
- Global Vigilance, Global Reach, Global Power for America.
- Fifteen takeaways from our new report measuring US and Chinese global influence.
- Texas Revolution.
- Mexican–American War.
- Treaties of Velasco.
- Mexican Cession.
- Gadsden Purchase.
- Alaska Purchase.
- Territory of Hawaii.
___________
- 3 Overseas Expansion.
- 1898: Birth of an Overseas Empire.
- The Post World War II Boom: How America Got Into Gear.
- The Jefferson Grid.
- Westward Expansion (1801-1861).
- Global Vigilance, Global Reach, Global Power for America.
- Fifteen takeaways from our new report measuring US and Chinese global influence.
Monday, May 30, 2022
Links to a variety of sources related to copyright
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
https://librarycopyright.net/resources/digitalslider/index.html
https://guides.library.cornell.edu/copyright/publicdomain
https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/
https://www.unesco.org/en/communication-information/open-solutions/open-educational-resources
https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/fair-use/transformative-use/
https://librarycopyright.net/resources/fairuse/index.php
https://www.lib.umn.edu/services/copyright/use
http://www.knowyourcopyrights.org/
Thursday, May 26, 2022
A little more for the GOVT 2306 M3 written assignment
All of these pertain to Texas v White.
- Oyez.
- Wikipedia.
- Britannica.
- JSTOR.
For your essay assignment - GOVT 2306
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:
Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.
(Feb. 15, 1876.)
Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.
Feel free to read more. Click here for the entire document.
ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:
Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.
(Feb. 15, 1876.)
Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.
Feel free to read more. Click here for the entire document.
Galveston County Commissioners Precint 3 - Before and After
https://communityimpact.com/houston/bay-area/government/2021/12/22/redistricting-shifts-voting-populations-demographics-in-bay-area/
https://galvcountymaps.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ffb008277ace4c6b9d9f82c1838ee8a0
https://nation.lk/online/a-gop-power-grab-shatters-30-years-of-political-progress-for-black-voters-in-galveston-county-177999.html
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/2021/11/15/413375/galveston-county-officials-approve-controversial-redistricting-plan/
From the Texas Tribune: A GOP power grab shatters 30 years of political progress for Black voters in Galveston County
Are we seeing a reemergence of racial restrictions on representation?
- Click here for the article.
Miles inland from Galveston’s beaches and colorful vacation homes, a group of Black men dribble and jump on a covered basketball court, aiming for a chain-link net.
Until last year, the park sat at the heart of Galveston County’s Precinct 3 — the most diverse of the four precincts that choose the commissioners court, which governs the county along with the county judge. Precinct 3 was the lone seat in which Black and Hispanic voters, who make up about 38% of the county’s population, made up the majority of the electorate.
The precinct sliced the middle of coastal Galveston County, stretching from the small city of Dickinson on the county’s northern end through residential areas of Texas City and down to the eastern end of Galveston Island. Its residents included medical professionals and staff drawn in by The University of Texas Medical Branch, petrochemical workers that operate a large cluster of refineries and commuter employees of the nearby NASA Johnson Space Center.
The area stood as an exemplar of Black political power and progress. For 30 years, Black voters — with support from Hispanics — had amassed enough political clout to decide the county commissioner for Precinct 3, propelling Black leaders onto a majority white county commissioners court. They worked to gain stronger footholds in local governments, elevating Black people into city halls across the precinct. Two years ago, they reached a milestone, electing Texas City’s first Black mayor and a city commission on which people of color are the majority.
National Defense Strategy
https://www.defense.gov/Spotlights/National-Defense-Strategy/
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2980584/dod-transmits-2022-national-defense-strategy/
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2022/04/13/as-biden-administrations-defense-budget-and-national-defense-strategy-emerge-concerns-abound/
https://www.cnas.org/the-next-defense-strategy
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/21/us-geopolitics-security-strategy-war-russia-ukraine-china-indo-pacific-europe/
Wednesday, May 18, 2022
From Wikipedia: Public Works
I'm on a roll
- Click here for the entry.
Public works are a broad category of infrastructure projects, financed and constructed by the government, for recreational, employment, and health and safety uses in the greater community. They include public buildings (municipal buildings, schools, and hospitals), transport infrastructure (roads, railroads, bridges, pipelines, canals, ports, and airports), public spaces (public squares, parks, and beaches), public services (water supply and treatment, sewage treatment, electrical grid, and dams), and other, usually long-term, physical assets and facilities. Though often interchangeable with public infrastructure and public capital, public works does not necessarily carry an economic component, thereby being a broader term.
Here's a list of the separate categories:
municipal buildings
schools
hospitals
transport infrastructure
roads
railroads
bridges
pipelines
canals,
ports
airports
public spaces
public squares
parks
beaches
water supply
treatment
sewage treatment
electrical grid
dams
It's national public works week!
I had no idea this was a thing until I saw it on Twitter a moment ago.
May 15-21
Local governments especially are focused on the provision of public works - so why not spend a day or two focused on it?
It is promoted by the American Public Works Association - an interest group - which describes itself as follows:
- Click here for the page.
As a comprehensive public works resource, APWA continues in its rich tradition of making a difference both on an individual and professional level. APWA is a not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) organization that prides itself on its ability to provide varied educational and networking opportunities that help public works personnel grow in their professionalism and improve the quality of life in the communities they serve.
This is what they do:
- Click here for that page.
The APWA Government Affairs team advocates for the importance of investing in transportation infrastructure, water and waste water infrastructure, public utilities, emergency response services, and the many basic needs essential to every thriving community. Stay informed on important advocacy issues and learn how to make your voice heard in government policy-making decisions.
Tuesday, May 17, 2022
From the Texas Tribune: West Texas rancher pours $2 million into Sarah Stogner’s underdog campaign for statewide oil and gas board seat
For our look at the impact of money in Texas politics - in addition to clarifying how much of a democracy we actually are.
This should help us understand the continuing political power of ranchers in the state, and the degree to which their interests are served by the Texas Railroad Commission.
- Click here for the article.
A West Texas rancher who has battled the Railroad Commission over abandoned oil wells on her property has poured $2 million into a dark-horse challenger for a seat on the commission, Sarah Stogner, as she looks to pull off a major upset in the May 24 Republican primary runoff.
Ashley Watt, who owns a 75,000-acre ranch in the Permian Basin where Stogner currently lives, revealed to The Texas Tribune that she has provided the seven-figure funding to Stogner, saying it will be disclosed on a campaign finance report that is expected to be released Tuesday. The money is helping bankroll a substantial TV ad buy in the final two weeks before Stogner faces the commission’s chair, Wayne Christian, in the runoff.
“I am not a political person. I don't really care about politics,” Watt said in a statement. “But when an old Chevron oil well blew out radioactive brine water into my drinking water aquifer, ruining my ranch and forcing me to sell my entire cattle herd, the Railroad Commission teamed up with Chevron to work against me.
“I’m tired of fake conservatives like Wayne Christian trampling on Texans’ private property rights, while lining their pockets with poorly disguised bribes,” Watt added.
Stogner and Watt are friends. Stogner said they connected last year on Twitter and then Watt hired her as a lawyer. Stogner has been living on Watt’s ranch in Crane County after going through a marital separation.
Stogner said Watt approached her in recent weeks and said she had done some polling — unbeknownst to Stogner — that showed she had a shot in the runoff. It was a dilemma for Stogner, who had been self-funding her campaign and proudly swearing off donations. But she said Watt eventually convinced her to “get your ego out of the way” and accept the money to have a good chance to win.
I thought the following words and phrases relate to textbook info:
- Railroad Commission
- $2 million into a dark-horse challenger for a seat on the commission
- May 24 Republican primary runoff.
- oil and gas attorney
- Ashley Watt, who owns a 75,000-acre ranch in the Permian Basin
- disclosed on a campaign finance report
- bankroll a substantial TV ad buy in the final two weeks
- the commission’s chair, Wayne Christian
- Chevron oil well
- Railroad Commission teamed up with Chevron
- fake conservatives like Wayne Christian
- private property rights
- poorly disguised bribes
- she had done some polling that showed she had a shot in the runoff
- self-funding her campaign and proudly swearing off donations
- not taking money from the industry I’m going to regulate
- the commission . . . regulates the oil and gas industry in Texas
- Christian as too cozy with the industry
- Christian’s campaign . . . calling her a Democrat trying to fool GOP voters
- “not a straight-ticket voter.”
- the biggest checks that Gov. Greg Abbott — a fundraising powerhouse — tends to receive are $1 million each.
- TV ads
- “the liberal anti-oil politicians — and the woke corporations bankrolling them.” The 30-second spot concludes by billing her as a “tough conservative mama.”
- abandoned wells
- Stogner has argued Chevron has not done enough to remedy the situation and the Railroad Commission, which is notoriously close to the industry, is not holding the company accountable by enforcing existing laws.
Monday, May 16, 2022
Sunday, May 15, 2022
Friday, May 6, 2022
substantive due process
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_due_process
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-xiv/clauses/701
https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2480&context=lawreview
https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/free-speech-under-attack-book-bans-and-academic-censorship
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/budget_fy2023.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_swine_flu_outbreak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Philadelphia_Legionnaires%27_disease_outbreak
https://www.congress.gov/most-viewed-bills
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/85R/billtext/pdf/SB00004F.pdf
https://www.texas-demographics.com/counties_by_population
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Medical_Center#History
file:///C:/Users/kjefferies/Downloads/96-1774.pdf
file:///C:/Users/kjefferies/Downloads/96-571.pdf
https://comptroller.texas.gov/transparency/revenue/sources.php
https://comptroller.texas.gov/transparency/revenue/
https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/topics/
https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2017/august/local.php
https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2018/november/by-article.php
https://comptroller.texas.gov/transparency/revenue/grants.php
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/kbyg/customs-duty-info#:~:text=Customs%20Duty%20is%20a%20tariff,and%20out%20of%20the%20country.
http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/DocID/PDF/1527.pdf
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/kellogg
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/25/list-of-sanctions-on-russia-after-invasion
https://www.hrblock.com/tax-center/filing/adjustments-and-deductions/are-political-contributions-tax-deductible/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situation_awareness
https://www.brettpritchardlaw.com/blog/2021/july/what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-plea-bargaining-in/#:~:text=Typically%2C%20the%20prosecutor%20and%20the,is%20essentially%20admitting%20their%20guilty.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/world/russia-at-war/russian-money-hidden-offshore-dark-money-ukraine-sanctions/
Recapture
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/01/31/texas-robin-hood-recapture-villain-texas-fix-school-finance/
https://www.mrt.com/news/politics/article/Gov-Abbott-dodges-recapture-question-in-Odessa-16918890.php
https://texasscorecard.com/local/which-texans-paid-the-biggest-robin-hood-tax-in-2018/
https://www.txsc.org/recapture-takes-nearly-3-billion-from-local-schools/
https://www.kut.org/education/2022-02-11/austin-isd-paid-hundreds-of-millions-more-than-other-districts-in-texas-recapture-program
Unipolarity? Bipolarity? Multipolarity?
Is the United States the only power that matters?
- Our Elites Need to Recognize that America’s ‘Unipolar Moment’ is Over.
- The Ukraine War Doesn’t Change Everything.
- "The unipolar world has come to an end": Medvedev.
- The Cold War Never Ended.
- The Flawed Logic Behind the Theory of Absolute Unipolarity.
- Unrivaled: Why America Will Remain the World's Sole Superpower.
- Putin May Yet Be a Master Strategist | Insight.
- Russia-Ukraine war: Is multipolarity the cause of crisis?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)