This is a truly tragic story that illustrates a key problem of presidential advising (though it involves decision making in the Soviet Union). Leonid Breznev, the Soviet leader, wanted to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Communist Revolution with an ambitious space flight, but the technicians involved in the flight - including the cosmonaut that would eventually die in it - were aware of literally hundreds of problems with the spacecraft. But no one in the leadership wanted to hear it, so the flight went on as scheduled, with the predicted result.
The plan was to launch a capsule, the Soyuz 1, with Komarov inside. The next day, a second vehicle would take off, with two additional cosmonauts; the two vehicles would meet, dock, Komarov would crawl from one vehicle to the other, exchanging places with a colleague, and come home in the second ship. It would be, Brezhnev hoped, a Soviet triumph on the 50th anniversary of the Communist revolution. Brezhnev made it very clear he wanted this to happen.
The problem was Gagarin. Already a Soviet hero, the first man ever in space, he and some senior technicians had inspected the Soyuz 1 and had found 203 structural problems — serious problems that would make this machine dangerous to navigate in space. The mission, Gagarin suggested, should be postponed.
The question was: Who would tell Brezhnev? Gagarin wrote a 10-page memo and gave it to his best friend in the KGB, Venyamin Russayev, but nobody dared send it up the chain of command. Everyone who saw that memo, including Russayev, was demoted, fired or sent to diplomatic Siberia. With less than a month to go before the launch, Komarov realized postponement was not an option. He met with Russayev, the now-demoted KGB agent, and said, "I'm not going to make it back from this flight."
This is not that unusual a story when it comes to presidential decision making. Sometimes they just make up their minds and shut themselves off from contrary opinions.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Will There be a Rally Around the Flag Effect?
A Nate Silver piece highlighted in Andrew Sullivan's site:
CNN has released a poll, conducted Friday through Sunday, that asked people for their views on President Obama’s handling of Libya. Initial reactions are more favorable for Mr. Obama than not, but the numbers are close enough that one can easily imagine some political downside for the president.
There are several different questions in the poll. For instance, when CNN asked people about the establishment of a “no-fly zone”, and provided a fairly lengthy description of it, support registered 70 percent, up significantly from last week. But support dropped to 54 percent when CNN asked a more targeted question about about airborne attacks on Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces. And there was strong opposition to any use of ground troops, which president Obama has pledged not to employ.
- The CNN Poll.
- Rally Around the Flag Syndrome.
CNN has released a poll, conducted Friday through Sunday, that asked people for their views on President Obama’s handling of Libya. Initial reactions are more favorable for Mr. Obama than not, but the numbers are close enough that one can easily imagine some political downside for the president.
There are several different questions in the poll. For instance, when CNN asked people about the establishment of a “no-fly zone”, and provided a fairly lengthy description of it, support registered 70 percent, up significantly from last week. But support dropped to 54 percent when CNN asked a more targeted question about about airborne attacks on Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces. And there was strong opposition to any use of ground troops, which president Obama has pledged not to employ.
- The CNN Poll.
- Rally Around the Flag Syndrome.
Are the Airstrikes Constitutional?
Jack Goldsmith does not think they were a good idea, but thinks they are constitutional and fall within the limits of presidential military power as defined over time by the courts:
I do not believe that the military action in Libya is unconstitutional.
Legal scholars disagree about the original meaning of the Constitution's conferral on Congress of the power "to declare war." Many contend it required Congress to formally approve all uses of U.S. military force abroad, save, as James Madison said at the Convention, in situations needed to "repel sudden attack." Others maintain the "declare war" clause provides more leeway, allowing the president to use force abroad as long as the force does not rise to the level of "war," whatever that means. Yet others argue that the framers meant simply to give Congress the authority to signal under international law a state of war; the real work in controlling presidential initiation of force, under this view, was Congress' control over appropriations and the size of the standing army. There are many more theories about the original understanding. Even if we could definitively resolve this debate, which we can't, it is unclear why original intent—which in practice rarely determines contemporary constitutional meaning—should control outcomes in the context of presidential war powers, a context that as much as any is marked by radically changed circumstances.
Compounding the problem of indeterminate constitutional language is the fact that the courts have never resolved the question about the scope of the president's power to use military force abroad without congressional authorization. Almost all litigation seeking to resolve whether a war was properly launched has been dismissed as a "political question" or because the plaintiff lacked standing. As a result, the constitutional issue has been worked out almost exclusively by practice between the political branches and not by the courts.
Eric Posner suggests that Obama is doing nothing that previous presidents have not done before him (the imperial presdiency may now be institutionalized), and suggests further that Congress should play a limited role :
President Obama is following a long line of precedents in which the executive lanched a foreign war without congressional authorization. The president disavowed these precedents during his campaign; he may or may not attempt to distinguish his campaign statement by invoking the UN security council resolution authorizing the attack, as Truman did for Korea. But this legal wrangling is all superstructure. Congress is disabled in numerous ways from making practical contributions to a war effort. It cannot prevent the president from starting a war, and it is nearly impossible to halt an ongoing war. Wars, then, simply become an opportunity for members of Congress to stake their reputations as hawks or doves for the sake of future elections.
. . . Congress could not play a role. Lacking a leader who could commit it to a course of action, Congress could not make promises. Lacking a single mouthpiece, it could not be consulted. Foreign countries naturally turned to the president. Nor is it realistic for Congress to formally ratify the president’s decision if formal ratification involves the possibility of rejection. Then the next time that the United States is involved in a foreign policy crisis, other countries won’t know who to speak to, and who to believe.
As we've argued in class, the stucture of the executive seems to put it in a better position than Congress to make and implement decisions about foreign affairs. Its a matter of design.
I do not believe that the military action in Libya is unconstitutional.
Legal scholars disagree about the original meaning of the Constitution's conferral on Congress of the power "to declare war." Many contend it required Congress to formally approve all uses of U.S. military force abroad, save, as James Madison said at the Convention, in situations needed to "repel sudden attack." Others maintain the "declare war" clause provides more leeway, allowing the president to use force abroad as long as the force does not rise to the level of "war," whatever that means. Yet others argue that the framers meant simply to give Congress the authority to signal under international law a state of war; the real work in controlling presidential initiation of force, under this view, was Congress' control over appropriations and the size of the standing army. There are many more theories about the original understanding. Even if we could definitively resolve this debate, which we can't, it is unclear why original intent—which in practice rarely determines contemporary constitutional meaning—should control outcomes in the context of presidential war powers, a context that as much as any is marked by radically changed circumstances.
Compounding the problem of indeterminate constitutional language is the fact that the courts have never resolved the question about the scope of the president's power to use military force abroad without congressional authorization. Almost all litigation seeking to resolve whether a war was properly launched has been dismissed as a "political question" or because the plaintiff lacked standing. As a result, the constitutional issue has been worked out almost exclusively by practice between the political branches and not by the courts.
Eric Posner suggests that Obama is doing nothing that previous presidents have not done before him (the imperial presdiency may now be institutionalized), and suggests further that Congress should play a limited role :
President Obama is following a long line of precedents in which the executive lanched a foreign war without congressional authorization. The president disavowed these precedents during his campaign; he may or may not attempt to distinguish his campaign statement by invoking the UN security council resolution authorizing the attack, as Truman did for Korea. But this legal wrangling is all superstructure. Congress is disabled in numerous ways from making practical contributions to a war effort. It cannot prevent the president from starting a war, and it is nearly impossible to halt an ongoing war. Wars, then, simply become an opportunity for members of Congress to stake their reputations as hawks or doves for the sake of future elections.
. . . Congress could not play a role. Lacking a leader who could commit it to a course of action, Congress could not make promises. Lacking a single mouthpiece, it could not be consulted. Foreign countries naturally turned to the president. Nor is it realistic for Congress to formally ratify the president’s decision if formal ratification involves the possibility of rejection. Then the next time that the United States is involved in a foreign policy crisis, other countries won’t know who to speak to, and who to believe.
As we've argued in class, the stucture of the executive seems to put it in a better position than Congress to make and implement decisions about foreign affairs. Its a matter of design.
Cao v. Federal Election Commission
For 2301 as we dig into elections this week:
From the Washington Post:
The Supreme Court on Monday turned down the Republican National Committee’s latest attempt to knock out long-standing campaign finance restrictions.
Without comment, the justices rejected a challenge from the RNC and former Louisiana congressman Anh “Joseph” Cao that sought to end federal restrictions on how much a political party can spend in direct coordination with a candidate. Cao lost a reelection bid in 2010.
The RNC said the restrictions violate the party’s First Amendment rights, a claim that was turned aside by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
It was one of two challenges the GOP filed after the 2008 elections. The court did not accept either of them.
In June, the justices let stand a lower court’s decision that upheld the constitutionality of the “soft-money ban” in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act. That law bars national political parties from accepting or spending unregulated campaign cash.
- The National Journal.
- The FEC website.
- ScotusBlog.
- Campaign Legal Center.
- Roll Call.
From the Washington Post:
The Supreme Court on Monday turned down the Republican National Committee’s latest attempt to knock out long-standing campaign finance restrictions.
Without comment, the justices rejected a challenge from the RNC and former Louisiana congressman Anh “Joseph” Cao that sought to end federal restrictions on how much a political party can spend in direct coordination with a candidate. Cao lost a reelection bid in 2010.
The RNC said the restrictions violate the party’s First Amendment rights, a claim that was turned aside by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
It was one of two challenges the GOP filed after the 2008 elections. The court did not accept either of them.
In June, the justices let stand a lower court’s decision that upheld the constitutionality of the “soft-money ban” in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act. That law bars national political parties from accepting or spending unregulated campaign cash.
- The National Journal.
- The FEC website.
- ScotusBlog.
- Campaign Legal Center.
- Roll Call.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Are the Airstrikes Impeachable Offenses?
Dennis Kucinich thinks so:
A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.
Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.
Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.
And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.
A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.
Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.
Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.
And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.
Egyptian voters say ‘yes’ to speedy elections
From the Washington Post:
On Sunday, judicial officials reported that 77 percent of those who cast ballots in a historic referendum Saturday voted “yes” on constitutional amendments designed to speed Egypt’s transition from temporary military rule to credible parliamentary and presidential elections.
About 18 million out of more than 45 million eligible voters went to the polls — or 41 percent, below the optimistically high estimates officials had issued Saturday but still a remarkable display of democratic vigor as Egyptians embraced their first chance since the colonial era to participate in a political process whose outcome wasn’t essentially rigged.
The constitutional changes, drafted by a military-appointed panel of legal experts, will encourage the formation of political parties, restrict future presidents to two four-year terms, rein in executive powers, and limit emergency rule to six months, subject to parliamentary approval, rather than the 30 years that marked the tenure of former president Hosni Mubarak.
A useful topic for this week's discussion in 2301 about elections and past discussions about constitutions.
On Sunday, judicial officials reported that 77 percent of those who cast ballots in a historic referendum Saturday voted “yes” on constitutional amendments designed to speed Egypt’s transition from temporary military rule to credible parliamentary and presidential elections.
About 18 million out of more than 45 million eligible voters went to the polls — or 41 percent, below the optimistically high estimates officials had issued Saturday but still a remarkable display of democratic vigor as Egyptians embraced their first chance since the colonial era to participate in a political process whose outcome wasn’t essentially rigged.
The constitutional changes, drafted by a military-appointed panel of legal experts, will encourage the formation of political parties, restrict future presidents to two four-year terms, rein in executive powers, and limit emergency rule to six months, subject to parliamentary approval, rather than the 30 years that marked the tenure of former president Hosni Mubarak.
A useful topic for this week's discussion in 2301 about elections and past discussions about constitutions.
The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine
Obama's decision to join the effort to enforce the U.N. Resolution against Libya seems to be justified by something called the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine.
From Wikipedia:
The responsibility to protect can be thought of as having three parts.
1.A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).
2.If the State is unable to protect its population on its own, the international community has a responsibility to assist the state by building its capacity. This can mean building early-warning capabilities, mediating conflicts between political parties, strengthening the security sector, mobilizing standby forces, and many other actions.
3.If a State is manifestly failing to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures are not working, the international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.
- Daniel Larison is not convinced by it.
- Some detail on how the decision was made to go at Libya.
- International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect.
From Wikipedia:
The responsibility to protect can be thought of as having three parts.
1.A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).
2.If the State is unable to protect its population on its own, the international community has a responsibility to assist the state by building its capacity. This can mean building early-warning capabilities, mediating conflicts between political parties, strengthening the security sector, mobilizing standby forces, and many other actions.
3.If a State is manifestly failing to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures are not working, the international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.
- Daniel Larison is not convinced by it.
- Some detail on how the decision was made to go at Libya.
- International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect.
Mopery
Probable Cause?
This is a new one for me: Mopery.
Mopery is a vague, informal, and usually humorous name for minor offenses. The word is based on the verb to mope, which originally meant “to wander aimlessly”; it only later acquired the overtones of “bored and depressed”. The word mope appears to have first been used in the 16th century, and appears in Shakespeare's works.
It has been used in certain jurisdictions as a legal term to mean (for example) “walking down the street with no clear destination or purpose”. Like loitering and vagrancy laws, mopery is sometimes used by law enforcement to detain individuals seen as “unsavoury”, as the police believe they have prevented them from committing a clearer or more dangerous crime.
This is a new one for me: Mopery.
Mopery is a vague, informal, and usually humorous name for minor offenses. The word is based on the verb to mope, which originally meant “to wander aimlessly”; it only later acquired the overtones of “bored and depressed”. The word mope appears to have first been used in the 16th century, and appears in Shakespeare's works.
It has been used in certain jurisdictions as a legal term to mean (for example) “walking down the street with no clear destination or purpose”. Like loitering and vagrancy laws, mopery is sometimes used by law enforcement to detain individuals seen as “unsavoury”, as the police believe they have prevented them from committing a clearer or more dangerous crime.
Two Free Speech Cases
Eugene Voloch comments on two recent incidents touching on the freedom of speech.
In the first, free speech is not accepted as defense for urging people - online - to commit suicide.
In the second, a UCLA student's video - which makes disparaging comments about Asian students - is called moronic, but protected.
Is this video protected speech?
In the first, free speech is not accepted as defense for urging people - online - to commit suicide.
In the second, a UCLA student's video - which makes disparaging comments about Asian students - is called moronic, but protected.
Is this video protected speech?
One persons thoughts on Libertarianism, Liberalism, and Conservatism
Ilta Somin muses on the intersections of:
- Libertarianism and Liberalism and Libertarianism and Conservatism.
- Libertarianism and Liberalism and Libertarianism and Conservatism.
"A regulator versus regulator dispute" SEC v FHFA
For discussion this week in 2302, some recent federal executive activity. From the Washington Post:
The Securities and Exchange Commission is moving toward charging former and current Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives with violations related to the financial crisis, setting up a clash with the housing regulator that oversees the companies, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The SEC, responsible for enforcing securities laws, is alleging that at least four senior executives failed to provide necessary information to investors about the companies’ mortgage holdings as the U.S. housing market collapsed.
But the agency that most closely regulates Fannie and Freddie, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, disagrees with that assessment, according to sources familiar with the matter.
FHFA officials think Fannie and Freddie’s financial disclosures, which agency staff members had reviewed before the documents were released to the public, were sufficient, the sources said. One source added that FHFA has sent a letter to the SEC opposing the filing of charges.
An FHFA spokesman declined to comment.
This is mighty complex. Essentially, one federal regulatory agency charged with investigating securities fraud wants to charge two government sponsored enterprises for activities related to the recent financial crisis, while a fourth agency that oversees those enterprises, wants to protect them from those charges. This is the latest in the housing crisis saga.
More on the story:
- David Indiviglio I.
- David Indiviglio II.
- Life after Fannie and Freddie
Here are the players:
- Securities and Exchange Commission.
- Federal Housing Finance Agency.
- Fannie Mae.
- Freddie Mac.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is moving toward charging former and current Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives with violations related to the financial crisis, setting up a clash with the housing regulator that oversees the companies, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The SEC, responsible for enforcing securities laws, is alleging that at least four senior executives failed to provide necessary information to investors about the companies’ mortgage holdings as the U.S. housing market collapsed.
But the agency that most closely regulates Fannie and Freddie, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, disagrees with that assessment, according to sources familiar with the matter.
FHFA officials think Fannie and Freddie’s financial disclosures, which agency staff members had reviewed before the documents were released to the public, were sufficient, the sources said. One source added that FHFA has sent a letter to the SEC opposing the filing of charges.
An FHFA spokesman declined to comment.
This is mighty complex. Essentially, one federal regulatory agency charged with investigating securities fraud wants to charge two government sponsored enterprises for activities related to the recent financial crisis, while a fourth agency that oversees those enterprises, wants to protect them from those charges. This is the latest in the housing crisis saga.
More on the story:
- David Indiviglio I.
- David Indiviglio II.
- Life after Fannie and Freddie
Here are the players:
- Securities and Exchange Commission.
- Federal Housing Finance Agency.
- Fannie Mae.
- Freddie Mac.
Height and Weight Discrimination?
Here's a brief little piece that touches on the limits of civil rights legislation. The author is criticizing a Washington Times writer's take on the Obama Administration;s civil rights enforcement policy:
Here is a strange piece in the Washington Times by editorial writer Kerry Picket criticizing the Department of Justice because it:
"will only investigate bullying cases if the victim is considered protected under the 1964 Civil Rights legislation. In essence, only discrimination against a victim’s race, sex, national origin, disability, or religion will be considered by DOJ. The overweight straight white male who is verbally and/or physically harassed because of his size can consider himself invisible to the Justice Department."
Well, yes. Discrimination based on size or weight is not barred by federal law, so the federal Department of Justice has no business investigating such discrimination.
Should they?
Here is a strange piece in the Washington Times by editorial writer Kerry Picket criticizing the Department of Justice because it:
"will only investigate bullying cases if the victim is considered protected under the 1964 Civil Rights legislation. In essence, only discrimination against a victim’s race, sex, national origin, disability, or religion will be considered by DOJ. The overweight straight white male who is verbally and/or physically harassed because of his size can consider himself invisible to the Justice Department."
Well, yes. Discrimination based on size or weight is not barred by federal law, so the federal Department of Justice has no business investigating such discrimination.
Should they?
"A tyrannical government is not a legitimate government"
This is an important and provocative post from David Kopel. I need to add this to my 2301 lecture on natural rights. The author quotes a variety of classical authors who make arguments against the legitimacy of tyrannical governments, likening them to robbers. A tyrannical government is not a legitimate government. That statement should make sense if you properly understand the argument made in the Declaration of Independence.
Consider this required reading.
Obviously the post relates to current issues regarding Libya, but it gives no hint about what pragmatic steps can be taken to deal with tyrannical governments. Is there an obligation to remove them from power?
Consider this required reading.
Obviously the post relates to current issues regarding Libya, but it gives no hint about what pragmatic steps can be taken to deal with tyrannical governments. Is there an obligation to remove them from power?
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Richard Wirthlin
Richard Wirthlin, a pollster who worked with Ronald Reagan died recently. Both 2301s and 2302s ought to read up on him as he is credited (if that's the proper word) with developing the field of campaign polling.
From the Huffington Post:
He first polled for Ronald Reagan when the future president was seeking reelection as California's governor in 1970. As recounted to author David Moore for his book, The Super Pollsters, Wirthlin had not previously been "a strong Reagan supporter," at least not "until I met him." Although he initially thought of Reagan as "a two-bit, B-grade actor, four degrees to the right of Atilla the Hun," Wirthlin's view changed after he spend two hours alone with Reagan explaining the results of a poll on policy issues.
He soon became a trusted adviser, chief strategist of Reagan's successful 1980 presidential campaign and the pollster who reportedly met with Reagan in the White House every month to brief him on his latest surveys. Reagan later described Wirthlin as "the best in the business ... when he speaks, I listen."
Former colleagues interviewed by The Huffington Post spoke of Wirthlin as a trailblazer in the then-emerging field of campaign polling. "When we started in this business," recalled former Wirthlin Worldwide Executive Vice President Vince Breglio, "there really only were three firms operating in the political realm."
. . .
Wirthlin's former employees and colleagues credit him with a series of innovations that continue to influence the practice of campaign polling today. These include:
The right direction/wrong track question. Colleagues credit Wirthlin with being the original author of the question that asks whether things in the country are "generally going in the right direction" or have gotten "pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track." Most national media polls now track that question as a leading indicator of support for incumbent officeholders. As Wirthlin explained in a 2004 op-ed, the question helped inspire Reagan's now famous rhetorical question, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
Nightly tracking polls. David Moore credits Wirthlin with the first systematic use of the nightly tracking poll, in which a relatively small number of respondents are polled every day and their results are averaged in "rolling samples" of those interviewed on the day before.
Dial group tests. Newhouse says Wirthlin was the first campaign pollster to do what is now called "dial testing," the process of wiring up focus group respondents to mechanical dials that they use to constantly rate a presidential speech or debate.
Other innovations may have been less about invention than application within the realm of campaign-sponsored polling. Breglio credits Wirthlin with the first extensive application of advanced statistical techniques such as multiple regression and factor analysis. Republican pollster Steve Lombardo never worked for Wirthlin, but nonetheless sees his most "powerful and lasting" contribution as his pioneering measurement of political values. "He forced us to go beyond surface attitudes and to find the key 'value' that was driving that attitude. His feeling was that core values like beliefs in fairness or freedom were often at the core of public opinion, and that only by peeling back that onion could we begin to understand how to change attitudes."
From the Huffington Post:
He first polled for Ronald Reagan when the future president was seeking reelection as California's governor in 1970. As recounted to author David Moore for his book, The Super Pollsters, Wirthlin had not previously been "a strong Reagan supporter," at least not "until I met him." Although he initially thought of Reagan as "a two-bit, B-grade actor, four degrees to the right of Atilla the Hun," Wirthlin's view changed after he spend two hours alone with Reagan explaining the results of a poll on policy issues.
He soon became a trusted adviser, chief strategist of Reagan's successful 1980 presidential campaign and the pollster who reportedly met with Reagan in the White House every month to brief him on his latest surveys. Reagan later described Wirthlin as "the best in the business ... when he speaks, I listen."
Former colleagues interviewed by The Huffington Post spoke of Wirthlin as a trailblazer in the then-emerging field of campaign polling. "When we started in this business," recalled former Wirthlin Worldwide Executive Vice President Vince Breglio, "there really only were three firms operating in the political realm."
. . .
Wirthlin's former employees and colleagues credit him with a series of innovations that continue to influence the practice of campaign polling today. These include:
The right direction/wrong track question. Colleagues credit Wirthlin with being the original author of the question that asks whether things in the country are "generally going in the right direction" or have gotten "pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track." Most national media polls now track that question as a leading indicator of support for incumbent officeholders. As Wirthlin explained in a 2004 op-ed, the question helped inspire Reagan's now famous rhetorical question, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
Nightly tracking polls. David Moore credits Wirthlin with the first systematic use of the nightly tracking poll, in which a relatively small number of respondents are polled every day and their results are averaged in "rolling samples" of those interviewed on the day before.
Dial group tests. Newhouse says Wirthlin was the first campaign pollster to do what is now called "dial testing," the process of wiring up focus group respondents to mechanical dials that they use to constantly rate a presidential speech or debate.
Other innovations may have been less about invention than application within the realm of campaign-sponsored polling. Breglio credits Wirthlin with the first extensive application of advanced statistical techniques such as multiple regression and factor analysis. Republican pollster Steve Lombardo never worked for Wirthlin, but nonetheless sees his most "powerful and lasting" contribution as his pioneering measurement of political values. "He forced us to go beyond surface attitudes and to find the key 'value' that was driving that attitude. His feeling was that core values like beliefs in fairness or freedom were often at the core of public opinion, and that only by peeling back that onion could we begin to understand how to change attitudes."
Is Obama Now an Imperial President?
Now that he's made a decision to commit forces without congressional approval, Andrew Sullivan thinks so:
The proper response to this presidential power-grab is a Congressional vote - as soon as possible.
That will reveal the factions that support this kind of return to the role of global policeman, and force the GOP to go on the record. I also look forward to the statements of the various Republican candidates in support of this president. ...
A congressional vote is also important to rein in the imperial presidency that Obama has now taken to a greater height then even Bush. No plane should lift off, no bomb released, until the Congress has voted. I don't see why Obama should oppose this. He needs some Congressional support in an open-ended military commitment to ensure the protection of civilians in Libya.
The proper response to this presidential power-grab is a Congressional vote - as soon as possible.
That will reveal the factions that support this kind of return to the role of global policeman, and force the GOP to go on the record. I also look forward to the statements of the various Republican candidates in support of this president. ...
A congressional vote is also important to rein in the imperial presidency that Obama has now taken to a greater height then even Bush. No plane should lift off, no bomb released, until the Congress has voted. I don't see why Obama should oppose this. He needs some Congressional support in an open-ended military commitment to ensure the protection of civilians in Libya.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill
While putting material together for the last lecture on the executive branch I came across Warren Harding's support for the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill (1922) which passed the House but was filibustered succcessfully in the Senate. It would have made lynching a federal crime, but there were questions about its constitutionality. States were uninterested in prosecuting those accused of lynching, the federal government was then expected to step in to ensure that all citizens would be guaranteed the protection of their civil rights.
Top Secret America
Last year the Washington Post published an interesting study of the security and intelligence apparatus set up after 9/11.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Referendum in Ohio?
From the Atlantic, an item for 2301:
Yesterday, Ohio Gov. John Kasich -- who after just two months in office already had a 28-year record low 40 percent job approval rating -- unveiled his budget plan, which includes slashing public school budgets and selling several state prisons to the private sector. Meanwhile, a coalition of labor unions, community groups, and small student associations held a "Day of Actions" in protest of Senate Bill 5, with activities such as a teachers' rally, picketing on Columbus's Capitol Hill and phonebanking.
The bill, which is backed Kasich and currently making its way through the Ohio House of Representatives, would severely limit collective bargaining power by public-sector employees, including police, firefighters and teachers. Unions would not be able to bargain on pension or health-care plans, yearly step increases would be thrown out in favor of merit raises, and if there were disagreements over contract negotiations, the bill bans strikes, and adds fines for walkouts.
Labor groups and Democrats anticipate the bill's passage through the Republican dominated House -- it passed the Ohio Senate on March 5 -- but plan to fight back by working to put the legislation directly before voters in a special ballot election this fall. Ohio, unlike Wisconsin, lacks a mechanism for recalling elected officials, but it does have a direct means for overturning unpopular legislation: If labor and Democrats are able to secure 200,300 signatures in the coming months, a ballot proposition to vote on overturning Senate Bill 5 will appear before voters come November.
That means Ohio pro-union forces won't need to rely on labor-friendly Democrats to get elected in a special election in order to overturn anti-union legislation -- their plan in Wisconsin, where they are seeking to recall eight GOP senators, elect Democrats in their stead, then repeal the just-passed law stripping public sector unions of most collective bargaining rights in the state. Instead, Ohio union supporters can take on the offending legislation directly themselves.
Yesterday, Ohio Gov. John Kasich -- who after just two months in office already had a 28-year record low 40 percent job approval rating -- unveiled his budget plan, which includes slashing public school budgets and selling several state prisons to the private sector. Meanwhile, a coalition of labor unions, community groups, and small student associations held a "Day of Actions" in protest of Senate Bill 5, with activities such as a teachers' rally, picketing on Columbus's Capitol Hill and phonebanking.
The bill, which is backed Kasich and currently making its way through the Ohio House of Representatives, would severely limit collective bargaining power by public-sector employees, including police, firefighters and teachers. Unions would not be able to bargain on pension or health-care plans, yearly step increases would be thrown out in favor of merit raises, and if there were disagreements over contract negotiations, the bill bans strikes, and adds fines for walkouts.
Labor groups and Democrats anticipate the bill's passage through the Republican dominated House -- it passed the Ohio Senate on March 5 -- but plan to fight back by working to put the legislation directly before voters in a special ballot election this fall. Ohio, unlike Wisconsin, lacks a mechanism for recalling elected officials, but it does have a direct means for overturning unpopular legislation: If labor and Democrats are able to secure 200,300 signatures in the coming months, a ballot proposition to vote on overturning Senate Bill 5 will appear before voters come November.
That means Ohio pro-union forces won't need to rely on labor-friendly Democrats to get elected in a special election in order to overturn anti-union legislation -- their plan in Wisconsin, where they are seeking to recall eight GOP senators, elect Democrats in their stead, then repeal the just-passed law stripping public sector unions of most collective bargaining rights in the state. Instead, Ohio union supporters can take on the offending legislation directly themselves.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Palin's Base Shrinks But Intensifies - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
Palin's Base Shrinks But Intensifies - The Daily Dish By Andrew Sullivan
Sullivan highlights poll results that show that Palin's overall support within the Republican Party is diminshing, but those who support her do so strongly (Huckabee's supporters are similarly enthusiastic). He suggests, appropriately, that this makes her very strong in the primaries, though low overall numbers may make her uncompettive in a general election. Obama runs very strongly against her head to head.
For 2301s this is an important point. Primary elections - which are conducted by each party - are different affairs than general elections. Turnout is lower and tends to be composed mostly of hard core party identifiers who are often extreme in their ideological beliefs. Palin has been shown to be very popular among this crowd, but no so among the moderates who sit out primaries but do so in the general election. This tells us something about the power struggle within parties. Party leaders may attempt to influence which candidates are likely to get the party nomination, but the decision is ultimately up to the party base. It is not unusual for the passionate base to select a candidate unapealing to the calmer middle.
- Palin's Favorability Declines; Negatives Exceed her Rivals'
- Poll: Palin's numbers slide among Republicans
Sullivan highlights poll results that show that Palin's overall support within the Republican Party is diminshing, but those who support her do so strongly (Huckabee's supporters are similarly enthusiastic). He suggests, appropriately, that this makes her very strong in the primaries, though low overall numbers may make her uncompettive in a general election. Obama runs very strongly against her head to head.
For 2301s this is an important point. Primary elections - which are conducted by each party - are different affairs than general elections. Turnout is lower and tends to be composed mostly of hard core party identifiers who are often extreme in their ideological beliefs. Palin has been shown to be very popular among this crowd, but no so among the moderates who sit out primaries but do so in the general election. This tells us something about the power struggle within parties. Party leaders may attempt to influence which candidates are likely to get the party nomination, but the decision is ultimately up to the party base. It is not unusual for the passionate base to select a candidate unapealing to the calmer middle.
- Palin's Favorability Declines; Negatives Exceed her Rivals'
- Poll: Palin's numbers slide among Republicans
Can a Japanese Earthquake Impact a Texas Nuclear Power Plant Project?
Apparently so:
The repercussions from an earthquake that has rocked nuclear facilities in Japan threaten to shake up the financial grounding of a proposed power plant expansion in Texas.
A Japanese company that owns the distressed Fukushima Daiichi power plant had figured to own as much as 20 percent of two proposed reactors at the South Texas Project . But with the company, Tokyo Electric Power Co. , reeling from reports of radiation leaks, financial analysts on Monday called the deal uncertain.
Some of the South Texas Project electricity is shipped to Austin, which is a part-owner of the two current reactors. The city is considering whether to buy more power from the two proposed reactors.
Tokyo Electric had agreed to spend $155 million to become a 10 percent owner of two proposed reactors at the South Texas Project.
That money, which included an option to spend an additional $125 million for another 10 percent stake, was contingent on potential federal loan guarantees. With Washington now reconsidering nuclear power, those loan guarantees have become a very open question.
The repercussions from an earthquake that has rocked nuclear facilities in Japan threaten to shake up the financial grounding of a proposed power plant expansion in Texas.
A Japanese company that owns the distressed Fukushima Daiichi power plant had figured to own as much as 20 percent of two proposed reactors at the South Texas Project . But with the company, Tokyo Electric Power Co. , reeling from reports of radiation leaks, financial analysts on Monday called the deal uncertain.
Some of the South Texas Project electricity is shipped to Austin, which is a part-owner of the two current reactors. The city is considering whether to buy more power from the two proposed reactors.
Tokyo Electric had agreed to spend $155 million to become a 10 percent owner of two proposed reactors at the South Texas Project.
That money, which included an option to spend an additional $125 million for another 10 percent stake, was contingent on potential federal loan guarantees. With Washington now reconsidering nuclear power, those loan guarantees have become a very open question.
Should Forensics be Separated from Law Enforcement?
Radley Balko:
After countless scandals in recent years, the problems with America's forensics system are finally getting some national attention. In December, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced a bill to reform the country's crime labs. In January, ProPublica and Frontline teamed up for a year-long investigation into the ways criminal autopsies are conducted across the country. In North Carolina, the state legislature is considering reforms to that state's crime lab, which was rocked by a damning 2010 investigation commissioned by the state attorney general and a follow-up report by the Raleigh News and Observer that uncovered widespread corruption, hiding of exculpatory findings, and a pro-prosecution bias among crime lab workers. All of this comes on the heels of a congressionally commissioned 2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences that found expert witnesses in many areas of forensics routinely give testimony that is not backed by good science.
So the good news is that we are starting to see some skepticism, even some outrage, about the way forensic science is used in criminal cases. The bad news is that the solutions politicians and policy makers are proposing, while better than nothing, do not really address the primary problem. That problem is perverse incentives.
To be sure, there are other problems with the forensics system. For starters, many forensic disciplines, such as hair and carpet-fiber analysis, blood spatter analysis, and especially bite mark analysis, have not been subject to rigorous scientific testing. Even fingerprint analysis is not the sure thing it was once thought to be. Many of these fields were either invented by law enforcement agencies or honed and refined by them. The fields have not been subjected to peer review, and the methods by which, for example, a carpet-fiber or ballistics analyst produces a "match" are not blind. On the contrary, the analyst often knows the details of the crime and which sample implicates the suspect. When done this way, these analyses are not science, but they are often presented in court as if they were.
After countless scandals in recent years, the problems with America's forensics system are finally getting some national attention. In December, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced a bill to reform the country's crime labs. In January, ProPublica and Frontline teamed up for a year-long investigation into the ways criminal autopsies are conducted across the country. In North Carolina, the state legislature is considering reforms to that state's crime lab, which was rocked by a damning 2010 investigation commissioned by the state attorney general and a follow-up report by the Raleigh News and Observer that uncovered widespread corruption, hiding of exculpatory findings, and a pro-prosecution bias among crime lab workers. All of this comes on the heels of a congressionally commissioned 2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences that found expert witnesses in many areas of forensics routinely give testimony that is not backed by good science.
So the good news is that we are starting to see some skepticism, even some outrage, about the way forensic science is used in criminal cases. The bad news is that the solutions politicians and policy makers are proposing, while better than nothing, do not really address the primary problem. That problem is perverse incentives.
To be sure, there are other problems with the forensics system. For starters, many forensic disciplines, such as hair and carpet-fiber analysis, blood spatter analysis, and especially bite mark analysis, have not been subject to rigorous scientific testing. Even fingerprint analysis is not the sure thing it was once thought to be. Many of these fields were either invented by law enforcement agencies or honed and refined by them. The fields have not been subjected to peer review, and the methods by which, for example, a carpet-fiber or ballistics analyst produces a "match" are not blind. On the contrary, the analyst often knows the details of the crime and which sample implicates the suspect. When done this way, these analyses are not science, but they are often presented in court as if they were.
Early Poll Results on Republican Governors
Not good, Walker and Kasich are polling in the 30s, but there's little chance that defanging unions will be undone, which probably pays off dividends down the line.
Some History: When Attitudes Shifted About Slavery
In honor of the ongoing 150th anniversary of the Civil War, the NYT is providing a daily blow by blow of what happened. Yesterday's contains an interesting observation from one on Thomas Jefferson's grandsons:
Randolph considered these non-choices. He trembled over Virginia’s fate if the convention chose the new federal Union. He scoffed at the fantasy, held by many of the state’s Unionists, that Southerners would bring the “Northern people … right after a while” on slavery’s blessings. “Sir, they are much more likely to make us wrong than we are to bring them right. Their anti-slavery is as old as slavery itself. … It has all the signs of a great mental movement. The opposite sentiment with us … is comparatively a thing of yesterday — it has not been inculcated in early life. … It has hardly had time to be understood and appreciated. … To dash it now against the iron-bound fanaticism of the North would be the height of folly.”
His point, clearly, was that the north was winning the battle for public opinion. Once that is lost, little else matters.
Randolph considered these non-choices. He trembled over Virginia’s fate if the convention chose the new federal Union. He scoffed at the fantasy, held by many of the state’s Unionists, that Southerners would bring the “Northern people … right after a while” on slavery’s blessings. “Sir, they are much more likely to make us wrong than we are to bring them right. Their anti-slavery is as old as slavery itself. … It has all the signs of a great mental movement. The opposite sentiment with us … is comparatively a thing of yesterday — it has not been inculcated in early life. … It has hardly had time to be understood and appreciated. … To dash it now against the iron-bound fanaticism of the North would be the height of folly.”
His point, clearly, was that the north was winning the battle for public opinion. Once that is lost, little else matters.
Were the Founders Really in Favor of Limited Government? Is So Why?
Big Tent Revue points to an old article in Dissent which challanges this idea, or at least points out the the country's founders were far more complex politicaly than we give them credit for. They did all seem to believe that disparities in wealth were a big problem and limiting the size of the national government was a way for the wealthy to ensure that any compeition from below was stiffled. The purpose of limiting government was to enhance equality. Things have changed since then.
From Bid Tent Review:
A fascinating and revealing article from an old Dissent about the redistributive dimensions of early Jeffersonian thought. The founding fathers are often portrayed, particularly by rightists, as devoutly laissez-faire. In reality, they seemed to divide up between conservative Hamiltonian corporatists and radical Jeffersonian egalitarians, the former urging government collusion with commercialists and the latter urging some form of leveling to the advantage of small holders and craftsmen. From the start, the only place where laissez-faire prevailed was at the federal level; states and localities had broad powers to police morals and markets. And even at the federal level, “hands off” inherently meant favoring some against others.
“Wealth, like suffrage,” Taylor wrote in his Inquiry Into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States, “must be considerably distributed, to sustain a democratick republic; and hence, whatever draws a considerable proportion of either into a few hands, will destroy it. As power follows wealth, the majority must have wealth or lose power.”
From Dissent:
If the welfare state means progressive taxation, social spending to strengthen the middle class and elevate the poor, and the regulation of corporate power, it does not offend Jeffersonian principles. What offends Jeffersonian principles is a government that “fortifies the conspiracies” of the rich and powerful (as Philadelphia republican George Logan put it in 1792), leaving ordinary people without protection from their strategies and combinations and their public disregard. By that standard, we have reached a new low point of Jeffersonian liberty. In Jefferson’s name, the government has promoted inequality, not restrained it. It has punished poor communities, weakened the middle class, and created a new ruling class that makes our old Loyalist enemies seem moderate and unjustly maligned. The people responsible for this certainly do have a philosophy of limited government. But their limited government is the Gilded Age version, a doctrine of elite self-defense. It is not the early American version, where the beginning of freedom is equality of productive resources, and limiting government is necessary to prevent that equality from being destroyed by wealthy elites.
In 2301, as we begin to discuss public opinion, we need to determine why our attitudes about history changes from time to time. The Diissent article makes a provocative claim the supporters of limits government have distorted what the founders actually thought about the role of government and the need for more equal distribution of wealth.
From Bid Tent Review:
A fascinating and revealing article from an old Dissent about the redistributive dimensions of early Jeffersonian thought. The founding fathers are often portrayed, particularly by rightists, as devoutly laissez-faire. In reality, they seemed to divide up between conservative Hamiltonian corporatists and radical Jeffersonian egalitarians, the former urging government collusion with commercialists and the latter urging some form of leveling to the advantage of small holders and craftsmen. From the start, the only place where laissez-faire prevailed was at the federal level; states and localities had broad powers to police morals and markets. And even at the federal level, “hands off” inherently meant favoring some against others.
“Wealth, like suffrage,” Taylor wrote in his Inquiry Into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States, “must be considerably distributed, to sustain a democratick republic; and hence, whatever draws a considerable proportion of either into a few hands, will destroy it. As power follows wealth, the majority must have wealth or lose power.”
From Dissent:
If the welfare state means progressive taxation, social spending to strengthen the middle class and elevate the poor, and the regulation of corporate power, it does not offend Jeffersonian principles. What offends Jeffersonian principles is a government that “fortifies the conspiracies” of the rich and powerful (as Philadelphia republican George Logan put it in 1792), leaving ordinary people without protection from their strategies and combinations and their public disregard. By that standard, we have reached a new low point of Jeffersonian liberty. In Jefferson’s name, the government has promoted inequality, not restrained it. It has punished poor communities, weakened the middle class, and created a new ruling class that makes our old Loyalist enemies seem moderate and unjustly maligned. The people responsible for this certainly do have a philosophy of limited government. But their limited government is the Gilded Age version, a doctrine of elite self-defense. It is not the early American version, where the beginning of freedom is equality of productive resources, and limiting government is necessary to prevent that equality from being destroyed by wealthy elites.
In 2301, as we begin to discuss public opinion, we need to determine why our attitudes about history changes from time to time. The Diissent article makes a provocative claim the supporters of limits government have distorted what the founders actually thought about the role of government and the need for more equal distribution of wealth.
More Shifts in Attutudes about the Role of Government
Here's an interesting graphic from the Charlie Cook piece linked to below. After saying that they want government to do less the past two years, people are more likely to say that they want it to do more, which is what they were telling pollsters before the 2008 elections. What drives this shift?
One theory is that the public, and especially independents who are unattached to either political party, shifts its opinions based on recent events. Prior to 2008, the general perception was that government was not doing enough to reign in careless business practices that imposed harm on the public and they responded not only by telling pollsters they wanted to see more done by government, but voted - in 2006 and 2008 - for the party that would deliver.
After 2008 when the party they voted for did just that, they had second thoughts, decided government was doing too much, and voted Republican to reign government in. No surprise then that once Republicans announce that they intend to scale back government that people have second thoughts.
This is hardly the first time this has occurred and wont be the last.
One theory is that the public, and especially independents who are unattached to either political party, shifts its opinions based on recent events. Prior to 2008, the general perception was that government was not doing enough to reign in careless business practices that imposed harm on the public and they responded not only by telling pollsters they wanted to see more done by government, but voted - in 2006 and 2008 - for the party that would deliver.
After 2008 when the party they voted for did just that, they had second thoughts, decided government was doing too much, and voted Republican to reign government in. No surprise then that once Republicans announce that they intend to scale back government that people have second thoughts.
This is hardly the first time this has occurred and wont be the last.
How will Independents Vote in 2012?
Tough to know at this point of course, but students of elections are making preliminary analyses and seem to think the size of the independent vote will be small in 2012. Recent polls have suggested that the independents that voted Democrat in 2008 and Republican in 2010 maye be shifting back again.
Chris Cillizza:
In American electoral politics, independent voters are the holy grail.
Thousands of hours are spent by political strategists and reporters (read: nerds) pouring over what makes them tick and how best to court them. (Both the Post’s Dan Balz and Fix mentor Charlie Cook have terrific recent pieces on what independents really want.)
The intensity over independents has ratcheted up in recent elections, as they have shown a propensity for wild swings — favoring Democrats by 18 points in the 2006 midterms only to support Republicans by a 19-point margin in 2010.
But, a look at exit polling data going all the way back to 1992 suggests that 2012 is far less likely to exhibit such a wide margin among independent voters as 2010 and 2006 did.
Dan Balz:
The president’s team long has believed that the greatest single cause of the Democrats’ poor showing last November was unhappiness with the economy, particularly among many independent voters, with concerns about federal spending a secondary factor. The president can’t afford to be seen as indifferent to something as sensitive as gasoline prices.
His position on the budget — urging bickering Democrats and Republicans to come to their senses — also reflects the knowledge that many independent voters dislike the political polarization and partisan bickering in Washington. Since the November elections, Obama has called more consistently for cooperation across party lines, and he showed during the lame-duck session his willingness to make deals with Republicans.
Charlie Cook:
One of my favorite questions tests public attitudes toward government’s role. The version that Hart and McInturff use gives respondents a choice between “Government should do more to solve problems and meet the needs of people” or “Government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals.” The order is alternated to prevent bias.
Back in 2007 and mid-2008, the government-should-do-more camp was a slight majority, in the 52-55 percent range; the government-doing-too-much position was in the 38-42 percent range. Starting a month after Lehmann Brothers collapsed in September 2008 and when credit markets seized up, the results tightened up. The more skeptical view of government pulled ahead in the September 2009 poll, 49 percent to 45 percent. In the national exit poll taken by various news organizations on Election Day 2010, the government-should-do-more response dropped to 38 percent, and the more antigovernment attitude soared to 56 percent.
The government-should-do-more camp is once again a majority.However, in the latest NBC/WSJ poll of 1,000 adults (including 200 by cellphone; overall margin of error plus or minus 3.1 points), conducted from February 24-28, 51 percent of respondents said the government-should do more and 46 percent said the government was doing too much. One could conclude that the antigovernment bandwagon certainly isn’t picking up speed.
More important—and I have to give NBC Political Director Chuck Todd credit for pointing this out to me—independents shifted significantly. In the February survey, 47 percent of independents said the government was doing too much, compared with 60 percent who said so last October. Independents who said the government should do more jumped 13 points, from 38 percent to 51 percent.
Chris Cillizza:
In American electoral politics, independent voters are the holy grail.
Thousands of hours are spent by political strategists and reporters (read: nerds) pouring over what makes them tick and how best to court them. (Both the Post’s Dan Balz and Fix mentor Charlie Cook have terrific recent pieces on what independents really want.)
The intensity over independents has ratcheted up in recent elections, as they have shown a propensity for wild swings — favoring Democrats by 18 points in the 2006 midterms only to support Republicans by a 19-point margin in 2010.
But, a look at exit polling data going all the way back to 1992 suggests that 2012 is far less likely to exhibit such a wide margin among independent voters as 2010 and 2006 did.
Dan Balz:
The president’s team long has believed that the greatest single cause of the Democrats’ poor showing last November was unhappiness with the economy, particularly among many independent voters, with concerns about federal spending a secondary factor. The president can’t afford to be seen as indifferent to something as sensitive as gasoline prices.
His position on the budget — urging bickering Democrats and Republicans to come to their senses — also reflects the knowledge that many independent voters dislike the political polarization and partisan bickering in Washington. Since the November elections, Obama has called more consistently for cooperation across party lines, and he showed during the lame-duck session his willingness to make deals with Republicans.
Charlie Cook:
One of my favorite questions tests public attitudes toward government’s role. The version that Hart and McInturff use gives respondents a choice between “Government should do more to solve problems and meet the needs of people” or “Government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals.” The order is alternated to prevent bias.
Back in 2007 and mid-2008, the government-should-do-more camp was a slight majority, in the 52-55 percent range; the government-doing-too-much position was in the 38-42 percent range. Starting a month after Lehmann Brothers collapsed in September 2008 and when credit markets seized up, the results tightened up. The more skeptical view of government pulled ahead in the September 2009 poll, 49 percent to 45 percent. In the national exit poll taken by various news organizations on Election Day 2010, the government-should-do-more response dropped to 38 percent, and the more antigovernment attitude soared to 56 percent.
The government-should-do-more camp is once again a majority.However, in the latest NBC/WSJ poll of 1,000 adults (including 200 by cellphone; overall margin of error plus or minus 3.1 points), conducted from February 24-28, 51 percent of respondents said the government-should do more and 46 percent said the government was doing too much. One could conclude that the antigovernment bandwagon certainly isn’t picking up speed.
More important—and I have to give NBC Political Director Chuck Todd credit for pointing this out to me—independents shifted significantly. In the February survey, 47 percent of independents said the government was doing too much, compared with 60 percent who said so last October. Independents who said the government should do more jumped 13 points, from 38 percent to 51 percent.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Recall Election Process Underway in Wisconsin
And it will be costly. Local governments have not budgetted for this thing. But it an irony considering that teh goal was to reduce spending:
Colleen Kottke:
With the ink still drying on a divisive collective bargaining law in Wisconsin, cash-strapped municipalities already facing cuts in state aid are bracing for the prospect of another fiscal thumping: recall elections.
"I only budgeted for two elections this year," said Fond du Lac County Clerk Lisa Freiberg. "I didn't budget for a recall election."
If successful, a flurry of petition drives targeting all 16 state senators eligible for recall — eight Democrats and eight Republicans — could leave municipalities scrambling to cover the unexpected expense.
Freiberg said a combination of staff salaries, computer equipment costs and printing expenses could cost Fond du Lac County more than $10,000 if Sen. Randy Hopper, R-Fond du Lac, who represents the 18th District, is called to face voters in a special election. That's roughly 30 percent of the city's election budget.
"We have to find a way to make things balance. Whether we have the money or not, we still have to run an election," Freiberg said. "If the petition is certified, I am anticipating a high voter turnout."
Colleen Kottke:
With the ink still drying on a divisive collective bargaining law in Wisconsin, cash-strapped municipalities already facing cuts in state aid are bracing for the prospect of another fiscal thumping: recall elections.
"I only budgeted for two elections this year," said Fond du Lac County Clerk Lisa Freiberg. "I didn't budget for a recall election."
If successful, a flurry of petition drives targeting all 16 state senators eligible for recall — eight Democrats and eight Republicans — could leave municipalities scrambling to cover the unexpected expense.
Freiberg said a combination of staff salaries, computer equipment costs and printing expenses could cost Fond du Lac County more than $10,000 if Sen. Randy Hopper, R-Fond du Lac, who represents the 18th District, is called to face voters in a special election. That's roughly 30 percent of the city's election budget.
"We have to find a way to make things balance. Whether we have the money or not, we still have to run an election," Freiberg said. "If the petition is certified, I am anticipating a high voter turnout."
Monday, March 14, 2011
More Tort Reform on the Way: Loser Pays
In 2302, once we wrap up the executive branch we head into the judiciary. One of the more consistently controversial topics over the past several years has been tort reform, which can be defined as one many efforts to change the manner in which accusations of damage (torts) are addressed in the civil courts.
A few years back, caps were placed on the amount of damages which could be awarded by a jury in medical malpractice cases.Currently, the tort reform is focusing on "loser pays," the idea that losers in civil cases should pay the court costs of the winners. Advocates argue -- again -- that this would discourage frivolous suits from being filed. Opponents argue that this would scare off most any lawsuits, even those that are worthwhile, since there is never a guarantee that one is likely to prevail in a court case.
Houston attorney Paul Simon thinks this is an effort to further strip away legal rights.
links:
- American Tort Reform Association.
- Texans for Lawsuit Reform.
- Perryman Group analysis of malpractice reform.
- Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs.
- "Loser Pays" a Winner in the Texas Legislature?
- Point of Law: Loser Pays.
A few years back, caps were placed on the amount of damages which could be awarded by a jury in medical malpractice cases.Currently, the tort reform is focusing on "loser pays," the idea that losers in civil cases should pay the court costs of the winners. Advocates argue -- again -- that this would discourage frivolous suits from being filed. Opponents argue that this would scare off most any lawsuits, even those that are worthwhile, since there is never a guarantee that one is likely to prevail in a court case.
Houston attorney Paul Simon thinks this is an effort to further strip away legal rights.
links:
- American Tort Reform Association.
- Texans for Lawsuit Reform.
- Perryman Group analysis of malpractice reform.
- Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs.
- "Loser Pays" a Winner in the Texas Legislature?
- Point of Law: Loser Pays.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Is the Imperial President Inevitable?
The renewed expansion of presidential power has obviously driven the publication of several books, here's the latest. Interestingly the author reviewed some of the books we covered below.
The book's reviewer wonders, as we have mentioned in class, whether the executive branch would inevitably become the dominant branch.
The book's reviewer wonders, as we have mentioned in class, whether the executive branch would inevitably become the dominant branch.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
House Panel Votes to Strip E.P.A. of Power to Regulate Greenhouse Gases
From the NYT, more checking and balancing, and a general attempt to limit the power of the EPA.
A House subcommittee voted on Thursday to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its power to regulate greenhouse gases, chipping away at a central pillar of the Obama administration’s evolving climate and energy strategy.
The sharply partisan vote was preordained by the Republican takeover of the House. Republicans and their industry allies accuse the administration of levying taxes on traditional energy sources through costly environmental regulations, threatening the economic recovery and driving jobs overseas.
Many Republicans also argue that global warming is an unproven theory and that no action is needed to combat it, and they are backed by lobbies representing manufacturers; small businesses; agriculture; and the chemical, coal and oil industries; all of which have a big financial stake in hamstringing the E.P.A.
A parallel bill has been introduced in the Senate, although passage remains uncertain. President Obama has vowed to veto such legislation, which would undercut his administration’s policy of encouraging clean energy innovation with billions of dollars in support and rules that make it more costly for industry to keep spewing carbon dioxide.
A House subcommittee voted on Thursday to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its power to regulate greenhouse gases, chipping away at a central pillar of the Obama administration’s evolving climate and energy strategy.
The sharply partisan vote was preordained by the Republican takeover of the House. Republicans and their industry allies accuse the administration of levying taxes on traditional energy sources through costly environmental regulations, threatening the economic recovery and driving jobs overseas.
Many Republicans also argue that global warming is an unproven theory and that no action is needed to combat it, and they are backed by lobbies representing manufacturers; small businesses; agriculture; and the chemical, coal and oil industries; all of which have a big financial stake in hamstringing the E.P.A.
A parallel bill has been introduced in the Senate, although passage remains uncertain. President Obama has vowed to veto such legislation, which would undercut his administration’s policy of encouraging clean energy innovation with billions of dollars in support and rules that make it more costly for industry to keep spewing carbon dioxide.
Obamas Focus on Antibullying Efforts
From the NYT, an illustration of the president's unofficial power to use conferences and other mechanisms to spotlight attention to certain issues:
President Obama poked fun at his own big ears and funny name on Thursday, but all in the service of a serious subject as he and Michelle Obama opened a White House conference to spur antibullying efforts in schools and communities nationwide.
“If there’s one goal of this conference, it’s to dispel the myth that bullying is just a harmless rite of passage or an inevitable part of growing up,” Mr. Obama told about 150 students, parents, teachers and advocates of prevention measures gathered in the East Room.
. . . The conference was an outgrowth of an effort among six cabinet agencies that began last August with a session at the Education Department to promote cooperation between government and nongovernment players, including the National PTA and MTV.
To disseminate information from the government, the president announced a new Web site, StopBullying.gov. In October, the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights sent educators a letter explaining their legal duties to protect students from bullying based on race, ethnicity, disability or sexuality. In December, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who heads the administration’s efforts, sent guidance to state officials on resources and best practices.
President Obama poked fun at his own big ears and funny name on Thursday, but all in the service of a serious subject as he and Michelle Obama opened a White House conference to spur antibullying efforts in schools and communities nationwide.
“If there’s one goal of this conference, it’s to dispel the myth that bullying is just a harmless rite of passage or an inevitable part of growing up,” Mr. Obama told about 150 students, parents, teachers and advocates of prevention measures gathered in the East Room.
. . . The conference was an outgrowth of an effort among six cabinet agencies that began last August with a session at the Education Department to promote cooperation between government and nongovernment players, including the National PTA and MTV.
To disseminate information from the government, the president announced a new Web site, StopBullying.gov. In October, the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights sent educators a letter explaining their legal duties to protect students from bullying based on race, ethnicity, disability or sexuality. In December, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who heads the administration’s efforts, sent guidance to state officials on resources and best practices.
Obama's Executive Orders
More for our upcoming 2302 discussion of executive power. A few links to information about President Obama's executive orders:
- National Archives: Lists for each year.
- National Archives: List by subject matter.
- White House Site: List of executive orders.
- National Archives: Lists for each year.
- National Archives: List by subject matter.
- White House Site: List of executive orders.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Who Runs the Republican Party Right Now?
For my 2301s as we start to discuss elections and parties. This author argues that the Republican Party is currently being defined by "state activists and governors, " not by potential presidential candidates. This may not serve the party well in 2012. It does introduce a major point we will hit when we discuss the decentralized nature of political parties in the United States. At any one point in time it can be tough to determine who or what is in charge, what the party truly stands for, and who made that decision.
From Along for the Ride:
With the 2012 class coalescing so slowly, the initiative has flowed elsewhere. On Capitol Hill and in the states, Republican legislators and governors empowered by the party’s historic gains in 2010 are advancing aggressive agendas with major 2012 implications. Rather than influencing those ideas, the potential GOP presidential candidates are mostly racing after them.
The best example is in Wisconsin, where newly elected Gov. Scott Walker is seeking to revoke most collective-bargaining rights for public employees. Every major Republican presidential hopeful has endorsed Walker’s initiative—which has galvanized conservatives but ignited volcanic resistance from organized labor. The eventual Republican nominee may still consider that issue a winner in 2012. But regardless, he (or she) has already locked onto a position that will allow union leaders to present a GOP White House victory as a threat to the very existence of organized labor. That could electrify rank-and-file mobilization.
Something similar has already happened with Hispanics. Most of the major 2012 candidates have embraced Arizona’s tough anti-immigration law (except for Huckabee and Romney, who hedged). Again, the eventual nominee might consider that to be a winning issue next year. But if Republicans choose an Arizona-style hard-liner, Democrats will undoubtedly find it easier to portray the GOP ticket as hostile to a burgeoning Hispanic population.
From Along for the Ride:
With the 2012 class coalescing so slowly, the initiative has flowed elsewhere. On Capitol Hill and in the states, Republican legislators and governors empowered by the party’s historic gains in 2010 are advancing aggressive agendas with major 2012 implications. Rather than influencing those ideas, the potential GOP presidential candidates are mostly racing after them.
The best example is in Wisconsin, where newly elected Gov. Scott Walker is seeking to revoke most collective-bargaining rights for public employees. Every major Republican presidential hopeful has endorsed Walker’s initiative—which has galvanized conservatives but ignited volcanic resistance from organized labor. The eventual Republican nominee may still consider that issue a winner in 2012. But regardless, he (or she) has already locked onto a position that will allow union leaders to present a GOP White House victory as a threat to the very existence of organized labor. That could electrify rank-and-file mobilization.
Something similar has already happened with Hispanics. Most of the major 2012 candidates have embraced Arizona’s tough anti-immigration law (except for Huckabee and Romney, who hedged). Again, the eventual nominee might consider that to be a winning issue next year. But if Republicans choose an Arizona-style hard-liner, Democrats will undoubtedly find it easier to portray the GOP ticket as hostile to a burgeoning Hispanic population.
Ranking the Presidents
It's fun, it's controversial, and it makes you sound smart. We will dip into this in 2302 after the break. Crisis management seem to be the factor driving high approval ratings, which explains why Lincoln is almost always at the top of the list, along with George Washington and FDR.
- Wkipedia: Historical ratings of Presidents.
- C-Span: 2009 Survey of Presidential Leadership.
- LATimes comment on C-Span survey.
- HNN: Analysis of C-Span Survey.
- Wkipedia: Historical ratings of Presidents.
- C-Span: 2009 Survey of Presidential Leadership.
- LATimes comment on C-Span survey.
- HNN: Analysis of C-Span Survey.
Presidential Character
For my 2302 16 week classes: while you're on your break I'm putting together the lecture for when we get back. It'll touch on the "personal" nature of the presidency, and to the degree I can the Texas governor and local mayors etc..., as well as recent issues involving executive power and the activities of recent executive agencies.
Here are a few links to stories focused on presidential character, specifically James David Barber's work where he attempts to determine the basic character traits of the different people who have served as president. Given the degree to which the executive branch's power are granted to an individual, clearly the disposition of these individuals matters. The office, as we know, can ill afford to be held by someone inclined to use its powers for personal gain.
A few items for your perusal:
- Barber: The Presidential Character.
- One man's typology.
- Kinder: Presidential Character Revisited.
- A random lecture outline.
- Lecture slides on Barber.
Here are a few links to stories focused on presidential character, specifically James David Barber's work where he attempts to determine the basic character traits of the different people who have served as president. Given the degree to which the executive branch's power are granted to an individual, clearly the disposition of these individuals matters. The office, as we know, can ill afford to be held by someone inclined to use its powers for personal gain.
A few items for your perusal:
- Barber: The Presidential Character.
- One man's typology.
- Kinder: Presidential Character Revisited.
- A random lecture outline.
- Lecture slides on Barber.
The Texas Open Beaches Act and the Economic Recovery of Galveston
Recently the Texas Supreme Court weakened the Texas Open Beaches Act by making it more difficult for the state to acquire the land necessary to allow the public access to Texas beaches. This has caused the Texas Land Office to decide against replenishing Galveston beaches - especially on the west end - which may hamper the city's economy.
In response to requests, the Supreme Court has agreed to rehear the case.
- Branna v. State of Texas.
- Texas Land Office: Coastal Issues.
- AAS story.
In response to requests, the Supreme Court has agreed to rehear the case.
- Branna v. State of Texas.
- Texas Land Office: Coastal Issues.
- AAS story.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Will the Attack on Collective Bargaining Make Democrats More Enthusiastic than Republicans in the 2012 Election?
We've been asking this in class recently, Nate Silver comments and give some evidence that it might.
Will Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act be Declared Unconstitutional?
Linda Greenhouse, again, thinks its a possibility. She also thinks Article VII of the Civil Rights Act is vulnerable.
Scalia's Irrelevance?
Linda Greenhouse has an interesting take on Justice Scalia's notoriously snooty dissenting opinions. They are a sign of a general lack of impact on the court:
So the question raised by Justice Scalia’s most recent intemperate display remains: what does this smart, rhetorically gifted man think his bullying accomplishes?
It’s a puzzle. But having raised the question, I will venture an answer. Antonin Scalia, approaching his 25th anniversary as a Supreme Court justice, has cast a long shadow but has accomplished surprisingly little. Nearly every time he has come close to achieving one of his jurisprudential goals, his colleagues have either hung back at the last minute or, feeling buyer’s remorse, retreated at the next opportunity.
So the question raised by Justice Scalia’s most recent intemperate display remains: what does this smart, rhetorically gifted man think his bullying accomplishes?
It’s a puzzle. But having raised the question, I will venture an answer. Antonin Scalia, approaching his 25th anniversary as a Supreme Court justice, has cast a long shadow but has accomplished surprisingly little. Nearly every time he has come close to achieving one of his jurisprudential goals, his colleagues have either hung back at the last minute or, feeling buyer’s remorse, retreated at the next opportunity.
Disenfranchising Democrats
A few posts argue that Republican controlled legislatures are making it more difficult for groups that tend to vote Democrat to vote.
- The GOP's war on voting.
- Disenfranchising Democrats.
- Voter Disenfranchisement.
The three dominant techniques seem to be Voter ID laws, limiting the right of ex-felons to vote, and disenfranchising college students.
- The GOP's war on voting.
- Disenfranchising Democrats.
- Voter Disenfranchisement.
The three dominant techniques seem to be Voter ID laws, limiting the right of ex-felons to vote, and disenfranchising college students.
Congressional Hearing: “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and That Community’s Response”
That's the full title of the hearing being held to day in the House Committee on Homeland Security.
While critics argue it plays on fears of Muslims, the committee's chairman, Peter King, argues that "Congressional investigation of Muslim American radicalization is the logical response to the repeated and urgent warnings which the Obama administration has been making in recent months.”
- NYT story here.
While critics argue it plays on fears of Muslims, the committee's chairman, Peter King, argues that "Congressional investigation of Muslim American radicalization is the logical response to the repeated and urgent warnings which the Obama administration has been making in recent months.”
- NYT story here.
Raising Revenue, but not Taxes
Its a neat trick, and one the Texas Leg is attempting. From the Chron:
Lawmakers struggling to soften deep cuts that would be required in the face of a massive budget shortfall and no-new-taxes sentiment are looking at options such as deferring billions in state payments, speeding up tax collections, taking ownership of unclaimed property quicker and offering amnesty on penalties to laggard taxpayers.
"Right now, there is a tremendous amount of effort being invested in identifying new revenues that avoid being called a tax bill," said Dale Craymer of the business-based Texas Taxpayers and Research Association.
"Politically, a lot of members have pledged not to raise taxes," he said. "Obviously, members are seeing the impact of the budget proposal, and there's a desire to try and raise new revenue to protect the budget without violating the no-new-taxes pledge."
Lawmakers struggling to soften deep cuts that would be required in the face of a massive budget shortfall and no-new-taxes sentiment are looking at options such as deferring billions in state payments, speeding up tax collections, taking ownership of unclaimed property quicker and offering amnesty on penalties to laggard taxpayers.
"Right now, there is a tremendous amount of effort being invested in identifying new revenues that avoid being called a tax bill," said Dale Craymer of the business-based Texas Taxpayers and Research Association.
"Politically, a lot of members have pledged not to raise taxes," he said. "Obviously, members are seeing the impact of the budget proposal, and there's a desire to try and raise new revenue to protect the budget without violating the no-new-taxes pledge."
Houston City Council to Add Two New Seats
This has been a somewhat dramatic story, but Houston's City Council finally decided to add two new council seats in order to handle the city's growing population:
The Houston City Council will get two new seats this year, the most fundamental change to the top tier of municipal government since term limits were imposed two decades ago.
The council voted Wednesday to add a 16th and 17th seat, with members chosen by voters in the yet-to-be-drawn districts in November.
The council agreed when census numbers were released last month that the city's shifting population necessitated a redrawing of the map of council districts. But members had been split on whether to expand.
The city charter calls for the council to add two seats when Houston's population reaches 2.1 million. A 1979 referendum put that provision into the charter to codify an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice aimed at giving minority groups a stronger voice at the ballot box.
The 2010 Census count came up 549 people short. A city consultant concluded that the census had missed a spot — actually several spots - and Mayor Annise Parker reported that the count should have been 2,100,017.
Expansion opponents seized on the census number as proof that two new seats were not needed. Underlying the public discussion of whether Houston had hit the mark were elements of party affiliation, council-versus-mayor politics, budgetary considerations and defense of existing districts' turf.
The Houston City Council will get two new seats this year, the most fundamental change to the top tier of municipal government since term limits were imposed two decades ago.
The council voted Wednesday to add a 16th and 17th seat, with members chosen by voters in the yet-to-be-drawn districts in November.
The council agreed when census numbers were released last month that the city's shifting population necessitated a redrawing of the map of council districts. But members had been split on whether to expand.
The city charter calls for the council to add two seats when Houston's population reaches 2.1 million. A 1979 referendum put that provision into the charter to codify an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice aimed at giving minority groups a stronger voice at the ballot box.
The 2010 Census count came up 549 people short. A city consultant concluded that the census had missed a spot — actually several spots - and Mayor Annise Parker reported that the count should have been 2,100,017.
Expansion opponents seized on the census number as proof that two new seats were not needed. Underlying the public discussion of whether Houston had hit the mark were elements of party affiliation, council-versus-mayor politics, budgetary considerations and defense of existing districts' turf.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
How Cities Stir Revolution
Richard Florida argues that cities are, and have always been, incubators for revolution. What has recently been brewed in Cairo was once brewed in London and Boston:
Cities push us ever closer, enabling the rapid spread of new ideas. This accelerates the flow of new technology, increases the rate of new business formation, and makes for vibrant artistic and cultural scenes. And those very same mechanisms that unleash our innovative and artistic energies also make cities veritable cauldrons, in which political energy and activism are pressurized and brought to a boil.
Consider the Boston Massacre of 1770, the Paris Commune of 1871, the October Revolution of 1917 in St. Petersburg, the Chicago Convention in 1968, the Tiananmen Square uprising of 1989, Cairo's Tahrir Square last month, and many more--all of them were events of global consequence, but they were each the product of individual cities. "These uprisings aren't just accidentally urban," noted economist Edward Glaeser. "They would be unthinkable at low densities. Cities connect agitators, like Sam Adams and John Hancock. Riots require a certain kind of urban congestion; police power must be overwhelmed by a sea of humanity."
Cities push us ever closer, enabling the rapid spread of new ideas. This accelerates the flow of new technology, increases the rate of new business formation, and makes for vibrant artistic and cultural scenes. And those very same mechanisms that unleash our innovative and artistic energies also make cities veritable cauldrons, in which political energy and activism are pressurized and brought to a boil.
Consider the Boston Massacre of 1770, the Paris Commune of 1871, the October Revolution of 1917 in St. Petersburg, the Chicago Convention in 1968, the Tiananmen Square uprising of 1989, Cairo's Tahrir Square last month, and many more--all of them were events of global consequence, but they were each the product of individual cities. "These uprisings aren't just accidentally urban," noted economist Edward Glaeser. "They would be unthinkable at low densities. Cities connect agitators, like Sam Adams and John Hancock. Riots require a certain kind of urban congestion; police power must be overwhelmed by a sea of humanity."
Is the U.S. Becoming a Welfare State?
Daniel Indiviglio suggests that increasingly we are:
Uncle Sam has been aggressively increasing Americans' allowance recently. Government entitlement programs have grown to account for 35% of wages, according to a new analysis by Madeline Schnapp, director of macroeconomic research at investment research firm TrimTabs. The magnitude of government assistance has increased in large part due to high unemployment. But she argues that even when unemployment declines, we aren't like to see this percentage drop much.
He argues that this is likely to increase given the aging of the 78 million baby boomers.
Uncle Sam has been aggressively increasing Americans' allowance recently. Government entitlement programs have grown to account for 35% of wages, according to a new analysis by Madeline Schnapp, director of macroeconomic research at investment research firm TrimTabs. The magnitude of government assistance has increased in large part due to high unemployment. But she argues that even when unemployment declines, we aren't like to see this percentage drop much.
He argues that this is likely to increase given the aging of the 78 million baby boomers.
Swanson on Presidential Power
Thanks to the intrepid student who pointed this article out to me. It's one man's take on the factors driving the expansion of presidential power. This argument should be familiar to my 2302's. Here's the intro:
Presidential power has been on a pathway of expansion beyond what the Constitution outlined, and what a government of, by, and for the people requires, since George Washington was president. That expansion, which hit the highway after World War II, got a turbo boost during the co-presidency of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Some of the new powers that those two stole from Congress, the courts, the states, and us the people are being abused less severely in this new age of Obama; others, more so; but far more crucially, in a pattern followed by recent presidencies, all are being maintained, if not expanded, and thus more firmly cemented into place for future presidents to use. Wherever you fall on the political spectrum, you are likely to strongly oppose some major decisions of some future presidents.
Presidential power has been on a pathway of expansion beyond what the Constitution outlined, and what a government of, by, and for the people requires, since George Washington was president. That expansion, which hit the highway after World War II, got a turbo boost during the co-presidency of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Some of the new powers that those two stole from Congress, the courts, the states, and us the people are being abused less severely in this new age of Obama; others, more so; but far more crucially, in a pattern followed by recent presidencies, all are being maintained, if not expanded, and thus more firmly cemented into place for future presidents to use. Wherever you fall on the political spectrum, you are likely to strongly oppose some major decisions of some future presidents.
The Last U.S. WWI Veteran Dies
Story in the NYT:
He didn't seek the spotlight, but when Frank Buckles outlived every other American who'd served in World War I, he became what his biographer called "the humble patriot" and final torchbearer for the memory of that fading conflict.
Buckles enlisted in World War I at 16 after lying about his age. He died Sunday on his farm in Charles Town, nearly a month after his 110th birthday. He had devoted the last years of his life to campaigning for greater recognition for his former comrades, prodding politicians to support a national memorial in Washington and working with friend and family spokesman David DeJonge on a biography.
This may not seem like a big deal, but it is. In 2301, when we begin discussing public opinion, we will discuss the concept of a poltiical generation and the idea that certain ideas that drive democratic politics are unique to a particular group of individuals born at the same time - roughly - and are exposed to the same experiences. These ideas can die with that generation once they are all gone.
With Mr. Buckle's death, there is no living memory of WWI in the US any more. Its all textbook info from here on out. The same - of course - happened with the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, and every other turning point in American history.
He didn't seek the spotlight, but when Frank Buckles outlived every other American who'd served in World War I, he became what his biographer called "the humble patriot" and final torchbearer for the memory of that fading conflict.
Buckles enlisted in World War I at 16 after lying about his age. He died Sunday on his farm in Charles Town, nearly a month after his 110th birthday. He had devoted the last years of his life to campaigning for greater recognition for his former comrades, prodding politicians to support a national memorial in Washington and working with friend and family spokesman David DeJonge on a biography.
This may not seem like a big deal, but it is. In 2301, when we begin discussing public opinion, we will discuss the concept of a poltiical generation and the idea that certain ideas that drive democratic politics are unique to a particular group of individuals born at the same time - roughly - and are exposed to the same experiences. These ideas can die with that generation once they are all gone.
With Mr. Buckle's death, there is no living memory of WWI in the US any more. Its all textbook info from here on out. The same - of course - happened with the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, and every other turning point in American history.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Pimco and Primary Dealers
This post is meant to add to my collection about the bond market and their role in the budgeting process
- Wikipedia: Pimco.
- Wikipedia: Primary Dealers.
- Wikipedia: Pimco.
- Wikipedia: Primary Dealers.
The Texas Tea Party, the Budget, The Rainy Day Fund, and the Realities of Governing
The AAS outlines the dilemmas members of the Texas Leg's Tea Part Caucus are facing as they try to figure out what to do about the budget shortfall and the impact it is likely to have on education and health care in the state:
Like many who ran for and won seats in the Texas House last year, state Rep. Dan Huberty courted tea party activists in his district, promising to cut the fat out of the state's budget and hold the line on taxes.
But after two months in Austin, Huberty, a former Humble school board president, has seen that much of the budget fat that lawmakers are looking to cut could have a direct impact on the classrooms in the school district he led.
Huberty is one of 11 freshman Republicans who won seats in the House and then joined the Tea Party Caucus, a group of legislators pledged to control government spending and fight off tax increases. And though they remain opposed to tax hikes, the new lawmakers — like many of their veteran colleagues — have seen in recent weeks the difficulty of closing a budget gap with spending cuts alone.
The state is billions of dollars short of what it needs to continue current programs. To avoid tax increases, House and Senate leaders proposed budgets in January that would slash spending on public education and health care — cuts that would affect classrooms, nursing homes and colleges in just about every lawmaker's hometown.
"I think there were a lot of deer-in-the-headlight looks when the budget was laid out," Huberty said
... Now that they're coming out of the 60-day blackout period at the session's start, in which lawmakers are barred from taking up most legislation, freshman lawmakers are learning the difference between campaigning and governing, said James Henson, head of UT's Texas Politics Project .
Like many who ran for and won seats in the Texas House last year, state Rep. Dan Huberty courted tea party activists in his district, promising to cut the fat out of the state's budget and hold the line on taxes.
But after two months in Austin, Huberty, a former Humble school board president, has seen that much of the budget fat that lawmakers are looking to cut could have a direct impact on the classrooms in the school district he led.
Huberty is one of 11 freshman Republicans who won seats in the House and then joined the Tea Party Caucus, a group of legislators pledged to control government spending and fight off tax increases. And though they remain opposed to tax hikes, the new lawmakers — like many of their veteran colleagues — have seen in recent weeks the difficulty of closing a budget gap with spending cuts alone.
The state is billions of dollars short of what it needs to continue current programs. To avoid tax increases, House and Senate leaders proposed budgets in January that would slash spending on public education and health care — cuts that would affect classrooms, nursing homes and colleges in just about every lawmaker's hometown.
"I think there were a lot of deer-in-the-headlight looks when the budget was laid out," Huberty said
... Now that they're coming out of the 60-day blackout period at the session's start, in which lawmakers are barred from taking up most legislation, freshman lawmakers are learning the difference between campaigning and governing, said James Henson, head of UT's Texas Politics Project .
Monday, March 7, 2011
Ministers' report sees race bias in bond policies
From the Chron, a story that combines civil rights and civil liberties (procedural rights):
More than 15,000 people were collared in Harris County for misdemeanors in the final months of 2010, but 70 percent of white inmates were released on bond before trial, compared to 50 percent or less of Hispanics and African-Americans, a new report critical of detention practices shows.
White criminal defendants also generally had to pay lower bonds for their freedom, according to a report released by the Houston Ministers Against Crime. The group of politically connected pastors claims aggressively locking up those who have been accused - but not yet convicted - for crimes like fighting and trespassing costs taxpayers big bucks and harms poor communities "struggling under the ongoing financial crisis."
I can't find a website for Houston Ministers Against Crime, but they're a local interest group actively involved in policing issues. Here's a 2006 story about their support for a public defender's office.
More than 15,000 people were collared in Harris County for misdemeanors in the final months of 2010, but 70 percent of white inmates were released on bond before trial, compared to 50 percent or less of Hispanics and African-Americans, a new report critical of detention practices shows.
White criminal defendants also generally had to pay lower bonds for their freedom, according to a report released by the Houston Ministers Against Crime. The group of politically connected pastors claims aggressively locking up those who have been accused - but not yet convicted - for crimes like fighting and trespassing costs taxpayers big bucks and harms poor communities "struggling under the ongoing financial crisis."
I can't find a website for Houston Ministers Against Crime, but they're a local interest group actively involved in policing issues. Here's a 2006 story about their support for a public defender's office.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Sheila Jackson-Lee: Boss From Hell
This really isn't news. She's been know to be very difficult to work for since she was first elected, but this story lays it all out. Warning: she cusses.
Labor on the Rise? Tea Party Cooling Off?
From the NYT, a relatively common story. A group out of power feels put upon by a group in power and uses it to mobilize support. Two years ago it was the tea party; now its the unions. The question is whether unions will be able to ride this anger to the polls in 2012.
Organized labor has been on a long decline, but the recent attacks against it in Wisconsin and elsewhere have had a surprising result — they have energized the nation’s unions. Instead of just playing defense to protect benefits and bargaining rights, labor leaders are plotting some offense, with several saying Mr. Walker may have unwittingly nurtured a comeback by unions.
As the Wisconsin showdown has unfolded, several recent national opinion polls have shown strong public backing for unions. And labor leaders say public awareness, especially among younger people, of what unions do has clearly increased.
“The challenge for us is to take this moment and turn it into a movement,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. She acknowledged that she was not sure whether labor could accomplish that, but union leaders are quietly forging strategies to propel labor’s cause beyond the immediate statehouse battles.
By the way, we've discussed the calming effect elections are supposed to have on the angry. Charles Blow makes the same point:
A poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center found that anger at the government among Tea Party supporters fell by 40 percent from September 2010 to this month. Furthermore, anger among Republicans fell by more than half, and anger among whites, the elderly and independents fell by 40 percent or more.
On the other hand, the percentage of Tea Party supporters who said that they trusted the government always or most of the time doubled from last March to this March, and the percentage of Republicans saying so nearly doubled. In fact, the percent of both Republicans and independents saying so is now higher than it has been since January 2007.
Less anger? More trust? What happened? The midterms happened, that’s what.
Elections have a way of cooling passions, especially when voters get what they want.
But this combined with increased anger on the left sets us up for another wave (counter-wave?) election in 2012.
Organized labor has been on a long decline, but the recent attacks against it in Wisconsin and elsewhere have had a surprising result — they have energized the nation’s unions. Instead of just playing defense to protect benefits and bargaining rights, labor leaders are plotting some offense, with several saying Mr. Walker may have unwittingly nurtured a comeback by unions.
As the Wisconsin showdown has unfolded, several recent national opinion polls have shown strong public backing for unions. And labor leaders say public awareness, especially among younger people, of what unions do has clearly increased.
“The challenge for us is to take this moment and turn it into a movement,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. She acknowledged that she was not sure whether labor could accomplish that, but union leaders are quietly forging strategies to propel labor’s cause beyond the immediate statehouse battles.
By the way, we've discussed the calming effect elections are supposed to have on the angry. Charles Blow makes the same point:
A poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center found that anger at the government among Tea Party supporters fell by 40 percent from September 2010 to this month. Furthermore, anger among Republicans fell by more than half, and anger among whites, the elderly and independents fell by 40 percent or more.
On the other hand, the percentage of Tea Party supporters who said that they trusted the government always or most of the time doubled from last March to this March, and the percentage of Republicans saying so nearly doubled. In fact, the percent of both Republicans and independents saying so is now higher than it has been since January 2007.
Less anger? More trust? What happened? The midterms happened, that’s what.
Elections have a way of cooling passions, especially when voters get what they want.
But this combined with increased anger on the left sets us up for another wave (counter-wave?) election in 2012.
Federalism and the Loughner Indictments
Today's NYT has information about additional federal charges against Tucson shooter Jared Loughner. The story touches on controversies regarding which level of government has jurisdiction over which offenses he violated. As we know from 2301s discussion of federalism, nothing he did violates a law that the federal government has a delegated power over. The Constitution does state that the federal government can pass any law within federal lands, but Tucson is not in federal land. What's novel about these indictments is that prosecutors are claiming that Loughner can be prosecuted for killing constituents waiting to see their member of Congress.
Laws have been passed federalizing the murder of federal officials (see here for example) many driven after Kennedy's assassination when it turned out the federal government had no jurisdiction over the crime (murder - falls under the reserved powers).
From the Story:
Prosecutors filed 49 federal charges Friday against Jared L. Loughner, the suspect in the Tucson shooting rampage, accusing him of murdering and attempting to murder five federal officials; killing four constituents of Representative Gabrielle Giffords who were attending a public event she sponsored; and injuring 10 others waiting in line to talk to her.
“You have a right to meet with your member of Congress openly and freely and peacefully,” said Dennis K. Burke, the United States attorney for Arizona, indicating he was confident that the novel legal theory the prosecutors were using — including charges involving victims who were not federal officials but merely attending a “federally provided activity” — would be upheld in court.
Outside legal experts, however, said the charges would give an opening for Mr. Loughner’s defense team, led by Judy Clarke, to challenge their validity.
The raft of new charges, some of which could carry the death penalty, go far beyond the previous indictment against Mr. Loughner, a troubled 22-year-old who is accused of opening fire outside a Tucson-area supermarket on Jan. 8 with a Glock semiautomatic pistol in an effort to kill Ms. Giffords.
Background
- Why is there a separate federal statute for attempted murder of a member of Congress?
- Wikipedia: Federal Crime in the United States.
- Wikipedia: Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
Laws have been passed federalizing the murder of federal officials (see here for example) many driven after Kennedy's assassination when it turned out the federal government had no jurisdiction over the crime (murder - falls under the reserved powers).
From the Story:
Prosecutors filed 49 federal charges Friday against Jared L. Loughner, the suspect in the Tucson shooting rampage, accusing him of murdering and attempting to murder five federal officials; killing four constituents of Representative Gabrielle Giffords who were attending a public event she sponsored; and injuring 10 others waiting in line to talk to her.
“You have a right to meet with your member of Congress openly and freely and peacefully,” said Dennis K. Burke, the United States attorney for Arizona, indicating he was confident that the novel legal theory the prosecutors were using — including charges involving victims who were not federal officials but merely attending a “federally provided activity” — would be upheld in court.
Outside legal experts, however, said the charges would give an opening for Mr. Loughner’s defense team, led by Judy Clarke, to challenge their validity.
The raft of new charges, some of which could carry the death penalty, go far beyond the previous indictment against Mr. Loughner, a troubled 22-year-old who is accused of opening fire outside a Tucson-area supermarket on Jan. 8 with a Glock semiautomatic pistol in an effort to kill Ms. Giffords.
Background
- Why is there a separate federal statute for attempted murder of a member of Congress?
- Wikipedia: Federal Crime in the United States.
- Wikipedia: Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
Friday, March 4, 2011
New Study: More Than 130 Top Congressional Staffers Are Former Lobbyists - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets
New Study: More Than 130 Top Congressional Staffers Are Former Lobbyists - OpenSecrets Blog OpenSecrets
This is quite the finding. No surprise really except for the extent of the influence. So you might want to contact your member of Congress, but the person you will really talk to - the staffer - might have worked for the interest you may have issues with.
This is quite the finding. No surprise really except for the extent of the influence. So you might want to contact your member of Congress, but the person you will really talk to - the staffer - might have worked for the interest you may have issues with.
How to Sue the State of Texas
In 2301, in several lectures - notable federalism and civil rights, we discussed state sovereign immunity and the concept that a state has to allow itself to be sued in order for that to be allowed as a remedy. Here's an example from Burka Blog:
The former Texas Teach coach has retained Capital Alliance, formerly known as the Eppstein Group, to oversee the filing and passage of a bill giving Leach permission to sue the state. Bryan Eppstein confirmed the facts to me in an interview earlier today.The suit is the result of what Leach has contended is a wrongful termination of his contract by Texas Tech following his suspension and subequent firing in December 2010.
Burka's post goes on to point out the part of the Texas Code that details the procedure for such bills.
FYI in case you ever need it.
The former Texas Teach coach has retained Capital Alliance, formerly known as the Eppstein Group, to oversee the filing and passage of a bill giving Leach permission to sue the state. Bryan Eppstein confirmed the facts to me in an interview earlier today.The suit is the result of what Leach has contended is a wrongful termination of his contract by Texas Tech following his suspension and subequent firing in December 2010.
Burka's post goes on to point out the part of the Texas Code that details the procedure for such bills.
FYI in case you ever need it.
One of the Roots of Gender Discrimination?
I was hoping I'd be able to work Charlie Sheen into a post, here's my chance.
Anne Holmes wonders if the comparatively light treatment Sheen is, and has been, getting over his abusive towards women is indicative of a general contempt that exists in the broader society. Perhaps this adds to this week's civil rights discussion of civil rights. Perhaps we condone certain behaviors or treatments because they fit certain assumptions we have about groups:
These assumptions — about women, about powerful men, about bad behavior — have roots that go way back but find endorsement in today’s unscripted TV culture. Indeed, it’s difficult for many to discern any difference between Mr. Sheen’s real-life, round-the-clock, recorded outbursts and the sexist narratives devised by reality television producers, in which women are routinely portrayed as backstabbing floozies, and dreadful behavior by males is explained away as a side effect of unbridled passion or too much pilsner.
Anne Holmes wonders if the comparatively light treatment Sheen is, and has been, getting over his abusive towards women is indicative of a general contempt that exists in the broader society. Perhaps this adds to this week's civil rights discussion of civil rights. Perhaps we condone certain behaviors or treatments because they fit certain assumptions we have about groups:
These assumptions — about women, about powerful men, about bad behavior — have roots that go way back but find endorsement in today’s unscripted TV culture. Indeed, it’s difficult for many to discern any difference between Mr. Sheen’s real-life, round-the-clock, recorded outbursts and the sexist narratives devised by reality television producers, in which women are routinely portrayed as backstabbing floozies, and dreadful behavior by males is explained away as a side effect of unbridled passion or too much pilsner.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Growing Support for Gay Marriage
From Andrew Sullivan's site, evidence from the General Social Survey that, over time, support for Gay Marriage has increased substantively among the general population.
Question (from what I can tell): Gay marriage should be legal. Agree or Disagree?
Question (from what I can tell): Gay marriage should be legal. Agree or Disagree?
Women in America
This story fits with both 2301 and 2302 this week. The Obama Administration has released a report called : Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being. From the White House website:
In support of the Council on Women and Girls, the Office of Management and Budget and the Economics and Statistics Administration within the Department of Commerce worked together to create the Women in America (pdf) report which, for the first time in recent history, pulls together information from across the Federal statistical agencies to compile baseline information on how women are faring in the United States today and how these trends have changed over time.
It is apparently the first such survey since one commissioned by the Kennedy Administration. Gail Collins reports on the survey, which the Atlantic summarizes here:
Collins runs down some interesting highlight while looking back at how far from the last survey, when Eleanor Roosevelt prepared a similar report for John F. Kennedy. At that time, only a little more than half of all federal civil service jobs were open to women for example, and "it was perfectly legal to refuse to hire a woman for a job because of her failure to be a man." The median age for marriage for a woman was 20, Collins says. While women currently still make on average 20 cents less on the dollar than men in comparable positions, men and women are increasingly sharing the role of supporting the family economically, and that's where the potential for progress on unequal pay lies: a turning point came on "the unknown day when the average American couple started planning their futures with the presumption that there would be two paychecks."
Note the item in bold above:
At the time, there were 454 federal civil service job categories for college graduates, and more than 200 were restricted to male applicants. It was perfectly legal to refuse to hire a woman for a job because of her failure to be a man, or to refuse her credit unless she had a husband to co-sign her loan. The median age for marriage for a woman was 20, and the only job open to most women that involved a chance to travel was flight attendant.
I found this part of Collins' story also telling:
We’re a long way from the Eleanor Roosevelt Commission on the Status of Women, which was formed when there were no women on the White House staff doing anything more impressive than typing or cake decoration. “Men have to be reminded that women exist,” Mrs. Roosevelt tartly told reporters when the all-male list of top Kennedy administration appointees was released.
One of the justifications for affirmative action is that they very fact that members of an excluded group are placed in a particular position creates openings for others.
In support of the Council on Women and Girls, the Office of Management and Budget and the Economics and Statistics Administration within the Department of Commerce worked together to create the Women in America (pdf) report which, for the first time in recent history, pulls together information from across the Federal statistical agencies to compile baseline information on how women are faring in the United States today and how these trends have changed over time.
It is apparently the first such survey since one commissioned by the Kennedy Administration. Gail Collins reports on the survey, which the Atlantic summarizes here:
Collins runs down some interesting highlight while looking back at how far from the last survey, when Eleanor Roosevelt prepared a similar report for John F. Kennedy. At that time, only a little more than half of all federal civil service jobs were open to women for example, and "it was perfectly legal to refuse to hire a woman for a job because of her failure to be a man." The median age for marriage for a woman was 20, Collins says. While women currently still make on average 20 cents less on the dollar than men in comparable positions, men and women are increasingly sharing the role of supporting the family economically, and that's where the potential for progress on unequal pay lies: a turning point came on "the unknown day when the average American couple started planning their futures with the presumption that there would be two paychecks."
Note the item in bold above:
At the time, there were 454 federal civil service job categories for college graduates, and more than 200 were restricted to male applicants. It was perfectly legal to refuse to hire a woman for a job because of her failure to be a man, or to refuse her credit unless she had a husband to co-sign her loan. The median age for marriage for a woman was 20, and the only job open to most women that involved a chance to travel was flight attendant.
I found this part of Collins' story also telling:
We’re a long way from the Eleanor Roosevelt Commission on the Status of Women, which was formed when there were no women on the White House staff doing anything more impressive than typing or cake decoration. “Men have to be reminded that women exist,” Mrs. Roosevelt tartly told reporters when the all-male list of top Kennedy administration appointees was released.
One of the justifications for affirmative action is that they very fact that members of an excluded group are placed in a particular position creates openings for others.
Public v Private Compensation
Here's a link to a study comparing public sector pay vs. private sector pay across the states. Texas is at the bottom of the list in benefits for public employees.
Limiting the EPA
The NYT reports on efforts to curtail the regulatory activities of the EPA. While agency scientists have argued that some drilling techniques pollute waterways and the watertable, congressional and executive efforts have successfully limited their ability to implement limitations.
Here's the difficult question. Since they are not elected, are these limitations, even if they do lead to increased water pollution, democratic?
Here's the difficult question. Since they are not elected, are these limitations, even if they do lead to increased water pollution, democratic?
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Two Week Stopgap Spending Measure Signed In to Law - COnflict Between House and Senate Escalates.
From the NYT:
President Obama called on Wednesday for high-level negotiations to bridge major budgetary differences between Congressional Republicans and Democrats after the Senate passed a measure to buy at least two more weeks for talks.
After the Senate’s bipartisan 91-to-9 vote in a favor of a bill that keeps federal agencies open through March 18 while enacting $4 billion in new spending cuts, Mr. Obama urged House and Senate leaders to meet with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and two top aides to work out a longer-term budget agreement. . . .
The two-week measure approved Wednesday includes a down payment on those cuts by slicing $4 billion from spending by rescinding nearly $2.8 billion that would have been spent on local projects through earmarks that both parties have banned. Another $1.2 billion is saved by eliminating eight programs both Republicans and Democrats have agreed to cut in the past.
Those cuts include $75 million in election grants; $29 million to help rural communities develop broadband networks; $30 million in unneeded Smithsonian renovation money; $250 million for a reading program;, and $650 million in added highway spending.
From the Hill, background on the increased contention between the two chambers.
President Obama called on Wednesday for high-level negotiations to bridge major budgetary differences between Congressional Republicans and Democrats after the Senate passed a measure to buy at least two more weeks for talks.
After the Senate’s bipartisan 91-to-9 vote in a favor of a bill that keeps federal agencies open through March 18 while enacting $4 billion in new spending cuts, Mr. Obama urged House and Senate leaders to meet with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and two top aides to work out a longer-term budget agreement. . . .
The two-week measure approved Wednesday includes a down payment on those cuts by slicing $4 billion from spending by rescinding nearly $2.8 billion that would have been spent on local projects through earmarks that both parties have banned. Another $1.2 billion is saved by eliminating eight programs both Republicans and Democrats have agreed to cut in the past.
Those cuts include $75 million in election grants; $29 million to help rural communities develop broadband networks; $30 million in unneeded Smithsonian renovation money; $250 million for a reading program;, and $650 million in added highway spending.
From the Hill, background on the increased contention between the two chambers.
Corporations are not Persons After All
From the NYT:
In a lively decision that relied as much on dictionaries, grammar and usage as it did on legal analysis, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously that corporations have no personal privacy rights for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act.
AT&T, the plaintiff in the case, had sought to block the release of documents it had provided to the government. It argued that the documents should be withheld under an exemption to the law that applied to records that “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
- Full info from ScotusBlog: Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.
- Slate thinks John Roberts might be our funniest justice yet.
In a lively decision that relied as much on dictionaries, grammar and usage as it did on legal analysis, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously that corporations have no personal privacy rights for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act.
AT&T, the plaintiff in the case, had sought to block the release of documents it had provided to the government. It argued that the documents should be withheld under an exemption to the law that applied to records that “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
- Full info from ScotusBlog: Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.
- Slate thinks John Roberts might be our funniest justice yet.
Westboro Baptist Church Wins
This is not a surprise. Here's the story from the NYT:
The First Amendment protects hateful protests at military funerals, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in an 8-to-1 decision.
“Speech is powerful,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain.”
But under the First Amendment, he went on, “we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, requires protection of “even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
The decision, from which Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, was the latest in a series of muscular First Amendment rulings from the Roberts court. Last year, the court struck down laws limiting speech about politics and making it a crime to distribute depictions of cruelty to animals.
Reaction from ScotusBlog:
The Court concluded that the protests in this case met the public interest standard. “The ‘content’ of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to broad issues of interest to society at large, rather than matters of ‘purely private concern.’ The placards read ‘God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,’ ‘America is Doomed,’ ‘Don’t Pray for the USA,’ … While those messages may fall short of refined social or political commentary, the issues they highlight—the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic Clergy—are matters of public import.”
The fact that the protesters appear at a funeral and refer to a particular individual – such as the service member for whom the funeral is being held – does not convert the protest into a discussion of a private matter unprotected by the First Amendment. ...
The Court left undecided two important issues that it concluded were not squarely presented. First, it recognized that the government may regulate the “time, place, and manner” of speech and that the State of Maryland (where this protest was held) subsequently enacted a statute governing the circumstances in which funeral protests may be held. The Court did not decide the constitutionality of that statute or other similar federal and state laws. The Court may have been motivated to grant review in the case and still affirm in order to issue an opinion that, unlike the arguable implications of the court of appeals’ decision, did not call such statutes into question.
Second, the Court acknowledged that the plaintiffs had also brought suit on the basis of statements made by the defendants on a website. But it concluded that the issue had been waived by not preserving it in the petition for certiorari and only briefly mentioning it in the merits briefing. The Court was therefore able to limit its decision strictly to the context of funeral protests.
The First Amendment protects hateful protests at military funerals, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in an 8-to-1 decision.
“Speech is powerful,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain.”
But under the First Amendment, he went on, “we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, requires protection of “even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
The decision, from which Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, was the latest in a series of muscular First Amendment rulings from the Roberts court. Last year, the court struck down laws limiting speech about politics and making it a crime to distribute depictions of cruelty to animals.
Reaction from ScotusBlog:
The Court concluded that the protests in this case met the public interest standard. “The ‘content’ of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to broad issues of interest to society at large, rather than matters of ‘purely private concern.’ The placards read ‘God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,’ ‘America is Doomed,’ ‘Don’t Pray for the USA,’ … While those messages may fall short of refined social or political commentary, the issues they highlight—the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic Clergy—are matters of public import.”
The fact that the protesters appear at a funeral and refer to a particular individual – such as the service member for whom the funeral is being held – does not convert the protest into a discussion of a private matter unprotected by the First Amendment. ...
The Court left undecided two important issues that it concluded were not squarely presented. First, it recognized that the government may regulate the “time, place, and manner” of speech and that the State of Maryland (where this protest was held) subsequently enacted a statute governing the circumstances in which funeral protests may be held. The Court did not decide the constitutionality of that statute or other similar federal and state laws. The Court may have been motivated to grant review in the case and still affirm in order to issue an opinion that, unlike the arguable implications of the court of appeals’ decision, did not call such statutes into question.
Second, the Court acknowledged that the plaintiffs had also brought suit on the basis of statements made by the defendants on a website. But it concluded that the issue had been waived by not preserving it in the petition for certiorari and only briefly mentioning it in the merits briefing. The Court was therefore able to limit its decision strictly to the context of funeral protests.
Still Unsure About the Selective Incorporation of the Bill of Rights?
For my 2301's, in case you are still confused about the selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states, or any issue associated with how the 14th Amendment has made the Bill of Rights applicable to state governments, I strongly suggest listening to Justice Alito's reading of the majority decision in McDonald v. Chicago.
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on a case involving both the material witness statute and whether the Attorney General can be sued.
The case is Ashcroft v. al-Kidd.
- ScotusBlog. Argument preview: An old law in new guises?
- ScotusBlog: Ashcroft v al-Kidd.
- Wikipedia: Material Witness Statute.
- Wikipedia: Qualified Immunity Doctrine.
The case is Ashcroft v. al-Kidd.
- ScotusBlog. Argument preview: An old law in new guises?
- ScotusBlog: Ashcroft v al-Kidd.
- Wikipedia: Material Witness Statute.
- Wikipedia: Qualified Immunity Doctrine.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Regarding the Right to File Class Action Lawsuits
From Business Wire:
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), AFL-CIO, and Change to Win have filed a joint amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the plaintiffs in the Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., sex discrimination case. A joint statement follows:
“For more than 45 years, American workers have sought protection from the courts for equal treatment in the workplace. Workers have joined together to remedy widespread discriminatory workplace practices through class action proceedings and by applying the nation’s civil rights standards to their workplaces. Today, Walmart is attempting to undo that standard by claiming its female associates have no right to appeal for justice as a class.
In our amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, we ask the court to uphold the fundamental pillar of the Civil Rights Act and to ensure that the class action process remains open to workers in all industries.
It continues...
- For more information on the Dukes v. Walmart Stores case, visit www.walmartclass.com
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), AFL-CIO, and Change to Win have filed a joint amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the plaintiffs in the Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., sex discrimination case. A joint statement follows:
“For more than 45 years, American workers have sought protection from the courts for equal treatment in the workplace. Workers have joined together to remedy widespread discriminatory workplace practices through class action proceedings and by applying the nation’s civil rights standards to their workplaces. Today, Walmart is attempting to undo that standard by claiming its female associates have no right to appeal for justice as a class.
In our amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, we ask the court to uphold the fundamental pillar of the Civil Rights Act and to ensure that the class action process remains open to workers in all industries.
It continues...
- For more information on the Dukes v. Walmart Stores case, visit www.walmartclass.com
The ACLU Defends The Ten Commandments In School
Via the Daily Dish: As long as they're posted by students exercising free speech:
The ACLU of Virginia has come to the defense of a group of Christian athletes in Floyd County.
In an e-mail sent Friday afternoon, the civil liberties group said it had e-mailed the principal of Floyd Co. High School (FHS), and urged him to allow students to post their personal views, including copies of the Ten Commandments, on the lockers.
The e-mail comes one day after WSLS first reported that members of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes at FHS claims school leaders took down the copies of the Ten Commandments on their lockers.
School leaders would not confirm or deny the incident to WSLS. They would only state school policy that messages other than those such as 'happy birthday,' or 'go team,' were allowed to be posted on lockers without school administration permission.
The e-mail from ACLU of Virginia legal director Rebecca K. Glenberg drew a distinction between "school imposed religious expression," and "the personal religion expressions of students." The ACLU distinguishes the situation at FHS, from the Ten Commandments controversy in the Giles County Schools system.
"Schools have the authority to ban all displays on school property," said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis, in a news release. "But if a school allows students to post some kinds of personal messages on their lockers, it must also allow other kinds of messages, including those that have religious content The removal of the Ten Commandments from student lockers at Floyd County High School appears to violate the First Amendment rights of students by discriminating against religious expression," added Willis in the release.
The ACLU of Virginia has come to the defense of a group of Christian athletes in Floyd County.
In an e-mail sent Friday afternoon, the civil liberties group said it had e-mailed the principal of Floyd Co. High School (FHS), and urged him to allow students to post their personal views, including copies of the Ten Commandments, on the lockers.
The e-mail comes one day after WSLS first reported that members of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes at FHS claims school leaders took down the copies of the Ten Commandments on their lockers.
School leaders would not confirm or deny the incident to WSLS. They would only state school policy that messages other than those such as 'happy birthday,' or 'go team,' were allowed to be posted on lockers without school administration permission.
The e-mail from ACLU of Virginia legal director Rebecca K. Glenberg drew a distinction between "school imposed religious expression," and "the personal religion expressions of students." The ACLU distinguishes the situation at FHS, from the Ten Commandments controversy in the Giles County Schools system.
"Schools have the authority to ban all displays on school property," said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis, in a news release. "But if a school allows students to post some kinds of personal messages on their lockers, it must also allow other kinds of messages, including those that have religious content The removal of the Ten Commandments from student lockers at Floyd County High School appears to violate the First Amendment rights of students by discriminating against religious expression," added Willis in the release.
Government is not a Business
So there:
Matt Yglesias and Steve Greene both hit on an important theme today: the rather perverse notion that government should be run like a business. As Steve notes, school administrators who follow this logic end up seeking to remove special needs kids from schools because they're too costly to educate. Matt takes the argument to its logical conclusion: people over the age of 70 are unproductive and harmful to the bottom line, and should therefore be terminated and harvested for their organs.
There's nothing wrong with the idea that governments should be run more efficiently or with better customer service, and if that's what people mean, they should say that. But to say that governments should be run like businesses is to reveal ignorance about what either governments or businesses -- or both -- are. Businesses exist to turn a profit. They provide goods and services to others only insofar as it is profitable to do so, and they will set prices in a way that ends up prohibiting a significant sector of the population from obtaining those goods and services. And that, of course, is fine, because they're businesses. Governments, conversely, provide public goods and services -- things that we have determined are people's right to possess. This is inherently an unprofitable enterprise. Apple would not last long if it had to provide every American with an iPad.
Matt Yglesias and Steve Greene both hit on an important theme today: the rather perverse notion that government should be run like a business. As Steve notes, school administrators who follow this logic end up seeking to remove special needs kids from schools because they're too costly to educate. Matt takes the argument to its logical conclusion: people over the age of 70 are unproductive and harmful to the bottom line, and should therefore be terminated and harvested for their organs.
There's nothing wrong with the idea that governments should be run more efficiently or with better customer service, and if that's what people mean, they should say that. But to say that governments should be run like businesses is to reveal ignorance about what either governments or businesses -- or both -- are. Businesses exist to turn a profit. They provide goods and services to others only insofar as it is profitable to do so, and they will set prices in a way that ends up prohibiting a significant sector of the population from obtaining those goods and services. And that, of course, is fine, because they're businesses. Governments, conversely, provide public goods and services -- things that we have determined are people's right to possess. This is inherently an unprofitable enterprise. Apple would not last long if it had to provide every American with an iPad.
The Latest From the CBO
The CBO director gave a recent address about the outlook for the economy and the budget complete with slides I plan to steal for future lectures.
Old v Young: The future has no union.
In class I mentioned that, in my opinion, the budget cutting process would indicate which interests are powerful and which are not. Of course recent history reminds us that the interests of the old are better served than those of the young, and David Brooks sees this playing out in budget battles across the nation. He's worried that this outs future prosperity at risk:
A second austerity principle is this: Trim from the old to invest in the young. We should adjust pension promises and reduce the amount of money spent on health care during the last months of life so we can preserve programs for those who are growing and learning the most.
So far, this principle is being trampled. Seniors vote. Taxpayers revolt. Public employees occupy capitol buildings to protect their bargaining power for future benefits negotiations. As a result, seniors are being protected while children are getting pummeled. If you look across the country, you see education financing getting sliced — often in the most thoughtless and destructive ways. The future has no union.
Clive Crook adds to the sentiment and points out that part of the current dispute with labor unons is that in the past they traded low wages for high future benefits. This shifted the costs to future taxpayers.
Paul Krugman wonders if Texas is neglecting our next generation of children.
A second austerity principle is this: Trim from the old to invest in the young. We should adjust pension promises and reduce the amount of money spent on health care during the last months of life so we can preserve programs for those who are growing and learning the most.
So far, this principle is being trampled. Seniors vote. Taxpayers revolt. Public employees occupy capitol buildings to protect their bargaining power for future benefits negotiations. As a result, seniors are being protected while children are getting pummeled. If you look across the country, you see education financing getting sliced — often in the most thoughtless and destructive ways. The future has no union.
Clive Crook adds to the sentiment and points out that part of the current dispute with labor unons is that in the past they traded low wages for high future benefits. This shifted the costs to future taxpayers.
Paul Krugman wonders if Texas is neglecting our next generation of children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)