2 U.S. Code Title 2—THE CONGRESS

CHAPTER 1—ELECTION OF SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES (§§ 1 – 9)

CHAPTER 2—ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS (§§ – 30b)

CHAPTER 3—COMPENSATION AND ALLOWANCES OF MEMBERS (§§ 31 – 59h)

CHAPTER 4—OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (§§ 60 – 130l)

CHAPTER 5—LIBRARY OF CONGRESS (§§ 131 – 185)

CHAPTER 6—CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS (§§ 190 – 199)

CHAPTER 7—CONTESTED ELECTIONS (§ 201)

CHAPTER 8—FEDERAL CORRUPT PRACTICES (§§ 241 – 252)

CHAPTER 8A—REGULATION OF LOBBYING (§ 261)

CHAPTER 9—OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL (§§ 271 – 282e)

CHAPTER 9A—OFFICE OF LAW REVISION COUNSEL (§§ 285 – 285g)

CHAPTER 9B—LEGISLATIVE CLASSIFICATION OFFICE (§ 286)

CHAPTER 9C—OFFICE OF PARLIAMENTARIAN OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (§§ 287 – 287d)

CHAPTER 9D—OFFICE OF SENATE LEGAL COUNSEL (§§ 288 – 288n)

CHAPTER 10—CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (§§ 291 – 303)

CHAPTER 10A—PAYROLL ADMINISTRATION IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (§§ 331 – 336)

CHAPTER 11—CITIZENS’ COMMISSION ON PUBLIC SERVICE AND COMPENSATION (§§ 351 – 364)

CHAPTER 12—CONTESTED ELECTIONS (§§ 381 – 396)

CHAPTER 13—JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS (§ 411)

CHAPTER 14—FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS (§§ 431 – 457)

CHAPTER 15—OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (§§ 471 – 481)

CHAPTER 16—CONGRESSIONAL MAILING STANDARDS (§§ 501 – 506)

CHAPTER 17—CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE (§§ 601 – 613)

CHAPTER 17A—CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND FISCAL OPERATIONS (§§ 621 – 665)

CHAPTER 17B—IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL (Subchapters I – III)

CHAPTER 18—LEGISLATIVE PERSONNEL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS (§ 701)

CHAPTER 19—CONGRESSIONAL AWARD PROGRAM (§§ 801 – 811)

CHAPTER 19A—JOHN HEINZ COMPETITIVE EXCELLENCE AWARD (§ 831)

CHAPTER 20—EMERGENCY POWERS TO ELIMINATE BUDGET DEFICITS (§§ 900 – 922)

CHAPTER 20A—STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO (§§ 931 – 939)

CHAPTER 21—CIVIC ACHIEVEMENT AWARD PROGRAM IN HONOR OF OFFICE OF SPEAKER OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (§ 1001)

CHAPTER 22—JOHN C. STENNIS CENTER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT (§§ 1101 – 1110)

CHAPTER 22A—OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER (§ 1151)

CHAPTER 22B—HUNGER FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM (§ 1161)

CHAPTER 23—GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE RIGHTS (§§ 1201 – 1223)

CHAPTER 24—CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY (§§ 1301 – 1438)

CHAPTER 25—UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM (§§ 1501 – 1571)

CHAPTER 26—DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (§§ 1601 – 1614)

CHAPTER 27—SOUND RECORDING PRESERVATION BY THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS (§§ 1701 – 1743)

CHAPTER 28—ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL (§§ 1801 – 1881d)

CHAPTER 29—CAPITOL POLICE (§§ 1901 – 1982)

CHAPTER 30—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CAPITOL COMPLEX (§§ 2001 – 2186)

CHAPTER 31—CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER (§§ 2201 – 2281)

CHAPTER 41—CONGRESSIONAL OFFICERS AND ADMINISTRATION (§§ 4101 – 4132)

CHAPTER 43—CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES (§§ 4301 – 4338)

CHAPTER 45—CONGRESSIONAL PAY AND BENEFITS (§§ 4501 – 4595)

CHAPTER 47—CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS (§§ 4701 – 4728)

CHAPTER 49—CONGRESSIONAL PAGES (§§ 4901 – 4931)

CHAPTER 51—HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LEADERSHIP (§§ 5101 – 5162)

CHAPTER 53—HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMBERS (§§ 5301 – 5352)

CHAPTER 55—HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OFFICERS AND ADMINISTRATION (§§ 5501 – 5624)

CHAPTER 61—SENATE LEADERSHIP (§§ 6101 – 6160)

CHAPTER 63—SENATE MEMBERS (§§ 6301 – 6320)

CHAPTER 65—SENATE OFFICERS AND ADMINISTRATION (§§ 6501 – 6654)

This afternoon's readings

From Roll Call.

- DC statehood bill set for June 26 House vote.

- CIA suffered historic data loss from lax cybersecurity, report says.

- Fintechs try old bank charters as ‘everything old is new again’.

- Police overhaul, parks bill take center stage: Road Ahead.

From the Texas Constitution: Sec. 56. PROHIBITED LOCAL AND SPECIAL LAWS

A good look at the separation that exists between the local and state governments. These are the functions of local government that the state of Texas cannot, constitutionally, interfere with.

Sec. 56. PROHIBITED LOCAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. (a) The Legislature shall not, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, pass any local or special law, authorizing:

(1) the creation, extension or impairing of liens;

(2) regulating the affairs of counties, cities, towns, wards or school districts;

(3) changing the names of persons or places;

(4) changing the venue in civil or criminal cases;

(5) authorizing the laying out, opening, altering or maintaining of roads, highways, streets or alleys;

(6) relating to ferries or bridges, or incorporating ferry or bridge companies, except for the erection of bridges crossing streams which form boundaries between this and any other State;

(7) vacating roads, town plats, streets or alleys;

(8) relating to cemeteries, grave-yards or public grounds not of the State;

(9) authorizing the adoption or legitimation of children;

(10) locating or changing county seats;

(11) incorporating cities, towns or villages, or changing their charters;

(12) for the opening and conducting of elections, or fixing or changing the places of voting;

(13) granting divorces;

(14) creating offices, or prescribing the powers and duties of officers, in counties, cities, towns, election or school districts;

(15) changing the law of descent or succession;

(16) regulating the practice or jurisdiction of, or changing the rules of evidence in any judicial proceeding or inquiry before courts, justices of the peace, sheriffs, commissioners, arbitrators or other tribunals, or providing or changing methods for the collection of debts, or the enforcing of judgments, or prescribing the effect of judicial sales of real estate;

(17) regulating the fees, or extending the powers and duties of aldermen, justices of the peace, magistrates or constables;

(18) regulating the management of public schools, the building or repairing of school houses, and the raising of money for such purposes;

(19) fixing the rate of interest;

(20) affecting the estates of minors, or persons under disability;

(21) remitting fines, penalties and forfeitures, and refunding moneys legally paid into the treasury;

(22) exempting property from taxation;

(23) regulating labor, trade, mining and manufacturing;

(24) declaring any named person of age;

(25) extending the time for the assessment or collection of taxes, or otherwise relieving any assessor or collector of taxes from the due performance of his official duties, or his securities from liability;

(26) giving effect to informal or invalid wills or deeds;

(27) summoning or empanelling grand or petit juries;

(28) for limitation of civil or criminal actions;

(29) for incorporating railroads or other works of internal improvements; or

(30) relieving or discharging any person or set of persons from the performance of any public duty or service imposed by general law.

(b) In addition to those laws described by Subsection (a) of this section in all other cases where a general law can be made applicable, no local or special law shall be enacted; provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit the Legislature from passing:

(1) special laws for the preservation of the game and fish of this State in certain localities; and

(2) fence laws applicable to any subdivision of this State or counties as may be needed to meet the wants of the people.

(Amended Nov. 6, 2001.)

STATE BAR OF TEXAS LEGISLATIVE TIMETABLE 2020-2021

The State Bar of Texas gears up for the 87th Session of the legislature next year.

- Click here for the document.

From more: Teach the Vote.

This mornings readings

All from the Texas Tribune.

- As Texas coronavirus hospitalizations rise, local officials can recommend precautions but they can't enforce many of them.

- Watch Gov. Greg Abbott address hospital capacity as coronavirus cases continue to rise statewide at 1 p.m.

- U.S. Supreme Court rules Texas death row inmate had an ineffective lawyer, orders new review.

- With coronavirus cases climbing, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott says "no real need" to scale back business reopenings.

- Reversing course, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn signals openness to removing Confederate names from military bases.

- Texas attorney general asks for power to investigate police who kill people.

From Wikipedia: List of police reforms in the United States related to the killing of George Floyd

- Click here for the entry.

Here's a list of what is being proposed: 

- end qualified immunity
- establish national police standards
- ban on chokeholds
- redirecting police funds to community initiatives
- bans on tear gas

From the Texas Tribune: Austin City Council unanimously limits police officers' use of force and asks for cuts to department budget

Let's start looking at some of the specific things being proposed to reform police departments.

- Click here for the article.

The Austin City Council unanimously approved a set of measures Thursday meant to limit police officers' use of force, which include restrictions on use of deadly force and a ban on using “less lethal” munitions during protests. The council also directed the city manager to propose reductions to the department’s budget next year.

The moves come in the wake of nationwide protests over police brutality against people of color, including in Austin. Many of those national and local demonstrations have included calls for reforms on police tactics and the defunding of law enforcement in favor of redistributing funds to social services and alternative public safety programs.

"I hope that we don’t miss this moment. Our community is at a boiling point," said Mayor Pro Tem Delia Garza. "We cannot move past this without change, we cannot. I will do my best to remain hopeful."

Decreasing police funding has also gained momentum in Dallas. Houston leaders increased that city’s police budget by almost $20 million for the upcoming fiscal year, though officials attributed that move to fixed costs like pension obligations and pay raises.

From Vox: The Supreme Court’s landmark LGBTQ rights decision, explained in 5 simple sentences

A good look at "textualism," a conservative approach to deciding what a law or constitutional phrase means.

- Click here for the article.  

Bostock v. Clayton County, a landmark Supreme Court decision holding that federal law prohibits employment discrimination against LGBTQ workers, was a test of Justice Neil Gorsuch’s principles. He passed.

Gorsuch is a vocal proponent of “textualism,” the belief that the meaning of a law turns on its words alone, not on the intentions of the law’s drafters. And Bostock forced Gorsuch to decide between his own conservative politics and following the broad language of a landmark civil rights law. Gorsuch didn’t simply honor his textualist approach in Bostock, he wrote the majority opinion.

In Bostock, the Court considered Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids employment discrimination that occurs “because of [an employee’s] race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Though there is little doubt that the people who drafted this law in 1964 did not believe they were enacting a ban on LGBTQ discrimination, the thrust of Gorsuch’s opinion is that the expectations of lawmakers in 1964 simply does not matter.

Only the text of Title VII matters. And, as Bostock explains at length, that text clearly prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Gorsuch lays out why in just five crisp sentences on the first page of his majority opinion:

In Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

For a look at all of the titles of the bill - which we will be getting into next week

- click here.

Title I—voting rights

Title II—public accommodations

Title III—desegregation of public facilities

Title IV—desegregation of public education

Title V—Commission on Civil Rights

Title VI—nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs

Title VII—equal employment opportunity

Title VIII—registration and voting statistics

Title IX—intervention and removal of cases

Title X—Community Relations Service

Title XI—miscellaneous

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The interpretation of this statute is at the heart of the Bostock case today.

- Click here for it.

The law also established the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission.

- Click here for that.

From Scotus: BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that:

An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964].

- Click here for the opinion.

GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined.

KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

- Click here for info from Oyez. 

From the Texas Tribune: Texas Democrats urge Abbott to call special session as details emerge showing Javier Ambler’s death at the hands of sheriff's deputies

This hits multiple areas we cover in class, including parties in the legislature, local governments, and the power of the governor to call special sessions.

- Click here for the article. 

Local and state leaders are calling for the resignation of Williamson County Sheriff Robert Chody and for the deputies involved in Javier Ambler’s death to be fired. They’re raising alarm about yet another case of a black person dying at the hands of police officers as people across the nation continue to march in protest of police brutality and racial injustice, sparked by the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.

Some Texas Democrats are urging Gov. Greg Abbott to call a special legislative session to pass laws on policing and criminal justice and asking why the governor hasn’t yet publicly acknowledged the Ambler case even as he condemned Floyd’s death as a “horrific act of police brutality” that he said must be prevented in Texas.

Last year, Williamson County deputies pursued Ambler in a car chase for 22 minutes, after trying to pull him over for not dimming his headlights. After he crashed Ambler was held down and shocked with a Taser by the deputies four times before his body went limp. Ambler told the officers he had congestive heart failure and couldn’t breath, according to The Austin American-Statesman, which first reported on the newly available body camera footage this month. Ambler died in a hospital about an hour after he was last shocked with a Taser. He was unarmed and body camera footage showed he wasn’t resisting.

From the Pew Research Center: Amid Protests, Majorities Across Racial and Ethnic Groups Express Support for the Black Lives Matter Movement

- Click here for the article.

From the Hill: Police unions face lobbying fights at all levels of government

A good way to tie the info on interest groups with the chapters on governing institutions.

- Click here for the article. 

Police unions are gearing up for their biggest lobbying fights in years as lawmakers at all levels of government push to reform law enforcement practices and protections.

In Congress, the brewing battle comes as House Democrats have introduced sweeping legislation to overhaul aspects of the criminal justice system, with Senate Republicans expected to unveil their proposal in the coming week.

The National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the country's largest police group that represents over 330,000 officers, is expected to play a major role, much like it did in 2014 when it tried to protect access to military equipment following the police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.

“There seems to be a lot of variation in how police unions are handling the situation, ranging from just the outright opposition and in some cases vile statements coming out of union heads to … union heads that are open to reforms,” said Jake Rosenfeld, a professor at the Washington University in St. Louis who specializes in unions.

The FOP, which has in-house lobbyists, said it spent $55,000 on lobbying activities in the first quarter of 2020, a relatively low amount compared to unions in other sectors. In 2019, it spent $220,000.

An FOP spokesperson declined to comment on any plans for expanding lobbying in light of the new legislation.

From the Pew Research Center: Fewer Americans now say media exaggerated COVID-19 risks, but big partisan gaps persist

More on partisan difference in attitudes.

- Click here for the article. 

. . . as the toll from the coronavirus has grown dramatically over time, there has been movement in the share of Americans who say the news media have greatly or slightly exaggerated the risks it poses – with that percentage dropping from 62% in March to 48% in April. That includes a decline in the portion saying the media have greatly exaggerated the risks, from 37% to 24%. At the same time, the portion of respondents who say the media have gotten the COVID-19 risks about right grew by 9 percentage points – from 30% to 39%. 

Underlying these overall numbers are deep partisan divisions about the media’s coronavirus coverage – divisions that were evident in March and remain so in April. Most recently, more than half of Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party (54%) say the media have covered COVID-19 somewhat or very well in the April survey, a number that swells to about eight-in-ten among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (82%).

And, while about two-thirds of Republicans and Republican leaners (68%) in the April survey say the media slightly or greatly exaggerated COVID-19 risks, that is true of only three-in-ten Democrats and Democratic leaners.

Political Generations

From the Pew Research Center: As Millennials Near 40, They’re Approaching Family Life Differently Than Previous Generations

And another on political generations.

- Click here for it.

Millennials have been slower than previous generations to establish their own households.

A new analysis of government data by Pew Research Center shows that Millennials are taking a different path in forming – or not forming – families. Millennials trail previous generations at the same age across three typical measures of family life: living in a family unit, marriage rates and birth rates.

From the Pew Research Center: On the Cusp of Adulthood and Facing an Uncertain Future: What We Know About Gen Z So Far

Info about the latest political generation. This adds to the info in the public opinion chapter on political generations.

- Click here for it.

. . what do we know about this new generation? We know it’s different from previous generations in some important ways, but similar in many ways to the Millennial generation that came before it. Members of Gen Z are more racially and ethnically diverse than any previous generation, and they are on track to be the most well-educated generation yet. They are also digital natives who have little or no memory of the world as it existed before smartphones.

Still, when it comes to their views on key social and policy issues, they look very much like Millennials. Pew Research Center surveys conducted in the fall of 2018 (more than a year before the coronavirus outbreak) among Americans ages 13 and older found that, similar to Millennials, Gen Zers are progressive and pro-government, most see the country’s growing racial and ethnic diversity as a good thing, and they’re less likely than older generations to see the United States as superior to other nations.

A look at how Gen Z voters view the Trump presidency provides further insight into their political beliefs. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in January of this year found that about a quarter of registered voters ages 18 to 23 (22%) approved of how Donald Trump is handling his job as president, while about three-quarters disapproved (77%). Millennial voters were only slightly more likely to approve of Trump (32%) while 42% of Gen X voters, 48% of Baby Boomers and 57% of those in the Silent Generation approved of the job he’s doing as president.

From the Aspen Institute: Glossary for Understanding the Dismantling Structural Racism/Promoting Racial Equity Analysis

A nice look at some of the terms being used regarding institutional and systemic racism.

- Click here for it.

Structural Racism: A system in which public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations, and other norms work in various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial group inequity. It identifies dimensions of our history and culture that have allowed privileges associated with “whiteness” and disadvantages associated with “color” to endure and adapt over time. Structural racism is not something that a few people or institutions choose to practice. Instead it has been a feature of the social, economic and political systems in which we all exist.

Hot off the presses: Fiscal Size-up 2020–21 Biennium

From the Legislative Budget Board

- Click here for it.

From the NWHM: Woman Suffrage Timeline (1840-1920)

Not only related to the expansion of suffrage, this contains mention of a variety of interest groups established to promote it.

- Click here for the article.

Policing Practices and Law Enforcement Accountability

From the US House Judiciary Committee: Oversight Hearing on Policing Practices and Law Enforcement Accountability

Fits within our look at checks and balances, interest groups, and the legislative power.

- Click here for it.

- Click here for Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo's opening statement.

From the Pew Research Center: 10 things we know about race and policing in the U.S.

This cover interesting ground about racial difference in attitudes about the police.

- Click here for it.

From the Cato Institute: America’s Criminal Justice System Is Rotten to the Core

Cato is perhaps the nation's largest libertarian advocacy group.

- Click here for the article.

As I will explain below, I see three fundamental pathologies in America’s criminal justice system that completely undermine its moral and political legitimacy and render it a menace to the very concept of constitutionally limited government. Those three pathologies are: (1) unconstitutional overcriminalization; (2) point‐​and‐​convict adjudication; and (3) near‐​zero accountability for police and prosecutors.

From Ballotpedia: Texas Elections, 2020

For a look at what will be on the ballot in November.

- Click here for the entry.

From the Texas Tribune: Joe Biden tells Texas Democrats “we have a real chance to turn the state blue”

Unlikely, but not impossible. Republicans have dominated state wide elections for almost 30 years, but Democrats have been  getting stronger in the cities - which are growing.

- Click here for the article.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Saturday renewed his vow to help flip Texas as the state gets increased attention heading into November.

“Texas is an important battleground state for our campaign in 2020,” he said on Facebook Live addressing the state Democratic Party's convention, which went online-only this year because of the coronavirus pandemic. “I think we have a real chance to turn the state blue because of the work all of you have done.

“We have to keep the House of Representatives. We have to win over the United States Senate. We have to flip the Texas House. We have to lead and deliver meaningful change for people who are hurting all across this nation.”

I'll try to find a clearer version of this

U.S. Code

In case you'd like an overview of the types of laws the national government has passed.

This would be a full a list of the delegated and implied powers as we are likely to find.

- Click here for it.

TITLE 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
TITLE 2 - THE CONGRESS
TITLE 3 - THE PRESIDENT
TITLE 4 - FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES
TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
TITLE 5a - FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT
TITLE 6 - DOMESTIC SECURITY
TITLE 7 - AGRICULTURE
TITLE 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
TITLE 9 - ARBITRATION
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
TITLE 11 - BANKRUPTCY
TITLE 11a - BANKRUPTCY RULES
TITLE 12 - BANKS AND BANKING
TITLE 13 - CENSUS
TITLE 14 - COAST GUARD
TITLE 15 - COMMERCE AND TRADE
TITLE 16 - CONSERVATION
TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
TITLE 18a - UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OR RECEIPT OF FIREARMS
TITLE 19 - CUSTOMS DUTIES
TITLE 20 - EDUCATION
TITLE 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS
TITLE 22 - FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE
TITLE 23 - HIGHWAYS
TITLE 24 - HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS
TITLE 25 - INDIANS
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
TITLE 27 - INTOXICATING LIQUORS
TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
TITLE 28a - JUDICIAL PERSONNEL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
TITLE 29 - LABOR
TITLE 30 - MINERAL LANDS AND MINING
TITLE 31 - MONEY AND FINANCE
TITLE 32 - NATIONAL GUARD
TITLE 33 - NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS
TITLE 34 - CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
TITLE 35 - PATENTS
TITLE 36 - PATRIOTIC AND NATIONAL OBSERVANCES, CEREMONIES, AND ORGANIZATIONS
TITLE 37 - PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES
TITLE 38 - VETERANS’ BENEFITS
TITLE 39 - POSTAL SERVICE
TITLE 40 - PUBLIC BUILDINGS, PROPERTY, AND WORKS
TITLE 41 - PUBLIC CONTRACTS
TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS
TITLE 44 - PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS
TITLE 45 - RAILROADS
TITLE 46 - SHIPPING
TITLE 47 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS
TITLE 48 - TERRITORIES AND INSULAR POSSESSIONS
TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
TITLE 50a - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE [ELIMINATED] Current through 114–86u1
TITLE 51 - NATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL SPACE PROGRAMS
TITLE 52 - VOTING AND ELECTIONS
TITLE 53 - [RESERVED]
TITLE 54 - NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

From History.com: Why We Have the Third Amendment—and Why It Rarely Comes Up in Court

More on the U.S. Bill of Rights.

This also illustrates checks and balances and constitutional interpretation.

- Click here for the article.

Since the Third Amendment’s ratification in 1791, the U.S. Supreme Court has only mentioned it a couple of times. One instance is the 1952 case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer. In order to sabotage a national steel strike during the Korean War, President Harry Truman had issued an executive order to seize and operate the country’s steel mills.

The court ruled the president didn’t have the authority to seize private property without an act of Congress. In the majority opinion, Justice Robert H. Jackson used the Third Amendment, which prohibited forcible quartering during wartime without congressional approval, to illustrate the court’s decision: “even in war time, his seizure of needed military housing must be authorized by Congress.”

. . . In the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut, the court argued that the First, Third, Fourth and Ninth Amendments suggested a right to privacy, and that this gave married couples the right to use contraception.

“The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers ‘in any house’ in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy,” wrote Justice William O. Douglas in the majority opinion.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never weighed in on who counts as a “soldier” under the Third Amendment, a couple of lower courts have, creating precedents that the Supreme Court could cite in future cases.

In the 1982 case of Engblom v. Carey, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the governor of New York didn’t violate the rights of striking correctional officers at New York’s Mid-Orange Correctional Facility when he evicted them from their prison residences and reassigned those residences and their jobs to National Guard troops.

However, the court did rule that National Guard members are “soldiers” under the Third Amendment, and that “the Third Amendment is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment for application to the states.”

In 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada cited this ruling while considering whether police officers violated a plaintiff’s Third Amendment right when they forcibly occupied his house in Mitchell v. City of Henderson, Nevada. That court sided with the police, ruling that they aren’t “soldiers” under the Third Amendment.

From the Pew Research Center: In Changing U.S. Electorate, Race and Education Remain Stark Dividing Lines

For our look at party identification.

- Click here for the article. 

The Justice in Policing Act

- Click here for the text of the bill.

- Click here for the summary of the bill.

For more detail: Democrats Release Legislation To Overhaul Policing.

From NBC: Congressional Democrats unveil sweeping police reform bill that would ban chokeholds, no-knock warrants in drug cases

Now that police reform seems to be on the policy agenda, it goes to the legislature for the policy formation stage. This allows you to take a look ahead to the governing institutions, which we will cover next week. In this case, Congress.

Notice that much of what is discussed here deals with due process issues, searches and seizures specifically.

- Click here for the article.  

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other top Democrats in the House and Senate on Monday unveiled far-reaching legislation to overhaul policing in the U.S. as protests over excessive force by law enforcement have gripped the nation.

The bill, called the “Justice in Policing Act,” would ban chokeholds, including the kind used by a police officer in the Minneapolis death of George Floyd last month, as well as no-knock warrants in drug cases, as was used in the incident leading to the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky, in March, according to a a House Democratic aide and a bill summary obtained by NBC News.

The legislation, which has more than 200 Democratic co-sponsors in the House and Senate, would require local police departments to send data on the use of force to the federal government and create a grant program that would allow state attorneys general to create an independent process to investigate misconduct or excessive use of force, according to the five-page summary of the bill. Further, the bill would make it easier for people to recover damages when police departments violate their civil rights and, for the first time, would make lynching a federal hate crime.

"The martyrdom of George Floyd gave the American experience a moment of national anguish as we grieve for the black Americans killed by police brutality today," Pelosi said at a news conference on the bill. "This moment of national anguish is being transformed into a movement of national action as Americans from across the country peacefully protest to demand an end to injustice."

Select key terms: 
- House Speaker
- legislation
- excessive force
- law enforcement
- police officer
- no-knock warrant
- House Democratic Aide
- co-sponsor
- Senate
- local police departments
- federal government 
- grant program
- state attorney generals 
- damages
- civil rights
- lynching
- federal hate crime

- protest
- hearings
- mark up
- Democratic leaders
- Senate Majority Leader
- Senate Minority Leader
- criminal justice system
- police budgets
- reforms
- Congressional Black Caucus
- chairwoman
- press conference
- accountable
- transparency
- House Majority Whip
- D - S.C.
- law and order
- racial bias
- bill
- House Judiciary Committee
- vice presidential pick
- Democratic  nominee
- federal prosecutor
- independent investigations
- district attorneys
- use of force 

From The Guardian: 'This is just a start': states announce police reforms as protests enter second weekend

When we get into public policy, we will discuss the policy process which includes agenda setting. The recent protests can be considered such an event. 

- Click here for the article. 

Nationwide protests hurtled toward a second weekend following the police killing of George Floyd, as several cities and states took steps to reform controversial policing tactics.

In Minneapolis, where Floyd died last Monday after a white officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes, the city agreed to ban chokeholds and neck restraints by police and to require officers to try to stop any other officers they see using improper force. They marked the first concrete steps to remake the city’s police force since Floyd’s death.

The state human rights commissioner, Rebecca Lucero, said the changes were necessary to stop continuing harm to people of color “who have suffered generational pain and trauma as a result of systemic and institutional racism”.

“This is just a start,” Lucero said. “There is a lot more work to do here, and that work must and will be done with speed and community engagement.”

Floyd’s death has promoted the re-examination of police techniques elsewhere. In California, Gavin Newsom on Friday ordered the state’s police training program to stop teaching officers how to use a neck hold that blocks the flow of blood to the brain, known as a carotid hold or sleeper hold. Fifteen law enforcement agencies in San Diego county banned the practice earlier this week.

A few items on police unions

These are topical considering recent events. And they bridge one of the topics of this week - interest groups, specifically labor unions.

- How Police Unions Became Such Powerful Opponents to Reform Efforts.

Over the past five years, as demands for reform have mounted in the aftermath of police violence in cities like Ferguson, Mo., Baltimore and now Minneapolis, police unions have emerged as one of the most significant roadblocks to change. The greater the political pressure for reform, the more defiant the unions often are in resisting it — with few city officials, including liberal leaders, able to overcome their opposition.

They aggressively protect the rights of members accused of misconduct, often in arbitration hearings that they have battled to keep behind closed doors. And they have also been remarkably effective at fending off broader change, using their political clout and influence to derail efforts to increase accountability.

While rates of union membership have dropped by half nationally since the early 1980s, to 10 percent, higher membership rates among police unions give them resources they can spend on campaigns and litigation to block reform. A single New York City police union has spent more than $1 million on state and local races since 2014.



- Floyd killing shows police unions abuse power. We need radical reform: Former union lawyer.

I have spent my career working in and around the labor movement, first as a lawyer for a community-based workers center, then in the general counsel’s office of a major labor union, and for the past dozen years researching and teaching labor law at Harvard. I am of the firm belief that unions are the single most important and effective voice for working people we have ever known and the best chance we have for building a more equitable economy and politics. In recent years, collective bargaining has enabled teachers to win funding for their classrooms, fast-food workers to increase the minimum wage, and nurses to negotiate staffing ratios that have helped ensure adequate care for COVID-19 patients. Collective bargaining is, in my view, a treasure that deserves fierce protection.

Nonetheless, collective bargaining is, at bottom, just a tool. And like all such tools, it can be abused. When unions use the power of collective bargaining for ends that we, as a democratic society, deem unacceptable it becomes our responsibility — including the responsibility of the labor movement itself — to deny unions the ability to use collective bargaining for these purposes.


- As protests grow, big labor sides with police unions.

Labor unions exist to protect workers, but most workers aren’t authorized to use deadly force as part of their jobs.

Police unions have written labor contracts that bar law enforcement agencies across the country from immediately interrogating or firing officers after egregious acts of misconduct.

Leaders of the country’s other labor unions are tiptoeing around the subject as their members join protests in hundreds of U.S. cities this week over the killing of George Floyd. Labor leaders have strongly denounced police officers’ actions in that case and called on lawmakers to address systemic racism. But they’re suggesting that collective bargaining agreements shouldn’t be on the table. They’ve been careful not to blame police unions for the problem, choosing to embrace them instead.

Police union contracts are not normal collective bargaining agreements. Police unions have crafted a complex web of disciplinary rules that critics say makes it impossible to hold police accountable for killing unarmed Black citizens. After a Minneapolis police officer pinned Floyd’s neck to the ground for more than 8 minutes while fellow officers stood by and watched, many want to see these union contract rules reformed or dismantled.

“The short answer is not to disengage and just condemn,” Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO labor federation, said Wednesday on a press call about racial justice. “The answer is to totally re-engage and educate.”

From the Texas Tribune: Conspiracy theories and racist memes: How a dozen Texas GOP county chairs caused turmoil within the party

County chairs are mentioned in the 2306 textbook. Both 2305 and 2306 discuss the decentralized nature of political parties, and the difficulty this poses for the ability of each party to establish unified message.

- Click here for the article.

On Friday morning, Texas’ top Republican officials, including Gov. Greg Abbott, had condemned four GOP chairs for proliferating conspiracy theories on Facebook. The posts, from chairs of some of the largest counties in Texas, suggested George Floyd’s death was staged to erode black support for President Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, a fifth chairperson, Harris County GOP chair-elect Keith Nielsen, announced Saturday he will not take office as planned after coming under fire for posting a Martin Luther King Jr. quote — "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" — on a background with a banana.

On Friday afternoon, The Texas Tribune identified similar posts from seven more GOP chairs across the state. Some of these posts suggested people who have been protesting Floyd’s death across the state and the country were being paid by Jewish billionaire George Soros — an oft-used anti-Semitic trope.

GOP county chairs are elected leaders of the Republican Party who help oversee local elections and head up county-level meetings and events. News circulating about the first five chairs’ posts sparked concern — both internal and external — about the Texas GOP.

From the Texas Tribune: Appeals court tosses order that required face masks, hand sanitizer for inmates at geriatric Texas prison

For 2306 primarily, but the concepts apply to 2305 as well. A great example of federalism in the courts.

- Click here for the article.

The U.S 5th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed a lower court’s temporary ruling Friday that ordered Texas officials to enact a slew of policy changes at a geriatric prison, including providing inmates hand sanitizer and cloth face masks to slow the spread of coronavirus. The appeals judges noted that many of the district judge’s orders had already been met by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

The lawsuit claimed inmates were not adequately protected from the coronavirus at the Pack Unit near Navasota, where 166 inmates actively had the coronavirus on Thursday, according to data from TDCJ. At least five have died from the virus, a state’s attorney said during a hearing in front of the appeals court judges last week.

Judge Eugene Davis said he “reluctantly” concurred with Friday’s ruling since conditions at the prison have changed since the lawsuit was filed in March. But he emphasized the inability to practice social distancing in a prison.

“Holding these elderly, ill inmates jammed together in their dormitories, unable to socially distance as the virus continues to rapidly spread, is nothing short of a human tragedy,” Davis wrote.

Key terms: 
- federalism
- judicial  federalism
- 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
- appeals judge
- district judge orders
- TDCJ
- lawsuit
- state's attorney
- concurred
- cruel and unusual punishment
- attorney general
- CDC
- trial
- permanent injunction

From Politico: The Story Behind Bill Barr’s Unmarked Federal Agents: The motley assortment of police currently occupying Washington, D.C., is a window into the vast, complicated, obscure world of federal law enforcement.

A look  at the complex world of law enforcement during the recent troubles. Note that this just refers to federal law enforcement. There are even more at the state and local level.

- Click here for the article.

To understand the police forces ringing Trump and the White House it helps to understand the dense and not-entirely-sensical thicket of agencies that make up the nation’s civilian federal law enforcement. With little public attention, notice and amid historically lax oversight, those ranks have surged since 9/11—growing by roughly 2,500 officers annually every year since 2000. To put it another way: Every year since the 2001 terrorist attacks, the federal government has added to its policing ranks a force larger than the entire Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Nearly all of these agencies are headquartered in and around the capital, making it easy for Attorney General William Barr to enlist them as part of his vast effort to “flood the zone” in D.C. this week with what amounts to a federal army of occupation, overseen from the FBI Washington area command post in Chinatown. Battalions of agents were mustered in the lobby of Customs and Border Protection’s D.C. headquarters—what in normal times is the path to a food court for federal workers. The Drug Enforcement Administration has been given special powers to enable it to surveil protesters. It is the heaviest show of force in the nation’s capital since the protests and riots of the Vietnam War.

As large as the public show of force on D.C.’s streets has turned out to be—Bloomberg reported Thursday that the force includes nearly 3,000 law enforcement—it still represents only a tiny sliver of the government’s armed agents and officers. The government counts up its law enforcement personnel only every eight years, and all told, at last count in 2016, the federal government employed over 132,000 civilian law enforcement officers—only about half of which come from the major “brand name” agencies like the FBI, ATF, Secret Service, DEA and CBP. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, which serves as the general academy for federal agencies who don’t have their own specialized training facilities, lists around 80 different agencies whose trainees pass through its doors in Georgia, from the IRS’ criminal investigators and the Transportation Security Administration's air marshals to the Offices of the Inspector General for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Railroad Retirement Board. Don’t forget the armed federal officers at the Environmental Protection Agency or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Law Enforcement, whose 150 agents investigate conservation crime like the Tunas Convention Act of 1975 (16 USC § 971-971k) and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (16 USC § 773-773k)

The Atlantic: There’s No Historical Justification for One of the Most Dangerous Ideas in American Law The Founders didn’t believe that broad delegations of legislative power violated the Constitution, but conservative originalists keep insisting otherwise.

A look at the conflict between  originalism  and pragmatism.

- Click here for the article.

Most government activity in the United States rests on a simple idea: that it’s okay for the legislature to authorize the executive branch to regulate basically anything the legislature itself could reach—working conditions, pollution, elections, financial products, mask wearing, you name it. That idea is now under attack. Relying on a so-called nondelegation doctrine, conservative originalists insist that the Founders never intended for government to work this way. They call for courts to strike down any laws that delegate too much power—and much of the federal bureaucracy along with them.

Their argument is grounded in a cursory, selective review of the historical record; it simply falls apart under any kind of serious scrutiny. Americans in 1789 didn’t share the view that broad delegations of legislative power violated the Constitution. Indeed, they would have been baffled by the claim, because governments throughout the Anglo-American world had long relied on this very technique without controversy. There wasn’t any nondelegation doctrine at the founding, and the question isn’t close.

To understand why this matters, and just how wrong these critics are, start with the practicalities. Legislative delegations pervade just about every area of policy: air quality, drug testing, business regulation, health care, education, and so on. Legislatures have neither the bandwidth nor the expertise to write every detail of complex government programs, least of all when those programs need to adapt nimbly to technological changes, economic disruptions, and new information about the world.

From Roll Call: Trump Challenges Federal Judge to High Court Duel Over Sanctuary Cities

Here's some checking and balancing

- Click here for the article.

President Donald Trump has a message for the federal judge who blocked his executive orders tailored to keep some so-called “sanctuary” cities from receiving federal funds: “See you in the Supreme Court!”

Trump took to Twitter before 7 a.m. Wednesday morning to blast a federal judge in California who on Tuesday issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against provisions in an executive order signed by Trump that is meant to block federal funding for “sanctuary” jurisdictions that decline to assist federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws.

Trump’s order, signed Jan. 25, directed the Justice and Homeland Security departments to “ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply” with a law mandating communication between local law enforcement officials and federal immigration agents are deemed ineligible for federal grants.

Selected Key Terms:

- president
- federal judge
- executive orders
- federal funds
- fiscal federalism
- preliminary injunction
- immigration laws 
- Justice Department
- Homeland Security Department
- jurisdictions
- local law enforcement officials
- federal  immigration agents
- federal grants
- U.S. District Judge
- Northern District of California
- Ninth Circuit
- U.S. Supreme Court
- precedent
- overturned  
- White House Chief of Staff

From Wikipedia: Bacon's Rebellion

Here's some terrific history, including mention of deliberate efforts to use race to drive groups apart for political purposes.

- Click here for the article.

It was the first rebellion in the American colonies in which discontented frontiersmen took part (a somewhat similar uprising in Maryland involving John Coode and Josias Fendall took place shortly afterwards). The alliance between European indentured servants and Africans (many enslaved until death or freed), united by their bond-servitude, disturbed the ruling class. The ruling class responded by hardening the racial caste of slavery in an attempt to divide the two races from subsequent united uprisings with the passage of the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705.

While on the subject, here's info from the entry on the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705.

- Click here for that article.

The Virginia Slave Codes of 1705 were a series of laws enacted by the Colony of Virginia's House of Burgesses regulating activities related to interactions between slaves and citizens of the crown colony of Virginia. The enactment of the Slave Codes is considered to be the consolidation of slavery in Virginia, and served as the foundation of Virginia's slave legislation.

These codes effectively embedded the idea of white supremacy into law by the following devices:

- Established new property rights for slave owners
- Allowed for the legal, free trade of slaves with protections granted by the courts
- Established separate courts of trial
- Prohibited blacks, regardless of free status, from owning arms [weapons]
- Whites could not be employed by blacks
- Allowed for the apprehension of suspected runaways

The law was devised to establish a greater level of control over the rising African slave population of Virginia. It also served to socially segregate white colonists from black slaves making them disparate groups hindering their ability to unite. A unity of the commoners was a perceived fear of the Virginia aristocracy which had to be addressed, and who wished to prevent a repeat of events such as Bacon's Rebellion, occurring 29 years prior

From 538: Where Democrats And Republicans Live In Your City

For next week's look at political institutions.

This touches on both the public opinion  and parties chapters.

- Click here for the article.

We’ve heard it over and over: Democratic candidates win cities. Researchers have tracked the way Democrats have dominated in cities since the ’90s. Politicians bring up America’s deep-blue cities constantly, including in stump speeches and in every debate over the Electoral College. Even FiveThirtyEight couldn’t resist joining in: In December, Galen Druke and I showed how America’s cities and tightly packed suburbs shifted toward Democrats in the most recent midterm election. The more densely populated the place, the more Democratic the voters.

But just because Republicans aren’t winning in cities doesn’t mean that no Republicans live there. Much has been made of the country’s urban-rural political divide, but almost every Democratic city has Republican enclaves, especially when you think about cities as more than just their downtowns. It’s a sign of our polarized times that these Republicans aren’t evenly distributed across the city, of course. But it’s also a sign of how centuries of American history have shaped and continue to shape where we live — and who our neighbors are.

The Virginia Colony (Part 2: Indentured Servitude, Slavery, and the 1622...

Women and Property in Colonial America

Background on three more constitutional framers

John Dickinson

- Click here for the article.

Dickinson was born[note 1] at Croisadore, his family's tobacco plantation near the village of Trappe in Talbot County, Province of Maryland.[2] He was the great-grandson of Walter Dickinson who emigrated from England to Virginia in 1654 and, having joined the Society of Friends, came with several co-religionists to Talbot County on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay in 1659.

. . . Dickinson was educated at home, by his parents and by recent immigrants employed for that purpose. Among them was the Presbyterian minister Francis Alison, who later established New London Academy in Chester County, Pennsylvania.[5] Most important was his tutor, William Killen, who became a lifelong friend and who later became Delaware’s first Chief Justice and Chancellor. Dickinson was precocious and energetic, and in spite of his love of Poplar Hall and his family, was drawn to Philadelphia.

At 18 he began studying the law under John Moland in Philadelphia. There he made friends with fellow students George Read and Samuel Wharton, among others. By 1753, John went to London for three years of study at the Middle Temple. He spent those years studying the works of Edward Coke and Francis Bacon at the Inns of Court, following in the footsteps of his lifelong friend, Pennsylvania Attorney General Benjamin Chew, and in 1757 was admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar beginning his career as barrister and solicitor.


Elbridge Gerry

- Click here for the article.

Born into a wealthy merchant family, Gerry vocally opposed British colonial policy in the 1760s and was active in the early stages of organizing the resistance in the American Revolutionary War. Elected to the Second Continental Congress, Gerry signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. He was one of three men who attended the Constitutional Convention in 1787 who refused to sign the United States Constitution because it did not then include a Bill of Rights. After its ratification he was elected to the inaugural United States Congress, where he was actively involved in drafting and passage of the Bill of Rights as an advocate of individual and state liberties.

. . . Elbridge Gerry was born on July 17, 1744, in Marblehead, Massachusetts. His father, Thomas Gerry, was a merchant operating ships out of Marblehead, and his mother, Elizabeth (Greenleaf) Gerry, was the daughter of a successful Boston merchant.[1] Gerry's first name came from John Elbridge, one of his mother's ancestors.[2] Gerry's parents had 11 children in all, although only five survived to adulthood. Of these, Elbridge was the third.[3] He was first educated by private tutors and entered Harvard College shortly before turning 14. After receiving an AB in 1762 and an AM in 1765, he entered his father's merchant business. By the 1770s the Gerrys numbered among the wealthiest Massachusetts merchants, with trading connections in Spain, the West Indies, and along the North American coast.[1][4] Gerry's father, who had emigrated from England in 1730, was active in local politics and had a leading role in the local militia


Edmund Randolph

- Click here for the article.

Randolph was born on August 10, 1753 to the influential Randolph family in Williamsburg in the Colony of Virginia. He was educated at the College of William and Mary. After graduation he began reading law with his father John Randolph and uncle, Peyton Randolph. In 1775, with the start of the American Revolution, Randolph's father remained a Loyalist and returned to Britain; Edmund Randolph remained in America where he joined the Continental Army as an aide-de-camp to General George Washington.[1]

Upon the death of his uncle Peyton Randolph in October 1775, Randolph returned to Virginia to act as executor of the estate, and while there was elected as a representative to the Fourth Virginia Convention. He was later mayor of Williamsburg, and then Attorney general of Virginia, a post he held until 1786.[1] He was married on August 29, 1776 to Elizabeth Nicholas (daughter of Robert C. Nicholas), and had a total of six children, including Peyton Randolph, Governor of Virginia from 1811 to 1812.

From SCOTUS: The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

An inside look at how the court interprets the Constitution. Hint: There is no  one way. Each justice has their own approach. Remember the terms originalist and pragmatists.

- Click here for the article. 

.  . . it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

Constitutional Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts

Article 3

1. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states, between a state and Citizens of another state, between Citizens of different states, between Citizens of the same state, claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign states, Citizens or subjects. (This section modified by Amendment XI)

2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before-mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Article 6

2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

3. The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Court cases for 2305 - 6/4

Chapter 3: Federalism

- Dual Federalism: McCullough v Maryland.
-  Cooperative Federalism: NLRB v Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp.
- New Federalism: United States v Lopez.

Chapter 4: Civil Liberties

The Bill of Rights: Click here.
- Dual Federalism: Barron v. Baltimore.

The 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Selective Incorporation of the Bill  of Rights to the States

Substantive protections
- Privacy: Griswold v Connecticut.
- Establishment: Lemon v Kurtzman.
- Free Exercise: Sherbert v. Verner.
- Political Speech:  Schenck v the United States.
- Symbolic Speech: Texas v. Johnson.
- Hate Speech: Snyder v. Phelps.
- Student Speech: Tinker v Des Moines ISD.
- Prior Restraint: New York Times Co. v. United States.
- Obscenity: Miller v.  California.
- Libel:  NYT v. Sullivan.
- Second Amendment: McDonald v. Chicago.

Procedural protections
- Search and seizures: Mapp v Ohio.
- Search and seizures: Terry v Ohio.
- Rights at trials: Miranda v Arizona.
- Right to counsel: Gideon v. Wainwright.
-  Death Penalty: Furman v Georgia.

From the Supreme Court of the United States: Opinions

I'd like to walk through some of the court cases mentioned in Chapters 3 and 4. Supreme Court opinions are important ways of determining whether an act of Congress, or a action made by the executive branch is in sync with the Constitution - at least how a majority of the members of the Supreme Court at  one period of time interpret it.

- Click here for the Supreme Court's page on opinions.

The term "opinions," as used here, refers to several types of writing by the Justices.

The most well known are the opinions of the Court announced in cases in which the Court has heard oral argument. Each sets out the Court’s judgment and its reasoning. The Justice who authors the majority or principal opinion summarizes the opinion from the bench during a regularly scheduled session of the Court. Shortly thereafter, a copy of the opinion is posted on this website.

The Court may also dispose of cases in per curiam opinions, which do not identify the author. These opinions frequently resolve cases summarily, often without oral argument, but they have been issued in important argued cases, such as Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S. 98, and the campaign finance case of Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1.

In-chambers opinions are written by an individual Justice to dispose of an application by a party for interim relief, e.g., for a stay of the judgment of the court below, for vacation of a stay, or for a temporary injunction.

Justices may also write opinions relating to the orders of the Court, e.g., to dissent from a denial of certiorari or to concur in that denial.

All opinions are later compiled and printed in the United States Reports, the Court’s official publication. Electronic versions of the bound volumes are posted on this website.

Texas Municipal League

This organization does for cities what The TAC doe for counties.

- Click here for it.

The League exists solely to provide services to Texas cities. Since the first day of its existence, the League's mission has remained the same: to serve the needs and advocate the interests of cities and city officials. Indeed, the TML Constitution states that the purpose of the League is "to render services which individual cities have neither time, money nor strength to do alone." In practice, that mission translates into the following services:

To represent the interests of member cities before legislative, administrative, and judicial bodies at the state and federal levels.

To sponsor and conduct an annual conference and other conferences, seminars, meetings, and workshops for the purpose of studying municipal issues and exchanging information regarding municipal government.

To provide administrative services to the Texas Municipal League risk pools so that quality coverages at reasonable and competitive prices can be made available to member cities and their employees.

To publish and circulate an official magazine and other publications, reports, and newsletters of interest to member cities.

To serve as a repository of literature, analyses, research, and data related to municipal operations and make that information available to member cities.

To alert member cities of important governmental or private sector actions or proposed actions which may affect municipal operations.

To promote the interests of League affiliates (departments) and regions by providing organizational and technical assistance as directed by the Board and consistent with financial resources.

To promote constructive and cooperative relationships among cities and between the League and other levels of government, councils of governments, the National League of Cities, educational institutions, and the private sector.

To provide for and conduct training in relevant and timely topics related to municipal government.

To provide, in a timely manner, any additional services or information which individual members may request, consistent with the member cities' common interests and the League's resources.

Texas Association of Counties

This is the interest group that lobbies the state legislature on behalf of counties in the state. They also provide resources to county office holders.

- Click here for its website.

Here is their description of counties:

Across the state, 254 counties serve the needs of more than 28 million Texans. County populations range in size from just under 100 residents (Loving County) to more than 4.6 million (Harris County).

- The major responsibilities of Texas county government include:
- Providing public safety and justice
- Holding elections at every level of government
- Maintaining Texans’ most important records
- Building and maintaining roads, bridges and in some cases, county airports
- Providing emergency management services
- Providing health and safety services
- Collecting property taxes for the county and sometimes for other taxing entities
- Issuing vehicle registration and transfers
- Registering voters.

Some counties are able to offer libraries, parks and other programs that add to the quality of life for local residents. Many play a vital role in the economic development of their local areas.
Effective, Efficient, Local Solutions

County government is the functional arm of state government and delivers many state services at the local level.

As more federal and state responsibilities are mandated to local government, counties meet these demands and efficiently deliver a growing list of services while keeping local property taxes as low as possible.

County government and county officials also understand and respond to address the problems and priorities of their local communities. Officials are neighbors serving neighbors. They are elected by the communities in which they live and work.

Texas Counties - Population Growth

- Click here  for counties in Texas.

TGCC: Service Area Map

-  Click here for their website.

Alvin Community College Taxing District

- Click here for more.

Brazoria County and Alvin

Harris County and Houston

Day 3 of the Constitutional Convention: Tuesday, May 29

More debate on the rules.

John Dickerson and Elbridge Gerry (of gerrymander fame) joined the convention.

Opening statement by Edmund Randolph.

He presents the  Virginia Plan.

- Click here for detail.

The first part of Randolph's Comments:

He expressed his regret, that it should fall to him, rather than those who were of longer standing in life and political experience, to open the great subject of their mission. But as the Convention had originated from Virginia, and his colleagues supposed that some proposition was expected from them, they had imposed this task on him.

He then commented on the difficulty of the crisis, and the necessity of preventing the fulfilment of the prophecies of the American downfall.

He observed, that, in revising the federal system we ought to inquire, first, into the properties which such a government ought to possess; secondly, the defects of the Confederation; thirdly, the danger of our situation; and fourthly, the remedy.

1. The character of such a government ought to secure, first, against foreign invasion; secondly, against dissensions between members of the Union, or seditions in particular States; thirdly, to procure to the several States various blessings of which an isolated situation was incapable; fourthly, it should be able to defend itself against encroachment; and fifthly, to be paramount to the State Constitutions.

2. In speaking of the defects of the Confederation, he professed a high respect for its authors, and considered them as having done all that patriots could do, in the then infancy of the science of constitutions, and of confederacies; when the inefficiency of requisitions was unknown — no commercial discord had arisen among any States — no rebellion had appeared, as in Massachusetts — foreign debts had not become urgent — the havoc of paper-money had not been foreseen — treaties had not been violated — and perhaps nothing better could be obtained, from the jealousy of the States with regard to their sovereignty.

He then proceeded to enumerate the defects: — First, that the Confederation produced no security against foreign invasion; Congress not being permitted to prevent a war, nor to support it by their own authority. Of this he cited many examples; most of which tended to show, that they could not cause infractions of treaties, or of the law of nations, to be punished; that particular States might by their conduct provoke war without control; and that, neither militia nor drafts being fit for defence on such occasions, enlistments only could be successful, and these could not be executed without money.

Secondly, that the Federal Government could not check the quarrel between States, nor a rebellion in any, not having constitutional power nor means to interpose according to the exigency.

Thirdly, that there were many advantages which the United States might acquire, which were not attainable under the Confederation — such as a productive impost — counteraction of the commercial regulations of other nations — pushing of commerce ad libitum, &c. &c.

Fourthly, that the Federal Government could not defend itself against encroachments from the States.

Fifthly, that it was not even paramount to the State Constitutions, ratified as it was in many of the States.

From Lawfare: Can Trump Use the Insurrection Act to Deploy Troops to American Streets?

A look at  the extent of presidential power.

The answer seems to be a qualified yes.

- Click here for the article.

The president cannot invoke the Insurrection Act secretly or ambiguously. Before doing so, he is required to make a public proclamation directing “the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time,” thereby providing anyone involved in the civil unrest an opportunity to retreat. Perhaps more importantly, this requirement ensures that the president publicly acknowledges and discloses his decision to invoke the Insurrection Act, allowing Congress and the public to respond accordingly.

Substantively, the Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy the military domestically in four sets of circumstances:

Where the president receives a request for assistance from the legislature of a state that is experiencing “an insurrection ... against its government[,]” or that state’s governor if its legislature cannot be convened, under 10 U.S.C. § 251.

Where the president “considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” under 10 U.S.C. § 252.

Where “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” either “so hinders the execution of the laws of [a] State, and of the United States within th[at] State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by Law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection,” under 10 U.S.C. § 253(1)—in which cases, the statute notes, that state “shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.”

Where “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy ... opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws,” under 10 U.S.C. § 253(2).