Friday, July 27, 2007
How Lame a Duck?
Carl Cannon, a well respected presidential biographer, weighs in on the question whether George Bush is a lame duck, and if so when he became one. He also points out that the president still retains constitutional powers apart form his political strength.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Cockfights and the First Amendment
From the a New York Times story comes this question: Does the First Amendment limit the government's ability to make the depiction of illegal conduct also illegal? Cockfighting is illegal in 49 states (thank God for Louisiana) but not Puerto Rico, but thanks to the internet you can watch it live.
The law was signed by President Clinton and was specifically tailored to depictions that appealed "to a prurient interest in sex." This put the law under the purview of obscenity laws, which are constitutional. But the broad language has led to its use to generally to deal with any depiction of animal cruelty. Lawyers suggest that the law could be used to prosecute hunting and fishing tapes and the law could also be used to prosecute a television station that shows a video of people breaking into a convenience store--that's illegal conduct also.
It could also suppress democratic debate. Says a law professor: "When you punish speech, you quell debate about matters of public controversy."
There is no First Amendment precedence for this type of law. It can go anywhere. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has the case at the moment, but its a good bet to end up in the Supreme Court.
The law was signed by President Clinton and was specifically tailored to depictions that appealed "to a prurient interest in sex." This put the law under the purview of obscenity laws, which are constitutional. But the broad language has led to its use to generally to deal with any depiction of animal cruelty. Lawyers suggest that the law could be used to prosecute hunting and fishing tapes and the law could also be used to prosecute a television station that shows a video of people breaking into a convenience store--that's illegal conduct also.
It could also suppress democratic debate. Says a law professor: "When you punish speech, you quell debate about matters of public controversy."
There is no First Amendment precedence for this type of law. It can go anywhere. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has the case at the moment, but its a good bet to end up in the Supreme Court.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
It's the Candidate Stupid
Stuart Rothenberg makes a point we discussed just today in 2301 regarding demise of party identification and the rise of candidates attachment in determining how people vote. Neither Republican nor Democratic candidates are aggressively pointing out which party they belong to. A good way to distance yourself from partisan baggage.
Death Machine
Two stories in today's chron about the death penalty in Harris County.
1-Background on Johnny Holmes, the DA who aggressively pursued it.
2-A story on it's decline in the county.
1-Background on Johnny Holmes, the DA who aggressively pursued it.
2-A story on it's decline in the county.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
More of the Same
Gonzales testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee again with the same results as before.
Is the White House hoping that people get tired of this and start to tune out? It could happen.
Is the White House hoping that people get tired of this and start to tune out? It could happen.
Options of Congress
A former U.S. attorney outlines additional options for Congress' efforts to check the expansion of executive power. They involve law suits and special legislation. This is out of my league so I can't comment directly. The author urges that these issues be dealt with while Bush is still in office in order to successfully retain the balance of power.
The Giant Still Sleeps
Latino voting still lags behind other group's.
"Hispanics accounted for half of the population growth in the United States between the elections of 2000 and 2004 but only one-tenth of the increase in the total votes cast, according to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of new data from the U.S. Census Bureau. This gap between the very substantial growth of the Hispanic population and much more modest growth in Hispanic electoral clout has been developing for a generation but has widened considerably in recent years."
From the Pew Research Center.
"Hispanics accounted for half of the population growth in the United States between the elections of 2000 and 2004 but only one-tenth of the increase in the total votes cast, according to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of new data from the U.S. Census Bureau. This gap between the very substantial growth of the Hispanic population and much more modest growth in Hispanic electoral clout has been developing for a generation but has widened considerably in recent years."
From the Pew Research Center.
Something Old, Something New
The Mainstream and Online media collided in last night's YouTube/CNN debate for the candidates for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.
Here's the recap from YouTube; Here's the one from CNN.
I thought it was fresh--which is always good. The debates were far more interesting than than they normally are. I should say "debates" of course, because they there's no debate in these things. They remind me more of the question and answer portion of beauty contests. I'd rather hear each of the candidates have extended open ended interviews with smart people. Speaking of smart people here's what some had to say in Slate and FoxNews. Some of the opinion seems based on what one thing of the denizens of the online world.
In class we discussed what difference it made having people not only ask the questions, but doing it in a format they controlled. The question from the lesbian couple for example. It's one thing to speak about gay marriage in the abstract, quite another to have it posed by two pleasant looking people directly affected by your answer.
My personal favorites--and current heroes--are Jackie and Travis, the red state upstate guys from Murphysborough, Tennessee. See all of their questions here. Best one: asking John Edwards how good looking he thought he was on a scale of one to ten.
Here's the recap from YouTube; Here's the one from CNN.
I thought it was fresh--which is always good. The debates were far more interesting than than they normally are. I should say "debates" of course, because they there's no debate in these things. They remind me more of the question and answer portion of beauty contests. I'd rather hear each of the candidates have extended open ended interviews with smart people. Speaking of smart people here's what some had to say in Slate and FoxNews. Some of the opinion seems based on what one thing of the denizens of the online world.
In class we discussed what difference it made having people not only ask the questions, but doing it in a format they controlled. The question from the lesbian couple for example. It's one thing to speak about gay marriage in the abstract, quite another to have it posed by two pleasant looking people directly affected by your answer.
My personal favorites--and current heroes--are Jackie and Travis, the red state upstate guys from Murphysborough, Tennessee. See all of their questions here. Best one: asking John Edwards how good looking he thought he was on a scale of one to ten.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Selling Houston
One of the more colorful figures in Houston government has been Jordy Tollett, the recently departed (or shoved aside) head of the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau.
He has been responsible for bringing conventions--and yes visitors--to Houston, which isn't always the easiest thing to do. His tactics have been criticized by many since they often involve introducing potential clients to Houston's vibrant adult entertainment industry.
The mayor wants to replace him, but apparently can't find a willing replacement yet. Tollett may end up replacing himself with himself.
He has been responsible for bringing conventions--and yes visitors--to Houston, which isn't always the easiest thing to do. His tactics have been criticized by many since they often involve introducing potential clients to Houston's vibrant adult entertainment industry.
The mayor wants to replace him, but apparently can't find a willing replacement yet. Tollett may end up replacing himself with himself.
Local Pork
The Sunday Chron ran an overview of our senators and House reps and the local funding they provide their constituents. Here's what they say about Kay Bailey: "A member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Hutchison has been the go-to person in Congress for government officials and private groups in Texas who seek federal money but often are unable to secure it through the traditional method of applying to federal agencies."
Now we know.
Now we know.
What Voters Want
A New York Times graphic tells us which characteristics the American public wants and does not want in their candidates.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Winning by Losing
When covering elections, we generally argue that the presidential elections of 1964 and 1972 were catastrophic failures for, respectively, the Republicans and the Democrats. After all, each party's fringe nominated candidates that were not accepted by the electorate's moderates.
But David Broder reminds us that each candidate represented a wing within the party that was growing in strength and eventually allowed the party to dominate a series of elections. The Goldwater Republicans later fixated on Reagan. Now, he suggests, the wing that brought you George McGovern--who pushed to expand the party to aggressively include women and minorities--is deciding between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, two products of that inclusion.
He suggests that the effort to find strategic politicians that scrape through with narrow victories do not leave lasting legacies.
But David Broder reminds us that each candidate represented a wing within the party that was growing in strength and eventually allowed the party to dominate a series of elections. The Goldwater Republicans later fixated on Reagan. Now, he suggests, the wing that brought you George McGovern--who pushed to expand the party to aggressively include women and minorities--is deciding between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, two products of that inclusion.
He suggests that the effort to find strategic politicians that scrape through with narrow victories do not leave lasting legacies.
The Pentagon takes on Hillary
And Fred Kaplan calls it a big mistake. A bit of background. Senator Clinton wrote to the Pentagon some time ago asking, as many in the Senate have, about progress in Iraq. She received what has been described as a dismissive reply suggesting that she mind her own business.
Kaplan suggests that this might be a mistake for two reasons, and it might serve as a cautionary tale to Democrats who are desperate to impeach the president: nothing rallies a group like an attack on one of their own.
The lower level Pentagon official may have simultaneously rallied (1) women, who may infer sexist condescension in the letter and (2) the Senate who see this as the military rebuffing a legitimate inquiry into how it is conducting an engagement that it sanctioned in law and continues to pay for, both monetarily and with the service of their constituents.
Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, is expected to provide her --and the Senate as a whole--with a more thoughtful reply.
Kaplan suggests that this might be a mistake for two reasons, and it might serve as a cautionary tale to Democrats who are desperate to impeach the president: nothing rallies a group like an attack on one of their own.
The lower level Pentagon official may have simultaneously rallied (1) women, who may infer sexist condescension in the letter and (2) the Senate who see this as the military rebuffing a legitimate inquiry into how it is conducting an engagement that it sanctioned in law and continues to pay for, both monetarily and with the service of their constituents.
Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, is expected to provide her --and the Senate as a whole--with a more thoughtful reply.
Controling Rulemaking
While we've been focused on the scandal over the fired attorneys, the Bush Administration has been rewriting the way that rulemaking is done in the bureaucracy.
According to a recent executive order, the bureaucracy's discretion will be limited and the White House will have more influence including requiring the bureaucracy to consider free market options to the implementation of laws.
The specific fight centers on funding for something in the White House called the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and its ability to implement Executive Order 13422: "The order requires federal officials to show that private companies, people or institutions failed to address a problem before agencies can write regulations to tackle it. It also gives political appointees greater authority over how the regulations are written."
Critics in Congress are concerned that this expands the power further politicizes the bureaucratic process.
It's worth pointing out that every White House has attempted to control the bureaucracy. An advantage this White House has had in having a staff--including the vice-president--with the executive experience that would allow them to do it effectively. The dispute arises when one considers whether it is a good idea to have a professional bureaucracy with the discretion to implement laws as they see fit, or a bureaucracy more controlled by the White House.
Professionalization sounds great, but we are a democracy--or a republic defined by separated powers. Should the president have greater control? Or might this lead to further efforts to politicize the bureaucracy?
According to a recent executive order, the bureaucracy's discretion will be limited and the White House will have more influence including requiring the bureaucracy to consider free market options to the implementation of laws.
The specific fight centers on funding for something in the White House called the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and its ability to implement Executive Order 13422: "The order requires federal officials to show that private companies, people or institutions failed to address a problem before agencies can write regulations to tackle it. It also gives political appointees greater authority over how the regulations are written."
Critics in Congress are concerned that this expands the power further politicizes the bureaucratic process.
It's worth pointing out that every White House has attempted to control the bureaucracy. An advantage this White House has had in having a staff--including the vice-president--with the executive experience that would allow them to do it effectively. The dispute arises when one considers whether it is a good idea to have a professional bureaucracy with the discretion to implement laws as they see fit, or a bureaucracy more controlled by the White House.
Professionalization sounds great, but we are a democracy--or a republic defined by separated powers. Should the president have greater control? Or might this lead to further efforts to politicize the bureaucracy?
Wackos?
The Stump reports that one of Ron Paul's organizers is concerned about the number of wackos ("dedicated, vigilant and small.") supporting his presidential bid, wondering if it might limit his appeal to the mainstream. A number of them apparently think, among other things, that 9/11 was an "inside job." They could drive away the moderates.
Maybe, but note that around here the proper term is not "wackos," it's "neighbors."
Maybe, but note that around here the proper term is not "wackos," it's "neighbors."
Friday, July 20, 2007
The Showdown Continues
The conflict over the fired attorneys has escalated further now that the White House has claimed--apparently for the first time ever--that once the president invokes executive privilege Justice Department officials cannot pursue contempt charges filed by Congress.
Normally, the contempt citations issued by the House and Senate Judiciary Committees against Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolton have to be issued by the attorney for the District of Columbia. Now he is being prevented from doing so.
The Washington Post cites David Rifkin, who worked as legal counsel to both Reagan and HW Bush praising the effort since it helps expand the "unitary executive," but others criticize it for the same reason. It makes the executive too powerful and violates the constitutionally established systems of checks and balances. Mark Rozell is cited as an expert who is opposed to this move.
Proponents point out that similar arguments were made in the Reagan Administration, but were not resolved in the courts. They almost certainly will be this time, but it's worth pointing out that among the people in the Reagan Department at the time of the previous conflict were John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both now on the Supreme Court and in a position to decide in favor if executive power. It may well be that this is a fight the Bush administration want to fight since it cause to believe that they have stacked the Supreme Court with Justices likely to agree with expanded executive power. Shows you what patience and discipline can accomplish. These guys are good.
The irony of course is that since the stars seem to be lined up in favor of the Democrats next year, the real beneficiary of executive power might well be a Democrat, maybe Hillary. So maybe these guts ain't so good after all.
The story also points out that the Congress was not told about this directly, but had to read about it in the media. Evidence perhaps of the contempt the current executive has for the legislative branch.
Normally, the contempt citations issued by the House and Senate Judiciary Committees against Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolton have to be issued by the attorney for the District of Columbia. Now he is being prevented from doing so.
The Washington Post cites David Rifkin, who worked as legal counsel to both Reagan and HW Bush praising the effort since it helps expand the "unitary executive," but others criticize it for the same reason. It makes the executive too powerful and violates the constitutionally established systems of checks and balances. Mark Rozell is cited as an expert who is opposed to this move.
Proponents point out that similar arguments were made in the Reagan Administration, but were not resolved in the courts. They almost certainly will be this time, but it's worth pointing out that among the people in the Reagan Department at the time of the previous conflict were John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both now on the Supreme Court and in a position to decide in favor if executive power. It may well be that this is a fight the Bush administration want to fight since it cause to believe that they have stacked the Supreme Court with Justices likely to agree with expanded executive power. Shows you what patience and discipline can accomplish. These guys are good.
The irony of course is that since the stars seem to be lined up in favor of the Democrats next year, the real beneficiary of executive power might well be a Democrat, maybe Hillary. So maybe these guts ain't so good after all.
The story also points out that the Congress was not told about this directly, but had to read about it in the media. Evidence perhaps of the contempt the current executive has for the legislative branch.
Ace in the Hole
Critics of the current state of journalism might enjoy purchasing the release on DVD of a neglected classic (Ace in the Hole) directed by Billy Wilder about a journalist who spends as much time fabricating stories as he does covering them.
More Highway Construction on the Way!
The Pearland side of the Reporter News website tells us to expect more highway construction as 288 is widened to meet the increasing demands that new residents are placing on it. The huge median from I-59 to County Road 60--about a mile north of 1462--is slated to turn into a toll road.
The construction project is in response to a Mobility Study conducted by the Texas Department of Transportation and the Houston Galveston Area Council. A variety of these studies, including one for the long forgotten I-35 expansion, are posted on the H-GAC website. Similar studies are posted on the TX-DoT website.
I find it interesting that we don't talk about freeway construction anymore, we talk about mobility or transportation. When freeways are built, somebody looses property--but mobility helps us all get to where we need to go (a nice fuzzy thing) or evacuate when necessary (an important security thing). The topic is still controversial however, witness the recent uproar in the Texas Legislature regarding the Governor's plans for expanded toll roads.
Paul Burka has also written in Texas Monthly that the most hated man in the Texas Legislature is Ric Williamson, the head of the Texas Transportation Commission.
I've driven down 288 from my home in the Heights regularly since 1998 and the changes have been, and are about to get even more, dramatic.
The construction project is in response to a Mobility Study conducted by the Texas Department of Transportation and the Houston Galveston Area Council. A variety of these studies, including one for the long forgotten I-35 expansion, are posted on the H-GAC website. Similar studies are posted on the TX-DoT website.
I find it interesting that we don't talk about freeway construction anymore, we talk about mobility or transportation. When freeways are built, somebody looses property--but mobility helps us all get to where we need to go (a nice fuzzy thing) or evacuate when necessary (an important security thing). The topic is still controversial however, witness the recent uproar in the Texas Legislature regarding the Governor's plans for expanded toll roads.
Paul Burka has also written in Texas Monthly that the most hated man in the Texas Legislature is Ric Williamson, the head of the Texas Transportation Commission.
I've driven down 288 from my home in the Heights regularly since 1998 and the changes have been, and are about to get even more, dramatic.
Turning Point?
I missed this story when it was first posted on the Friendswood (TX) Reporter News website, but earlier this year the city council rejected a move to have a referendum regarding whether English should be the official language of the city of Friendswood.
Proponents of the measure argued that the measure would increase unity and ensure that emergency officials would be able to adequately communicate with residents. But a healthy opposition was concerned that the measure would sanction "exclusion and bigotry."
The vote was 5-2.
Considering that an undercurrent of racial hostility seems a part of the immigration debate, could this vote signify that a reaction to that hostility is evolving? Or is this just Friendswood, or Texas? It was founded by Quakers, maybe this is a residue of the cities beginnings and is not likely to spread. The same point might be made about Texas. Given our history as a part of Mexico, is there a comfort level here that does not exist elsewhere?
Proponents of the measure argued that the measure would increase unity and ensure that emergency officials would be able to adequately communicate with residents. But a healthy opposition was concerned that the measure would sanction "exclusion and bigotry."
The vote was 5-2.
Considering that an undercurrent of racial hostility seems a part of the immigration debate, could this vote signify that a reaction to that hostility is evolving? Or is this just Friendswood, or Texas? It was founded by Quakers, maybe this is a residue of the cities beginnings and is not likely to spread. The same point might be made about Texas. Given our history as a part of Mexico, is there a comfort level here that does not exist elsewhere?
Thursday, July 19, 2007
The Energy Task Force
For over six years the White House, the vice president specifically, has claimed that executive privilege allowed him to not reveal who participated in meetings of the White House Energy Task Force. The courts have agreed, but the Washington Post has been able to find out who was there anyway.
Not a controversial list (Ken Lay aside) which leads one to wonder why the fuss? The principle of secrecy in all likelihood.
Not a controversial list (Ken Lay aside) which leads one to wonder why the fuss? The principle of secrecy in all likelihood.
WWTS
What Would Tocqueville Say?
Some of my classes are reviewing Tocqueville's writings and he famously stated that democracies lack the institutional requirements for effective foreign poplicymaking. They cannot do things in secret and do not have the patience necessary to see things carried out to the end.
Might this be the with our involvenment in Iraq?
Some of my classes are reviewing Tocqueville's writings and he famously stated that democracies lack the institutional requirements for effective foreign poplicymaking. They cannot do things in secret and do not have the patience necessary to see things carried out to the end.
Might this be the with our involvenment in Iraq?
Luntz Speaks
Frank Luntz thinks the Republican can bounce back. But he cautions: "dont count on it."
The National Intelligence Estimate
The press has been poring over the latest National Intelligence Estimate, at least the de-classified part they've been able to read. Most have discussed the report's estimate that Al-Qaeda has regrouped and is aiming to strike at the US again.
The Chicago Tribune wonders if the report was issued strategically since it coincides with the Senate's latest effort to pull the troops.
For our purposes, it is useful to ask where the report comes from and what the overall design of the intelligence apparatus in the U.S. is.
The report is the responsibility of the Director of National Intelligence who, according to its website: "serves as the head of the Intelligence Community (IC). The DNI also acts as the principal advisor to the President; the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters related to the national security; and oversees and directs the implementation of the National Intelligence Program."
The Intelligence Community is the term used to describe the 16 agencies and organizations that collect intelligence. The community was officially established by President Reagan in an executive order in an effort to coordinate the collection of intelligence. The idea that a director should oversee the entire community dates back to the 1950s, but did not become law until assessments of the intelligence failures that allowed the 9/11 attacks to occurred spurred its actual establishment in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004. Previously the head of the Central Intelligence Agency also served as the Director of National Intelligence, but now this position only oversees the CIA.
Though the purpose is to facilitate coordination, some suggest that the office is not given enough power to oversee the intelligence operations in other agencies like the National Security Agency.
The Chicago Tribune wonders if the report was issued strategically since it coincides with the Senate's latest effort to pull the troops.
For our purposes, it is useful to ask where the report comes from and what the overall design of the intelligence apparatus in the U.S. is.
The report is the responsibility of the Director of National Intelligence who, according to its website: "serves as the head of the Intelligence Community (IC). The DNI also acts as the principal advisor to the President; the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters related to the national security; and oversees and directs the implementation of the National Intelligence Program."
The Intelligence Community is the term used to describe the 16 agencies and organizations that collect intelligence. The community was officially established by President Reagan in an executive order in an effort to coordinate the collection of intelligence. The idea that a director should oversee the entire community dates back to the 1950s, but did not become law until assessments of the intelligence failures that allowed the 9/11 attacks to occurred spurred its actual establishment in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004. Previously the head of the Central Intelligence Agency also served as the Director of National Intelligence, but now this position only oversees the CIA.
Though the purpose is to facilitate coordination, some suggest that the office is not given enough power to oversee the intelligence operations in other agencies like the National Security Agency.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Scalia Speaks
Antonin Scalia is increasingly vocal about past cases he would like to overturn. All thoughts of stare decisis and judicial restraint are seemingly placed off to the side.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Nixon Tries to be Warm and Fuzzy
An amazing memo by Richard Nixon a couple of year before his reelection in 1972. He wants his staff to sell his "warmth" to the public.
Tommy the Cork
The post below about Tommy the Cork is too good to pass up and I recommend that you read it. Here it is again. It calls Corcoran the first modern lobbyist and explains why: The breadth of agencies created in the New Deal provided expanded opportunities for deal making. Those who knew the ins and outs of the agencies could sell their services at a premium.
"The trail that Corcoran traveled seems well-beaten now: find a government job, develop expertise, then leave government to sell that expertise for a handsome profit. But it was Tommy Corcoran and a handful of other FDR aides who first applied that career strategy to the executive branch. They recognized that the mix of New Deal regulations and World War II foreign policy commitments had created an opening for savvy, well-connected lobbyists who focused not just on Congress, as they had in the past, but on federal agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Export-Import Bank."
And that's the world we live in now.
"The trail that Corcoran traveled seems well-beaten now: find a government job, develop expertise, then leave government to sell that expertise for a handsome profit. But it was Tommy Corcoran and a handful of other FDR aides who first applied that career strategy to the executive branch. They recognized that the mix of New Deal regulations and World War II foreign policy commitments had created an opening for savvy, well-connected lobbyists who focused not just on Congress, as they had in the past, but on federal agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Export-Import Bank."
And that's the world we live in now.
Sacrilege, Juicy Sacrilege
This being Texas and all, it's not nice to be anything but fawning over the dearly departed, but Slate argues that Lady Bird Johnson won't be able rest in peace until the full story of the fortune she made with her Austin radio station is told.
And its a great story. It illustrates the relationship we've touched on between congress, executive agencies and business interests.
The story begins in 1943 when the FCC, about to be abolished, was saved by young House Rep. Lyndon Johnson. Johnson developed a friendship with one of the FCC commissioners who helped clear the road for Lady Birds application for the station's license to be fast tracked. A fixer named Tommy "the Cork" Corcoran helped it along the way as well.
Once she owned it, in fast order the station was allowed to:
- broadcast 24 hours a day
- move to an "uncluttered" area on the dial where it would have little competition and broad coverage
- quintuple its power
- become a part of the CBS Radio network even though an affiliate existed within listening distance
Johnson also used threats to remove local army bases as leverage to persuade local business to advertise with the station. He (excuse me, she) was eventually allowed to add a television station to his/her holdings, which made them wealthy.
Politics is a contact sport in Texas as we all know. I've always thought that a political history of the use of government power to build fortunes would be a worthy project.
And its a great story. It illustrates the relationship we've touched on between congress, executive agencies and business interests.
The story begins in 1943 when the FCC, about to be abolished, was saved by young House Rep. Lyndon Johnson. Johnson developed a friendship with one of the FCC commissioners who helped clear the road for Lady Birds application for the station's license to be fast tracked. A fixer named Tommy "the Cork" Corcoran helped it along the way as well.
Once she owned it, in fast order the station was allowed to:
- broadcast 24 hours a day
- move to an "uncluttered" area on the dial where it would have little competition and broad coverage
- quintuple its power
- become a part of the CBS Radio network even though an affiliate existed within listening distance
Johnson also used threats to remove local army bases as leverage to persuade local business to advertise with the station. He (excuse me, she) was eventually allowed to add a television station to his/her holdings, which made them wealthy.
Politics is a contact sport in Texas as we all know. I've always thought that a political history of the use of government power to build fortunes would be a worthy project.
Cell Phones and Random Sampling
While discussing the problems cell phones posed for pollsters in class today I stumbled across this Pew Research Center study on what they call the "cell only" problem. 13% of Americans only use cell phones and are more difficult to reach than those that use landlines. Since cell phone users are different demographically (younger, more likely to be Hispanic and African American, less likely to be married or a homeowner) this can bias results in away from those groups.
The study suggest that the difference at the moment is marginal, but they project that 25% of the population will be cell-only by the 2008 elections and that adjustments are necessary to ensure that the polls stay accurate. It's not impossible but it is more expensive. Reaching cell-onlies costs 4 to 5 times more than land line users.
The study suggest that the difference at the moment is marginal, but they project that 25% of the population will be cell-only by the 2008 elections and that adjustments are necessary to ensure that the polls stay accurate. It's not impossible but it is more expensive. Reaching cell-onlies costs 4 to 5 times more than land line users.
Counter Offensive
The Weekly Standard and William Kristol try to stop the bleeding by publcishing a couple of feel good pieces about Cheney and Bush. Will they be enough?
DC Appeals
It's taken awhile but Washington DC will appeal the appellate court decision to overturn its gun control laws.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Understanding Your Enemy
Britain, and by extension we, are still coming to terms with the fact that many of the bombers affiliated with Al Qaeda, who we have stereotyped into being poor, hopeless and driven to violence by a lack of opportunity, do not fit that stereotype at all.
The recent bombings in Britain were carried out by doctors who had other opportunities, but seemed fueled by an ideological hatred of the west. The problem that poses is that while we feel that we understand poverty and its solutions (though we are not quite successful in implementing the solutions), we are at a loss to understand ideologically motivated animosity.
Writing in the London Observer, Henry Potter points to Sayyid Qutb, the founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, who spent critical moments in his life in the United States and saw materialism, individual freedom and an equal role for women as evidence of the west's decadence and a justification for attacks on it.
Potter agues that Qutb's theories on how to do it owed more to Lenin than Islam and suggests that our strategies be adjusted accordingly. Potter is short on specifics, but his analysis rests on what some argue may be liberal democracy's Achilles heel: A open, tolerant nation may resist efforts to restrict the inclusion of groups that seek to undermine it. Censorship and exclusion violate the principles of democracy, but to not censor and exclude puts the security of the republic at risk. This violates the primary responsibility of government--to secure unalienable rights.
To complicate the discussion, David Warren points to other writings which argue that groups like Al Qaeda do in fact base their ideas on the religious underpinnings of the societies they exist within. his makes them a larger long term threat than either Nazism or Communism could have been since each cut against the (religious) grain of the culture they emerged within.
Pleasant thoughts on a Sunday morning.
Both build of a concept we hit when we cover public opinion: the role of stereotypes--or schemas--in the development of opinion. We find it very difficult to process information unless it can fit within a general concept we are already comfortable with--like a western political ideology or the rules of baseball. New information about a foreign concept is very difficult for us to process because we attempt to fit it into a known concept first rather than develop a completely new framework for it.
Both articles suggest that we have yet to completely figure out what we are fighting in Al Qaeda and similar organizations and we are unlikely to achieve any success until we do.
The recent bombings in Britain were carried out by doctors who had other opportunities, but seemed fueled by an ideological hatred of the west. The problem that poses is that while we feel that we understand poverty and its solutions (though we are not quite successful in implementing the solutions), we are at a loss to understand ideologically motivated animosity.
Writing in the London Observer, Henry Potter points to Sayyid Qutb, the founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, who spent critical moments in his life in the United States and saw materialism, individual freedom and an equal role for women as evidence of the west's decadence and a justification for attacks on it.
Potter agues that Qutb's theories on how to do it owed more to Lenin than Islam and suggests that our strategies be adjusted accordingly. Potter is short on specifics, but his analysis rests on what some argue may be liberal democracy's Achilles heel: A open, tolerant nation may resist efforts to restrict the inclusion of groups that seek to undermine it. Censorship and exclusion violate the principles of democracy, but to not censor and exclude puts the security of the republic at risk. This violates the primary responsibility of government--to secure unalienable rights.
To complicate the discussion, David Warren points to other writings which argue that groups like Al Qaeda do in fact base their ideas on the religious underpinnings of the societies they exist within. his makes them a larger long term threat than either Nazism or Communism could have been since each cut against the (religious) grain of the culture they emerged within.
Pleasant thoughts on a Sunday morning.
Both build of a concept we hit when we cover public opinion: the role of stereotypes--or schemas--in the development of opinion. We find it very difficult to process information unless it can fit within a general concept we are already comfortable with--like a western political ideology or the rules of baseball. New information about a foreign concept is very difficult for us to process because we attempt to fit it into a known concept first rather than develop a completely new framework for it.
Both articles suggest that we have yet to completely figure out what we are fighting in Al Qaeda and similar organizations and we are unlikely to achieve any success until we do.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Fall Out Over Oaths
Sara Taylor's testimony before the Senate, and her claim to have taken an oath to the president rather than the Constitution, remain topical.
For my 2301's, since we have been discussing the debates over ratifying the Constitution, does this justify the anti-federalists' fears that the executive would gradually become the dominant branch--a military king?
For my 2301's, since we have been discussing the debates over ratifying the Constitution, does this justify the anti-federalists' fears that the executive would gradually become the dominant branch--a military king?
More Noonan
This is as good a description of the relationship between the government and the governed as I've ever read:
Americans hire presidents and fire them. They're not as sweet about it as they used to be. This is not because they have grown cynical, but because they are disappointed, by both teams and both sides. Some part of them thinks no matter who is president he will not protect them from forces at work in the world. Some part of them fears that when history looks back on this moment, on the past few presidents and the next few, it will say: Those men were not big enough for the era.
Americans hire presidents and fire them. They're not as sweet about it as they used to be. This is not because they have grown cynical, but because they are disappointed, by both teams and both sides. Some part of them thinks no matter who is president he will not protect them from forces at work in the world. Some part of them fears that when history looks back on this moment, on the past few presidents and the next few, it will say: Those men were not big enough for the era.
But this is a democracy. You vote, you do the best you can with the choices presented, and you show the appropriate opposition to the guy who seems most likely to bring trouble. (I think that is one reason for the polarity and division of politics now. No one knows in his gut that the guy he supports will do any good. But at least you can oppose with enthusiasm and passion the guy you feel in your gut will cause more trouble than is needed! This is what happens when the pickings are slim: The greatest passion gets funneled into opposition.)
We hire them and fire them. President Bush was hired to know more than the people, to be told all the deep inside intelligence, all the facts Americans are not told, and do the right and smart thing in response.
That's the deal. It's the real "grand bargain." If you are a midlevel Verizon executive who lives in New Jersey, this is what you do: You hire a president and tell him to take care of everything you can't take care of--the security of the nation, its well-being, its long-term interests. And you in turn do your part. You meet your part of the bargain. You work, pay your taxes, which are your financial contribution to making it all work, you become involved in local things--the boy's ball team, the library, the homeless shelter. You handle what you can handle within your ken, and give the big things to the president.
And if he can't do it, or if he can't do it as well as you pay the mortgage and help the kid next door, you get mad. And you fire him.
Americans can't fire the president right now, so they're waiting it out. They can tell a pollster how they feel, and they do, and they can tell friends, and they do that too. They also watch the news conference, and grit their teeth a bit.
"I took the W off my car today"
Sounds like a great line in a country song, but it was the subject line in an email received by Peggy Noonan (Reagan's chief speech writer).
Choice Quote: "I found myself Thursday watching President Bush's news conference and thinking about what it is about him, real or perceived, that makes people who used to smile at the mention of his name now grit their teeth."
The President's poll numbers have depended on maintaining his connection with his own party. He may have lost it.
Choice Quote: "I found myself Thursday watching President Bush's news conference and thinking about what it is about him, real or perceived, that makes people who used to smile at the mention of his name now grit their teeth."
The President's poll numbers have depended on maintaining his connection with his own party. He may have lost it.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Democrats Smell Blood
Harris County Democrats are hoping to learn from Dallas County Democrats who won every county wide office in last year's election.
They key is recruiting the best possible candidates even though some--Police Chief Bradford--come with baggage. They will also be running candidates for each of the judicial races, something they have not done in the past.
Republicans are prepping for the race, but given that no Democrat has won a county wide race in Harris County since 1996, any win would be significant.
They key is recruiting the best possible candidates even though some--Police Chief Bradford--come with baggage. They will also be running candidates for each of the judicial races, something they have not done in the past.
Republicans are prepping for the race, but given that no Democrat has won a county wide race in Harris County since 1996, any win would be significant.
To What--or to Whom--Does One Take an Oath To?
In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding, once again, the firing of the federal attorneys, former White House advisor Sara Taylor seems confused about who she serves.
Of course as a member of the White House Staff the confusion may not be unique to her.
Of course as a member of the White House Staff the confusion may not be unique to her.
Historical Obliteration
That what Dick Morris says Bush risks if he does not pull the troops from Iraq.
A strong Democratic showing in 2008 will upend everything he accomplished in his presidency (tax cuts, No Child Left Behind) and it will be as if he never held office.
Aside from the debt he leaves behind of course.
A strong Democratic showing in 2008 will upend everything he accomplished in his presidency (tax cuts, No Child Left Behind) and it will be as if he never held office.
Aside from the debt he leaves behind of course.
Party Line Vote on Iraq
By far from a veto proof margin, the House of Representatives votes to pull troops from Iraq.
Given that it will fail, is this a serious gesture or an effort to pin Iraq on the Republican Party so that the Democrats can use it as a campaign issue? Republicans who have to run in 2008 seem to think so.
Given that it will fail, is this a serious gesture or an effort to pin Iraq on the Republican Party so that the Democrats can use it as a campaign issue? Republicans who have to run in 2008 seem to think so.
Liberals Adjust to the Reality of the Supreme Court
Liberals now are about where conservatives were around the time of Griswold v Conneticutt. Behind the curve and needing a plan for the future.
That's according to Linds Greenhouse.
That's according to Linds Greenhouse.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
The Surgeon General
The Surgeon General's office was newsworthy today. The most recent occupant of the office Dr. Richard Carmona testified that he was under considerable pressure from the White House to limit his activities to those deemed ideologically appropriate.
He testified alongside two former surgeons general--including C. Everett Koop--before the House Oversight Committee which has been occupied with investigating various White House activities. All worried about the politization of the office, but Tony Snow, Bush's Press Secretary stated that "if you, in fact, serve at the pleasure of the President, you have some obligation to share his policies."
The office is a bit of a relic. At one point it actually had a degree of power, but the passage of Medicare and Medicaid legislation in the 1960s trumped it. Programs that it had control over were transfered to the Department of Health and Human Services. The Surgeon General largely exist now to advocate for health issues. The conflict with the White House is a further illustration of the perennial tension that exists between the politically minded forces associated with the president and the policy minded individuals committed to an agency's mission.
He testified alongside two former surgeons general--including C. Everett Koop--before the House Oversight Committee which has been occupied with investigating various White House activities. All worried about the politization of the office, but Tony Snow, Bush's Press Secretary stated that "if you, in fact, serve at the pleasure of the President, you have some obligation to share his policies."
The office is a bit of a relic. At one point it actually had a degree of power, but the passage of Medicare and Medicaid legislation in the 1960s trumped it. Programs that it had control over were transfered to the Department of Health and Human Services. The Surgeon General largely exist now to advocate for health issues. The conflict with the White House is a further illustration of the perennial tension that exists between the politically minded forces associated with the president and the policy minded individuals committed to an agency's mission.
Wimps
The Hill reports that House Minority Leader John Boehner has found a unique way to forge cohesion in his caucus: Call the Senate Republicans skeptical of the surge wimps.
Regarding Confidential Advice
Writing in Slate, Bruce Fein takes issue with the major premise underlying executive privilege:
"The president's claim of privilege pivots on a false assumption wrongly endorsed by the Supreme Court in Nixon v. United States: namely, that the president will not receive candid and unfettered advice from subordinates absent a guarantee that their communications will remain confidential. What nonsense. I have worked in and out of government for 38 years. I have never heard any high or low executive-branch official so much as insinuate that presidential advice had been or might be skewed or withheld if confidentiality were not guaranteed. The gravity of advising the president universally overcomes anxieties over possible embarrassment through subsequent publicity. Moreover, every presidential adviser knows that confidentiality is never ironclad. Presidents routinely waive executive privilege in jockeying with Congress; confidentiality is always subservient to a criminal investigation or prosecution under the Nixon precedent; and leaks to the media of confidential presidential memos or conversations overflow like the Nile. Indeed, President Bush has himself waived the privilege repeatedly in the ongoing U.S. attorneys investigations by the two committees.
Executive privilege is a concoction, then, to protect secrecy for the sake of secret government, while transparency is the rule of enlightened democracies to insure political accountability and to deter folly or wrongdoing."
"The president's claim of privilege pivots on a false assumption wrongly endorsed by the Supreme Court in Nixon v. United States: namely, that the president will not receive candid and unfettered advice from subordinates absent a guarantee that their communications will remain confidential. What nonsense. I have worked in and out of government for 38 years. I have never heard any high or low executive-branch official so much as insinuate that presidential advice had been or might be skewed or withheld if confidentiality were not guaranteed. The gravity of advising the president universally overcomes anxieties over possible embarrassment through subsequent publicity. Moreover, every presidential adviser knows that confidentiality is never ironclad. Presidents routinely waive executive privilege in jockeying with Congress; confidentiality is always subservient to a criminal investigation or prosecution under the Nixon precedent; and leaks to the media of confidential presidential memos or conversations overflow like the Nile. Indeed, President Bush has himself waived the privilege repeatedly in the ongoing U.S. attorneys investigations by the two committees.
Executive privilege is a concoction, then, to protect secrecy for the sake of secret government, while transparency is the rule of enlightened democracies to insure political accountability and to deter folly or wrongdoing."
Nixon on Executive Power
From an interview with David Frost in 1977:
Frost: So what in a sense you are saying is that there are certain situations when the president can decide that it is in the best interest of the nation or something and do something illegal.
Nixon: Well, when the president does it that means its not illegal.
Frost: By definition.
Nixon: Exactly.
Frost: So what in a sense you are saying is that there are certain situations when the president can decide that it is in the best interest of the nation or something and do something illegal.
Nixon: Well, when the president does it that means its not illegal.
Frost: By definition.
Nixon: Exactly.
Home Grown Monopoly
Houston's own Sysco Foods is in the spotlight increasingly due to it's dominance of the food wholesaling business. Most of what you eat in restaurants, institutions, ballparks and the like is delivered and processed by them.
Monopolies are illegal, but how would we know if this is a problem? Prices are cheap, but are our choices limited?
Monopolies are illegal, but how would we know if this is a problem? Prices are cheap, but are our choices limited?
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
LBJ & GWB
The parallels between the two are becoming more striking. Vietnam and Iraq is an obvious comparison made well here. Johnson also left his party in disarray and created opportunities for the opposition. It's too early to say what state the president will leave his party, but early indications are not hopeful.
William Wayne Justice
One of the more influential policy makers in Texas over the past few decades is not an elected representative of the state. He's 87 year old U.S. District Judge William Wayne Justice.
He is back in the news due to his role in settling a lawsuit over children's access to Medicaid.
Justice has already placed his stamp on a variety of policies in Texas, and since he has mandated policies to benefit prisoners and desegregate schools.
Neither made him popular with conservatives who use him as an example of a judicial activist.
He is back in the news due to his role in settling a lawsuit over children's access to Medicaid.
Justice has already placed his stamp on a variety of policies in Texas, and since he has mandated policies to benefit prisoners and desegregate schools.
Neither made him popular with conservatives who use him as an example of a judicial activist.
More on Cheney
Andrew Sullivan argues for impeachment.
"Most Americans are not yet fully aware that this vice-president believes that the executive branch is not subject to domestic or international law, has inherent powers to arrest, detain indefinitely without charges and torture anyone on earth if it so wishes, and can wire-tap Americans without any court oversight for good measure. These are not emergency powers in wartime, but permanent new powers since we are in permanent new state of war. Alongside our constitution, Cheney has constructed a rival governing force, a protectorate, answerable to no one and no law, dedicated to our security. We do get to select that protector every four years (our "accountability moment"), but that's the extent of our ultimate constitutional and legal protection. This is not self-government; it's delegation of power to a single leader-guardian-decider. The president is not really the president in this constitutional model. Presidents preside over a constitutional order. Protectors act as constant and energetic guardians of the security of others. They are outside the law, because they believe the law impedes the necessity for risk-free security."
He quotes one of his readers who suggests that impeachments were intended to be more frequent, the proof being it's "asymmetrical" structure. A simple majority for impeachment and a 2/3rds majority for removal from office. I don't know if I buy the argument, but its worth chewing over.
According to a recent poll, 54% of respondents support impeachment (76% of Democrats, 51% of Independents, and 17% of Republicans)
Here's the rub though. Do Democrats really want him out of office? He may be a great foil for them to run against. Notice that no one seems to care about Donald Rumsfeld anymore. It might be best to keep him in the limelight--maybe Republicans should want to kick him put. Plus if Democrats impeach him it opens the door to retaliation when a Republican Congress has the chance--not that they would actually do anything like that.
"Most Americans are not yet fully aware that this vice-president believes that the executive branch is not subject to domestic or international law, has inherent powers to arrest, detain indefinitely without charges and torture anyone on earth if it so wishes, and can wire-tap Americans without any court oversight for good measure. These are not emergency powers in wartime, but permanent new powers since we are in permanent new state of war. Alongside our constitution, Cheney has constructed a rival governing force, a protectorate, answerable to no one and no law, dedicated to our security. We do get to select that protector every four years (our "accountability moment"), but that's the extent of our ultimate constitutional and legal protection. This is not self-government; it's delegation of power to a single leader-guardian-decider. The president is not really the president in this constitutional model. Presidents preside over a constitutional order. Protectors act as constant and energetic guardians of the security of others. They are outside the law, because they believe the law impedes the necessity for risk-free security."
He quotes one of his readers who suggests that impeachments were intended to be more frequent, the proof being it's "asymmetrical" structure. A simple majority for impeachment and a 2/3rds majority for removal from office. I don't know if I buy the argument, but its worth chewing over.
According to a recent poll, 54% of respondents support impeachment (76% of Democrats, 51% of Independents, and 17% of Republicans)
Here's the rub though. Do Democrats really want him out of office? He may be a great foil for them to run against. Notice that no one seems to care about Donald Rumsfeld anymore. It might be best to keep him in the limelight--maybe Republicans should want to kick him put. Plus if Democrats impeach him it opens the door to retaliation when a Republican Congress has the chance--not that they would actually do anything like that.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Swarm Intelligence
In essence, the study of government is the study of how groups make collective decisions--at least those that are legally binding. Democracy rests on the idea that the individual decision maker is the central unit in the governing structure and that collective decisions are only as good as the individuals making those decisions.
The premise underlying the decision to require you to take two government classes is that the more you know the better governmental decisions will be.
Now come researchers who study the behavior of ant colonies, schools of fish, and flocks of birds and argue that the collective unit itself has its own unique intelligence that goes beyond the capabilities of any one ant, fish or bird. simple creatures following simple rules, each one acting on local information. ". . . no ant sees the big picture. No ant tells any other ant what to do. Some ant species may go about this with more sophistication than others. Even complex behavior may be coordinated by relatively simple interactions." Applications have been made to human endeavors which promise to upend theories of how groups decisions ought to be made. The distribution of goods seems to be most responsive to these theories. Algorithms developed based on any behavior are helping determine where gas is purchased and planes are flown.
I'm pretty sure that economists and urban planners would state that they have each long held that markets and cities create environments where such decisions are made. The conclusion one peron made of bee behavior sounds familiar: "—seek a diversity of options, encourage a free competition among ideas, and use an effective mechanism to narrow choices. " A good rule of thumb for any decision. These studies seem to fit into a larger range of research focused on the biological determinants of human behavior, a growth area from what I can tell.
Here's an extended quote:
"In fact, almost any group that follows the bees' rules will make itself smarter, says James Surowiecki, author of The Wisdom of Crowds. "The analogy is really quite powerful. The bees are predicting which nest site will be best, and humans can do the same thing, even in the face of exceptionally complex decisions." Investors in the stock market, scientists on a research project, even kids at a county fair guessing the number of beans in a jar can be smart groups, he says, if their members are diverse, independent minded, and use a mechanism such as voting, auctioning, or averaging to reach a collective decision.
Take bettors at a horse race. Why are they so accurate at predicting the outcome of a race? At the moment the horses leave the starting gate, the odds posted on the pari-mutuel board, which are calculated from all bets put down, almost always predict the race's outcome: Horses with the lowest odds normally finish first, those with second lowest odds finish second, and so on. The reason, Surowiecki says, is that pari-mutuel betting is a nearly perfect machine for tapping into the wisdom of the crowd.
"If you ever go to the track, you find a really diverse group, experts who spend all day perusing daily race forms, people who know something about some kinds of horses, and others who are betting at random, like the woman who only likes black horses," he says. Like bees trying to make a decision, bettors gather all kinds of information, disagree with one another, and distill their collective judgment when they place their bets.
That's why it's so rare to win on a long shot."
The article's conclusion is noteworthy. Group dynamics are only as good as the information provided by its members, which requires members to pay attention and participate. Voting, volunteering, recycling--not free riding in general--suddenly become more important not just for their own merit, but for the information it conveys to others about how they should behave.
The premise underlying the decision to require you to take two government classes is that the more you know the better governmental decisions will be.
Now come researchers who study the behavior of ant colonies, schools of fish, and flocks of birds and argue that the collective unit itself has its own unique intelligence that goes beyond the capabilities of any one ant, fish or bird. simple creatures following simple rules, each one acting on local information. ". . . no ant sees the big picture. No ant tells any other ant what to do. Some ant species may go about this with more sophistication than others. Even complex behavior may be coordinated by relatively simple interactions." Applications have been made to human endeavors which promise to upend theories of how groups decisions ought to be made. The distribution of goods seems to be most responsive to these theories. Algorithms developed based on any behavior are helping determine where gas is purchased and planes are flown.
I'm pretty sure that economists and urban planners would state that they have each long held that markets and cities create environments where such decisions are made. The conclusion one peron made of bee behavior sounds familiar: "—seek a diversity of options, encourage a free competition among ideas, and use an effective mechanism to narrow choices. " A good rule of thumb for any decision. These studies seem to fit into a larger range of research focused on the biological determinants of human behavior, a growth area from what I can tell.
Here's an extended quote:
"In fact, almost any group that follows the bees' rules will make itself smarter, says James Surowiecki, author of The Wisdom of Crowds. "The analogy is really quite powerful. The bees are predicting which nest site will be best, and humans can do the same thing, even in the face of exceptionally complex decisions." Investors in the stock market, scientists on a research project, even kids at a county fair guessing the number of beans in a jar can be smart groups, he says, if their members are diverse, independent minded, and use a mechanism such as voting, auctioning, or averaging to reach a collective decision.
Take bettors at a horse race. Why are they so accurate at predicting the outcome of a race? At the moment the horses leave the starting gate, the odds posted on the pari-mutuel board, which are calculated from all bets put down, almost always predict the race's outcome: Horses with the lowest odds normally finish first, those with second lowest odds finish second, and so on. The reason, Surowiecki says, is that pari-mutuel betting is a nearly perfect machine for tapping into the wisdom of the crowd.
"If you ever go to the track, you find a really diverse group, experts who spend all day perusing daily race forms, people who know something about some kinds of horses, and others who are betting at random, like the woman who only likes black horses," he says. Like bees trying to make a decision, bettors gather all kinds of information, disagree with one another, and distill their collective judgment when they place their bets.
That's why it's so rare to win on a long shot."
The article's conclusion is noteworthy. Group dynamics are only as good as the information provided by its members, which requires members to pay attention and participate. Voting, volunteering, recycling--not free riding in general--suddenly become more important not just for their own merit, but for the information it conveys to others about how they should behave.
Court Cases for my 2302's to Chew On
For my Summer 2 GOVT 2302 class: Here's a list of the court cases from the recently completed session of the U.S. Supreme Court. Pick on for your writting assignment due August 7th.
One per customer, first come first served. Cases with X's have been selected.
x-Carey v. Musladin
x-Purcell v. Gonzalez
x-Philip Morris USA v. Williams
x-Wallace v. Kato
x-Whorton v. Bockting
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States
x-Massachusetts v. EPA
Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp.
x-Gonzales v. Carhart
x-James v. United States
x-Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman
Brewer v. Quarterman
x-Smith v. Texas
x-Scott v. Harris
x-Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Schriro v. Landrigan
Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke
Bowles v. Russell
x-Brendlin v. California
x-Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy
x-Morse v. Frederick
x-Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1
Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.
Panetti v. Quarterman
x-Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.
National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife
One per customer, first come first served. Cases with X's have been selected.
x-Carey v. Musladin
x-Purcell v. Gonzalez
x-Philip Morris USA v. Williams
x-Wallace v. Kato
x-Whorton v. Bockting
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States
x-Massachusetts v. EPA
Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp.
x-Gonzales v. Carhart
x-James v. United States
x-Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman
Brewer v. Quarterman
x-Smith v. Texas
x-Scott v. Harris
x-Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Schriro v. Landrigan
Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke
Bowles v. Russell
x-Brendlin v. California
x-Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy
x-Morse v. Frederick
x-Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1
Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.
Panetti v. Quarterman
x-Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.
National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife
Congressman Cheney
As suggested below, Cheney's efforts to expand executive power predate his current position as vice-president. This article points out how his minority report on the Iran-Contra scandal (which he didn't consider a scandal at all) introduces arguments that have been expanded more recently.
It also suggests that he thought Congress overstepped in its investigations of Richard Nixon. His career follows an interesting path. He works in Nixon and Ford's White House, where he seeks to expand presidential powers, and then spends time in Congress where he attempts to do the same, but this time by undermining Congress from within. Now as vice-president he further expands those powers.
What focus. One wonders what motivates him.
It also suggests that he thought Congress overstepped in its investigations of Richard Nixon. His career follows an interesting path. He works in Nixon and Ford's White House, where he seeks to expand presidential powers, and then spends time in Congress where he attempts to do the same, but this time by undermining Congress from within. Now as vice-president he further expands those powers.
What focus. One wonders what motivates him.
What National Security Advisers Do
They lobby for the president.
The adviser in question is Stephen J. Hadley and he does not seem to have been successful. He's attempted to reign in some of the Republican Senators who have begun questioning the success of the surge.
Troublesome concern: "Some senators were left with the impression that the White House still does not recognize the scope of the Iraq dilemma. Worse yet, they see the president running out the clock until April, when a depleted U.S. military will be blamed for the fiasco."
Let's hope it does not come to this.
The adviser in question is Stephen J. Hadley and he does not seem to have been successful. He's attempted to reign in some of the Republican Senators who have begun questioning the success of the surge.
Troublesome concern: "Some senators were left with the impression that the White House still does not recognize the scope of the Iraq dilemma. Worse yet, they see the president running out the clock until April, when a depleted U.S. military will be blamed for the fiasco."
Let's hope it does not come to this.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
If not Iraq, China?
Apparently we were angling to go to war with someone. This story argues that if it wasn't for 9/11 we would be at war with China now.
The Base Weakens
We've been talking about this possibility in class for some time. The Washington Post argues that two recent missteps by the White House have weakened his support among Republicans--which has dipped below 70% when it should be above 90%.
The first was his decision to back Senator Kennedy's proposal to open citizenship to some illegal immigrants (they termed this amnesty) the other was the decision to commute Libby's sentence, not give him a complete pardon. Add Republican defections on Iraq, and you get a trifecta.
Conservatives thought the president went too far in the former and not far enough in the latter. This has made it more permissible for conservatives to criticize him freeing up those who end up being called by Gallup and other, to state they they disapprove of the president's performance when asked.
The story points out that Bush's saving grace may be the Democrat controlled Congress. If they start sending him bills calling for more spending he can veto them and regain a reputation as a fiscal conservative. Maybe too little for him to have an impact on governance, but enough to rally support for the eventual Republican nominee.
The first was his decision to back Senator Kennedy's proposal to open citizenship to some illegal immigrants (they termed this amnesty) the other was the decision to commute Libby's sentence, not give him a complete pardon. Add Republican defections on Iraq, and you get a trifecta.
Conservatives thought the president went too far in the former and not far enough in the latter. This has made it more permissible for conservatives to criticize him freeing up those who end up being called by Gallup and other, to state they they disapprove of the president's performance when asked.
The story points out that Bush's saving grace may be the Democrat controlled Congress. If they start sending him bills calling for more spending he can veto them and regain a reputation as a fiscal conservative. Maybe too little for him to have an impact on governance, but enough to rally support for the eventual Republican nominee.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Conservative Shift on Executive Power
Once upon a time, conservatives distrusted strong executive power--back when liberal presidents seemed intent on using its powers to advance the welfare state anyway. Times have changed.
Thanks to Matt Yglesias.
Thanks to Matt Yglesias.
The Irrational Public
Another review of a book we covered before--and ought to read in class down the line. The title says it all: are the wrong people voting?
The Money Primary
I'm not sure who coined the term, but sometime ago (wordspy says it happened in 1987) a very wise person decided that the period prior to the actual primary/caucus season deserved its own name and since the time is generally spent earning the money necessary to purchase ad space and travel and all that, why not call it the money primary?
Since the Federal Election Commission makes candidates report the amount of money they have earned every three months, the announcement has turned into a race of its own. It's a way for candidates to prove their viability and to convince others (staffers, funders, potential opponents) to join them.
June 30th marked the latest date candidates had to report figures, and as has been reported, Barack Obama led the pack with over $32 million raised from over 150,000 people. For a full picture of the race go to opensecrets.org or fec.gov.
Now for feedback: Is this the best way to pick presidential candidates?
Since the Federal Election Commission makes candidates report the amount of money they have earned every three months, the announcement has turned into a race of its own. It's a way for candidates to prove their viability and to convince others (staffers, funders, potential opponents) to join them.
June 30th marked the latest date candidates had to report figures, and as has been reported, Barack Obama led the pack with over $32 million raised from over 150,000 people. For a full picture of the race go to opensecrets.org or fec.gov.
Now for feedback: Is this the best way to pick presidential candidates?
Friday, July 6, 2007
Railroad Conventions
A bit of 19th Century history I wasn't aware of (one of the many bits actually).
Railroad Conventions. Opportunities for citizens of different cities and regional to influence decisions about where railroads would go. Obviously important to emerging cities across the country. I stumbled cross this while researching the history U.S. representation of Brazoria County. Several reps had backgrounds speaking for the interests of various cities in railroad conventions.
Railroad Conventions. Opportunities for citizens of different cities and regional to influence decisions about where railroads would go. Obviously important to emerging cities across the country. I stumbled cross this while researching the history U.S. representation of Brazoria County. Several reps had backgrounds speaking for the interests of various cities in railroad conventions.
More--or Maybe Less-on Standing
A federal court once again rules against plaintiffs in a lawsuit, not on the merits of the case, but because they lacked standing to bring the case forward. That's to say that they have not been able to prove that they have suffered harm as a result of the law's implementation.
This case involves warrant-less wire tapping, and whether particular people(non terrorists: academics, journalists and the like) have had their messages intercepted without warrants. If so, this would be a clear violation of the 4th amendment, but the problem for the plaintiffs is proving that they have been wiretapped. The executive claims this information is top secret and they cannot be forced to reveal whether it has occurred.
Genius.
This case involves warrant-less wire tapping, and whether particular people(non terrorists: academics, journalists and the like) have had their messages intercepted without warrants. If so, this would be a clear violation of the 4th amendment, but the problem for the plaintiffs is proving that they have been wiretapped. The executive claims this information is top secret and they cannot be forced to reveal whether it has occurred.
Genius.
The Political Lexicon
My apologies to more attentive readers, but this term is new to me: burn rate.
Supreme Turning Point
A panel of experts claims that the court has in fact turned a corner as significant as that turned when the court decided Mapp v. Ohio in 1961.
Executive Privilege Showdown
The National Review suggests that the president's claim of executive privilege in regards to the firing of the federal prosecutors may be strong : "The oversight power of Congress tends to follow its legislative power. In those areas where it has a direct hand, it has a strong claim to exercise oversight over the executive branch, but not where it doesn’t." Meaning that if the Congress has no role in the act it is investigating, it has no right to mandate that documents be produced.
They suggest that if the subject concerned the implementation of an act Congress passed, then they would have the right to investigate and--perhaps--override claims of executive privilege. They continue to point out that the purpose behind executive privilege is to allow the president to get unfiltered advice and denying him executive privilege here could undermine the ability of future presidents to get broad ranging advice.
It may well be that this is at root a political dispute and will require a political solution. If a Democrat wins the White House in 2008, then the issue of a Republican leaning Justice Department becomes moot, and if Democrats hold on to Congress, then there will no oversight of their attempts to either right any wrong they perceive to have been committed by Bush or tilt the Justice Department in their direction. Of course if Republicans were to take over Congress while a Democrat is in the White House, any precedent regarding investigations established now could come back to haunt them.
Maybe their best move might be to raise a stink, but ultimately let the issue die down before it goes to the courts.
They suggest that if the subject concerned the implementation of an act Congress passed, then they would have the right to investigate and--perhaps--override claims of executive privilege. They continue to point out that the purpose behind executive privilege is to allow the president to get unfiltered advice and denying him executive privilege here could undermine the ability of future presidents to get broad ranging advice.
It may well be that this is at root a political dispute and will require a political solution. If a Democrat wins the White House in 2008, then the issue of a Republican leaning Justice Department becomes moot, and if Democrats hold on to Congress, then there will no oversight of their attempts to either right any wrong they perceive to have been committed by Bush or tilt the Justice Department in their direction. Of course if Republicans were to take over Congress while a Democrat is in the White House, any precedent regarding investigations established now could come back to haunt them.
Maybe their best move might be to raise a stink, but ultimately let the issue die down before it goes to the courts.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Bush/Cheney
The Washington Post has one story about Bush's increased isolation, and a series about Cheney's unusually strong term as vice president.
2301 and 2302 Finals
Thanks to my summer 1 classes for putting up with me. The finals exams were not bad. The average for 2301 was 73.5, and 2302 was an amazing 85! Unless I made it all too easy, you just may have learned something. Finals are as much a reflection on me as they are of you, so I'm a bit relieved.
I encourage you all to stay in touch and continue commenting on this site--as well as others you might have stumbled across.
I'll see some of you next week for summer 2.
I encourage you all to stay in touch and continue commenting on this site--as well as others you might have stumbled across.
I'll see some of you next week for summer 2.
About Those Independents
To often we, meaning I, talk about independents as if they are a monolithic bunch. They are not and this poll proves it.
The Washington Post took part in the poll and wrote up the results here. Here's the key part of the story:
The Washington Post took part in the poll and wrote up the results here. Here's the key part of the story:
"Five categories of independents emerged from the analysis of the survey results:
- "Deliberators," who are classic swing voters.
- "Disillusioned," who are acutely upset with politics today.
- "Dislocated," who are both social liberals and fiscal conservatives.
-"Disguised," who are partisans on the left and right who behave almost identically to Democrats or Republicans.
- "Disengaged," who generally sit on the political sidelines."
Depending on where you get your information, self identified independents are the largest or second largest partisan group in politics today. The study suggests that we be cautious when we make predictions about how they might vote.
The Anti-Federalists and the Pardon
Sanford Levinson, commenting on the Libby pardon, reminds us that the Anti-Federalists were suspicious of the power to pardon:
"George Mason, a distinguished Virginian who refused to sign the Constitution, noted that 'the President of the United States has the unrestrained Power of granting Pardon for Treason; which may be sometimes exercised to screen from Punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the Crime, and thereby prevent a Discovery of his own guilt.' Luther Martin, another non-signatory, also objected to the potential 'attempt [of the President] to assume to himself powers not given by the constitution, and establish himself in regal authority; in which attempt a provision is made for him to secure from punishment the creatures of his ambition, the associates and abettors of his treasonable practices, by granting them pardons should they be defeated in their attempts to subvert the constitution.'"
It was another reason to oppose a system of government that created a singular executive.
"George Mason, a distinguished Virginian who refused to sign the Constitution, noted that 'the President of the United States has the unrestrained Power of granting Pardon for Treason; which may be sometimes exercised to screen from Punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the Crime, and thereby prevent a Discovery of his own guilt.' Luther Martin, another non-signatory, also objected to the potential 'attempt [of the President] to assume to himself powers not given by the constitution, and establish himself in regal authority; in which attempt a provision is made for him to secure from punishment the creatures of his ambition, the associates and abettors of his treasonable practices, by granting them pardons should they be defeated in their attempts to subvert the constitution.'"
It was another reason to oppose a system of government that created a singular executive.
The Libby Pardon
The chief executive checked the judiciary by commuting a sentence it imposed on an executive official, following a trial prosecuted by attorneys in the Justice Department (also members of the executive branch). Don't you love separated powers?
Objective background on the case against Scooter Libby is next to impossible to find. This link takes you to a page on National Public Radio's website with links to various stories about the case. It's as good as any place to get an idea about how we got to where we are.
Comments are all over the place. Here's a taste:
-The prosecutor was nuts to pursue the case.
-Rules are different for the rich and well connected.
-Clinton did worse.
-Bush's presidency is effectively over.
-It's all about keeping Libby silent.
There's much more. And irony to boot. Some point out that Marc Rich, Clinton's most controversial pardon, was defended by Scooter Libby. And Libby's current lawyer, Ted Wells, also successfully defended Clinton cabinet official Mike Espy.
Incestuous place, isn't it?
Objective background on the case against Scooter Libby is next to impossible to find. This link takes you to a page on National Public Radio's website with links to various stories about the case. It's as good as any place to get an idea about how we got to where we are.
Comments are all over the place. Here's a taste:
-The prosecutor was nuts to pursue the case.
-Rules are different for the rich and well connected.
-Clinton did worse.
-Bush's presidency is effectively over.
-It's all about keeping Libby silent.
There's much more. And irony to boot. Some point out that Marc Rich, Clinton's most controversial pardon, was defended by Scooter Libby. And Libby's current lawyer, Ted Wells, also successfully defended Clinton cabinet official Mike Espy.
Incestuous place, isn't it?
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Showdown
The Hill outlines the latest conflict between Congress and the White House over executive privilege.
The White House says: "For the president to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisers and among those advisers and between those advisers and others within and outside the executive branch.”
Senate Judiciary member Charles Schumer "accused the White House of having an 'imperious attitude' toward Congress’s investigative power and the American people’s right to know. 'Show me an administration that likes secrecy, and I’ll show you an administration that has something to hide.'"
The Hill predicts that the battle will end up in the Supreme Court.
The White House says: "For the president to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisers and among those advisers and between those advisers and others within and outside the executive branch.”
Senate Judiciary member Charles Schumer "accused the White House of having an 'imperious attitude' toward Congress’s investigative power and the American people’s right to know. 'Show me an administration that likes secrecy, and I’ll show you an administration that has something to hide.'"
The Hill predicts that the battle will end up in the Supreme Court.
H Res 333
On April 24 Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney and recent events have led a small number of additional members of Congress to sign on.
That makes seven, which ain't much, but who knows if additional revelations might lead others to join up? It's worth monitoring.
That makes seven, which ain't much, but who knows if additional revelations might lead others to join up? It's worth monitoring.
Mapping and Democracy
Will Google Earth help spread democracy?
This raises old issues about how democracies develop: Incrementally due to internal factors, or suddenly due to external factors?
This raises old issues about how democracies develop: Incrementally due to internal factors, or suddenly due to external factors?
Supreme Court Summaries
Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has shut down for the 06-07 session, various commentators are weighing in on the new direction the court is heading.
Big surprise: it's getting more conservative!
The more interesting analysis looks at the nature of that shift and whether it is driven by the ideological conservatism of Scalia and Thomas, or is more pragmatic and restrained--and whether Roberts and Alito will turn out to be thus. Is the narrow (and fragile given Kennedy's moderation) conservative majority likely to overturn precedents established by the Warren and Burger courts or simply scale them back?
Thus far the answer seems to be that they will scale them back, not because Scalia and Thomas do not want to overturn precedent, but because Roberts and Alito (and Kennedy) generally refuse to join them, which denies them the necessary majority. Things may change on the court, but now I think focus ought to be directed at the political environment. Will there be a political reaction to its decisions? Think of how Roe v Wade continues to motivate social conservatives. Add Engle v. Vitale, Miranda v. Arizona, and Griswold v. Connecticut and you had a slew of opinions that rallied what had been a dormant movement.
Will these recent decisions prove to have the same impact for a liberal movement? Stay tuned.
Here are links to analyses of the session:
- Scotusblog.
- Slate.
- BusinessWeek.
- CNN.
- prawsblawg.
- Reuter's.
- Associated Press.
I pulled these from scotusblog, which might be the best resource for links to sc commentaries.
For my current students who are considering taking my class in the second summer session, the writing assignment will focus on analyzing a case of your choice.
Big surprise: it's getting more conservative!
The more interesting analysis looks at the nature of that shift and whether it is driven by the ideological conservatism of Scalia and Thomas, or is more pragmatic and restrained--and whether Roberts and Alito will turn out to be thus. Is the narrow (and fragile given Kennedy's moderation) conservative majority likely to overturn precedents established by the Warren and Burger courts or simply scale them back?
Thus far the answer seems to be that they will scale them back, not because Scalia and Thomas do not want to overturn precedent, but because Roberts and Alito (and Kennedy) generally refuse to join them, which denies them the necessary majority. Things may change on the court, but now I think focus ought to be directed at the political environment. Will there be a political reaction to its decisions? Think of how Roe v Wade continues to motivate social conservatives. Add Engle v. Vitale, Miranda v. Arizona, and Griswold v. Connecticut and you had a slew of opinions that rallied what had been a dormant movement.
Will these recent decisions prove to have the same impact for a liberal movement? Stay tuned.
Here are links to analyses of the session:
- Scotusblog.
- Slate.
- BusinessWeek.
- CNN.
- prawsblawg.
- Reuter's.
- Associated Press.
I pulled these from scotusblog, which might be the best resource for links to sc commentaries.
For my current students who are considering taking my class in the second summer session, the writing assignment will focus on analyzing a case of your choice.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Restoring the Fairness Doctrine
Democrats in the Senate are trying to revive the fairness doctrine.
From 1949 to 1985 the Federal Communications Commission required that broadcast stations air controversial matters in a fair and balanced matter. There were concerns that stations that only aired one side of an issue would distort the quality of information the American public was likely to hear, especially given the limited number of stations available to listeners.
The problem for some broadcasters was that it would interfere with their right to determine what was fair and could lead to a chilling effect on the content of broadcasts. They may wish to shy away from issues that would trigger the fairness doctrine.
Mark Fowler--then FCC chairman--repealed the regulation. Congress restored the policy but Reagan vetoed it. Certainly Bush would do the same if the Democrats pass a similar law. Fowler argued that the fairness doctrine was not necessary given the greater variety of stations available made the regulation unnecessary.
Critics argue that the repeal of the regulation unleashed the rise of conservative talk radio. It's hard to imagine that stations that carry Rush Limbaugh would have the same impact if he was followed by a liberal commentator. Critics might also argue that Democrats are using their muscle to deflate the impact of talk radio since it's been an effective motivator for the Republican Party. A cynic might suspect that one's opinion of the doctrine is conditioned by whether one's party is helped or hurt by it.
For my part, I'm interested in whether the repeal of the doctrine contributed to what seems to me to be a more superficial political environment.
A realist may point out that since the doctrine could not apply to the internet and cable television--since neither is regulated by the FCC--the restoration of the doctrine may have little impact.
From 1949 to 1985 the Federal Communications Commission required that broadcast stations air controversial matters in a fair and balanced matter. There were concerns that stations that only aired one side of an issue would distort the quality of information the American public was likely to hear, especially given the limited number of stations available to listeners.
The problem for some broadcasters was that it would interfere with their right to determine what was fair and could lead to a chilling effect on the content of broadcasts. They may wish to shy away from issues that would trigger the fairness doctrine.
Mark Fowler--then FCC chairman--repealed the regulation. Congress restored the policy but Reagan vetoed it. Certainly Bush would do the same if the Democrats pass a similar law. Fowler argued that the fairness doctrine was not necessary given the greater variety of stations available made the regulation unnecessary.
Critics argue that the repeal of the regulation unleashed the rise of conservative talk radio. It's hard to imagine that stations that carry Rush Limbaugh would have the same impact if he was followed by a liberal commentator. Critics might also argue that Democrats are using their muscle to deflate the impact of talk radio since it's been an effective motivator for the Republican Party. A cynic might suspect that one's opinion of the doctrine is conditioned by whether one's party is helped or hurt by it.
For my part, I'm interested in whether the repeal of the doctrine contributed to what seems to me to be a more superficial political environment.
A realist may point out that since the doctrine could not apply to the internet and cable television--since neither is regulated by the FCC--the restoration of the doctrine may have little impact.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Rest Easy
The Vice Presidency has returned to the executive branch.
But now vp's lawyer argues that it is indistinguishable from the presidency, and is therefore not covered by an executive order mandating that federal agencies pony up classified material.
The lawyer in question is David Addington and he's worth knowing about.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has stepped into the fray and has subpoenaed vp documents related to wiretapping.
But now vp's lawyer argues that it is indistinguishable from the presidency, and is therefore not covered by an executive order mandating that federal agencies pony up classified material.
The lawyer in question is David Addington and he's worth knowing about.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has stepped into the fray and has subpoenaed vp documents related to wiretapping.
Speaking of the Internet
A rogue planet named Nibiru that passes by the earth once every 3,657 years is about to pass by within 5 years and will cause the poles to shift. The North Pole will become the South Pole etc... It wont lead to the end of the world, but will lead to the end of civilization.
How do I know this? Because it's covered in zetatalk.com, alienshift.com, and phils.com.
Don't say you haven't been warned.
How do I know this? Because it's covered in zetatalk.com, alienshift.com, and phils.com.
Don't say you haven't been warned.
The Shrinking Press
One of the angles explored in our discussion of the media is the greater concentration of media ownership made possible by the relaxation of ownership rules over the past decades, most recently the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Concentrated ownership is argued to reduce the number of voices involved in public debate, biasing outcomes towards those who own or influence media outlets. Those opposed to regulations point to newer technologies, like the Internet, that expand the number of voices since the costs of entry are reduced.
I know of no reliable studies that help determine which argument is more valid, but the media environment might be getting more concentrated if Rupert Murdoch purchases the Wall Street Journal.
Should the person who already controls Fox News also control the Wall Street Journal? If not, what might justify preventing him in doing so?
Concentrated ownership is argued to reduce the number of voices involved in public debate, biasing outcomes towards those who own or influence media outlets. Those opposed to regulations point to newer technologies, like the Internet, that expand the number of voices since the costs of entry are reduced.
I know of no reliable studies that help determine which argument is more valid, but the media environment might be getting more concentrated if Rupert Murdoch purchases the Wall Street Journal.
Should the person who already controls Fox News also control the Wall Street Journal? If not, what might justify preventing him in doing so?
How to Kill a Buzz
Now we know that a small majority of the court believes that public schools can punish students for speech that advocates, or takes a flippant attitude towards drug use. Again, it's not the speech itself, but the consequence that matters. We read through the introductions of each of the opinions written in the case in order to get a feel for what they were about.
I only pose as a constitutional scholar when necessary, so I recommend the following comments for real depth and insight regarding Morse v. Frederick: Althouse, Findlaw, the Volokh Conspiracy, and PrawfsBlawg.
A few items are worth pondering. Why did the five conservatives justices interpret "Bong Hits for Jesus" as pro drug, while three of the liberals saw it as nonsense? The typical conservative likes institutional control over individuals while liberals do not (this is a generalization of course), so did they just interpret the sign in a manner that would justify that end? At root are all justices activists who interpret language in a way that justifies their policy preferences?
Also, with one glaring exception, the majority of the justices did not want to overturn the precedent established in Tinker v. Des Moines which states that students did have the right to political expression and did not loose it when they walked into the school. Alito and Kennedy took the trouble to establish that Morse was about restricting speech that promoted an activity judged harmful to kids, and is illegal besides.
The positions of Breyer, Roberts, and Scalia are up in the air on this because the former did not believe this case should have been decided on free speech grounds, just on whether the principle was liable for damages (none of the nine justice believed that she was) and the latter two did not sign Alito's opinion.
Which leave us Clarence Thomas, who is beginning to freak me out.
Thomas believes in the doctrine of original intent, which has its variants but ultimately rests on the notion that the Constitution should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the original intent of the framers of the document--which assumes that such intent existed, and that the framers intended for their vision of the document to stay consistent over time and not be modified to fit changing circumstances. Thomas uses this doctrine to seemingly call for wholesale changes in how students are educated in public schools.
Here are a few tidbits from his argument:
". . . early public schools were not places for freewheeling debates or exploration of competing ideas. Rather, teachers instilled "a core of common values" in students and taught them self-control. . . . In short, in the earliest public schools, teachers taught, and students listened. Teachers commanded, and students obeyed. Teachers did not rely solely on the power of ideas to persuade; they relied on discipline to maintain order."
I'm no fan of the current state of public schools, but Thomas does not paint a picture of a time I'd like to go back to, or one that I think was especially laudatory. I say this while I've also been on a tear regarding the inability of schools to teach, but Thomas isn't talking about teaching, he's talking about control and indoctrination.
For him, we all went downhill when Tinker was decided (and Woodstock and the Beatles and hippies and all that I'm sure), so Tinker must be overturned. He makes his case with simple originalist language: "In my view, petitioners could prevail for a much simpler reason: As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools."
It is noteworthy that no one else signed Thomas' decision, especially not Scalia or Roberts whom I would have thought would be sympathetic to this argument.
It is also telling that no one bothers to challenge him by pointing out that the mere exclusion of this right in the Constitution should not be "construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people." That of course is the language of the Ninth Amendment which we have already seen invoked in a small number of occasions before by Ron Paul and Jack Kervorkian. It is ironic that Thomas ignores strict Constitutional language while he attempts to uphold a strict meaning of the Constitution. Are the other justices delinquent in not making this case? Might we be seeing the beginnings of a groundswell of support for the Ninth Amendment?
Were the opponents of the Bill of Rights correct when they claimed that its inclusion in the Constitution would actually lead to a reduction in the rights of individuals?
Added: Two other points slipped by a moment ago:
1-Has anyone else picked up on the irony that the education received as a result of the waving of the bong banner far surpassed anything that could have been learned by watching a torch go by. The students involved learned a ton about court procedures by actually going through the process. They took a case to the Supreme Court! How cool is that?
2-Maybe this was some elaborate prank.
Stoner 1 to Stoner 2: "Dude, I bet I can get the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to say 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus.'"
Stoner 2 to Stoner 1: " How're you going to do that?"
Stoner 1 to Stoner 2: "Well you know that torch that's coming by next week? . . .
The court's been punk'd.
A few items are worth pondering. Why did the five conservatives justices interpret "Bong Hits for Jesus" as pro drug, while three of the liberals saw it as nonsense? The typical conservative likes institutional control over individuals while liberals do not (this is a generalization of course), so did they just interpret the sign in a manner that would justify that end? At root are all justices activists who interpret language in a way that justifies their policy preferences?
Also, with one glaring exception, the majority of the justices did not want to overturn the precedent established in Tinker v. Des Moines which states that students did have the right to political expression and did not loose it when they walked into the school. Alito and Kennedy took the trouble to establish that Morse was about restricting speech that promoted an activity judged harmful to kids, and is illegal besides.
The positions of Breyer, Roberts, and Scalia are up in the air on this because the former did not believe this case should have been decided on free speech grounds, just on whether the principle was liable for damages (none of the nine justice believed that she was) and the latter two did not sign Alito's opinion.
Which leave us Clarence Thomas, who is beginning to freak me out.
Thomas believes in the doctrine of original intent, which has its variants but ultimately rests on the notion that the Constitution should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the original intent of the framers of the document--which assumes that such intent existed, and that the framers intended for their vision of the document to stay consistent over time and not be modified to fit changing circumstances. Thomas uses this doctrine to seemingly call for wholesale changes in how students are educated in public schools.
Here are a few tidbits from his argument:
". . . early public schools were not places for freewheeling debates or exploration of competing ideas. Rather, teachers instilled "a core of common values" in students and taught them self-control. . . . In short, in the earliest public schools, teachers taught, and students listened. Teachers commanded, and students obeyed. Teachers did not rely solely on the power of ideas to persuade; they relied on discipline to maintain order."
I'm no fan of the current state of public schools, but Thomas does not paint a picture of a time I'd like to go back to, or one that I think was especially laudatory. I say this while I've also been on a tear regarding the inability of schools to teach, but Thomas isn't talking about teaching, he's talking about control and indoctrination.
For him, we all went downhill when Tinker was decided (and Woodstock and the Beatles and hippies and all that I'm sure), so Tinker must be overturned. He makes his case with simple originalist language: "In my view, petitioners could prevail for a much simpler reason: As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools."
It is noteworthy that no one else signed Thomas' decision, especially not Scalia or Roberts whom I would have thought would be sympathetic to this argument.
It is also telling that no one bothers to challenge him by pointing out that the mere exclusion of this right in the Constitution should not be "construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people." That of course is the language of the Ninth Amendment which we have already seen invoked in a small number of occasions before by Ron Paul and Jack Kervorkian. It is ironic that Thomas ignores strict Constitutional language while he attempts to uphold a strict meaning of the Constitution. Are the other justices delinquent in not making this case? Might we be seeing the beginnings of a groundswell of support for the Ninth Amendment?
Were the opponents of the Bill of Rights correct when they claimed that its inclusion in the Constitution would actually lead to a reduction in the rights of individuals?
Added: Two other points slipped by a moment ago:
1-Has anyone else picked up on the irony that the education received as a result of the waving of the bong banner far surpassed anything that could have been learned by watching a torch go by. The students involved learned a ton about court procedures by actually going through the process. They took a case to the Supreme Court! How cool is that?
2-Maybe this was some elaborate prank.
Stoner 1 to Stoner 2: "Dude, I bet I can get the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to say 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus.'"
Stoner 2 to Stoner 1: " How're you going to do that?"
Stoner 1 to Stoner 2: "Well you know that torch that's coming by next week? . . .
The court's been punk'd.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
And About Those Vetos...
Paul Burka has several posts on the Texas Monthly site analyzing the governors 49 vetoes. Here at ACC we are most affected by the veto of a good chunk of money for employee health insurance. More on the leg's impact on us here at community colleges later, but here are links to Burka's posts:
- Assessing the Vetoes.
- Assessing the Vetoes, Part 2.
- Assessing the Vetoes, Part 3.
- Assessing the Vetoes, The Line Items.
- Assessing the Vetoes.
- Assessing the Vetoes, Part 2.
- Assessing the Vetoes, Part 3.
- Assessing the Vetoes, The Line Items.
Now About Cheney...
Time to outline the fallout from the vice president's latest attempt to justify keeping his activities and records secret.
In order to circumvent a rule that the National Archives be allowed access to classified documents to ensure that they are properly handled, he famously asserted that since his office has legislative functions, it is not part of the executive branch and is not subject to those rules. This has been going on for several years. Officers from the National Archives apparently went to the vice president's office to pick up the records and were prevented from entering. Mr. Cheney has since attempted to have the National Archives disbanded in order to get them off his back.
My first impression, and I can so easily be underestimating him, is that this is a gross miscalculation. This claim is so patently silly that it will rally opposition to him. He just looks ridiculous and has negated the fear and leverage he had used to silence potential opponents. I wonder if he still had the services of Scooter Libby if this would have happened. Fallout like this is what quality aides are there to prevent.
The floodgates are now open though and critics are becoming more vocal. Analyses of the role of the vice president over the course of this administration are also more frequent. The most interesting is a series of articles now being published by the Washington Post. The authors suggest that Cheney has been at the heart of the most important of the president's policies over his term of office. Cheney is described as detail oriented and technical, Bush less so. Presentations to Cheney are more precise than those given to the president. He is also secretive in order to hide his influence--which helps make him stronger. He's the unseen force making things happen. This is why he guard his privacy and does what he can to keep his actions secret.
Cheney is said to see his office as the de facto chief of staff for the president meaning that he is the gatekeeper that says what goes forward and what does not: "The president is "the decider," as Bush puts it, but the vice president often serves up his menu of choices."
It is difficult to read the article and not come to the conclusion that Cheney runs the show. This might be unfair, and maybe untrue at the end of the day, but that's how it seems
In order to circumvent a rule that the National Archives be allowed access to classified documents to ensure that they are properly handled, he famously asserted that since his office has legislative functions, it is not part of the executive branch and is not subject to those rules. This has been going on for several years. Officers from the National Archives apparently went to the vice president's office to pick up the records and were prevented from entering. Mr. Cheney has since attempted to have the National Archives disbanded in order to get them off his back.
My first impression, and I can so easily be underestimating him, is that this is a gross miscalculation. This claim is so patently silly that it will rally opposition to him. He just looks ridiculous and has negated the fear and leverage he had used to silence potential opponents. I wonder if he still had the services of Scooter Libby if this would have happened. Fallout like this is what quality aides are there to prevent.
The floodgates are now open though and critics are becoming more vocal. Analyses of the role of the vice president over the course of this administration are also more frequent. The most interesting is a series of articles now being published by the Washington Post. The authors suggest that Cheney has been at the heart of the most important of the president's policies over his term of office. Cheney is described as detail oriented and technical, Bush less so. Presentations to Cheney are more precise than those given to the president. He is also secretive in order to hide his influence--which helps make him stronger. He's the unseen force making things happen. This is why he guard his privacy and does what he can to keep his actions secret.
Cheney is said to see his office as the de facto chief of staff for the president meaning that he is the gatekeeper that says what goes forward and what does not: "The president is "the decider," as Bush puts it, but the vice president often serves up his menu of choices."
It is difficult to read the article and not come to the conclusion that Cheney runs the show. This might be unfair, and maybe untrue at the end of the day, but that's how it seems
Monday, June 25, 2007
The Limits of Rational Thought
On the way to the airport Friday I read a potentially important opinion piece in the New York Times from their resident conservative, David Brooks. You have to be a subscriber to link to it, but it questions efforts to change behavior by persuading high schoolers--or the high schooler in all of us--to resist temptation and act morally.
It touches on issues we are covering in the public opinion section about how we process information. By the time we are in a position to face temptation, we have already been exposed to stimuli that will condition our responses--responses that will be reactive, not thought driven.
Kids raised in happy houses behave differently than those raised in violence. The presence of a caring father at an early age will have a greater impact on how a girl responds to sexual overtures than high school abstinence lessons. The behavior in each case are adapted to the needs created in each environment.
Brooks does not go into neural research, but he could have. Cognitive research suggests that thought is a product of neural pathways that develop in the brain over one's life--but primarily in one's early years. The behavior one is exposed to (peer groups, families, etc...) affects this development, which determines one's attitude, which then influences later decisions.
It's disturbing to those of us who believe in free will, but the case is compelling. If taken to an extreme, might this suggest that is impossible to modify human behavior past a certain age?
It touches on issues we are covering in the public opinion section about how we process information. By the time we are in a position to face temptation, we have already been exposed to stimuli that will condition our responses--responses that will be reactive, not thought driven.
Kids raised in happy houses behave differently than those raised in violence. The presence of a caring father at an early age will have a greater impact on how a girl responds to sexual overtures than high school abstinence lessons. The behavior in each case are adapted to the needs created in each environment.
Brooks does not go into neural research, but he could have. Cognitive research suggests that thought is a product of neural pathways that develop in the brain over one's life--but primarily in one's early years. The behavior one is exposed to (peer groups, families, etc...) affects this development, which determines one's attitude, which then influences later decisions.
It's disturbing to those of us who believe in free will, but the case is compelling. If taken to an extreme, might this suggest that is impossible to modify human behavior past a certain age?
Back to the Grind
It's nice to report that New Orleans was worth the visit.
If you stick to the French Quarter you'd have no idea a storm went through about two years ago. Being the first part of the city to be settled, it's on the highest ground and is protected by the strongest levee (we learned that the levees didn't fail by the way, the floodgates did).
We took a tour of the worst hit areas so we did see evidence of destruction. I took photographs from the bus, so the results are tinted and off kilter, but you get a sense of the damage.
This home was in Lakeside, near the floodgates that burst to the west. The owner was caught in the attic and broke through the roof--that's the hole you see in the picture. Not everyone was so lucky. Holes cut through by rescue workers are clean.
This is an new art piece in the median on one of the now treeless boulevards in the lower ninth ward. The poles correspond to the depth of the water in different areas of the city.
A large number of the homes in the area have these trailers in front of them. The families live in them while the homes are being repaired
But not all residents have returned, so many homes still lie empty. Our guide told us that you don't get a sense of the emptiness until its dark and you notice the large number of dark houses.
This is the closest I got to a picture that shows a whole block cleared of damaged homes. Not good quality, but you get a sense of the storms impact on the community.
But there were people out and about and I was able to make a friend.
Just so you know that it wasn't all darkness and devastation there was a swingers convention in a hotel on Bourbon Street--note the green armbands. We took note of them as we walked around the quarter. Just goes to show you that everyone was working as hard as they could to get the city back on track in their own special way.
If you stick to the French Quarter you'd have no idea a storm went through about two years ago. Being the first part of the city to be settled, it's on the highest ground and is protected by the strongest levee (we learned that the levees didn't fail by the way, the floodgates did).
We took a tour of the worst hit areas so we did see evidence of destruction. I took photographs from the bus, so the results are tinted and off kilter, but you get a sense of the damage.
This home was in Lakeside, near the floodgates that burst to the west. The owner was caught in the attic and broke through the roof--that's the hole you see in the picture. Not everyone was so lucky. Holes cut through by rescue workers are clean.
This is an new art piece in the median on one of the now treeless boulevards in the lower ninth ward. The poles correspond to the depth of the water in different areas of the city.
A large number of the homes in the area have these trailers in front of them. The families live in them while the homes are being repaired
But not all residents have returned, so many homes still lie empty. Our guide told us that you don't get a sense of the emptiness until its dark and you notice the large number of dark houses.
This is the closest I got to a picture that shows a whole block cleared of damaged homes. Not good quality, but you get a sense of the storms impact on the community.
But there were people out and about and I was able to make a friend.
Just so you know that it wasn't all darkness and devastation there was a swingers convention in a hotel on Bourbon Street--note the green armbands. We took note of them as we walked around the quarter. Just goes to show you that everyone was working as hard as they could to get the city back on track in their own special way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)