From the NYT: The Money Behind the Shutdown Crisis

The NYT editorializes on one of the causes of dysfunction in Congress - the fact that conservative interest groups increasingly target Republican member of Congress who are not conservative enough, and who have shown a willingness to make compromises.

Representative Aaron Schock is a conservative Republican from Illinois, but not conservative enough for the hard-right activist group Club for Growth, which is seeking someone to run against him in next year’s primary.

His crime? In 2011, he voted to increase the debt ceiling, and, in 2012, he voted for a stopgap spending bill that prevented a government shutdown. In neither case did he demand the defunding of health care reform.

Club for Growth and other extremist groups consider a record like his an unforgivable failure, and they are raising and spending millions to make sure that no Republicans will take similar positions in the next few weeks when the fiscal year ends and the debt limit expires.

If you’re wondering why so many House Republicans seem to believe they can force President Obama to accept a “defunding” of the health care reform law by threatening a government shutdown or a default, it’s because these groups have promised to inflict political pain on any Republican official who doesn’t go along.

When we discuss elections in future classes, we will look at arguments that the primary election process has evolved into a mechanism for rewarding extremism and punishing moderation. This editorial provides evidence.

What is a government shutdown?

Now that Syria is off the radar screen - for now - attention is turning to a more predictable crisis: the looming government shut down.

This comes at a convenient time because we will be discussing the budgeting process very soon.

You may need a primer on this, so here's the obligatory Wikipedia entry on government shutdown, CNN has a guide to it, and the Washington Post lists 5 reasons why its likely to happen.

Simply put its a negotiating tactic that can be used by one side that wants to force concessions from another by refusing to allow for any spending at all if the concession is not met. It can be effectively the end of the budgetary cycle - when a new budget has to passed and money appropriated to fund governmental projects - or when the budget ceiling is about to be hit.

Both of those are looming right now. Tea Party Republicans are using this scenario to try to force Democrats to defund ObamaCare. If not - no spending so the government shuts down.

We will go over the budget process and the political issues associated with the shutdown in the coming weeks. in the meantime here are freaky slides showing the process.

Meet the Unites States Election Assistance Commission

The article linked to in the previous story mentions this agency, so here's a link to it.

Politifact Texas weigh in on the claim that 500 registered Republicans are moving into Texas each day.

They call the claim half true.

Quick comment: This might be good for the Republican Party in the state, which doesn't really need it, but not for the Republican Part in the states where those Republicans are leaving. It could well weaken the party nationally.

Written Assignment #4

As I suggested already, I want you to propose a topic for your 1000 word critical essay. I want you to draw the subject matter out of your assigned book. By now I hope you've purchased it and at least skimmed through the contents. Ideally the subject will integrate the book's topic with one the themes we cover in class.

I'll work with you to refine your topic. The more work you do now, the less work you will have to do later.

One note of caution: I don't want a book report.

This will be due September 23rd.

"Constitutional War Powers"

I've had a few distressed 2305 students come into my office claiming they can't find material for week 3's question.

I just googled the title above and found lots of good stuff. Try it. Here's a choice few:

- CFR: Balance of Wars Powers: The U.S. President and War Powers.
- Garrett Epps: The Power Obama Does not have.
- LII: War Powers.
- War Powers and the Use of Force in Syria.
- War and Treat Making Power.

You should be able to craft a good response from this material.

The "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the states"

Some Justice Steven's remarks in the story below touch on points made in 2305. As we look through the principles embedded in the original document as ratified, not as amended, we've noted that there's very little about equality. And there wouldn't be until after the Civil War and the inclusion of the 14th Amendment.

But its argued that while there was no recognition of the equality of the people, there is one of the states, largely because they each have equal representation in the Senate. At least that's what the majority of court in the Shelby decision argued, and Steven says it formed the basis of their decision.

He disagrees with that argument and says the Constitution did not create equal sovereignty because the 3/5ths compromise tipped the balance of power towards the slave states - he calls it the slave bonus. While the states are still sovereign entities, they are not equal:

The Court’s heavy reliance on the importance of a “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the States,” while supported by language in an earlier opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, ignored the fact that Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution created a serious inequality among the states. That clause counted “three fifths” of a state’s slaves for the purpose of measuring the size of its congressional delegation and its representation in the Electoral College. That provision was offensive because it treated African-Americans as though each of them was equal to only three fifths of a white person, but it was even more offensive because it increased the power of the southern states by counting three fifths of their slaves even though those slaves were not allowed to vote. The northern states would have been politically better off if the slave population had been simply omitted from the number used to measure the voting power of the slave states.

The fact that this “slave bonus” created a basic inequality between the slave states and the free states has often been overlooked, as has its far-reaching impact. In 1800, for example, that bonus determined the outcome of the presidential election since it then gave the southern states an extra nine or ten votes in the Electoral College, and Thomas Jefferson prevailed over John Adams by only eight electoral votes. Because of the slave bonus, Adams served only one term as president.

The slave bonus unfairly enhanced the power of the southern states in Congress throughout the period prior to the Civil War. It was after the war that Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868, put an end to the slave bonus. When the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1870 during the Grant administration, the size of the southern states’ congressional delegations was governed by the number of citizens eligible to vote. Since that number included blacks as well as whites, during Reconstruction those states were no longer overrepresented in either Congress or the Electoral College.

Note that he points out that one of the Civil War amendments was responsible for ending the slave bonus and providing equality to the states under the Constitution. That fits one of the basic arguments we make in class - at least in 2305.

This is also a question that touches heavily on items we hit in 2306 when we discussed the role of states in the constitutional system. Does the Constitution guarantee that they be treated equally? There is no explicit language making that case.

Here's more on equal sovereignty:

- Chief Justice Robert's Paean to . . .
- How did we get the principle of equal sovereignty . . .
- Do the states have the right to be treated equally?
- Blue states should get a refund under equal sovereignty.
- The Dignity of the South.

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens weigh in on the right to vote

He reviews a book on the Voting Rights Act and uses it weigh in on the court's decision this summer in Shelby County v Holder. He is critical of it.

This might be helpful to 2306 students working on week 3's written assignment.

The rich are getting richer.

The NYT provides proof.

The Dish weighs in.

The top 10 percent of earners took more than half of the country’s total income in 2012, the highest level recorded since the government began collecting the relevant data a century ago, according to an updated study by the prominent economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty.

The top 1 percent took more than one-fifth of the income earned by Americans, one of the highest levels on record since 1913, when the government instituted an income tax.

What's fixed and what isn't five years after the crash?

Wonkblog reminds us that the fifth anniversary of the crash of Lehman Brothers is looming. The Treasury Department has issued a slew of graphs showing what has happened since.

- The Financial Crisis Five Years Later.

There's good news and bad of course.

Here's a couple years worth of the crisis in one graph:

Totally gratuitous photograph of Donald Trump's hair

 

Someone in class today thought Justice Hecht's hair - look below - reminded him of Donald Trump's. Maybe. But the double comb over - quadruple comb over if you believe this diagram - is tough to match. 

The debt ceiling will be hit somewhere between October 19 and November 5

Good times.

From Wonkblog:

That’s according to a new analysis from the Bipartisan Policy Center. At some point in those two weeks, the Treasury Department will have exhausted all its options and will no longer have enough money to meet its financial obligations. Either Congress lifts the debt ceiling or the federal government will have to default on some of its bills.

The BPC calls this the “X Date”:

Judgepedia assessment of the political ideology of state supreme court justices

For your amusement - and for an upcoming look at state courts.


The big surprise is that Texas is only the third most conservative state court. Behind the two Dakotas.

Governor Perry names replacement for Chief Justice Jefferson

It's Justice Nathan Hecht. Hecht was not a Perry appointee to the court. He was elected in 1988 and has been re-elected four times.

More on Justice Hecht:

- Judgepedia.
- Texas Tribune.
- Wikipedia.
- News about Hecht.

Going Public on Syria

When we talk about the increase of presidential power over time, we will point out that increasingly powerful media technology has allowed presidents to attempt to mobilize public opinion in his favor. The term used to describe this is "going public" and it refers to a type of presidential leadership that has developed in the past two or three decades and involves presidents making direct appeals to the public primarily rather than Congress, and event tries to use the public as leverage against Congress.

President Obama attempted to do so tonight with a speech from the White House. The NYT details the speech here.

The problem for presidents in the contemporary environment is that their opponents have the same ability to get their messages out. Going public may have worked best in a simpler media environment where it was difficult to get a message out. That's less the case in this age of Facebook and Twitter.

For 2305 - Catching up with Federalist #10

I have a strong hunch that students don't appreciate Federalist 10 as much as I do, and that reading through the thing is a mundane exercise, but I think its important that you read at least one of the Federalist Papers all the way through at some point in your life. We will do the same for 51 soon enough as well as touch on the arguments in a handful of others.

Remember that this section introduces us to the first of the principles embedded within the original Constitution - republicanism - which refers to the fact that we are an indirect democracy. While the people retain sovereignty, their influence lies in having influence over who holds positions in a variety of governing institutions, specifically Congress, the presidency and the courts. James Madison argues that this arrangement allows both for retaining the principles of self government and for providing the stability necessary for maintaining the republic. This, he argues, is an improvement over previous constitutional arrangements.

As we read through the document I want you to note Madison's assessment of human nature and how he claims the constitutional design compensates for it. It is in our nature to form into groups that promote our understanding of our self interest. It is also in our nature to come into conflict with each other. We create groups in order to pursue our self interest at the expense of that of others. It's not a rosy picture, but it becomes useful one because it allows him to argue that a large republic prevents a tyrannical majority to control the government. Its an interesting approach because instead of arguing that people can be made better, it assumes human nature is a constant, but that this allows for its use to achieve an important objective.

I'll throw out a few other comments about this paper later, as well as the others that will be used to illustrate central principles within the document, but here is a link to past stories I thought illustrate Madison's argument. It might help with class discussion, especially whether Madison's beliefs about the formations of groups are in fact accurate. Mutual interests do not always lead to the creation of equally powerful groups.

Is Houston America's next great global city?

Yes, according to the authors of this analysis of the regional economies in the US. They argue that the US contains seven distinct regions and three city states" Los Angeles, New York and Miami.

Houston it the capital of the Third Coast. Click here for a map. 

Once a sleepy, semitropical backwater, the Third Coast, which stretches along the Gulf of Mexico from south Texas to western Florida, has come out of the recession stronger than virtually any other region. Since 2001, its job base has expanded 7%, and it is projected to grow another 18% the coming decade.

The energy industry and burgeoning trade with Latin America are powering the Third Coast, combined with a relatively low cost, business-friendly climate. By 2023 its capital–Houston–will be widely acknowledged as America’s next great global city. Many other cities across the Gulf, including New Orleans and Corpus Christi, are also major energy hubs. The Third Coast has a concentration of energy jobs five times the national rate, and those jobs have an average annual salary of $100,000, according to EMSI.

As the area gets wealthier, The Third Coast’s economy will continue to diversify. Houston, which is now the country’s most racially and ethnically diverse metro area, according to a recent Rice study, is home to the world’s largest medical center and has dethroned New York City as the nation’s leading exporter. Mobile, Ala., seems poised to become an industrial center and locus for trade with Latin America, and New Orleans has made a dramatic comeback as a cultural and business destination since Katrina.

The Pacificus-Helvidius Debate

Despite the fact that James Madison and Alexander Hamilton worked together on both the drafting of the Constitution and the campaign to get it ratified, they soon started to disagree with each other over aspects of the document - including the relative powers of the legislative and executive branches over foreign policy making, including war making powers.

Like the Federalist Papers, this argument was carried out in dueling essays, this time Madison and Hamilton were on opposing sides of the issue.

They were called the Pacificus-Helvidius Debates.

Here's a description of the debates from the Liberty Fund:

The Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793–1794 matched Hamilton and Madison in the first chapter of an enduring discussion about the proper roles of executive and legislative branches in the conduct of American foreign policy. Ignited by President Washington’s Neutrality Proclamation of 1793, which annulled the eleventh article of America’s Treaty with France of 1778, the debate addressed whether Washington had the authority to declare America neutral, despite an early alliance treaty with France. Hamilton argued that Washington’s actions were constitutional and that friction between the two branches was an unavoidable, but not harmful, consequence of the separation of powers. Madison countered that Washington’s proclamation would introduce “new principles and new constructions” into the Constitution and contended that “the power to declare war and make treaties can never fall within the definition of executive powers.” In the introduction, Morton Frisch asserts that the debate between Hamilton and Madison helped to clarify “certain constitutional principles that we now associate with executive power generally” such as that foreign policy is essentially an executive function. Yet it is the open-ended character of our Constitution that has continued to allow different interpretations of the limits of the powers of government, a debate that continues to this day. Frisch writes in the introduction, “The open-ended character of some of the constitutional provisions afforded opportunities for extending the powers of government beyond their specified limits. Although not given prior sanction by the Constitutional Convention, such additions served to provide a more complete definition of powers without actually changing the ends of government.”

Click here for more on the debates. I find it interesting - and instructive - that we've been arguing about the nature of war making powers as long as we have.

From Quorum Report: Texas Craft Dislillers Toast Their Successful Lobbying Effort

This seems to be one dispute most people in the Texas Legislature could agree one. It also provides an example of one smaller industry group that was able to expand its influence over the bigger players. Not sure if that's just because people liked what they produced. Maybe.

The fight over whether to expand the rights of microbreweries in Texas was a well-covered flashpoint during the regular session this year. But, perhaps not as well-noted was the successful lobbying effort by small distilleries to be able to market their products in new ways that they say will help their industry grow. That’s why they along with their “champions” in the legislature on Tuesday afternoon officially kicked off the state’s first-ever Craft Spirits Month, something we at QR are happy to raise a glass to. Bourbon in Mr. Braddock’s, please. Vodka for Mr. Kronberg.

A slate of bills loosening regulations on small distillers passed the Lege and were all signed by Gov. Perry, the most significant of which may have been Senate Bill 905. That new law allows distillers to sell their product to consumers for off-premise consumption up to 3,500 gallons annually, with some restrictions. They'll also be able to make on-premise sales of spirits up to 3,000 gallons per year.

Daniel Barnes, owner and founder of Treaty Oak Distilling in Austin, said he felt the enactment of these new laws is going to be beneficial to his industry as well as the Texas economy overall. “It would be a huge understatement” to say that this is an exciting time for distillers in Texas, he said. Craft bottles and cocktails will be able to be sold directly to the public, which they could not previously do on-site.

Rep. John Kuempel, R-Seguin, hailed the loosened regulations as a way to put distilleries in Texas on an even playing field with out-of-state players who have long had a leg up on those who make whiskey, bourbon, vodka, and other spirits in the Lone Star State. “This industry did not exist in our state 20 years ago,” Kuempel said. “This industry has the potential for even more growth,” he said while noting that the Texas Package Stores Association and Texas Restaurant Association worked together with others to make the new laws become reality.

Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, said the work that went into crafting this legislation was time-consuming but worth it. She said that stakeholders came together in meetings for about a year and a half, and their efforts resulted in about 30 pieces of proposed legislation. She said the handful of bills that became law represented the best of the ideas that came about as a result of those talks. And, she added, that she could not have filed and passed more than 30 bills “even during a great session.”

Kuempel said that Sen. Van de Putte told him after she passed the bills through the Senate, his job was to take care of them in the House and that was not to be taken lightly. At the time, she told him that handing the bills off to him to be their caretaker in the House was a bit like dropping kids off at school and hoping they make it home okay. “That is the perfect way to do that,” Kuempel said.

Some random items on Syria

From Foreign Policy: The War Precedent.

- The author review recent history regarding presidential war powers.

From Breaking Defense: A Limited Strike on Syria?

- The author questions the effectiveness of limited strikes and wonders if a limited strike on Syria will be truly limited.

From The Atlantic: Your Labor Day Syria Reader.

- The author highlights commentary from an analyst with expertise on the Middle East that tries to determine what we know and don;t know about the chemical attack in Syria.

Notes on 2306 Week Two

Like 2305 - we're a bit off kilter due to Labor Day, but you should to keep track on your own.

The big point behind last week's material was that Texas exists within a federal and cultural landscape that creates multiple opportunities for conflict between the state and nation.

The first set of powers points took us back to the US Constitution and highlighted those areas that pertain to the creation of new states, the obligations states have to each other and the relative relationship between the national and state governments. This of course was after a reminder that delegates of twelve of the original states (Rhode Island did not participate in the convention) created the constitution - as well as its predecessor. So the states wrestled with the proper design of the national government, and as we know the first option was to establish a very very weak one, and the second was to establish one on equal par - at least in terms of sovereignty - with the states.

This isn't to say that the design is not without its confusing aspects, especially once amendments are added - notably the 14th - which create tension between the two levels of government. I tried to highlight those areas where that tension arises. In retrospects I don't think I've given sufficient time to the Supremacy Clause (I'm a bit of a 14th Amendment freak), but no need to concerns yourself with that at the moment.

Try to come to grips with the legal and constitutional sources of the conflict between the national and state governments and much of what is in the news regarding that conflict ought to make a bit more sense.

The same with the section on political culture. Its one thing to say that Texas is unique and that this leads to conflict, but quite another - and better - thing to understand why those conflicts exist. As with most classes on state government, we use Daniel Elazar's three part typology of political culture in order to trace the roots of the individualistic and traditionalistic cultures, and explain why Texas lacks a strong moralistic culture.

Again, and understanding of these concepts should go a long way to helping us understand the roots of the conflict we see between Texas and the national government.

As you probably have already noticed - hopefully - this week is devoted to understanding the argument presented in the Texas Declaration of Independence, and the evolving nature of the constitutions of Texas, culminating in the 1876 Constitution. In order to properly understand the governing system in the state, its a good idea to understand its foundation.

A bit more on the history of the Declaration of Independence

This is copied and pasted from the Library of Congress page on the Declaration of Independence.

It shows dates related to the document's creation and publication.

• June 7 - Richard Henry Lee introduced a resolution urging Congress to declare independence from Great Britain.

• June 11 - Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston were appointed to a committee to draft a declaration of independence.

• June 28 - A fair copy of the committee draft of the Declaration of Independence was read in Congress.

• July 1-4 - Congress debated and revised the Declaration of Independence.

• July 2 - Congress declared independence by adopting the Lee Resolution.

• July 4 - Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence.

• July 4 - Congress ordered that the Declaration of Independence be printed (Dunlap Broadsides).

• July 19 - Congress ordered the Declaration of Independence engrossed (officially inscribed) and signed by members.

• August 2 - The engrossed copy of the Declaration of Independence was signed by most of the delegates. Elbridge Gerry, Oliver Wolcott, Lewis Morris, Thomas McKean, and Matthew Thornton all signed on a later date.

Here are a few more links with history related to the document - in case you find this sort of thing interesting.I do.

- Wikipedia: John Dunlap.
- Publishing and Publicizing the Declaration of Independence.
- Federal Legislation Establishing the Fourth of July Holiday.
- History of the Declaration of Independence.
- Facts about the Declaration.

Notes on 2305 Week Two

Labor Day threw us off a bit. MW classes only met once so this week is devoted to catching up in the classroom - though I fully expect that you're up to date on your own reading.

The point behind last week was to become familiar with the layout of the two principle documents in the founding of the US - the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. This included an appreciation of the history that lead up to each.

I've always thought that its tough to understand the merit of the argument - the novelty of it even - in the Declaration without understanding the historical shifts contained within it. The first being that power is properly based on the consent of the governed, not the will of the divinely placed monarch. The second that the consolidation of power is the definition of tyranny. Together these two points were meant to justify something that normally is difficult. The overthrow of one governing system for another.

This is always worth considering when people get frustrated with a governing system and start calling for "revolution." Do current circumstances rise to the level here overthrow is warranted, or are those really "light and transient causes" which Jefferson rejected.

Last fall I had 2305 students address a written assignment on that subject. There were some very upset people after Obama got re-elected last year who wanted to secede. I asked students to compare their rationale with those of the North American colonists. I'll try to dig up some of the answers, but I thought it was a good exercise - probably still is.

I'm not sure how well I was able to describe the political conflict that emerged over what type of constitutional system should govern the nation - and what the very nature of the "nation" was. A confederacy? A unitary system" A hybrid? Remember that constitutions embody the politics of a given era. When we start discussing politics more carefully, we'll discuss how politics today is a reflection of the politics of that era.

As you know, once we look at the overview of the Constitution, we will dig into various aspects of it. That's where we will be heading soon.

The US and Texas militaries conflict over offering benefits to same-sex spouses.

This is the same conflict we see in other areas regarding same-sex issues.

Following a recent Supreme Court decision overturning part of the Defense of Marriage Act, the Obama Administration judged that a rule banning same sex spouses from receiving benefits could not be enforced. So VA's across the country - including Texas and other states banning same-sex marriage - have to provide them.

But the Texas Military Forces (yes there is such a thing) do not - and cannot according to Texas statutory and constitutional law. So any of their members with same-sex spouses cannot receive benefits in Texas facilities. They can received them in federal facilities.

There's a hitch however. When called to active duty, the Texas Military falls under control of the federal government, at which same-sex spouses have to be provided benefits. But the conflict remains, and a handful of Democratic legislators in the state have asked the attorney general to reconcile state and federal law.

More for 2306's look at federalism and the conflict that stems from it.

Story in the Texas Tribune.

San Antonio v Texas

I don't have nearly enough on conflict between the state and local government, though there's plenty of material.

The latest is the conflict between the city of San Antonio - which recently passed an ordinance adding lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to the city's non-discrimination code. - and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who has stated that he might sue the city based on his belief that the law is an unconstitutional violation the rights of speech and religion.

It is often suggested that the major cities in the state of Texas are more liberal than the state as a whole. The fact that they tend to be more tolerant of alternative lifestyles is evidence. Abbott is running for governor, so its safe to assume that anything he does as attorney general is done with an eye towards the governor's mansion. Will a specific activity help enhance his support among the groups he is hoping to back his campaign? Those groups do not necessarily have the same pull in the major cities.

The NYT provides some detail for the conflict. most of it seems tied into the politics surrounding next year's statewide elections than the substance of the ordinance:

All of the major statewide elected positions are open contests in the Republican primary. And while voters do not head to the polls until March, many Republicans seeking statewide office have seized on San Antonio’s ordinance in what some see as a way to appeal to the grass-roots conservatives who make up the bulk of the electorate in the party’s Texas primaries.

“It is Republican statewide candidates signaling their base that they are true and trustworthy conservatives,” said Calvin Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. “When you’re running for statewide office, you don’t control what the San Antonio mayor and Council do. So all you’re really doing is taking an ideological position that you then project toward the Republican primary electorate, so that they can see that you’re a social conservative and you are manning the ramparts against undesirable social change.”

For background on local non discrimination ordinances across the nation click here.

Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson Resigns

As is customary, he leaves office prior to completing his term so that the governor gets to appoint a replacement. Jefferson (Texas' first African-American Chief Justice) himself was appointed by Governor Perry in 2001 to replace Alberto Gonzales.

From the USA Today:

Jefferson, who earns $170,000 annually, said he does not have another job lined up but hopes to continue working on judicial policy in a way that helps Texas residents.

"I want to remain open to possibilities, work that is challenging, that is meaningful, that will give me time to continue to serve the public in some fashion as a private citizen," he said.

Gov. Rick Perry appointed Jefferson to the high court in 2001, when former Justice Alberto Gonzales stepped down to become White House counsel to President George W. Bush. Jefferson won election in November 2002. Perry selected him as chief justice in 2004, and he was elected to the lead the court in Austin in 2006 and 2008. His current term runs through 2014.

Perry's office did not immediately comment Tuesday about a possible replacement. Jefferson, who is married with three sons in college, high school and middle school, said he told Perry of his plans to step down last week.

During his tenure, Jefferson has pushed for making courts more public with documents available online.

Jefferson, who formerly was in private practice in San Antonio, said he hopes that the state's courts get more direct public funding for legal aid and continuing juvenile justice reforms. He also said he hopes judges and justices stay engaged in issues affecting the state.

His resignation gives the governor another opportunity to influence the judiciary since he gets to appoint his replacement. 13 years in office has given the governor plenty of opportunity to put his stamp on the judiciary, though his ability to in fact do so has been subject to debate.

Some background:

- Supreme Court is elected but bears Perry's stamp.
- Judges appointed by Rick Perry.
- In Judicial Picks, Perry reaches Past Executive Branch.
- Perry's Texas Supreme Court picks criticized as too business friendly.
- Rick Perry and the Imperial Governorship.

The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine

Here's another look ahead to 2305's eventual look at foreign policy making.

Not much has been said about the responsibility to protect doctrine (R2P) in regards to Syria, though it was mentioned repeatedly in regards to 2011's intervention in Libya. The doctrine outlines additional reasons why one nation may claim the right to intervene in the affairs of another. These all focus on preventing violence against one set of people by others within a nation, and it includes preventing genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. The use is chemical weapons qualifies as a reason, so it applies to the current conflict, though Obama has apparently downplayed its applicability. Its probably wise to focus on the argument that the US has self-interested reasons for going forward. R2P is not very popular politically.

Click here for a bit of history on the doctrine, it developed after the international failure to intervene in the massacre in Rwanda in the early 1990s.

Some more background below:

- responsibilitytoprotect.org.
- The UN.
- The Washington Post.

These doctrines tend to evolve over time, based on the circumstances of the moment. Wikipedia has a page that lists a variety of doctrines used to justify military intervention over time. Its not a bad idea to peruse through a few. It provides an interesting look at the evolution of American foreign policy over time.

• 1823: Monroe Doctrine

• 1842: Tyler Doctrine

• 1932: Stimson Doctrine

• 1947: Truman Doctrine

• 1957: Eisenhower Doctrine

• 1961: Kennedy Doctrine

• 1965: Johnson Doctrine

• 1969: Nixon Doctrine

• 1980: Carter Doctrine

• 1981: Kirkpatrick Doctrine

• 1984: Weinberger Doctrine

• 1985: Reagan Doctrine

• 1990: Powell Doctrine

• 1999: Clinton Doctrine

• 2002: Bush Doctrine

• 2002: Rumsfeld Doctrine

The justification for using military force in Libya

From CBS News.

Here is a copy of the memo produced by the Office of Legal Counsel which justified the firing of missiles to protect the residents of Benghazi in 2011.The involvement of Congress hinged on the definition of "war." 

. . . in 2011, the administration took military action in Libya without any congressional approval, prompting the Republican-led House of Representatives to vote to rebuke the president.

In its legal justification for action in Libya, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) argued that Congress' authority to declare "war" was limited by the definition of war. "This standard generally will be satisfied only by prolonged and substantial military engagements, typically involving exposure of U.S. military personnel to significant risk over a substantial period," the OLC wrote.

The OLC augmented that argument by noting the operation in Libya would be limited to air strikes in support of a United Nations resolution, and that no American lives would be put at risk. And while Mr. Obama in 2007 said the president could only act unilaterally in a matter of self-defense, the OLC in 2011 justified the use of force in Libya as "in the national interest." 

 The story notes that there has been no UN support for the strikes, which makes this different than Libya. 

And if the US is the world's policeman, can it dress like a superhero?

Should American Be the World's Policeman?

Quite a few students asked this question this week, so with that in mind its probably a good idea to find out what a few smart folks think about the subject. It will be central to an upcoming look at foreign policy in the US, so its worth a look.

First off, I assume that when people complain that we are the world's policeman, they refer to the idea that we are expected to intervene when conflicts flare up around the world. I haven't been able to find data that shows how often the US responds to crises as opposed to other countries, so it would be helpful to have empirical proof of this claim.

But it is true that having the largest military, by far, in the world the US is in a better position to intervene than are other nations. $600 billion in military spending allows us to effectively control the seas, air, and space, which allows conflicts to be mediated on our terms, but it seems to come at a cost. Since we have the ability to intervene when humanitarian crises occur, it follows that many argue that we should.

Here's a link to debate on this subject from 2008 - it should still be relevant for us today.

The arguments in favor of the idea the the US ought to be the world's policeman centered on the observation that the world is a dangerous place and the predatory countries are destabilizing. Only the US - hopefully backed by allies - is in a position to keep the peace. And a peaceful world is a more prosperous world.

The arguments against the idea are that intervention can lead to anti-Americanism, and a backlash within the US of active foreign affairs. It is also not popular among the American people many of whom would prefer to spend money to improve mattes within the US. There is also a sense that we can do more harm than good when we intervene.

For more on the debate:

- BalancedPolitics.org.
- The world would miss the American policeman. (paysite)
- The US must not be the worlds policeman.
- What if the US stops policing the world?
- Debate.org.

Written Assignment #3

2305: Let's try to understand the nature of the disagreement between those who argue that the president needs congressional authorization to fire missiles at Syria and those who think he does not. What are the arguments on each side? A related concept seems to be what the word "war" actually means. Weigh in on this dispute. After you thoroughly discuss both sides of the argument, tell me which side do you think has the better argument. What side of the issue do you come down on and why?

2306: What are the constitutional roots (the US Constitution) of the dispute between the national and states governments (Texas specifically) over laws related to voter ID requirements? What arguments is Texas using to state that they have full power to determine what their election laws are? What arguments is the United States using to argue that they have jurisdiction to oversee these laws. What is the basis of the current lawsuit the US Justice Department has filed against Texas. After you provide objective information about this, weigh in on its chances of success. Support your conclusion.

Texas Voter ID requirements explained

More or less anyway.

From the Texas Secretary of State's office:

A voter who has not been issued a driver’s license or social security number may register to vote, but such voter must submit proof of identification when presenting himself/herself for voting or with his/her mail-in ballots, if voting by mail.  These voters’ names are flagged on the official voter registration list with the annotation of “ID.”  The “ID” notation instructs the poll worker to request a proper form of identification from these voters when they present themselves for voting, unless they are a voter with a permanent exemption on the voter registration certificate. The voter must present one of the seven (7) acceptable forms of identification:

• Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
• Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
• Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
• Texas concealed handgun license issued by DPS
• United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
• United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
• United States passport

Fromw the Washington Post: U.S. spy agencies mounted 231 offensive cyber-operations in 2011, documents show

I still think this is a bigger story than Syria:

U.S. intelligence services carried out 231 offensive cyber-operations in 2011, the leading edge of a clandestine campaign that embraces the Internet as a theater of spying, sabotage and war, according to top-secret documents obtained by The Washington Post.
That disclosure, in a classified intelligence budget provided by NSA leaker Edward Snowden, provides new evidence that the Obama administration’s growing ranks of cyberwarriors infiltrate and disrupt foreign computer networks.

Additionally, under an extensive effort code-named GENIE, U.S. computer specialists break into foreign networks so that they can be put under surreptitious U.S. control. Budget documents say the $652 million project has placed “covert implants,” sophisticated malware transmitted from far away, in computers, routers and firewalls on tens of thousands of machines every year, with plans to expand those numbers into the millions.

No word on whether Congress is involved in authorizing these strikes.

Do these attacks fit the meaning of "war?"

Is this the future of warfare?

From the Texas Tribune: Voter ID Tried in Local Elections, Not Yet in a Big One

While the new voter ID law in Texas has been used in smaller elections, its yet to be used in a big one. This means that despite the claims made for an against it, we really don't know what impact it will have.

Julian Aguilar goes on:

That’s the assessment of at least one opposition leader, Chad Dunn, an attorney with Houston-based Brazil and Dunn who represents plaintiffs in a current lawsuit seeking to block the law. It requires voters to furnish one of several specified forms of ID before casting a ballot, the most common being a state-issued driver’s license or ID card.

It’s hard to determine the effect before next year's state elections, Dunn added, because turnout for local elections is paltry. Elections have been held in Galveston and are ongoing in the Rio Grande Valley, but the true test will be a statewide or heavily contested election in a toss-up or majority-minority district.

. . .Also at play is how election officials handle complaints or missteps, Dunn said. In Bexar County, he said, officials are likely to resolve issues quickly regardless of political allegiance, race or any other factor. In others, not so much.

“In counties like Harris, which is completely on the voter suppression bandwagon, whatever problems there are, aren’t getting worked out,” he said.

This might impact the ongoing efforts of the federal Justice Department to sue Texas over the law because there may not be a substantive issue yet to sue about - the case may not be ripe. Its been a long haul so far and there is little reason to think it wont continue to be.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee approves use of military force

From the NYT:

A divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday approved an authorization of force against the Syrian government, setting up a showdown next week in the full Senate on whether President Obama should have the authority to strike.

The 10-to-7 vote showed bipartisan support for a strike, but bipartisan opposition as well.

. . . The approved resolution would limit strikes against the Syrian government to 60 days, with the possibility of 30 more days upon consultation with Congress, and it would specifically block the use of ground troops. But to retain the support of Mr. McCain, considered crucial to the authorization’s final passage, the committee toughened some of the language.

Jack Goldsmith compares the version of the AUMF passed by the committee with that proposed by the Obama Administration (courtesy of The Dish).

- Here is the administration's proposal.
- Here is what passed the committee

State and Local Elections - 2013

Things are pretty quiet overall on the states and local level here (tough to compete with Syria) but local issues will become more prominent as the 2013 elections start to loom.

Click here for the Texas Secretary of State's page on important 2013 election dates.

It gives us an idea about what to look forward to. Houston has elections coming up, so there's a good course of content for us. We will also follow news about potential candidates for the primary elections scheduled this coming March.

Ballorpedia has a page on Texas' 2013 elections also.

Some remarks for 2306's section on federalism

Some things to think about as you we plow through it this week:

- Federalism is a decentralizing force in American politics and practically guarantees conflict between the national and state governments. Throw local governments into the mix and the conflict multiplies. Conflict doesn't just exist between the national and state governments, but between states as well. And conflict also occurs between the state and local governments - we won't hitting this point that hard in the slides, but we might discuss the occasional story about it here and there.

- Try to memorize the definitions of nation, state, city and county.

- Remember that the national government was established by representative of the different states, and that the US Constitution is full of clauses which highlight the position of states within the federal system. It also establishes the guarantees the national government has to the states and their obligations to each other. Much of Articles 4 and 6 of the US Constitution deal with this, as well as key parts of Article One.

- There was a great of debate in the constitutional convention and the ratification period over the level of autonomy states ought to have in the federal system. This continues to this day. It is crucial to understand the source of this dispute.

- You should focus on the nature of the policies states are given specific control over in the US Constitution. The notes focus on the design of the Senate, suffrage and election laws and the 10th Amendments.

- I have to point out that the material on the Voting Rights Act has to be modified due to the recent ruling in Shelby v. Holder. Expect some modifications soon, but don't stress over them. This is one of the consequences of taking a government class. Things change.

- Be familiar with the reserved, implied, delegated and denied powers. The inherent powers also. Be especially familiar with the conflict over the implied powers, those that rest on the elastic clauses. These have had a major impact on national and state relations, you should try to understand what and how.

- Know the stages of federalism and the steps that marked the change from one to the next. What factors led to the increase of national power? What kinds of reactions have resulted in Texas? How have conservatives especially tried to push back against national power over the states. Understanding this helps explain a lot of what's in the news.

I hope this overview clarifies what's in this section. I'll do the same for the one on political culture.

The Geneva Protocol of 1925

Part of the reason the chemical attacks have drawn attention is because of the negative reaction to the use of chemical weapons in World War 1, which led to their use being banned in 1925 in the Geneva Protocol.

Worth a quick look since some are wondering why the use of chemical weapons seems to be treated differently than the use of conventional weapons. The US signed the protocol, which leads to one of the arguments the president is currently using: if we sign a treaty, we should enforce it.

John Yoo says the president has the authority to strike Syria without congressional approval

Yoo was a controversial member of the W Bush Administration. He served in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department and developed arguments that promoted an expansive view of presidential powers - especially as it regards war and defense.

He sees no reason for President Obama to go to Congress to authorize action against Syria, and argues that history gives plenty of examples of the military being used without such approval. He uses fundamental text from the ratification era to argue that the framers of the Constitution saw a limited role for the legislature in conducting the military: 

Throughout our history, neither presidents nor Congresses have acted under the belief that the Constitution requires a declaration of war before the U.S. can conduct military hostilities abroad.

We have used force abroad more than 100 times but declared war in only five cases: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American and Spanish-American Wars, and World Wars I and II.

Without any congressional approval, presidents have sent forces to battle Indians, Barbary pirates and Russian revolutionaries, to fight North Korean and Chinese communists in Korea, to engineer regime changes in South and Central America, and to prevent human rights disasters in the Balkans.

A major point he makes is that war is different and the checks and balances that work during periods of peace do not work during periods of war when such checks may limit the ability of the commander in chief to effectively command the military. He also states that while the revolutionary war may have been fought against a monarch, the Constitution was written in order to create an executive branch specifically designed to act forcefully in times of war:

It is true that the revolutionaries rejected the royal prerogative, created weak state governors, and turned a skeptical eye toward federal power.  Rejecting these failed experiments, however, the Framers restored an independent, unified chief executive with its own powers in national security and foreign affairs.   

The most important of the president’s powers are commander-in-chief and chief executive.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 74, “The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength, and the power of directing and employing the common strength forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority.”

Presidents should conduct war, he wrote, because they could act with “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch.”  In perhaps his most famous words, Hamilton wrote: “Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. . . It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks.”

The Framers realized the obvious. Foreign affairs are unpredictable and involve the highest of stakes, making them unsuitable to regulation by pre-existing legislation.

Instead, they can demand swift, decisive action, sometimes under pressured or even emergency circumstances, that are best carried out by a branch of government that does not suffer from multiple vetoes or is delayed by disagreements.
 Congress is too large and unwieldy to take the swift and decisive action required in wartime.  

It's worth a full read. We'll try to make sense of these and counter arguments in class.

Obama's August 31st speech on Syria - and the people who helped shape it

Click for a transcript here.

In order to get a head start at a look at the White House Staff - which we will cover when we look at the section on Presidential Power - let's look at some of the people responsible for gathering the information contained in the speech.

The National Security Council: This group was created in the same piece of legislation that created the Department of Defense, among other things: "the function of the Council has been to advise and assist the president on national security and foreign policies. The Council also serves as the president's principal arm for coordinating these policies among various government agencies."
- Click here for the White House page on the NSC

Some relevant news items:

Here's a look at the internal debate within the council about whether to strike against Syria, and whether to ask Congress for authorization.Here's a look at the NSC's attempt to brief members of Congress - especially the members of the House and Senate Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees.

The NYT has links to past stories involving the NSC.

The National Security Advisor is the primary advisor to the president on security affairs and heads the NSC's staff - which collects the information and conducts the research that forms the basis for the advice sent to the president.

- Here's a wayback look at the NSC staff during the Clinton years.

Something to file away for later use: The NSC is just one of the may advisory institutions which allow presidents to manage the multiple functions carried out by the executive branch. More on this in a few weeks, but its useful right now in order to figure our where the president is getting the information that suggests that a tactical strike against Syria is the right thing to do in response to the  recent chemical attack.  

Two questions to ponder as war with Syria is considered

The first is the practical question: Is it the right thing to do?

The second is the constitutional question: Does the president have the constitutional power to do so without congressional approval?

These will guide our approach to both public policy making and understanding the US Constitution in 2305, though we should kick this up in 2306 also. I'll post a few items related to the debate as they emerge.

Shelby v Holder and the Voting Rights Act

2306 students should get familiar with both the Voting Rights Act - which strengthened the voting rights of minority in the United States by giving the national government the power to pre-clear changes in laws related to elections and voting in states with a history of racial discrimination (like Texas) and the recent Supreme Court decision in Shelby v. Holder which weakened that powers.

The current conflict between the Attorney Generals of the US and Texas stems from the recent court case, as well as different points of view towards the right to vote in general.

This conflict will be central to a lot of the topics we'll hit this semester, so please get a handle on what's at issue here - we will discuss this further soon enough.

Here are few sites that will help you stew over a provocative question: Is there a guaranteed right to vote in the United States?

- The Constitution is not explicit on a right to vote.
- Voting Right or Privilege?
- Right to Vote Amendment.
- The Missing Right.
- A constitutional right to vote?

The War Powers Resolution

2305 students ought to get familiar with this significant piece of Vietnam War era legislation. It's applicability to the current situation in Syria will be debated heavily in the upcoming week - last week as well.

It was an early attempt to reign in executive war making powers, though its actual impact is subject to debate. It has never been tested constitutionally, so there's a question about whether it allows Congress to interfere with powers related to the "commander in chief."

It's Labor Day!

Here are a couple links that provide some background info on the holiday and its relationship to the labor movement in the US which picked up steam in the late 19th century, but has since withered.

- Wikipedia.
- US Labor Department.

The celebration fits into a broader discussion we will have on the evolution of ideology over history - especially that dating back to the French Revolution. The labor movement is part of a series of movements and ideologies - the socialists, progressives and populists among them - that responded to the inequities that emerged as a consequence of the classical liberalism, capitalism and the industrial revolution.

More on these soon enough.

Likely topics for Week 3's Written Assignment

I'll post something within a couple days, but for 2305 I'm leaning towards a topic related to conflict over whether the US Constitution authorizes the president to go to "war" with Syria without consulting Congress. That's obviously topical, so we'll try to make sense of the dispute.

For 2306 I'll formulate something on the conflict between the United States and Texas governments over laws related to voting and elections generally, and the Voter ID requirement specifically. I think the conflict is inevitable due to different parts of the Constitution that grant certain powers to the states and others to the national government. This hopefully helps us understand the nature of state - national conflict.

I'll post a few items related to each topic soon and I plan to have a formal assignment up by Wednesday.  

Looking Ahead to Week Two

In 2305 we will be looking at the development of the concept of both natural rights and separated powers over the course of British history and how they are embodies in two very important documents: The Second Treatise on Government and the British Bill of Rights. Both help us understand the nature of the argument presented in the Declaration of Independence.

We will also take a birds eye view of the US Constitution. We'll try to understand the conflict that occurred in the 1780's over what governing system might works best for the US - a struggle which continues in many ways - and the document's content. We will pour over the document's detail in later sections.

Note: I've yet to open up the section on ideology. I'll do so soon enough, but only have a small number of questions based on it. It's new, so I'm making sure it's worth posting before I do.

In 2306 we look at the relationship that exists between the states and national government, as well as some of the specific conflicts that exist between the government f Texas and the government of the United States. The first section looks at this from the point of view of both the Constitution and federalism. The goal will be to isolate where this conflict stems from.

The second section looks at the same general topic, but this time in terms of political culture, which can loosely be defined as the - more or less - collective agreement in a region or community about what a government should do. We will discuss three types of political culture that exist across the US and which are dominant in Texas. The goal is to help us understand the nature of conflict that exists between Texas and the US. Although it might seem confusing, once you understand what the conflict is based on, it makes perfect sense. You might even be able to predict where conflict might erupt.

Note: Chances are I'll drop the section on the syllabus that looks at the relationship between the national and local governments. Its not ready to go. I'll confirm this soon.

Email me questions and I'll post answers here.

Week One Wrap Up

Last week - in both 2305 and 2306 - we went through the syllabus and the first section of the class which tried to explain why the state of Texas has required you to take 6 hours of government. I tried to point out the role education has always been argued to play in the preservation of democratic republics.

Maybe that worked, maybe it didn't. Hopefully it addressed any concerns or complaints you have about the government requirement. I'll continue to post stories related to how government should be taught - it tend to be the subject of ideological battles.

I didn't walk through the section on definitions and vocabulary - you ought to be able to do so yourself. I'll point out the specific terms that are useful currently. I posted a few stories on the continued struggles in the Middles East and the questions about whether these traditionally autocratic governments might be able to transition into democracies. Those are two of the terms contained in the second section.

I think the post on Jeanne Kirkpatrick's 1979 column critical of Carter's foreign policy - and what she had to say about the difficulty of establishing democracies - might be the most important post of last week.

It seems like most of you were able to send me a hello through Blackboard and a good handful also got the first two assessments out of the way.

Classes resume tomorrow.

Enjoy your Labor Day.  

Is Texas' economic growth due to economic policies or increased oil production?

One of the books available for 2306 argues that Texas' economic policies have created recent boom in jobs, and that other states should emulate them. But here's an observation that that states that have grown the most in recent years have oil based economies.

That's tough to replicate.

Is it possible that the Great Plains simply have better zoning laws, better governors, better entrepreneurial incentives, better schools, and better [other things that you typically associate with growth]? Yes, it is possible that the entire central time zone is magically gifted at matching people and jobs. It's also really, really unlikely. More likely is that the Great Plains have some of the positive aforementioned qualities -- Houston's zoning policies are exemplary, e.g. -- but most importantly, they did well because many of them shared something in common at the trans-state level: bountiful energy resources under their feet. 

Take the five or so states with fastest-growing oil production -- ND, TX, OK, CO, NM -- and draw their post-crash job performance against the rest of the country. This is the picture you get. Except for New Mexico, the four top oil-growth states fell lower and have climbed higher than the rest of the country.

States free to legalize marijuana

The Washington Post reports that the Obama Administration will not preempt state laws:

The Obama administration on Thursday said it will not stand in the way of Colorado, Washington and other states where voters have supported legalizing marijuana either for medical or recreational use, as long as those states maintain strict rules involving distribution of the drug.

In a memo sent Thursday to U.S. attorneys in all 50 states, deputy attorney general James M. Cole detailed the administration’s new stance, even as he reiterated that marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

The memo directs federal prosecutors to focus their resources on eight specific areas of enforcement, rather than targeting individual marijuana users, which even President Obama has acknowledged is not the best use of federal manpower. Those areas include preventing distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing the sale of pot to cartels and gangs, preventing sales to other states where the drug remains illegal under state law, and stopping the growing of marijuana on public lands.

A Justice Department official said that Attorney General Eric Holder had called the governors of Colorado and Washington around noon on Thursday to inform them of the administration’s official stance.

 

A $52 billion dollar budget for spying

The latest revelation from the documents released by Edward Snowden. These has been classified for years.

U.S. spy agencies have built an intelligence-gathering colossus since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but remain unable to provide critical information to the president on a range of national security threats, according to the government’s top secret budget.

The $52.6 billion “black budget” for fiscal 2013, obtained by The Washington Post from former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, maps a bureaucratic and operational landscape that has never been subject to public scrutiny. Although the government has annually released its overall level of intelligence spending since 2007, it has not divulged how it uses those funds or how it performs against the goals set by the president and Congress.

The 178-page budget summary for the National Intelligence Program details the successes, failures and objectives of the 16 spy agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community, which has 107,035 employees.

Here's a link to the document.

From Jack Goldsmith: Why Doesn’t President Obama Seek Congressional Approval for Syria?

Goldsmith headed the Office of Legal Counsel in the W Bush Administration. He questions whether an intervention in Syria is justified, and whether the president has the power to act on his own. This will be useful for our future look in 2305 about the extent of presidential war powers.

I have a pretty broad view of presidential power to use military force abroad without congressional authorization.  On that view, which is close to the past views of the Office of Legal Counsel, the planned use of military force in Syria is a constitutional stretch that will push presidential war unilateralism beyond where it has gone before.  There are many reasons why it is a stretch even under OLC precedents.  The main ones, as I alluded to a few days ago, are (1) neither U.S. persons nor property are at stake, and no plausible self-defense rationale exists; (2) the main non-self-defense U.S. interest that the Commander in Chief has invoked since the Korean War to justify unilateral uses of force – upholding the integrity of the U.N. Charter – appears (as Wells argued) to be disserved rather than served by a military strike in Syria; and (3) a Syria strike would push the legal envelope further even than Kosovo, the outer bound to date of presidential unilateralism, which at least implicated our most important security treaty organization commitments (NATO).  (Note that the USG was, as Wells pointed out, never able to publicly articulate a legal rationale for Kosovo.  In our more legalistic age 14 years later, such silence likely won’t be possible, but it also won’t be possible to rely on Kosovo as a constitutional precedent without explaining why the invasion was lawful at the time.)