A nice graphic from CrowdPAC

Here's a link to it.

Some help figuring out ideological divisions within each party

For GOVT 2305 students, here are a few websites that should help you isolate where each candidate is positioned ideologically. Remember that I want you to look at divisions within either party since that is what's at issue right now. I want you to develop your own specific take on the topic, but think about honing on the divisions that might matter most in determining which candidates receive their party's nomination. Differences between the parties will matter more during the general election, but we are far away from that.

This site might be especially useful to you:

- CrowdPAC: 2016 Presidential Candidates.

Here's more:

- On the Issues.
- NYT: Hillary Clinton and the 2016 Democrats: Mostly Liberal, Together.
- 538: Is Jeb Bush Too Liberal To Win The Republican Nomination In 2016?
- YouGov: On ideology, Democrats clustered but Republicans far apart.
- Pew Research Center: Contrasting Partisan Perspectives on Campaign 2016.
- Washington Post: Who is the most conservative Republican candidate for president?
- Huffington Post: Every 2016 Presidential Candidate From Most Liberal to Most Conservative in 2 Charts.

Winners and losers from last night's Republican debate

It's the fifth Republican debate - if you've been following. I'm not sure how long the news media has been claiming who won and lost the debate, but this seems to be a good track of the conventional wisdom regarding how the candidates are doing, and what this says about the race so far.

Here's a handful of evaluations:

- Vox: 3 winners and 3 losers from the fifth Republican debate.
- CNN: CNN Republican debate: Winners and losers.
- BBC News: Republican debate: Winners and losers.
- The Hill: GOP debate winners and losers.
- Washington Post: Winners and Losers from the 5th Republican presidential debate.
- Fox: Winners and Losers in Fifth Republican Debate.

And here's a tally of the winner and losers according to these writers:

Winners
Donald Trump: 4
Ted Cruz: 4
Marco Rubio: 4
Chris Christie: 4
Jeb Bush: 2
Rand Paul: 2
Ben Carson: 1
Hillary Clinton: 1

Losers
Ben Carson: 4
John Kasich: 4
Carly Fiorina: 3
Jeb Bush: 3
Donald Trump: 2
Rand Paul: 1
Ted Cruz: 1
Marco Rubio: 1

And then there's this:

- 538: The Fifth Republican Debate Ends In A Nine-Way Draw.

Is Donald Trump A Fascist?

Speaking of Donald Trump: Is he a fascist?

Well, we don't really know unless we know what a fascist is. The section on ideology attempts to define a variety of ideological terms, including "fascism." Apparently there's a dispute about whether Trump qualifies. The term can simply be used as a put-down, but that doesn't use the term in a rational, meaningful way.

Here are a handful of thoughts on the subject, most seem to support the claim:

- Donald Trump Is a Fascist: This isn’t a partisan attack. It is the political label that best describes what the GOP front-runner has become.
- Donald Trump is an actual fascist: What his surging popularity says about the GOP base.
- Donald Trump's alarming skid toward outright fascism.

I found the following especially useful - and it seems to suggestion that despite his rhetoric, Trump falls short of outright fascism - at least the type we can trace to Mussolini and Hitler. These were the guys who developed and perfected the concept.

- I asked 5 fascism experts whether Donald Trump is a fascist. Here's what they said.

The article points out the following key traits of fascism, areas where Trump falls short.

1. Fascism requires the rejection of democracy.
2. Fascism emphasizes violence for its own sake.
3. Fascism is anti-individualist — and Donald Trump is an arch-individualist.
4. Fascism doesn't really have much to do with economics
So there.

From the Cato Institute: Trump Exploits Rational Political Ignorance

I make a claim in the opening section of the class that the government requirement is an effort by the state of Texas to combat political ignorance. Whether it is a successful effort, I don't know, but I do what I can.

I'll post a few additional items relate to the current state of political ignorance and its consequences, but here's a provocative piece from this past October by a self professed libertarian author and his take on the Donald Trump phenomenon. He notes that polls show that Trumps support - among Republicans - is highest among those with low levels of education, and that a variety of Trump's claims are not factually true. This doesn't seem to affect his support.

He concludes by noting that there is nothing new with playing to voter ignorance and even notes that it may well be a rational thing given how little one person's vote can matter. But he does note that political ignorance makes people ripe for exploitation. A point of view promoters of public education - from day one - would likely agree with.

- Click here for the story.

. . . political ignorance is not a problem unique to Trump’s supporters or this particular campaign, or to any one side of the political spectrum. Decades of survey data show that most Americans have low levels of political knowledge. For example, an Annenberg Public Policy Center survey taken during the 2014 campaign, which decided control of Congress, found that only 38% knew which party controlled the House of Representatives at the time, and the same low percentage knew which one controlled the Senate.

Exploitation of ignorance was a standard political tool long before Trump decided to run for president. It was not Trump but the far more respectable President Obama who secured passage of his signature health reform law in large part by manipulating what Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber called “the stupidity of the American voter.” The president lied to the public when he repeatedly assured them that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” A 2012 YG Policy Center poll showed that 64% of Americans fell for that deception.

The problem is not that voters are stupid, or that accurate information is unavailable. Rather, for most voters, political ignorance is actually rational. No matter how well-informed you are, the probability that your vote will change the outcome of an election is tiny — only one in 60 million in a presidential election. Few Americans know the exact odds. But most have an intuitive sense that there is little payoff to carefully studying political issues. Quite rationally, they act accordingly. That behavior, however, leaves them vulnerable to Trump and others who seek to manipulate ignorance for political gain.

Despite his current lead in the polls, Trump probably won’t win the GOP nomination, much less the presidency. But even when his star fades, the political ignorance that fueled his rise will remain, ripe for exploitation by other candidates and interest groups. That, far more than his crude rhetoric, is the truly frightening reality revealed by The Donald.

Welcome mini 3 classes

I'm monitoring blackboard so I  can see a lot of you have logged on, and a few have started doing the quizzes. Good to see it. Hopefully you've found your way here. I'll catch up on posts relevant to class material - I just finished off the fall material so I can devote all my attention to this class.

I just want to make sure you've found your way here. Send me an email if you have questions.

The filibuster, majority rule and minority rights

The author of this commentary discusses the tension between majority rule (a central feature in democracies) and how the filibuster - if not the design of the bicameral system - helps resolve it.

- Click here for the commentary.

As mentioned, the filibuster is one of the primary characteristics that distinguish the House from the Senate. The House was established to more directly reflect the passions of the people—it moves quickly, and by majority rule. The Senate, on the other hand, was designed to “cool” the passions of the House and act with more deliberation.

James Madison wrote that the Senate should “consist in its proceedings with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom” than the majoritarian House. George Washington famously observed: “We pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

Put simply, the filibuster is the check on blanket rule by the majority in the House. The filibuster ensures that the minority party in the Senate has a voice in the debate, because without it, the Senate cannot achieve the consensus needed to end debate and move to a vote—which requires 60 votes. The fact of the filibuster forces each side to work with one another, to come to an agreement about final language in a bill, or determine how to deal with competing priorities. In effect, it is a mechanism that forces the “coolness” and the deliberation that Madison and Washington envisioned.

Is there a fundamental right to travel?

If so - as with marriage, but not education - strict scrutiny rules apply and a compelling public purpose must be served in order to restrict it. The law must also be narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose and must be the least restrictive means to achieve it.

A recent post in the Federal Law Blog point to a 1958 case that argued that it is.

- Click here for the post: Freedom to Travel and the IRS.
-  Oyez: Kent v. Dulles.

“The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. […] Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, maybe necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.”

Regarding Party Coalitions

2305 students should be prepared for a small number of questions on the various groups that are part of the Democratic and Republican national coalitions. Aside from what's available on class material, this should help:

- A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation.

Democrats hold advantages in party identification among blacks, Asians, Hispanics, well-educated adults and Millennials. Republicans have leads among whites – particularly white men, those with less education and evangelical Protestants – as well as members of the Silent Generation.

A new analysis of long-term trends in party affiliation among the public provides a detailed portrait of where the parties stand among various groups in the population. It draws on more than 25,000 interviews conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2014, which allows examination of partisan affiliation across even relatively small racial, ethnic, educational and income subgroups. (Explore detailed tables for 2014 here.)

Getting ready for the primary elections in Texas

Each party in Texas is gearing up for the March 1st primary election. Texas will be a part of a slate of states - including many southern states - that are attempting to collect their strength in order to influence the result of each race. Remember that these are party elections. A good number of internal party issues are settled in these elections. Currently the two major parties in the state are making preliminary decisions about how the primary elections will be conducted and what issues may or may not be on each party's ballot.

I won't ask nuanced question about these elections, but both 2305 and 2306 students should have a general familiarity with the concept of primary elections - and who runs them. Remember that states are given the responsibility of running elections in the United States. There really is no such thing as a national election in the US - national campaigns yes, elections no. The national government can oversee elections in order to determine if they are run in compliance with the equal protection clause, but little else.

Here are a few recent stories:

- Texas to have more prominent role in 2016 GOP presidential race.
- Texas GOP Votes Down Secession Proposal.
- Texas Democrats Approve 6 Ballot Referenda For Public Vote.
- Texas’ primary ballot begins to take shape.

For a broader look at the efforts of the presidential candidates to get on the ballots click on the following:

- The 2016 ballot wars begin: Each failure to appear on a ballot undermines a candidate’s credibility as a national figure.

Voting doesn’t begin for another two months but some presidential candidates have already failed their first big ballot test – actually getting on the ballot in all 50 states.

The business of getting a candidate’s name on the ballot is a costly and complex endeavor, a major drain of money and manpower that threatens to weed out the most underfunded campaigns and strain the others in what remains a historically unwieldy Republican field. Some states require thousands of signatures to qualify; others charge tens of thousands of dollars. Nationally, the price tag for ballot access can soar well past $1 million – more money than some campaigns have left in the bank.

“Right about now is the time when some desperation will set in,” said Ben Ginsberg, a veteran Republican political attorney who served as national counsel for Mitt Romney but is unaligned in 2016.

From the Dallas Observer: DENTON USED TO BE KINDA COOL. THEN IT PAID $8 MIL FOR A BUC-EE'S.

I though this served as a good reminder that cities are primarily economic units. I can't speak to the wisdom of this deal . . .

- Click here for the story.

. . . but it would be interesting to look at how Buc-ee's has developed a strategy which persuades local cities to provide tax incentives - and infrastructure - for it to build stations there and whether these turn out to be worthwhile economically. This shouldn't stop with Buc-ee's, Walmart and many other do the same.

- Click here for Denton OKs incentives for Buc-ee's Travel Center.

The battle over Buc-ee’s raged deep into the night at City Hall, which was packed with residents for and against the massive, trendy travel center. Under the proposal, Buc-ee’s would provide more than $5 million in infrastructure to the site on the west side of Interstate 35E between Loop 288 and Wind River Lane.

Neighbors fear congestion, noise pollution, light pollution, and other issues that they believe could harm lifestyle and property values. About 20 speakers sounded off to council members for and against the project. Opponents said it would bring low-paying jobs, and that tax breaks would add insult to injury.

Supporters said Buc-ee’s is a high quality operation that would bring visitors, and provide property and sales tax revenue. The proposed travel center would have 96 gas pumps and about 50,000 feet of retail space.

From KRGV.com: Texas AG: Board Can't Control Local Textbook Adoption AG: Board only has powers "specifically delegated by statute."

I'm hunting around for stories using which refer to the "delegated," "reserved," and "implied" - among the other types we went over this semester - and ran across this that mentions Texas Attorney General and his decision that existing state laws limits the State Board of Education's effort to restrict what textbooks local districts can use in the classroom.

2305 students especially should be prepped to answer questions using that terminology and what relative powers the national, state, and local governments have and why.

2306 students might want to have an understanding of the Attorney General's office and the basic structure of the SBOE.

Note use of the term "rulemaking" in the story and the conflict it contains between the legislature and the executive branch. The Texas Legislature is attempting to curtail the power of the SBOE, which seem to push back.

- Click here for the story.

The Texas attorney general said Friday that the Board of Education can't tell local school districts what textbooks to adopt for their classrooms, interpreting existing state law as limiting the often controversial board's authority.

Republican Ken Paxton stated in an opinion that the board has only those powers "specifically delegated by statute" and that it "may not substitute its judgment for the lawful exercise of those powers and duties by the trustees."

The board's 15 members sanction textbooks for use statewide in a process that has for years been marred by ideological fights over lessons on subjects including evolution, climate change and the influence of biblical figures such as Moses on America's Founding Fathers. Texas has 5.2 million public school students, a textbook market so large that edits made for the board can affect what's published in other states.

But, in 2011, the Legislature approved a law giving school districts the option of adopting classroom materials that haven't won board approval. Relatively few school districts have taken advantage, though the use of iPads and e-readers makes it easier for publishers to tailor books to individual buyers' needs.

Still, Republican board member Barbara Cargill sought clarification on where the 2011 law and others left the board's authority over school districts' textbook approval processes. She said the state board's approval process is done publicly and ensures that textbooks meet state curriculum standards. She said she was worried that local adoption of classroom materials could undermine that.

"I seek to identify the extent of the board's rulemaking authority to ensure that, at the local level, appropriate process and safeguards exist with regard to the adoption and use of instructional materials by a public school," she wrote when asking for the attorney general's opinion in June.

From the Huffington Post: Do Americans Prefer a "Democracy" or a "Republic"?

2305 students should be ready for questions related to the terms "democracy" and "republic." Conveniently, this item popped up. It's a bit disappointing though, it just looks at whether self identified Democrats and Republicans prefer each term with little focus on what each term means. It turns out partisans like the term that sounds like their party's name.

It's worth a look anyway: Click here for it.

While many Americans would be hard-pressed to identify any meaningful conceptual differences between these terms, it is interesting to see whether there is a partisan pattern that influences preferences on this question. As Professor Adam Brown wrote in 2011: "Let's face it: For some, this is just a matter of partisan cheerleading. Some (not all) Republicans want to call this a republic just because that sounds like 'Republican,' and some (not all) Democrats want to call this a democracy just because that sounds like 'Democrat.'" Is this the case? Do Republicans really prefer the term "republic" and do Democrats really prefer the term "democracy"?

It turns out - narrowly - they do. More importantly, the author links to sources that go a bit further into the definitions, and pros and cons, of each. I'm highlighting them here:

- Are We a Democracy or a Republic?
- A Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy.
- Are We a Democracy?
- Democracy.
- Republicanism.

. . . and catching up with Joe Straus and Dan Patrick as well

- Grading Straus.

When tea party-aligned Republicans at the Texas Capitol talk about why they can't get any number of bills passed, they reflexively point to one man: House Speaker Joe Straus.

The anti-Straus forces – especially as they have amassed power in the Senate – have been careful about not laying blame at the feet of the whole House. Instead, the tea party crowd alleges a more us-versus-them framework that pits Joe Straus’ coalition of Democrats and so-called liberal Republicans against the tea party sympathizers who are vastly outnumbered in the lower chamber.

- Texas House Speaker Joe Straus to head national push to turn more legislatures red.

Texas House Speaker Joe Straus had to curb his enthusiasm Tuesday when, as expected, he was named the head of the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee, a national GOP group that aims to turn more legislatures red.

Republicans have been annihilating the Democrats’ “bench” of state officeholders so rapidly in recent cycles that you could almost read a how-do-I-top-that lament in Straus’ reaction. “We have a lot of ground to defend,” Straus said in a statement. Boy, is that an understatement.

- Important items on Straus’ list.

Among the items Texas House SpeakerJoe Strausis directing the 2017 Legislature to address are some that deserve particularly heightened attention. They go to adequate and effective state spending, transparent government and whether Texas students will be the workforce the state needs to be economically competitive.
They are “interim charges” from Straus. They offer a possible preview of priorities for the House in the next session. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick issued his directives to Senate committees earlier.

- Patrick says state voters' approval of Proposition 1 a first step in tax relief.

In a news conference Thursday at the Texas Federation of Republican Women convention in Lubbock, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said state voters’ recent passage of Proposition 1 was just the first step in property tax relief. . . . Given the newly approved increase in homestead exceptions, Patrick said the next step should either be to reduce the maximum amount appraisal districts can increase property values or to lower the rollback rate on property taxes that requires cities and counties to hold elections if they exceed it.

 - Texas conservatives look to finally move on ‘sanctuary cities’.

Lawmakers and our law enforcement officials have the responsibility to keep our communities safe. Many security officials say illegal immigration puts us in danger. But will lawmakers try again for a controversial law to get rid of “sanctuary cities.” Lawmakers tackled this issue and waded into this passionate issue at a Senate Border Security Committee at the State Capitol. The debate centered around two issues. The first is who commits crime. The second is what can and should the state do to encourage action from our local police.

- 1-on-1 with Lt. Governor Dan Patrick.

Many call it the most powerful position in the State. Nothing passes the Senate without approval from the Lt. Governor. Today that position is held by Dan Patrick, a former sportscaster and state senator. He passed all but one of his priority items out of the Senate last session. But some of his ideas did not pass the House and, as a result, did not become law. But in the interim (time between sessions) he gave Texas’s 31 senators some homework.

“School choice is back,” said Lt. Governor Dan Patrick. Last session he said he’d put his shoulder behind it. While a bill giving tax credits to businesses who paid for kids to leave failing schools passed the Senate, it did not pass the House. He’s bringing it up again.

Catching up with Governor Abbott

He's been very busy.

- Gov. Greg Abbott heading to Cuba.

Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday announced that he will lead a delegation to Havana, Cuba next week to talk travel, trade and exports. “Opening the door to business with Texas will expand free enterprise and the freedom that flows from it. I look forward to expanding business opportunities for both Texas and Cuba,” Abbott said in a statement.

The visit is Abbott’s second international trip as governor, and it comes after President Obama this summer announced that the U.S. was re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, who is charging hard for the Republican presidential nomination, has called Obama’s decision a tragic mistake. Cruz’s father fled Cuba’s dictatorial regime in the 1950s. But other Texans have welcomed the thawing relations, including a delegation of business leaders who visited Cuba in April to discuss trade.

- Greg Abbott tells mayors they can't ban guns in city halls.

Texas mayors cannot prohibit the concealed carry of handguns in city halls and other government buildings even if they contain security-sensitive areas such as courtrooms, according to Gov. Greg Abbott. Abbott, the former attorney general, last month told his successor Ken Paxton that under a new law that went into effect Sept. 1, city, county and agency leaders must allow concealed handgun license holders to carry their weapons into government buildings. The Abbott memo was sent in response to letters from Hays and Tom Green County officials asking Paxton to clarify when and where they can continue to ban concealed carry in their facilities.

- Greg Abbott’s pension board pick draws protests from labor.

Gov. Greg Abbott’s choice to lead the Texas Pension Review Board has drawn sharp criticism from labor organizations that equated the appointment to a betrayal of trust by the governor. Abbott tapped Josh McGee on Monday, lauding the Houston economist as a leading national expert on retirement policy — a fine fit for a board that reviews the health of public retirement systems, studies potential problems and recommends solutions. Josh McGee was named to lead the Texas Pension Review Board by Gov. Greg Abbott. A dozen labor groups representing police and firefighters, however, quickly called on Abbott to rescind the appointment, calling McGee one of the state’s harshest critics of public pensions.

 - Greg Abbott and faith groups head toward showdown on Syrian refugees.

Gov. Greg Abbott’s office appears headed toward a legal showdown with refugee resettlement agencies and their sponsoring faith organizations over Abbott’s efforts to keep any Syrian refugees from resettling in Texas in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks. Following Abbott’s directive, Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner Chris Traylor on Thursday sent a toughly worded letter to 19 refugee resettlement agencies in Texas — including Caritas and the Refugee Services of Texas in Austin — asking that they scrap any plans to resettle Syrian refugees in Texas and that they notify his office by 4 p.m. Friday if they had any plans to resettle Syrians in the state.

After consulting with a number of the resettlement agencies and representatives of their sponsoring religious denominations, Bee Moorhead, executive director of Texas Impact, an umbrella group for Christian, Jewish and Muslim faith groups, wrote Traylor a letter Friday expressing their “shock and dismay,” describing his letter as “an unprecedented attempt on the part of a state agency to pressure private, nonprofit organizations to violate federal law and their federal contractual obligations.” By directing the agencies to refuse to resettle Syrians, Moorhead said that Abbott and Traylor are asking the agencies to violate federal anti-discrimination statues, and “we cannot imagine how any organization could contemplate complying with HHSC’s directive without first obtaining legal counsel.”

About MUD's and low voter turnout.

Just to add fuel to the fire regarding the consequences of low voter turnout: Here's a good look at how the political process - on the local level - really operates. 2306 students might want to think about this in order to catch up on the consequences of low voter turnout, in addition to single purpose governments.

- In area MUD elections, handful of voters decide $1 billion in bonds" 'Rent-a-voter' districts chided while supporters point to progress.

A few months ago, a cabinet maker and his wife were recruited to move into a manufactured home parked on a dirt road that was plowed into the woods on the west side of Conroe in Montgomery County.

Daniel and Deborah Spiecher are now the only residents of a newly created municipal utility district, or MUD, carved from 82 acres of land there. They are also the only ones eligible to vote Tuesday on $500 million in proposed bonds to develop that tract.

In fact, they are among just seven voters who will decide the fate this week of $1.07 billion in bonds for roads, water, sewer and recreational facilities in three such districts that were recently formed in this fast-growing county north of Houston. The debt will be repaid with taxes imposed on future residents and businesses. While some believe the MUDs provide a means to bring about high-end development in an orderly way, critics say they are out of control, with developers manipulating the democratic process to essentially take on the roles of cities and borrow hundreds of millions of dollars to make public improvements.

Montgomery County resident Adrian Heath decries the lack of transparency and citizen input into what critics call "rent-a-voter" MUD elections. Heath notes that the billion-dollar MUD proposals make the contentious, countywide election over a $280 million road bond package look like "kid stuff."

Yet an attorney representing one of the developers for the three MUDs refers to these initial seven voters as "urban pioneers."

"They move onto the land and help establish new communities, paving the way for the future homeowners," said Angela Lutz, the attorney for Stoecker Corp., which plans to develop land covered by a separate MUD on Conroe's west side and also north of The Woodlands. She stressed these elections are completely legal, as well as being "typical and ordinary" and the way MUDs have operated for decades.

From the Pearland Journal: Brazoria County voter turnout historically low

But we knew this already.

- Click here for the article.

Brazoria County has historically had poor voter turnout at the polls, typically between five and seven percent. That means that approximately 10,000 out of almost 180,000 people determine county leadership. Pearland City Councilmember Keith Ordeneaux recently brought this issue up on social media: “During my time on council many of my views have been strengthened and confirmed. One of the most important of these is the lack of informed input from the public to their elected officials. I hear many people saying that government is out of control. I cannot totally disagree with these statements. So why do we feel that government is out of control? Why has this happened? What should be done to correct the problem? Where should we start to fix the problem?”

This story was published in 2014, but the figures for the election this past November are little better.

For the most recent turnout figures, click here.

A few items for 2306 . . .

. . . mostly related to current events.

- Rice University Opts Out of Campus Carry.

Rice University is the latest private college in Texas to announce that it would opt out of the state's new campus carry law. "There is no evidence that allowing the carrying of guns on our campus will make the campus safer,” Rice President David Leebron said Monday in an email to students announcing the decision. “The most knowledgeable professional groups believe that guns will make campuses less safe."

- Kim Davis one of 59 in running for TIME Person of the Year.

Rowan county clerk Kim Davis is in the race to become TIME Magazine's 'Person of the Year.' Davis received national attention this summer after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She was jailed for five days after she defied a federal court order to issue the marriage licenses. Davis has since returned to work, but when she got out of jail she altered marriage licenses her deputies issued. She removed her name and the county's name.

- Texas Supreme Court strikes down eyebrow-threading regulations: 6-3 ruling says eyebrow-threaders don't need cosmetology licenses.

This is not the first pointless cosmetology licensing law to be overturned in Texas this year, with help from the Institute for Justice. In January, a federal judge ruled against state requirements mandating that professional hairbraiders meet the same high licensing standards as barbers. In April, the state House of Representatives voted unanimously to deregulate hairbraiding, and in June the governor signed the braiding bill into law.

- Texas Threatens To Sue Aid Groups That Help Syrian Refugees.

Texas has threatened to kill funding and sue social services organizations if they defy Gov. Greg Abbott's refusal to accept Syrian refugees -- an order Abbott issued without the legal power to do so. Chris Traylor, executive commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, issued the threat in a Nov. 25 letter to the International Rescue Committee in Dallas. The threat came a week after 31 governors - 30 of them Republican - claimed their states would refuse to accept any more Syrian refugees, though states, and governors, have no legal authority to exclude legally admitted refugees.

- U.S. files motion against Texas plan to bar Syrian refugees.

The U.S. Justice Department filed a motion in federal court on Friday against a request by Texas to halt pending resettlement of Syrian refugees there, with federal officials saying the state lacks the authority to act on national immigration policy. A relief agency that plans to resettle two Syrian families in the coming days filed a separate motion filed at the U.S. District Court in Dallas, contending that Texas cannot discriminate against refugees on the basis of nationality because that violates U.S. civil rights laws.

- Texas Supreme Court to again hear that state is shortchanging schools.

Shut out by lawmakers in their efforts to overhaul the state’s troubled education funding system, more than 600 school districts are now pinning their hopes for relief on the Texas Supreme Court. The high court will hear arguments on the volatile issue of school finance Tuesday, once again taking up the question of whether the current funding system is unfair and inadequate. It will be the seventh time in the last quarter-century that the court has been called on to settle a legal challenge over the way Texas funds the education of millions of children.

- Supreme Court to Again Consider Affirmative Action.

The U.S. Supreme Court has considered the merits of affirmative action on more than one occasion – and will examine the issue once again in Fisher v. University of Texas.
Abigail Fisher, who is supported by the Project on Fair Representation, didn’t get into the University of Texas. Fisher, who said she was rejected because she is white, indicating that less-qualified non-white classmates with lower grades were accepted.

-  Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Texas Abortion Law Case.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to a Texas law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and requires abortion clinics to have the facilities of an outpatient surgical center.

Regarding the concept of "standing"

I asked 2305 students to think about the concept of standing since there might be - might be - a question about it on the test. Simply put, it's what allows you to sue someone - and what allows the courts to hear your case. You have been directly impacted by a law or executive action.

- Here's the relevant Wikipedia entry on the subject.

Legal observers have noticed that the current Supreme Court - the Roberts Court - has been tightening up the concept of standing, making it more difficult for people to prove harm and thereby taking cases to the court.

- Here's the latest along those lines.

It's written with an ideological agenda, the author argues that conservative justices have been trying to make it more difficult for people too use the courts to address grievances. So in addition to filling you in on the concept of standing, this also touches on ideology.

Here's a test of his argument:

Like many conservative judges, Roberts has sought to make it more difficult for people to get the standing to sue in federal court. In 2007, for example, Roberts joined anopinion that held that taxpayers did not have the standing to challenge expenditures by the executive branch that go to religious institutions.

Conservative justices on the supreme court have also narrowed standing in environmental cases. In a 1992 opinion written by Justice Scalia, the court deniedstanding to citizens bringing a lawsuit based on the Endangered Species Act. Vigilant citizens were denied the ability to compel enforcement of the statute in the face of executive inaction.

Paul Ryan and John Roberts

The latest on the new Speaker and the not so new Chief Justice.

Here's a bit on the folks he's surrounded himself and his efforts to set an agenda for House Republicans for next year.

- Meet Paul Ryan’s Kitchen Cabinet.
- Paul Ryan, the GOP's Idea Man, Calls for Bold New Ideas.
- Ryan Throws Down Republican Gauntlet in Outlining House Agenda for ’16.
- Paul Ryan Pitches ‘Confidence’ to a Timid GOP.

And few items related to Roberts - notably the unique responsibilities a chief justice has regarding the Supreme Court as an institution.

- Chief Justice John Roberts on taking on a Democratic President (FDR).
- Chief justice favors some when assigning court’s major decisions.
- Chief Justice Likely Helped Set Stage For Nationwide Marriage Equality Decision.
- Ten Years Of The Roberts Court.

Catching up with Pete Olson - plus a bit on the early beginnings of health care policy on the national level.

GovTrack tells us he's written and introduced a bill which is now headed to the Energy and Commerce Committee. The bill is H.R. 4152. Here's the bill summary:

To amend the Public Health Service Act to clarify liability protections regarding emergency use of automated external defibrillators.

Olson's website has a blurb on it:

- Click here to read it.

Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) and Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA) today acted to help save lives impacted by sudden cardiac arrest by introducing H.R. 4152, the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act. This bill will help increase the survival rate from sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) by eliminating the threat of frivolous lawsuits through development of a nationally uniform baseline of protection for persons who use an automatic external defibrillator (AED) while attempting to save a life during a medical emergency.

They argue that the possibility that one might be sued for improperly using a defibrillator will suppress the tendency of people to use them. Seems to fit under the general heading of tort reform. Olson's site links to a related interest group - the Sudden Cardiac Arrest Foundation. No word on whether they were involved in the crafting of the bill.

GovTrack gives is a 3% chance of passing into law.

If you'd like more on the Public Health Service Act, click here.

Here's info from Wikipedia:

The act clearly established the federal government's quarantine authority for the first time. It gave the United States Public Health Service responsibility for preventing the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States

The act seems to fit along others passed in the FDR Administration broadening the power of the national government, but if you click on the link to the United States Public Health Service you'll note that it was founded in 1798, which makes it one of the oldest agencies in the national government, despite the fact that health care is not one the delegated powers in the U. S. Constitution.

The Wikipedia's entry on the United States Public Health Service walks through the early history of health care policy which gives us idea of how health care slowly evolves from being a state policy to a national one.

- Click here for the history section, if you want more on the subject.

From Vox: This one-sentence explanation of ISIS is brilliant

From what I can tell, this seems to apply some of what we covered in the introductory lectures in class to the question of what helped fuel the rise of ISIS. To some degree its the lack of alternative organizations that allow disaffected (mostly young and male) middle easterners to have an impact on their future.

- Click here for the story.

For 2305 (mostly): Catching up on ....

Donald Trump: Is Donald Trump a Fascist?

The Republican establishment, that lumbering beast, still can’t decide on how and whether and when to go after Donald J. Trump. But last week afew Republican insiders floated an accusation that you usually hear liberals sling against the right: That the real estate magnate turned populist is actually a fascist. The hook for this charge was Trump’s illiberal musings about Muslims and databases and his lies — or, to be charitable, false memories — about cheering throngs of Muslim-Americans after Sept. 11.

But the charge can be easily fleshed out with more examples. Writing for Slate last week, Jamelle Bouie argued that Trumpism, however ideologically inchoate, manifests at least seven of the hallmarks of fascism identified by the Italian polymath Umberto Eco. They include: a cult of action, a celebration of aggressive masculinity, an intolerance of criticism, a fear of difference and outsiders, a pitch to the frustrations of the lower middle class, an intense nationalism and resentment at national humiliation, and a “popular elitism” that promises every citizen that they’re part of “the best people of the world.”

Does this sound like Trump? Well, yes, it rather does

And, Donald Trump: Why the Muslim database won’t doom Trump - The latest comments on Muslims play straight into his populist appeal.

Just as Trump’s provocations aimed at Mexican immigrants and John McCain’s war record have fueled his presidential run rather than destroyed it, his latest demagoguery on Muslims plays straight into his populist appeal.

“He has made so many other inflammatory irresponsible statements … that I’m skeptical this will hurt him either,” said Colorado-based Republican consultant Dick Wadhams. He definitely benefits from this notion of he tells it like it is and he doesn’t care what people think.”

On terrorism, as on so many other issues, what sounds outrageous to political and media elites can sound reasonable to large swathes of the American electorate, said veteran New Hampshire-based Republican strategist Dave Carney.

“When [elites] sit around and have a wine after work and some brie and they talk about the situation and geopolitics and what’s going on in the Mideast they’re talking about the Sunnis and the Shia and Alexander the Great and … what font the f**king French should’ve used to draw the maps after World War I,” he said. “Americans after work, if they can have the time to have a beer and see what’s going on, think there are these radical Islamist terrorists who want to kill us.”

Bernie Sanders: Bernie Sanders, Your Cool Socialist Grandpa.

The national voter base is much different from Vermont’s, but Democratic politics have become more Vermont-like in recent years. It’s safe to say that Mr. Sanders’s candidacy would not be taken as seriously if the 2008 economic recession hadn’t lit a fire under progressive Americans’ seats. The same plutocratic disaster that inspired Occupy Wall Street also helped push progressives like Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts into office.

It’s also what has filled a new generation of young Americans with righteous rage. Compared to the baby boomers, millennials earn less, have more student loan debt, and can’t afford to buy homes.

Young people appear to be warming to socialism in ways their parents probably never would have considered. A 2011 Pew Research Center studyfound that just 31 percent of the American public had a positive view of the term “socialism,” compared with 50 percent for “capitalism.” But among 18- to 29-year-olds, 49 percent had a positive view of “socialism,” while 46 percent had a positive view of “capitalism.” Trust in capitalism was further eroded among black and Hispanic respondents.

Rand Paul: Rand Paul's approach to the Syria refugee crisis has libertarians grumbling.

Rand Paul was already in trouble in a Republican primary dominated by the bombast of Donald Trump and the evangelical appeal of Ben Carson.

Then the Paris attacks happened — and his relatively dovish approach to national security suddenly looked wildly out of step with GOP voters.

And now he has a third problem: His base of support — libertarian voters — isn't happy with his response to an terrorist assault that killed more than 130 people in France, and upending presidential politics in the United States.

Paul hasn't walked away from his signature opposition to electronic surveillance, calling attempts to blame Edward Snowden's NSA leaks for the attacks "bullshit." Nor has he vowed to "bomb the hell out of ISIS" or send in 10,000 ground troops, as Trump and Lindsey Graham have, respectively. But his eagerness to seize on the Syrian refugee controversy — floating a dead-on-arrival bill to deny visas to anyone from a countries with an active "jihadist movement" — is rubbing many libertarians, who tend to favor open borders, the wrong way.

Ted Cruz: As Cruz gains, GOP senators rally for Rubio: The idea of Cruz as the nominee makes fellow GOP senators shudder.

Ted Cruz has built his Senate career and presidential campaign on his willingness to stick it to the Republican establishment. And now that he’s gaining momentum in the primary, his many GOP nemeses in Congress are returning the favor by quietly coalescing behind Marco Rubio.

Senior Republican senators who’ve clashed with Cruz for years have had nothing but nice things to say about Rubio even as he’s dissed — and largely ditched — his day job in the Capitol. Just this month, Rubio has racked up endorsements from nine members of Congress, compared with two for early GOP front-runner Jeb Bush. More House endorsements for Rubio are set to roll out in December, according to campaign sources, and several GOP senators said privately they expect their colleagues to get behind Rubio once the GOP field thins.

The Establishment: GOP establishment hits bottleneck in NH.

Republican establishment candidates are stuck in a bottleneck in New Hampshire, with a sizable group of contenders unable to break away in the first-in-the-nation primary state.

In a state that has in the past favored mainstream conservatives such as Mitt Romney and John McCain, several centrist Republicans need a strong showing in New Hampshire to prove they’re viable in the states that follow.

So there's a marijuana industry?

Of course there has always been - but now that it is legal in a couple states and likely in more very soon, it is now legal. And it is becoming increasingly sophisticated and powerful.

The following text from the story discussed in the previous post - click here for it - illustrates some items we covered in class when we discussed interest groups, iron triangles and the revolving door. It also hints at what types of factors make for stronger interest groups. The public policy related groups seem to losing out to the industry groups. This makes sense given who makes more money and the relative incentives that exist to support each type of group. We looked at a variety of stories over the semester that pointed out that groups that promote private benefits tend to be much stronger than those that promote public benefits.

Here's an illustration:

. . . it's in the industry's interest to fight stricter regulations — and especially proposals that don't let for-profit pot businesses take root.

Even last year, it seemed like both sides were getting their fair share of attention as Colorado and Washington state worked through regulations for their newly legal pot industries. But today, even legalization advocates acknowledge that the industry will play a significant role moving forward — and might even take over entirely after 2016.

Already there are some strong links between the marijuana industry and movement. For example, at least five of 10 people on MPP's board of directors have direct ties to the industry: Troy Dayton is the CEO of the ArcView Group, which invests in marijuana businesses. Joby Pritzker, whose family started and owns Hyatt Hotels, invests in pot businesses. Tripp Keber is the CEO of Dixie Elixirs, which produces pot edibles. James Slatic is CEO of MedWest, which produces marijuana concentrates. And Rob Kampia, executive director of MPP, is a board member and the treasurer of the National Cannabis Industry Association, the lobbying arm of the pot industry.

Among lower-level staffers, Riffle said it's also common for many to move from the legalization movement to cushy jobs in the industry — something Riffle tried himself, acting as a lawyer for the industry in California, before he moved back into advocacy. This revolving door may create a financial incentive for those in the movement to support commercial legalization, since it may provide more lucrative job opportunities.

Still, many MPP board members and staffers were involved with legalization before they were involved in the industry — and before there even was a legal industry. As MPP spokesperson Mason Tvert told me, legalization is a deeply personal, genuine issue for many people in the movement. "Those of us working at MPP got into this because we strongly believe that marijuana prohibition is bad public policy that is needlessly causing significant harm to society," Tvert said, citing multiple examples of him and other MPP members having run-ins with the law because of marijuana when they were younger. "We have all forgone potentially more lucrative careers (either within the marijuana industry or in other fields) to work on this issue because we feel so strongly about it."

Tvert also argued that MPP still gets few contributions from the industry: In 2015, for instance, $420,000 out of its $4.2 million budget will come from marijuana businesses, according to internal estimates.

But ties between the marijuana movement and industry are expected to strengthen as time goes on. As legalization expands, the industry will likely play a much bigger role in shaping and funding ballot initiatives, which can be very costly. Big Marijuana could also build the clout to sway lawmakers with campaign donations and lobbying if, instead of ballot measures, legalization takes the legislative route in some states.

Ethan Nadelmann, the executive director of the pro-legalization Drug Policy Alliance, said he has long expected the pot industry to grow and become a bigger part of the drug policy reform movement as legalization spread. "On some level, we have always known that," he told me. "And I think 2016 may be the last year in which drug policy reform organizations, driven primarily by concerns of civil liberties and civil rights and other good public policy motivations, will be able to significantly shape the legislation. And I assume that as the years progress, various industry forces will loom ever larger."

From Vox: Big Marijuana is coming — and even legalization supporters are worried

This story applies to 2305 - since it touches on the influence of interest groups on both the legislative and administrative process - and 2306 because it hits on changed attitudes about marijuana. Modest changes were made in the 84th session of the legislature to criminal law regarding possession and medical marijuana, but some floated the idea of outright legalization.

It appears that some groups promoting legalization also want a monopoly on selling it - we noticed that that was the condition in Ohio when voters were offered the chance to legalize marijuana for recreational use, but only on the condition that sales be restricted to a monopoly.

I flagged the following labels for the story: monopolies, initiatives, lobbying, laboratories of democracy, criminal law, agency capture, 

- Click here for it.

Last month, Ohioans rejected a very unusual marijuana legalization proposal. Beyond legalizing pot, the ballot initiative would have given campaign donors direct rights to the state's 10 pot farms as an explicit gift for their support. It was, even legalization advocates argued, a flagrant display of would-be members of the pot industry trying to cash in on a movement motivated primarily by social justice issues.

But while Ohio's measure was rare in its blatant cash grab, some legalization backers are increasingly concerned that something like Ohio's initiative will become standard — and the interests of the pot industry, which will grow more and more as legalization spreads, will take priority over the public's best interests.

Dan Riffle, the former director of federal policy at the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), a legalization advocacy group, recently told me that these concerns pushed him to leave MPP. In a revealing interview, he said that "the industry is taking over the movement."
"We used to talk three or four years ago about how we're creating this industry, yet nobody in the industry gives to MPP," Riffle said. "But now that they do give at least a little, it's like, 'Be careful what you asked for.' Because we owe them now, and they get to drive the agenda."

More than posing as a concern for the face and heart of the legalization movement, the worry that the industry will take over poses some challenges on the policy end as well. As support for marijuana legalization continues to grow, the question is quickly shifting from whether to legalize to how to legalize. And a movement that's led by a pot industry has different interests than the public and policy reformers might have.

From Scotusblog: Argument preview: How to measure “one person, one vote”

I suggested that this might be a current event both 2305 and 2306 students might see on the final - even if you don't, it hits issues related to both classes: apportionment, the drawing of legislative districts, gerrymandering, the U.S. Supreme Court and the relationship between the national and state governments. It also touches a bit on constitutional interpretation - as well as the equal protection clause.

The author analyzes the challenge - driven by a couple voters in Texas - to the user of total population as the measure of the size of districts. We mentioned in class that they would like Texas to use the population of eligible voters, not total population, which might include non-citizens as well as illegal aliens.

The case is Evenwell v Abbott. The case might lead to a substantive change in the framework developed in Baker v Carr, and was adapted to the states in Reynolds v Sims.

- Click here for the article.

Here's a taste:

The Supreme Court famously said, in 1964, that “legislators represent people, not trees or acres.” That was its basic explanation for getting away from the traditional pattern of mapping election districts by geographic area, rather than by the people who are to be represented. But the lingering question is: who are “the people” who are represented?

They could be the voters who actually go to the polls to exercise that right. They could be the people eligible to vote, many of whom stay away from the polls. They could be only the U.S. citizens. They could be all the people, even those who do not have the right to vote — because they are children, non-citizens, or prison inmates, for example.

Actually, when the Supreme Court in the 1964 decision in Reynolds v. Sims first mandated equality, it used the idea of population and voters interchangeably. “The overriding objective,” it said, “must be substantial equality among the various districts, so that the vote of any citizen is approximately equal in weight to that of any other citizen in the state.”

The court is being asked to consider whether the unequal distribution of non-voters in legislative districts dilutes the strength of voters.

One more item about preparing for the final

Starting today - and ending Sunday evening - I'll post a variety of stories that directly relate to the subject matter of the test. Hopefully by following these stories I can call attention to the subject matter of the test and help you prep.

I'll stop posting items Sunday because first final is Monday at 8 am. I don't want to give an undue advantage to students whose tests come later.

Again, I hope these items are useful to you.

A few hints for the finals - and an extra credit opportunity

I'll begin with the extra credit opportunity. If you submit your 1000 word essay (on Blackboard in a link I'll open Friday around noon - you'll see it on the left hand column) before midnight Sunday the 6th, I'll give you five extra points.

Most important, here is the schedule:

- GOVT 2305 01 – December 9 – 8am – 10am
- GOVT 2305 02 – December 7 - 10:30am – 12:30pm
- GOVT 2305 06 – December 10 – 1pm – 3pm
- GOVT 2305 IN1 – Test will be opened from noon December 11th to noon December 12th
- GOVT 2306 01 – December 7 – 8am – 10am
- GOVT 2306 02 – December 8 – 10:30am – 12:30pm
- GOVT 2306 IN2 - Test will be opened from noon December 11th to noon December 12th
- GOVT 2305 IM2 - Test will be opened from noon December 11th to noon December 12th

Lecture students should bring a scantron (the skinny green one) and a number 2 pencil and be prepared for 100 multiple choice and true false questions.

Take advantage of the study guides I've posted. You also might want to look at some of the items I've posted. They focus attention on the recent current events that might pop up on the final. I'll continue to add a few items up until Monday. They'll give you hints about what will end up on the test, so take advantage of them.

Revised Study Guide for the 2305 Final

A few things to focus on for the test:

The ones that have been crossed out were current events for last semester. Look on the blog for a list of current event items likely to be on this test.

candidates for the presidency
area congressional representatives
libertarianism
U.S. Supreme Court cases from Texas
gay marriage
political generations
socialism
populism
Pete Olson
Randy Weber
The Republican establishment
tyranny
examples of checks and balances
attitudes towards governing institutions
government shutdowns
fundamental rights
examples of substantive liberties
examples of procedural liberties
compelling public purpose
interpretations of the Constitution
control of Congress
the presidential election
the 114th Congress
the Speaker of the U.S. House
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Article One of the U.S. Constitution
the 10th Amendment
the implied powers
the Bill of Rights
Civil Rights
popular control of governing institutions
the expressed powers
judicial review
apportionment
presidential powers
the purpose of political parties
the party eras
party coalitions
groups that support each major party
the purpose of education
the self-evident truths
republics v democracies
the 4th amendment
agency capture
the components of democracy
the checks and balances
the basis of conservatism and liberalism
strict scrutiny
the definition of “government” and “politics”
the grievances in the Declaration of Independence
Federalist #45
national power / state power
voter turnout
proportional representation
the debate over interpreting the U.S. Constitution
the Emancipation Proclamation
the functions of the separated powers
the wall of separation between church and state
federalism and public policy
powers denied to the national government
powers denied to the states
minority rights
the census
religion in the U.S. Constitution
consequences of political parties
the election of senators
Federalist #78
the executive departments
rational basis review
original intent
lobbying
rulemaking
ideology and public policy
tyranny
free exercise of religion
the two party system
federal judges
protected speech
presidential powers
commander in chief powers
unified government
federalism
popular sovereignty
procedural liberty
the vesting clauses
the design of the federal courts
the security clause
the delegated powers
the elastic clauses
the right to privacy
who votes?
Baker v Carr
the 15th Amendment
standing
the inherent powers
the differences between the House and Senate
the general welfare clause
The Social Security Act
the declaration of war
the 6th Amendment
Federalist 51
the singular executive
strict scrutiny
the Voting Rights Act
election laws
local government

Revised Study Guide for the 2306 Final

Here is a – purposely - vague guide to what might be on the final next week for lecture GOVT 2306 classes.

voter turnout
education funding
the 2016-2017 Texas budget
the presidential preference primary
special districts
party con
public integrity unit
the regular session of the Texas legislature
the plural executive
state-wide office holders
Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution
the pros and cons of an elected judiciary
debt in Texas
basic facts about the Texas Constitution
the Texas Bill of Rights
the function of counties
the leaders of the Texas Legislature
the powers of the Texas Speaker
elected and appointed positions in the executive branch
popular sovereignty
public schools
the role of cities
the chief elections officer
initiative elections
the Voting Rights Act
the formal and informal powers of the Texas Governor
the content of the Texas Constitution
voter eligibility in Texas
the Texas Declaration of Independence
suffrage in Texas
state powers defined in the U.S. Constitution
the general session of the Texas Legislature
primary elections in Texas
federal spending in Texas
the rainy day fund
the Texas CEO
the right to vote
the transition from Democratic to Republican rule in Texas
limits on the powers of government in the Texas Constitution
mayor-council forms of government
independent school districts
state powers under the U.S. Constitution
chief elections officers
basic facts about the Texas House and Senate
the reserved powers
sources of revenue in Texas
selection of general election candidates
the budgetary process
managing elections in the state
the voter registration process
drawing legislative districts
the powers of the speaker and lieutenant governor
the bill making process
the temporary party organization
term limits in Texas
the design of the State Board of Education
strong / weak mayor
city managers
the design of area city governments
the Voting Rights Act
gerrymandering
Smith v. Allwright
political culture
local government
the powers of the members of the plural executive
parties in the Texas Legislature
the relationship between the state and national governments
primary elections in Texas
the line item veto
outlaws
the role of counties
the role of cities
spending in Texas
the role of the comptroller
the governor’s influence on the legislative process
debt in Texas
amendments to the Texas Constitution
county officials
the role of states in the federal system

Do not "require" a student to take a useless class!!!!

Here's a late rant.

I bet some of you feel the same way right now. ;)

Why are students required to take a government course in college even though they want nothing to do with politics? I understand that the state of Texas wants us to be informed and wants us to be able to make good political decisions but for most college students, government and the other required courses are just a waste of time and money. Most students do not care about these classes. They don't want to invest a whole semester studying and preparing for finals over a class that they do not need. Students go to college in order to obtain a degree in their chosen field, not to pay money to take ridiculous courses that are just reviewing what they learned in high school. As a student I want to learn as much as I can about the career that I have chosen, not take classes I do not like or classes that do not pertain to my major. Taking unneeded classes honestly just adds more stress to a college student. They are focusing and stressing about these classes instead of taking that energy and putting it towards a class they actually need. The classes should be a students choice. If they want to take a government class, let them take one. If they want to take a learning strategies class, let them take one. If they want to take an art appreciation class, let them take one. Do not "require" a student to take a useless class.

It's almost over.

Area congressional rep Kevin Brady elected Ways and Means chairman

This is a bit dated, but its added to illustrate some key points for 2305 students regarding Congress. Paul Ryan's election to be House Speaker created the vacancy. It is reported the Ryan pushed for Brady to replace him.

A few odds and ends about Brady, his selection and his goals.

- Rep. Kevin Brady Gains Edge to Become House Ways and Means Chairman.

Rep. Kevin Brady (R., Texas) will likely become the next chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee after winning an intraparty contest Wednesday. Mr. Brady beat Rep. Pat Tiberi of Ohio in a vote of the House Republicans’ steering committee, a group where new House Speaker Paul Ryan had outsize sway to select his successor as Ways and Means chairman. The choice must be ratified by the full Republican conference, which is set to meet Thursday morning. Mr. Brady will become one of the party’s leading voices on tax, trade and health policy. He said in a statement that he wanted to implement a “pro-growth agenda” for the country.

- A veteran Texas lawmaker is about to become one of the most powerful members of Congress.

The House's newest and perhaps most powerful committee chairman is a 60-year-old Texas Republican who began life in a family of stalwart Democrats from South Dakota and lost his father at age 12 in a courtroom shooting. Rep. Kevin Brady, whose bulldog-looks belie a softer manner, took the helm of the Ways and Means Committee last week. That puts the 19-year House veteran at the forefront of key issues Congress will tackle heading into the 2016 election year, including taxes, trade and benefit programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Brady's Chamber of Commerce career before entering Congress molded a mainstream conservative viewpoint, yet he is well regarded by harder-line conservatives.

- House Ways and Means shuffles subcommittees.

The House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday completed a subcommittee shuffle that was needed after Rep. Paul Ryan left the chairmanship for the speaker's office. New Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) announced the changes that includes adding Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.) and adjusts the names and sizes of several subcommittees. "These Republican subcommittee chairs and members will play a crucial role in taking real steps toward fixing our country’s broken tax code, reining in the IRS, reforming the nation’s welfare programs, expanding trade, replacing the Affordable Care Act and saving Social Security and Medicare for the long term," Brady said in a statement.

- Texas Republican ready to tackle ‘broken tax code’

A year ago, when former House Speaker John Boehner was asked about prospects for a sweeping new Republican tax reform plan, he answered with a laugh.

“Ah Jesus,” he said.

That plan, cutting tax rates and stripping away many of the special interest loopholes that riddle the U.S. tax code, still languishes in Congress, one of the many legislative victims of Washington gridlock. Now, under Speaker Paul Ryan, the job falls to Texas Republican Kevin Brady, the newly-installed chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, where all tax legislation begins. Sitting at a conference table recently in his office as the new chairman, Brady promised a “strong pro-growth agenda” whose chief goal would be “fixing the broken tax code.”

This is awesome

From 538:

- The Perfect Republican Stump Speech.

We asked former Republican speechwriter Barton Swaim to write a ​totally pandering stump speech for an imaginary GOP presidential candidate — one who ​espouses only positions that a majority of Republicans agree with. ​Here’s the speech he wrote, including notes to explain his phrasing, behind-the-scenes pro tips on appealing to Republican voters and the data he used to decide which positions to take.

The Politics of Fear

- Why the Politics of Fear Will Never Go Away.

From the Washington Post: In Paris’s wake, a changed presidential contest — and electorate

We discussed the likelihood of this last week and what this means for the viability of the outsider candidates.

- Click here for the story.

One week after the terrorist attacks in Paris, Diane Lochocki drove with her boyfriend from New York to the New Hampshire State House. Ben Carson was filing for the presidential primary, and Lochocki, 78, wanted to see him. It was time for a new president, one who actually took the threat of radical Islam seriously.

“Terrorists are insidious people,” Lochocki said. “Your neighbor could be one and you wouldn’t know. I feel we should close our borders until we get the rest of the world under control. If that’s inhumane, then I’m inhumane. You think what you want.”
The attacks that killed 130 and injured more than 350 in France’s capital Nov. 13 changed the 2016 contest for president — by changing what voters worried about.

Across the country, among both Republicans and Democrats, have come pronouncements of anger and fear not seen after the terrorist attacks in London or Madrid — or even, in some ways, after Sept. 11, 2001. Suspicion of Muslims and intolerance of refugees have exploded; so has criticism of President Obama’s handling of the terror threat.

A Suffolk University-Boston Globe poll Saturday confirmed it, with 42 percent of likely voters in New Hampshire’s upcoming GOP primary calling terrorism and national security the country’s most important issues. Before Paris, they’d worried most about the economy.

Is there a right to education in the United States? Part Two

This builds off the post below. Below are a variety of posts related to the - alleged - right to education.

- Why there isn’t a constitutional right to an education.
- The Status of the “Right to Education” in the United States.
- Why Doesn't the Constitution Guarantee the Right to Education?
- U.S. Education Law: Is the Right to Education in the U.S. in compliance with International Human Rights Standards?
- Education and the Constitution.
- The Federal Right to an Adequate Education.

Is there a right to education in the United States? Part One

According the Supreme Court, in its decision in a case from Texas, no.

The case was San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez.

For background on it:

- Wikipedia: San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez.
- TSHA: San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez.
- Oyez: San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez.

For the actual decision click here.

Oyez has details of the case:

Facts of the case: In addition to being funded through a state-funded program designed to establish a minimum educational threshold in every school, Texas public elementary and secondary schools rely on local property taxes for supplemental revenue. The San Antonio Independent School District (SAISD), acting on behalf of students whose families reside in poor districts, challenged this funding scheme by arguing that it underprivileged such students because their schools lacked the vast property tax base that other districts utilized. The reliance on assessable property, SAISD claimed, caused severe inter-district disparities in per-pupil expenditures.

Question: Did Texas' public education finance system violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by failing to distribute funding equally among its school districts?

Conclusion: 5–4 DECISION FOR SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

No. The Court refused to examine the system with strict scrutiny since there is no fundamental right to education in the Constitution and since the system did not systematically discriminate against all poor people in Texas. Given the similarities between Texas' system and those in other states, it was clear to the Court that the funding scheme was not "so irrational as to be invidiously discriminatory." Justice Powell argued that on the question of wealth and education, "the Equal Protection Clause does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages."

From the Houston Chronicle: City of Refugees: How Houston became a resettlement magnet

Another indicator that there may be conflict between the city of Houston and the state of Texas regarding refugee settlement.

- Click here for the story.

According to U.N. data, between 2010 and 2014, the U.S. alone resettled 71 percent of all refugees.

Out of every 1,000 resettled U.N. refugees, more than 700 come to America. Though all 50 states accept some refugees, 75 of those 700 find their way to Texas, according to U.S. State Department numbers. And more of those will come to the Houston area than to anywhere else in Texas: The state health services department reports that nearly 40 30 percent of Texas' refugees land in Harris County.

This means that Harris County alone welcomes about 30 of every 1,000 refugees that the U.N. resettles anywhere in the world — more than any other American city, and more than most other nations. If Houston were a country, it would rank fourth in the world for refugee resettlement.

A trend stands out in Harris County refugee data. The vast majority of Houston's refugees came from warm climates: Cuba, Iraq, Congo and Somalia. But the resettlement agencies don't place people based on a preference for a hot, steamy climate.

. . . Houston has been a major resettlement area for Vietnamese refugees and immigrants since the fall of South Vietnam in 1975. But since then, the city's heavy in-flow of refugees has been defined by the absence of a predominant nationality.

"Oh, Houston is diverse," Al Sudani said, ticking off major refugee communities: "Bosnians, Russian Jews, Afghanis, Iraqis, Congolese, Rwandese, Somalis, Iranian minorities, Burmese, Bhutanese." Harris County welcomed refugees from 40 different countries in fiscal year 2014, according to the Texas Department of State Health Services.

For more:

- Immigrants from around the world are transforming Houston.

Easy to see this one coming

We discussed this possibility in class. While governors are resistant to refugees coming to their states, many mayors are not. This creates an opportunity for conflict since there's little doubt that governors will try to limit the ability of mayors in their state to do so. And they may have the tools and authority to do so.

Here two stories on the subject:

- From CityLab: Governors Don't Want Syrian Refugees. Mayors Are Asking for Even More.
- From CNN: Mayors strike back against governors in refugee fight.

Democratic mayors across the country are clashing with mostly Republican governors who say their states shouldn't accept Syrian refugees.

More than half -- 31 -- of the nation's governors, most of the Republicans, say they oppose letting Syrian refugees into their states. The final say on allowing refugees into the country falls with the federal government, though governors can slow down the process and make placing and aiding refugees more difficult.

"It sends a horrible message to the world. It means we're turning our backs on the people who are the victims of terrorism," New York Mayor Bill de Blasio told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday. "We're not going to turn our backs on children and families. It's not the American way. It's certainly not the New York City way."

While New York has said it would accept refugees, nearby New Jersey -- under the leadership of 2016 Republican presidential hopeful Chris Christie -- has said it won't.

"I cannot allow New Jersey to participate in any program that will result in Syrian refugees -- any one of whom could be connected to terrorism -- being placed in our State," Christie wrote in a letter to Obama.

Christie on refugees: Not even 5-year-old orphans

And similar conflicts are rippling across the country.

Republican Gov. Rick Scott said Florida is not willing to accept Syrian refugees, but Andrew Gillum, mayor of Tallahassee, Florida's capital, told CNN Wednesday his city will continue to be a safe place for refugees.

"I believe strongly that we cannot turn our backs on the refugee community in their time of greatest need," he said. "The U.S. vetting process for refugees is extremely rigorous, extensive, and comprehensive, and allows us to aid those that pose no threat to our country. Gov. Scott's stance is driven by divisive politics."