Thursday, 19 December 2013
Friday, 15 November 2013
Thursday, 17 October 2013
Wednesday, 9 October 2013
Tuesday, 1 October 2013
Thursday, 26 September 2013
Wednesday, 25 September 2013
Friday, 20 September 2013
Thursday, 19 September 2013
Tuesday, 17 September 2013
Friday, 13 September 2013
Checks and Balances reading pack
http://sdrv.ms/1gaoxI2
Above is the link to the Checks and Balances reading pack I mentioned in class.
Above is the link to the Checks and Balances reading pack I mentioned in class.
Thursday, 22 August 2013
Sunday, 28 July 2013
Thursday, 18 July 2013
Origins of the Senate Filibuster
From http://usgovteducatorsblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-filbuster.html?m=1
With the filibuster back in the news (again and again), no one really believes the Democrats will get rid of it, but above is a video with noted political scientist (and the chair for my dissertation) Sarah Binder of George Washington University and Brookings giving a short history of it. Below is a graphic from the Washington Post that goes with it.
Tuesday, 9 July 2013
Friday, 5 July 2013
Thursday, 27 June 2013
Daily Show on Gay Rights judgement and Texas abortion filibuster
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWgRtCU7few
Explaining jokes is never a good idea, but anyway - a couple of things to note about this:
Explaining jokes is never a good idea, but anyway - a couple of things to note about this:
- When the Supreme Court hands down a judgement, judges within the Supreme Court who disagree with the majority ruling are permitted to express this disagreement through a "dissenting opinion" or "minority report" document (in this clip the Daily Show criticises Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion on the Gay rights judgement).
- The Texas abortion filibuster discussed later in the clip is not talking about the federal (national) Senate in Washington DC, but rather the Texas state Senate. Remember each state has its own mini version of Congress with a state House of Representatives and a state Senate.
Wednesday, 26 June 2013
Judiciary chairman vows to quickly restore Voting Rights Act - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Judiciary chairman vows to quickly restore Voting Rights Act - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room: "Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) pledged to quickly restore the section of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court struck down Tuesday.
"
In one of the comments underneath a typical anti-federalist, pro-states rights comment that were as common in the nineteenth century as they are today:
'via Blog this'
"
In one of the comments underneath a typical anti-federalist, pro-states rights comment that were as common in the nineteenth century as they are today:
"So basically Sen Leahy you are more concerned about keeping the south under the federal boot. What is there to keep partisan politicians from acting in an arbitrary and capricious fashion toward sections of the nation's geography? Oh right, it is called the Supreme Court."
'via Blog this'
Friday, 21 June 2013
Thursday, 20 June 2013
Tuesday, 18 June 2013
John Brennan CIA Director Drone Interview: Big Issues: GQ
John Brennan CIA Director Drone Interview: Big Issues: GQ: "John Brennan, the CIA director and the man largely responsible for the U.S.'s drone strategy, is so influential that some Pentagon officials have taken to calling him the "Deputy President." In an exclusive interview, GQ's Reid Cherlin talks to Brennan about the ethics of targeted killing, the next global arms race (get ready for everybody to have their own drones), and what it feels like to be the guy the president turns to when he wants a bad guy blown away"
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
Senator Tries to Run Out the Clock on Immigration - NYTimes.com
Senator Tries to Run Out the Clock on Immigration - NYTimes.com: "But in Mr. Sessions, they face an opponent with experience, one who reminds his staff every day that passage of immigration legislation was supposed to be inevitable in 2006 as well, and even more so in 2007. His tactics are the same as they were back then: organize the opposition, break down the bill section by section, raise questions over every aspect of it, slow progress on the floor to a crawl through procedural objections and a flurry of amendments, and hope that in the light of day a conservative backlash will crush final passage.
During the first official week of debate on the Senate floor last week, Senate leaders were able to hold all of one amendment vote — in large measure because of Mr. Sessions’s delaying tactics. “Sessions is taking a full-spectrum view of this bill, and his opposition is not just one section: it’s from Page 1 to Page 1,041,” said Tripp Baird, director of Senate relations at Heritage Action, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s political arm and a vociferous opponent of the immigration bill."
'via Blog this'
During the first official week of debate on the Senate floor last week, Senate leaders were able to hold all of one amendment vote — in large measure because of Mr. Sessions’s delaying tactics. “Sessions is taking a full-spectrum view of this bill, and his opposition is not just one section: it’s from Page 1 to Page 1,041,” said Tripp Baird, director of Senate relations at Heritage Action, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s political arm and a vociferous opponent of the immigration bill."
'via Blog this'
Obama limits use of drone strikes, discusses closing Guantanamo | Video | Reuters.com
Obama limits use of drone strikes, discusses closing Guantanamo | Video | Reuters.com: "Obama limits use of drone strikes, discusses closing Guantanamo (1:23) "
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
Obama wants to end 'war on terror' but Congress balks | Reuters
Obama wants to end 'war on terror' but Congress balks | Reuters: "While Obama largely has a free hand as commander in chief to set U.S. drone policy, Congress has used its power of the purse to block him from closing Guantanamo.
PURSE STRINGS
Congress stopped earlier efforts to close Guantanamo by banning the use of federal funds to transfer inmates to U.S. territory."
'via Blog this'
PURSE STRINGS
Congress stopped earlier efforts to close Guantanamo by banning the use of federal funds to transfer inmates to U.S. territory."
'via Blog this'
Senate rejects DREAM Act, closing door on immigration reform - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com
Sunday, 16 June 2013
How effectively does the Constitution protect freedoms?
President Obama’s Abuse of Power | RedState: "Barack Obama campaigned in 2008 on the promise that his administration would be transparent and that he would respect the Constitutional constraints on the executive branch. In an effort to drive that message home, his surrogates often reminded us that then-Senator Obama had been a Constitutional law instructor. Now in his fourth year in office, it is apparent that President Obama actually finds the Constitution an obstacle to his agenda. He has circumvented it in order to implement his agenda, irrespective of Congress. And in doing so, has shown his disdain rather than respect for the Constitution and for the principle of separation of powers."
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
Friday, 14 June 2013
Wednesday, 12 June 2013
Tuesday, 11 June 2013
Tuesday, 4 June 2013
Lib Dems and some Cons try to force coalition into energy sector targets
From bbc
The government has seen off a rebellion by Lib Dem and Conservative MPs over calls for a carbon emissions target for the energy industry.
Senior Tory backbencher Tim Yeo sought to amend the coalition's Energy Bill to set a "decarbonisation" target for the power sector by 2030.
But MPs rejected the move by 290 votes to 267 after a Commons debate.
Ministers say the target would place too many restrictions on business at a time of economic difficulty.
The issue has divided the coalition partners, with environmental campaigners arguing it shows David Cameron's pledge to lead "the greenest government ever" has not been fulfilled.
'Greater clarity'
Mr Yeo's amendment, calling for a decarbonisation "target range" to be set by April 2014, attracted support from a handful of Lib Dem and Conservative MPs as the government's majority was cut to 23.
Mr Yeo told the Commons that a target would not add a "single penny" to energy bills for the next seven years and delaying the decision would create uncertainty about the government's intentions.
In a statement after the vote, he said future governments could face "more costly action to curb emissions when the impacts of a changing climate become more acute".
In a message on Twitter after the vote, Labour leader Ed Miliband said it was a "huge missed opportunity" and suggested many Lib Dem MPs had failed to back their own party policy.
Party activists at last September's Lib Dem conference overwhelmingly backed the 2030 target but it was not binding on the government.
If it had been passed, the amendment would have ensured that almost all electricity was generated from carbon-free sources like wind and nuclear by 2030.
The government says it has the power to include a target in future secondary legislation but will only consider whether to do this after deciding its next carbon budget, covering the 2028-2032 period.
This will not happen until after the scheduled date of the election in 2015.
Speaking in Tuesday's debate, Energy Minister Michael Fallon urged MPs not to rely on "blind faith" and vote for "decarbonisation by dogma or default".
He suggested a legally binding target could potentially force some generating plants out of business and drive up costs for those industries struggling to compete against lower energy costs abroad.
Legally binding
The UK has legally binding greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for 2020 and 2050 but no specific target relating to emissions or the energy mix for 2030.
The Committee on Climate Change, which advises the government on its carbon budgets, has also backed such a move but Conservative MPs question the extra costs it would place on business and consumers.
Writing on the Conservative Home website, former energy minister Charles Hendry described the target as "a lofty ambition" but questioned whether it could be delivered.
Green Party MP Caroline Lucas argued that a target was crucial if the UK was "serious about securing a global deal on climate change".
Few leading industrialised economies have similar carbon targets and the CBI employers' group said they were not central to pressing investment decisions needed to keep the UK's energy supply on track.
But Friends of the Earth said a "clean power" target would help tackle climate change, create thousands of jobs and save householders billions of pounds.
The Energy Bill aims to move the UK's energy production from a dependence on fossil fuels to a more diverse mix of energy sources, such as wind, nuclear and biomass.
Friday, 31 May 2013
Video: Watch quick - available until 3rd June: Can UK afford the NHS?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b020svhc/?t=15m16s
Video on Obama 1st term: Did President Obama betray America's highest ideals in the name of national security?"
BBC iPlayer - HARDtalk: Harold Koh - Legal Adviser, US State Department 2009-13: "President Obama says the US needs to redefine and recalibrate its strategic response to terrorism. From drone strikes to the future of Guantanamo, the Obama administration has consistently struggled to reconcile its stated values with the realities of the so-called war on terror. Stephen Sackur speaks to Harold Koh who was chief legal adviser at the US State Department throughout Obama's first term. Did President Obama betray America's highest ideals in the name of national security?"
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
Thursday, 30 May 2013
Friday, 24 May 2013
Thursday, 23 May 2013
Excellent article about Obama's second term
A simple to understand yet insightful article about Obama's second term. Good refs to relationship with congress.
Wednesday, 22 May 2013
Monday, 20 May 2013
Friday, 17 May 2013
Thursday, 16 May 2013
Friday, 10 May 2013
Benghazi probe is more than just an attack against Hillary Clinton | James Antle | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Benghazi probe is more than just an attack against Hillary Clinton | James Antle | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk: "Did the White House want to avoid any perception that a terrorist attack, launched on the anniversary of 9/11, was mishandled as President Obama was running for reelection? Was there too light a military footprint because the earlier campaign for regime change in Libya was sold to the American people as requiring no boots on the ground? Who even knew what, when?"
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
How successful is Obama as President? CQ Ratings
2012 Congressional Vote Studies | The Data Mine – CQ Roll Call: "ck Obama first took office, he enjoyed Democratic majorities in both chambers and record high success rates. In 2009, Obama won on 94 percent of House votes on which he expressed a clear position, tying Lyndon Johnson’s record from 1965. He prevailed on 99 percent of Senate votes that year, by far the highest success rate on record."
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
May 2013 How strong is the US presidency?
http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/may/08/obama-not-lame-duck-gop-obstructs-everything
Good synopticity here. Liberal Guardian backing the blame-the-GOP line.
How powerful are US parties?
Good example here of how parties have less power over politicians in US (although this wasn't a Congressional election)
http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2013/may/08/mark-sanford-south-carolina-election
Tuesday, 7 May 2013
Obama versus Congress on Guantanamo | Nicholas Wapshott
As a candidate in 2008, Obama, a distinguished Harvard-educated legal scholar known in the Senate for his common sense and humanity, promised to quickly close the prison for 166 terrorist suspects in the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The existence of a U.S. detention center that ignores the basic legal right of habeas corpus and the failure to bring prisoners to trial after so many years “erode our moral claims that we are acting on behalf of broader universal principles,” he said. He went on to repeat his pledge, yet five years on, Gitmo is still open for business.
The president’s embarrassment can be blamed, in part, on his naïveté. For a while after his inauguration in 2009 he appeared to be under the impression he had been elected the most powerful man on earth. It has taken four painful years for him to realize that the division of government guaranteed by the Constitution prevents him from doing not only what he wishes but what a majority of Americans have mandated.Under the guise of saving money, Congress has stymied the president’s plan to try those believed guilty of terrorist offenses on U.S. soil and to release the 86 innocents who have been held without trial for years. Despite their insistence that they believe in America’s system of justice, it appears that many congressmen have little faith in it.
Obama versus Congress on Guantanamo | Nicholas Wapshott:
'via Blog this'
Dec 2011: Why Obama Can't Close Guantanamo | Foreign Affairs
Why Obama Can't Close Guantanamo | Foreign Affairs:
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
Congress has used its spending oversight authority both to forbid the White House from financing trials of Guantánamo captives on U.S. soil and to block the acquisition of a state prison in Illinois to hold captives currently held in Cuba who would not be put on trial -- a sort of Guantánamo North. The current defense bill now before Congress not only reinforces these restrictions but moves to mandate military detention for most future al Qaeda cases unless the president signs a waiver. The White House withdrew a veto threat on the eve of likely passage Wednesday, saying the latest language gives the executive enough wiggle room to avoid military custody.
May 2013: Obama's Renewed Push to Close Guantanamo Faces Test in Congress - WSJ.com
The Gitmo hunger strike has seen Obama renew his attempts to close the detention centre.
Obama's Renewed Push to Close Guantanamo Faces Test in Congress - WSJ.com:
'via Blog this'
Obama's Renewed Push to Close Guantanamo Faces Test in Congress - WSJ.com:
'via Blog this'
Monday, 6 May 2013
Tuesday, 30 April 2013
Saturday, 27 April 2013
Why did Obama's gun control attempts fail?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/04/four-reasons-why-the-gun-control-bills-failed.html
Excellent article on why Obama's gun control attempts. Excerpt here from reason number 4....
4. Our Weak Presidency
Facing a Congress in which the House is controlled by Republicans and the Senate is hobbled by the filibuster, Barack Obama’s legislative strategy this year leans heavily on his use of the bully pulpit to shame Republicans into backing his initiatives, especially on gun control. But even on an issue with overwhelming public support, Obama’s poignant speeches, numerous campaign-style events, and the use of his new political arm (Organizing for Action) were no match for the N.R.A. It’s even possible that his campaigning hardened opposition to the proposals and bolstered the N.R.A.’s efforts. (I spent some time shooting shotguns and an AK-47 with three gun enthusiasts in Arizona recently, and they all viewed Obama’s current gun-control agenda in near-apocalyptic terms.)
Excellent article on why Obama's gun control attempts. Excerpt here from reason number 4....
4. Our Weak Presidency
Facing a Congress in which the House is controlled by Republicans and the Senate is hobbled by the filibuster, Barack Obama’s legislative strategy this year leans heavily on his use of the bully pulpit to shame Republicans into backing his initiatives, especially on gun control. But even on an issue with overwhelming public support, Obama’s poignant speeches, numerous campaign-style events, and the use of his new political arm (Organizing for Action) were no match for the N.R.A. It’s even possible that his campaigning hardened opposition to the proposals and bolstered the N.R.A.’s efforts. (I spent some time shooting shotguns and an AK-47 with three gun enthusiasts in Arizona recently, and they all viewed Obama’s current gun-control agenda in near-apocalyptic terms.)
How important is the HOL, why does it tend to back down in struggles with the commons and what are the implications for HoL reform?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/house-of-commons-22266173
This week the Commons and the Lords have been ping-ponging legislation which would mean that workers could give up employment rights and protections in return for shares in the company they work for. This was a government Bill backed by the Chancellor of E, George Osbourne.
The Lords forced a couple of minor changes but despite many peers' lingering concerns over the very principle of the bill, many of them voted to pass the bulk of the proposals. One of the peers later said that he did not like the bill but did not try to slow it down any further as he wasn't elected and didn't feel he had the right to obstruct the wishes of the democratically elected Commons.
This is an often quoted position for some peers in the Lords and it has some implications:
1. It means that the Lords occasionally holds itself back and thus allows the executive dominated Commons (built in majority) to dominate (rightly or wrongly).
2. It suggests that an elected Lords might be more psychologically assertive in standing up to the Commons/executive and that. Some would argue that this would improve democracy by reducing the power of an over-mighty executive that can trample over parliament whilst others might point to the increased possibility of legislative gridlock with an second chamber embolden by democratic legitimacy.
The issue over Lords reform may be over for the next couple of years but if their is a hung parliament in 2015 the LDs will probably try to use their position in a coalition to push Lords reform to the top of the agenda once again.
This week the Commons and the Lords have been ping-ponging legislation which would mean that workers could give up employment rights and protections in return for shares in the company they work for. This was a government Bill backed by the Chancellor of E, George Osbourne.
The Lords forced a couple of minor changes but despite many peers' lingering concerns over the very principle of the bill, many of them voted to pass the bulk of the proposals. One of the peers later said that he did not like the bill but did not try to slow it down any further as he wasn't elected and didn't feel he had the right to obstruct the wishes of the democratically elected Commons.
This is an often quoted position for some peers in the Lords and it has some implications:
1. It means that the Lords occasionally holds itself back and thus allows the executive dominated Commons (built in majority) to dominate (rightly or wrongly).
2. It suggests that an elected Lords might be more psychologically assertive in standing up to the Commons/executive and that. Some would argue that this would improve democracy by reducing the power of an over-mighty executive that can trample over parliament whilst others might point to the increased possibility of legislative gridlock with an second chamber embolden by democratic legitimacy.
The issue over Lords reform may be over for the next couple of years but if their is a hung parliament in 2015 the LDs will probably try to use their position in a coalition to push Lords reform to the top of the agenda once again.
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
Monday, 1 April 2013
Tuesday, 26 March 2013
Sunday, 24 March 2013
Friday, 22 March 2013
Read this: what are the prospects for gun control bill getting passed in any recognisable form?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/22/gun-control-nra-assault-weapons
As a further threat, there have been dark whisperings of a possible ruse by Republicans to pack the Reid bill with pro-gun rights amendments that would turn the legislation on its head, transforming the bill from a measure to tighten gun regulations post-Newtown into a panacea for a gun-owning free-for-all. One such provision being mooted would require all 50 states to recognise concealed carry permits from other states – New York, for instance, would be forced to allow a man with a permit from Arizona to carry a hidden gun in its bars.
"That's an old favourite legislative strategy – to add poison pills to a bill that would make it difficult to support and that way kill it," Vernick said.
As a further threat, there have been dark whisperings of a possible ruse by Republicans to pack the Reid bill with pro-gun rights amendments that would turn the legislation on its head, transforming the bill from a measure to tighten gun regulations post-Newtown into a panacea for a gun-owning free-for-all. One such provision being mooted would require all 50 states to recognise concealed carry permits from other states – New York, for instance, would be forced to allow a man with a permit from Arizona to carry a hidden gun in its bars.
"That's an old favourite legislative strategy – to add poison pills to a bill that would make it difficult to support and that way kill it," Vernick said.
Why has Leader of Senate dropped assault weapons ban from proposed gun control bill?
http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/19/assault-weapons-ban-senate
Thursday, 21 March 2013
Wednesday, 20 March 2013
The Morning Plum: What Rand Paul’s filibuster accomplished
The Morning Plum: What Rand Paul’s filibuster accomplished: "rn out of concern about an actual issue — objections to Obama’s approach to drone warfare that are shared on both sides of the aisle. By waging his talking filibuster, Paul gave us a chance to hear his objections and judge their validity. By contrast, the GOP filibuster of Halligan was part of a concerted, party-wide GOP strategy to do everything possible to render government dysfunctional when it comes to even routine business, for purely partisan reasons. The reason Republicans offered for their filibuster — that Halliga"
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
Monday, 18 March 2013
Sunday, 17 March 2013
Friday, 15 March 2013
Gender, ethnic makeup of 113 th congress
What the Makeup of Congress Might Say About the Rob Portman Effect http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/03/rob-portman-demographics-113th-congress-charts/63155/
Orwell and the filibuster
George Orwell on the Filibuster http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/george-orwell-on-the-filibuster/274037/
How successful was the attempt to ban earmarks and pork barrelling in the House?
Earmarks were technically banned in March 2010 by the House Appropriations Committee.
Why? Several reasons.
Conservatives and Tea-Party supporters see earmarks as symbolic of fiscal irresponsibility.
Many on left and right see earmarks as bordering on the corrupt with Congressmen lured away from thinking about the national interest and instead focus on their re-election campaign by, "bringing home the bacon" to the "folks back home".
The famous Ben Nelson earmark during the passage of Obamacare and the long-lasting "bridge to nowhere" (2005 onwards) have discredited the process of earmarks.
How successful?
Criticisms centre around two main points:
Why? Several reasons.
Conservatives and Tea-Party supporters see earmarks as symbolic of fiscal irresponsibility.
Many on left and right see earmarks as bordering on the corrupt with Congressmen lured away from thinking about the national interest and instead focus on their re-election campaign by, "bringing home the bacon" to the "folks back home".
The famous Ben Nelson earmark during the passage of Obamacare and the long-lasting "bridge to nowhere" (2005 onwards) have discredited the process of earmarks.
How successful?
Criticisms centre around two main points:
- the ban didn't work and that Congressmen may have ways of working around the ban. This seems technically unlikely although there could be argument as to what should be defined as an earmark. Furthermore the ban hasn't stopped Congressmen taking credit for securing funding for their districts. See this article and this one.
- More importantly some say that the ban on earmarks has exacerbated the problems of growing partisanship and gridlock and hindered efforts at consensus building and compromise as Congressmen have less to gain from reaching across the aisle. Perhaps it helped kill Obama's gun-control efforts of 2013. See this article, and this one.
Thursday, 14 March 2013
Saturday, 9 March 2013
Thursday, 7 March 2013
Paul's filibuster ends
Senate Approves Nomination Of John Brennan As CIA Chief http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/07/173741820/senate-approves-nomination-of-john-brennan-as-cia-chief
Wednesday, 6 March 2013
Tuesday, 5 March 2013
Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Chuck Hagel finally confirmed by Senate
Chuck Hagel confirmed for secretary of defense in 58-41 Senate vote http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/chuck-hagel-clears-senate-hurdle-toward-confirmation-88102.html
Monday, 25 February 2013
Tuesday, 19 February 2013
How powerful is the presidency? Obama and media control
Obama, the puppet master http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/obama-the-puppet-master-87764.html
Saturday, 16 February 2013
Hagel nomination blocked via filibuster in A2 Government & Politicssponsored mega-story
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/14/republicans-senate-block-hagel-nomination
So Senate Committee approved but Republicans blocking progress of the procedure on the Senate floor. It's usually so straight forward...just look at the Kerry nomination.
So Senate Committee approved but Republicans blocking progress of the procedure on the Senate floor. It's usually so straight forward...just look at the Kerry nomination.
Wednesday, 13 February 2013
Excellent Economist article considering the Ornstein/Mann book, "Even Worse Than It Looks," and Norquist's "Debacle".
http://www.economist.com/node/21553449
This diagnosis has become commonplace since the tea-tainted tide that swept a stroppy Republican majority into the House of Representatives in the mid-term elections of 2010, bringing on said gridlock. Indeed, Messrs Mann and Ornstein spotted the trend in an earlier book about Congress, “The Broken Branch”, in 2006. The added twist now is their claim that the Republican Party has become “an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”
If you're not familiar with Norquist see here for an excellent analysis of his influence which has been great over the last few years but perhaps in decline since the fiscal cliff deal.
This diagnosis has become commonplace since the tea-tainted tide that swept a stroppy Republican majority into the House of Representatives in the mid-term elections of 2010, bringing on said gridlock. Indeed, Messrs Mann and Ornstein spotted the trend in an earlier book about Congress, “The Broken Branch”, in 2006. The added twist now is their claim that the Republican Party has become “an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”
If you're not familiar with Norquist see here for an excellent analysis of his influence which has been great over the last few years but perhaps in decline since the fiscal cliff deal.
Tuesday, 12 February 2013
Tuesday, 5 February 2013
Should the President have the power to kill US citizens??
Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens | Glenn Greenwald http://gu.com/p/3dhtd
Thursday, 31 January 2013
State of the Union address planned for Feb 12 2013
http://www.policymic.com/articles/24312/state-of-the-union-2013-obama-will-defend-bold-liberal-agenda
Debt Ceiling crisis postponed until may
Senate passes debt ceiling, no-budget no-pay bill
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/senate-passes-debt-ceiling-no-budget-no-pay-bill-87018.html
Sent via Flipboard
BBC filibuster podcast
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00yhv96/Americana_13_02_2011/
Filibuster - listen to first 10 minutes
Filibuster - listen to first 10 minutes
Wednesday, 30 January 2013
Role/functions Congress - Judiciary Committee hearings into potential gun control: Gabrielle Giffords tells Congress to act now on gun violence - Telegraph
Gabrielle Giffords tells Congress to act now on gun violence - Telegraph:
'via Blog this'
Giffords - you will remember, was the Arizona Democrat Congresswoman, and victim of a shooting in 2011.
'via Blog this'
Giffords - you will remember, was the Arizona Democrat Congresswoman, and victim of a shooting in 2011.
Role/functions/power of Congress - Congressional Oversight of the Executive
Here, former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton gets 'overseen' by Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Jan 2013. The hearing relates to the mob-murder of US Ambassador to Libya and the extent to which the US government were to blame or could have avoided the attacks.
Telegraph article
Hillary Clinton appears at Senate Foreign Relations Committee• 'I take responsibility' for Benghazi, says Clinton• 'Arab revolutions' shattered security across region• Clinton chokes up when talking about Benghazi diplomats• Hits out at allegations of cover upIn an emotional appearance in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mrs Clinton cast the incident, the first in which a USambassador was killed since 1988, as part of a long history of such violence as well as the result of regional instability since the Arab Spring of popular revolutions began in 2011.
Speaking in congressional testimony delayed by more than a month because of her ill health, Mrs Clinton offered her first detailed accounting of the first days after the attack, saying she directed the US response from the State Department.
"I take responsibility," Mrs Clinton said, echoing comments she first made in October and stressing that she has accepted all of the recommendations of an independent review panel that ultimately held lower-level officials responsible.
Sunday, 27 January 2013
Debt, congress and the presidency...for dummies
http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=m-ch-fea&v=KIbkoop4AYE
A great 'for dummies' explanation of the debt problem in the USA and its political implications. Puts the fizz into fiscal...or something.
A great 'for dummies' explanation of the debt problem in the USA and its political implications. Puts the fizz into fiscal...or something.
Saturday, 26 January 2013
Will the January 2013 filibuster reforms end the tyranny of the minority in the Senate?
This well known measure to slow down or block legislation has been in the news recently. Senate party leaders have agreed to minor changes which limit the opportunities for senators to filibuster. However, senators STILL have some remaining opportunities for the filibuster, hence why it is being seen as a very modest reform.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/01/senate-keeps-its-filibuster-tactics-with-bipartisan-rules-change.html
The significance of the filibuster is that it allows a minority of senators to block the democratic will of the majority. It might be argued that it effectively gives some senators a veto on legislation. Other critics of the filibuster point to the fact that sometimes senators representing a tiny proportion of Americans can block legilsation (2 Senators per state no matter how big or small).
To prevent a filibuster takes 60 votes, therefore if the party balance in the 100 seat Senate is 59-41, the 41 party (as it were) could potentially block all legislation. In reality of course, the minority will not block all legislation necessarily, but can use the threat of such action to influence deals done over Bills, and force changes. This is the modern functioning of the filibuster. One rarely sees 24 hour speeches on the floor of the Senate any more. The threat of the filibuster is usually enough for the majority party to seek negotiations and compromises, rather than forcing anyone to actually speak for a long time in the chamber, which is seen as a waste of time.
Where the margins are very slim, as described in the aforementioned example, Senators from the minority can sometimes be persuaded to vote for a cloture motion against their own party, if a bargain can be struck, but this will still mean the majority will have to make concessions to a minority. Increasing partisanship with the Senate has seen an increase in use of the filibuster since the election of Obama, as Republicans have tried to block as much of his policy agenda as possible. For a short while in 2009-2010 the margins were 59-41 in favour of the democrats, which made the chances of Obama getting his healthcare reforms through particularly nerve-racking. Could a deal be done with one Republican senator to peel them away from their party on this issue and force a successful cloture motion against an otherwise implacable republican minority? The answer was no, and the 2010 mid-terms saw a reduction of the Democrat majority in the Senate forcing a much bigger compromise from the Democrats over health care reform.
So what is the significance of the 2013 reforms? They reduce the opportunities for filibuster without getting rid of it all together. This may mean a slightly speeded up average time for the passing of Bills through the Senate. This remains to be seen.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/01/senate-keeps-its-filibuster-tactics-with-bipartisan-rules-change.html
The significance of the filibuster is that it allows a minority of senators to block the democratic will of the majority. It might be argued that it effectively gives some senators a veto on legislation. Other critics of the filibuster point to the fact that sometimes senators representing a tiny proportion of Americans can block legilsation (2 Senators per state no matter how big or small).
To prevent a filibuster takes 60 votes, therefore if the party balance in the 100 seat Senate is 59-41, the 41 party (as it were) could potentially block all legislation. In reality of course, the minority will not block all legislation necessarily, but can use the threat of such action to influence deals done over Bills, and force changes. This is the modern functioning of the filibuster. One rarely sees 24 hour speeches on the floor of the Senate any more. The threat of the filibuster is usually enough for the majority party to seek negotiations and compromises, rather than forcing anyone to actually speak for a long time in the chamber, which is seen as a waste of time.
Where the margins are very slim, as described in the aforementioned example, Senators from the minority can sometimes be persuaded to vote for a cloture motion against their own party, if a bargain can be struck, but this will still mean the majority will have to make concessions to a minority. Increasing partisanship with the Senate has seen an increase in use of the filibuster since the election of Obama, as Republicans have tried to block as much of his policy agenda as possible. For a short while in 2009-2010 the margins were 59-41 in favour of the democrats, which made the chances of Obama getting his healthcare reforms through particularly nerve-racking. Could a deal be done with one Republican senator to peel them away from their party on this issue and force a successful cloture motion against an otherwise implacable republican minority? The answer was no, and the 2010 mid-terms saw a reduction of the Democrat majority in the Senate forcing a much bigger compromise from the Democrats over health care reform.
So what is the significance of the 2013 reforms? They reduce the opportunities for filibuster without getting rid of it all together. This may mean a slightly speeded up average time for the passing of Bills through the Senate. This remains to be seen.
Friday, 25 January 2013
Presidential nomination hearings on Kerry
Smooth sailing seen ahead for Kerry as State Department pick http://t.co/gFsTxR7T
Wednesday, 23 January 2013
How can the Senate not have passed a budget since 2009?
The key to this one is understanding the difference between a budget and an appropriations bill.
Budget resolutions are policy plans. They are not appropriations bills, or spending bills, which actually allocate money for specific purposes.
If a budget resolution doesn’t pass, the federal government won’t go dark. In the absence of a budget resolution, appropriations bills have continued to allocate money.
But, as a previous PolitiFact story said, "the inability to pass the budget framework can reflect poorly on the majority's organizational skills and/or the degree of partisan discord in Congress. It also increases the likelihood of a logjam of appropriations bills in the fall and winter, and decreases the chance that controversial tax bills will pass the Senate."
PolitiFact Ohio | John Boehner says Senate Dems haven't passed a budget in more than 1,000 days
Saturday, 19 January 2013
Persuasion: Obama vs gun lobby and Congress
Obama seeks American support to pressure Congress on gun control http://gu.com/p/3d7h8
Thursday, 17 January 2013
Tuesday, 15 January 2013
Sunday, 13 January 2013
Saturday, 12 January 2013
Executive orders
How far can President Obama go with an executive order on gun control? | Harry J Enten http://gu.com/p/3d2m6
Wednesday, 9 January 2013
Obama's selection 2013
Chuck Hagel: is the enemy of their GOP enemies the Democrats' friend? | Ana Marie Cox http://gu.com/p/3dvj8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)