Tag Archives: Texas

We’re All Becoming Texas

My husband says I’ve been in a bad mood since 2000. I’m entitled.

On Monday, the Republican-led Texas House passed HB 1076 , a bill that would ban state agencies from enforcing any new federal gun laws, including background checks. The self-satisfied know-nothings who voted for this bill are very pleased with themselves.

Talk about embarrassing. Every student who participated in the We the People competition I referenced earlier this week would know better.

I don’t know whether this bit of unconstitutional stupidity is the product of grandstanding or ignorance, but really–how much dumber can state lawmakers get? Granted, Texas is in a league of its own, but there are plenty of other states–largely but not exclusively in the south–where similarly ridiculous measures are being solemnly debated and enacted. (Next-door Louisiana, where several loony laws championed by boy Governor Bobby Jindal have been struck down by the courts is a case in point. And the Indiana General Assembly keeps trying to equal its signal accomplishment–passage of a law in 1897 changing the value of pi.)

Read my lips: nullification runs afoul of the Supremacy Clause. In language even Texas legislators should be able to understand, that means that there is a provision in the U.S. Constitution that says federal laws trump inconsistent state laws. States don’t get to decide which federal laws they’ll obey.

I’m so tired of these posturing morons–and so disappointed in the voters who elected them. Gerrymandering can only explain so much.

America is currently experiencing the “perfect storm”–paranoia and anti-intellectualism have combined to destroy any semblance of rationality.  The adults have left the room; the inmates are running the asylum.

We are left with only self-parody.

Comments

What Would I Do Without Texas?

As I have noted several times, I owe Texas a debt of gratitude. Whenever I am searching for an example of bad public policy to use in class, the Lone Star State comes through for me.

I thought about Texas’ reliability during a research presentation by one of the teams of students in my graduate Law and Public Affairs class. They had chosen Cap and Trade as the policy proposal they were analyzing, and they began the presentation with a brief history of environmental regulation in the U.S. The student delivering that portion of the presentation noted that federal rules were a response to a couple of the downsides of our federalist system: not only is there often a lack of uniformity, but there are some unfortunate consequences to the fact that states compete with each other to lure businesses and jobs. Before the establishment of the EPA, lack of environmental regulations was one of the “advantages” states offered relocation prospects–“come to our state, and you won’t be bothered by pesky rules keeping you from discharging your toxins in that nearby river.”

Even today, some states allow more pollution than others. According to the student researchers, Indiana is the 7th most polluted state in the country.

Texas, of course, is the worst.

Indeed, Texas Governor Rick Perry has been widely quoted touting his philosophy of economic development, which boils down to:  states wanting to entice business can succeed by reducing or eliminating regulations.

So what if a few fertilizer plants blow up and level some neighborhoods?  So what if polluted air exacerbates asthma and other medical conditions, sickening citizens and driving up medical costs?  So what if the companies most likely to be attracted by an absence of regulation are those looking to evade reasonable standards for safety and environmental compliance?

Diminished health and safety is a small price to pay for job creation bragging rights. Just ask Rick Perry.

Comments

Forget the Alamo…..

A friend who shares my concerns about Indiana’s governance for the next few years sent me a news link intended to cheer me up–sort of. His point was that it could be worse. We could live in Texas.

Over the years, when I have needed examples of truly bad policies as illustrations in my Law and Policy classes, Texas has often supplied those examples. I’d begun to think that the Texan fixation with secession may not be so misplaced; in fact, an amicable divorce was beginning to look pretty attractive. My friend’s link reinforced that  opinion.

Peter Morrison, treasurer of the Hardin County Republican Party in Texas, suggests in his newsletter that the state should have an “amicable divorce” from the “maggots” who re-elected Obama.

Morrison posted on his Facebook page his post-election thoughts: “We must contest every single inch of ground and delay the baby-murdering, tax-raising socialists at every opportunity. But in due time, the maggots will have eaten every morsel of flesh off of the rotting corpse of the Republic, and therein lies our opportunity.”

“Texas was once its own country, and many Texans already think in nationalist terms about their state,” Morrison continued. “We need to do everything possible to encourage a long-term shift in thinking on this issue. Why should Vermont and Texas live under the same government? Let each go her own way in peace, sign a free trade agreement among the states and we can avoid this gut-wrenching spectacle every four years.”

Reached for comment by Bud Kennedy at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Kent Batman, the chairman of the Hardin County Republican Party, said: “Wow.”

“OK, well — I guess I need to start taking a look at his newsletters,” Batman said.

This guy is an official of the Texas Republican Party. That’s bad enough. But even worse, the Chairman of the State Board of Education picked Morrison to screen the state’s public-school textbooks.

Explains a lot, doesn’t it?

Comments

Church and State in Texas

A friend recently sent me a copy of a Court Order approving a settlement in a hotly contested case from a small town in Texas. The Plaintiffs had complained that the school corporation engaged in pervasive and unconstitutional religious activities over a period of years–prayers over the loudspeakers, constant religious references by the Principal, prayers at athletic contests and graduation ceremonies and more. Students who complained were disciplined.

The judge’s opinion–especially the unusual “Personal Note” that he added–are worth reading in their entirety; the Personal Note appears below. His Appendix–which is not reproduced, but is also accessible on line–is a first-rate history of church/state relations through American history. I particularly appreciated the opening section of the Opinion, “What this case was NOT about,” in which he made a point not sufficiently emphasized: any child can pray in school at any time. The issue is whether public school officials–arms of the government–can promote or require that prayer.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State issued a press release detailing the major elements of the settlement:

* School district personnel will not display crosses, religious images, religious quotations, Bibles or religious texts, or other religious icons or artifacts on the walls, hallways, and other areas at the school.

* The district will not invite speakers, including government officials or community leaders, whom it has reason to believe will proselytize or promote religion during their remarks.

* The Medina Valley High School student handbook will contain a section on students’ rights to religious freedom, including the importance of respect for and tolerance of students from all backgrounds and the specific procedures for registering a complaint with district personnel about violations.

* The district will provide annual training to all district personnel who interact with students or parents or who supervise those who interact with students or parents. The training will cover a variety of topics related to students’ rights and church-state separation.

The release clarifies the terms of the agreement, but it’s only when you read the brief “Personal Statement” the Judge appended that you really appreciate the nastiness of the controversy, and the tenor of the “debate” conducted by the “religious” folk involved.

“A PERSONAL STATEMENT

During the course of this litigation,many have played a part:

To the United States Marshal Service and local police who have provided heightened security: Thank you.

To those Christians who have venomously and vomitously cursed the Court family and threatened bodily harm and assassination:In His name,I forgive you.

To those who have prayed for my death: Your prayers will some day be answered,as inevitability trumps probability.

To those in the executive and legislative branches of government who have demagogued this case for their own political goals:You should be ashamed of yourselves.

To the lawyers who have advocated professionally and respectfully for their clients’ respective positions:Bless you.”

Cato on Immigration

The Cato Institute has recently published an analysis of proposed Immigration Reform, and concluded that comprehensive reform is overdue. The entire report is worth reading (I don’t have it in electronic form, unfortunately), as it methodically disposes of a number of charges that are routinely leveled at undocumented workers.

One of the interesting studies cited in the report comes from Texas, of all places–a state rarely known for progressive policies, or for policies based on evidence of any kind, for that matter.

One of the arguments routinely made by those demanding that undocumented persons be deported is that they are an economic drain on the American economy. In December 2006, the Texas comptroller of public accounts looked at economic activity by illegal immigrants, and issued a report concluding that such individuals had “produced a positive effect on the Texas economy and state budget.” The Comptroller estimated that the loss of the approximately 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in the state would have translated into a loss of 17.7 billion dollars to the state in 2005.  The Comptroller further estimated that state revenues collected from undocumented immigrants exceeded what the state spent on services to that population by 424.7 million dollars.

This research seems consistent with estimates that undocumented workers leave something on the order of two billion dollars in Social Security each year–money withheld from paychecks under phony Social Security numbers that cannot ever be claimed by those from whom it was withheld.

Comments