Role of Government

Police are Making the Coronavirus Crisis Worse | New York Civil Liberties Union

|

Police are Making the Coronavirus Crisis Worse | New York Civil Liberties Union

It might be tempting for some to search for a law enforcement solution to the pandemic, especially because the disease puts all of our safety at risk, and makes us frightened of each other. In an ideal world, we’d have a team of health experts responsible for making sure people are keeping themselves and others safe. While recognizing that’s not the reality, we should always remember that police officers are not health care workers and they should not be on the front lines of solving this crisis. In some instances, they can make things worse.

Impoundment

|

I was reading this article about the White House plan to oversee reopening of states after the Coronavirus shutdown…

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/14/833431577/watch-coronavirus-task-force-holds-briefing-following-flap-over-governors-power

I am not so quick to dismiss the president’s power to regulate the re-opening of state businesses. While the federal government lacks a police force, they do control the purse strings for billions in federal finding that can be conditioned on state’s reopening. Additionally, the federal government has wide latitude over interstate businesses and facilities that cross lines.

If Congress adopts a law, the federal government can clearly say an interstate accommodation must be allowed to operate. That’s pretty clear with the Heart of Atlanta Supreme Court case. Congress can also tie Medicaid or Highway funding to states allowing businesses being reopened.

While the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 would clearly prohibit most appropriated funding to the states from being impounded by by the President other funding is discretionary and the President and his administrative agencies could set out clear guidelines to ensure state compliance before the discretionary funding is released. Some of that would push up against the Impoundment Control Act but the state might reopen on its own before winding through the courts.

Repeal the Electorial College?

|

Repeal the Electoral College?

The Electoral College is one of the accidental oddities of our political system, created in a different time with different laws and concepts of civil society. Back when our founding fathers were more skeptical of democratic power, where they wanted to give state-elected officials the ability to choose the chief executive — the president — rather then the voters. Since then, all states have adopted laws that allow citizens in their states to cast a vote to choose the state’s electors, although that’s not explicitly required in the constitution.

The US Constitution could be changed either by one of ways — the legal process set out by requiring adoption of a majority of both houses of Congress along with 2/3rds of the states — but that would give veto power to 1/3rd plus one of the states. Many rural and smaller states would likely loose power under direct-elections, assuming they aren’t swing area. They would reject the amendment, it would be bound to fail. The other-way would be extra-legal — Congress with adequate public support could declare the US Constitution null and void, an enact any law they please. Indeed, they did with that the Articles of Confederation — they didn’t repeal it in a lawful manner, Congress just replaced it. But it seems unlikely the public would support such a power grab, and institutions such as the courts would halt such an action.

The truth is neither way of repealing the Electoral College is unlikely. But I think people are wrong in thinking that the repeal would mean cities get all the attention by Presidential Elections. I think in contrast, the areas of interest to candidates would be the marginal areas, namely the suburbs and other very competitive areas. Cities are going to go overwhelmingly Democratic, while rural areas would go Republican. The battleground would be the exurbs and outer suburbs, and other areas that are competitive. Cities might get little more attention then they do now. And it’s not clear that battlegrounds would change that much — maybe Westchester County or Long Island might get a visit or two more by leading presidential candidates — but it hardly would be the change that proponents of repealing the electorial college would expect.

I’ve been fascinated by Francisco Franco and how he stuck around as the dictator of Spain until his death in 1975

|

I’ve been fascinated by Francisco Franco and how he stuck around as the dictator of Spain until his death in 1975. Had Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini not decided to take an expansionist policy, invading surrounding countries, would have the global community tolerated them on grounds they were anti-communist through the 1960s and 1970s? That Rick Steves’ documentary I watched last night was very thought provoking.

Francisco Franco – Wikipedia

|

Francisco Franco – Wikipedia

Franco's Spanish nationalism promoted a unitary national identity by repressing Spain's cultural diversity. Bullfighting and flamenco[146] were promoted as national traditions while those traditions not considered "Spanish" were suppressed. Franco's view of Spanish tradition was somewhat artificial and arbitrary: while some regional traditions were suppressed, Flamenco, an Andalusian tradition, was considered part of a larg