Michael J. Totten's Trip to Iraq
posted by Sanel at 6:38 AM
2 comments
Monday, April 24, 2006
Cartoon
This cartoon suggests that Bush is well aware of the threat of civil war in Iraq, and that his ignorance of it and his avoidance of dealing with the imminent is a mere ruse, which he constructs so that he does not have to deal with the situation.
posted by Sanel at 6:17 AM
0 comments
Friday, April 14, 2006
Remaining Supreme Court Cases
Group 1-Aaron. Marbury v Madison (1803)
Fletcher vs. Peck (1810)
McCulloch v Maryland (1819)
Dartmouth College vs. Woodward (1819)
Group 2-Markus. Gibbons v Ogden (1824)
Dred Scott v Sanford (1857)
Ex Parte Milligan - 1866
Munn v. Illinois (1877)
Group 3-Lauren. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886)
In Re Debs (1895)
Plessey v Ferguson (1896)
Lochner v. New York (1905)
Group 4-Briana. Weeks v. United States (1914)
Schenck v United States (1919)
Debs v. United States (1919)
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Group 5-Sabrina. Schecter Poultry Corp. v The United States (1933)
United States v Butler (1933)
Olmstead v United States (1928)
Brown v Board of Ed. Topeka Kansas (1954)
Group 6-Austin. Betts v Brady - 1942
Korematsu v United States (1944)
Dennis v. United States (1951)
Yates v. United States (1957)
Group 7-Steven. Mapp v Ohio (1961)
Katz v. United States (1961)
Engle v Vitale (1962)
Baker v. Carr (1962)
Group 8-Kelsie. Abington v Schempp (1963)
Gideon v Wainwright (1963)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
Miranda v Arizona (1966)
Group 9-Ken. Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
Tinker v Des Moines (1969)
NY Times v United States (1971)
United States v. Nixon - (1972)
Group 10-Lucy. Roe v Wade (1973)
Goss v. Lopez (1975)
University of California Regents v Bakke (1976)
Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982)
Group 11-Kaylee. New Jersey v T.L.O. (1984)
Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)
Bethel School District v Fraser (1986)
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Group 12-Linnaya. Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Clinton v. Jones (1997)
Reno v. ACLU (1997)
Impeachment of President Clinton (1999)
Group 14-Brian. LAWRENCE V. TEXAS(2003)
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission(2003)
Kelo v. City of New London(2005)
Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States(2005)
Group 15-Andrew. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc.(2005)
Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc.(2005)
Gonzales v. Oregon (2005)
Schriro v. Smith (2006)
Fletcher vs. Peck (1810)
McCulloch v Maryland (1819)
Dartmouth College vs. Woodward (1819)
Group 2-Markus. Gibbons v Ogden (1824)
Dred Scott v Sanford (1857)
Ex Parte Milligan - 1866
Munn v. Illinois (1877)
Group 3-Lauren. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886)
In Re Debs (1895)
Plessey v Ferguson (1896)
Lochner v. New York (1905)
Group 4-Briana. Weeks v. United States (1914)
Schenck v United States (1919)
Debs v. United States (1919)
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Group 5-Sabrina. Schecter Poultry Corp. v The United States (1933)
United States v Butler (1933)
Olmstead v United States (1928)
Brown v Board of Ed. Topeka Kansas (1954)
Group 6-Austin. Betts v Brady - 1942
Korematsu v United States (1944)
Dennis v. United States (1951)
Yates v. United States (1957)
Group 7-Steven. Mapp v Ohio (1961)
Katz v. United States (1961)
Engle v Vitale (1962)
Baker v. Carr (1962)
Group 8-Kelsie. Abington v Schempp (1963)
Gideon v Wainwright (1963)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
Miranda v Arizona (1966)
Group 9-Ken. Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
Tinker v Des Moines (1969)
NY Times v United States (1971)
United States v. Nixon - (1972)
Group 10-Lucy. Roe v Wade (1973)
Goss v. Lopez (1975)
University of California Regents v Bakke (1976)
Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982)
Group 11-Kaylee. New Jersey v T.L.O. (1984)
Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)
Bethel School District v Fraser (1986)
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Group 12-Linnaya. Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Clinton v. Jones (1997)
Reno v. ACLU (1997)
Impeachment of President Clinton (1999)
Group 14-Brian. LAWRENCE V. TEXAS(2003)
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission(2003)
Kelo v. City of New London(2005)
Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States(2005)
Group 15-Andrew. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc.(2005)
Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc.(2005)
Gonzales v. Oregon (2005)
Schriro v. Smith (2006)
posted by Sanel at 7:34 PM
0 comments
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Supreme Court Decisions (#13 grouping)
United States v. Morrison (2000):
-Parties: Christy Brzonkala v. Antonio Morrison, James Crawford, and Virginia Tech
-Brief Summary: In 1994, while enrolled at Virginia Tech, Christy Brzonkala alleged that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, both students and varsity football players at Virginia Tech, raped her. In 1995, Brzonkala filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech's Sexual Assault Policy. After a hearing, Morrison was found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to immediate suspension for two semesters. Crawford was not punished. A second hearing again found Morrison guilty. After an appeal through the university's administrative system, Morrison's punishment was set aside, as it was found to be "excessive." Ultimately, Brzonkala dropped out of the university. Brzonkala then sued Morrison, Crawford, and Virginia Tech in Federal District Court, alleging that Morrison's and Crawford's attack violated 42 USC section 13981, part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which provides a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence.
-SC decision and Opinions: In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that Congress lacked the authority to enact a statute under the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment since the statute did not regulate an activity that substantially affected interstate commerce nor did it redress harm caused by the state. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that [i]f the allegations here are true, no civilized system of justice could fail to provide [Brzonkala] a remedy for the conduct of...Morrison. But under our federal system that remedy must be provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and not by the United States." Dissenting, Justice Stephen G. Breyer argued that the majority opinion "illustrates the difficulty of finding a workable judicial Commerce Clause touchstone." Additionally, Justice David H. Souter, dissenting, noted that VAWA contained a "mountain of data assembled by Congress...showing the effects of violence against women on interstate commerce."
Bush v. Gore (2000) :
-Parties: George Bush and Richard Cheney v. Florida Supreme Court and Al Gore
-Brief Summary: Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, and concurrent with Vice President Al Gore's contest of the certification of Florida presidential election results, on December 8, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand 9000 contested ballots from Miami-Dade County. It also ordered that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all "under-votes" (ballots which did not indicate a vote for president) because there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt. Governor George Bush and his running mate, Richard Cheney, filed a request for review in the U.S. Supreme Court and sought an emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's decision.
-SC decision and Opinions: Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the court held that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provided by 3 USC Section 5). Loathe to make broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case. Rehnquist (in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas) argued that the recount scheme was also unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court's decision made new election law, which only the state legislature may do. Breyer and Souter (writing separately) agreed with the per curiam holding that the Florida Court's recount scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause, but they dissented with respect to the remedy, believing that a constitutional recount could be fashioned. Time is insubstantial when constitutional rights are at stake. Ginsburg and Stevens (writing separately) argued that for reasons of federalism, the Florida Supreme Court's decision ought to be respected. Moreover, the Florida decision was fundamentally right; the Constitution requires that every vote be counted.
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA et al. v. DALE (2000) :
-Parties: Boy Scouts of American v. James Dale
-Brief Summary: The Boy Scouts of America revoked former Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster James Dale's adult membership when the organization discovered that Dale was a homosexual and a gay rights activist. In 1992, Dale filed suit against the Boy Scouts, alleging that the Boy Scouts had violated the New Jersey statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. The Boy Scouts, a private, not-for-profit organization, asserted that homosexual conduct was inconsistent with the values it was attempting to instill in young people.
-SC decision and Opinions: In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that "applying New Jersey's public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association." In effect, the ruling gives the Boy Scouts of America a constitutional right to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that, "[t]he Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill," and that a gay troop leader's presence "would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the young members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior."
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2004) :
-Parties: Ashcroft v. Amercian Civil Liberties Union and online publishers.
-Brief Summary: Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) to prevent minors from accessing pornography online. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and online publishers sued in federal court to prevent enforcement of the act, arguing that it violated the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment.
-SC decision and Opinions: In an interesting 5-to-4 vote, with Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Thomas and Ginsburg on one side and Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Breyer and O'Connor on the other, the Court found that Congress had not yet met its burden to show that the COPA requirements were more effective than other methods of preventing minors. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the majority opinion, wrote that the district court's injunction "was not an abuse of discretion, because on this record there are a number of plausible, less restrictive alternatives to the statute." The majority also emphasized that barring the statute's enforcement during the trial would be less harmful than allowing it, because allowing it would be likely to prevent online publishers from publishing certain material.
-Parties: Christy Brzonkala v. Antonio Morrison, James Crawford, and Virginia Tech
-Brief Summary: In 1994, while enrolled at Virginia Tech, Christy Brzonkala alleged that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, both students and varsity football players at Virginia Tech, raped her. In 1995, Brzonkala filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech's Sexual Assault Policy. After a hearing, Morrison was found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to immediate suspension for two semesters. Crawford was not punished. A second hearing again found Morrison guilty. After an appeal through the university's administrative system, Morrison's punishment was set aside, as it was found to be "excessive." Ultimately, Brzonkala dropped out of the university. Brzonkala then sued Morrison, Crawford, and Virginia Tech in Federal District Court, alleging that Morrison's and Crawford's attack violated 42 USC section 13981, part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which provides a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence.
-SC decision and Opinions: In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that Congress lacked the authority to enact a statute under the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment since the statute did not regulate an activity that substantially affected interstate commerce nor did it redress harm caused by the state. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that [i]f the allegations here are true, no civilized system of justice could fail to provide [Brzonkala] a remedy for the conduct of...Morrison. But under our federal system that remedy must be provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and not by the United States." Dissenting, Justice Stephen G. Breyer argued that the majority opinion "illustrates the difficulty of finding a workable judicial Commerce Clause touchstone." Additionally, Justice David H. Souter, dissenting, noted that VAWA contained a "mountain of data assembled by Congress...showing the effects of violence against women on interstate commerce."
Bush v. Gore (2000) :
-Parties: George Bush and Richard Cheney v. Florida Supreme Court and Al Gore
-Brief Summary: Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, and concurrent with Vice President Al Gore's contest of the certification of Florida presidential election results, on December 8, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand 9000 contested ballots from Miami-Dade County. It also ordered that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all "under-votes" (ballots which did not indicate a vote for president) because there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt. Governor George Bush and his running mate, Richard Cheney, filed a request for review in the U.S. Supreme Court and sought an emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's decision.
-SC decision and Opinions: Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the court held that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provided by 3 USC Section 5). Loathe to make broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case. Rehnquist (in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas) argued that the recount scheme was also unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court's decision made new election law, which only the state legislature may do. Breyer and Souter (writing separately) agreed with the per curiam holding that the Florida Court's recount scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause, but they dissented with respect to the remedy, believing that a constitutional recount could be fashioned. Time is insubstantial when constitutional rights are at stake. Ginsburg and Stevens (writing separately) argued that for reasons of federalism, the Florida Supreme Court's decision ought to be respected. Moreover, the Florida decision was fundamentally right; the Constitution requires that every vote be counted.
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA et al. v. DALE (2000) :
-Parties: Boy Scouts of American v. James Dale
-Brief Summary: The Boy Scouts of America revoked former Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster James Dale's adult membership when the organization discovered that Dale was a homosexual and a gay rights activist. In 1992, Dale filed suit against the Boy Scouts, alleging that the Boy Scouts had violated the New Jersey statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. The Boy Scouts, a private, not-for-profit organization, asserted that homosexual conduct was inconsistent with the values it was attempting to instill in young people.
-SC decision and Opinions: In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that "applying New Jersey's public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association." In effect, the ruling gives the Boy Scouts of America a constitutional right to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that, "[t]he Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill," and that a gay troop leader's presence "would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the young members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior."
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2004) :
-Parties: Ashcroft v. Amercian Civil Liberties Union and online publishers.
-Brief Summary: Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) to prevent minors from accessing pornography online. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and online publishers sued in federal court to prevent enforcement of the act, arguing that it violated the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment.
-SC decision and Opinions: In an interesting 5-to-4 vote, with Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Thomas and Ginsburg on one side and Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Breyer and O'Connor on the other, the Court found that Congress had not yet met its burden to show that the COPA requirements were more effective than other methods of preventing minors. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the majority opinion, wrote that the district court's injunction "was not an abuse of discretion, because on this record there are a number of plausible, less restrictive alternatives to the statute." The majority also emphasized that barring the statute's enforcement during the trial would be less harmful than allowing it, because allowing it would be likely to prevent online publishers from publishing certain material.
posted by Sanel at 6:32 AM
0 comments
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
The Presidency
1. Examples of the roles of the President from the last twelve months:
Chief of State
Chief Executive
Commander in Chief
Chief Diplomat
Chief Legislator
2. Executive Department:
Department of Agriculture - www.usda.gov; article
Department of Commerce - www.doc.gov; article
Department of Defense - www.defenselink.mil; article
Department of Education - www.ed.gov; article
Department of Energy - www.energy.gov; article
Department of Health and Human Services - www.hhs.gov; article
Department of Homeland Security - www.dhs.gov; article
Department of Housing and Urban Development - www.hud.gov; article
Department of the Interior - www.doi.gov; article
Department of Justice - www.usdoj.gov; article
Department of Labor - www.dol.gov; article
Department of State - www.state.gov; article
Department of Transportation - www.dot.gov; article
Department of the Treasury - www.ustreas.gov; article
Department of Veterens Affairs - www.va.gov; article
3. Executive Offices:
A. The Executive Office of the President:
Council of Economic Advisors; article
Council on Environmental Quality; article
National Security Council; article
Office of Administration; article
Office of Management and Budget; article
Office of National Drug Control Policy; article
Office of Science and Technology Policy; article
Office of the Vice President; article
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; article
United States Trade Representative; article
White House Office; article
B. The White House Office
Domestic Policy Council; article
Homeland Security Council; article
National Economic Council; article
Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives; article
Office of the First Lady; article
Office of National AIDS Policy; article
USA Freedom Corps; article
White House Fellows Office; article
White House Military Office; article
Chief of State
Chief Executive
Commander in Chief
Chief Diplomat
Chief Legislator
2. Executive Department:
Department of Agriculture - www.usda.gov; article
Department of Commerce - www.doc.gov; article
Department of Defense - www.defenselink.mil; article
Department of Education - www.ed.gov; article
Department of Energy - www.energy.gov; article
Department of Health and Human Services - www.hhs.gov; article
Department of Homeland Security - www.dhs.gov; article
Department of Housing and Urban Development - www.hud.gov; article
Department of the Interior - www.doi.gov; article
Department of Justice - www.usdoj.gov; article
Department of Labor - www.dol.gov; article
Department of State - www.state.gov; article
Department of Transportation - www.dot.gov; article
Department of the Treasury - www.ustreas.gov; article
Department of Veterens Affairs - www.va.gov; article
3. Executive Offices:
A. The Executive Office of the President:
Council of Economic Advisors; article
Council on Environmental Quality; article
National Security Council; article
Office of Administration; article
Office of Management and Budget; article
Office of National Drug Control Policy; article
Office of Science and Technology Policy; article
Office of the Vice President; article
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; article
United States Trade Representative; article
White House Office; article
B. The White House Office
Domestic Policy Council; article
Homeland Security Council; article
National Economic Council; article
Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives; article
Office of the First Lady; article
Office of National AIDS Policy; article
USA Freedom Corps; article
White House Fellows Office; article
White House Military Office; article
posted by Sanel at 4:18 PM
0 comments
Thursday, March 30, 2006
U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Type of Committee:
The United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ( the panel of which is generally a constituent-oriented committee) deals with legislative activity in the following major areas: energy resources and development, including regulation, conservation, strategic petroleum reserves and appliance standards; nuclear energy; Indian affairs; public lands and their renewable resources; surface mining, Federal coal, oil, and gas, other mineral leasing; territories and insular possessions; and water resources.
Duties of the Committee:
The jurisdiction of the Full Committee includes the oversight and legislative responsibilities for: National Energy Policy, including international energy affairs and emergency preparedness; nuclear waste policy; privatization of federal assets; territorial policy (including changes in status and issues affecting Antartica); Native Hawaiian matters; and Ad Hoc issues.
Subcommittees:
Subcommittee on Energy - Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee includes oversight and legislative responsibilities for: nuclear, coal and synthetic fuels research and development; nuclear and non-nuclear energy commercialization projects; nuclear fuel cycle policy; DOE National Laboratories; global climate change; new technologies research and development; nuclear facilities siting and insurance program; commercialization of new technologies including, solar energy systems; Federal energy conservation programs; energy information; liquefied natural gas projects; oil and natural gas regulation; refinery policy; coal conversion; utility policy; strategic petroleum reserves; regulation of Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and other oil and gas pipeline transportation systems within Alaska Artic research and energy development; and oil, gas and coal production and distribution.
Subcommittee on National Parks - Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee includes oversight and legislative responsibilities for: National Park System; Wild and Scenic Rivers System; National Trails System; national recreation areas; national monuments; historic sites; military parks and battlefields; Land and Water Conservation Fund; historic preservation; outdoor recreation resources; and preservation of prehistoric ruins and objects of interest on the public domain.
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests - Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee includes oversight and legislative responsibilities for: public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service including farming and grazing thereon, and wilderness areas; establishment of wildlife refuges on public lands and wilderness designation therein; military land withdrawals; reserved water rights; Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; territorial affairs; national mining and minerals policy and general mining laws; surface mining, reclamation and enforcement; mining education and research; Federal mineral leasing; Outer Continental Shelf leasing; Naval oil shale reserves; National Petroleum reserve -- Alaska; and deep seabed mining.
Subcommittee on Water and Power - Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee includes oversight and legislative responsibilities for: irrigation; reclamation projects, including related flood control purposes; power marketing administrations (e.g., Bonneville Power, Southwestern Power, Western Area Power, Southeastern Power); energy development impacts on water resources; groundwater resources and management; hydroelectric power; low head hydro; and energy related aspects of deepwater ports.
Example of Pigeonholing:
[108th] H.R.142: To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Prado Basin Natural Treatment System Project, to authorize the Secretary to carry out a program to assist agencies in projects to construct regional brine lines in California, and to authorize the Secretary to participate in the Lower Chino Dairy Area desalination demonstration and reclamation project.
Bill That Became a Law:
[108th] H.R.265: To provide for an adjustment of the boundaries of Mount Rainier National Park, and for other purposes.
Federal Agencies For Which the Committee Has Oversight Authority:
Department of Energy ; related news article - U.S. Energy Department Solicits Onboard Vehicle Hydrogen Storage Applications
Department of the Interior; related news article - Bush Announces Choice For Interior Department
Energy Information Administration; related news article - Ethanol shortage could up gas prices
National Park Service; related news article - National Park Service approves Smokies' plan to fight adelgids
The United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ( the panel of which is generally a constituent-oriented committee) deals with legislative activity in the following major areas: energy resources and development, including regulation, conservation, strategic petroleum reserves and appliance standards; nuclear energy; Indian affairs; public lands and their renewable resources; surface mining, Federal coal, oil, and gas, other mineral leasing; territories and insular possessions; and water resources.
Duties of the Committee:
The jurisdiction of the Full Committee includes the oversight and legislative responsibilities for: National Energy Policy, including international energy affairs and emergency preparedness; nuclear waste policy; privatization of federal assets; territorial policy (including changes in status and issues affecting Antartica); Native Hawaiian matters; and Ad Hoc issues.
Subcommittees:
Subcommittee on Energy - Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee includes oversight and legislative responsibilities for: nuclear, coal and synthetic fuels research and development; nuclear and non-nuclear energy commercialization projects; nuclear fuel cycle policy; DOE National Laboratories; global climate change; new technologies research and development; nuclear facilities siting and insurance program; commercialization of new technologies including, solar energy systems; Federal energy conservation programs; energy information; liquefied natural gas projects; oil and natural gas regulation; refinery policy; coal conversion; utility policy; strategic petroleum reserves; regulation of Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and other oil and gas pipeline transportation systems within Alaska Artic research and energy development; and oil, gas and coal production and distribution.
Subcommittee on National Parks - Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee includes oversight and legislative responsibilities for: National Park System; Wild and Scenic Rivers System; National Trails System; national recreation areas; national monuments; historic sites; military parks and battlefields; Land and Water Conservation Fund; historic preservation; outdoor recreation resources; and preservation of prehistoric ruins and objects of interest on the public domain.
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests - Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee includes oversight and legislative responsibilities for: public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service including farming and grazing thereon, and wilderness areas; establishment of wildlife refuges on public lands and wilderness designation therein; military land withdrawals; reserved water rights; Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; territorial affairs; national mining and minerals policy and general mining laws; surface mining, reclamation and enforcement; mining education and research; Federal mineral leasing; Outer Continental Shelf leasing; Naval oil shale reserves; National Petroleum reserve -- Alaska; and deep seabed mining.
Subcommittee on Water and Power - Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee includes oversight and legislative responsibilities for: irrigation; reclamation projects, including related flood control purposes; power marketing administrations (e.g., Bonneville Power, Southwestern Power, Western Area Power, Southeastern Power); energy development impacts on water resources; groundwater resources and management; hydroelectric power; low head hydro; and energy related aspects of deepwater ports.
Example of Pigeonholing:
[108th] H.R.142: To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Prado Basin Natural Treatment System Project, to authorize the Secretary to carry out a program to assist agencies in projects to construct regional brine lines in California, and to authorize the Secretary to participate in the Lower Chino Dairy Area desalination demonstration and reclamation project.
Bill That Became a Law:
[108th] H.R.265: To provide for an adjustment of the boundaries of Mount Rainier National Park, and for other purposes.
Federal Agencies For Which the Committee Has Oversight Authority:
Department of Energy ; related news article - U.S. Energy Department Solicits Onboard Vehicle Hydrogen Storage Applications
Department of the Interior; related news article - Bush Announces Choice For Interior Department
Energy Information Administration; related news article - Ethanol shortage could up gas prices
National Park Service; related news article - National Park Service approves Smokies' plan to fight adelgids
posted by Sanel at 6:34 AM
0 comments
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
8 Steps of Legislative Lawmaking for the DMCA
Outline of the 8 Legislative Lawmaking Steps:
- 1- member of congress sponsors a bill (could get it from White House, lobbyists or constituents); Link
- 2- sent to a committee; Link
- 2a – if House, Rules Committee decides how long bill can be debated and if it can be amended, and can bring immediate floor vote; Link
- 3- committee debates and approves, rejects actively or passively, or sends to the floor without recommendation; Link
- 3a – committee can add ‘killer amendments’ to bill to make it impassable; Link
- 4- open debate and vote; Link
-Filibuster possible in Senate, cloture needed;
- 4a – pet projects, aka pork barrel projects can be added in committee or on the floor; Link
- 5 – same process in other chamber; Link
- 6- conference committee resolves differences in House and Senate versions, returns new version for a vote; Link
- 7 – President signs, vetoes or pocket vetoes; Link
- 8 – if veto, Congress can start over OR override with 2/3 vote in each chamber.
- 1- member of congress sponsors a bill (could get it from White House, lobbyists or constituents); Link
- 2- sent to a committee; Link
- 2a – if House, Rules Committee decides how long bill can be debated and if it can be amended, and can bring immediate floor vote; Link
- 3- committee debates and approves, rejects actively or passively, or sends to the floor without recommendation; Link
- 3a – committee can add ‘killer amendments’ to bill to make it impassable; Link
- 4- open debate and vote; Link
-Filibuster possible in Senate, cloture needed;
- 4a – pet projects, aka pork barrel projects can be added in committee or on the floor; Link
- 5 – same process in other chamber; Link
- 6- conference committee resolves differences in House and Senate versions, returns new version for a vote; Link
- 7 – President signs, vetoes or pocket vetoes; Link
- 8 – if veto, Congress can start over OR override with 2/3 vote in each chamber.
posted by Sanel at 6:36 AM
0 comments
Thursday, March 09, 2006
With Regard to William E. Odom's 'Iraq Through the Prism of Vietnam'
William E. Odom's 'Iraq Through the Prism of Vietnam' (found on Talking Points Memo, by Josh Marshall) offers close comparisons between the war in Iraq and the Vietnam War. Odom divides both wars into three phases, after which he attempts to draw similarities and comparisons between the events of the Vietnam War in a certain phase and the events surrounding the war in Iraq in the corresponding phase. Although his essay describes three parts to the Vietnam War, he states that the war in Iraq is still immersed in the second part, but Odom does go on, after firmly comparing stage one and what could be compared using stage two, to extrapolate the future events that will occur involving the Iraq conflict, corresponding these predicted events to the events that occured in the stages of the final part of Odom's intrepretation of the Vietnam War.
Considering Odom's credentials (retired lieutenant of the U.S. Army, professor at Yale University, Senior Fellow with the Hudson Institute, Director of the National Security Agency from 1985-1988, Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence from 1981-1985, and Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs from 1977-1981), he would seem to have enough military and political experience and expertise to analyze this situation with a certain amount of pragmatic thought that would lead to a logically sound conclusion. His points, argued with a sense of prudence, certainly show a correlation between the events of Vietnam War and of the war in Iraq, steeling the ambient dictum that history repeats itself. Odom shows that, in points one and two, the political and militaristic interests and interpretations are very similar between the two wars, and in point three Odom parallelizes the actual results of the Vietnam War to that which he proposes as a theory as to what shall occur as the war in Iraq as it approaches the final stage. Thus, due to the well-developed and logically ordered set of arguments given for the parallelism between the two wars, Odom does profound job of expressing and substantiating his beliefs.
Considering Odom's credentials (retired lieutenant of the U.S. Army, professor at Yale University, Senior Fellow with the Hudson Institute, Director of the National Security Agency from 1985-1988, Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence from 1981-1985, and Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs from 1977-1981), he would seem to have enough military and political experience and expertise to analyze this situation with a certain amount of pragmatic thought that would lead to a logically sound conclusion. His points, argued with a sense of prudence, certainly show a correlation between the events of Vietnam War and of the war in Iraq, steeling the ambient dictum that history repeats itself. Odom shows that, in points one and two, the political and militaristic interests and interpretations are very similar between the two wars, and in point three Odom parallelizes the actual results of the Vietnam War to that which he proposes as a theory as to what shall occur as the war in Iraq as it approaches the final stage. Thus, due to the well-developed and logically ordered set of arguments given for the parallelism between the two wars, Odom does profound job of expressing and substantiating his beliefs.
posted by Sanel at 7:41 AM
0 comments
Links
- Google News
- Edit-Me
- Daily Kos
- Josh Micah Marshall
- Huffington Post
- Instapundit
- Michelle Malkin
- Powerline
- Boing Boing
- Engadget
Previous Posts
- Michael J. Totten's Trip to Iraq
- Cartoon
- Remaining Supreme Court Cases
- Supreme Court Decisions (#13 grouping)
- The Presidency
- U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
- 8 Steps of Legislative Lawmaking for the DMCA
- With Regard to William E. Odom's 'Iraq Through the...
- Florida Candidates Running for the U.S. Senate
- Libertarian and Green Parties
