In Re Neagle

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

As I write this post, the Texas House of Representatives is meeting on the final day of the Special Session. Apparently, one of the bills still under consideration is the TSA “ant-groping” legislation authored by Rep. Simpson. Although no one can condone the methods that the federal government is allowing TSA employees to use during their “pat-downs” of airline travelers, there are real constitutional hurdles to the enforcement of any state law designed to stop or punish such behavior. Because of these hurdles, the most effective way to actually stop this behavior is for our Congressmen and Senators to act to stop it. Even though I understand the strategy of threatening a law in hopes that it will force the federal government to act, creating an empty bluff that is inconsistent with our conservative stand to follow the Constitution could do more harm than good to our conservative causes in the long run.

The most fundamental hurdle to enforcement of this new law is an interpretation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which the Supreme Court first issued in the late 1880s, which holds that states can not interfere with or punish federal employees for engaging in activity that is required by, or conducted within the scope of, their federal employment. That decision was rendered by the first Justice Harlan in the case of In Re Neagle. Although I could go on about the wisdom and constitutionality of the proposed “anti-groping” bill, I am going to digress in this post to present the story that led to that Supreme Court opinion—for it is one of the most interesting chapters in American legal history, but few people have ever heard of it. It is a story that arose from a 40-year struggle to impose federal authority over California, and from a 40-year political feud between two men that ended with the thwarting of an attempted assassination of a sitting Supreme Court Justice.

Although the story ends in 1889, it actually begins over 40 years before—during the Mexican-American War. As that war was progressing, President Polk realized that the U.S. would obtain a large amount of land from Mexico at the end of the war, including California, and he realized that American authority needed to be imposed quickly on the new territories. Hoping to also establish political control through the Democratic Party, Polk solicited Democratic politicians to enlist local “regiments” from among local Democratic activists to be sent to the new territories with the intent that they would never return. Instead, they would stay after the war and become the new local mayors and sheriffs, who simultaneously would establish American legal authority and the Democratic Party. One notorious regiment, known as the “Stevenson Regiment” was constituted of street- gang members from New York City, whose members spread-out in California and created much havoc during the 1850s.

While Polk’s troops were establishing American authority in California, a little event occurred at Sutter’s Mill in Northern California—the discovery of gold. What followed between 1849 and 1861 was the “Gold Rush”—which spawned both the greatest internal migration of people the United States has ever known, and the first great wave of immigration from across both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. As part of the internal migration, two men came to California to seek their fortunes: David Terry, a young prosecutor from Galveston, Texas, whose brother was a famed Texas Ranger and hero of the Mexican-American War; and Stephen Field, a young lawyer from New York, whose brother was one of the greatest legal scholars in the country who had authored one of the first codifications of procedural rules and statutes in the country. Both men settled in the gold region around San Francisco, and both men quickly became leaders in the legal community and the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, these men shared bad tempers and ambition, while being members of rival factions of the Democratic Party. Terry was known to holster Bowie knife under his overcoat, while Field was notorious for drawing his pistol during legal negotiations. By the mid-1850s, Terry had been elected to the California Supreme Court, while Field had become a mayor of Almeda, an expert in mineral-rights law, and a protégé of U.S. Senator Broderick. One of the decisions Terry authored while a member of the California Supreme Court was a ruling against the claim to a large segment of the gold fields by John C. Freemont, the first Republican Nominee for the Presidency.

Among many of the disputes that led to riots, that then led to vigilantes twice taking over San Francisco and burning parts of the City to the ground, Terry and Broderick formed a personal grudge that led Terry to challenge Broderick to a duel. Field was Broderick’s second, when Terry shot Broderick and killed him. Terry fled California, and did not return until after the Civil War. In the meantime, Field was elected to Terry’s seat on the California Supreme Court and authored an opinion that reversed Terry’s previous opinion, thereby legitimizing Freemont’s claim to a large segment of the California gold fields.

This opinion caught the attention of civic leaders, including prominent Republicans like Freemont and Leeland Stanford, who recommended to Abraham Lincoln that he appoint Field to the U.S. Supreme Court. Lincoln did appoint Field, who would serve on the Court for over 34 years—the longest tenure in the Court’s history until surpassed by William O. Douglas in the 1970s—and would stay long enough to see his nephew also appointed to the Court. As was the custom of the day, Field not only sat on the Supreme Court, but also sat as a Circuit appellate judge over what is now the 9th Circuit when the Supreme Court was not in session.

During his tenure, Field still harbored political ambitions and twice sought the Democratic nomination for President—in 1868 and 1876. By the time Field sought the Presidency in 1876 as the favorite son of California, Terry had returned from his self-imposed exile in Mexico and Texas and was a leader of the California delegation to the Democratic Convention. Terry convinced the delegation to vote against Field, thereby depriving Field of the nomination. As a result, by the late 1870s, both men’s loathing for each other had reached a fever-pitch.

Then things got really interesting.

One of the richest men in San Francisco—the owner of the largest bank in the City and a co-owner of the “Comstock load” in Nevada—who served as one of the U.S. Senators from Nevada, became a widower and, then, allegedly fell in love with a young protégé of one of the leading madams of San Francisco. When he finally stopped seeing her, she claimed to be his common law wife and filed suit for a divorce and half his money. That case would eventually become part of a probate proceeding, due to his premature demise. Then his children filed a case in federal court (under what is known as “diversity jurisdiction” due to the Senator’s claim to be a resident of both California and Nevada), seeking a declaration that the documents the young lady was relying upon were forged and invalid. The federal case came to trial first, and the court ruled that the documents had been forged and were invalid. When the state case was heard, the state judge allowed the documents to be admitted into evidence and the jury ruled in favor of the young lady’s claim. For much of the next ten years, the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court would issue dueling rulings over which court had proper jurisdiction and which ruling was binding, with the California Supreme Court finally recognizing the supremacy of the federal decision in a battle that makes Bush v. Gore seem tame.

As this dispute unfolded, the young lady in our story fell in love with, and married, one of her attorneys, who just happened to be David Terry. Meanwhile, as her case kept bouncing between state and federal courts, Justice Field held hearings on more than one occasion related to the case as a federal circuit judge. During one of those hearings, Justice Field made a remark about the young lady that Attorney and Husband Terry took as an insult, and he drew his Bowie knife and charged toward Justice Field. Once he was restrained, Field held Terry in contempt and sentenced him to a term in jail. As he was removed from the courtroom, he could be heard yelling that he would get even with Field. One of the persons who heard him was a U.S. Marshall by the name of Neagle, who had been one of the minor combatants at the shootout at the OK Corral in Tombstone, Arizona.

While in jail, Terry told anyone who would listen that if Field ever stepped foot in California again, Terry would kill him. News of these threats reached Washington, and alarmed the Attorney General. He asked Field not to return to California the next year for the session of the Circuit court. Field, being stubborn, refused the request. In response, the Attorney General wrote orders appointing a U.S. Marshall to serve as a bodyguard for Field while in California, with orders to shoot to kill anyone who might attempt to harm the Justice. Neagle was appointed to serve as the bodyguard.

Well, as you’ve probably figured out by now, Terry did confront Field. It happened while Field’s train was at a stop taking on water. Field and Neagle had left the train and were sitting down to lunch in the station’s dinning hall when Terry approached. When he reached into his overcoat Neagle believed Terry was reaching for his Bowie knife, and Neagle shot him dead. Field and Neagle quickly left and the train headed for its next stop. At that stop, based on news that had been telegraphed to the local authorities, the local sheriff boarded the train and arrested Field and Neagle for murder. Though Field was soon released with his charges dropped, Neagle was held over for murder under state law, even though he was acting under specific orders from the U.S. Attorney General.

Neagle filed for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court to be released based on the fact that state law could not punish him for acting under federal law. Eventually, Neagle’s case reached the Supreme Court. The Court ruled unanimously (though with Justice Field not participating), that, because of the Supremacy Clause, state law could not interfere with or punish a federal employee for acting within the scope of his employment by the federal government, and found that Neagle was acting within that scope of employment when he shot Terry.

There you have it—sometimes fact really is stranger than fiction. As a result of a blood-feud between two prominent men and a decade-long struggle for supremacy between California and federal courts, an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution was established—one that has important implications for issues we are debating today.

One Voter’s Checklist for Candidates for the New CD 36

This column originally appeared over at Big Jolly Politics.

Well, it’s that time of year again—the start of campaign season!

This time around it looks like we are going to have a lot excitement in Texas and local politics: Governor Perry may run for President and Lt. Governor Dewhurst may run for the U.S. Senate (or decide to wait and see about his chances to become Governor), which will start an avalanche of moves across the state by other elected officials to run for statewide offices; there is a wide-open U.S. Senate race for the first time in at least a decade, which is attracting a varied and interesting field of candidates; and we now have finalized redistricting plans, which have created four new congressional districts and many re-drawn boundaries. Adding to the sense of frenzy that is building is the new filing deadlines for the March, 2012 Primary, which now runs from mid-November to mid-December, 2011. That means everyone from prospective precinct chairs to U.S. Senate candidates will have to make their moves soon to start raising money, get petitions signed, and qualify for office.

My home has been drawn into the new Congressional District 36. Although I was not a fan of the boundaries of this new district because it split the Clear Lake region of the Houston Metropolitan Area into three districts and combined East Harris County with many rural communities whose ties are closer to Beaumont and Lufkin than to Houston, it is now a reality. This new district, which has a recent Republican voting strength of over 65%, should elect a Republican Congressman, which means that it presents our local GOP with a tremendous and rare opportunity to send our unique voice to Washington while shaping the future of the communities of this district for the next generation. We need to use this opportunity wisely.

Since the proposed map was unveiled, I’ve been involved in several conversations about the new district, including an informative presentation this past week by Eric Opiela to the Clear Lake Area Republicans during our June meeting. Because East Harris County comprises the largest population center within the new district, it is presumed that there will be a lot of interest from our area politicians in running for the new district, as well as in running for other offices that may open-up because their incumbents will run for the new district. Based on what I am hearing, I suspect that we will see at least 5 to 10 candidates on the Republican primary ballot, and there probably will be a run-off.

Before anyone approaches me for support or an endorsement, let me make this clear: for now, I am staying neutral. However, I have thought about this race a lot, and have developed my own checklist that I will expect any serious candidate to address during the campaign, and I am going to share my list with you.

First and foremost, don’t get into this race unless you are qualified to run. By this, I don’t mean that you have to have run for office or held public office in the past (though I am sure that would help). Here is what I mean:

* The Republicans in this district are culturally conservative. If you are not pro-life, if you do not support gun rights and personal property rights, and if you don’t believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman—regardless of your position on any other “social” issue—please don’t enter this race. You won’t win, and you’ll end up diverting debate time and campaign “talking points” to issues that are not really open to debate among these voters.

* Regardless of how many grassroots volunteers you think you can muster, it probably will cost between $500,000 and $1,000,000 to win this primary (and more to run the general election). If you don’t have this amount of money personally available to spend on your campaign without depleting your life savings, or if you can’t raise this amount of money within the federal campaign limits by mid-December, 2011, don’t run. First, you never get as much volunteer work as is promised; and second, the size of this district, and the fact that there are at least 3 major media markets (Houston, Beaumont, and Lufkin) and many other small markets, makes this race structurally expensive for any candidate to wage seriously.

* Unless you have the support of your family to run (and then to work in, or commute to and from, Washington every week if you win), and unless you have the support of your employer or partners (or have the means not to need employment) to spend the time to campaign, don’t run. A race like this, with the distances you will have to cover to mount a serious campaign, is a full-time job for several months—and if you win, for over a year through the general election.

* Unless you believe you can do this job as well or better than the other candidates, and unless you really want to work in Washington and commit the time and effort it will take to do the job correctly, don’t run. If you want to run or debate to promote an issue, or if you want to get active in politics, there are plenty of campaigns to work for, and local offices to run for, don’t start by running for this type of office—999 times out of 1,000 you will lose and you will probably burn yourself out in the process.

Now, if any candidate still wants to run after thinking about these basic qualifications, here are the substantive points I will ask them to address:

Do you know and understand the district and its voters?

A map of the district can be found here, and by then going to “Basic Plan” and clicking on “PlanC 185”. The district is comprised of East Harris County, and 8 other counties between here and the Louisiana border. Although Lufkin and Beaumont are physically outside the district, their media markets impact the towns in the district, which include Orange, Winnie, Vidor, Jasper, Kountze, Newton, Woodville, and Livingston, as well as closer towns in Chambers and Liberty counties that are part of the Houston metropolitan area.

The major employers and industries include two ports in Houston and Orange; the energy industry from the wellhead, to the pipeline, to the refinery, to electricity production; timber, farming and ranching; small manufacturing and businesses; and recreation and parks in the Big Thicket.

There are many small towns and school districts with local governments and diverse local needs, as well as larger cities and towns like Pasadena, Baytown, Cleveland and Orange. You will need to educate yourself on the diverse issues these communities face, and their diverse interests in and interactions with the federal government.

Do you understand the different responsibilities between the federal government and the state and local governments, generally, and as they affect this district and its voters?

We conservatives all say we want a strict construction of the Constitution and want respect for the 10th Amendment, but you will need to understand what that really means and how that affects the new district.

Remember that the Constitution has been amended at least 9 times to expand the scope of responsibility of the federal government to include, among other things, authority over civil rights issues and the power to impose an income tax. So, even a strict construction of federal authority must recognize broader limits than existed in 1789. Moreover, the people in this district live with the federal government in their lives on a daily basis, from environmental, agricultural, energy, and transportation regulations, to small business loans and taxes. When something goes wrong, or when a constituent wants action related to a regulated activity, they will look to you for action—theory about the 10th Amendment won’t matter to them at those times.

You will need to be able to articulate your plan for addressing the real issues that these constituents face, and how you will address them as their Congressman.

If you believe in reducing the size and cost of the federal government, what is your vision as to how the activities currently addressed by federal programs will be addressed in the future?

Now if the GOP is successful in finally reducing the size and cost of government through the Ryan Plan, or any similar approach, the next question your constituents will have is “now what?” How will returning power to states, local governments, the private sector and individuals affect them, their families, their schools, their towns and their businesses?

You need to have an understanding of this district as to what changes will impact the lives of your constituents, and you need to articulate a vision as to how these changes will improve their lives and their communities. Then you need to work with local leaders to help them create transition plans to maximize the use of the new responsibilities they will have in a way that improves their communities.

What are the most pressing issues facing our nation, which are within the scope of responsibility of the federal government to address?

These voters will want to know how you will use your vote in Congress to address the great issues of the day, including whether to raise the debt ceiling and how to control the national debt; what to do with Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; how to wind-down the foreign wars and return civil liberties that have been limited since 9/11 without jeopardizing our national defense and homeland security; how to address border security and illegal immigration while maintaining our historic openness to newcomers who want to become Americans, and many other issues.

You need to develop a list of the issues about which you feel strongly, and then be able to articulate in 30 seconds why those issues are important and how you will address them if elected. In a field of 10 candidates, you’ll be lucky to ever get 30 seconds to talk on any given issue, so you must be prepared to effectively communicate your views quickly.

How will you carry-out your work in Washington?

Finally, you need to soberly reflect on the fact that, if you win, you will have to actually work as a Congressman. What will you do, and how will you do it? How will you divide your time and structure the management of your office to simultaneously participate in legislative committees, educate yourself on pending legislation and vote, communicate with your constituents, and provide constituent service—all with the goal of accomplishing what you ran to accomplish? Where will you live, where will your family live, and how will you accommodate both?

Frankly, I don’t want to vote for someone who has not thought about this last issue, because if you have no experience or plan for running your office and managing your time effectively, you will not be an effective legislator for this district.

Well there you have it, my checklist for considering the candidates for the new congressional district. I am sure that each of you can think of other points to add to your own checklists as you evaluate the candidates over the next few months, and my list probably will grow and change during that time, but it reflects my starting point—that is, I don’t want to waste time educating someone, simply fulfilling someone’s life-long ambition to hold public office, or feed someone’s need for power and prestige. Instead, I want to use this opportunity to elect someone who will effectively represent us and actually promote the Republican agenda of returning responsibility back to individuals, communities and states. The time for talk and posturing is long over.

What is America’s “National Interest” in 2011?

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

Let’s face it, there are so many unsettled issues as we enter the 2012 election cycle that it sometimes seems overwhelming: the sluggish economy and staggering public and private debt burdens here and in Europe; the decaying infrastructure—both human, and capital—throughout the United States, and its relative decline in comparison with China and other nations; the continued demographic evolution of the United States, and its impact on society and politics; the proper role and size of government at all levels in the United States; the impairment of Japan’s economy and the political vacuum that is creating in Asia; the emergence of new centers of economic and geopolitical power, as well as competing models of governance, in Asia and South America; the long-term conversion of the world economy away from reliance on oil and coal as fuel sources; the moral and intellectual schisms within Western societies and the continuing friction between Western and Islamic societies; and the continued U.S. engagement in military conflicts throughout the Islamic World just as much of the Arab region is engaged in civil rebellion—just to name a few of those issues.

I don’t pretend to have an answer to all of these specific issues, or to the myriad of sub-issues that they spawn, and it’s getting clearer by the day that none of our current political leaders have these answers either. But I am certain of one thing: we won’t find the answer to these issues until we confront the most fundamental of issues—that is, we must decide what our “national interest” is. So, I am going to throw caution and humility to the wind for a moment and give you my take on this fundamental issue in an effort to start the conversation.

I believe that any formulation of our “national interest” must focus on what the United States is, and what it hopes to be. To understand who we are and who we hope to be, we must reflect on our history and understand how we got to this point in time.

Americans, through most of their history, viewed themselves as being at once exceptional in the history of the world and indispensable to resolving the problems that had afflicted mankind, while also believing that to continue to be exceptional and indispensable, America must hold the other nations of the world at arms-length. America would be the world’s lighthouse, providing light and guidance to the ships of the world—a light for some that they would use to find their way to our shores and join our community, and for others, a light that they would use to navigate their own course through history. Sometimes, when in distress, we would send rescue ships to assist the travelers who needed more help than our mere light could provide (as we did in Europe twice in the 20th Century, and as we did throughout the world during the Cold War), but we were never to interfere with their own journey.

To be that lighthouse, and to maintain that constant beacon for the world, America, itself, had to remain strong—internally and externally; socially, economically and politically—because a lighthouse becomes useless if its light is allowed to dim or go dark.

The light we were to provide the world was, as John F. Kennedy described it in his Inaugural Address, “the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” And the strength of that light came from the society our Settlers created, our Founders institutionalized, and succeeding generations expanded and preserved: a society of free men and women who built lasting relationships through families, neighborhoods, and local governments; a society protected by successive levels of governments delegated with limited powers to protect our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—states to provide a basic infrastructure for our communities and for the protection of our property and our person, and a federal government to provide for a commercial infrastructure and for our national defense.

Through the best of intentions, we have allowed that light to dim. The paradox is that the light has dimmed not because we tried to do too little, but because we tried to do too much. Whether it was the creation and expansion of social programs designed to accelerate and institutionalize public charity, or the insertion of our military into countries in order to force an evolution toward liberty, we sapped the very energy that fed the light. By delegating the role of families, neighborhoods and local private institutions and governments to the state and federal governments, we destroyed the local relationships that are needed for charity to work, while we simultaneously overburdened governments at all levels to the extent that they now do nothing very well, and they do it by spending money they don’t have. Meanwhile, by inserting ourselves into every conflict around the world and making each conflict our own, we diminished the value of the very principles we have fought for, ignored the need for different societies to navigate their own courses to liberty, and further depleted our own resources.

It is time to re-energize the beacon—that must be our “National Interest” over the next generation. To brighten the light, we must recognize that we can only be a beacon for liberty if we re-commit ourselves to liberty and economic strength at home, and to a defensive engagement with the world to secure that all people can journey toward liberty through their own history and culture. This re-commitment is not a retreat from charity or into isolationism, but rather a re-invigoration of the relationships needed for true charity to work among free people, and of our commitment to light the way to liberty for all mankind. It is not an abandonment of our fellow citizen, or of our commitment to bear the burden to support our friends in the survival and success of liberty. Instead, it is a renewal of the proper role of each individual, and of our nation, in these timeless efforts going forward.

Seen in this way, our national interest requires us to realign the role and responsibility of governments at all levels toward returning responsibility to individuals and local private and public agencies, and for everyone to live within their means; to modernize our infrastructure through public coordination of private investments, which must include the total re-structuring of the way we educate our children and how we pay for that system; and to re-orient our foreign policy and defense structure to promote liberty through defending our system and our way of life for all to see, and by promoting trade and relationships only with those who seek a course toward liberty for their people, while still maintaining the ability to swiftly and effectively come to the rescue of our friends when the survival or success of liberty truly hangs in the balance. If we adopt these general principles as our “national interest,” I think you can see that the many intractable issues we face begin to answer themselves.

Ok, now I’ve started the conversation—what do you think?

How Will We Govern?

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

For our April meeting our Clear Lake Area Republicans club hosted a discussion with County Judge Ed Emmett and County Commissioner for Precinct 2, Jack Morman. I think everyone who attended enjoyed the opportunity to hear both men give a lot of detail about the “nuts and bolts” of what their jobs involve, and hear them discuss the future issues facing the county and Precinct 2. One of the most interesting and memorable points was made by Judge Emmett toward the end of the evening when he challenged Republicans over the next few years to transition from campaigning to governing. His point was that the best and most long-lasting political gains will be made if we can show the voters we can manage local government well.

I totally agree.

In fact, Judge Emmett’s point goes to the heart of one of the central points I’ve been trying to make over the last few years to any local Republican who would listen. That is, if our theories of limited government and federalism are to be re-invigorated at the national and state levels, it will require us to re-commit ourselves to actively engage in the local governance of our schools and communities. If we Republicans truly believe that power should be returned to the individual from Washington and Austin, we will need to exercise the responsibility that comes with that power properly and wisely.

But, in accepting that responsibility, we will have to confront a very sober reality. If we succeed in Washington and our state capitols, we have a daunting task in front of us, because, while we’ve been focused on politics hundreds and thousands of miles from home, the management of many local governments and school districts across the country has disintegrated into a fiscal and operational mess.

We need look no further than the City of Houston to see the problems we face. Given the long-term obligations of the City, it is structurally insolvent. One reason city politicians and leaders fought so hard to keep Red Light Cameras and to pass the Rain Tax, was to raise revenue to keep the City afloat. Does anyone who has now received their tax assessments for the Rain Tax (either directly, or indirectly through entities like the Clear Lake Water Authority) still think this was designed to address the City’s infrastructure needs? My guess is that the only future infrastructure projects we will see over the next 20 years will still be funded the old-fashioned way—through the issuance of bonds. To the extent the new tax revenue will make the issuance of bonds easier for investors and credit-rating agencies to accept, the new tax will indirectly help finance those projects—but only indirectly. Its direct impact will be to momentarily keep the City out of bankruptcy court.

And the City of Houston is not alone in this regard. Incorporated cities, towns and villages all across the country are facing budget crises due to long-term pension, bond, and other contractual obligations. Even Harris County, which has been well-managed over the last two decades, holds a long-term bond debt in excess of $3.4 billion and is facing responsibility for debt incurred by the Sports Authority.

However, our school districts may be facing the most dire problems—both fiscally and structurally. Though I applaud our state legislators for holding the line on the state’s budget by not caving-in to the those clamoring for more money for the schools, there will be a “morning after” for our state’s public education system that will be real and that we will have to address. As Joel Klein, the former head of New York City’s schools under Mayors Giuliani and Bloomberg, recently noted in an article he wrote for The Atlantic Monthly, entitled The Failure of American Schools: Scenes from the Class Struggle, our school systems across the country need to be restructured from the classroom up.

One the biggest impediments to accomplishing this task is not money; it is the political status quo that is maintained by an alliance between local politicians, school administrators, and labor unions, which dictates how the money is spent. This status quo can be seen even in our local school districts. Take my school district, Clear Creek Independent School District. According to data compiled by Americans For Prosperity, CCISD currently has a staff-to-teacher ratio of 1 to 1, and administrators currently make, on average, twice as much in salary as classroom teachers. Less than half of the operational budget is dedicated to the costs of classroom instruction. To fund all of this, the district has issued bond debt in excess of $1.077 billion. This increase in administrative positions and salaries is noted as one of the great impediments to structurally improving education by Klein, who lays much of the fault for these problems on the political clout of the teacher’s unions. In fact, Klein cites the late Albert Shanker, who was the long-time head of the United Federation of Teachers, as once declaring,

When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.

Even Shanker had his candid moments of reflection, though, about the consequences of this irresponsibility. Klein also quotes Shanker as revealing the following during a speech to the 1993 Pew Forum on Education Reform:

The key is that unless there is accountability, we will never get the right system. As long as there are no consequences if kids or adults don’t perform, as long as the discussion is not about education and student outcomes, then we’re playing games as to who has the power.

…

We are at the point that the auto industry was at a few years ago. They could see they were losing market share every year and still not believe that it really had anything to do with the quality of the product … I think we will get—and deserve—the end of public education through some sort of privatization scheme if we don’t behave differently. Unfortunately, very few people really believe that yet. They talk about it, and they don’t like it, but they’re not ready to change and stop doing the things that brought us to this point.

Meanwhile, many urban schools and school districts are experiencing phenomenal drop-out rates. The Detroit school system may be the worst, with an astonishing 75% drop-out rate by the 12th grade; though even some of our schools in the City of Houston have drop-out rates over 50% by the 12th grade. We can not continue to reward administrators and teachers when the product—educated students—is failing. We can not continue with the same classroom model that is failing so many of our students, just as we can not continue with the same model of local governance that is driving so many cities toward insolvency.

In this context, some cities and states have taken drastic measures. Starting in the 1990s, cities such as New York, Chicago and the District of Columbia granted their mayors sweeping authority to run local schools and implement structural changes. More recently, while the actions in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and New Jersey by Republican Governors and legislators have filled all of the headlines, the most drastic actions in the nation have been taken by the new Republican Governor and legislature in Michigan. In February of this year, newly-elected Governor Snyder proposed, and on March 16th the legislature passed, sweeping emergency powers to restructure local governments and school districts (see : this example; and, this example).

To give you a glimpse of the sweeping power that Michigan has granted its governor, look at Section 141.1515(4) of the Local Government and School District Fiscal Accountability Act:

(4) Upon the confirmation of a finding of a financial emergency, the governor shall declare the local government in receivership and shall appoint an emergency manager to act for and in the place and stead of the governing body and the office of chief administrative officer of the local government. The emergency manager shall have broad powers in receivership to rectify the financial emergency and to assure the fiscal accountability of the local government and the local government's capacity to provide or cause to be provided necessary governmental services essential to the public health, safety, and welfare. Upon the declaration of receivership and during the pendency of receivership, the governing body and the chief administrative officer of the local government may not exercise any of the powers of those offices except as may be specifically authorized in writing by the emergency manager and are subject to any conditions required by the emergency manager.

What this provision provides is that the appointed fiscal manager may exercise the following powers:

* the authority to dismiss all or any of the elected officials of the governmental unit or school board;

* the authority to privatize all or any city services and schools;

* the authority to cancel any and all contracts entered in to by the city or school district, including collective bargaining contracts and pension agreements;

* the authority to dis-incorporate a town or city; and

* the authority to merge school districts.

In essence, Michigan has provided its Governor with the power to put its local government through a bankruptcy-like process to restructure it and make it solvent going forward.

Now, I think it is fair to say that most Texans reading this would be aghast at the power that a Republican legislature granted a Republican Governor; but I think most of us don’t appreciate how dire the circumstances have gotten throughout the Midwest, and especially in Michigan. Luckily, circumstances are not that dire here, so we have time to learn from what is happening and to make our needed changes without such laws.

To avoid that type of future, let’s use the next two years between legislative sessions in Austin to begin the hard work of addressing the fiscal and structural problems facing local governments and school districts in Texas, with the goals being

* to return as much responsibility to local governments and school boards as is administratively possible, and

* to re-structure those governmental units so that they will be fiscally capable of wisely exercising that responsibility.

To accomplish these goals, let’s bring together the leaders of our school districts, our cities and our counties; the leadership in Austin; leaders of our business and non-profit communities; and our grassroots activists throughout the state to form task forces to address the issues facing localities, such as

* re-structuring our schools to provide a 21st Century model of classroom education, and a system to pay for it;

* re-structuring our health and mental-health systems to provide proper and affordable public care as locally as is economically and administratively feasible;

* re-structuring our city and county governments, especially in our largest counties, to provide more effective fiscal and operational management; and

* re-structuring how we provide for our infrastructure needs throughout the state.

If we make the right preparations now, and our Republicans in Washington accomplish what we sent them to do, then we will be ready to re-assert responsibility for our local communities and schools, and to govern our communities wisely.

Will we be the “masters of our fates” in 2012?

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world

Like a Colossus, and we petty men

Walk under his huge legs, and peep about

To find ourselves dishonourable graves.

Men at some time are the masters of their fates:

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,

But in ourselves, we are underlings.

Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare

On Monday night, I sat and watched the debate among the currently-announced Republican candidates for the Presidency. As of this writing, I am still searching for a candidate to support.

I am not still searching because, like the media continues to argue, the current field is inadequate. No, this field, together with others who are still openly considering a run at the Presidency, is filled with highly qualified, and highly gifted men and women who represent virtually every facet of modern conservative thought in this country. Each one of them would make a better President than the current occupant of the White House.

Moreover, I believe each of these men and women understand the urgency of the fiscal problems facing this country and the profound impact they will have on our future, and the world’s future, if they are not addressed immediately.

What is lacking in this field is not purpose or courage; it is, rather, an understanding of how we can correct the problems we face and still function as a society of free men and women. That is, when all is said and done, and all the budgets have been cut and the programs have been dismantled or restructured, how will we be the “masters” of our “fates” going forward. Unless the next President formulates the answer to that question correctly, and persuades the American people that his or her answer provides the correct path forward, he or she will fail. Unless the American people understand the new path they must follow and commit themselves to follow that path, eventually old habits will re-emerge and new federal schemes will be created to address our many problems, our appetite for larger and larger government will swallow our future, and we will return to our self-imposed position as “underlings” to another “Colossus”.

The answer the next President must formulate should be based on an inherent trust in you and me to govern ourselves, our families, and our neighborhoods without “guidance” from a “Colossus” in Austin or Washington. Then, we must look in the mirror and commit ourselves to live as truly free men and women: as men and women willing to sacrifice and be responsible for ourselves, our families, and our communities; as men and women who are willing to do the important work of governing our communities, rather than delegating that work to others.

If the next President has that trust in his fellow citizens, and if we make the commitment to accept the responsibilities that come with that trust, then we can truly limit government in size, scope and cost to its proper functions at every level. We, then, will be the masters of our own fates and give our children the chance to be the masters of their fates in the future. We, then, will be the society our Settlers and Founders intended.

When I find that candidate, he or she will have my full support.

Some Thoughts on Congressional Redistricting

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

Early this coming week, I am told that the Texas House will vote on the proposed Congressional Redistricting map. The current version that I have seen would create a new Congressional District—District 36—that would run from Eastern Harris County through the Big Thicket Counties of East Texas to the Louisiana border. This new district will include the part of Harris County where I live. Having looked at it closely, I believe the current map is flawed and am asking that the legislature re-draw it, because it does not reflect the present and future interests of the communities that form the new district and the adjacent districts.

Essentially, the new map divides communities in the Galveston Bay area that share economic and political interests, while retaining an increasingly irrelevant bond between Sugar Land and the Johnson Space Center. It appears that what our politicians have drawn is a map that divides the very Republican-leaning corridor of communities running through at least four counties (Fort Bend, Brazoria, Galveston and Harris) among three different districts to maximize Republican voting strength for at least two Republican incumbents. However, if the lines were more appropriately drawn, those incumbents would still be protected, while the new district would be more likely to elect a Republican, too—but one who would represent the interests of a more integrated political community.

If properly drawn, Congressional District 22 should represent the growing communities of Fort Bend and Northern Brazoria Counties, which increasingly share economic and political developments that are unique in the Greater Houston/Southeast Texas region. The economic areas of greater Pearland, Sugar Land and Katy deserve a strong and focused voice in Congress, which they would retain in the incumbent, Pete Olson, who resides in Sugar Land.

Meanwhile, Congressional District 14 has long represented the interests of coastal and rural interests. Although the western boundary of that district has now shifted to the east, it should be further drawn to take in the rest of the coast line to Louisiana, and to the north of Beaumont and Orange into the Big Thicket to retain its representation of rural Texans. Dr. Paul should be able to win this district and would know how to represent the interests of all the communities in the newly-drawn eastern portion of the district.

That would leave the new District 36 to represent the increasingly economically and politically integrated communities of the Galveston Bay area, including the key employment centers of the Johnson Space Center and the Port of Houston. It should include Friendswood, League City, Clear Lake Shores, Kemah and Dickinson in Galveston County; the Clear Lake Area communities of Webster, Nassau Bay, Taylor Lake Village, Seabrook, and the Clear Lake portion Council District E of Houston; the communities that surround the Port of Houston, including Shoreacres, La Porte, Deer Park, Pasadena and Baytown; and the surrounding communities of Chambers, Liberty and Polk Counties.

Instead, all of these communities have been carved and shuffled among the three districts in a manner that makes no economic or political sense. The residents of Taylor Lake Village, Seabrook, La Porte and Baytown have nothing economically or politically in common with the residents of the small communities in the Big Thicket, while they have been separated from their neighbors in Pasadena and Northern Galveston County, who live and work together at the Space Center, the refineries and the Port. Meanwhile the interests of the residents of these communities that serve the Johnson Space Center increasingly have nothing to do with the growing interests of Sugar Land and Katy.

All of these communities need coherent, coordinated, and focused representation in Washington, which requires separate representation in Congress. As the Texas House takes up this important issue over the next few days, I hope our representatives will reconsider the lines of these three districts and draw more appropriate boundaries. If they do, they will retain and probably increase the number of Republicans elected to Congress from Texas, while giving the communities in this region proper representation over the next 10 years.