Category Archives: State news

State news

Secede … one law at a time?

Dan Flynn appears to be one of a growing number of Texans with rocks in his noggin.

The Republican state representative wants to form a committee that decides which federal laws can be followed in Texas and which can be ignored.

It’s sort of a piecemeal secession plan.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3596488/a-texas-lawmakers-bizarre-plan-to-secede-from-the-union-one-law-at-a-time/

Rep. Flynn? We tried that once. It didn’t work out.

The speaker of the Texas House and the lieutenant governor would appoint a committee, which then could decide which laws to obey and which ones to flout. Interesting, eh? The new lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, just might be on board with this nutty notion; I’m not so sure about Speaker Joe Straus, who’s one of those reasonable Republicans who I’m quite sure knows better. I’m not so sure about Patrick.

Let’s review something here.

Texas entered the Union in 1845 and declared at the time that it would become part of the larger entity, the United States of America. It declared also that it would honor federal laws. All of them, I’m quite sure.

Are we now going to break that vow and decide which laws to follow and which ones to ignore?

It’s nutty in the extreme.

C’mon, Rep. Flynn. Eat some turkey and think about what you’re proposing.

 

State news

Panetti deserves to be executed? No way!

Some time back, I declared my opposition to capital punishment.

Scott Louis Panetti offers a textbook example of why the punishment as applied in Texas is barbaric.

Panetti committed an awful crime in the early 1990s. He shot his in-laws to death. His guilt is beyond doubt.

But it gets a whole lot trickier from there.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/texas-prepares-to-execute-schizophrenic-inmate-despite-call-for-clemency/ar-BBfAHvI

He represented himself during his 1995 trial and during testimony he sought to call — get ready for this — John F. Kennedy and Jesus Christ as witnesses.

Panetti, you see, is a lunatic. He suffers from acute schizophrenia. He’s nuts. Panetti doesn’t deserve to die for this crime because he quite likely didn’t know what on God’s Earth he was doing when he killed his mother- and father-in-law.

He’s set to die in Dec. 3 in the death chamber in Livingston, Texas.

Some officials, including former Gov. Mark White, have written a letter asking for clemency. “We are deeply troubled that a capital sentence was the result of a trial where a man with schizophrenia represented himself, dressed in a costume,” the letter stated. “We come together from across the partisan and ideological divide and are united in our belief that, irrespective of whether we support or oppose the death penalty, this is not an appropriate case for execution.”

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, however, isn’t known for exhibiting compassion regarding capital punishment cases. My guess is that the court will dismiss the request, perhaps suggesting that Panetti was faking his lunacy.

Panetti’s craziness appears real to me. He shouldn’t die for the crime he committed.

 

 

State news

Let the 'pole tax' stand in Texas

The Texas Legislature has gotten a bit goofy in recent years as the state keeps shifting farther and farther to the right.

However, the 2007 Legislature got it correct when it enacted the so-called $5 per-person “pole tax” levied against patrons of strip clubs. I’m glad that the state Supreme Court sees fit to let the tax stand.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/21/supreme-court-declines-peek-pole-tax/

The court declined to review a Third Court of Appeals ruling that declared the tax didn’t violate the Texas Constitution. The entertainment industry lobby had contended the fee is an “occupation tax,” which is prohibited by the Constitution.

Not so, says the Supreme Court.

I happen to think this is a fairly creative way to generate revenue for the state. Opponents of the fee say the state should designate a portion of it to public education. The lower court had ruled that the fee, which is an excise tax, can go to whatever program the Legislature designates.

Whatever, it’s a money-maker for the state. The so-called “gentlemen” who partake of this form of entertainment need to keep an extra five bucks in their wallet.

Hey, it’s better spent that way than when you tuck into someone’s undergarment … correct?

 

 

State news

But … what about your constituents?

The selection of a new general counsel for the Texas Department of Agriculture brings to mind a question I trust the appointee has considered: Is it fair for a state legislator, who has just won re-election, to abandon his constituents who just placed their trust in him to look after their affairs in Austin?

Agriculture Commissioner-elect Sid Miller picked a former state House colleague, Rep. Tim Kleindschmidt, R-Lexington, to be the new general counsel for TDA.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/21/rep-kleinschmidt-takes-general-counsel-job-ag-depa/

I don’t know Kleindschmidt. I presume he’s a good lawyer and has represented his constituents diligently during his time in the Legislature. But he just been re-elected to serve along with the 149 other state representatives who faced the voters in the Nov. 4 general election. I’m going to creep out on that limb just a bit to presume Kleindschmidt made some pledges to voters along the way that he’ll serve their interests for the next two years.

Now he’s out. He’s headed for a key job in an important state government executive office.

My question to Miller is: With a state as large as ours, and with as many competent “ag lawyers” available, did you really and truly need to hire a legislator who’s made a promise to serve his constituents?

 

State news

Whether to carry openly or not

Texas Gov.-elect Greg Abbott says he would sign an “open-carry” bill if it arrives on his desk.

You might ask, “Open-carry what?” Umm, that would be guns.

Six-shooters. Semi-auto Glocks. Perhaps even a pea-shooter Derringer.

The folks who brought us concealed handgun carry laws now want us to be able to walk around with ’em strapped to our hips. Wow! This is amazing.

OK, I’ll stipulate right up front that I initially opposed concealed-carry legislation. I feared — wrongly, it has turned out — that fender-benders would turn into shootouts when drivers packing heat under their jackets would pull them out and start blazing away on street corners.

It hasn’t happened and my opposition to concealed-carry has softened. Considerably.

The notion, though, of allowing folks to walk into public places — such as government buildings — with the guns on their hips really does make me nervous. Businesses that prohibit firearms would be allowed to do so under most of the proposed legislation I’ve heard about. That’s fine with me.

It’s most interesting to me, though, that no one has mentioned this item from our past in the debate about whether to allow open-carry in Texas: Back in the day, when the Wild West was being settled, was it really safer when justice was being carried out by men toting guns — in the open?

I’m just asking what I think is a fair question.

Well? I’m all ears.

 

 

State news

Gov.-elect Abbott saying (far) right things

Texas Gov.-elect Greg Abbott, once upon a time, was considered a mainstream Republican. Reasoned, cautious, yet dedicated to basic conservative principles of smaller government and low taxes.

Then he got bit by the tea party bug.

The state’s next governor now declares he plans to sue President Obama over that executive order issued this week that delays deportation of 5 million illegal immigrants, more than 1 million of whom live in Texas.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/21/abbott-obamas-order-violates-constitutional-provis/

The Texas Tribune reports: “In a statement, Abbott said Obama’s order ‘circumvented Congress and deliberately bypassed the will of the American people. I am prepared to immediately challenge President Obama in court, securing our state’s sovereignty and guaranteeing the rule of law as it was intended under the Constitution,’ Abbott added.”

Well, consider this for just a moment. President George H.W. Bush in 1990 issued an executive order that did the very same thing for 1.5 million illegal immigrants. Bush, a Republican, did it for compassionate reasons. Didn’t the current president cite compassion for families in issuing his own order?

Where, dare I ask, were the calls of indignation when President Bush issued the executive order? It was done quietly, with little fanfare.

That was then. Today’s climate seems to require fanfare, blustering, posturing, finger-pointing, threats and challenges.

Therein perhaps lies the crux of what’s going on here.

Greg Abbott, the once reflective and deliberative man of the bench, has become just as shrill as the rest of what has become the “mainstream” Texas Republican Party.

 

political news, State news

Cruz overstates his case once more

Ted Cruz just cracks me up.

Except that I’m not laughing.

He’s written an essay in which he accuses the president of the United States of acting like a monarch. Barack Obama plans to issue an executive order that tweaks federal immigration policy. He’s going around Congress, which includes the freshman Republican senator from Texas. Yes, Ted Cruz.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/president-obama-is-not-a-monarch-113028.html?hp=c4_3#.VG35X1J0yt9

What the senator and his fellow critics of the president keep ignoring is that previous presidents, including some notable Republicans, have done precisely the same thing that’s about to occur with this president. Where was the congressional outrage then? Well, there wasn’t any.

The link attached to this blog post also notes that Texas may sue the president over his executive order. That’s kind of strange, too, given that I’ve read reports in recent days about how Texas is going to benefit tremendously when the president defers deportation of millions of illegal immigrants. Many thousands of them live and work in Texas and they would be able, under the order, to come out of the shadows and work openly, pay taxes and perhaps start working their way toward legal residency status, if not outright citizenship.

That doesn’t stop loudmouths like the Texas Cruz Missile from overstating his case, which he does with annoying frequency.

 

national news, Sports news, State news

Peterson earns stiff suspension

The Adrian Peterson case continues to baffle me and it continues to play havoc with how I really feel about what he allegedly did to his toddler son.

But the suspension handed down by the National Football League against the star Minnesota Vikings running back seems like the appropriate punishment.

A grand jury in Texas indicted Peterson on a felony count of child abuse after he smacked his son with a switch, which left several marks on the youngster’s limbs and torso.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nfl-suspends-adrian-peterson-without-pay-for-at-least-rest-of-regular-season/ar-BBesDKR

The incident occurred just as the NFL was reeling from domestic violence cases, not most notable one involved former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice and the infamous incident in which he cold-cocked his fiancée in a New Jersey casino elevator.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said Peterson failed to show proper remorse and has not taken part in hearings. Therefore, he will sit out the rest of the season — without pay.

Peterson has said the punishment he meted out to his little boy was no different than what he received growing up in East Texas. Really?

Well, that was then. This is now. Times change. So do societal attitudes about such things — although Peterson is a young man and it wasn’t all that long ago when he was his son’s age.

Meanwhile, the NFL is trying to rehabilitate its own image by cracking down on players’ personal conduct, trying to protect people associated with these athletes from further potential abuse.

It well might be in Peterson’s best interest to swallow the medicine the NFL has forced on him. Then he can try to come back and resurrect his career.

political news, State news

Gov. Perry loses key dismissal fight

A state district judge has ruled that Texas Gov. Rick Perry should stand trial for felony charges related to his alleged abuse of power.

Good. Now let’s get the trial started and then concluded, OK?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/18/politics/rick-perry-case-texas/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Perry legal team sought a dismissal on the grounds that special prosecutor Michael McCrum wasn’t sworn in properly, rendering all his actions taken during the time he has investigated Perry to be invalid.

Today, Judge Bert Richardson said in Austin that McCrum’s swearing in was sufficient and that he has standing to prosecute the governor on two felony counts. “This court concludes that Mr. McCrum’s authority was not voided by the procedural irregularities in how and when the oath of office and statement of officer were administered and filed,” Richardson said in his ruling.

A grand jury indicted Perry on abuse of power and coercion of a public official in connection with his veto of money appropriated for the Public Integrity Unit run out of the Travis County district attorney’s office. He threatened to yank the money after DA Rosemary Lehmberg was arrested for drunken driving. She pleaded guilty to the crime and served jail time. Perry demanded she quit. She didn’t. So, Perry vetoed the money appropriated by the Legislature for the integrity unit she runs.

This case is riddled with political overtones and consequences.

Perry is pondering a run for the presidency in 2016. He doesn’t want this case hanging over his head. Frankly, I happen to agree with him. Let’s get this thing settled.

As for Lehmberg, she’s going to bow out when her term expires. She should have quit when she got popped for the DUI. Had she done so, Perry could have appointed a Republican DA to replace the outgoing Democrat.

Do you see how this is so, so political?

Perry calls the indictment a serious overreach. He has received a lot of legal support — from Democrats as well as Republicans.

So, let’s get this case settled. If he’s acquitted of both charges, he can crow all he wants about his huge victory in court.

But if he’s convicted of just one of them — and I still think the coercion charge is the stronger of the two counts — well, the governor can kiss the White House good bye.

I’m ready to have this case decided.

 

local news, State news

Rein in university regents

Texas Senate Higher Education Committee Chairman Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, is a persistent lawmaker.

What got vetoed in 2013 is coming back in 2015 and Seliger’s hope is that a new governor will see fit to sign it into law, rather than veto it, which his predecessor did.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/12/bill-restricting-regents-authority-re-emerges/

Senate Bill 177 would limit the power of university regents, seeking to keep their noses out of university administrative affairs. It’s the kind of thing that has erupted within the University of Texas System and regents’ ongoing dispute with UT-Austin President Bill Powers.

One of the bill’s provisions is that regents cannot fire a campus president without a recommendation from the system chancellor.

Gov. Rick Perry vetoed the 2013 bill, saying it went in the “wrong direction.” Seliger is optimistic that the new governor, Greg Abbott, will have a different view.

“I can’t answer for Gov. Abbott, but I think his view of legislation is going to be entirely different,” Seliger said. “I think it’s a good piece of legislation based upon the fact that it passed and had a lot of support last time — I’m very optimistic.”

Regents should be left to set policy and allow campus presidents to administer those policies. The campus presidents are the people with eyes and ears inside their institutions, so give them some room to maneuver. That hasn’t been the case at the UT System, as regents have been squabbling among themselves with President Powers over the way he runs the flagship campus at the massive university system.

It’s been a mess. Senate Bill 177 seeks to prevent future higher education messes.