Mike Goldman, 10 years ago

During the 83rd legislative session in 2013, General Abbott supported SB 1406 by Sens. Dan Patrick and Donna Campbell to restrict the use of CSCOPE materials in Texas classrooms. This bill gave the State Board of Education (SBOE) the right to review and approve curriculum materials developed by regional education service centers.

The text of the bill can be found here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=SB1406

As Attorney General, Greg Abbott has demanded that the governing board of CSCOPE provide all available materials to requesting parents so that they can review material being presented in the classrooms. The Attorney General’s Office has also recently turned information over to the State Auditor relating to contracting irregularities for services commissioned by the governing board of CSCOPE in furtherance of it¹s activities.

Mike Goldman
Policy Analyst
Texans for Greg Abbott

Mike Goldman, 10 years ago

Regarding the “navigators” instituted by Obamacare, Texas law regulating these individuals (Senate Bill 1795) provide that they may not:

(1) sell, solicit, or negotiate coverage under a health benefit plan;
(2) endorse a health benefit plan or group of health benefit plans;
(3) provide, or offer to provide, information or services related to insurance products not offered through a health benefit exchange.

The navigators will not have the ability to force a citizen to sign up for Obamacare. However, Obamacare does impose a tax on persons who choose to go without health insurance. When fully phased in in 2016, this tax will be a minimum of $695 per person, but no more than $2,085 per family.

Please note that the Texas Department of Insurance has promulgated rules further regulating navigators:

http://www.tdi.texas.gov/rules/2013/documents/navproposal.pdf

Mike Goldman, 10 years ago

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has upheld many provisions of Obamacare. However, the fight before the courts is ongoing. For example, at least two separate lawsuits have been filed against Obamacare citing the “origination clause,” arguing that Obamacare constitutionally should have been first filed in the House because it raises revenue, when in fact it was first filed in the Senate. These lawsuits have been filed respectively by the Pacific Legal Foundation of Sacramento, and by Steven F. Hotze, M.D. These cases are currently being litigated in federal courts.

Also, please note that a federal lawsuit is currently proceeding in Oklahoma arguing that Obamacare only provides federal subsidies for exchanges set up by the states, as opposed to the federal government. The subsidies allow the federal government to enforce the employer mandate in states that refused to set up their own exchanges. This lawsuit could have the effect of nullifying parts of Obamacare in those states, like Texas, that have refused to set up health care exchanges.

Mike Goldman
Policy Analyst, Texans for Greg Abbott

Mike Goldman, 10 years ago

Mr. Dyer,

Thanks for this question.

The legal principle of eminent domain allows the state to take private property from its owners for “public use” as long as the owners are “justly compensated.” In its original meaning, “public use” was literal – the government had an option to seize private land, for example, to build roads, schools, or courthouses. In a series of Supreme Court decisions, however, culminating in Kelo v. New London, the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually expanded the definition of private use to give private entities the right to take the land of other private persons, against the will of the person from whom the land is seized, so long as the intended use is “public” and the former landholder is justly compensated. In the case of Kelo, the Court permitted the seizure of privately owned land from to be developed for private commercial use by private developers.

In the immediate aftermath of Kelo, the Texas Legislature started a major reform of the condemnation law to protect landowners in Texas against a Kelo-like taking. Senate Bill 62 was passed in a special session in 2005. It prohibited a taking of property if the taking would confer a benefit to another private party. The Legislature also put before the voters two constitutional amendments to protect property rights. Proposition 7 (HJR 30, 80R) allowed governmental entities that took property to sell the property back to its original owner. That amendment passed overwhelmingly, with over 80% of the vote. Subsequently, the Legislature put before the voters Proposition 11 (HJR 14-1, 81R) to ensure that property could only be taken for a public use. That, too, passed overwhelmingly with over 81% of the vote.

In addition to these protections, a major reform of the eminent domain laws was enacted by the passage of Senate Bill 18 (82R), which amended a number of different statutes. This reform legislation strengthened landowner rights and set out a process whereby landowners would receive more information and more time if any entity attempted to condemn a piece of property. Furthermore, the Landowner Bill of Rights was enacted to make sure that landowners received an explanation of their rights the first time any entity asserted that it had the power of eminent domain (prepared by the Office of the Attorney General as required by House Bill 1495, 80R).

Texas state law prevents some of the worst abuses allowed under Kelo – which is vital in a state where 95 percent of the land is in private hands. As the Attorney General’s office observed in 2008:

“Texas is a place where citizens – not the government – own the land. The distinction matters because private landownership lies at the heart of our democratic, free-market system. Recognizing this important principle, President William Howard Taft once observed, ‘Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is the most important individual right guaranteed by the Constitution.’”

Do you think these protections are sufficient? What legislative changes, if any, do you believe should be made to existing law?

Mike Goldman
Policy Analyst, Texans for Greg Abbott

Mike Goldman, 11 years ago

Mr. Frank,

Thank you for your thoughts.

How would a “constitutional approach” the the Second Amendment differ from the “We the People” approach of enacting open carry and campus carry laws?

Most of the amendments in the Bill of Rights have certain limitations. For example, although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law…. abridging the freedom of speech,” a person is still prohibited from committing libel or slander, participating in a criminal conspiracy, or sharing national security secrets with foreign powers. Do you believe that the Second Amendment similarly has certain limitations, despite the language of the amendment?

Mike Goldman
Policy Analyst, Texans for Greg Abbott

Mike Goldman, 11 years ago

I just checked out the Go Build Georgia website – a very interesting approach. For those interested in the topic, it is worth a visit:

http://www.gobuildgeorgia.com/

This is a very interesting approach toward encouraging students not to disregard careers that do not require four-year degrees – which remains a vital element of the state economy.

Can better informing students of all opportunities make a real difference in addressing the dearth of blue-collar professionals in certain professions?

Mike Goldman
Policy Analyst
Texans for Greg Abbott

Mike Goldman, 11 years ago

The debate between open carry and concealed carry is interesting. Does an openly carried handgun tend to disincentivize crimes, or does it tend to provoke aggressive attention?