State Institutions and Democractic Opportunity

The burgeoning commentary on democratic decline in the United States focuses disproportionately on the national level. And seeing a national problem, reformers understandably seek to bolster democracy through large-scale federal solutions. Although their efforts hold popular appeal, they face strong institutional headwinds. As scholars have extensively documented, the Senate, the Electoral College, and the Supreme Court today are skewed against majority rule. Despair grows. This Article urges legal scholars and reformers to turn their gaze to state-level institutions. State institutions, the Article shows, offer democratic opportunity that federal institutions do not. By design, they more readily give popular majorities a chance to rule on equal terms. Utilizing these opportunities can help stave off democratic decline in the short term and build a healthier democracy in the long term. But these opportunities are not guarantees, and they are in danger. State majoritarian institutions today face active threats from antidemocratic forces. These attacks—on state courts, ballot initiatives, and elected executives—have largely flown under the radar or been noticed only in isolation. Their proponents, moreover, have sought to disguise them as good-governance reforms, exploiting the muddled dialogue surrounding democracy generally. After highlighting the vital role of state institutions in American democracy, the Article provides a holistic account of the attacks they face today. It then offers a theoretical framework for distinguishing appropriate constraints on popular majorities from those that should be out of bounds—because, for example, they would install minorityparty rule. The Article suggests steps that state courts, state officials, and organizers can take to protect state institutions. At the highest level, it shows how a richer theory and discourse surrounding state institutions can advance both state and national democracy

States, Agencies, and Legitimacy

Scholarship on the administrative process has scarcely attended to the role that states play in federal regulation. This Article argues that it is time for that to change. An emerging, important new strand of federalism scholarship, known as administrative federalism, now seeks to safeguard state interests in the administrative process and argues that federal agencies should consider state input when developing regulations. These ideas appear to be gaining traction in practice. States now possess privileged access to agency decisionmaking processes through a variety of formal and informal channels. And some courts have signaled support for the idea of a special state role in federal agency decisionmaking. These developments have important implications for administrative law and theory. In particular, they bear on the paramount question of administrative legitimacy-the decades-long effort to justify the exercise of lawmaking power by unelected administrators in our constitutional democracy. A robust state role in the administrative process, this Article shows, is in tension with the models of legitimacy that have come to serve as administrative law\u27s North Star. Whereas the two reigning legitimacy models alternatively prize (1) centralized presidential control to ensure responsiveness to majority preferences, and (2) apolitical application of expertise, state input raises the specter of regional factionalism and home-state politics. Two types of solutions could alleviate this tension: reforming state involvement in the regulatory process, or updating legitimacy models. The Article concludes by charting both courses-identifying potential reforms and sketching possibilities for a new understanding of administrative legitimacy that would better accommodate the state role

Understanding State Agency Independence

Conflicts about the independence of executive branch officials are brewing across the states. Governors vie with separately elected executive officials for policy control; attorneys general and governors spar over who speaks for the state in litigation, and legislatures seek to alter governors’ influence over independent state commissions. These disputes over intrastate authority have weighty policy implications both within states and beyond them, on topics from election administration and energy markets to healthcare and welfare. The disputes also reveal a blind spot. At the federal level, scholars have long analyzed the meaning and effects of agency independence—a dialogue that has deepened under the Trump Administration. In contrast, there is virtually no systematic scholarly attention to the theory or practice of agency independence in the states. This Article begins that study. Surveying historical developments, judicial decisions, and legislative enactments across the country, it shows that state agency independence is an inexact, unstable, and variegated concept. Whereas federal courts treat independent agencies as a distinct legal category, state courts tend to eschew categorization in favor of contextual holdings. Moreover, despite the common notion that states’ plural-executive structure cements independence, these rulings just as frequently undermine it. State legislatures, for their part, revisit independence frequently, often in the wake of partisan realignments. And their creations are diverse, combining a range of vectors of insulation in different arrangements. The result is that there is no single meaning of state agency independence even within a state, and rarely a strong norm surrounding it. States’ legislatively driven, bespoke approach to independence offers insights for scholars of both state and federal institutional design. The state approach may yield better-tailored and more democratic arrangements. But it also displays raw partisanship, and the combination of weak norms with strong governors may stack the deck against independence. The state approach also raises deeper questions for public law: What are the costs and benefits of allowing the rules of the game to be consistently up for grabs? There is no formula for weighing these considerations beyond the context of any individual dispute, but this Article provides a launching pad for their sustained exploration

Building representations from natural language

Thesis (M. Eng.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 2007.Includes bibliographical references (p. 37-38).In this thesis, I describe a system I built that produces instantiated representations from descriptions embedded in natural language. For example, in the sentence 'The girl walked to the table', my system produces a description of movement along a path (the girl moves on a path to the table), instantiating a general purpose trajectory representation that models movement along a path. I demonstrate that descriptions found by my system enable the imagining of an entire inner world, transforming sentences into three-dimensional graphical descriptions of action. By building action descriptions from ordinary language, I illustrate the gains we can make by exploiting the connection between language and thought. I assert that a small set of simple representations should be able to provide powerful coverage of human expression through natural language. In particular, I examine the sorts of representations that are common in the Wall Street Journal from the Penn Treebank, providing a counterpoint for the many other sorts of analyses of the Penn Treebank in other work. Then, I turn to recognized experts in provoking our imaginations with words, using my system to examine the work of four great authors to uncover commonalities and differences in their styles from the perspective of the way they make representational choices in their work.by Mark J. Seifter.M.Eng

Shock and Release Temperatures in Molybdenum

Shock and release temperatures in Mo were calculated, taking account of heating from plastic flow predicted using the Steinberg-Guinan model. Plastic flow was calculated self-consistently with the shock jump conditions: this is necessary for a rigorous estimate of the locus of shock states accessible. The temperatures obtained were significantly higher than predicted assuming ideal hydrodynamic loading. The temperatures were compared with surface emission spectrometry measurements for Mo shocked to around 60GPa and then released into vacuum or into a LiF window. Shock loading was induced by the impact of a planar projectile, accelerated by high explosive or in a gas gun. Surface velocimetry showed an elastic wave at the start of release from the shocked state; the amplitude of the elastic wave matched the prediction to around 10%, indicating that the predicted flow stress in the shocked state was reasonable. The measured temperatures were consistent with the simulations, indicating that the fraction of plastic work converted to heat was in the range 70-100% for these loading conditions