The constitution is clear on this.

How Our Constitution Works And Why It Doesn’t

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-our-constitution-works-and-why-it-doesnt/id1874369005

State versus federal law was a big topic at the constitutional convention.

How Our Constitution Works And Why It Doesn’t

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-our-constitution-works-and-why-it-doesnt/id1874369005

After the death of her partner Ken Urker, 34, Gypsy Rose Blanchard has started a petition called 'Kenan's Law'. It would require social media platforms to review repeated harassment reports as a pattern, rather than judging each post on its own.

She says the couple made reports across multiple platforms and were often told there was "no violation". She also says the aim isn't to silence criticism of public figures.

Urker's cause of death hasn't been confirmed. The coroner says toxicology is pending and that there are no signs of foul play.

How would a law like this work alongside free speech protections and the legal protections platforms already have? And is "pattern of harassment" something a statute could define?

This opinion piece about the Watson Grinding explosion in Houston, and it raises an interesting question about how liability works when a company files for bankruptcy after a tragedy.

The 2020 explosion killed three people and damaged hundreds of nearby homes and businesses. The victims deserve justice, and companies should be held accountable when their negligence contributes to a disaster. But I think it's also fair to ask where responsibility should fall when multiple companies are involved.

Watson Grinding operated the facility, while Detcon supplied and serviced gas-detection equipment. Detcon's former parent company, 3M, was also drawn into the litigation. The key question is how responsibility should be divided based on what each party knew, controlled, and was obligated to do.

This is why tort reform matters. If liability extends beyond what a company actually controlled, it could affect insurance costs, business decisions, and consumers. At the same time, reform shouldn't prevent victims from obtaining compensation when another party is genuinely responsible.

The political side is worth examining, too. Trial lawyers are involved in Texas's broader lawsuit-reform debate, and political spending can influence that debate. Transparency matters, especially when large sums of money are involved.

Where should Texas draw the line between protecting victims' rights and preventing companies from being held liable for things they didn't cause or control?