Democrats are now murmuring about the need to reform the filibuster, as Republicans did when they were the Senate majority. Unlike the Southern “Dixiecrats” who pioneered this use of the filibuster, today’s Senate Republicans do not need to talk for hours on end to prevent votes from taking place. Throughout Obama’s presidency, Republicans have used the filibuster to impose a de facto minimum of sixty votes for any legislation to pass the Senate. And even if this legislation could get by the Senate and come through the House intact, it would almost certainly face another hurdle at the Supreme Court, much like the Affordable Care Act did.īut there are other, more recent developments that make it even more difficult for a president to pursue a policy agenda. John Sides has pointed out that the recent Senate vote was not as unrepresentative as it looked: senators who opposed background checks tend to come from states where majorities oppose stricter gun laws. Small states enjoy outsized representation in the Senate, and they also tend to oppose gun control. He must negotiate with both houses, including members of his own party who are more concerned with re-election than with the President’s plans. The US president, unlike the Australian prime minister, cannot simply push through legislation. But currently, the Supreme Court interprets it as protecting an individual right to own guns.Īll of these design features of the United States government have significantly affected the course of recent gun control legislation, as well as Barack Obama’s other major policy agendas. The meaning of this is controversial and has changed substantially over time - even the NRA used to support a much more restrictive understanding of the second amendment. The second of these was “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. Today, the largest state, California, is nearly seventy times bigger than the smallest, Wyoming.įinally, there were ten early amendments to the constitution that specified a set of rights so fundamental they should never be voted on. In 1790, the largest state was about twelve times bigger than the smallest. This mutual veto power was intended to prevent either ambitious presidents or mob-like legislators from trampling the rights of minorities.Īs a concession to smaller states who were nervous about domination by larger states, the constitution gave equal representation to all states in the Senate. They separated the executive from legislature, and required that legislation gain the approval of both houses of Congress as well as the President. The framers of the constitution were very sensitive to minority rights, particularly the rights of the oldest and most paranoid minority of them all - the rich. The United States was a deeply divided society at its birth, and citizens in some states did not believe there should be a federal government at all. Some of the answers can be found at the very beginning of the American constitution. How can a minority of legislators in one house of one branch of the government defeat popular legislation on behalf of an even tinier minority of Americans who are convinced that the government wants to round up gun owners and put them in camps? ![]() Last Thursday, this measure failed to pass the United States Senate, despite having the support of a majority of Senators. 91% of Americans support President Obama’s proposal that criminal background checks should be required for all sales of guns. The recent failure to implement popular gun control measures in the wake of the Newtown massacre is a poignant example. For all its international power, the United States government seems increasingly powerless to make laws for the benefit of its own people.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |