“Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” (1939)
I am still wondering why the Democrats didn’t rewrite the Senate rules in 2009 or 2011. But now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he wants to end what amounts to a Republican minority veto power via the “silent filibuster” or the “60-vote rule” that isn’t really a rule. Under our Constitution, all it takes is a 51-vote majority to change the rulebook, and Reid says he has the votes.
“I hope that within the next 24 to 36 hours we can get something we agree on. If not, we’re going to move forward on what I think needs to be done,” Reid told reporters. “The caucus will support me on that,” he added.
There is a package of reforms on the table that will make the Senate able to legislate again. Those reforms are:
- Eliminate the ability to filibuster the motion to proceed;
- Require that those wishing to block legislation or nominations take the floor and actually filibuster— i.e., mandating “talking filibusters”;
- Assert that 41 Senators must affirmatively vote to continue debate rather than forcing 60 Senators to vote to end debate; and,
- Streamline the nomination process so that nominees will get a yes or no vote on the Senate floor, including a reduction of the required 30 hours of post cloture debate on a nominee to 2 hours.
In the last Congress, only 3 percent of the bills introduced in the Senate made it to final passage. This was the most dysfunctional Senate anyone can remember.
UPDATE:
Reid To McConnell: Make A Deal Or Dems Will Weaken The Filibuster Ourselves
UPDATE: No talking filibuster, no 41-vote rule. To say Harry Reid and the Dems folded like a cheap suit is an insult to cheap suits.
UPDATE:
Minority rules: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will continue to control the Senate after so-called Majority Leader Harry Reid agrees to a deal that does almost nothing to restrain the abuse of the filibuster.
UPDATE:
Senate Leaders Finalize Scaled-Back Filibuster Deal
UPDATE: HuffPo nails it with their headline (see continuation)
#1 by Bob S. on January 22, 2013 - 3:43 pm
You say that like it is a bad thing.
The more laws Congress passes the more restrictions we will have on our rights and in our lives.
#2 by Richard Warnick on January 22, 2013 - 3:48 pm
There are some things I wish they wouldn’t pass, such as USA PATRIOT Act re-authorization, the unconstitutional FISA amendments, and the NDAA provision on indefinite detention without charges. But both major political parties agree on that stuff, so the filibuster doesn’t stop it.
#3 by Larry Bergan on January 22, 2013 - 4:28 pm
Very good point Richard.
The Republicans NEVER complain about the most egregious violations of our constitutional freedoms.
There are many things the Democrats have been trying to do for decades that we need and it’s about time they went after them aggressively, before it’s too late.
The worst president, (well, governor), we’ve ever had got everything he wanted and it’s the peoples turn to get some of the pie, instead of “the haves”.
And Bob S., I feel it’s my constitutional right not to be shot 6 times a second for carrying a bag of Skittles. What do you think about ALEC?
#4 by Bob S. on January 22, 2013 - 5:28 pm
Richard,
It isn’t the stuff that both agree shouldn’t pass that concerns me but the stuff that both agree should.
Things like out of control spending on entitlements, pork barrel spending when they get around to passing spending bills, continued expansion of the federal government. How many people work for the government now?
Larry,
Please stop lying
That level of hyperbole is a lie and worse you know it.
The problem with the things the Democrats want (and for that matter many Republicans) is those things are unconstitutional, they restrict the rights of the people and they cost too much.
The Constitution clearly shows what the limits of the Federal government should be and it has been decades since the Federal government paid any attention to that document. You can’t pick and chose; either the power of the government is limited or it isn’t.
First your level of ignorance concerning the Martin/Zimmerman case is appalling. He was shot only once and there still hasn’t been a decision on exactly what happened.
Don’t even get me started on the bias and blatant manipulation of this case. The Martin family lawyers have orchestrated a careful presentation of the issue that is at odds with the facts. The media went along with it because it fit a narrative they wanted everyone to hear.
Second, your rights in this instance are limited to what you can enforce yourself and not require anyone else to bend to.
Next you do not have a Constitutional right to “not be shot” by anyone except the government. The Constitution limits what the government can do – surely you remember that.
See there is a difference between negative and positive rights — you are expressing a positive right that does not exist. You can’t force anyone to NOT do something to you; the law only punishes people for doing that.
#5 by Larry Bergan on January 22, 2013 - 7:44 pm
Bob S.:
I took the liberty of fixing your comment by putting the blockquotes where they belonged. I never try to change what people are tying to say.
#6 by Larry Bergan on January 22, 2013 - 7:56 pm
Bob S.
I have never lied even once on this blog. I realize that Zimmerman didn’t kill that beautiful young boy with an assault rifle, but he could have. The “stand your ground” laws don’t make a distinction on how you defend yourself against the unarmed, (as far as I know).
Maybe you know more about the ALEC laws then I do.
#7 by Richard Warnick on January 22, 2013 - 8:19 pm
Bob S.–
Got some actual facts for you.
Number of federal civilian employees:
1990: 2,906,416
2011: 2,701,952
Difference: -204,464 (-7 percent)
U.S. population:
1990: 248,709,873
2010: 308,745,538
Difference: +60,035,665 (+24 percent)
I realize that a lot of federal employees have been replaced by contractors (I was one for 10 years). But this was a false economy because contractors cost the taxpayers more to do the same work (even though the contractors often make less than a federal employee in the same job).
Though this has been under-reported, both federal spending and budget deficits have declined.
#8 by brewski on January 22, 2013 - 9:36 pm
420,000 Federal employees making more than $100,000 according to the Office of Personnel Management. Not including pensions and other benefits.
#9 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 6:21 am
Richard,
You aren’t helping your case.
You show that federal civilian employees have remained relatively constant over a 20 year period and admit the number contracted employees has increased.
We are still spending more then we take in, we have so much ‘off the book borrowing’ that it is insane.
Today, 43 cents of every dollar spent is borrowed; this amount is about 4 times the rate in 1980. Between 2007 and 2011 alone, the rate has increased 38 cents per dollar. At this pace, the historical trend of deficit spending continues at a distressing rate.
Larry,
Yes, Zimmerman killed Martin. That much is not in doubt. What is in question is simple “Was it a justifiable homicide or not”?
So far all the evidence — there is that key word, evidence, not feelings — that I’ve seen indicates that it was. Martin wasn’t the angelic little boy pictured in his football uniform. It appears he was a 6 foot + 190 something pound thug who had a history of being in trouble.
So yes, Zimmerman didn’t kill Martin with an assault rifle but he could have. And he’ll go through the Justice system to determine if was justified or not.
Sorry to call you out on your lie but you are lying.
You are simply lying with that statement. Many Republicans have complain about violations of our constitutional freedoms. Many republicans objected to PATRIOT Act, NDAA, warrantless wiretaps/surveillance and much more.
We have enough problems trying to discuss the issues without you resorting to such a lie.
#10 by Richard Warnick on January 23, 2013 - 8:47 am
Bob S.–
You are correct about deficits. The Clinton administration eliminated them, and Bush brought them back, doubling the National Debt. Then for good measure, he crashed the economy. It’s going to take more than one Democratic administration to repair the damage, and the GOP is doing whatever they can to sabotage the recovery.
#11 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 9:05 am
Richard,
Your Bush Derangement Syndrome is showing again. And it isn’t pretty.
I am confused, I thought that the House of Representative was responsible for Originating all budgets, that the Senate had to approve it before it ever went to the president.
Then you also give the president way too much power. I find it fascinating that Obama is “doing the best that he can despite the economy” but that Bush caused all the problems with the economy.
And you aren’t even being internally consistent in your argument. If Clinton (One Democratic administration) eliminated them, why can’t Obama (1 Democratic Administration) eliminate the deficit now?
#12 by brewski on January 23, 2013 - 9:13 am
A word about Deficits and History:
1. Yes there were nominal budget surpluses in 1999 and 2000.
2. It is probably a bit dishonest to say that “the Clinton administration eliminated them”. One of the reasons there were nominal surpluses in 1999 and 2000 was that the Republican congress didn’t let Clinton spend what he wanted to spend. In fact you may recall there was a shutdown in 1995 and 1996 over this issue. So it was the combination of Clinton and the Republican congress who governed during those apparent surpluses.
3. One of the factors which helped create the apparent surpluses was greater than expected revenues from capital gains transaction on the sale of stock during the First Greenspan Bubble. So it was no just shrewd budgeting and wise governance which helped create the apparent surplus. It was a windfall of revenues which resulted from a credit fueled bubble which came to a crashing halt in later 2000 and 2001.
4. The surplus was not really a surplus. Government accounting is not like regular accounting. If a company did their books the way governments do their books, the CEO would be in jail. Governments use what accountants would call cash-basis accounting and not accrual accounting. So to give you an extreme example for illustrative purposes: If in 2000 they government took in $1 in taxes and then promised to pay you $1 trillion in benefits next year and had no idea how it would pay you next year, it would still say that this year it had a $1 “surplus”.
http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/deficit/
#13 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 23, 2013 - 9:28 am
“why can’t Obama (1 Democratic Administration) eliminate the deficit now?”
2 wars, 1 economic recession, tax cuts, new drug entitlement that is gross give away, previous admin had lowest job creation numbers in long bloody time.
What do you live under a rock?
Every dollar in deficit savings, requires $1.55 or so in cuts, and shrinks the GDP by $2 to $4 dollars depending on where that cut comes from.
#14 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 9:39 am
Ronald.
Did not President Bush start two wars? Was the Country not in an economic recession also?
This are the things President Obama is supposed to handle. The choice to continue fighting the wars is entirely up to him.
One has ended (badly — look at what is happening in Iraq) and the other is still going. So who is responsible for that?
As far as the previous administration — that would now be the President Obama First TERM.
Stop blaming everything on Bush.
#15 by brewski on January 23, 2013 - 9:45 am
What 2 wars? Obama has told us that we are out of Iraq. He also told us that Afghanistan is a war of necessity. He tripled the number of troops there. It is his war now.
Obama has been president for 4 years now. He and his people have mentioned tax reform many times and done nothing. He owns the tax code now.
Obama is all about health care entitlements. Do you think Obama wouldn’t have supported this one?
Obama has been president for 4 years now. The recession ended 3 years ago. He owns this “recovery”.
#16 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 23, 2013 - 10:30 am
Look, it toke Clinton until the second half of his second term to balance the budget after the Reagan/Bush Sr. deficit was dug.
And the Reagan/Bush Sr. deficit was no where near as large as the Bush Jr. deficit.
And Obama’s deficit is a good bit smaller then the $1.7 trillion dollar deficit he was handed in the 2009 budget.
” Obama has told us that we are out of Iraq.”
Well, yes combat operations are over, that doesn’t mean all the costs and interest from the unfunded war is gone. We still have on going expenses in Europe and Japan from WW2.
“Stop blaming everything on Bush.”
We are reflected on the historical origin of the current deficit, Kinda hard to avoid Bush Jr. in that conversation.
The US economy, simply put is big, it doesn’t turn on a dime. Nor does the budget of the US Federal government turn on a dime. And because of taxes, spending by the Federal government directly effects its revenue, meaning cuts don’t decrease the deficit on a 1:1 ratio.
And their are no magical solutions, at best you can cut the deficit by a $100 billion or so each year, just as Obama has done. Much more would have serious consequences for GDP growth and job numbers.
#17 by brewski on January 23, 2013 - 11:30 am
RDH,
Was there an asset bubble in the 1990′s or not?
Was the balanced budget only achieved after the Dems were thrown out of Congress for the first time in 40 years or not?
The 2009 deficit was not $1.7 trillion and half of it was passed by Obama and not by W. Get your facts right if you want to play with the big boys.
#18 by brewski on January 23, 2013 - 12:35 pm
“the second half of the 1990s saw a major bull market in equities in the United States, followed by a bear market that began in the spring of 2000. The decline in stock values since March 2000 has not only vaporized trillions of dollars in wealth, but also likely played a role in worsening the recession that, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, began in the United States in March 2001.”
Ben Bernanke
So the bubble started in the 1990′s, when Clinton was President, it popped in 2000 when Clinton was president, but you blame W who became president in 2001. The NBER marks March 2001 as when the recession officially “began” (as though it is like marking when a race begins), but GDP growth had already slowed to 0.3% by Q3 2000. There were no wars and no tax cuts and no nothing to blame this on. It was an asset bubble and it crashed. That is what crashes look like. If you want someone to blame then blame Greenspan.
#19 by Richard Warnick on January 23, 2013 - 2:36 pm
Why can’t Obama eliminate the deficit now? Because the Republicans crashed the economy, and we need deficit spending to enable the recovery. Duh.
#20 by brewski on January 23, 2013 - 2:59 pm
Recovery started 3 years ago. Get with the program.
#21 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 3:14 pm
Off Topic but thought you might want to address it Richard
http://www.dailydot.com/news/white-house-memo-fisa-obama/
How can you support the infringement of our rights (2nd Amendment) while complaining about the infringement of another (4th Amendment)?
#22 by Richard Warnick on January 23, 2013 - 3:32 pm
The infringement of Fourth Amendment rights has been in place for years, with no complaints from the right-wingers who often say they hate big government. Same for the loss of habeas corpus. OTOH there is not even a proposal to infringe the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
Nobody nobody nobody is talking about doing anything to the Second Amendment. Every measure proposed has the support of a majority of Americans AND a majority of gun owners, except for the mass-murder weapons ban (36% of gun owners support).
#23 by brewski on January 23, 2013 - 5:13 pm
“with no complaints from the right-wingers”
False.
These members of the House of Representatives, all Republicans, defied their party leadership to vote NO, AGAINST H.R. 514, the bill to reauthorize crucial provisions of the Patriot Act:
Justin Amash of Michigan
Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland
Rob Bishop of Utah
Paul Broun of Georgia
John Campbell of California
John Duncan of Tennessee
Mike Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania
Chris Gibson of New York
Tom Graves of Georgia
Dean Heller of Nevada
Randy Hultgren of Illinois
Timothy Johnson of Illinois
Walter Jones of North Carolina
Jack Kingston of Georgia
Raul Labrador of Idaho
Connie Mack of Florida
Kenny Marchant of Texas
Tom McClintock of California
Ron Paul of Texas
Denny Rehberg of Montana
Phil Roe of Tennessee
Dana Rohrabacher of California
Bobby Schilling of Illinois
David Schweikert of Arizona
Rob Woodall of Georgia
Don Young of Alaska
Richard caught lying again!!!!
Gotcha!
#24 by brewski on January 23, 2013 - 5:16 pm
Democrats crashed the economy:
National Bureau of Economic Research finds, “Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks.”
Added NBER: “There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts,” or predominantly low-income and minority areas.
To satisfy CRA examiners, “flexible” lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often, the 43-page study found.
#25 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 7:44 pm
Richard,
Why do you feel it necessary to lie?
We have enough to discussion and drive us apart with out you trying to demonize people you disagree with politically.
You admitted on another thread that you read on my blog where I opposed warrantless surviellance and searches. So you knew you were lying.
There have been bills introduced every year that tries to infringe on the 2nd Amendment. Feinstein introduced one 2 days after Sandy Hook. Are you going to try to tell me she wrote an entire bill in less than 48 hours?
Hogwash ! She had it ready and waiting for the right tragedy to happen. New York State passed a very restrictive gun control bill recently — so restrictive there is not even an exemption for police to keep their ‘high capacity magazines’!
And don’t you know they are howling about that. Of course, they also made it illegal for law enforcement to take firearms onto school property !!
Way to go New York State — once that law goes into force, schools will truly be a target rich environment for killers.
******* By the way, could you ask Cliff to pay his bill, replace his server or do something to get rid of the errors happening nearly every day??????? *********
#26 by Richard Warnick on January 23, 2013 - 7:56 pm
brewski–
I didn’t reference the USA PATRIOT Act. Look up H.R. 5949, FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012. Voting Nay: 7 Republicans and 111 Dems. The whole Utah delegation voted for it. And I never read a word against it on right-wing blogs.
Yes, after Bob S. told me to check his blog, I did a search and found one post where he quoted another source criticizing the FISA amendments but did not actually express his own opinion. Except to suggest an attempt to violently overthrow the U.S. government at some unspecified future time.
And no, poor people and Democrats didn’t crash the economy. The Republicans had both houses of Congress, the White House, and Wall Street. What did poor people have?
#27 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 8:05 pm
Richard,
I’ve expressed disgust and opposition to it here. If you would have read more of my blog, you would you have seen more opposition.
By your own admission you realize that 7 Republicans voted against it — and many democrats voted for it — yet you claim that “no complaints from the right-wingers” So you’ve proven yourself a liar with your own words and citation. Nice work !!
#28 by Richard Warnick on January 23, 2013 - 8:06 pm
Bob S.–
It doesn’t help the discussion when you attempt to label every disagreement as a “lie” — according to you. Just accept that I won’t call a proposal an infringement of the Second Amendment until Justice Scalia does.
#29 by brewski on January 24, 2013 - 2:23 am
Square for me the phrase “no complaints” and “Nay: 7 Republicans”
#30 by brewski on January 24, 2013 - 2:24 am
“And no, poor people and Democrats didn’t crash the economy. The Republicans had both houses of Congress, the White House, and Wall Street. What did poor people have?”
The Democratic Party.
They crashed the economy.
Tell it to the NBER.
#31 by Bob S. on January 24, 2013 - 6:49 am
Richard,
I don’t label every disagreement as a lie. A simple check of the comment threads will prove that — so even now you can’t help yourself with either hyperbole or an untruth.
What I do is call out your blatant lies for what they are. You said with no complaint but quoted 7 Republicans voted against the bill. You admitted I called it out on my blog. Had you read further there (or remembered threads here) you would have seen more.
So when you blatantly misrepresent the facts, yes it is a lie.
Fully automatic firearms are not banned from individual possession — that is the fact and you saying they are banned is a lie.
Time and time again, you’ve have deliberately misrepresented material facts that are easily established as truth.
You have used your misrepresentations to vilify and demonize gun owners and conservatives. Really it isn’t necessary and hardly helps the conversation, now does it?
We have enough to disagree on without you lying about who supports what or not. Stick to the facts and the conversation will proceed from there.
#32 by Richard Warnick on January 24, 2013 - 8:25 am
Bob S.–
I don’t “vilify” and “demonize.” I don’t even question people’s motives. I just try to use logic, whether anyone else does or not.
Look, when you balance proposals that might cause some slight inconvenience to people who want to buy firearms against public safety concerns, I think public safety wins. Nobody is proposing anything that’s unconstitutional.
To own and drive a car you need a license, registration and insurance. Why should guns be any different? Neither you nor jd has even tried to answer that question.
#33 by Bob S. on January 24, 2013 - 8:55 am
Richard,
Sorry to disagree with you but you do vilify people. You claimed — erroneously – that Republicans didn’t complain about egregious violations of our rights.
That is making them out to be bad guys. You consistently claim that people like me are not interested in public safety – that is demonizing me. Making me out to be a monster.
You claim that no one is proposing anything Unconstitutional flies in the face of established facts and history. The Washington D.C. handgun ban was unconstitutional – you supported it. The Chicago handgun ban was unconstitutional — you supported it.
The ban on Concealed or Open Carry in Illinois was determined to be unconstitutional. Don’t you support the ban on carrying?
Time and time again we see unconstitutional restrictions on our rights in the name of public safety. Yet, despite your foot stomping, breathe holding, finger in the ear, yelling ‘I can’t hear’ you, the evidence does not show gun control laws increase public safety.
And you have yet to explain how Chicago with its restrictive gun control laws, in the State of Illinois with its restrictive gun control laws has a higher homicide (including firearm related) rate then Fort Worth with its lax laws and Concealed Carry, plentiful gun stores, etc.
So when you start claiming Public Safety – yeah, I’m going to call you out on it.
Because it isn’t working !!!!!!!!
And here you go again.
To own and drive a car you need a license, registration and insurance. Why should guns be any different? Neither you nor jd has even tried to answer that question.
First off you are wrong. So wrong it is to the point of lying – either by commission or omission — it is simply not completely true to say you need a license, registration and insurance to own and drive a car.
First, many states allow a cash bond — no insurance needed if you drive on the streets. So Strike 1.
Second, no state requires insurance, license or registration to drive a vehicle on private property. I can buy a car, tow it to my property and drive it as much as I choose to without doing any of those things.
Only if I drive it on the streets do I need to accomplish those things.
And in the face of all those restrictions and requirements we still have more people killed, maimed and injured in automobile collisions then we do with firearms.
Next the proposed measures compared to vehicles – under plans submitted by Feinstein and others we would have to
Limit the number of passengers in a car to a small number.
Limit the engine size of vehicles.
Limit the cosmetic features on a car — no spoilers, air scoops, racing stripes.
Require each person to undergo a background check before the purchased a car, even if they already owned one or a dozen.
Require each person to submit to a background check every time they filled up their tank.
And on and on.
At the same time if we treated firearms related issues like cars
We would let 16 year olds take guns in public
We would require each and every state to recognize concealed or open carry permits from every other state.
Most of the laws concerning firearms would be standardized between states – magazine capacity limits, where people can carry or not, etc.
And on and on.
So no, you are not trying to treat firearms like vehicles.
Next – another flat out lie.
Both of us have answered this question repeatedly here. As far back as 2008 or 2009 when I started commenting here I’ve answered it. I think I’ve answered it every year since then.
Here is one huge effing difference Sparky.
The right to keep and bear arms is a Specifically Enumerated, Constitutionally Protected Right.
The government has to show a much higher level of requirement before they restrict that right. Much like they have do with the Right to Free Speech, Freedom of Press, Right to be free of illegal search and seizure (which they do too much of) and on and on.
#34 by Richard Warnick on January 24, 2013 - 9:05 am
Bob S.–
I’m going to take a break from the merry-go-round here. It’s not going anywhere. You are the one resorting to name-calling, and claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is a liar.
Something to think about as you mindlessly repeat your Gun Lobby propaganda: in 10 states in 2009, guns killed more people than automobiles. There was a total of 31,236 firearm-related deaths nationwide (a rate of 10.19 per 100,000 people) and 36,361 motor vehicle-related deaths (11.87 per 100,000). The trend is headed for crossover. Amazing, when you consider that 2/3 of American households don’t own any guns.
#35 by Richard Warnick on January 24, 2013 - 9:11 am
Anybody want to talk about the Senate filibuster rules?
TPM is reporting that Senators Reid and McConnell are nearing a deal that would make only very minor changes to the rules. The only hope for real reform will be if the talks break down today.
#36 by Bob S. on January 24, 2013 - 9:21 am
Richard,
There you go again. Larry disagrees with me – can you show where I called him a liar? How about Cav? Cliff? Occasionally when he outright lies but most of the time I just disagree with him.
You are the one stating facts that are not true, claiming things that are not true — even after you point out the truth yourself, you still claim otherwise.
Next you fail to point out that over half of the firearm related deaths are suicides.
You fail to point out that if firearms are unavailable people resort to other means — it is called the substitution effect.
You also quickly abandoned your claim that we should treat firearms like cars because you see how inane that is.
2/3 of American house holds? What is your source — it is apparently out of date.
So it seems as if nearly half the households have a firearm in them. What you are probably referencing is this:
My wife would be a great example of this. We have a revolver on her side of the bed and a shot gun under the bed dedicated for her use. She would say they aren’t her guns but mine. Does it really matter though?
I’ll wrap up with this:
#37 by Richard Warnick on January 24, 2013 - 9:35 am
This thread is abut filibuster reform. I can enforce that if necessary. One more graph for you:
Source: CNN
Have not abandoned anything. There is no reason not to require licensing, registration and insurance for guns. They’re deadly weapons.
#38 by Bob S. on January 24, 2013 - 9:41 am
Richard,
It was Larry (who I did say was lying) that took off topic
Should I stop responding to comments directed at me?
Or are you just sore because you are losing the argument?
I’ll vote for the later
And about your chart — how many GLBT households are there? If there isn’t a majority, should be allowed to restrict their rights?
#39 by Richard Warnick on January 24, 2013 - 9:48 am
Nothing has been proposed that is unconstitutional. Again, ask Justice Scalia if you don’t believe me. President Obama’s common-sense gun safety proposals are supported by a large majority of Americans, and the majority of gun owners.
#40 by Bob S. on January 24, 2013 - 10:01 am
Richard,
Just because the court hasn’t ruled it to be unconstitutional does not mean it isn’t unconstitutional.
The D.C. and Chicago handgun bans were unconstitutional despite being decades old.
You still — after repeated attempts to get you to — shown where the authority to ban semi-automatic weapons is.
Can you please do that now?
And what part of ‘we aren’t a democracy’ don’t you get?
We have law — and that big honking Constitution — to protect the rights of the individual (or minority) from the tyranny of the majority.
By your reasoning, we can ban anything that isn’t in the majority — GLBT lifestyle for example, Right?
#41 by Richard Warnick on January 24, 2013 - 10:13 am
Not right. Slight inconvenience to gun owners or people who want to buy a gun does not equal tyranny. Balanced against public safety, it’s a very small price to pay.
Do you realize that the fanatical tone of Gun Lobby propaganda is counterproductive? Your latest post on your blog echoes Wayne LaPierre’s insane “background checks will ruin Christmas for little kids” rant.
NRA: Obama Is Ruining Christmas By Tracking Stolen Guns
#42 by Bob S. on January 24, 2013 - 10:23 am
You say it is a small price to pay — I say it is an unconstitutional infringement — and the evidence supports my view.
Handgun ban in Washington and D.C — struck down.
Ban on Carrying in Illinois — struck down.
5 States now with Constitutional Carry – either open or concealed — with no permit needed.
You still haven’t shown your authority for a ban. I’ve shown court case, Constitutional Amendments, state laws, state constitutions, etc supporting my view.
you claim a ‘slight inconvenience’ but in many parts of California, Maryland, Massachusetts, etc – people are routinely denied their right to purchase a firearm. Due to the laws you support; that isn’t minor.
You object to having to show an ID to vote, don’t you? yet you have no problem with requiring a background check, fingerprints, photos, licensing with training & proficiency requirements to carry a firearm.
Not very consistent in your support of rights, are you?
#43 by Bob S. on January 24, 2013 - 10:25 am
Oh Lovely…now my comment is going to moderation.
Deliberate attempt or just typical OneUtah garbage?
#44 by Richard Warnick on January 24, 2013 - 10:30 am
Breaking: Reid rolls over for McConnell AGAIN. Senate remains broken.
#45 by Bob S. on January 24, 2013 - 10:35 am
Wait, Are you saying that the system doesn’t change even though one party has a majority in the senate?
Color me unsurprised. Reid knows that sooner or later the majority will change again. He doesn’t want any rules to be in place that will block their effort to stymie others.
And I don’t have a problem with that
We need few laws coming out of Congress, not more. We need them to remember how limited their role is supposed to be.
*** Please unblock my comment from moderation ***
#46 by Richard Warnick on January 24, 2013 - 10:41 am
Bob S.–
If you have been paying attention, you would know that when the Republicans had control of the Senate they constantly threatened to eliminate the filibuster. The only reason they didn’t was because spineless Dems backed down in the face of the threat.
Do you remember the filibuster of the USA PATRIOT Act? or the authorization to invade Iraq? Me neither.
America is still in an economic slump that we won’t get out anytime soon without job-creating efforts by the government. Real unemployment is at 14.4%. Home foreclosures continue, because Congress refuses to help. There is a planet-wide climate crisis our government has done nothing to address. Since the Senate rejected the 1997 Kyoto Protocol no administration has formally proposed a climate policy to Congress. And Republicans say, “Don’t do something, stand there!” Why do we pay legislators to sit around and play political games?
#47 by cav on January 24, 2013 - 10:57 am
Richard…you don’t remember the filibuster of the PATRIOT ACT or the authorization to invade Iraq?
I suppose it is safe to assume you missed McConnell’s election to the presidency as well. Grrr.
#48 by cav on January 24, 2013 - 1:16 pm
Six Dem Senators are against filibuster reform:
On a private call with the Bay Area Democrats on Wednesday, Merkley identified Reid as the key person in the talks, and he urged activists to target members of Reid’s leadership team ahead of their meetings next week, according to people on the call. He also characterized Democratic Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Joe Manchin (West. Va.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) as wrestling with his proposal, sources say.
Baucus and Boxer are up in 2014.
#49 by Richard Warnick on January 24, 2013 - 1:25 pm
Max Baucus did more than any other senator to kill the public option.
#50 by Richard Warnick on January 24, 2013 - 1:53 pm
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA): President Obama “might as well take a four-year vacation” because the Senate won’t pass any important legislation.
#51 by cav on January 24, 2013 - 3:50 pm
I’m opting for dysfunction.
It’s who I am.
The Senate.
#52 by Larry Bergan on January 24, 2013 - 3:52 pm
Failibuster is right!
There I went again, telling everybody the Democrats were finally standing up, giving the Republicans an ultimatum. Some ultimatum.
Anticipointment again.
We might as well go back to talking about guns. Bob S. had a point about my (unintentional) diversion to guns, but it’s not as if Bob S. was going to stay on the thread to talk about anything BUT guns.
He still refuses to utter the word ALEC.
#53 by cav on January 24, 2013 - 4:17 pm
We can manage to pass reforms if they are in the best interest of the country however. Like we recently passed ourselves a pay raise, then to obliterate that bit of leadership from ever seeing a front page, we also passed a ‘pay freeze’ – all in the interest of controlling spending, mind you.
The Senate
#54 by Richard Warnick on January 24, 2013 - 8:44 pm
I guess if we really wanted to get rid of the filibuster, we should have voted in Romney and a Republican Senate majority.
#55 by Larry Bergan on January 24, 2013 - 9:30 pm
Well at least then we would have had a constitutional or nuclear option or some other Frank Luntz construct.
Come on Carville! Get out there and yell at the Democrats!
#56 by cav on January 25, 2013 - 11:20 am
Did you see this?
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/appeals-court-obamas-labor-appointments-unconstitutional?ref=fpblg
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that President Obama’s recess appointments of two members of the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional because the Senate was not actually in recess at the time.Obama administration is going to appeal it to the Supreme Court.
#57 by brewski on January 25, 2013 - 12:07 pm
Obama is not very good at being an Authoritarian.
#58 by cav on January 25, 2013 - 1:17 pm
His authority is only that of the president. Nothing Big-time, like Bank Chief.
#59 by brewski on January 25, 2013 - 1:43 pm
He can’t spend a penny without Congressional appropriation.
#60 by brewski on January 25, 2013 - 1:43 pm
He can’t spend a penny without Congressional appropriation.
#61 by cav on March 16, 2013 - 9:26 pm
Half the Democrats we have NOW aren’t Democrats!