According to the Obama administration (with its laundry list of hopeful achievements) now is the time for voting reform, as evidenced by this New York Times story about the decision to create a panel aiming to streamline the voting process. The panel, in a display of bipartisanship, features Robert Bauer and Ben Ginsberg, who are notable for acting as the legal representation respectively to the Obama and Romney camps during the 2012 election cycle. Five others have yet to be named to the commission, which will not be proposing legislation but rather offer broad suggestions to improving the system as is. According to aides in the Obama camp, this lack of legislative creation is due to the belief that any proposals put forth would be shot down by Republicans, who support state level election laws. This also has some benefits to those seeking more early voting days in states like Florida and South Carolina surprisingly enough.
The recent battles between voting restrictions and streamlining the process has been fun to watch, mutating from strain to strain of ID laws and early ballot casting issues. But this also walks a fine line between constitutionality and states rights. Impeding a federal election in any major fashion should not be something the states strive for, but at the same time the introduction of ID laws may be seen as obstruction, which would have some interesting ties to poll taxes and literacy requirements of the past and inspiring a new legal battle. What I believe would be the best option would be is some sort of national ID everyone is issues. I understand that this may be a subject of some worry, as the government would have essentially issued a human being a number, locking him/her into a national databank for all eternity.* But by streamlining elections, we make them the most accurate representation of the desires of the American people and ensure fairness by equal opportunity.
If you ever wish to vote with relative ease, I recommend using www.rockthevote.com for all your easy voter registration needs. True patriotism is having the will to participate in government on the most basic level after all.
*And while I hate to belittle an issue like personal privacy, we already are numbers in a databank; it's known as Social Security, and if it keeps solvent it'll be another benefit of living in the system.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Friday, February 15, 2013
The Great Chicago Firearm
In the city of Chicago, there is something of a problem with gun violence. According to the New York Times, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, former White House Chief of Staff to President Obama is now the mayor of Chicago, and is seeking to do something about it by making gun crimes carry longer minimum sentences. This comes on the heels of recent violence on the streets of Chicago, including the death of a Hadiya Pendleton, a 15 year-old who had returned from Obama's inauguration only a week before being fatally hit in a random act of violence. The story also highlights the complexity of gun control as a whole. While some believe that Chicago is our best indicator of the failure of gun control, other believe that it merely evidences the need for better gun control on the federal level rather than local regulations that can be circumvented by importing guns from a more lenient state.
Gun issues are complex, and multifaceted, and make people very angry indeed. From my view, the importance of this news lies in the way Emanuel shaped his plan; while extended sentences only help the problem by being deterring or providing a sense of punishing wrongdoers, what intrigues me are the measures planned to prevent gang-related gun violence such as mentoring, more after-school activities and early education. Gun violence in America is interesting because it has so many causes and effects, it shifts the landscape on the already shaky ground that is the 2nd Amendment, but I believe that this news is something of a mixed bag. While gun crime itself is abhorrent, I can't help but think that this will have a detrimental effect on both our already overpopulated prison system and the down-and-out youths who join gangs for protection and camaraderie, in the hopes of a better (if unrealistic and violent) life. That said, I also see this as a step in the right direction, with greater enforcement against violent crime while also focusing on root causes and prevention methods. Hopefully, these measures will help to turn over a new leaf for the city of Chicago.
Gun issues are complex, and multifaceted, and make people very angry indeed. From my view, the importance of this news lies in the way Emanuel shaped his plan; while extended sentences only help the problem by being deterring or providing a sense of punishing wrongdoers, what intrigues me are the measures planned to prevent gang-related gun violence such as mentoring, more after-school activities and early education. Gun violence in America is interesting because it has so many causes and effects, it shifts the landscape on the already shaky ground that is the 2nd Amendment, but I believe that this news is something of a mixed bag. While gun crime itself is abhorrent, I can't help but think that this will have a detrimental effect on both our already overpopulated prison system and the down-and-out youths who join gangs for protection and camaraderie, in the hopes of a better (if unrealistic and violent) life. That said, I also see this as a step in the right direction, with greater enforcement against violent crime while also focusing on root causes and prevention methods. Hopefully, these measures will help to turn over a new leaf for the city of Chicago.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Showdown at the Constitution Corral
Current Unit: Unit 1 - Constitutional Underpinnings and Federalism
In Minneapolis today, as was published in the Times new story, President Barack Obama championed further reforms in the area of gun control. He continues to champion a three-tier plan of background checks, restrictions on assault weapon sales, and an overhaul of the United States mental health system. The White House has cited marked support for the idea of universal background checks while conceding lower support for bans on things like semi-automatic weapons and limits on magazine capacities. This appears in the face of evidence that background checks may be all that the administration will get, as the recent debate has revealed the deep divisions over 2nd amendment rights advocates and promoters of gun control.
This is a problem.
The 2nd amendment is what lies at the core of this murky conflict, and it doesn't help that the wording on that document called the constitution is a little loose. The amendment doesn't impose any per se limits, but does state that a "well regulated militia" is what is necessary to the security of the free state. However there is equal argument within that same sentence that states the right of the people "shall not be infringed" in allowing them to keep and bear arms.
The 2nd Amendment has been and will be the center of controversy in the future as we eventually see the day where Bushmaster drops the AR-15 model in place of a blaster-rifle a la Star Wars. Both sides have their propaganda machines churning out editorials on full blast, with the left alternately playing the ultimate droopy dog on their own proposals and throwing japes at the NRA, and the right making fun of the hilariously inept Piers Morgan while playing down the effectiveness of any kind of gun control.
So, who's right? Well, it's a complicated issue. One could easily point to a society like the Swiss (who own their fair share of guns) or the Japanese, (who own very few guns indeed) but that's easy and still unfitting of the U.S. model; both of those countries have very homogenous populations and low income inequality, so the comparison isn't completely solid. Furthermore, you can't make gun crime cut and dry in that regulation keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, since they tend to get their guns illegally, because, well, criminals. However, it remains that someone with a history of violence could potentially obtain guns with ease from somewhere that doesn't require background checks like a gun show. Perhaps what is needed is regulation of both sides of the market; stricter criminal penalties for those caught trafficking guns and allocation of more ATF resources to preventing such trafficking instead of going after TI, and universal background checks to prevent abuses of the legitimate markets.
Society has agreed however that the costs of the current systemic abuses of 2nd amendment rights have been far too high for too long. In remains to be seen if any change is attainable.
In Minneapolis today, as was published in the Times new story, President Barack Obama championed further reforms in the area of gun control. He continues to champion a three-tier plan of background checks, restrictions on assault weapon sales, and an overhaul of the United States mental health system. The White House has cited marked support for the idea of universal background checks while conceding lower support for bans on things like semi-automatic weapons and limits on magazine capacities. This appears in the face of evidence that background checks may be all that the administration will get, as the recent debate has revealed the deep divisions over 2nd amendment rights advocates and promoters of gun control.
This is a problem.
The 2nd amendment is what lies at the core of this murky conflict, and it doesn't help that the wording on that document called the constitution is a little loose. The amendment doesn't impose any per se limits, but does state that a "well regulated militia" is what is necessary to the security of the free state. However there is equal argument within that same sentence that states the right of the people "shall not be infringed" in allowing them to keep and bear arms.
The 2nd Amendment has been and will be the center of controversy in the future as we eventually see the day where Bushmaster drops the AR-15 model in place of a blaster-rifle a la Star Wars. Both sides have their propaganda machines churning out editorials on full blast, with the left alternately playing the ultimate droopy dog on their own proposals and throwing japes at the NRA, and the right making fun of the hilariously inept Piers Morgan while playing down the effectiveness of any kind of gun control.
So, who's right? Well, it's a complicated issue. One could easily point to a society like the Swiss (who own their fair share of guns) or the Japanese, (who own very few guns indeed) but that's easy and still unfitting of the U.S. model; both of those countries have very homogenous populations and low income inequality, so the comparison isn't completely solid. Furthermore, you can't make gun crime cut and dry in that regulation keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, since they tend to get their guns illegally, because, well, criminals. However, it remains that someone with a history of violence could potentially obtain guns with ease from somewhere that doesn't require background checks like a gun show. Perhaps what is needed is regulation of both sides of the market; stricter criminal penalties for those caught trafficking guns and allocation of more ATF resources to preventing such trafficking instead of going after TI, and universal background checks to prevent abuses of the legitimate markets.
Society has agreed however that the costs of the current systemic abuses of 2nd amendment rights have been far too high for too long. In remains to be seen if any change is attainable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)