Minority Veto verses Majority Rule--by Hank Foresman

Almost a weeks ago, before the nation was glued to the television sets with all things the Boston manhunt, we watched as the United States Senate, voted not to allow closure on debate effectively killing the Manchin-Toomey amendment.

The defeat came not on a simple majority of Senators, but rather was accomplished through parliamentary procedures that require 60 votes to end debate and proceed on the question.  The measure failed by a vote of fifty-six for ending closure to forty-six against closure ensuring the legislation would fail because a minority of senators voted no.

 I do not know whether the Manchin-Toomey background checks legislation was a good or whether it would be effective.  Certainly requiring a universal background check, one, which is the same in each state, may be a good idea.  Background checks are effective for law-abiding citizens; they are a feel good solution, which allows society to feel protected.  They do not stop gun violence. 

 They will not automatically lead to a national gun registry if the federal government is not allowed to maintain serial numbers of weapons but then again individual states, such as New York are free to do so.  Today as it has been through most of our history the real threat to liberty comes not from the central government but from state and local governments abridge the right of their citizens.

Two hundred years ago Mr. Madison, in Federalists 10, reminded us, that one of the ills of society, which our constitution was designed to prevent, was the power of faction be it majority or minority.  The United States Senate, has allowed a parliamentary procedure ending a filibuster which requires 60 votes to thwart legislation and preventing the United States Senate from taking an up or down vote where the majority prevails. This is not how the system should work; this does not make for good governance. 

While this legislation may have passed the Senate, although doubtful; it never would pass the House of Representatives.  There are factions in this country who fear that anything but an absolute reading of the Second Amendment is the road to perdition; yet these same groups are more than willing to throw their weight around so as to stifle debate in the United States Senate.  Go figure, are they afraid they will loose or that the majority of Americans will see their views as extreme.

Before anyone accuses me of being a typical East Coast educated elitist (which I plead guilty to the charge) they should also know that I am a gun owner, owning somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty weapons, and that I enjoy shooting.  I am also a civil-libertarian and I believe that all the Bill of Rights are important, but that as history has shown us none of the Bill of Rights are absolute, I repeat none are absolute.  There are exceptions to each of the Bill of Rights.  I have grave reservations about many aspects of gun control; as I feel we are trying to punish law abiding citizen for the actions of a few; but having said that our nation needs to have a robust debate about guns and gun control.  We should not allow the minority to thwart that public debate.

Comments

[Tyler]

I reckon it depends where you live. Is Detroit a catastrophe? Birmingham? Atlanta? New Orleans? Baltimore? Stockton? Philadelphia? The majority of Chicago? The rust belt? How about the border area where you've got armed dope mules? I imagine its all a matter of perspective. It might be on the fringes now, but its definitely there.

You're right though. The US isn't Khost, or even Mosul for that matter. However what's the average suffering someone in the US goes through compared to an Afghani? Or even in Greece, for that matter? I don't think we need to see Mad Max for things to go all pear shaped.

As far as payments, well they already tried cutting my pay 40%. I figure they'll try to keep the bread and circus going until the minute they can't anymore. I will keep an eye out for that movie - it looks entertaining.

[Tyler]

I'd also like to note the effect of the amnesty for illegal aliens that's currently in the Senate. You can't add twenty to forty million new foreign nationals from alien cultures to a country without repercussions. The vulgar treason by the Republicans in their 'gang of eight' is disgusting, especially since they'll be mostly retired by the time these new 'citizens' arrive on the scene.

History has borne out that generally you have two outcomes in this situation: partition or ethnic cleansing. The Democrats are playing with fire on this, thinking that they'll have a new electorate to ram through their dictats. The truth is likely to be much more bloody.

[SAC Brat]

Nonsense. We've settled paying off the French-Indian war debt, letting the Bank of England destroy the value of our currency and bailing out the East India Company for its losses. Right?

[no one]

TTG, I'm with Tyler on this. There are sections of Detroit that really aren't that different from Mogadishu (less the "technicals" and RPGs).

Welfare rolls are at an all time high and the trend has been a steady increase, decade over decade since the War on Poverty began. The new citizens will be on the rolls too. We are approaching $1 Trillion/year spent on welfare.

The Dem.s need them to be ensure they bolster the base. I guess the Repub.s want this new immigrant population to ensure a low wage serf labor pool. Both parties are screwing the American worker in this way.

I don't see how the trend can be sustained. Some day the music has to stop and whomever is left without a chair is going to be mighty upset.

Of course, if by some miracle, the economy picked up in a huge way with a lot of traditional manufacturing involved, we'd pull through OK.

[steve g]

Tyler:

The Repubs do not have to lay down.
I was talking about a dialogue for
compromise on all matters. I blame
both parties for the invasion you
correctly describe. Many posts ago
you mentioned the Somali population in
Mpls. I live there. The estimate is
30 to 40K. I say twice that. They
do not want to assimilate. We are all
infidels in their eyes. At least the
many eyes that have crossed mine. Bush I
sent troops there on a "humanitarian"
mission Dec 92 after he was voted out of
office. Obviously, he was still Pres.
but look at the result. Clinton in his
ineptitude made things worse. The result
was this giant wave of "political" refugees
not unlike the Chechen brothers and their
extended families. A minimum of 20 radical-
ized Somali men have gone back to fight jihad.
Four have been killed. I am waiting for the
"Allu Akbar" yell before something goes off.
Once again I do not blame just the Repubs.
Should compromise in a political sphere
be condemned as a sellout to core principles?

[Tyler]

How can you compromise when the default Democrat standing is "This is what we're going to start with, and we're heading left from here"?