There’s a lot of things that were never done until they were done. Enforcement of the law should be nonpartisan, and to a large extent it is actually expected.
This could be me.
How can any elected position ever be nonpolitical? Heck, president of the high school student body is a political position.
I remember the 1960s being the end of the era of “good government” Republicans. They were liberal, or at least moderate socially, and when they talked about cutting waste, it wasn’t a code for “let them starve” but more like “why do we need to fill out three forms when we could do with one?”
Enforcing the law is inherently political. First you must interpret the laws. The executive branch codifies the laws into a functional body of rules to be followed. This is what presidential signing statements really reflect: the announced intention of how legislation will be implemented. There is nothing unconstitutional or extraconstitutional about the practice. On the contrary, they are helpful indicators to political opponents to prepare lawsuits to bring enforcement more in line with what they perceive as the letter of the law.
Legislation cannot cover every situation and in filling those gaps the executive and judicial branches are setting policy. There is no way to seperate politics from this process.
LOL, always with the more/less “freedom” argument. There’s so many ways to spin that term that its essentially useless. Its even more hilarious when Republicans think they are for more freedom when they want to restrict voting, restrict women’s rights, take away program that help the poor, give more of our money to rich people in hopes they’ll let it trick down to the rest of us, force their religious views on everyone else, prevent gays from marrying, etc. You guys must be using a definition of “freedom” from the bizarro world
Yeah, but have you noticed the GOP is losing when they are on the wrong side of liberty issues? The Democrats are also losing, such as on gun rights, regulation, and taxes.
For example?
Over the past 40-50 years, both parties have shifted away from the political expression of voting bloc interests (the usual way most people think of political parties) toward becoming voter-aggregation machines run almost exclusively by moneyed interests. Yes, parties have always been organized toward winning votes, but while it used to be that political interests drove the canvassing activity, now it’s the money that runs the show, and this makes the political class servants of the wealthy.
This is exactly the point of, say, a book like What’s the Matter with Kansas? It revealed how GOP voters in the heartland were largely manipulated by social issues in order to generate votes for a party dedicated to screwing them economically (because that’s what the business interests running the machine wanted). A similar book could also be written to describe the modern Democratic Party: Talk about social issues during the campaign, but keep servicing the economic interests of your wealthy backers, who don’t really care much about gay marriage or abortion.
Some things just take longer than others. Civils rights took a hundred years until after slavery ended to be finally corrected with the Civil Rights Act, and conservatives are still trying to undo it. Its a neverending process. Right now, the GOP and conservatives have a bit more power than they deserve, are a lot more extreme than they used to be, and base their opinions on a lot of nothing where there used to be something. I have every confidence that gun rights, regulation, and taxes will change towards the more liberal stance in the future. It might take a while, but its the correct legal and moral view
The Democrats didn’t lose on universal background checks (which has 90% plus support nationally)-they were blocked by archaic filibuster rules from moving forward. The Democrats didn’t lose with regards to Dodd-Frank or the new EPA regulations limiting carbon emissions. The Democrats didn’t lose with regards to taxes in the fiscal cliff deal.
In the early 60s some people would say that you wouldn’t be able to explain the difference between Democrats and Republicans to someone from another country. I didn’t think that made sense then, but it may not have been too far off. Both parties have become more well defined and specific on issues since then, and neither one has much in the way of broad appeal anymore. I don’t know if there’s been an actual change in the number of indepedents who don’t register with a party at all, but people seem more likely to call themselves an independent now instead of associating with either party.
In that case, they were actually blocked by a different rule. Both sides agreed to a 60-vote margin for all amendments. If they hadn’t, yes, background checks would have passed. And so would national concealed carry.
With a 50-vote margin, or with a 60-vote margin, gun rights would have won. I think national concealed carry is far more consequential than background checks, personally.
Nice try, but that agreement was just formalizing the ability to filibuster anytime the other side doesn’t have 60 votes.
So “If they hadn’t, yes, background checks would have passed,” and if your mother had a cock and balls, she’d be your dad.
Nm
Every one of adahers remarks have been out of touch. I think I lost faith for this human when he claimed that J. Huntsman had broad popularity. I might go into a bar tonight and ask everyone in there how they feel about Johnny Huntsman, only to see the faces of those interrogated freeze up while giving me the look of ‘get the hell away from me.’
whats the over/under on this game?
also would like to thank all of those who have responded (including adaher). many wonderful comments.
Yes, and so would concealed carry. The end result would be a victory for gun rights.
So basically this is another circle jerk. Glad to see I missed most of it.
Next time, miss it entirely. This is a warning for threadshitting.