President Barack Obama has been struggling to wrap his head around the "unimaginable" idea that Congress may "defy" the American people and stop a vote on a gun control package compromise. The notion, he says, resists the "overwhelming instinct of the American people" after the massacre in Newtown, Conn., to pass gun control legislation.
Well, the unthinkable happened. The Senate's sweeping gun legislation came up short on the votes required to move forward. And despite all the idealistic calls for passage and despite the fact that many pundits and advocates seem to believe that something should be law simply because "the vast majority of Americans" support it, not every issue deserves a majoritarian decision.
To begin with, whether Democrats like it or not, this issue concerns the Constitution — where stuff was written down for a reason. That's not to say that expanding background checks or banning "assault rifles" would be unconstitutional (though you may believe they both should be). It's to say that when you begin meddling with protections explicitly laid out in the founding document, a 60-vote threshold that slows down stampeding legislators is the least we deserve.
The Founding Fathers worried that "some common impulse of passion" might lead many to subvert the rights of the few. It's a rational fear, one that is played out endlessly. Obama, who understands how to utilize public passion better than most, flew some of the Newtown families to Washington for a rally, imploring Americans to put "politics" aside and stop engaging in "political stunts." This is, by any measure, a preposterous assertion coming from a politician piggybacking tragic events for political gain. It would have been one thing, I suppose, if the gun control legislation written in the aftershock of a gruesome massacre had anything to do with the topic at hand.
But what senators came up with would have done nothing to stop the shooter in Newtown — or the one in Aurora, Colo. Passions can be aggravated by events, but in this case, events have little to do with the policy at hand.
Cabinet positions and judges should probably not be held up over ideological concerns. But if Washington is internalizing the 60-vote threshold as the barrier to pass legislation, voters should be grateful. Considering Washington's propensity to politicize everything and its increasingly centralized power (what your health care looks like is now up for national referendums, for instance), slowing things down can only help.
I'm not operating under the delusion that any of this is good national politics for Republicans — though the arguments about obstructionism's dooming the GOP are probably overblown. No doubt, when the next disaster hits — and it will — Democrats will blame the overlords at the National Rifle Association and Republicans for the act of a madman. That's life.
But generally speaking, it'd be nice if Congress occasionally challenged the vagaries of American majority "instinct." Though it might seem antithetical to their very existence, politicians should be less susceptible to the temporary whims, ideological currents and fears of the majority. Theoretically, at least, elected officials' first concern is the Constitution. And if the need for gun control is predicated chiefly on the polls taken immediately after a traumatic national event, they have a perfectly reasonable justification to slow things down. In fact, if Washington internalizes the 60-vote threshold as a matter of routine, voters should be grateful. Considering Washington's propensity to politicize everything and its increasingly centralized power (what your health care looks like is now up for national referendums, for instance), this might be the only way left to diffuse democracy.
David Harsanyi is editor of Human Events and the author of "Obama's Four Horsemen: The Disasters Unleashed by Obama's Reelection." Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi. To find out more about David Harsanyi and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
1 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Sir;... It is nice to think of the constitution as written in stone, or worse, as a thing in itself, obvious, and beyond the need for proof, existing, as it were a'priori... But it is not that... It has always been in flux, and usually to the worse... The second amendment is a joke, but is especially bad since it gives people the thought that their guns are actually worth defending when they cannot possibly defend them...Those who stand against an outrageous arming of the population clearly in defiance of government, and standing against human and equal rights are standing against a vast majority of the people... It would have been smarter to give a little insignificant ground than risk the loss of your precious amendment altogether...
For the most part, the constitution has done a lousey job protecting rights, and has done a great job of protecting property and confounding the government's ability to tax and to regulate commerce...The privilages it has protected offer people the greatest abuse... The privilage of religion is a constant infringement upon individual rights, for example...The privilage of property has excused every defeat of labor unions in America, which were only started because people found them essential...
There are many who feel afraid to be without the constitution; but there is no one who loves it whole... Republican and democrat alike will swear to its defense and work against it from the first instance... There is no end to it... The people can be manipulated in their fear to such an extent that no change of the constitution is possible...
I tell you; that if the constitution cannot change while the people must change, that sooner or later the constitution will be torched, and that light will signal a new form of relationship between this people... First of all; in a very real sense, the people are the constitution; and for the wtitten constitution to stand unmolested against 90% of the people is a bad sign... I expect that the people will take it in stride... No big deal...A divided people cannot unite even to offer themselves a little tea and sympathy...
The problem comes, as it does when the constitutional government cannot function, cannot tax, cannot pay its bills, cannot keep an army in the field... There is no argument in favor of failure that has ever been known to succeed...
Once the government has done all within its power for those with enumerated rights; what will those people do for their government??? What will property do when it has put the government in the poor house denying taxes, and multiplying those in need of government help??? Will it make less demand for law, for police, for the military???
And what of the churches??? Will they reduce their demands for new laws to limit the freedom of all people who do not follow their revelations??? The gun nuts need guns in the wild west; but that means they are plentiful where they are mostly an impedement to law enforcement... Okay; then we need more law with more expense because we cannot dare to limit dangerous weapons???...
Personally; I like guns and always have, and even more so when I was sick as every man in youth is... But some people never get well, and some people never grow up; and if they have one gun they need twenty or thirty... And I know people like that, with thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of ammo... It is crazy; but where is the mad man that know he is sick until he gets well???...
The whole nation is ill; and trying to make a failed constitution function is taking the life out of us... People who talk of killing other human beings, who buy guns for that express purpose, who think of it, consider it with calm, and wish it only to be justified against the offense of morality, and defensable against the force of law are sick crazy, and insane...
You want to buy a gun...Really??? For what purpose may I ask??? You are buying a man killer to kill some one??? Over what??? Some junk that can be replaced??? For the color of their skin??? Because you feel threatened??? Because you can??? What the Bible says to Bible preaching nuts can be as quickly discarded as people can be redefined as less than human...
What sort of constitution has put us at odds... What sort of defense of the government are all these people with their legal rights to bear arms??? They hate the government most of all, because it does not support their defective morality; but mostly because they are ignorant of reality... They hate the poor for being poor generation after generation, and do not see their number increasing yearly... They hate the poor because the immorality that grows out of poverty they take as its cause...
Will they hate themselves when they are dispossessed and thrown on the support of the government???... Will they hate the government less then, when they are fed greezy government cheese, and yankee beans??? It is good for them to be armed when they have done so much out of their ignorance to keep government from functioning as government should... But it is right for them to be armed, because if government does not work for them it does not work for us, and then, it is every man for himself... What nonsense...
Quit waving the consitutional flag... If you think you have rights, then make the rational or irrational argument for them... You should not have to fight, or even organize... The thing about law is that it is rational, supposed to be rational; so make the rational argument for your law...But don't try to stand behind the constitution because it is a piece of worn out junk...
If you had a problem with rats or skunks or snakes I would let you buy a trap, or a gun... If you have a problem with people I will let you buy a gun; but if your problem is with enacted law with a constitutional government you have yourself helped to elect; then you need an army, and not just a gun... The point is that the first step in revolution is always a new constitution and a new governent; but the first act of insurrection is violence... I am all for revolution, but I don't have any use for insurrection...It's just spittle on a skittle...
There is only one element of the old constitution I would bring into a new constitution; and that is the preamble because the goals of government will always be the same... Yet; when people talk about the constitution, and how great it works, they never compare it with its goals, but always talk about how worser it could be...If this form of relationship we call the U.S. were a marriage we would be divorced; or if we felt some love, we would re-evaluate the rules under which we are united...
Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Apr 18, 2013 6:45 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
