In our government class this week we have begun studying the Constitution. While the original constitution itself is over 200 years old, throughout the history of the U.S. there have been many amendments to the constitution. The actions required to make these additions are still occurring today.
Yesterday, Dec.3, the Senate voted on two new amendments proposed by Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Dianne Feinstein. The new legislation was put forward in response to the San Bernadino shooting Wednesday, Dec. 2. Manchin's was a push to expand back ground checks on the buyers of guns bought online or through gun shows. Feinstein's was also a push for more thorough background checks, focusing primarily on those on the terror watch list. Neither amendment was accepted. They needed 60 votes, but Manchin's was short 10 votes, and Feinstein's lacked the support of 6. It was supposed that the recent tragedy in San Bernadino might help to pass these new measures, but it was not enough to sway those critical senate votes. Very similar legislation was proposed after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary as well, but was voted on with very similar results.
The Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, a Republican, countered the Feingold amendment with his own measure, seeking to institute a 72 hour delay for those on the terror watch list who wished to purchase a firearm, which could become a permanent delay if a judge found probable cause to do so. His argument was that Feingold's amendment was unconstitutional. His own was 5 votes away from passing. Sen. Rand Paul (R), proposed a measure that would allow concealed carry licenses in D.C. Every Democratic vote was against it, 54 to 45.
The House as well is stirring over the gun control topic. Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, is asking that House Speaker Paul Ryan put together a committee for gun safety, and for the House to vote on the same amendments the Senate recently voted on.
It is very clear, and reasonable, that gun control is a hot topic right now. Amendments were very quickly proposed in response to the shooting. Though this is a very appropriate time to address the issue of gun control, it will not be rushed. Both parties in Congress have their own firm beliefs on this very polarizing topic. While the constitution is said to be living and breathing, it seems to shuffle and wheeze when it comes to change.
And it was designed this way by the framers. One important aspect to an instrumental framer, James Madison, was that the government not be subject to the passions of the people. The representative democracy that is our government acts as a buffer to the immediate and strong opinions of the people to moderate them into more constant opinions through the congress members. Should the citizens of San Bernadino been the ones to vote on these new amendments, the result might have been much different.
This is not to say that the Senators or Representatives are void of ardent viewpoints. These people voted into their offices are often quite passionate in their opinions as well. But the framers accounted for this, too. The diversity of our country, and subsequent diversity of our Congress, leads to a large group that balances out new measures. Our government is not in such a condition that it would be overtaken by an ideological group, such as the early Articles of Confederation might have been. So any new amendment has to obtain a substantial amount of support before any action is taken. This is a security against impulsive decisions, but also a point of contingency to those struggling to pass their proposals.
So our living, breathing constitution will hold it's breath for a while longer, until a greater majority of congress is ready to back these new amendments.
Click here to read up on the event:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/03/senate-democrats-to-force-gun-control-votes-in-the-wake-of-the-san-bernardino-shooting/
No comments:
Post a Comment