Showing posts with label senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label senate. Show all posts
Wednesday, 25 September 2013
Thursday, 19 September 2013
Saturday, 27 April 2013
Why did Obama's gun control attempts fail?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/04/four-reasons-why-the-gun-control-bills-failed.html
Excellent article on why Obama's gun control attempts. Excerpt here from reason number 4....
4. Our Weak Presidency
Facing a Congress in which the House is controlled by Republicans and the Senate is hobbled by the filibuster, Barack Obama’s legislative strategy this year leans heavily on his use of the bully pulpit to shame Republicans into backing his initiatives, especially on gun control. But even on an issue with overwhelming public support, Obama’s poignant speeches, numerous campaign-style events, and the use of his new political arm (Organizing for Action) were no match for the N.R.A. It’s even possible that his campaigning hardened opposition to the proposals and bolstered the N.R.A.’s efforts. (I spent some time shooting shotguns and an AK-47 with three gun enthusiasts in Arizona recently, and they all viewed Obama’s current gun-control agenda in near-apocalyptic terms.)
Excellent article on why Obama's gun control attempts. Excerpt here from reason number 4....
4. Our Weak Presidency
Facing a Congress in which the House is controlled by Republicans and the Senate is hobbled by the filibuster, Barack Obama’s legislative strategy this year leans heavily on his use of the bully pulpit to shame Republicans into backing his initiatives, especially on gun control. But even on an issue with overwhelming public support, Obama’s poignant speeches, numerous campaign-style events, and the use of his new political arm (Organizing for Action) were no match for the N.R.A. It’s even possible that his campaigning hardened opposition to the proposals and bolstered the N.R.A.’s efforts. (I spent some time shooting shotguns and an AK-47 with three gun enthusiasts in Arizona recently, and they all viewed Obama’s current gun-control agenda in near-apocalyptic terms.)
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
Friday, 22 March 2013
Read this: what are the prospects for gun control bill getting passed in any recognisable form?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/22/gun-control-nra-assault-weapons
As a further threat, there have been dark whisperings of a possible ruse by Republicans to pack the Reid bill with pro-gun rights amendments that would turn the legislation on its head, transforming the bill from a measure to tighten gun regulations post-Newtown into a panacea for a gun-owning free-for-all. One such provision being mooted would require all 50 states to recognise concealed carry permits from other states – New York, for instance, would be forced to allow a man with a permit from Arizona to carry a hidden gun in its bars.
"That's an old favourite legislative strategy – to add poison pills to a bill that would make it difficult to support and that way kill it," Vernick said.
As a further threat, there have been dark whisperings of a possible ruse by Republicans to pack the Reid bill with pro-gun rights amendments that would turn the legislation on its head, transforming the bill from a measure to tighten gun regulations post-Newtown into a panacea for a gun-owning free-for-all. One such provision being mooted would require all 50 states to recognise concealed carry permits from other states – New York, for instance, would be forced to allow a man with a permit from Arizona to carry a hidden gun in its bars.
"That's an old favourite legislative strategy – to add poison pills to a bill that would make it difficult to support and that way kill it," Vernick said.
Why has Leader of Senate dropped assault weapons ban from proposed gun control bill?
http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/19/assault-weapons-ban-senate
Wednesday, 6 March 2013
Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Chuck Hagel finally confirmed by Senate
Chuck Hagel confirmed for secretary of defense in 58-41 Senate vote http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/chuck-hagel-clears-senate-hurdle-toward-confirmation-88102.html
Wednesday, 30 January 2013
Role/functions/power of Congress - Congressional Oversight of the Executive
Here, former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton gets 'overseen' by Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Jan 2013. The hearing relates to the mob-murder of US Ambassador to Libya and the extent to which the US government were to blame or could have avoided the attacks.
Telegraph article
Hillary Clinton appears at Senate Foreign Relations Committee• 'I take responsibility' for Benghazi, says Clinton• 'Arab revolutions' shattered security across region• Clinton chokes up when talking about Benghazi diplomats• Hits out at allegations of cover upIn an emotional appearance in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mrs Clinton cast the incident, the first in which a USambassador was killed since 1988, as part of a long history of such violence as well as the result of regional instability since the Arab Spring of popular revolutions began in 2011.
Speaking in congressional testimony delayed by more than a month because of her ill health, Mrs Clinton offered her first detailed accounting of the first days after the attack, saying she directed the US response from the State Department.
"I take responsibility," Mrs Clinton said, echoing comments she first made in October and stressing that she has accepted all of the recommendations of an independent review panel that ultimately held lower-level officials responsible.
Saturday, 26 January 2013
Will the January 2013 filibuster reforms end the tyranny of the minority in the Senate?
This well known measure to slow down or block legislation has been in the news recently. Senate party leaders have agreed to minor changes which limit the opportunities for senators to filibuster. However, senators STILL have some remaining opportunities for the filibuster, hence why it is being seen as a very modest reform.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/01/senate-keeps-its-filibuster-tactics-with-bipartisan-rules-change.html
The significance of the filibuster is that it allows a minority of senators to block the democratic will of the majority. It might be argued that it effectively gives some senators a veto on legislation. Other critics of the filibuster point to the fact that sometimes senators representing a tiny proportion of Americans can block legilsation (2 Senators per state no matter how big or small).
To prevent a filibuster takes 60 votes, therefore if the party balance in the 100 seat Senate is 59-41, the 41 party (as it were) could potentially block all legislation. In reality of course, the minority will not block all legislation necessarily, but can use the threat of such action to influence deals done over Bills, and force changes. This is the modern functioning of the filibuster. One rarely sees 24 hour speeches on the floor of the Senate any more. The threat of the filibuster is usually enough for the majority party to seek negotiations and compromises, rather than forcing anyone to actually speak for a long time in the chamber, which is seen as a waste of time.
Where the margins are very slim, as described in the aforementioned example, Senators from the minority can sometimes be persuaded to vote for a cloture motion against their own party, if a bargain can be struck, but this will still mean the majority will have to make concessions to a minority. Increasing partisanship with the Senate has seen an increase in use of the filibuster since the election of Obama, as Republicans have tried to block as much of his policy agenda as possible. For a short while in 2009-2010 the margins were 59-41 in favour of the democrats, which made the chances of Obama getting his healthcare reforms through particularly nerve-racking. Could a deal be done with one Republican senator to peel them away from their party on this issue and force a successful cloture motion against an otherwise implacable republican minority? The answer was no, and the 2010 mid-terms saw a reduction of the Democrat majority in the Senate forcing a much bigger compromise from the Democrats over health care reform.
So what is the significance of the 2013 reforms? They reduce the opportunities for filibuster without getting rid of it all together. This may mean a slightly speeded up average time for the passing of Bills through the Senate. This remains to be seen.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/01/senate-keeps-its-filibuster-tactics-with-bipartisan-rules-change.html
The significance of the filibuster is that it allows a minority of senators to block the democratic will of the majority. It might be argued that it effectively gives some senators a veto on legislation. Other critics of the filibuster point to the fact that sometimes senators representing a tiny proportion of Americans can block legilsation (2 Senators per state no matter how big or small).
To prevent a filibuster takes 60 votes, therefore if the party balance in the 100 seat Senate is 59-41, the 41 party (as it were) could potentially block all legislation. In reality of course, the minority will not block all legislation necessarily, but can use the threat of such action to influence deals done over Bills, and force changes. This is the modern functioning of the filibuster. One rarely sees 24 hour speeches on the floor of the Senate any more. The threat of the filibuster is usually enough for the majority party to seek negotiations and compromises, rather than forcing anyone to actually speak for a long time in the chamber, which is seen as a waste of time.
Where the margins are very slim, as described in the aforementioned example, Senators from the minority can sometimes be persuaded to vote for a cloture motion against their own party, if a bargain can be struck, but this will still mean the majority will have to make concessions to a minority. Increasing partisanship with the Senate has seen an increase in use of the filibuster since the election of Obama, as Republicans have tried to block as much of his policy agenda as possible. For a short while in 2009-2010 the margins were 59-41 in favour of the democrats, which made the chances of Obama getting his healthcare reforms through particularly nerve-racking. Could a deal be done with one Republican senator to peel them away from their party on this issue and force a successful cloture motion against an otherwise implacable republican minority? The answer was no, and the 2010 mid-terms saw a reduction of the Democrat majority in the Senate forcing a much bigger compromise from the Democrats over health care reform.
So what is the significance of the 2013 reforms? They reduce the opportunities for filibuster without getting rid of it all together. This may mean a slightly speeded up average time for the passing of Bills through the Senate. This remains to be seen.
Wednesday, 6 June 2012
Wednesday, 25 January 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)