General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe end of majority rule?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-the-end-of-majority-rule/2013/04/07/74d8a6d6-9e30-11e2-9a79-eb5280c81c63_story.htmlThe National Rifle Association is facing attacks from Gun Owners of America for being too soft on gun control. This is like a double cheeseburger coming under severe criticism for lacking enough cholesterol.
Universal background checks are supported by 91 percent of Americans. Yet there is enormous resistance in Congress to passing a strong bill to keep arms out of the wrong hands. What does rule of the people mean if a 9-to-1 issue is having so much trouble gaining traction?
Or consider the Morning Joe/Marist poll last week showing 64 percent of Americans saying that job creation should be the top priority for elected officials. Only 33 percent said their focus should be on reducing the deficit. In light of Fridays disappointing jobs report, the publics instinct is sound. Yet politicians in our nations capital are so obsessed with the deficit youd imagine they still havent heard how many Americans are unemployed or underemployed.
These three non-randomly selected facts illustrate a deep structural tilt in our politics to the right. This distortion explains why election outcomes and the publics preferences have so little impact on what is happening in Washington. At the moment, our democracy is not very democratic.
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)notion of "majority rule".
I am an alien from another planet and can't find many examples of this in the sense that it has much impact on your economics, politics, wars, inequity, etc.
Is this what is called an "urban myth" or does that only apply to more trivial matters?
I need this information for my Galactic Survey.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)It 's happening on all issues. The people are FAR to the left of the politicians. Of course the new meme (since it's become too obvious to ignore) is that the respondents to these "issue" polls are lying because they continue to vote for pols farther to the right than they are. Just ignore the fact that there AREN'T any politicians (or at least very few) who can muster the big bucks it takes to run who actually DO represent the people on these issues. So there ISN'T any choice on the ballot that actually does represent us.
That won't hold forever. At some point the people will DEMAND representation on these issues, either in the voting booths or in the streets.
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)As I said, this kind of lack of representation cannot hold forever.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)If it is widely known that incumbent X is not representing the majority in his district, then it ought to be a simple matter for that majority to vote that incumbent out, whether his/he opponent has big bucks or not.
What we really lack is a media which keeps us properly informed. The TV news is all - traffic, fires, gunshots, sports and weather. And the print news is not too much different, although they will report some on local politics - cities, school and county.
Wounded Bear
(58,440 posts)He left out the push to demand super majorities in state houses around the country to get anything done.
Here in WA, another of those abominations was thrown out by the Courts as unconstitutional. I've always felt that support of shit like that was a sign that the supporters know that they don't really represent the majority opinion.
Definite K & R.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)a federal law requiring background checks on private intrastate sales of guns, which is what we are talking about since this is the only gun sales not federally required to have a background (NICS) check is...the Federal government has no jurisdiction over intrastate private sales of legal items..the commerce clause does not allow it and any federal law requiring background checks on private intrastate sales would not pass constitutional scrutiny...States will have to enact legislation or there will have to be a constitutional amendment..
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There are zero constitutional issues with universal background checks. There is ample precedent for this kind of federal action. To name one obvious example, machine guns require a federal background check much more extensive than what is being proposed for regular gun sales.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)'in common use for lawful purposes', the 1939 SCOTUS standard used to determine if a firearm may be more heavily restricted...a standard reinforced in both Heller and McDonald.. If you believe there isn't a commerce clause issue with federal regulation of private intrastate sales, you simply haven't been paying attention..
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It exists only on right-wing gun blogs. Let me guess: you also think the civil rights act is unconstitutional.
Wake me up when a single credible constitutional expert makes this argument. Until then, read up a little on how the commerce clause and federal authority have been interpreted in practice. Gun trafficking is an interstate concern. Obviously.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)a requirement for private intrastate gun sales. Maybe you can explain the force behind this sinister "loophole"? Someone must be interested if this "loophole" just can't be closed? Why, after almost 20 years, hasn't this "loophole" been closed? We have controlled both houses and the presidency a few times since 1994. Why was this "loophole" carved out in 1994? The NRA supported the NICS? Why has not a single "gun show loophole" piece of legislation never made it out of the Judiciary committees of Democratically controlled congresses or senates?
Keep pretending that this can be legislated at the federal level and denying the facts and we will keep going down this same road every time there is some tragedy. Demand federal action, congressional and senate hearings listening to the same shit as last time with the bill never leaving committee because of the commerce clause, but by now after the tragedy everyone has lost interest until the next tragedy when this is all repeated.. Or admit the reality that private resident to private resident intrastate sales between 2 people of ANY legal personal property is outside of the jurisdiction of the Federal government...Make NICS available to anyone who wishes to use it through the existing network of Federal Firearm Licensees for a reasonable fee...this would remove the financial burden required for state enactment of background check requirement to build their own redundant system...then watch the states enact the requirement because 80% of their residents support it..
DanTex
(20,709 posts)They see every piece of gun control as part of a slippery slope. They think it will lead to gun registration and then to confiscation and then to Stalinist prison camps.
And notice that, as dumb as the registration/confiscation/Stalinism argument is, the gun lobby is actually voicing it, unlike the "commerce clause" argument, which I haven't even heard from people like Rand Paul who think that the civil rights act is unconstitutional.
The reason that there are no universal background checks is purely political, and has absolutely nothing to do with the constitution.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Hell, last I heard well over 50% of NRA members support background checks on private sales. Surely gun makers are stronly in favor of private sales being subject to the same scrutiny as their sales? They certainly have no up side to exempting intrastate sales when every gun they sell must go through NICS. Again, why would the NRA oppose checks on private sales and support checks on new gun sales and used gun sales by licensed dealers? Why has not a single bill made it out of Democratically controlled judiciary committees of the numerous bills proposed?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That was the whole point of the OP, in case you missed it. It's the same thing, though not as extreme, with cutting social security, or raising taxes on the wealthy, or wall street regulations, and so on. Congress is to the right of the electorate on issue after issue.
You know very well why the gun lobby opposes universal background checks. If you've forgotten, go back to the gun blog where you read the thing about the commerce clause, and read some of the other threads about the slippery slope to full gun confiscation.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)What harm would there be in making NICS available to anyone who wishes to use it for a low statutory fee? Do you really not see the logic in what I am saying, grasping steadfastly to a federal solution which never comes? When this goes to the wayside as it always does and we are right where we started, what is gained? At least allowing people to voluntarily use NICS for transfers would eliminate those sales which were sent through NICS and declined...even if it is only 10% of all private sales in states with no requirement to use it, it's headway. Further, why do no gun control groups or law enforcement agencies set up at gun shows and encourage private sellers to use a free NICS check provided by them?
No, the gun control groups are not interested in solving the private sale issue. If they couldn't rant about needing money to close the fictitiously deceptive and completely dishonestly named "gun show loophole"..(it isn't about "gun shows" and it isn't a "loophole" by any definition)..they wouldn't have anything to stir people into enough of a frenzy to send them money..
There are damned few people in or out of the NRA who believe NICS is a slippery slope anymore. Name another consumer product, which is legal to own at the federal level, sold between two residents of the same state who are neither in the 'business of selling' that product which has any federal regulation attached? There aren't any. There aren't any because the Federal government doesn't have jurisdiction to regulate intrastate commerce..this is really mind-numbingly simple..
Compliance by states for reporting to NICS hasn't been good. Now, those states which have enacted or are enacting legislation requiring background checks on private intrastate sale are having to re-invent the wheel for their own use...if they could enact based on availability to NICS to anyone, they wouldn't have to spend their time updating their own databases which helps nothing when a person moves from one state to another, because NICS doesn't have the records. If the state is dependent on NICS for enforcement of their own laws, they will also comply with reporting most likely..this is a no-brainer..
Frankly, if it wasn't for the tendency toward lying when the truth would be better, this issue would have been fixed long ago, but alas the 'gun show loopholers' refuse to quit lying and continuing to call this black kettle red..
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Right now, both are working against the Democrats. First, red states with tiny populations like Wyoming and North Dakota get the same number of senators as California. In the house, which is theoretically fairer, the 2010 redistricting heavily favored the GOP, so again the legislature is to the right of the people.
I'm not sure if there's any solution. We can try to win the redistricting battle next decade, but changing the senate would require a drastic alteration of the constitution which is never going to happen.
spanone
(135,635 posts)it's 'rule of a few people'
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)ideas on how to craft restrictive legislation on abortion.
The idea that single issue advocacy groups are supposed to offer concessions is ridiculous. It's the job of politicians to figure out what policies to enact and the advocacy groups are merely supposed exert pressure on politician.
Larrylarry
(76 posts)We just need a much larger majority to get things done
Let's call it an even 60
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Local, regional or national. Most issues in politics aren't talked about nor determined by/for the 50%+1. They are determined by the vocal minorities for whom the impact is disproportionately more significant than the average.
e.g. The homeowner subject to Eminent Domain.