Gun Control

Paul Ciancia was arrested on Monday for killing a TSA member injuring two more and injuring a passenger on a flight. He walked through the airport firing on any TSA member in sight. His violence, most people would think, deems that there should be more scrutiny and more checks on guns and that gun control should be regulated by the federal government. This may be true however, any person intent on committing a crime will be willing and able to find a gun through illegal sellers. Regardless of the consequences if someone is intent on a mass killing, they will find a way. For instance, people who smoke marijuana continue to smoke it regardless of the penalties for doing so. The only people gun control is hurting is the innocent people. Without being able to defend themselves from someone who is intent on killing them, the people who follow the law are the only people who get hurt wrongfully.

The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a man barred from owning a firearm because of a 45-year-old misdemeanor assault conviction. Because this man can no longer own a gun he is put in danger. He no longer can defend himself if another Paul Ciancia come along. Therefore I believe that gun control is not necessary and therefore not a policy that should be in the federal Government's power.

http://www.turnto23.com/news/state/gunman-in-lax-shooting-told-police-he-acted-alone-110413

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-05/supreme-court-on-gun-control-waiting-and-watching-for-now

The Executive Power stomping on Congressional Decisions

            This article by Andrew Radalevige emphasizes the distinction between the powers of the Presidency as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution as compared to our current situation.  According to Radalevige, the current Executive Branch has become like a king and can choose to declare war.  Thomas Jefferson believed that “Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war” and Madison said “that the power to declare war including the power of judging of the causes of war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature: that the executive has no right, in any case to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war”. 

            Sanford Levinson also addresses the problems with the president’s power in his book, Our Undemocratic Constitution.  He states that the Declare War Clause of Article I is not a limiting factor to the president. Article II section 1, clause 8 states: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  Article II section 1, clause 8 gives the president power to disregard any particular part of the Constitution if fidelity to it might, according to the president, threaten the survival of the order itself”.

            The Legislature or House of Representatives is given the power to declare war according to our Constitution, but the Congress has allowed this power to be transferred to the Presidency.  Radalevige is suggesting that President Obama should not be in any position to decide if Congress should be involved in the decision to go to war with Syria or any other country. Congress has been given the authorization to decide and the letters to Obama asking for him to reconvene should not have been necessary.

http://themonkeycage.org/2013/09/01/presidential-power-and-congressional-cower/
Levinson, Sanford. "The Legacy of Article II." Our Undemocratic Constitution.

Republican governor Chris Chrisite is projected to win a second term in the race for governor in the state of New Jersey on Tuesday, November 05, 2013. This is his last term he can run for as he is only allowed to run for two terms by law. Chris Chrisite’s popularity grew exponentially after Hurricane Sandy destroyed the New Jersey shore. Christie is also known for his stands against legalizing gay marriage and against raising the minimum wage. Could Christie, who has gained lots of popularity especially in a Democratic state, be a possible candidate for the GOP? He could possibly gain more popularity within the party to run for the presidential election in 2016.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/05/christie-cruises-to-second-term-as-nj-governor/

Can The President Really Save Us?

Every four years, citizens across the country cast their vote for the next leader of the free world. The presidential election receives the most media coverage and highest voter turnout, but why? Can the president really solve all of America's problems? Can he alone be the fearless leader who drives America to prosperity? The answer is simple: NO. Even the most basic knowledge of American Government shows that the president has very little power in the grand scheme of government. So why is it that local, state, and congressional elections have lower voter turnout? After all it is the local governments that affect citizens most directly, and congress no doubt holds most of the power to affect legislature at the national level. If the people want change, and the general consensus is yes, then every election matters. Only showing up to vote every four years will not achieve anything, and it strikes me as odd that voters don't take advantage of every opportunity they have to place effective leaders in government at ALL levels, local, state, and national. Kellan White, co-director of the New Leaders Chapter, Philadelphia Chapter, said in his blog post yesterday, "The issues that matter most to us happen on the local level. Your local officials are the people who determine if your city booms like San Francisco or collapses like Detroit." It is time for the voters to start participating in ALL elections, because that is how democracy works. It is a huge mistake and neglect of duty by the American people to continue only voting in the most overrated election in American Government. The president cannot save the country, nor should he receive all of the blame when things don't run smoothly. The real blame rests on the citizens who believe that the presidential election is the only election that matters. I say again, every election matters.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kellan-white/young-voters-local-elections_b_4191149.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics

Border Patrol reportedly rejects recommended curbs on deadly force

I read the article; Border Patrol reportedly rejects recommended curbs on deadly force.  This article discusses how Border Patrol agents will continue to have the ability to use deadly force against "rock throwers and assailants in vehicles".  This goes against what "The Police Executive Research Forum, a nonprofit group that advises law enforcement agencies", recommended which was to ban the use of deadly force because they deemed it too much and unnecessary.  Border Patrol Chief Mike Fisher defended the use of deadly force by repeating "the agency's long-standing position that rocks are lethal weapons", this ban would have brought the agency in line with many metropolitan police departments even though the conditions and terrain are very different since in many cases Border Patrol agents have no where to go and their options are fire their gun or be killed.

Considering the purpose of the Border Patrol is "to prevent the entrance of terrorists and their weapons into the United States" and "to prevent and detect the entry of illegal immigrants" I have no problem with the Border Patrol having the ability to use deadly force when necessary.  In 2011, Border Patrol agents were "attacked with rocks 339 times" and only 33 times did they respond with deadly force compared to 118 times they responded with "less-than-lethal force" which consists of pepper spray and batons.  Then in 2012 agents were attacked with rocks 185 times a big decrease from the following year and this time they only used lethal force 22 times compared to 42 times they used "less-than-lethal force".  In 2011 they only used lethal force 9.7% of the time and in 2012 they used lethal force 11.9% of the time this is a small percentage and since the percentage of the time where they used "less-than-lethal force" is a lot higher I'm sure that these agents clearly felt that their life was in danger.  The Border Patrol Agents go out there everyday and do their best to protect our border and as bad, as it might sound their safety and life are worth more than criminals who are illegally entering the United States and attacking them for doing their job.  In conclusion, Border Patrol agents should be able to use deadly force if they feel like they are in serious danger.

Government shutdown

If Congress fails to reach agreement on a stopgap spending bill and the government shuts down on Tuesday, the impact on colleges, students, and university scientists would be minimal, at least at first.
But researchers who depend on government-run archives, libraries, and museums could see their work interrupted, and some university employees whose salaries are paid by the federal government may have to wait for their paychecks.
The shutdown would not disrupt the awarding of student aid or the servicing of student loans, at least in the short term, according to the Education Department's contingenc plan. Commercial student-loan servicers and other contractors could continue to work for "some short period of time," but they would have to wait to be paid, and no new contracts would be awarded.

Hatocracy

Colorado Is Asking Taxpayers for $1 Billion to Help Schools                                                                                                                           

November 4, 2013
 
The state Colorado what's more money to educated their kids in school because students take classes in a bus garages using plastic sheeting to keep the diesel fumes at bay. There's no more money to tutor young children struggling to read. And just south of Denver, a district where one in four kindergartners is homeless has cut 10 staff positions. It shouldn't be a question the taxpayers should give the money to them for the better educated in todays world you cant live without it you have to learn to read, write, and math. The tax players would give money away for other stupid cause but to give money for a better education for the children they think that's a bad idea. I think its a great idea because all parents do in todays world speak of getting a better educated. Its a lot of parents that cant afford for the children to go to great academic schools. Its not far for rich kids to get better educated then poor kids. Education is the key of life and with out it you not going to amount to nothing  They need to look into it more and make sure they putting the money in the right frame don't just give it to them so they can waste it. They need to see their investment is working. There are many studies showing why certain schools do succeed. Yes that's a lot of money but its not gone make us more in debt we already are in debt enough in the nation. They need to come to a vote and make the right decision and give Colorado the money because its a good cause for the state its helping the children. That's like someone that doesn't have insurance but they are dying and are need of help and if you don't help them they are going to die you need to help them. Like they need to help the children in Colorado. These will only help for the better of their lives they might not see it but it will and it also can change their lives they are a lot of kids that want to learn but doesn't have the opportunity but the government has opportunity to change that. Give them a chance to learn more its only for the better so read this article and see if you agree or disagree? Because I agree they need to give them the money for a better education.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/us/in-colorado-a-tax-increase-referendum-is-tied-to-improving-schools.html?ref=politics