I found a story on Obama's current policy on gun control.
This is the link
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/obama-gun-control-proposals_n_2486919.html
Obama has issued twenty three executive actions that require stricter gun control laws. His policy has four points: to focus on mental health, more law enforcement, school safety, and the availability of firearms. He wants to increase mental health help, provide more law enforcement, increase school safety, and restrict the availability of the majority of firearms.
The president has the enumerated power of an executive order, which holds the full force of a law. Obama could issue an executive order and use the recent mass shootings as justification. He has already issued 23 executive actions though.
Informally, the president can pocket veto, meaning let a veto sit so long that it dies. I think Obama could threaten to pocket veto every bill Congress sends him until they send him the gun control bill he wants.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Monday, January 28, 2013
G2
a. One formal, constitutional power of the president in foreign policy is the ability to make treaties. While congress must ratify these treaties, it is the president who must negotiate the terms. The president also has the constitutional power of appointing ambassadors He (soon to be she) can only decide, even if he can't confirm appointments, who the American ambassadors will be. Therefore, there will never be an appointed ambassador that the president doesn't approve of.
b. Congress has at least two consitutional powers in foriegn policy. Congress, and only congress, can ratify a treaty. So even if the president is all gungho, congress must approve. Also, congress has to confirm all of the president's appointments including ambassadors, meaning that they have influence over who he picks because he needs to pick someone who will be approved. Congress, and only Congress, can declare war
c. The president can informally send troops without Congress declaring war because he is commander in chief. The president can also make executive agreements, different from treaties, with other heads of nations, without Congress' approval.
d. While congress does have checks over the president, his informal powers can trump those checks. Or at least find loop holes in them. Even though congress has to declare war officially, the president can deploy troops anyway. And if Congress won't be in favor of a treaty, the president can make an executive agreement without them. Through these two powers, the president informally has greater foreign policy power than Congress
b. Congress has at least two consitutional powers in foriegn policy. Congress, and only congress, can ratify a treaty. So even if the president is all gungho, congress must approve. Also, congress has to confirm all of the president's appointments including ambassadors, meaning that they have influence over who he picks because he needs to pick someone who will be approved. Congress, and only Congress, can declare war
c. The president can informally send troops without Congress declaring war because he is commander in chief. The president can also make executive agreements, different from treaties, with other heads of nations, without Congress' approval.
d. While congress does have checks over the president, his informal powers can trump those checks. Or at least find loop holes in them. Even though congress has to declare war officially, the president can deploy troops anyway. And if Congress won't be in favor of a treaty, the president can make an executive agreement without them. Through these two powers, the president informally has greater foreign policy power than Congress
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
E7 (Make up work... was absent)
1. The fundamental goal of interest groups in the political process is to influence public policy.
2. The fundamental goal of major political parties in the political process is to put their people in office.
3. Interest groups can give financially to political parties to help with their campaigns. Also, interest groups can run their own ads on behalf of a candidate. Both of these actions help put people in office, which means the interest group is helping the political party reach its goals.
4. After interest groups have donated to a campaign or party, they are linked to a candidate. If that candidate wins, they are obliged to implement new public policy that the interest group supports. Therefore, by donating to political campaigns, interest groups are realizing their own goals.
2. The fundamental goal of major political parties in the political process is to put their people in office.
3. Interest groups can give financially to political parties to help with their campaigns. Also, interest groups can run their own ads on behalf of a candidate. Both of these actions help put people in office, which means the interest group is helping the political party reach its goals.
4. After interest groups have donated to a campaign or party, they are linked to a candidate. If that candidate wins, they are obliged to implement new public policy that the interest group supports. Therefore, by donating to political campaigns, interest groups are realizing their own goals.
Monday, January 14, 2013
F8
For Ryan Murphy's bill [one question, one amendment]: In section 4(e), you say that there is no undermining f authority. I was wondering who would enforce your law? Would it be the FDA? I also think that a tax of $1.01 is too high and that in section 4(d) you should say “tax of $0.80”
For Ms. Angle-Davis' bill [one question]: Is there a series of three HPV shots? Would all of these be covered by the bill, or just the first one?
For Ms. Davis' bill [one amendment]: In Section 4(d), change it to “Drilling companies that continue to use fracking” instead of “have used” because I think it is post facto punishment if they fracked while it was legal
For Ms. Carter's bill [one amendment]: In your definitions, change the definition of “minor” to someone under the age of eighteen, and nix the part about still being in high school. Or use a different word to describe who you want to protect, like "high school student."
For Ms. Schulman's bill [one question]: Could you clarify what the peer-to-peer sharing motor vehicle program is? Is a single person now required to always share their car?
For Mr. Irving's bill [one amendment]:I suggest that instead of a penalty clause, you simply withhold funding from states that do not supply these buses. Because if they can’t afford to supply the seatbelts than they cannot afford to be taxed.
For Mr. Wangjor's bill [one question]: Will this bill ensure the standardized tests become a better measure of a child’s knowledge? Because right now they can not be very accurate. What will happen if a teacher has children that has testing disabilities?
For Mr. Soronson's bill [one question]: In section (2)(b)(2), why will this act create a lot of new jobs? Won’t it just transform current waster programs that already have a set number of employees?
For Mr. Courtney's bill [one amendment]: In section (4)(b), take out the “first come, first serve” part and put small businesses ahead of larger ones.
For Mr. Lee's bill [one question]: How can we ensure that the judge will carry out his/her duties?
For Ms. Angle-Davis' bill [one question]: Is there a series of three HPV shots? Would all of these be covered by the bill, or just the first one?
For Ms. Davis' bill [one amendment]: In Section 4(d), change it to “Drilling companies that continue to use fracking” instead of “have used” because I think it is post facto punishment if they fracked while it was legal
For Ms. Carter's bill [one amendment]: In your definitions, change the definition of “minor” to someone under the age of eighteen, and nix the part about still being in high school. Or use a different word to describe who you want to protect, like "high school student."
For Ms. Schulman's bill [one question]: Could you clarify what the peer-to-peer sharing motor vehicle program is? Is a single person now required to always share their car?
For Mr. Irving's bill [one amendment]:I suggest that instead of a penalty clause, you simply withhold funding from states that do not supply these buses. Because if they can’t afford to supply the seatbelts than they cannot afford to be taxed.
For Mr. Wangjor's bill [one question]: Will this bill ensure the standardized tests become a better measure of a child’s knowledge? Because right now they can not be very accurate. What will happen if a teacher has children that has testing disabilities?
For Mr. Soronson's bill [one question]: In section (2)(b)(2), why will this act create a lot of new jobs? Won’t it just transform current waster programs that already have a set number of employees?
For Mr. Courtney's bill [one amendment]: In section (4)(b), take out the “first come, first serve” part and put small businesses ahead of larger ones.
For Mr. Lee's bill [one question]: How can we ensure that the judge will carry out his/her duties?
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
F6
The problem our country faces today is a simple but deadly one. Our gun control laws are not strict enough. We have turned our heads to the obvious fact that a sizable amount of innocent citizens are losing their lives, their guaranteed right as a citizen of the United States of America. I am aware that we currently have an amendment protecting the right to bear arms, making this another guaranteed right as a citizen. However, there comes a time when reform is inevitable. While my original proposal was to pass a new amendment banning the second amendment, I have settled on passing strict gun control laws. These laws will be national, and not up for debate within individual states.
According to a poll in 2008, 67% of murders in the United States were committed with a handgun. That 67% is 10,886 people who had families and friends just like we all do. Let us strive to think of the individuals instead of grouping them together in statistics. While the US is not number one in the world when it comes to gun violence (we are actually ranked somewhere between 17th and 26th), we are number one with our “equivalently modern” countries. A homicide is three times more likely in a house with a gun than in one without. In Connecticut recently, a total of 26 people, including teachers and elementary school students, were shot during a normal day at school. Again we have 26 families who will never be unaffected, their pain is forever.
There are few existing laws that deal with gun control today. There is the second amendment which guarantees the right of citizen to bear arms. There is also the Gun Free School Zones Act (1995), which prohibits knowingly carrying a gun anywhere that is a known school zone. Another piece of legislation in place is the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which requires a background check for any person purchasing a gun. While these Acts are helpful, there are too many loopholes and exceptions and the federal government has not done enough. Most recently, there was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which prohibited certain firearms to be purchased after the bill was signed. However, that ban has expired.
My law will outlaw the possession of semiautomatic weapons being available to citizens. Hunting rifles and other guns used for hunting may be allowed. My law will require, with no exception, that the customer provide reason for owning a gun. Then, after he/she has proven the reason, they must undergo a background check by the state or national government. If there are any traces of mental illness, the customer must not have the gun.The gun-seller must be licensed and keep track of every transaction, and his or her license must be renewed every seven years.
There will be more education in school about gun violence, and when you buy a gun you have to go through additional education. It will be recommended to every buyer that they purchase a safe.
In addition to these regulations, my law will contain a buy back program. This program will allow any citizen currently owning a gun to sell it back to the United States government, thereby boosting the economy a bit.
The committee that I would look to to review my bill would be the Congressional Committee on the Judiciary, because they hold jurisdiction over constitutional amendments. While I do not propose striking the second amendment, I do propose it be changed so this would be the proper committee I think.
Research:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jul/23/how-does-gun-violence-compare-to-other-nations/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States
According to a poll in 2008, 67% of murders in the United States were committed with a handgun. That 67% is 10,886 people who had families and friends just like we all do. Let us strive to think of the individuals instead of grouping them together in statistics. While the US is not number one in the world when it comes to gun violence (we are actually ranked somewhere between 17th and 26th), we are number one with our “equivalently modern” countries. A homicide is three times more likely in a house with a gun than in one without. In Connecticut recently, a total of 26 people, including teachers and elementary school students, were shot during a normal day at school. Again we have 26 families who will never be unaffected, their pain is forever.
There are few existing laws that deal with gun control today. There is the second amendment which guarantees the right of citizen to bear arms. There is also the Gun Free School Zones Act (1995), which prohibits knowingly carrying a gun anywhere that is a known school zone. Another piece of legislation in place is the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which requires a background check for any person purchasing a gun. While these Acts are helpful, there are too many loopholes and exceptions and the federal government has not done enough. Most recently, there was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which prohibited certain firearms to be purchased after the bill was signed. However, that ban has expired.
My law will outlaw the possession of semiautomatic weapons being available to citizens. Hunting rifles and other guns used for hunting may be allowed. My law will require, with no exception, that the customer provide reason for owning a gun. Then, after he/she has proven the reason, they must undergo a background check by the state or national government. If there are any traces of mental illness, the customer must not have the gun.The gun-seller must be licensed and keep track of every transaction, and his or her license must be renewed every seven years.
There will be more education in school about gun violence, and when you buy a gun you have to go through additional education. It will be recommended to every buyer that they purchase a safe.
In addition to these regulations, my law will contain a buy back program. This program will allow any citizen currently owning a gun to sell it back to the United States government, thereby boosting the economy a bit.
The committee that I would look to to review my bill would be the Congressional Committee on the Judiciary, because they hold jurisdiction over constitutional amendments. While I do not propose striking the second amendment, I do propose it be changed so this would be the proper committee I think.
Research:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jul/23/how-does-gun-violence-compare-to-other-nations/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)