US - Executive appointments and other issues 2012

Plenty of issues have arisen over the Summer and over the Autumn. With brevity in mind (and before I forget them), examples to consider for the Summer exam:

 1. The likely appoinment of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defence - there is controversy reported here about something he apparently said in 1998. Further discussion of these appointments is here.

 2. Hilary Clinton being replaced by former Presidential candidate John Kerry as Secretary of Defence. BBC report is here. Both of which are likely to be controversial, especially because of the highly-charged partisan Congress. Keep an eye on the Congressional Standing committees in this area in due course.

 3. After the tragedy of the Connecticut Elementary School shooting, Obama has called for more gun control. He has appointed Vice-President Joe Biden (who knows his way around Congress) to lead the initiative, as reported here in the NY Times.

 4. Somewhat predictably Pressure Groups such as the NRA have reacted with a response which does not demand an increase gun control, by erm, recommending armed police officers in every school. Good for questions about Pressure groups.

 5. The Economist's Lexington columnist has some very interesting things to say about gun control, the Second Amendment and public opinion here. The short version being that not a lot will change, sadly.

6. While the results of the US Presidential election are clear, the likelihood of increased partisan politics and a lacklustre Congress are probably increased. Good stuff here in the Economist (although there is so much out there you could read).

 7. The problems for Republicans are many, and Andrew Sullivan (always interesting but not without his bias) has a great article here.

 8. The end of 2012 also saw 5 US states legalise Marijuana, which has implications for State vs Federal power (it's still illegal under Federal law). See here and here for BBC articles.

 9. The US Supreme Court will be looking at gay marriage in 2013, which may well have profound implications.

10. There are proposals to reform the rules governing Filibusters in Congress - at present, the mere threat of one causes gridlock. The proposals essentially require the filibuster to start before a cloture vote is called - derailing the legislative process.  Further information here from the Huffington post.

[Picture Credit - The Economist]

2nd Amendment

A quick note about the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution; this article in the Washington Post discusses the implications of the Supreme Court decision DC v Heller (the first time the Supreme Court had decided on guns - it said that US citizens could have a gun) but then says that the gun lobby are not having it all their own way. The right to a gun is not all-encompassing; Lower courts are not giving the gun lobby carte-blanche to have guns wherever it likes.

Supreme court and gun control

In my mammoth posting yesterday I forgot to mention another key decision which will have a significant impact on US society; the decision of McDonald v Chicago (2010) which essentially has thrown out various pieces of gun-control legislation and underlined the 2nd Amendment which discusses a "well-armed militia". Ultimately the Supreme Court has said that Americans have the right to bear arms and to keep them. An earlier case, DC v Heller (2008) also supported the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms, but the most recent decision clarified some areas, specifically which parts of America the case referred to. Both decisions were voted on 5-4.

This CS Monitor article is useful, as is this post from Reason. The Economist reports on developments here too.

The right to bear arms is not without its limitations (i.e. not having a gun near a school for example), but the ability of states and the federal government to restrict gun-ownership has been curtailed. Various court cases will follow, and this will determine exactly how much power the states and local government has to limit gun ownership. Pressure Groups the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation will doubtless get involved.

For now, G&P students could make a clear argument that these two cases represent another move in a conservative direction in the history of the Supreme Court and its judgements (the only previous court case which referred to the Second Amendment occurred in 1939, with US v Miller). The legal arguments in the cases are probably not terribly useful in an essay, although Justice Alito did write the majority opinion in the McDonald case.

Another, possibly very charitable, interpretation is that the Second Amendment has always been seen as a guarantor in favour of gun ownership, and the Supreme Court was merely recognising that. The decision does not stop states from bringing in gun-control legislation in the future as this piece about Chicago's plans shows.

I'll finish by quoting the Economist piece above which explains the second interpretation well:

And yet campaigners for gun control have not been cast into utter gloom. They are consoled by the fact that in this week’s ruling Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, made a point of repeating something else the court said in Heller: the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. The court emphasised two years ago that it was not questioning longstanding regulations such as preventing felons and the mentally ill from owning guns, or keeping guns out of sensitive places such as schools or government buildings. “We repeat those assurances here,” wrote Mr Alito in the new opinion.