The Hidden Life of Guns - A Washington Post Investigation - Essay Example

? The American government truly is a marvel. The headlines and talking heads on the radio and cable news stations bring us a constant stream of reasons to be discouraged. Congress is rife with small minded squabbling while important legislation dies in committee. Corrupt bureaucrats and congressional staffers sell information and access to the highest bidder. Presidential appointments must be made by recess appointment because Congress cannot cooperate or compromise. The Supreme Court increasingly injects partisan opinion in their rulings. If the headlines and pundits are to be believed, the American government is a wreck. The reality of the situation is the American government is alive, well and working much the way it was designed by the gentlemen that crafted it over two hundred years ago. The system of checks and balances keeps any one branch of the government from bullying the other, personal liberties are vigorously defended each day and an amazing amount of services, from safe food to national defense, are provided ceaselessly to the American people. Considering the often touted inefficiencies of our democratic government and the wonderful things that are actually accomplished and achieved each day, it is clear that there are certain aspects of the constitution that could be changed or updated. This is clear when one looks at many of the social issues that face the nation at this time. The changes do not need to be profound, but as in any system, when you make a change to one part of the system, you may see negative effects in other parts. As we examine the parts of the out governmental structure, it becomes apparent that our modern society requires some changes to how people are elected to government, how the departments of government works, the relationship of the executive to the other branches of government and even some of the personal liberties enjoyed in the Bill of rights. The first changes that need to be made in the American system of government center on how we elect our representatives in government. The first change is a structural change to the length of terms for members of the House of Representatives. The Constitution currently states that members of the House of Representatives are elected for two-year terms, the President serves a four-year term and members of the Senate serve six-year terms. I would increase the length of term for a member of the House of Representatives to four years. As it stands now, most of the House of Representatives spend their time running for re-election and not running the country. Elections every two years are a huge distraction to these members of congress. Running an election is more complicated and expensive than it was when the constitution was established. For this reason, members of the house should have longer terms. The House of Representatives should have 25% of its members being elected each year. This means that some of the members will always be running for office, but it also ensures that there will be constant turnover if people are not pleased with the way the House of Representatives is running the nation. These changes will result in more focused legislators and a more responsive House. The second change that should be made concerns the role of money in the electoral process. The entire process of getting elected now focuses on having enough money to get your message out, hire staff and run negative advertisements against your opponents. The only donors that can give enough money to really influence a national campaign are the ultra-wealthy and large corporations. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that corporations can make unlimited, anonymous contributions to political parties and individuals though Political Action Committees (Liptak, 2010). This ruling is very dangerous for our democratic process. The Court reasoned that money is the same as speech, as protected in the Bill of Rights. The justices ruled that if the government curtailed the spending of money in the political process, then it would be the same a curtailing speech. This unfortunate reliance on campaign contributions to get elected is making lawmakers beholden to the wealthy while they can easily ignore the poor and still get re-elected. A major change that needs to happen is a constitutional amendment concerning the financing of elections. The amendment would cap the amount of money that can be spent by a candidate during an election cycle. This means that all of the candidates would have the opportunity to raise money up to a certain point and then they would be forced to stop accepting money. This way, all of the candidates can start with a level playing field. We would no longer have elections that are simply won by the best funded candidate. The amendment would also limit the sizes and types of funds that candidates use. For example, Political Action Committees could no longer buy add time for a candidate without a candidate’s approval. All advertisements would need to be approved and paid for directly by the campaign. This amendment will ensure that elections are more about the ideas of the candidates than they are about outspending one another on advertising and marketing. It will also keep wealthy individuals from giving limitless resources to a candidate in exchange for preferable treatment after they are elected. Moving on from elections and the House of Representatives, we will next look at reforms in the procedures of the Senate. The senate has rules in place that create a lot of gridlock in legislation. The Senate was conceived as the member of Congress that would move more slowly, enjoying longer terms so they could make decisions that are best for the nation without suffering immediate political drawbacks if the necessary legislation proved to be unpopular. Some procedures were put in place in the Senate that ensured all members could weigh in on matters. This prevented dominance by any one party (Taylor, 2011). The House of Representatives did not have any of these procedures, so there was originally more of a “winner take all” attitude among members of the House. Unfortunately, in times of heated partisan divides, the Senate can be brought to a standstill because of procedures that are intended for gentlemen and ladies, but are ruinous in the hands of scoundrels. The most important of these procedures that needs to go is the filibuster. The filibuster allows a minority party to hold-up legislation and executive appointees indefinitely (Olofson, 2009). The only way to end one is to win a supermajority vote of 60 Senators. So in essence, if partisanship trumps citizenship and concerns for the nation, the Senate is nothing more than a collection of worthless hot air unless 60 Senators can agree to unify their votes. This is simply an undemocratic situation. The Senate needs to get rid of procedures that discourage straight up or down votes on legislation and appointees. This will eliminate much of the unnecessary inefficiencies in the American government. The process for confirming Executive appointee’s needs to be changed as well. The Constitution states that the Senate must approve any appointee the President makes to head a federal department or to fill a federal judicial seat. These appointees can be held-up indefinitely by a single vote from one dissenting senator. If a political party is in power in the Senate that opposes the President, nominations can be put-off indefinitely simply by never bringing the matter to the floor of the Senate for a vote. The change that needs to take place here is a deadline for each nominee presented to the Senate by the President. Ninety days should be enough time to vet any potential nominee. This will allow time to study the voting record of a judge or the political leanings of a nominated department head. After the end of the ninety day period, a straight up or down vote is taken in the Senate. This will ensure that key positions in the governmental bureaucracy care filled in a timely manner. There will be no more stalling or playing political games, something that both parties have been guilty of over the past few decades. It is clear that the underlying structure of the Constitution does not need to be altered. The checks and balances that exist have served the country well for centuries. The basic principles outline in the Articles of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Amendments do not need to be altered for the most part. There is one personal liberty that is due for a re-examination simply because of the march of technology and the changing shape of American society. The right that needs to be curtailed is the second amendment’s right to maintain a well equipped militia and to bear arms. The original intention of this part of the bill of rights is outdated. It is no longer necessary to maintain militias in the United States now that we have a strong federal government and a centralized military. As a result, there should be certain types of guns that are not available for personal ownership. Guns that are primarily used for tactical or combat purposes have no use for individuals other than as a hobby. This is a hobby that needs to be made unavailable for American citizens. Gun ownership should surely continue because it is such an ingrained part of our nation’s culture. Gun enthusiasts and hunters should still have the right to own guns that can be used for target shooting or hunting. But even these guns should be highly regulated. Stricter laws should be in place that makes it illegal to sell guns at an unregistered establishment. Too many guns are sold and purchased between private owners. These guns are unregulated and often end-up in the hands of criminals (Fallis, 2010). Restricting access to guns should be a part of this change. If a person is simply a gun hobbyist, then they should be willing to wait for three or four months for their gun they just ordered. This would help eliminate disturbed individuals from gaining quick access to guns that can be used in horrible crimes against innocent citizens. The United States government often appears to be inefficient and sloppy. Much of the fighting seems to be about little more that trying to win petty little battles over meaningless legislation. But the underpinning of this government is superb. The division of the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches, their assigned roles and their interaction with the governmental bureaucracy is truly inspired. That does not mean that improvements cannot be made. Changing the things I have suggested in this paper will make the United States of America a more democratic, equitable and safe place to live. Works Cited Fallis, David. "The Hidden Life of Guns - A Washington Post Investigation." Washington Post. Washington Post Company, 25 Oct. 2010. Web. 09 Jan. 2012. . Liptak, Adam. "Supreme Court Blocks Ban on Corporate Political Spending." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. New York Times, Co., 21 Jan. 2010. Web. 09 Jan. 2012. . Olofson, Kristi. "A Brief History of Filibusters - TIME." Time Politics. Time, Inc., 02 Nov. 2009. Web. 09 Jan. 2012. . Taylor, Steven. "Turning the Senate into the House?" Outside The Beltway: Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs. 11 Oct. 2011. Web. 09 Jan. 2012. . Read More