President Obama will be inaugurated for a second term on Monday, January 21st, 2013.
As he begins his second term, there remains a divided Congress, with Republicans holding a majority in the House; Democrats in the Senate.
In addition to often paralyzing opposition, “sans compromise”, in our country’s legislative branch, there may well be some appointments to the Supreme Court due to retirements during Obama’s second term. Such changes in the composition of the Supreme Court could seriously alter the constitutional and philosophical approach of the Court. In the near future the Court will be hearing cases concerning “ObamaCare”, gun control and perhaps even constitutional aspects of fiscal management legislation facing the new 113th Congress.
The battles over fiscal management, gun control and immigration will be contentious and perhaps very rancorous. It seems a certainty that battles will continue to rage between the House, the Senate and the White House. Already on the issues of fiscal management, the debt ceiling and gun control, both political parties appear worlds apart in their approaches. At this point the Democrats seem a bit more unified than do the Republicans. Part of the challenge for the Republicans in the House is to find their own common ground, and better sooner rather than later.
Gun control is again becoming a more emotional and very divisive issue; while immigration remains a legislative and political quagmire. There are 70 million guns in the United States and thus far no agreements on how to keep guns out of the wrong hands, while ensuring America’s second amendment, “right to bear arms”. Surely more common sense discussions, along with comprehensive research is needed to fully discern and come to grips with this constitutional issue which many believe plays a large part in the most tragic of human consequences.
Then there is the immigration issue; complex, divisive, again, there are no, “one size fits all” answers. We are finding again, inactions and extremes often get us nowhere as a nation. In fact, an ineffectual Congress is inviting the potential for misuse of power by our chief executive. Immigration and the use of immigrant labor affect the Eastern Shore in both the seafood processing and agriculture industries.
By using executive orders and promulgating new federal regulation through the various federal agencies rather than seeking Congressional action, President Obama will use these mechanisms to put his stamp on these key issues to implement his political philosophy.
Since the President’s reelection was not really a wide mandate he will use these legal techniques and force the Congress and the courts to react. Watch for increased litigation in Obama’s second term.
Jobs, repairing the economy, and improving the nation’s fiscal standing will remain the priority for the administration. Let’s hope the President and his cabinet of “yes persons’ will remember these priorities.
Unfortunately, it appears that the more liberal Senate and the tough Democratic caucus in the House will exert tremendous pressure on the Republicans who seem to remain divided on many issues. It was President Lincoln who said, “A house divided against it cannot stand”. A Congress and a political party divided against itself may not stand for much and certainly will not work its will without unified goals. Republicans, take note.
President Obama will have his second chance, on Monday, to inform the nation regarding his priorities, programs and espouse his ideology. His second inaugural speech should enlighten citizens on his vision for America’s future and our place in a dangerous and ever-changing world. This week, in Algeria, another American citizen died.
Ii is interesting to note that the shortest inaugural speech ever delivered to the nation was the second inaugural speech given by President George Washington. It was just 135 words. Now there was a man who knew how to be succinct and to the point.
We, the citizens will see what our reelected commander and chief has to say and how he may react to the battles yet to come. For come, they will.
James Dissette says
Fletcher:
I think your gun count might be a little low:
A November 2012 Congressional Research Service report found that, as of 2009, there were approximately 310 million firearms in the United States: “114 million handguns, 110 million rifles and 86 million shotguns.” However, author William J. Krouse notes that “data are not available on the number of ‘assault weapons’ in private possession or available for sale, but one study estimated that 1.5 million assault weapons were privately owned in 1994.”
I’m sure assault-type rifle sales have nudged up a bit since 1994.
Joe Diamond says
Uh,
The president is commander in chief of the army. He is president of the United States and administers the government as chief executive with the advice and consent of the senate.
Today the president will deliver an inaugural address as he begins his second term in office. It will be rhetoric.
Later in the year he will address the congress and deliver a State of the Union. It will also be rhetorical.
That is about it. Perhaps more might happen in Washington if we dropped ther House Divided idea and got rid of the battle metaphor. Both Jesus and Abraham Lincoln had their reasons for using this simple explanation. I don’t thimnk it has any place in the second term of a Uniterd States president. He is not running for office this time around. So how about an address that starts ” I plan to Lead. You can follow if you want. At least stay out of the way.”
Stay tuned….speech will be on soon.
Joe
Gren Whitman says
Jaw-dropping murder rate in U.S. can be attributed to our antiquated Second Amendment plus the ready availability of weapons manufactured to kill people. Americans’ gun-ownership is not “well-regulated” with respect to either “well” or “regulated,” and except for the National Guard — which is “well-regulated” — there is no “militia.”
Joe Diamond says
Gren,
Your point is well taken. I look at the gun count of 310 million guns James sited above and note the 2012 population of the united States is 314 million.
We are close to one gun for every member of the population. Our children play gun games on their computers. Our entertainment is full of stories that somehow resolve with gun violence. The news media can always fill their time and space with some story of what a shooter did to himself or others. The real surprise is that on rare occasions someone with a gun actually succeeds in defending themselves against another armed attacker.
It is time to take another look at the second amendment and amend it if necessary. Even our well regulated military is cutting back on guns and the people who shoot them. Time to take a look!
Joe
Gren Whitman says
A provocative piece in “Truthout” attributes the Second Amendment to antebellum whites’ need for local militias to prevent and suppress slave revolts. As the U.S. Constitution once protected slavery, it now protects unlimited weaponry in civilian hands, and the amendment’s “well-regulated militia” phrase especially merits hard, cold review.
Joe Diamond says
Yup,
That “well regulated militia idea was used as a way to grab the guns. The idea was that if you wanted to have a gun your constitutional right could be observed by joining the national guard. It was reversed by SCOTUS. So the next variation comes in the form of a demand for membership in independent militia. Earlier there were regulators who operated outside the state governments for various reasons. In summary, as state local police became established the first thing to remove was these extra legal groups. I think there was even a cottage industry in the south returning escaped slaves. Could be the framers of the constitution left the details intentionally ambiguous so each area could claim a constitutional protection.
Joe
.
Joe
Mike Hunt says
According to the few empirical studies, places in this country with higher gun ownership are correlated with less violent crime. One does not need to fire or even to brandish a gun to promote safety—criminals just need to believe you probably have one. All our “gun free” cityies like Baltimore, Washington DC and New York are case in point. Criminals prefer unarmed victims.
Joe Diamond says
Mike,
Everything you say is true and I even agree with it. But I think we need to move from that wild west model. While it is true that criminals do prefer unarmed victims….if they have a desire to hurt an armed victim they will find a way. There is still the rest of the gun crimes and injuries to abate. We have more guns than we need and many are in the wrong hands. There has to be something way to disarm the violence prone, the temporarily unstable and those who are more are a danger to themselves due to the presence of guns. It is ok to trust people to act honorably but there must be a mechanism for controling those who cannot control themselves.
A difficult task,
Joe
Chester Burnett says
Everything he said is not true. Correlation does not imply causation. There are more guns where they are tools or sports equipment. There are more violent criminals where they see more to gain. If there were still as many banks in rural areas as in the past there would still be Bonnies and Clydes and more shootouts in “gun filled” small towns.
Robert Sweetman says
Joe Diamond – Even though our military is “Cutting Back” on guns and the people who shoot them, that has nothing to do with National Gun regulation. The economics are dictating that change, but don’t be fooled, even though the military numbers are being pared back, the technology of todays military weapons systems are far more lethal and defensive that they were 5 or 10 years ago…in other words bigger bang for smaller bucks…I don’t feel there is a need to “Take a Look” or change a thing regarding citizens and the 2nd amendment, except “maybe” a requirement that anyone owning a firearm must take a training course for the safe and responsible owning and operation of that firearm.
Gren Whitman – The modern day Supreme Court has ruled (Heller vs. District of Columbia) that in essence “the well-regulated militia” does not supersede the individual citizens Constitutional right to own and bear arms. The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia. And yes they did say that a government could “REGULATE” the citizens firearms, they also said that could not “RESTRICT” ownership. Along the exact same lines whereas the US Supreme Court ruled that Technology Improvements (Internet, Cell Phones,Video Camera’s, etc..) could not infringe upon the citizens right for 1st Amendment Free Speech or 4th Amendment illegal Search and Seizure enactments , so also does the same thing pertain to the 2nd Amendment protected rights.
Joe Diamond says
Ok, Robert, I’ll take the hit for citing the military trend away from individual weapons. My thought was there are other ways to deal with self defense and, more importantly, eliminate attacks and assaults with guns.
How about this? SINCE the population will submit to body searches by the TSA in the name of flight safety how about regulating guns and the people who carry them? If a person with a felony gun conviction is discovered to have a firearm in possession, his car and residence become targets for continual searches. All guns in his possession could be confiscated. Penalties would be applied; fines or jail time…probation revocation. A group of gunless crooks could emerge.
I say all this while being aware that none of this will stop persons intent on committing gun crimes. Whatever the gun laws become the persons least prone to gun violence will follow the law. They could well become disarmed victims. The predators will have no problem acquiring and using guns for crime.
I don’t have an answer.
Joe
Robert Sweetman says
“Ok, Robert, I’ll take the hit for citing the military trend away from individual weapons.” LOL 8-)..You ARE the Man!
I’m not too fond of the abilities and capabilities of the TSA and it’s duties either..Have you ever seen some of those people???.. Have you ever watched some of those People???..I do agree partially with your comments about regulating “PEOPLE”; not the guns..The whole issue for me is the behavior and actions of People, Responsibility or the lack thereof by individuals, not the inanimate objects they use. Rev. Al Sharpton just recently said when the Gun issues are dealt with then if need be, we’ll deal with the Knife issues ?!?!?! When will it end, When all of our freedoms are slowly stripped away…
Today our Md Legislators released two bills which they will attempt to hammer into what I perceive to be some of the the most restrictive gun legislation and laws anywhere in the nation. It not only involves Handgun, but Rifles of all types, and Shotguns too. I highly recommend everyone read these bills in full and formulate your own opinions, then tell me that your freedoms are not being slowly stripped away piece by piece..
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/hb/hb0211f.pdf
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/sb/sb0281f.pdf
Mike Hunt says
Your point is not well-taken by me. Under Maryland law, every able-bodied individual in Maryland not under a disability is a member of the militia (check out the Maryland code). I have a feeling that most if not all people against guns have no idea what our laws already are. Further, congratulations for reading the latest Danny Glover (idiot) race-based talking points about the 2nd Amendment being to protect slavery. Actually, the idea that every able-bodied man be a member of the militia both predates slavery and goes back even before the founding of this country. Nice try.