1. President Joe Biden used executive power to address gun violence.
That might sound like a good thing. The president did something because Congress could not do much of anything.
The executive actions – which Biden has repeatedly argued have done nothing to impede the Second Amendment Amendment – include efforts to curb weapons, known as ‘ghost guns’, that can be built using parts and instructions posted online. be purchased.
The moves are limited and do not reach the steps Biden promised to put Congress under pressure. Nevertheless, they kept his promise to take his own “common sense” steps last month, and one step – the heavier regulation of armrests used to make a pistol more accurate – is directly related to the March shooting. in Boulder, Colorado, where such a device was used.
But the bigger issue is that Biden’s actions are a symptom of Washington’s greater paralysis. It is not that there is not a majority in the House or Senate to pass legislation supported by members of both parties. The problem is that under current Senate rules, majority support is meaningless because the minority party – currently Republicans – can insist on a 60-vote super majority to succeed in anything.
Democratic Senator Joe Manchin has said he will never support ending the filibuster.
This could be the death knell for Biden’s infrastructure plan, along with any hope of action against immigration or climate crisis.
What this means is that the Democrats cannot get the 50 votes they need to approve the Senate rules so that a mere majority can pass laws. The need to reach a majority is therefore here to stay, at least until the next election.
Republicans are united behind the filibuster and several Democrats, especially Manchin – a centrist from increasingly red West Virginia – are nervous about shaking things up.
That may be true, but it’s just as clear that lawmakers will use it to keep gun laws, climate laws, suffrage laws and immigration laws, as long as there is a filibuster to exploit.
Manchin calls on Republicans and Democrats to cooperate and ignores recent evidence that they are being rewarded for fighting and not finding a common ground.
What Manchin is proving wrong is that in the time since the Democrats and Republicans ended the filibuster for federal, judicial and Supreme Court nominations, the world has not ended yet and that presidents have gotten the most nominees, but not all. The filibuster is not a law, but a custom rendered from a time before senators were elected by voters.
3. Kentucky Adopts a Dual Voting Bill
The third, and perhaps most important, thing that has happened in the last few days is that Kentucky – not a blue state, but a state with a Democratic governor and a Republican legislature – has introduced two-vote reforms.
This in itself is not dysfunctional. But the fact that it is a surprise only further underscores how the rest of American politics is currently polarized and paralyzed. The reality of a Democratic governor working with Republicans to expand the right to vote holds the greater tendency of GOP-controlled swing states, making it harder for people to vote.
Kentucky to open access to the vote does not compare it to other states. In Georgia, where Republicans have moved to restrict access, it is probably easier to vote than in Kentucky, where the new law provides access to just three days of early voting.
It may also emphasize the need for more national standards. In some places it is easier to vote than in others, which means that different Americans have different access to the ballot boxes.
Yet the idea that anything from two parties is currently happening in Washington seems so fantastic in part because small minorities in the Senate have the power to block legislation they want.
Stop calling them “vaccine passports”
I wrote here about the political controversy surrounding the verification of a vaccine in exchange for access to something – for example, airplanes and cruise ships, or concerts.
There were quite a few reader comments about the issue. Mark Hall, a senior fellow at Brookings, argued in his research that the idea of ’vaccine passports’ is divisive, but that it is not biased in a normal way.
This is where the government can play a role, they argued, by setting up a system to document vaccine verification, while not requiring a vaccine itself.
“Although it is not in the driver’s seat, the government will have to help drive. Private actors need standards and limits, including clear regulations banning the use of vaccine certification that involves illegal discrimination,” they write.
‘Passport’ can be a divisive term. There was a similar trend in Conservative pollster Frank Luntz, who along with Brian Castrucci told CNBC that the issue of passports is a message. Just call it a vaccine verification, they argued.
“The concept of a vaccine passport pushes almost every biased political button for Republicans who already do not trust their political leaders and fear the government will overwhelm.”
After leading a focus group, they argued, “If you want everyone to be vaccinated and for life to go back to normal, start using the right language. A” verification “of a vaccine becomes elected over a passport by each population subgroup – all. “
“Although I realize that most journalists use the term ‘vaccination passport’ in a general sense – as a kind of shorthand – it is in fact inaccurate, inflammatory and distorts a critically important public debate. It plays into the hands of extremists. “on both sides of the political spectrum – which deliberately uses the term to reinforce the claim that any form of digital healthcare system will by definition be an insult to civil liberties and / or health equity,” he said.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story was incorrectly identified by Stanford researcher David Studdert.