I agree with you on most of these, but age limits for Congresspeople is a terrible idea that would make our government worse. It would shorten Congress' institutional memory and force some of its best people out. Age limits are not that much different from term limits, and studies have consistently found that states with term limits are worse governed than those without them.
Also, it's completely ageist. Just because some old people are tired, out of touch, or developing dementia doesn't mean they all are. Mandatory retirement in the private sector has been banned for good reason and there is no good reason to implement it for Congress. A lot of young people complain about older leaders, but that is because they haven't been paying attention to politics for long enough to truly understand how it works. As I've gotten older, I have developed more and more appreciation for the establishment and its gray eminences. Most of the time, they are the ones who actually get stuff done. You will pry my right to keep re-electing them from my cold, dead hands.
I also notice that you didn't defend this position in depth. You just said it was a "good idea" with zero backup. It doesn't look like you thought it through or did any research on it. You normally do better than this, which is why I subscribe. Please do some real research and reconsider.
Matt's proposal to federally crack down on interstate gun "smuggling" goes against the original purpose of the federal government. In the first place, the US Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The federal government's authority extends only to those areas that are outlined by the constitution and regulated through the US Code, which makes the patchwork of extremely diverse state and local laws on gun specifications, licensing, and purchasing extremely difficult to enforce by the federal government given its limited interstate trade authority. The interstate commerce clause sort of allows the feds to oversee interactions between states but so much time has gone by between the time when it was understood that any private citizen could own a warship without permit or permission that now we have non-gun-owning, soft-handed politicians who quibble over how many bullets a citizen can put in a pistol (only 7 in NY regardless of magazine size) without earning a felony.
So no, interstate weapon smuggling is not a federal issue. Unrealistic gun control laws and the violent crimes they enable are self-inflicted problems enabled by the feckless governments of old, corrupt cities and their 1-party host states.
Do you think the US constitution allows the federal government to prevent felons or the involuntarily institutionalized from owning firearms? Does it prevent background checks to verify these things? How about preventing the sale of fully automatic weapons, grenades or other explosives?
"The federal government's authority extends only to those areas...."
Take it up with the Supreme Court- in Heller all 9 of them were very clear that the federal government has extensive authority to regulate firearms, including all of the examples that I listed above. They did strike down a handgun ban, but they specifically upheld everything I mentioned above and more. They specifically upheld bans on guns in schools or government buildings, concealed weapons permits, etc. This isn't a close call and there were no dissents- all 9 of them were crystal-clear on this topic
In answer to your first paragraph: no, no, and no. But since gun ownership is a constitutional issue, federal law is the correct way to regulate firearms in the US.
The federal government has been largely responsible for the regulation of firearm sales, performance of background checks, and various specific provisions within the NFA, which is the federal law establishing the ATF and federal regulation of fully automatic weapons and certain explosives. But when Matt said to cut down on interstate “smuggling” this introduces the gray areas I described in my post. Then you’re asking the federal government to balance one state’s anti-gun laws against another’s gun-positive/constitutional laws. Makes you wonder why states are allowed to have any say in the matter in the first place. 🤔 Is it a constitutional right to keep and bear arms or isn’t it? Half of US states have “constitutional carry” laws, which allow for universal firearms ownership and use within federal law, which is actually quite permissive, apart from the specific categories you mentioned before. SCOTUS thought NY, NJ and others would respect their legal decision in the NYSRPA v Bruen but this has not been true for NY. Our state has basically decided to make nearly everywhere a gun-free zone, which in effect means that these are guns-only-for-criminals zones. Given that the current SCOTUS actually respects the constitution it’s likely NY and other gun control havens will regret making such overtly partisan gun regulations. Justice Kavanaugh specifically respected state permitting in his concurrence, but much like when the Biden administration enacted eviction moratorium after saying it had no right to (a la the Dreamer act and other leftist overreaches) and then continued to do so even after another Kavanaugh decision said they could probably trust the executive branch not to behave unlawfully, something tells me that the next SCOTUS gun control decision will reflect the anti-federal behavior of New York state and others who have no respect for federal law and the constitution.
Sorry, my sentence phrasing was kind of awkward, so let me re-ask- do you think the federal government can regulate fully automatic weapons, explosives, and prevent felons from owning firearms? Is that a yes or a no?
I would need a better definition of what cutting down on interstate smuggling is, but if said weapons are illegal in a given state- isn't intercepting illegal firearms very much 'giving those states a say in the matter'? They're either illegal in a state or they're not
Thanks for clarifying the question. The constitution itself makes a guarantee of weapon ownership but does not offer anything specific in terms of regulation. Note that the "well-regulated militia" in the text of the 2nd amendment does not imply a modern understanding of the word "regulate," which means something like "to limit" or "control." The original meaning of the word "regular" meant "normal," "uniform," or something along those lines.
So my answer to your question is Yes. Because weapon ownership and use is a constitutional issue, my non-expert opinion is that the federal government should have sole discretion to regulate (in the modern sense) the sale, possession, transfer, and specifications of weapons in the US. This has been true for most of history, since the first federal law providing any regulation whatsoever was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which came about as a result of fears of automatic weapons driven by high-profile organized crime in urban areas. Half of US states respect the original meaning of the constitution and require no permit whatsoever to keep and bear arms. A small number have proscribed firearms to an extent that they are nearly impossible to own, like my state of NY.
I honestly feel like a narrow-target list wouldn't work in the US b/c candidates don't really release policy programs in the same way that, for example, UK parties release manifestos. It seems to me that successful campaigns here are about creating a vague sense of positivity around a candidate and avoiding most policy commitments. Especially with a 10-item list you're probably going to rack up a lot of people who disagree on at least one item while the other candidate avoids getting pinned down.
I'm confused by the chart you posted to support the porn item. I think it shows that a huge majority of people (68.7%) think there should be no laws.
I'm sure that, in practice, there wouldn't actually be pushback here but doesn't that number contradict the idea that it is "it is clearly in line with what the public wants."?
#2 What age? Both senate and house? Can’t be 60...too young. 70? 🤔. 80 would be okay but how many does that really capture? 75...maybe. I am a little surprised Matt thinks this is a top 10 issue. Is it just because Joe is front of mind in the big seat?
One thing you have to weigh is what kind of motivated counter-lobbying you’d get for these. Don’t think Big Lunchable wouldn’t go scorched earth against #5
Great list, though on credit card interest rate cap, one problem is this will result in higher fees for the other stuff, paid by wealthier ppl (who have more political power than the poors). Still mostly agree with it. Funny you got pushback on porn thing. I think there is room for sex-positive, porn-limiting liberalism (esp for minors!)
Part of the problem with the Warren wing’s domination of the Democratic professional staffer class is that it’s a group of people who literally cannot comprehend the concept of overregulation. So better FDA and clean energy regulation just aren’t possible as long as the Warrenites are in charge
Good explanations. Really important one is codifying some type of abortion plan that is hard for a reasonable person to argue against. It may get filibustered away but I think making the republicans defend an unpopular and crazy position is something that is undervalued by many liberals. It’s turning the bannon book back against the republicans.
I love how this is your recommendation but you don't expect anything good to happen until after the democrats are crushed in the next election. Actually, I don't love that part.
The porn policy piece is just objectively weird IMO, even with Matt's "throw the right a bone" justification. Sure, social conservatives would gladly get behind such legislation. But to my knowledge, they aren’t clamoring for it.
To be clear, I do think it’s a VERY good idea to signal a conciliatory approach to policy-making that addresses a concern for the right in a manner the left can live with. Which is to say, I think the left can get way more bang for their policy buck by looking elsewhere.
The recent trend of black and Hispanic voters shifting to the GOP is thought to be driven by the progressive left’s hostility toward organized religion and the fact that BIPOC voting blocs are extremely religious. As such, I think any policy (even symbolic in nature) that explicitly supports religious expression is more likely to sway an important bloc of voters than this porn idea, while also not materially impacting the lives of secular democrats.
Dang it, too bad for me that this didn’t run Thursday instead, when I’m back from vacation and have a chance to wake up super early before hundreds of comments are already here, because otherwise I'd have a *lot* to say about this article, and likely more so towards replies to it. Sigh, I guess I’ll just have to let this one go, everyone enjoy.
I agree with you on most of these, but age limits for Congresspeople is a terrible idea that would make our government worse. It would shorten Congress' institutional memory and force some of its best people out. Age limits are not that much different from term limits, and studies have consistently found that states with term limits are worse governed than those without them.
Also, it's completely ageist. Just because some old people are tired, out of touch, or developing dementia doesn't mean they all are. Mandatory retirement in the private sector has been banned for good reason and there is no good reason to implement it for Congress. A lot of young people complain about older leaders, but that is because they haven't been paying attention to politics for long enough to truly understand how it works. As I've gotten older, I have developed more and more appreciation for the establishment and its gray eminences. Most of the time, they are the ones who actually get stuff done. You will pry my right to keep re-electing them from my cold, dead hands.
I also notice that you didn't defend this position in depth. You just said it was a "good idea" with zero backup. It doesn't look like you thought it through or did any research on it. You normally do better than this, which is why I subscribe. Please do some real research and reconsider.
Matt's proposal to federally crack down on interstate gun "smuggling" goes against the original purpose of the federal government. In the first place, the US Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The federal government's authority extends only to those areas that are outlined by the constitution and regulated through the US Code, which makes the patchwork of extremely diverse state and local laws on gun specifications, licensing, and purchasing extremely difficult to enforce by the federal government given its limited interstate trade authority. The interstate commerce clause sort of allows the feds to oversee interactions between states but so much time has gone by between the time when it was understood that any private citizen could own a warship without permit or permission that now we have non-gun-owning, soft-handed politicians who quibble over how many bullets a citizen can put in a pistol (only 7 in NY regardless of magazine size) without earning a felony.
So no, interstate weapon smuggling is not a federal issue. Unrealistic gun control laws and the violent crimes they enable are self-inflicted problems enabled by the feckless governments of old, corrupt cities and their 1-party host states.
Do you think the US constitution allows the federal government to prevent felons or the involuntarily institutionalized from owning firearms? Does it prevent background checks to verify these things? How about preventing the sale of fully automatic weapons, grenades or other explosives?
"The federal government's authority extends only to those areas...."
Take it up with the Supreme Court- in Heller all 9 of them were very clear that the federal government has extensive authority to regulate firearms, including all of the examples that I listed above. They did strike down a handgun ban, but they specifically upheld everything I mentioned above and more. They specifically upheld bans on guns in schools or government buildings, concealed weapons permits, etc. This isn't a close call and there were no dissents- all 9 of them were crystal-clear on this topic
In answer to your first paragraph: no, no, and no. But since gun ownership is a constitutional issue, federal law is the correct way to regulate firearms in the US.
The federal government has been largely responsible for the regulation of firearm sales, performance of background checks, and various specific provisions within the NFA, which is the federal law establishing the ATF and federal regulation of fully automatic weapons and certain explosives. But when Matt said to cut down on interstate “smuggling” this introduces the gray areas I described in my post. Then you’re asking the federal government to balance one state’s anti-gun laws against another’s gun-positive/constitutional laws. Makes you wonder why states are allowed to have any say in the matter in the first place. 🤔 Is it a constitutional right to keep and bear arms or isn’t it? Half of US states have “constitutional carry” laws, which allow for universal firearms ownership and use within federal law, which is actually quite permissive, apart from the specific categories you mentioned before. SCOTUS thought NY, NJ and others would respect their legal decision in the NYSRPA v Bruen but this has not been true for NY. Our state has basically decided to make nearly everywhere a gun-free zone, which in effect means that these are guns-only-for-criminals zones. Given that the current SCOTUS actually respects the constitution it’s likely NY and other gun control havens will regret making such overtly partisan gun regulations. Justice Kavanaugh specifically respected state permitting in his concurrence, but much like when the Biden administration enacted eviction moratorium after saying it had no right to (a la the Dreamer act and other leftist overreaches) and then continued to do so even after another Kavanaugh decision said they could probably trust the executive branch not to behave unlawfully, something tells me that the next SCOTUS gun control decision will reflect the anti-federal behavior of New York state and others who have no respect for federal law and the constitution.
Sorry, my sentence phrasing was kind of awkward, so let me re-ask- do you think the federal government can regulate fully automatic weapons, explosives, and prevent felons from owning firearms? Is that a yes or a no?
I would need a better definition of what cutting down on interstate smuggling is, but if said weapons are illegal in a given state- isn't intercepting illegal firearms very much 'giving those states a say in the matter'? They're either illegal in a state or they're not
Thanks for clarifying the question. The constitution itself makes a guarantee of weapon ownership but does not offer anything specific in terms of regulation. Note that the "well-regulated militia" in the text of the 2nd amendment does not imply a modern understanding of the word "regulate," which means something like "to limit" or "control." The original meaning of the word "regular" meant "normal," "uniform," or something along those lines.
So my answer to your question is Yes. Because weapon ownership and use is a constitutional issue, my non-expert opinion is that the federal government should have sole discretion to regulate (in the modern sense) the sale, possession, transfer, and specifications of weapons in the US. This has been true for most of history, since the first federal law providing any regulation whatsoever was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which came about as a result of fears of automatic weapons driven by high-profile organized crime in urban areas. Half of US states respect the original meaning of the constitution and require no permit whatsoever to keep and bear arms. A small number have proscribed firearms to an extent that they are nearly impossible to own, like my state of NY.
I honestly feel like a narrow-target list wouldn't work in the US b/c candidates don't really release policy programs in the same way that, for example, UK parties release manifestos. It seems to me that successful campaigns here are about creating a vague sense of positivity around a candidate and avoiding most policy commitments. Especially with a 10-item list you're probably going to rack up a lot of people who disagree on at least one item while the other candidate avoids getting pinned down.
I'm confused by the chart you posted to support the porn item. I think it shows that a huge majority of people (68.7%) think there should be no laws.
I'm sure that, in practice, there wouldn't actually be pushback here but doesn't that number contradict the idea that it is "it is clearly in line with what the public wants."?
#2 What age? Both senate and house? Can’t be 60...too young. 70? 🤔. 80 would be okay but how many does that really capture? 75...maybe. I am a little surprised Matt thinks this is a top 10 issue. Is it just because Joe is front of mind in the big seat?
One thing you have to weigh is what kind of motivated counter-lobbying you’d get for these. Don’t think Big Lunchable wouldn’t go scorched earth against #5
Great list, though on credit card interest rate cap, one problem is this will result in higher fees for the other stuff, paid by wealthier ppl (who have more political power than the poors). Still mostly agree with it. Funny you got pushback on porn thing. I think there is room for sex-positive, porn-limiting liberalism (esp for minors!)
Part of the problem with the Warren wing’s domination of the Democratic professional staffer class is that it’s a group of people who literally cannot comprehend the concept of overregulation. So better FDA and clean energy regulation just aren’t possible as long as the Warrenites are in charge
Good explanations. Really important one is codifying some type of abortion plan that is hard for a reasonable person to argue against. It may get filibustered away but I think making the republicans defend an unpopular and crazy position is something that is undervalued by many liberals. It’s turning the bannon book back against the republicans.
I'd love kids to have less access to porn, but making people pay for porn doesn't strike me as a selling point to the average voter.
The childless free porn consumer demographic seems like it might be dead set against it, might make it hard to mobilize male college students.
Should 'porn' really be a priority? I thought teens were having less sex and using contraceptives more. What problem are you trying to solve?
I'm pretty sure making everyone in the country pay for porn that they're getting for free now is going to lose you more votes than it nets.
I love how this is your recommendation but you don't expect anything good to happen until after the democrats are crushed in the next election. Actually, I don't love that part.
The porn policy piece is just objectively weird IMO, even with Matt's "throw the right a bone" justification. Sure, social conservatives would gladly get behind such legislation. But to my knowledge, they aren’t clamoring for it.
To be clear, I do think it’s a VERY good idea to signal a conciliatory approach to policy-making that addresses a concern for the right in a manner the left can live with. Which is to say, I think the left can get way more bang for their policy buck by looking elsewhere.
The recent trend of black and Hispanic voters shifting to the GOP is thought to be driven by the progressive left’s hostility toward organized religion and the fact that BIPOC voting blocs are extremely religious. As such, I think any policy (even symbolic in nature) that explicitly supports religious expression is more likely to sway an important bloc of voters than this porn idea, while also not materially impacting the lives of secular democrats.
Dang it, too bad for me that this didn’t run Thursday instead, when I’m back from vacation and have a chance to wake up super early before hundreds of comments are already here, because otherwise I'd have a *lot* to say about this article, and likely more so towards replies to it. Sigh, I guess I’ll just have to let this one go, everyone enjoy.
Maybe someday, progressives will someday realize that if oil cannot be drilled at home, it will come from places like here instead:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/15/opinion/environment/oil-exploration-climate-change-democratic-republic-congo.html