Widener Students on Politics

by

The Rules of Wasting Time

by Alexander Roux

Widener University Political Science Major

Recently the U.S. Senate has been discussing negotiations on a long existing tactic afforded to Senators, the ability to filibuster.  Via their institution’s rules, Senators can speak as long as they want on a specific bill during that bill’s debate phase.  One of the stereotypes surrounding this special tool of the Senate is that the minority party can use this tactic to stall and holdout a vote for as long as possible.

Filibustering does need reform, but it needs to go back to what the tool was originally.  Before1975 if a Senator wished to attempt blocking a vote and extend debate they were required to hold the floor of the Senate during that time, not return to their offices, or begin discussing the next piece of legislation.  In the 1930’s Senator Huey Long filibustered on the floor for over 15 hours while promoting his policies, his speech included reading Shakespeare and recipes for “pot-likkers.”  In 1946 Dennis Chavez’s filibuster lasted weeks, and in 1957 Senator Storm Thurmond’s filibuster lasted a record 24 hours and 18 minutes that included discussing his grandmother’s biscuit recipe.  Speeches lasting almost a day that required cots to be brought in may be a little extreme but it forced Senators to do their jobs.

Our Congress needs to see the return of rules that require them to stay in the Capitol and actually leave having accomplished and voted on proposed bills.  Maybe returning the filibuster to what it initially was could have a small impact on Congressmen, and if they were required to actually hold the floor maybe they wouldn’t use the stall tactic at all to threaten their fellow Congressmen.  However you feel on  the usage of filibustering I feel one thing is certain, changes made to the filibuster should make our Senators more accountable and require that they actually have to do the work associated with this special privilege they afford themselves.

by

Limiting Semiautomatic Weapons

by Melanie Asdourian

Widener University Political Science Major

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California wants to enact a bill to limit the use of semiautomatic weapons. If enacted it would be illegal to purchase and manufacture over one hundred and fifty types of semiautomatic weapons. Of course, there would be exemptions for hunting purposes, but the main goal is to cut the supply of the weapons. It is important to reduce the amount of semiautomatic weapons that are accessible to the public, but is this the right approach in ultimately keeping the people of this country safer?

Innocent lives have been taken in recent tragedies and this bill can hopefully reduce the amount of mass shootings, but what about the deaths from simple handguns? Instead of trying to ban semiautomatic weapons we should try to enforce the laws that we already have by stricter background checks and having to re-register all types of guns every year. State governments need to be more aware of the people who own more than one gun and each one should be registered. A modest goal would be to concentrate on gun trafficking and looking at mental health records of people applying for a gun permit. A person with a history of mental illness cannot receive a driver’s license therefore they should not be permitted to own a gun.

by

On Balance, Legalizing Marijuana Makes Sense

by Ashley Bidne

Widener University Political Science/Criminal Justice Major

Washington is now the second state to legalize the possession of marijuana. The new law decriminalizes possession of up to an ounce. However, users must be at least 21 and selling it still remains illegal. For a long time I have been against legalizing marijuana, but with more states legalizing it I feel that now is a great time to reexamine the issue.

Colorado’s Representative Jared Polis and Oregon’s Representative Earl Blumenauer are fighting to get marijuana legalized federally. In addition, economists are claiming that Washington and Colorado could receive an economic boost of up $550 million a year. According to the FBI, possession of marijuana is the cause of 43.3% of drug related arrests. With this in mind a majority of these criminals are being sent to prison along with our tax dollars. Incarcerating one inmate could cost between $30,000 and $60,000 a year depending on the state.

However, many people are not convinced that this is a sufficient reason to legalize marijuana. Therefore, I researched further into the side effects of smoking. The health effects of marijuana include, but are not limited to mental illnesses such as depression, lung irritation, and an increased heart rate. However, many of these side effects are common with drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes.

If the federal government chooses to legalize marijuana, the US will be capable of regulating it and will no longer be paying to incarcerate 1000’s of inmates. Overall, the benefits seem to outweigh the cost of legalizing marijuana and my decision about legalizing marijuana has been changed with Washington’s legalization.

by

Can Legalizing Pot Be Good?

by Hunter Tower

Widener University Political Science Major

Legalizing marijuana is now a major public policy issue in Congress. Two members of the House of Representatives, Congressman Jarid Polis (D-CO) and Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) introduced bills to amend the federal laws against marijuana where the federal government would regulate and tax it just like alcohol or cigarettes.

I am a conservative Republican and I think this is a great idea. The government cannot control the drug trade and black market and how things get smuggled into the country, so why not legalize it and regulate it?  If we do this there would be less crime because the majority of crimes committed are over drugs.

If the federal government legalizes pot it can help the poor economy nd make money off of taxing the product. Further, many more people will relax and not have a need to drive this deeper underground like it’s some kind of cult thing to “smoke a joint.” I do not smoke at all and do not feel the need to, but some people do and it helps them relax. Even doctors prescribe it to some of their patients. If people are happier and calmer, that leads to less crime. Just as Thomas Jefferson stated, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

by

What is Congress Anymore?

by Andrea Stickley
Widener University Political Science Major
When our forefathers came up with notion of how to run America, they decided upon the three branches of government to divide the power so no one would become to dominant. They implemented a few checks and balances in hopes that it would keep everything running smoothly. Fast forward to 2013 and what do you have: a disaster. Nothing is going America’s way. We have economic problems, gun violence issues, drug conflicts, and an intrusion into people’s personal lives. Somehow, I don’t think this is what our forefathers had planned on happening. So who’s to blame? What’s the cause? And, is there anyway to solve our problems?
This semester we delve into the production of the legislative branch of our government: Congress. Enter in two houses made up of (what are presumed to be) intelligent humans that represent the rest of the American population. These Senators and Representatives are supposed to be acting on behalf of their constituents. On the table right now in Congress are three hot topics: gun control, gay marriage, and marijuana. Voting on legislation about these topics is supposed to be based upon what the people want, therefore, one would assume that majority would win. However, in this day and age, wheeling and dealing has come into play. No longer are the votes for bills straightforward and based upon what the people want. It’s now about what congressmen can make the best deal.
As the 113th Congress begins its session and starts deliberating on these issues, the question arises of whether they are going to listen to the people, their party’s stances on issues, or the deals that they can make with others?
We are….the people.
by

Tug of War

by Matthew Dugan
Widener University Political Science Major
The current fiscal fight in Congress between the Democrats and the Republicans is adding further evidence to the widely held opinion that congress in incapable of agreeing on anything. The same fight that happens every year is being played out once again, Democrats want tax increases while the Republicans want to cut social programs. In the end there will be some sort of agreement made where nobody is happy, with the possibility of a government shut down happening first. Compromise is an ugly word in politics and officials on both sides will stand their ground without trying to reach any sort of actual agreement. They will stand on their side until they are blue in the face like a child who cant get his way. This is one of America’s largest frustrations with congress, in my opinion. They want to do what they feel is right for the country, I’m willing to grant them that and I have respect for them, but they are not helping us by shoving their finger’s in their ears going “blah blah blah” while the other side shouts their opinion. 
 
The only way to stop this cycle is to have politicians act like the mature and civil adults they are and to be open minded to others opinions. Obviously there are things that are off the table for both parties and they will not compromise on them. What needs to be found is some kind of middle ground. Neither side will ever accept the others entire proposal so it is pointless to continually try and get them to vote your way. The base of all this is the degradation of civil discourse in American politics. Politicians show almost no respect to one another. If the discourse in politics was changed then much more would get done if people merely showed each other the respect that is due to them as fellow human beings. If officials would stop pinning the opposition as someone who is trying to destroy America then there would be progress. I feel in my heart that no member of Congress, or any politician, wants to destroy America, I feel that they all want what is best for this country, they just want to go about it in a different way or they have a different idea of what “best” is. Attacking a person’s character and refusing to hear what they have to say will not solve anything and we will continue in this gridlock.