Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn control. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn control. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Tư, 15 tháng 5, 2013

Obama tries to regain control amid controversies

WASHINGTON (AP) — Under mounting pressure, President Barack Obama on Wednesday released a trove of documents related to the Benghazi attack and forced out the top official at the Internal Revenue Service following revelations that the agency targeted conservative political groups. The moves were aimed at halting a perception spreading among both White House opponents and allies that the president has been passive and disengaged as controversies consume his second term.

In another action, the White House asked Congress to revive a media shield law that would protect journalists from having to reveal information, a step seen as a response to the Justice Department's widely criticized subpoenas of phone records from reporters and editors at The Associated Press.

The flurry of activity signaled a White House anxious to regain control amid the trio of deepening controversies. The incidents have emboldened Republicans, overshadowed Obama's legislative agenda and threatened to plunge his second term into a steady stream of congressional investigations.

Standing in the East Room of the White House, the president said Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller had resigned and vowed that more steps would be taken to hold those responsible accountable.

"Americans have a right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it," Obama said of the IRS actions. "I will not tolerate this kind of behavior at any agency, but especially at the IRS given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives."

The president had addressed the IRS controversy on Monday, but his measured words left many unsatisfied, particularly given that he had waited three days to address the developments. He also repeatedly asserted that he was waiting to find out if the reports were accurate, even though top IRS officials had already acknowledged the controversial actions.

Adding to narrative of a passive president were White House efforts to distance Obama from the IRS scandal, as well as the revelations that the Justice Department had secretly obtained work and personal phone records of journalists. In both cases, the White House insisted the president had no prior knowledge of the events and learned about the matters like the general public — from news reports.

Obama's cautious response, combined with his lack of awareness about controversies brewing within his administration, opened him to quick criticism from his Republican foes.

"If Obama really learned about the latest IRS and AP secret subpoena scandals in the news, who exactly is running the ship at the White House?" Republican National Committee spokesman Kirsten Kukowski said.

But in a worrying sign for the White House, some Democrats also criticized the president for not being more aggressive in responding to trouble within the government.

Robert Gibbs, Obama's former White House press secretary, said the president should have appointed a bipartisan commission of former IRS officials to look into the issue of targeting political organizations. And Gibbs gently chided his former boss for using passive language when he first addressed the political targeting during a White House news conference Monday.

"The language should be more active than phrases like 'I didn't have any patience for this' or 'If the allegations are true," Gibbs said during an appearance on MSNBC.

The pair of new fresh controversies coincided with a resurgence in the GOP-led investigation into the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

Congressional Republicans launched another round of hearings on the attacks last week. And on Friday, a congressional official disclosed details of emails among administration officials that resulted in the CIA downplaying the prospect that the attacks were an act of terror in talking points used to publicly discuss the deadly incident.

Obama aides insisted the emails were either taken out of context or provided no new information but resisted pressure to make the emails public for five days, before finally disclosing the documents to reporters Wednesday. The emails revealed that then-CIA Director David Petraeus disagreed with the final talking points, despite the White House's insistence that the intelligence agency had the final say over the statements.

The White House has publicly defended its handling of the controversies. Obama spokesman Jay Carney has insisted it would be "wholly inappropriate" for the president, in the case of the Justice Department matter, to weigh in on an active investigation, and in the case of the IRS controversy, to insert himself in the actions of an independent agency.

However, legal scholar Jonathan Turley disputed those assertions, saying there is no legal reason a president would be precluded from learning about the investigations before the public or commenting on them, at least broadly.

"These comments treat the president like he's the bubble boy," said Turley, a law professor at George Washington University.

David Axelrod, Obama's longtime adviser, acknowledged the White House could have acted more aggressively in "the interest of stagecraft." But he insisted that the president's handling of the matters will ultimately be vindicated.

"One virtue he has is that he takes a long-range view," he said. "It's easy to get whipped up by the frenzy, but it's responsible to react to the facts. It has short-term liabilities, but in the long-run, it's a quality you want in a president."

___

Follow Julie Pace on Twitter at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC


View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 5 tháng 5, 2013

NRA's next president to lead its court fights against gun control

By Andrea Lorenz

HOUSTON (Reuters) - Alabama lawyer Jim Porter, in line to become the next president of the National Rifle Association, is expected to spearhead the group's court challenges of gun-control laws enacted in several states since the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting massacre.

Porter, 64, the son of another Alabama lawyer who served as NRA president from 1959 to 1961, is likely to succeed David Keene on Monday in the two-year post at the nation's leading gun-rights organization.

The longtime member is chairman of the legal affairs committee for the NRA, which has headed off federal attempts to approve new gun ownership restrictions, including a U.S. Senate proposal last month for expanded background checks.

Porter told NRA members at their annual convention in Houston on Saturday that President Barack Obama was "AWOL" on border security, the deficit and national security, but "scheming and plotting" to take away Americans' gun rights.

"There is nothing, nothing that criminals do with guns that isn't already against the law," Porter said.

In a speech to the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association in June 2012, Porter called Obama a "fake" president and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder "rabidly un-American."

The NRA's focus is far different now from what it was when Porter's father, Irvine Porter, led the organization. The NRA then focused mainly on shooting and hunting. Its emphasis shifted in later decades to lobbying against restrictions on guns.

Porter, the NRA's first-vice president, who by tradition is expected to be elected president on Monday by the board, introduced the outgoing president, Keene.

"If I have anything to say about it, you just heard from your next president of your National Rifle Association," Keene told the crowd..

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president and chief executive, remains the most visible leader of the group.

CHALLENGING GUN RESTRICTIONS

Keene told the Washington Times earlier this week that Porter would be a "perfect match" as NRA president as it focuses on court challenges to state laws restricting gun ownership.

"As we are likely to win most of the legislative battles in Congress, we will have to move to courts to undo the restrictions placed on gun owners' rights in New York, Connecticut, Maryland and Colorado," Keene told the newspaper.

Connecticut and New York expanded assault weapons bans and restricted the capacity of ammunition magazines after a gunman killed 20 students and six adults at a Connecticut school in December.

Colorado, where a gunman killed 12 people and wounded 58 others in July 2012 at a midnight showing of the Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises," approved restrictions on the size of ammunition clips and universal background checks.

Porter, a 1971 graduate of the University of Alabama, told the New York group last year that the fight to protect the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution setting out the right to bear arms had just begun, and that Obama's "entire administration is anti-gun, anti-freedom, anti-Second Amendment."

On Saturday, Tom King, an NRA board member from East Greenbush, New York, said Porter was a likable family man and successful attorney who would be a good NRA president.

"I say things that are controversial too, everybody does," King said. "If you want to take something out of context and say, 'He said that, that's controversial,' and you want to attack him for that, that's your prerogative or anyone else's prerogative, but Jim is a good man."

(Additional reporting by David Bailey in Minneapolis; Editing by Peter Cooney)


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 17 tháng 4, 2013

Obama Says Gun Control Defeat Marks 'Shameful Day For Washington'

Standing alongside tearful families of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre, a seething-mad President Obama lashed out against lawmakers who opposed a bill that would have expanded background checks for gun buyers, saying today marked a "shameful day for Washington."

"There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn't do this. It came down to politics," the president said in a Rose Garden statement shortly after the Senate defeated the bipartisan Manchin-Toomey amendment.

The president said lawmakers who opposed the measure "caved" to pressure from the gun lobby and its allies who "willfully lied about the bill."

"A minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn't worth it," he said. "They worried that that vocal minority of gun-owners would come after them in future elections. They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment. And obviously a lot of Republicans had that fear, but Democrats had that fear, too. And so they caved to the pressure, and they started looking for an excuse, any excuse, to vote no."

In addition to the Newtown families, the president was joined by former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who survived an attempted assassination in 2011, and Vice President Biden, who has led the administration's effort to reform the nation's gun laws in the wake of the December shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The president vehemently pushed back against Sen. Rand Paul's claim that the White House used the Newtown families, who have spent weeks lobbying lawmakers, as "props" in the gun control debate.

"Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don't have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their - their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?" Obama asked.

The president vowed "this effort is not over" and urged Americans to voice their opposition to inaction.

"I see this as just round one," he said. "I believe we're going to be able to get this one. Sooner or later we are going to get this right. The memories of these children demand it, and so do the American people."

Also Read

View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 16 tháng 4, 2013

Senate Sets Up Big Votes Wednesday for Gun Control

ABC News' Sunlen Miller and Jeff Zeleny report:

The day of reckoning is Wednesday for the embattled Manchin-Toomey background check provision and a myriad of other gun amendments, including a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips.

The outcome of which will determine the fate of the biggest gun control legislation the Senate will vote on in two decades.

A 4 p.m. vote on the Manchin-Toomey amendment will kick off the votes.

The amendment, proposed this past week as a bipartisan compromise from Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, and Sen. Pat Toomey, a Republican from Pennsylvania, always faced an uphill climb to pass in the Senate.

But the first real signs of trouble came Monday when a vote on the amendment was delayed from being formally scheduled when it was clear that the votes were not yet there for it to pass. By Tuesday, momentum seemed to slip away bit-by-bit when a few senators key to the outcome of the vote, including Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., and Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., announced that they could not vote for the bill.

The amendment will need 60 votes to pass. And as of tonight, the votes are not there yet.

When Manchin was asked by ABC News if he had 60 votes locked down, he said: "We need more than we have."

Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, one of the Republican supporters for expanding background checks, said he was still working to win over some Republican senators. When asked if his side had enough votes to pass the amendment, he said: "We are not ready for a vote."

The vote will be razor thin - so thin that neither side was sounding confident.

There are three Republican senators and four Democratic senators believed still undecided - John McCain, R-Ariz., Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., Mary Landrieu, D-La., Mark Begich D-Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., and Mark Pryor, D-Ark.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., was seen as a wild card because, although he supports the amendment, he has been ill and home in New Jersey. Aides said Lautenberg "hopes" to get back for the vote Wednesday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., sounded a bit resigned Tuesday when he defended the bill's momentum while, in the same breath, admitting that the votes may not be there. Regardless, he said, gun control supporters have the "wind at our back."

President Obama made calls to the few undecided senators Tuesday, ABC News' Jonathan Karl reported. A White House official said there still was a path to 60 votes but conceded it is "a narrow path."

Yet the situation remained fluid, Republican and Democratic aides told ABC News, and either outcome was possible when the voting was to begin at 4 p.m. on Wednesday.

Following the Manchin-Toomey amendment vote, the Senate will vote on at least eight other gun amendments, all of which matter to the debate. They included voting up or down on an assault weapons ban, the issue of concealed carry, a high-capacity clip ban and mental health provisions.

Also Read

View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 15 tháng 4, 2013

Moms' Gun Control Ad Cites Dangers of 'Little Red Riding Hood'

ht moms demand gun sense nt 130415 wblog Moms Gun Control Ad Cites Dangers of Little Red Riding HoodMoms Gun Control Ad Cites Dangers of Little Red Riding Hood

Why is a copy of Little Red Riding Hood more dangerous than a gun?

That's the question asked by an ad released late Sunday night by pro gun control group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America as part of their push this week to persuade lawmakers on the state and federal level to increase limits on firearms.

RELATED: Biden: Gun Owners 'Like The Way It Feels…Like Driving a Ferrari'

"One child is holding something that's been banned in America to protect them," the caption reads above two young girls. One girl is holding a copy of the childhood story and the other an assault weapon.

The ad is part of a series posted on Facebook juxtaposing gun laws with strict restrictions meant to protect children against things like banned books, the game dodgeball and Kinder Surprise Eggs - an Italian candy banned in the U.S. because of fears that children might swallow the small toys inside.

RELATED: 'SNL' Spoofs Senate's Work on Gun Control

The book featured in one of their ads is a copy of Little Red Riding Hood banned in at least two California school districts because it shows a bottle of wine on the cover.

Mothers Demand Action founder Shannon Watt said the ads were shared directly from the group's Facebook page more than 1,000 times by Monday afternoon.

"It's this idea of juxtaposing the absurdity of what America is so worried about harming our children, yet we do not have an assault weapons ban. We have such lax gun laws in this country and yet we pretend to be so concerned about our children," Watt told ABC News. "It's easier for me to buy ammunition online, say a hundred rounds, than it is for me to go to CVS and buy Sudafed. This is absurd."

The National Rifle Association's plan for school safety recommends arming and training educators on school campuses. Several states have considered legislation requiring at least one employee to carry a firearm, but most of those bills have failed to find traction, according to t he Associated Press.

Watt founded Mothers Demand Action on Facebook one day after the Sandy Hook massacre. In the four months since that time, the group has gained about 88,000 followers and expanded to its own site on the web.

Members of Mothers Demanding Action have also taken their cause off the Internet and into the halls of government with rallies like the ones Watt is planning this week.

Wednesday morning moms promoting gun control measures like an assault weapons ban and universal background checks will hold a "Stroller Jam" in front of the Capitol, where they will take their stroller-bound children with them to read a list of names of American gun violence victims. They plan to sponsor similar rallies in front of state government offices in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, New York and Arizona this week.

The idea for a stroller jam organically evolved when the moms involved noticed they were blocking hallways of state lawmakers' offices with the children they kept in tow.

"It was really hard for the legislators to get by without talking to us, because these strollers are large," Watt said.

Watt said she modeled the group off the influential Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) campaign, in the hopes of making use of the "really unique…role that [mothers] play as activists in this country."

"I think mothers have been a missing voice [in the gun debate] for a long time. For decades," Watt said. "The reality is that when mothers get involved they can wield some significant influence and really have been catalysts of social change in this country."

Shortly after 3 p.m. Monday, Watt plans to speak on a conference call with Vice President Biden urging senators to pass stricter legislation on background checks, assault weapons and ammunition. The mother of five hopes her words will inspire other moms to join her and spread her message to the Senate.

"I'm hoping…our legislators see that we are very, very serious about this. That we are in this for the long haul and that there will be a political price to pay if legislators don't pay attention to moms pleas for change, for new and stronger gun laws," Watt said.

"Moms aren't going away on gun issues."

Also Read

View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 14 tháng 4, 2013

Lawmakers pitch immigration plan with strong border control

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Tighter border security must be one goal of immigration reform if the measure is to pass Congress, lawmakers who support the plan said on Sunday as they tried to build support for a proposal that should be outlined in coming days.

The plan expected later this week envisions toughening border security to discourage new immigrants, while detailing clear steps that aspiring citizens can take if they are already in the country.

Senator Marco Rubio, a leader on immigration reform, said the reform plan will confront the sensitive question of how to treat those who have already entered the country illegally.

"This is not a theory. They are actually here," the Republican said on CBS' Face the Nation, of an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants.

Proposals to round up and deport undocumented residents are impractical, Rubio said, and existing immigration rules are being abused.

"What we have in place today is not good for anyone except human traffickers and people who are hiring illegal aliens and paying them less than American workers," he said on Fox News Sunday. "This is an issue that needs to be solved."

Rubio, a Cuban-American, is a leader of the so-called Gang of Eight, which has four Democrat and four Republican senators trying to address concerns of domestic industry, labor and other interests who want a voice in the immigration debate.

The first-term senator from Florida was a guest on several Sunday morning political talk shows pushing the immigration reform message.

"Part of my job is to explain to people what it is we've worked on, try to justify it and hopefully gain their support," Rubio said on CNN's State of the Union.

The immigration proposal could come as soon as Tuesday with details still being finalized, Rubio said, but the plan would put citizenship on hold while officials tighten borders and prepare undocumented workers for the tax rolls.

Lawmakers have different views on how much more border security would be required before undocumented residents could seek citizenship but discouraging future illegal immigration was seen as a key to building broad support for the measure.

"Every Republican at the table said we've got to start with border security," Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat and another member of the Gang of Eight said on Fox News Sunday.

The questions of immigration reform and gun control will likely consume the senate in coming weeks and help shape the debate in the U.S. House of Representatives, which would have to pass its own version of reform before any measure could become law.

And while labor and industry groups have blessed a key proposal dealing with itinerant workers, many lawmakers are expected to loudly oppose a plan they say does too little to guarantee public safety.

Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican, wants the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency to have a direct voice in setting benchmarks for who gets to stay in the country.

"When the Gang of Eight first got together, they said enforcement would come first, before legalization," Sessions said on Sunday. "This proposal will not stand up to scrutiny."

(Reporting By Patrick Rucker; Editing by Todd Eastham)


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 11 tháng 4, 2013

For Obama, gun control is more than just a feel-good gesture

By Walter Shapiro

For Barack Obama, like any second-term president, the most valuable political commodity is time. Every day brings Obama closer to that chilling moment of semi-irrelevance when Americans are more fixated on the 2016 elections than on the man finishing out his eight-year lease on the Oval Office.

That’s why it’s telling that Obama is flying to Connecticut on Monday afternoon for his second out-of-town gun control event in a week. This represents a level of presidential commitment that Obama has rarely displayed about other issues on the liberal wish list, like global warming. Nearly four months after the Sandy Hook shootings, it suggests that the death of 20 small children continues to sear Obama’s soul.

The presidential visit to Hartford serves as a prelude to a week when the Senate will begin debating gun legislation under the threat of a conservative GOP filibuster. But for the first time in weeks, there are glimmers of hope that the National Rifle Association (NRA) may be on the defensive in the Senate.

Pennsylvania conservative Republican Pat Toomey has been working with pro-gun West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin on compromise language mandating an expansion of background checks for gun buyers. And on “Face the Nation” on Sunday, John McCain announced that he would oppose a filibuster to prevent the Senate from voting on gun bills, depriving the Republicans of a key vote. 

In Denver last week—not far from the site of the Aurora movie theater massacre— Obama placed his greatest emphasis on expanding existing federal background checks to cover gun shows and other private sales. The president’s argument: “The loopholes that currently exist in the law have allowed way too many criminals and folks who shouldn’t be getting guns—it has allowed them to avoid background checks entirely.”

In five national polls conducted over the past month, between 87 percent and 91 percent of all voters supported enhanced background checks. These are the kinds of lopsided polling numbers you only get when the questions are about the cuteness of kittens or the fecklessness of Congress.

All too often what is missing from the high-decibel gun debate is something called evidence. This is the inevitable consequence of the NRA treating the most innocuous legislative proposals as akin to a jack-booted governmental coup, and gun-control advocates relying on tear-stained arguments invoking Virginia Tech, Gabby Giffords and Newtown.

The question almost never asked is a simple one: How many lives would be saved each year from expanded background checks covering virtually all gun buyers?

The awkward reality is that no one on either side of the debate has an answer. What we do know is that about 9,000 Americans, according to FBI data, were killed with firearms in 2010. We also know that more than 98 percent of would-be gun buyers who undergo current federal background checks are approved. About 160,000 people (mostly felons and those convicted of domestic abuse) are turned down annually when they try to purchase firearms.

But how do we make sense of these numbers?

The current federal background checks are mandated by the 1994 Brady Bill, which does not cover private sales or transactions at gun shows. In 2000, academic researchers Jens Ludwig and Philip Cook conducted a statistical evaluation of the early years of the legislation that concluded, “Our analyses provide no evidence that implementation of the Brady Act was associated with a reduction in homicide rates.”

But that does not necessarily mean that the drive to expand the background check legislation is futile. It seems likely that felons (who are responsible for roughly 40 percent of all gun-related homicides) primarily depend on currently unregulated private sales to obtain firearms. As Cook, who is a professor of economics and sociology at Duke University, told me in an interview, “The stakes are so high that even if we reduced gun violence by just 1 percent, it would more than pay for the inconvenience of the background check legislation.”

Even if it is mostly a symbolic gesture, there still may be lasting political value to passing a gun-control bill in the wake of the Newtown shootings. There’s a parallel to Lyndon B. Johnson steering the mostly toothless 1957 Civil Rights bill through the Senate.

As LBJ biographer Robert Caro tells it in “Master of the Senate,” no civil rights bill had made its way through the Senate in 82 years because of the power of filibusters by segregationist Southern senators. To maneuver the 1957 bill to passage, Johnson had to deliberately eviscerate many of its key provisions to the consternation of liberals. As much as Caro admires 1950s civil rights supporters, he also had to concede, “They couldn’t see more than a few moves down the Senate chessboard and they weren’t very good at counting votes.”

Caro argues that the lasting importance of the 1957 civil rights bill is that it proved that the Southern segregationists could be out-maneuvered and beaten. Without this initial hollow legislative victory, the epic civil rights triumphs of the mid-1960s (voting rights and public accommodations) would have been far more difficult or even impossible.

The NRA’s clout in Congress rests primarily on its exaggerated reputation for invulnerability rather than on anything more tangible. During the 2012 political campaigns, the NRA spent $25 million on TV ads and $3 million more on lobbying. While these may sound like impressive numbers, in reality they amount to little more than chump change in a $6 billion campaign year.

The implicit logic on Capitol Hill is that the gun lobby can’t be beaten because it hasn’t been beaten. No major gun legislation has made its way through Congress since former President Bill Clinton’s first term.

With an estimated 300 million firearms in private hands, universal background checks for new gun purchases are far from a panacea. Obama is gambling that investing time and effort in the cause is more than just a feel-good gesture. For if the NRA cannot be beaten on this limited front—even after the horrors at Sandy Hook Elementary School—then we will never limit gun violence.


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 9 tháng 4, 2013

For Obama, gun control is more than just a feel-good gesture

By Walter Shapiro

For Barack Obama, like any second-term president, the most valuable political commodity is time. Every day brings Obama closer to that chilling moment of semi-irrelevance when Americans are more fixated on the 2016 elections than on the man finishing out his eight-year lease on the Oval Office.

That’s why it’s telling that Obama is flying to Connecticut on Monday afternoon for his second out-of-town gun control event in a week. This represents a level of presidential commitment that Obama has rarely displayed about other issues on the liberal wish list, like global warming. Nearly four months after the Sandy Hook shootings, it suggests that the death of 20 small children continues to sear Obama’s soul.

The presidential visit to Hartford serves as a prelude to a week when the Senate will begin debating gun legislation under the threat of a conservative GOP filibuster. But for the first time in weeks, there are glimmers of hope that the National Rifle Association (NRA) may be on the defensive in the Senate.

Pennsylvania conservative Republican Pat Toomey has been working with pro-gun West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin on compromise language mandating an expansion of background checks for gun buyers. And on “Face the Nation” on Sunday, John McCain announced that he would oppose a filibuster to prevent the Senate from voting on gun bills, depriving the Republicans of a key vote. 

In Denver last week—not far from the site of the Aurora movie theater massacre— Obama placed his greatest emphasis on expanding existing federal background checks to cover gun shows and other private sales. The president’s argument: “The loopholes that currently exist in the law have allowed way too many criminals and folks who shouldn’t be getting guns—it has allowed them to avoid background checks entirely.”

In five national polls conducted over the past month, between 87 percent and 91 percent of all voters supported enhanced background checks. These are the kinds of lopsided polling numbers you only get when the questions are about the cuteness of kittens or the fecklessness of Congress.

All too often what is missing from the high-decibel gun debate is something called evidence. This is the inevitable consequence of the NRA treating the most innocuous legislative proposals as akin to a jack-booted governmental coup, and gun-control advocates relying on tear-stained arguments invoking Virginia Tech, Gabby Giffords and Newtown.

The question almost never asked is a simple one: How many lives would be saved each year from expanded background checks covering virtually all gun buyers?

The awkward reality is that no one on either side of the debate has an answer. What we do know is that about 9,000 Americans, according to FBI data, were killed with firearms in 2010. We also know that more than 98 percent of would-be gun buyers who undergo current federal background checks are approved. About 160,000 people (mostly felons and those convicted of domestic abuse) are turned down annually when they try to purchase firearms.

But how do we make sense of these numbers?

The current federal background checks are mandated by the 1994 Brady Bill, which does not cover private sales or transactions at gun shows. In 2000, academic researchers Jens Ludwig and Philip Cook conducted a statistical evaluation of the early years of the legislation that concluded, “Our analyses provide no evidence that implementation of the Brady Act was associated with a reduction in homicide rates.”

But that does not necessarily mean that the drive to expand the background check legislation is futile. It seems likely that felons (who are responsible for roughly 40 percent of all gun-related homicides) primarily depend on currently unregulated private sales to obtain firearms. As Cook, who is a professor of economics and sociology at Duke University, told me in an interview, “The stakes are so high that even if we reduced gun violence by just 1 percent, it would more than pay for the inconvenience of the background check legislation.”

Even if it is mostly a symbolic gesture, there still may be lasting political value to passing a gun-control bill in the wake of the Newtown shootings. There’s a parallel to Lyndon B. Johnson steering the mostly toothless 1957 Civil Rights bill through the Senate.

As LBJ biographer Robert Caro tells it in “Master of the Senate,” no civil rights bill had made its way through the Senate in 82 years because of the power of filibusters by segregationist Southern senators. To maneuver the 1957 bill to passage, Johnson had to deliberately eviscerate many of its key provisions to the consternation of liberals. As much as Caro admires 1950s civil rights supporters, he also had to concede, “They couldn’t see more than a few moves down the Senate chessboard and they weren’t very good at counting votes.”

Caro argues that the lasting importance of the 1957 civil rights bill is that it proved that the Southern segregationists could be out-maneuvered and beaten. Without this initial hollow legislative victory, the epic civil rights triumphs of the mid-1960s (voting rights and public accommodations) would have been far more difficult or even impossible.

The NRA’s clout in Congress rests primarily on its exaggerated reputation for invulnerability rather than on anything more tangible. During the 2012 political campaigns, the NRA spent $25 million on TV ads and $3 million more on lobbying. While these may sound like impressive numbers, in reality they amount to little more than chump change in a $6 billion campaign year.

The implicit logic on Capitol Hill is that the gun lobby can’t be beaten because it hasn’t been beaten. No major gun legislation has made its way through Congress since former President Bill Clinton’s first term.

With an estimated 300 million firearms in private hands, universal background checks for new gun purchases are far from a panacea. Obama is gambling that investing time and effort in the cause is more than just a feel-good gesture. For if the NRA cannot be beaten on this limited front—even after the horrors at Sandy Hook Elementary School—then we will never limit gun violence.


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 8 tháng 4, 2013

Obama makes "last-ditch" push in Connecticut on gun control

By Roberta Rampton

HARTFORD, Connecticut (Reuters) - President Barack Obama urged Americans on Monday to pressure a reluctant Congress to pass new gun control legislation - one of his top domestic policy priorities - as he traveled to Connecticut, where December's school massacre took place.

Initial momentum for tougher U.S. gun control laws sought by Obama after the December 14 shootings in Newtown has stalled in Congress in the face of fierce lobbying by gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association.

Obama, speaking at the University of Hartford, said that date changed everything for families of the 20 children and six adults killed at Sandy Hook elementary school.

"I know many of you in Newtown wondered if the rest of us would live up to the promises we made in those dark days ... once the television trucks left, once the candles flickered out, once the teddy bears were gathered up," Obama was to say in prepared remarks. "We will not walk away from the promise we've made."

No major gun legislation has passed the U.S. Congress since 1994 and the current White House guns push is in trouble.

"The policy window is either really close to closed, or closed entirely," said John Hudak, an expert at the Brookings Institution think tank. "In honesty, this is really a last-ditch effort by the White House."

Obama is hoping to build support among lawmakers for several gun control measures, including universal background checks for gun buyers. The Senate is expected to take up gun control legislation as early as this week.

The president has invited 11 parents of children killed in Newtown to fly back to Washington with him aboard Air Force One after his speech. The parents are set to lobby Congress this week for gun control measures, although it may be too late to rescue major legislation sought by Obama.

Some of Obama's proposals - reinstating a U.S. ban on assault weapons and cracking down on high-capacity ammunition clips - already appear to have little chance of passing the Democratic-led Senate, let alone the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

BACKGROUND CHECKS

Obama is hoping to salvage the proposal for background checks on all gun buyers to try to ensure that criminals and others prohibited from buying firearms cannot get them. There are not yet enough votes in the Senate for expanded background checks as Democrats seek Republican votes.

"Congress is only going to act on them if they hear from you - the American people," Obama will say in his address.

Around a dozen Republican senators led by Rand Paul of Kentucky have threatened to use procedural tactics to try to prevent any votes on the gun measures.

"You deserve better," Obama will say. "You deserve a vote."

Last week, Obama gave a speech in Denver trying to rally support for gun control, touting a new state law in Colorado - scene of two of the deadliest gun massacres in American history - as "a model of what's possible.

The president's speech on Monday will be followed up by a White House event on Tuesday with Vice President Joe Biden and law enforcement officials. Biden also is due to speak about gun control on Thursday on the MSNBC cable TV network.

First lady Michelle Obama is set to address gun control during a visit on Wednesday to Chicago, which has faced a spree of gun violence.

(Editing by Alistair Bell and Xavier Briand)


View the original article here

Obama, With Newtown Families, Demands Gun Control Vote

gty obama hartford gun control tk 130408 wblog Obama, With Newtown Families, Demands Gun Control VoteObama, With Newtown Families, Demands Gun Control Vote

Speaking before families of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre, President Obama made an impassioned and urgent plea for stricter gun laws, as he accused Republicans of threatening to use "political stunts" to block reforms.

"This is not about politics. This is about doing the right thing for all the families who are here that have been torn apart by gun violence," the president told a packed crowd at the University of Hartford, just 50 miles from the site of the December shooting in Newtown, Conn. "It's about them, and all the families going forward so we can prevent this from happening again. That's what it's about."

Obama's visit to Connecticut comes at the start of a critical week, as the Senate is expected to debate the president's gun control agenda. While there are signs of agreement to expand background checks, two major parts of the president's plan, a ban on assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips, seem unlikely to pass.

In a rousing, campaign-style speech the president warned lawmakers not to use political tactics to prevent the Senate from voting on gun reform measures, arguing that they have an obligation to the victims of gun violence.

"If our democracy's working the way it's supposed to and 90 percent of the American people agree on something, in the wake of a tragedy, you'd think this would not be a heavy lift," Obama said of the broad support for background checks. "And yet some folks back in Washington are already floating the idea that they may use political stunts to prevent votes on any of these reforms."

Obama's warning comes as a group of 13 Republican lawmakers are threatening to block a vote on gun control legislation.

"They're saying they'll do everything they can to even prevent any votes on these provisions. They're saying your opinion doesn't matter and that's not right. That is not right," Obama said, as the crowd took to its feet, chanting "we want a vote!"

Nearly four months since the tragedy in Newtown, the president promised the parents of the slain children that "we will not walk away from the promises we've made."

"We want you to know that we're here with you," he said. "We are as determined as ever to do what must be done."

Before his remarks, the president met privately with several families of children who died in the Sandy Hook shooting. Many of those families then boarded Air Force One on their way to Washington to lobby Congress.

"If there's even one thing we can do to protect our kids, don't we have an obligation to try? If there's even one step we can take to keep somebody from murdering dozens of innocents in the span of minutes, shouldn't we be taking that step? If there's just one thing we can do to keep one father from having to bury his child, isn't that worth fighting for?" Obama said.

Also Read

View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 5 tháng 4, 2013

FAA delays closing of airport control towers

WASHINGTON (AP) — The closings of control towers at 149 small airports, due to begin this weekend because of government-wide spending cuts, are being delayed until mid-June, federal regulators announced Friday.

The Federal Aviation Administration said it needs more time to deal with legal challenges to the closures.

Also, about 50 airport authorities and other "stakeholders" have indicated they want to fund the operations of the towers themselves rather than see them shut down, and more time will be needed to work out those plans, the agency said in a statement.

The first 24 tower closures were scheduled to begin Sunday, with the rest coming over the next few weeks. Obama administration officials have said the closures are necessary to accomplish automatic spending cuts required by Congress.

Despite the delay, the FAA said it will stop funding all 149 of the airport towers, which are operated by private contractors, on June 15. Under the new schedule, the closures will be implemented at once, rather than a gradual phase-in as had been planned.

Airport operators in several states, including Florida, Illinois and Washington state, and the U.S. Contract Tower Association, which represents the companies that operate contract towers, have filed lawsuits with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington seeking to halt the closures.

The suits contend that the closures violated a federal law meant to ensure major changes at airports do not erode safety, and unfairly targeted the program for an outsized share of the more than $600 million the agency is required to trim from its budget by the end of September.

"The administration has decided to make tower closures the poster child of sequestration (automatic spending cuts)," said the group's director, J. Spencer Dickerson. "We believe there are other ways they could have skinned this cat."

Federal officials have insisted that the closures wouldn't affect safety. And there is evidence that with improving safety, some of the closures would make economic sense.

It turns out that the FAA has been using 30-year-old data on aircraft collisions to justify the cost of operating many of the control towers, even though accident rates have improved significantly over that time.

Had the FAA used more current data, it's probable that some low-traffic airport towers operated by private contractors would no longer have met the agency's criteria for funding, industry officials say. But the FAA has long been under pressure from members of Congress to open new towers at airports in their states, not to close them.

The FAA began paying contractors to staff and operate towers at a handful of small airports after President Ronald Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Today, there are 251 towers operated by private contractors at airports across the country at an average annual cost of more than $500,000 each.

The closure plan is unrelated to the FAA's use of obsolete safety data to justify the contract tower program.

In 1990, the FAA developed a complicated cost-benefit methodology for the tower program that relies on accident data from 1983 to 1986 to determine how many accidents would be averted and lives saved if an airport had controllers working onsite. The safety data have never been updated, despite marked improvements in accident rates.

In 1983, there were 10.7 accidents for every 100,000 departures involving small planes, business jets and other non-airline flights in the U.S., according to the National Transportation Safety Board. By 2011, the latest year for which figures are available, that rate had dropped to 6.5 accidents per 100,000 departures. The commercial airline accident rate has also dropped, and fatalities have declined even more. There have been no passenger airline fatalities in the U.S. in more than four years, the longest period without fatalities since the dawn of the jet age half a century ago.

"None of the formulas have been updated since 1990, despite a very significant change in the aviation operating environment and the general aviation and commercial accident rates," the FAA said in a statement in response to questions from The Associated Press. "The FAA is in the process of updating this policy."

Agency officials offered no explanation for the oversight.

"The FAA methodology likely overestimates present-day collisions," the Congressional Research Service said in a recent report.

Initially the cost-benefit ratios were to be recalculated every two years, but that didn't happen, said David A. Byers, an aviation professor at the University of Nebraska at Omaha and a consultant to the companies that operate the towers. If they were recalculated now, some airports would certainly fall below the FAA threshold for funding, he said.

Of the nation's 5,000 public airports, only about 10 percent have control towers. Those without towers generally have relatively few flights, and pilots coordinate takeoffs and landings among themselves.

Airport towers are prized by local communities as economic boosters, particularly in rural areas. Airlines are sometimes reluctant to schedule flights to airports where there are no on-site air traffic controllers.

Former Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., a critic of the contract tower program, said he refused to allow lawmakers to insert provisions into bills requiring the FAA to pay for new control towers at airports in their districts when he was chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

"We couldn't always stop it in all instances in the appropriations process, particularly when a bill comes from the Senate and it has a designation of funding for a particular tower," Oberstar said.

___

Online:

FAA airport contract tower closure list: http://www.faa.gov/news/media/fct_closed.pdf

___

Follow Joan Lowy on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/AP_Joan_Lowy


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 3 tháng 4, 2013

Tensions Mount Over Gun Control Push

gty carolyn maloney tk 130403 wblog Tensions Mount Over Gun Control PushPHOTO: Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., at a news conference, October 2009, on the passage of House legislation for …

President Obama took his fight for tougher gun control laws to Colorado today as the debate over gun control has gotten increasingly heated, even menacing at times.

White House spokesman Jay Carney denied suggestions that the president's gun legislation was dead, telling reporters on Air Force One on the flight to Colorado that "negotiations are ongoing on a variety of pieces of this proposal in an effort to try to find the votes necessary."

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., canceled a public appearance Tuesday because of death threats she received.

"Yesterday, several death threats were phoned into my New York office in response to news reports about a bill I authored requiring gun owners to have insurance. The calls were fielded by young interns, who were understandably shaken by this experience," Maloney said in a statement emailed to ABC News today.

"Given all the acts of gun violence we have seen in the past two years, the shootings in Aurora and Newtown, the attack on my friend and colleague Gabby Gifford, I take the threat of more gun violence very seriously," Maloney said.

Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence called the threats against Maloney "outrageous."

"We deplore any sort of threats like that. We need to have a national conversation and a very civil discourse about what is needed in this country," Malte told ABC News.

Other gun control advocates have received similar threats since the debate over gun laws reignited in the past year.

Colorado State Rep. Rhonda Fields received threatening emails and a voicemail attempting to pressure her to drop gun reform legislation she backs in her state. Her office released excerpts from the emails, including one from Feb. 15, full of misspellings, crude and racially-charged insults, and a reference to the shooting of Rep. Giffords.

Dudley Brown, head of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, used an ominous double entendre when discussing his opposition to more gun laws.

"I liken it to the proverbial hunting season," Brown told NPR. "We tell gun owners, 'There's a time to hunt deer. And the next election is the time to hunt Democrats.' "

While the federal government wrestles with the gun debate, states are moving ahead on their own, often in contradictory ways. Colorado state lawmakers have already passed a law requiring background checks for all gun transfers and banning high-capacity ammunition magazines. They go into effect in July.

These laws have provoked a backlash from gun ownership advocates. At least two groups have already canceled shooting competitions in the state, citing the new laws.

New York, where Mayor Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Gun Violence campaign is based, passed restrictions even more quickly than Colorado. In January, the state legislature approved the SAFE Act, making it the state with the strictest gun laws in the country.

The law includes limits on ammunition capacity, assault weapons and sales of guns and ammunition.

Connecticut lawmakers, motivated by the shooting spree that took the lives of 26 children and adults at Sandyhook Elementary School, are set to impose even stricter gun laws in a state that already had some of the strictest in the country. Other states have gone in the other direction, seeking to preserve or expand protections for gun owners.

Alaskan lawmakers introduced a bill this January that would forbid enforcing federal bans on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, according to Alaska Public Media. Arkansas lawmakers voted to allow guns in churches. In one town in Georgia, residents who don't own a gun will be in violation of the law nine days from now.

Also Read

View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 29 tháng 3, 2013

Obama makes impassioned plea for gun control legislation

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama attempted on Thursday to inject fresh momentum into efforts to pass gun-control legislation, pleading with U.S. lawmakers not to forget those shot to death in Newtown, Connecticut three months ago.

Amid signs that he may have to accept a scaled-down version of gun legislation, Obama sounded a note of frustration in calling upon Americans to demand action from the U.S. Congress in the weeks ahead.

He said the legislation's opponents, the powerful U.S. gun lobby led by the National Rifle Association, are "doing everything they can" to derail the effort barely 100 days after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, in which a gunman killed 20 children, six staff members and then himself.

"The entire country pledged we would do something about it and that this time would be different. Shame on us if we've forgotten. I haven't forgotten those kids. Shame on us if we've forgotten," said Obama, appearing at the White House with mothers of children who had been shot to death.

The gunman in Newtown, Adam Lanza, fired 154 rounds in less than 5 minutes, selecting high capacity magazines from a home arsenal stocked with swords, knives and a cache of guns, officials said Thursday.

Despite events like this, a grassroots organizing effort by Obama supporters and a high-profile advertising campaign funded by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to keep up the pressure, gun legislation has been stalled on Capitol Hill in recent weeks.

The best chance of success for gun-control advocates is that Congress will approve universal background checks for gun purchasers and tougher penalties for gun trafficking.

Less likely to pass are bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips, two of the main proposals to emerge from Vice President Joe Biden's gun violence task force, formed by Obama after the Newtown shootings.

'JUST THE BEGINNING'

Biden seemed to acknowledged the challenge when he said on a conference call on Wednesday organized by Mayors Against Illegal Guns that the administration will keep pressing for action regardless of what Congress does in the immediate future.

"Let me say this as clearly as I can: This is just the beginning," Biden said.

Obama had hoped at the outset of his second term to use his re-election mandate to make rapid progress on three major issues: gun violence, deficit-reduction and immigration reform.

All are moving slowly, however.

Immigration may offer the best prospect for action as Republicans seek to attract more Hispanic Americans who voted overwhelming for Obama and his Democrats in the 2012 elections.

Republicans insist that any pathway to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants be preceded by certification that U.S. borders are secure.

The biggest stumbling block to an immigration bill concerns creation of a guest-worker program to allow immigrants to cross the U.S.-Mexican border legally for temporary jobs.

U.S. labor unions, which worry such a program would lead to a loss of jobs for Americans, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have yet to arrive at a formula acceptable to both. Their agreement is considered crucial to bringing Congress along.

Obama has said he is encouraged by the progress, and he believes the dispute over the guest-worker program can be resolved. After first declaring the U.S.-Mexican border sufficiently secure, Obama now says it can be improved, a position that may permit him to make a deal with Republicans.

"I'm actually optimistic about this, in part because I think both Republicans as well as Democrats are now recognizing that it's the right thing to do," Obama told Univision, a Spanish-language network, in an interview on Wednesday.

Obama's attempt to negotiate a "grand bargain" aimed at reducing the U.S. budget deficit is facing old-fashioned political gridlock and could collapse into a partisan sinkhole.

In a fresh round of schmoozing to discuss this and other legislative items, Obama will dine with a dozen Republican senators on April 10, the second such meeting he will have held in his attempts to engage his political opponents.

TAXING THE RICH

Lawmakers are still bruised from a fight over $85 billion in automatic spending cuts that went into effect a month ago despite Obama's attempt to head them off.

Obama still wants what Republicans refused to give him in that budget fight, an increase in taxes on the wealthy by eliminating some deductions and loopholes. Republicans instead want to cut spending.

The White House struck a pessimistic note this week on the prospects for success given the Republican leadership's refusal to agree to raise more tax revenues.

"As long as Republicans are saying we're not going to ask the wealthiest and well-connected to pay a single dime to reduce our deficit, then it is hard to imagine that we're going to reach a compromise," White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday.

The difficulties in gaining passage of major legislation reflects the continued grip partisan politics holds on Washington, with the White House and Senate run by Democrats and the House of Representatives controlled by Republicans. This makes the 2014 midterm congressional elections of increasing importance.

"Look, it's what we all thought when Obama was re-elected," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "There is just not going to be a lot of new legislation in Obama's second term, unless he wins the House in 2014, and even then it looks very, very tough."

(Editing by Fred Barbash and Todd Eastham)


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 26 tháng 3, 2013

Why Georgia is claiming control over a slice of Tennessee

A centuries-old land dispute gains new life during a severe drought

Feeling the pinch of a severe drought, Georgia lawmakers have devised an ingenious way of bringing more water into their parched state: Redraw the state lines.

On Monday, the Georgia Senate approved a resolution that would redraw the state's border with Tennessee to give Georgia control over a small strip of land along the Tennessee River. Under the change, Georgia would gain access to the river, but no Tennessee residents living near the state border would be affected.

SEE MORE: Why Republicans are optimistic about retaking the Senate in 2014

According to supporters of the measure, Georgia should have been in control of that land all along. They say an 1818 federal survey erroneously marked the state border one mile south of its intended location, inadvertently giving Tennessee control over a swath of Georgia's land.

"The Tennessee Valley Authority has identified the Tennessee River as a likely source of water for north Georgia. Yet, the state of Tennessee has used mis-marked boundary lines to block our access to this important waterway," Georgia State Senator David Shafer (R) said in a statement.

SEE MORE: WATCH: Jim Carrey mocks gun lovers in new video

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, most of Georgia is currently experiencing a period of abnormal aridity, with parts of the state afflicted by a 

Georgia's lawmakers say they're being generous with the offer. They're asking only that Tennessee return a small part of the allegedly misappropriated land, not the whole chunk, so that Georgia can draw water from the river to hydrate the region.

SEE MORE: Is the U.S. preparing for a larger post-withdrawal role in Afghanistan?

The resolution calls on Tennessee to accept the new land terms, something lawmakers there have not yet addressed. Should they reject the request, the resolution specifically calls for Georgia's attorney general to pursue legal action to reclaim all of the contested land, not just the sliver Georgia is currently seeking. The federal government has weighed in a few times before to settle land disputes between states.

It's not the first time Georgia has tried to reclaim the disputed land. In 2008, a drought prompted similar legislation, though Tennessee rejected that plan. The state has pursued other reclamation efforts since as far back as 1880, though those also stalled.

SEE MORE: Could Spotify become the next Netflix?

The resolution now heads back to the Georgia House of Representatives for final approval. The Senate lightly amended a previous House-passed bill, and the revised version is expected to pass in the lower chamber as well.

In the unlikely event that it is ultimately accepted by both states, it would go on to the U.S. Congress for ratification.

SEE MORE: The feds are probing Michele Bachmann's presidential campaign (again)

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this section:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 25 tháng 3, 2013

Why Georgia is claiming control over a slice of Tennessee

A centuries-old land dispute gains new life during a severe drought

Feeling the pinch of a severe drought, Georgia lawmakers have devised an ingenious way of bringing more water into their parched state: Redraw the state lines.

On Monday, the Georgia Senate approved a resolution that would redraw the state's border with Tennessee to give Georgia control over a small strip of land along the Tennessee River. Under the change, Georgia would gain access to the river, but no Tennessee residents living near the state border would be affected.

SEE MORE: Why Republicans are optimistic about retaking the Senate in 2014

According to supporters of the measure, Georgia should have been in control of that land all along. They say an 1818 federal survey erroneously marked the state border one mile south of its intended location, inadvertently giving Tennessee control over a swath of Georgia's land.

"The Tennessee Valley Authority has identified the Tennessee River as a likely source of water for north Georgia. Yet, the state of Tennessee has used mis-marked boundary lines to block our access to this important waterway," Georgia State Senator David Shafer (R) said in a statement.

SEE MORE: WATCH: Jim Carrey mocks gun lovers in new video

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, most of Georgia is currently experiencing a period of abnormal aridity, with parts of the state afflicted by a 

Georgia's lawmakers say they're being generous with the offer. They're asking only that Tennessee return a small part of the allegedly misappropriated land, not the whole chunk, so that Georgia can draw water from the river to hydrate the region.

SEE MORE: Is the U.S. preparing for a larger post-withdrawal role in Afghanistan?

The resolution calls on Tennessee to accept the new land terms, something lawmakers there have not yet addressed. Should they reject the request, the resolution specifically calls for Georgia's attorney general to pursue legal action to reclaim all of the contested land, not just the sliver Georgia is currently seeking. The federal government has weighed in a few times before to settle land disputes between states.

It's not the first time Georgia has tried to reclaim the disputed land. In 2008, a drought prompted similar legislation, though Tennessee rejected that plan. The state has pursued other reclamation efforts since as far back as 1880, though those also stalled.

SEE MORE: Could Spotify become the next Netflix?

The resolution now heads back to the Georgia House of Representatives for final approval. The Senate lightly amended a previous House-passed bill, and the revised version is expected to pass in the lower chamber as well.

In the unlikely event that it is ultimately accepted by both states, it would go on to the U.S. Congress for ratification.

SEE MORE: The feds are probing Michele Bachmann's presidential campaign (again)

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this section:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here