Speaking of Executive Orders about gun ownership.....

[Little-Acorn]

As I mentioned, the President is supposed to use Executive Orders to implement something passed by Congress.

Recall that everything in the Constitution itself, HAS been passed by Congress (a 2/3 majority of each house, or better). Also ratified by 3/4 of the states, or better. That goes for the body of the Constitution itself, as well as every amendment it has so far.

Let's see. The 2nd amendment was passed by 2/3 of each house of Congress, and then ratified by 3/4 of the states. Just as the rest of the Bill of Rights was.

And the second said that for certain reasons, the people's right to own and carry guns can't be restricted or taken away.

Would there be anything illegal in the President issuing an Executive Order declaring that all Federal so-called "gun control" laws are hereby struck down and invalidated?

He would be doing nothing more than implementing what has already been passed by Congress. Isn't this exactly what Executive Orders are supposed to do?

What, exactly, would be illegal about the President issuing that particular Executive Order?

[Kathianne]

Related. Side note: What two things do the slaveholders in general forbid the slaves? Literacy and guns.

http://coldservings.livejournal.com/50207.html


The Second Amendment is Obsolete, some say. The idea that the United States could ever turn tyrannical is pure paranoia, some say.

Well, let's look at that.

Rounding up people and sending them to concentration camps (whether called "reservations" or "relocation centers"). Check. (Treatment of Native Americans. Japanese-American "Relocation Centers" during World War II).

Illegal medical experiments involving infecting people with diseases, not treating them, and observing the effects done on people without their knowledge or consent. Check. (Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment)--and particularly interesting how that was "explained" to the victims as they were getting free health care from the US Government.)

Arbitrary searches of American citizens' households aimed at the seizure of property without either probable cause or any kind of warrant. Check. (post-Katrina gun Confiscation (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ea5_1351451266))

Laws passed allowing the indefinite detention of American Citizens without due process of law. Check. (NDAA 2012 (http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-indefinite-detention-trial-403/))

American citizens going about their daily business being stopped and searched again without probable cause or any kind of warrant (or even the "reasonably articulable suspicion" for a "Terry Stop"). Check. (TSA, not just at Airports, but at bus terminals (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrwHE3kEjdc), rail and subway terminals (http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/28/travel/tsa-vipr-passenger-train-searches/index.html), highways (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/10/mission-creep-this-tennessee-highway-is-now-patrolled-by-tsa/247243/), even High School Proms (http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2011/05/23/tsa-ordered-to-monitor-prom-security-in-santa-fe/).)

"Can't happen here?" It has and is happening here.

Tell me again how the Second Amendment is obsolete since it's not needed to defend against tyranny.

But "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Yet, still, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[fj1200]

As I mentioned, the President is supposed to use Executive Orders to implement something passed by Congress.

...

Would there be anything illegal in the President issuing an Executive Order declaring that all Federal so-called "gun control" laws are hereby struck down and invalidated?

He would be doing nothing more than implementing what has already been passed by Congress. Isn't this exactly what Executive Orders are supposed to do?

What, exactly, would be illegal about the President issuing that particular Executive Order?

Yes, he doesn't have the power to strike down laws. That's different than him telling certain Federal agencies to not enforce particular statutes.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yes, he doesn't have the power to strike down laws. That's different than him telling certain Federal agencies to not enforce particular statutes.

That's the ticket defend your boy!!! While you say you do not..-:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:-Tyr

[aboutime]

Yes, he doesn't have the power to strike down laws. That's different than him telling certain Federal agencies to not enforce particular statutes.


As Obama instructed Holder to disregard, ignore, and disobey the Constitution in reference to accountability for Enforcement of Federal Laws.

Obama and the idiots like him in Congress who wear a BIG "D" on their chest...ignore any laws they disagree with, and then wonder why we have such a terrible CRIME RATE in Democrat Run Cities...like Obama's Home Town...Land of MURDER INC. being run by RAHM the magic Idiot.

[Little-Acorn]

Yes, he doesn't have the power to strike down laws. That's different than him telling certain Federal agencies to not enforce particular statutes.

A distinction without a difference. Since you bring it up, he has no more power granted by the Constitution to tell Federal agencies not to enforce duly-passed Federal laws, than he has to issue an EO to ban or restrict guns. (and "power granted by the Constitution" is the ONLY power the President legally has.)

Yet the President HAS directed agencies not to enforce laws. And so it won't be much of a leap for him to issue an EO to ban or restrict guns soon, too.

I always get a kick out of desperate liberals who try to tell us that Obama would never do things he has already done.

But to get back to the subject of this thread:
If a President were to issue an EO saying that all Federal gun laws are hereby struck down, he would simply be following the Constitution itself, which states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and is superior to any Federal or state law. Most Federal gun laws violate the 2nd amendment, so the President would simply be obeying the highest law of the land.

If the Fed govt were to, say, make a law saying it was OK to kidnap black people off the street, put chains on them, and force them to work on your farm for no pay and meager subsistence, the President would be fully justified, and legally correct, to issue an EO immediately, declaring that law struck down and void, since it clearly violates the Constitution he swore to uphold. Why should he treat the 2nd amendment any different from the 13th?

The more I think about a President issuing an EO striking down various Federal gun laws, the more I like it. It would clearly be 100% legal and Constitutional, since (a) the 2nd was passed by Congress and ratified into law, and (b) the President himself swore to uphold it - ALL of it.

[fj1200]

That's the ticket defend your boy!!! While you say you do not..-:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:-Tyr

Considering that "my boy" wasn't even mentioned in the OP and I didn't mention anything about the current POTUS your post is mere blather. If that's the best you can come up with as far as me defending BO it's no wonder you suck wind every time I challenge you to put up.


iA distinction without a difference. Since you bring it up, he has no more power granted by the Constitution to tell Federal agencies not to enforce duly-passed Federal laws, than he has to issue an EO to ban or restrict guns. (and "power granted by the Constitution" is the ONLY power the President legally has.)

Yet the President HAS directed agencies not to enforce laws. And so it won't be much of a leap for him to issue an EO to ban or restrict guns soon, too.

I always get a kick out of desperate liberals who try to tell us that Obama would never do things he has already done.

But to get back to the subject of this thread:
If a President were to issue an EO saying that all Federal gun laws are hereby struck down, he would simply be following the Constitution itself, which states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and is superior to any Federal or state law. Most Federal gun laws violate the 2nd amendment, so the President would simply be obeying the highest law of the land.

If the Fed govt were to, say, make a law saying it was OK to kidnap black people off the street, put chains on them, and force them to work on your farm for no pay and meager subsistence, the President would be fully justified, and legally correct, to issue an EO immediately, declaring that law struck down and void, since it clearly violates the Constitution he swore to uphold. Why should he treat the 2nd amendment any different from the 13th?

The more I think about a President issuing an EO striking down various Federal gun laws, the more I like it. It would clearly be 100% legal and Constitutional, since (a) the 2nd was passed by Congress and ratified into law, and (b) the President himself swore to uphold it - ALL of it.

There's a pretty large difference actually. Considering that EOs have only been overturned twice, as I understand, and have been issued as far back as the first GW I'd say that their Constitutional muster is pretty well locked in. Given authority granted in Federal legislation and arguable Constitutional basis they're not going anywhere.

So I guess the next step would be to find out if the POTUS has ever actually struck down any laws by EO.

BTW, I get a kick out of libs too. :) They always focus on the symptoms and not the disease.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Considering that "my boy" wasn't even mentioned in the OP and I didn't mention anything about the current POTUS your post is mere blather. If that's the best you can come up with as far as me defending BO it's no wonder you suck wind every time I challenge you to put up.


Yes, he doesn't have the power to strike down laws. That's different than him telling certain Federal agencies to not enforce particular statutes.

^^^^^ Your quote dude..
Who is the --HE- in your reply if its not the current president. Who else gets to issue Executive Orders!!??? So you did mention "your boy" obama .
Stop lying and stop denying what you typed Jethro..-Tyr

[fj1200]

^^^^^ Your quote dude..
Who is the --HE- in your reply if its not the current president. Who else gets to issue Executive Orders!!??? So you did mention "your boy" obama .
Stop lying and stop denying what you typed Jethro..-Tyr

You mean my generic response to a theoretical example? :laugh: You can do better than that... I hope. I could give the same answer four years prior or, slightly more than, four years hence and it would have nothing to do with BO. Tell you what; as soon as BO attempts his confiscation via EO AND I defend his actions THEN you'll have me. But until then...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You mean my generic response to a theoretical example? :laugh: You can do better than that... I hope. I could give the same answer four years prior or, slightly more than, four years hence and it would have nothing to do with BO. Tell you what; as soon as BO attempts his confiscation via EO AND I defend his actions THEN you'll have me. But until then...

First you say it was not about obama when the subject is obama's possible use of E.O in the current gun debate. Now you claim instead the excuse that it was just a "generic response"--:laugh2:
How about a big warning in the future when you issue -generic responses -- that according to you put forth no specific view! At least none that you are to be held accountable for!!! APPARENTLY according to you when called on your comments you issue many of those.
Sho' is a mighty convenient method of posting!! One that gives plausible deniability!!!!!
Which in itself reveals a shallow based set of principles AT WORK IMHO..
Do carry on explaining, I find it fascinating, enlightening and actually very funny!-Tyr

[Little-Acorn]

Well, I see that this thread is being hijacked into the usual "Yes-I-said-that-No-you-didn't-Yes-I-did-Here's-what-you-meant-no-I-didn't" black hole.

Hope you purse-fight fanatics don't mind if we get back to the actual subject.

If a President were to issue an EO saying that all Federal gun laws are hereby struck down, he would simply be following the Constitution itself, which states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and is superior to any Federal or state law. Most Federal gun laws violate the 2nd amendment, so the President would simply be obeying the highest law of the land.

If the Fed govt were to, say, make a law saying it was OK to kidnap black people off the street, put chains on them, and force them to work on your farm for no pay and meager subsistence, the President would be fully justified, and legally correct, to issue an EO immediately, declaring that law struck down and void, since it clearly violates the Constitution he swore to uphold. Why should he treat the 2nd amendment any different from the 13th?

The more I think about a President issuing an EO striking down various Federal gun laws, the more I like it. It would clearly be 100% legal and Constitutional, since (a) the 2nd was passed by Congress and ratified into law, and (b) the President himself swore to uphold it - ALL of it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well, I see that this thread is being hijacked into the usual "Yes-I-said-that-No-you-didn't-Yes-I-did-Here's-what-you-meant-no-I-didn't" black hole.

Hope you purse-fight fanatics don't mind if we get back to the actual subject.

If a President were to issue an EO saying that all Federal gun laws are hereby struck down, he would simply be following the Constitution itself, which states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and is superior to any Federal or state law. Most Federal gun laws violate the 2nd amendment, so the President would simply be obeying the highest law of the land.

If the Fed govt were to, say, make a law saying it was OK to kidnap black people off the street, put chains on them, and force them to work on your farm for no pay and meager subsistence, the President would be fully justified, and legally correct, to issue an EO immediately, declaring that law struck down and void, since it clearly violates the Constitution he swore to uphold. Why should he treat the 2nd amendment any different from the 13th?

The more I think about a President issuing an EO striking down various Federal gun laws, the more I like it. It would clearly be 100% legal and Constitutional, since (a) the 2nd was passed by Congress and ratified into law, and (b) the President himself swore to uphold it - ALL of it.

While interesting , the chances of obama striking down Federal gun laws is almost nil IMHO. Although his using the 2nd amendment to justify doing that does have great merit! The opposite would not be valid/true because it would be his striking down an Amendment (the 2nd) with an Executive Order! That is clearly Unconstitutional. Just as would be his further limiting the 2nd Amendment by issuing an Executive Order which further curtailed the validity, authority and exercise of the 2nd Amendment guarantees to the citizens of this great nation!
You point out clearly and accurately that he is sworn by oath and solemn duty to --uphold all of the Constitution and Amendments . I put forth that he not only does not do so but deliberately seeks to weaken both the nation and our Constitution . And his contempt for our Constitution clearly, along with his actions , makes a case for treason charges to be brought against him..-Tyr

[Little-Acorn]

While interesting , the chances of obama striking down Federal gun laws is almost nil IMHO.

Who said "Obama"?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Who said "Obama"?
Nobody but for the next 4 years we have to contend with obama. If you think we have a future nominee from out current crop of politicians with the gonads to do that which you suggest is possible you had better think again!! That would take having a far right wing conservative totally dedicated to the security and welfare of this nation IMHO.
I see none on the horizon now myself. If you do please point the man out and then explain how such a man will be able to become our president when even a moderate like Romney couldn't make it. .. Additionally, how to overcome the globalists that are moving us further and further away from that type being a viable candidate!??
Here is hoping and praying we can but I do not see it myself. -Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

There's a pretty large difference actually. Considering that EOs have only been overturned twice, as I understand, and have been issued as far back as the first GW I'd say that their Constitutional muster is pretty well locked in. Given authority granted in Federal legislation and arguable Constitutional basis they're not going anywhere.

So I guess the next step would be to find out if the POTUS has ever actually struck down any laws by EO.

BTW, I get a kick out of libs too. :) They always focus on the symptoms and not the disease.

One good way to see how Executive orders work is to look at the non government counterpart.

A company CEO makes day to day decisions. A group called the board of directors (Congress) has made countless directives and said CEO (POTUS) must follow those directives.

Said CEO/POTUS may of course direct the work force.

But the person can't direct the congress nor the board of directors.

And of course have no say so over the customers / public.

[logroller]

^^^^^ Your quote dude..
Who is the --HE- in your reply if its not the current president. Who else gets to issue Executive Orders!!??? So you did mention "your boy" obama .
Stop lying and stop denying what you typed Jethro..-Tyr
How many us presidents have been male?


A distinction without a difference. Since you bring it up, he has no more power granted by the Constitution to tell Federal agencies not to enforce duly-passed Federal laws, than he has to issue an EO to ban or restrict guns. (and "power granted by the Constitution" is the ONLY power the President legally has.)

Yet the President HAS directed agencies not to enforce laws. And so it won't be much of a leap for him to issue an EO to ban or restrict guns soon, too.

I always get a kick out of desperate liberals who try to tell us that Obama would never do things he has already done.

But to get back to the subject of this thread:
If a President were to issue an EO saying that all Federal gun laws are hereby struck down, he would simply be following the Constitution itself, which states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and is superior to any Federal or state law. Most Federal gun laws violate the 2nd amendment, so the President would simply be obeying the highest law of the land.

If the Fed govt were to, say, make a law saying it was OK to kidnap black people off the street, put chains on them, and force them to work on your farm for no pay and meager subsistence, the President would be fully justified, and legally correct, to issue an EO immediately, declaring that law struck down and void, since it clearly violates the Constitution he swore to uphold. Why should he treat the 2nd amendment any different from the 13th?

The more I think about a President issuing an EO striking down various Federal gun laws, the more I like it. It would clearly be 100% legal and Constitutional, since (a) the 2nd was passed by Congress and ratified into law, and (b) the President himself swore to uphold it - ALL of it.
Not entirely, but it could be. since the president's powers are balanced, the other two branches would interpret what constitutes "Care that the Laws are faithfully executed." If Congressional (not BoR) laws are being refused, I'd think Congress would say its not OK, and could subpoena the president to testify to the fact. If sufficient neglect was found, impeachment could result.
But its moot really, if the pres thinks its an unconctitutional law, why would he direct the DOJ to challenge the law in court? The thrust of the constitutional issue would be upon SCOTUS and whether the Congressional laws violate the Constitution and/or the President has failed at faithful execution of Law (all law, supreme or otherwise). As to that, as is usually the case, it depends on the merits of the law. If scotus sides with the pres, and congress and the states disagree-- an amendment would be necessary to correct the issue. There's clearly no universal 100% answer though-- It depends on the law. But an EO seems superfluous if the law is unconstitutional; take it to scotus, they have the vested authority to judicial review, not the Pres...I believe presidents have admitted as much, begrudgingly.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

How many us presidents have been male?

All of them except obama, he is a p*ssy. A punk and a bastard..
Really godlike to manage to be all three of them too. :laugh:--Tyr

[fj1200]

First you say it was not about obama when the subject is obama's possible use of E.O in the current gun debate. Now you claim instead the excuse that it was just a "generic response"--:laugh2:


Who said "Obama"?

:laugh: Priceless.


How about a big warning in the future when you issue -generic responses -- that according to you put forth no specific view! At least none that you are to be held accountable for!!! APPARENTLY according to you when called on your comments you issue many of those.
Sho' is a mighty convenient method of posting!! One that gives plausible deniability!!!!!
Which in itself reveals a shallow based set of principles AT WORK IMHO..
Do carry on explaining, I find it fascinating, enlightening and actually very funny!-Tyr

Here's a test you can use when determining whether it's about BO or just a generic comment on the POTUS; Does the answer change when there is a different POTUS in office.


One good way to see how Executive orders work is to look at the non government counterpart.

A company CEO makes day to day decisions. A group called the board of directors (Congress) has made countless directives and said CEO (POTUS) must follow those directives.

Said CEO/POTUS may of course direct the work force.

But the person can't direct the congress nor the board of directors.

And of course have no say so over the customers / public.

And?


Hope you purse-fight fanatics don't mind if we get back to the actual subject.

Perhaps if you had the ability to debate and defend your posit as opposed to mere pontification from on high, we could actually get somewhere.


Most Federal gun laws violate the 2nd amendment...

You begin with a fallacy, which laws, how many, by whose opinion? There is a challenge process for unconstitutional laws.


If the Fed govt were to, say, make a law saying it was OK to kidnap black people off the street...

Continue with a false analogy dripping in hyperbole. A POTUS would simply veto such a law instead of signing and then issuing an EO.


The more I think about a President issuing an EO striking down various Federal gun laws, the more I like it. It would clearly be 100% legal and Constitutional, since (a) the 2nd was passed by Congress and ratified into law, and (b) the President himself swore to uphold it - ALL of it.

And then follow up with an unsubstantiated claim. Where has a POTUS ever "struck down" a law by EO?