seems to be ample historical precedent for executive orders. not sure what your problem is here, so long as the president doesn't step on Congress's toes or make new law.
btw, how can the president perform his duties or execute duly passed laws without giving orders?
@CN could you at least cite executive orders 'in general' that created new law and the SCOTUS didn't invalidate for that exact reason?
I mean, even George Washington issued executive orders, IIRC... apparently even the founding father understood he had that power...
Nice equivocation there.
how so?
CN said there was something wrong with executive orders in general. I referred to precedence, cited supporting clauses and asked a simple question. How is that equivocation?
United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law,[1] since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Cons ution. However, these perceived justifications cited by Presidents when authoring Executive Orders have come under criticism for exceeding executive authority; at various times throughout U.S. history, challenges to the legal validity or justification for an order have resulted in legal proceedings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
Not the same thing as today's executive orders (i.e. public legislative do ents with the force of law), which didn't come about until the 1900's....
Well, wars have been declared via executive order for years despite the power of declaring war being expressly delegated to Congress and Congress only, for starters....
apparently Congress no longer wants the power, and the Supreme Court hasn't invalidated it, but I tend to agree with you there.
In just about every case, Congress expressly handed that power off.
But Rand Paul's proposed legislation is specific to Obama's EOs on gun control, so you agree that this is total bull and a complete time waste?
That's not correct. It's exactly the same.
The President can 'tweak' existing law (ie: by changing it's execution, a power granted to the executive), and THAT has the force of law.
The executive cannot create new law through executive order, and in the instances it has done so, it has been invalidated by the SCOTUS.
Except for the part that Congress delegated that authority to the Executive. Congress is well within it's right to remove that authority, and why it has not done so is entirely Congress' fault.
I'm sure you know there's a difference between Executive order and an order from the executive.
So when the POTUS says "come to my office" to the SoS, is that an Executive order?
Not all orders by the POTUS are classified as Executive order.
These are things we already know.
Complete bull yes, but it is never a waste of time for a politician to try and scare people into sending them money. I'm sure many did...
Dear Snakeboy,
The gun grabbers in Washington have launched an all-out assault on our right to keep and bear arms - and they're -bent on destroying the Second Amendment.
And to add insult to injury, Barack Obama is preparing to use Executive Orders to RAM through whatever the gun grabbers can't get through Congress.
Well, America doesn't have - nor need - a King.
And as I told Sean Hannity last night, I'm prepared to do everything in my power to stand up to "King Obama" and stop his all-out assault on the Second Amendment.
Despite his "King Complex," President Obama doesn't have the Cons utional authority to write legislation.
And next week I plan on introducing the "Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act" - designed to nullify any anti-gun Executive Order issued by Barack Obama.
Unfortunately, this arrogance is nothing new when it comes to Barack Obama.
When Congress failed to ram through the radical environmentalists' cherished "Cap-and-Tax" scheme, Barack Obama attempted to use regulatory fiat to implement it.
From invading Libya without the approval of Congress to the so-called "Dream Act," President Obama has a history of abusing his Executive powers to do whatever he chooses.
Our Founders fought a revolution to STOP this kind of madness.
And if you value your God-given right to keep and bear arms, it's absolutely critical you fight back by signing your Second Amendment Protection Pledge IMMEDIATELY.
Snakeboy, America isn't supposed to have an imperial President.
And the Founders created a government based on separation of powers to prevent the President from ever becoming a king.
As Montesquieu said, "there can be no liberty when you combine the executive and legislative powers."
But Barack Obama disagrees - and he's garnered so much power and arrogance he believes he can do whatever he wants.
You and I must stop him.
So please sign your Second Amendment Protection Pledge IMMEDIATELY.
And if you've already signed your Second Amendment Protection Pledge, I hope you'll agree to make a generous contribution to help RandPAC fight back.
Your generous contribution will help RandPAC mobilize millions of pro-gun Americans to turn up the heat on Congress to stop any gun bans - whether through legislation or executive fiat.
But the gun grabbers are wasting no time in their all-out war to destroy the Second Amendment.
So time is running short to mobilize an army of grassroots Americans to send a loud-and-clear message to Congress:
"Vote for gun control - and find a new job."
So please sign your Second Amendment Protection Pledge IMMEDIATELY, and make the most generous contribution you can possibly afford.
Together, you and I will stop the assault on our Second Amendment freedoms.
In Liberty,
Senator Rand Paul
P.S. Barack Obama is preparing to use regulatory fiat to RAM through whatever the gun grabbers can't get through Congress.
Our Founders fought a revolution to STOP this kind of madness.
So if you value your God-given right to keep and bear arms, it's absolutely critical you fight back by signing your Second Amendment Protection Pledge IMMEDIATELY
The law basically says that any property which is confiscated must be resold or given away. The nra is attempting to have these buybacks classified as confiscations.
your point being?
be specific about the classifications, if you can. what exactly do you differ with?
again, what was the equivocation? is there something wrong with executive orders in general, or, if not, what's your problem with these?
firearms have been regulated ab initio. the founders clearly did not see federal regulation of firearms as abrogation of the right to bear arms, else they wouldn't have done it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/bo...pagewanted=allIn “Gunfight,” his provocative, highly uneven new book about the fight over gun control, the cons utional law professor Adam Winkler writes that “gun rights and gun control are not only compatible; they have lived together since the birth of America.” He argues that “despite the controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment, Americans have always had the right to keep and bear arms as a matter of state cons utional law. Today, nearly every state has such a provision in its own cons ution, clearly protecting an individual right unattached to militia service.”
He also argues, however, that America has “always had gun control.”
He writes: “The founding fathers ins uted gun control laws so intrusive that no self-respecting member of today’s N.R.A. board of directors would support them. Early Americans denied the right to gun ownership even to law-abiding people if they failed a political test of loyalty to the Revolution. The founders also declared that free white men were members of the militia and, as such, were forced to appear with their guns at public ‘musters’ where government officials would inspect the weapons and register them on public rolls. When pressing public necessity demanded it, the founding fathers were also willing to impress guns from law abiding citizens, even if those citizens were left without guns to defend themselves from a criminal attack.”
http://savannahnow.com/column/2012-0...l#.UPj7O2e2-7QThe founding fathers who wrote the Second Amendment didn’t believe the right to keep and bear arms was a libertarian license for anyone to have any gun anywhere he wanted. While they believed that the right to have arms was an individual right and that government should never be able to completely disarm the people, they balanced gun rights with public safety.
The founders barred large portions of the population from possessing guns, including slaves and free blacks, who might revolt if armed. The founders also restricted gun ownership by law-abiding white people, such as those who refused to swear allegiance to the Revolution.
Those weren’t traitors fighting for the British. They were among the approximately 40 percent of the citizenry who, in exercise of their freedom of conscience, thought 13 disorganized colonies taking on the most powerful nation in the world was a bad idea.
The founders also imposed onerous restrictions on gun owners through militia laws. Men over the age of 18 were expected to serve in the citizen militia, armed and ready to defend the nation. They would be forced to appear, with guns in hand, at musters where they and their guns would be inspected. The founders had an early form of gun registration: States conducted door-to-door surveys to identify where guns were in case the government had need of them.
The founders even had their own version of an “individual mandate.” In 1792, Congress required all free men of age to outfit themselves with a military-style firearm.
Gun control was commonplace in the Wild West, too. Frontier towns in the west — places like Deadwood, S.D., and Tombstone, Ariz. — had the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. When a visitor arrived in a frontier town, he was required to check his guns with the marshal. The gun owner would receive a token to reclaim the guns when he left town.
The illegal carrying of a firearm was the second most common basis for arrests in the old west — right behind drunk and disorderly conduct. Gun violence was also rare, and gunfights extraordinary. Frontier towns averaged less than two homicides per year. Turns out there really wasn’t any need to get out of Dodge.
even in er, the US Supreme Court upholds Federal regulation of firearms in principle.
I was hoping it at least checked serial numbers first for if it was stolen. And what if stolen just the day before? The owner may not even know it's missing for a while, depending on who had access...
It doesn't bother me if they are destroyed, but at least make sure they aren't stolen goods. Most these gun programs I have read about have a "don't ask" policy, which is awesome for thieves.
"stolen goods."
if the guns are stolen, the supposedly paranoid fantasist owners were lazy and careless about securing them. 'em.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote