Obama: Some Gun Control Measures 'I Can Accomplish Through Executive Action'
- Thread starter breakingcontact
- Start date
- Status
morcey2
Member
One I can think of right off the top of my head that would actually do something and be achievable through executive order is.....
Enforce the existing laws. Prosecute people who break them. I don't agree with some of the existing federal laws a la gun-free-zones, but that's not going to change any time soon. What's the point of creating new federal crimes when violations of existing law are rarely prosecuted at the federal level?
Matt
Enforce the existing laws. Prosecute people who break them. I don't agree with some of the existing federal laws a la gun-free-zones, but that's not going to change any time soon. What's the point of creating new federal crimes when violations of existing law are rarely prosecuted at the federal level?
Matt
sonick808
Member
slow down. He still hasn't let his proposals be known yet.
One of the primary EO's i've heard being discussed was something along the lines of more firm enforcement of existing criminal use of gun laws. Something like an EO to provide a mandatory minimum of sorts, countering activist judges releasing armed thugs time and time and time and time again.
The rest is just speculation. I'm right here, and I still say he won't propose anything creating new law. If he does, expect an injunction and a lawsuit.
I am weary of the defeatist attitude that pops up in some threads. let's not be the British in 1997 as they shuffled in long lines to turn in their weapons. k ?
One of the primary EO's i've heard being discussed was something along the lines of more firm enforcement of existing criminal use of gun laws. Something like an EO to provide a mandatory minimum of sorts, countering activist judges releasing armed thugs time and time and time and time again.
The rest is just speculation. I'm right here, and I still say he won't propose anything creating new law. If he does, expect an injunction and a lawsuit.
I am weary of the defeatist attitude that pops up in some threads. let's not be the British in 1997 as they shuffled in long lines to turn in their weapons. k ?
sonick808
Member
OK, i just watched the press conference that he mentioned EO in today
The only specifics he mentioned regarding EO were steps in tracking criminal use of firearms more closely.
We must remain engaged and level-headed
The only specifics he mentioned regarding EO were steps in tracking criminal use of firearms more closely.
We must remain engaged and level-headed
BCCL
Member
applause!!!!
He could strengthen the gun free zone Federal statutes to put an end to concealed carry by teachers in states such as Utah. I hope he doesn't but that is within their power to take away the state exemption for concealed carry. That would just make the issue worse but is within the reach of an EO. I would just as soon see what we are dealing with soon, all we can do is speculate now which obviously is fraught with inaccuracies.
BCCL
Member
"He could strengthen the gun free zone Federal statutes to put an end to concealed carry by teachers in states such as Utah. I hope he doesn't but that is within their power to take away the state exemption for concealed carry"
How?
How?
mordechaianiliewicz
Member
The fundamental issue here is that part of the nation wants to go for more gun control (and they are concentrated in certain states).
Others want to lessen gun control here (such as ending the gun free zones entirely, or atleast removing schools from the list) and they are concentrated in other states.
Anything done by the Federal government, any action Obama takes will smack of telling those in the states mentioned secondly what to do.
That is, provided he simply sticks to EOs inside of already established legislation.
Others want to lessen gun control here (such as ending the gun free zones entirely, or atleast removing schools from the list) and they are concentrated in other states.
Anything done by the Federal government, any action Obama takes will smack of telling those in the states mentioned secondly what to do.
That is, provided he simply sticks to EOs inside of already established legislation.
Yes. Yes he can do "some things through EO's". Wow! What a bold leader on tough issues!
What "things"? He cannot say. Still planning to look at it. He hasn't actually looked at it yet, but is planning to.
In other news: I'm going to look at paint for my house. I haven't actually painted it, nor have I even looked at colors, but I'm just letting you know I'm going to look at some paint options later today. Meanwhile mold still grows on my house.
What "things"? He cannot say. Still planning to look at it. He hasn't actually looked at it yet, but is planning to.
In other news: I'm going to look at paint for my house. I haven't actually painted it, nor have I even looked at colors, but I'm just letting you know I'm going to look at some paint options later today. Meanwhile mold still grows on my house.
That is the problem, he can "strengthen" existing laws or remove exemptions stated in existing laws.
Once again, until he shows his hand, it is all speculation.
No. He absolutely cannot do that.
Nope. We know for a fact he can't do that either. You keep posting these claims but you don't understand that HE CAN NOT WRITE LAW. He can't change written law, write new ones, or ignore laws as written.
He has lots of latitude on how to enforce them, within the way they are written, but he can't break them. In any law there is lots of grey area on how to enforce it, but he can't change the black/white parts of the law or write new parts. That's Congress's job. POTUS does not have that power. Never did, never will.
Let me see, can't ignore existing laws? Are you serious? Really, how about DOMA, how about annual budget, etc? No, he does and will continue to selectively enforce what he wants to, there is no longer anyone to restrain him.
He can't write new laws? Huh, oh really, then what was the EO creating his Dream Act?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...a-did-what-presidents-do-act-without-congress
In any case, show me where an Obama EO has been overturned if it so easy to overturn and restrain him? Just one please.
BCCL
Member
State permit, good in same state school.
He cannot change that by EO.
He cannot change that by EO.
Why not? Once again, that was an example by pure speculation, I have no evidence that he plans to do this, but what would restrain him from doing this should he choose to do so?
I believe we fail to understand that each president defines for himself what the limits of his presidential powers will be through a give and take with congress and the people. Presidential executive powers are in flux and the historical trend is to gather more and more and more executive power.
in addition, if you study the history of democracies, they always end in a tyrannical dictatorship. The founders would probably already declare we had tyrannical presidential power several presidents ago. Wait until we see the full effect of his latest regulations he put through right after the election.
Sigh... With hope that we might all learn something...
DOMA (not an executive order); "May 2012, the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed Tauro's ruling that section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act#Congressional_intervention
Annual budget? (also not an EO) Written by Congress, passed by Congress, spent by Congress.
Dream Act (not an act, not EO, not law) "exercise of our prosecutorial discretion," http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/...on-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf
... and it's being challenged in court (the way it's supposed to work); http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...suit-against-napolitano-over-amnesty-program/
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/24/us/immigration-lawsuit/index.html
As for which of Obama's EO that have been overturned, I'm not aware of any that need to be. Can you cite one? So far you haven't. Just wild claims that don't hold up.
Joe, this is getting old, but one more time:
1) Dream Act - by Executive Fiat:
“The DREAM Act was rejected by Congress,” Krauthammer continued. “It is now being enacted by the executive, despite the express will of the Congress. That is lawless. It may not be an explicit executive order; it’s an implicit one.’
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._obama_admins_lawlessness_on_immigration.html
2) DOMA - Obama chose to ignore this law before the court ruling:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/24marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
You stated Obama cannot ignore laws. He does ignore laws all the time.
3) Annual Budget - Obama ignores the law on submitting a budget.
4) Abuse of Presidential Power - Many sources on this, here is one:
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/12/constitutional-experts-call-obamas-abuse-of-power-historic/
In any case Joe, this is getting old. If you wish to believe Obama follows the constitution, doesn't make his own laws and doesn't ignore laws he doesn't like, go for it.
Which executive orders of Obama need to be over turned? The one he is going to issue tomorrow on gun control.
BCCL
Member
Your citing places where he failed to do his duty, but what EO's did he issue on those topics?
The two things are not the same.
The two things are not the same.
Sorry, but the Dream Order is even more scary when you consider it was ONLY a memo to the INS, you are right, not an official EO. In other words, his MEMO carried the weight of law. Why does that not bother you even more than his "official" EO's? In other words, by his proclamation only!!
Sorry, but arguing about my questions of his presidential power is really counter productive. If he can write a MEMO and over ride congress, we are REALLY in trouble and I am not sure why you can't note that. The DREAM ORDER is simply by presidential proclamation. That takes my breath away and I NEVER thought I would see events like this in my lifetime here in America. Sorry, but that truly takes my breath away.
You're right, it's gotten old. I post facts, you post wild claims with no facts.
EO all have numbers. You claim he has made many that make law, violate law, etc. Please post ONE or more. Numbers please.
Everything else you've posted has turned out to not be an EO, and not "unConstitutional".
By the way, Article I says "Congress" must write and pass a budget. The POTUS only job is to submit a suggestion (not in the Constitution, but later law). They can throw it away and he can go on vacation to let them figure it out (which he did). The President has NO responsibility on passing a budget, that's Congress's job.
Read it for your self instead of relying on some pundit to spin it for you;
"Section. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;[2] If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section. 8.The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
EO all have numbers. You claim he has made many that make law, violate law, etc. Please post ONE or more. Numbers please.
Everything else you've posted has turned out to not be an EO, and not "unConstitutional".
By the way, Article I says "Congress" must write and pass a budget. The POTUS only job is to submit a suggestion (not in the Constitution, but later law). They can throw it away and he can go on vacation to let them figure it out (which he did). The President has NO responsibility on passing a budget, that's Congress's job.
Read it for your self instead of relying on some pundit to spin it for you;
"Section. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;[2] If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section. 8.The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
Dear Joe,
I already listed above that the Presidential duty is by the Congressional Budget Act. Are you stating that he can ignore that law?
Sorry, but I have listed many instances where Obama has made laws and ignored laws.
in any case, have a great day Joe, I hope your vision of Obama following the laws of the land is correct, unfortunately, I read the news and know that is not so.
krupparms
Member
After looking at history it would seem, A E.O. has to be challenged by congress . If that is not done, it becomes de facto law. This would not be the first POTIUS to do so & thus create law. I belive it has happened before & will again. Unless Congress will do it's job!
krupparms
Member
I won't be holding my breath!
You posted that he submited a budget, as required. What part did he ignore? Congress writes the budget and passes it, then the President signs it, if he feels like it, or not if he doesn't. I don't know why you think the President has some responsiblity here he has failed. See quote below;
Where? You keep making that claim but when I look them up, it turns out to not be true.
Still looking for a single Obama EO that you claim violates the Constitution. Please cite the EO number and the part of the Constitution violated.
More lessons on how our government works (for those that don't seem to understand)
"Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is a United States federal law that governs the role of the Congress in the United States budget process.
"Titles I through IX of the law are also known as the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Title II created the Congressional Budget Office. Title III governs the procedures by which Congress annually adopts a budget resolution, a concurrent resolution that is not signed by the President, which sets fiscal policy for the Congress. This budget resolution sets limits on revenues and spending that may be enforced in Congress through procedural objections called points of order. The budget resolution can also specify that a budget reconciliation bill be written, which the Congress will then consider under expedited procedures.
"Title X of the law, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the President may propose to Congress that funds be rescinded. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within 45 days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on such a proposal and has ignored most Presidential requests.[4] In response, some have called for a line item veto to strengthen the rescission power and force Congress to vote on the disputed funds. The Act was passed in response to Congressional feelings that President Nixon was abusing his ability to impound the funding of programs he opposed, and effectively removed the historical Presidential power of impoundment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974
Once again we have a bunch of posts wrangling about executive orders without any clue what they actually are, what they mean or how they work. Too much heat and not nearly enough light.
We have already covered those topics extensively, and there's no reason to go over that ground again. We will not go over that ground again.
We talked about the legal issues associated with executive orders in this thread, this thread, this thread, and this thread.
Here's a good article helping to add some rationality to the discussion.
Note that law professor Adam Winkler states (regarding Obama's options by executive order):
We have already covered those topics extensively, and there's no reason to go over that ground again. We will not go over that ground again.
We talked about the legal issues associated with executive orders in this thread, this thread, this thread, and this thread.
Here's a good article helping to add some rationality to the discussion.
Note that law professor Adam Winkler states (regarding Obama's options by executive order):
- Status
Similar threads
