9 Jan

Obama Considering ‘Executive Order’ to Deal With Guns

YouTube Preview Image

There is nothing in the Constitution or federal case law that permits legislation by “executive order” — especially the lifting or disregard of fundamental rights…

       

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.

12 Responses to Obama Considering ‘Executive Order’ to Deal With Guns

  1. ThomNJ says: 1

    Long past time to get these traitorous critters out of our government. They really expect us to roll over?

    ReplyReply
  2. johngalt says: 2

    The Constitution gives the President executive powers within the federal government. That means that the President has authority over the execution of laws and managerial duties over his subordinates within the Executive branch.

    The Constitution explicitly states how a law is constituted within the federal government, in Article I, Section 7. No where does the Constitution allow the President to make law from the Executive branch, without having said law voted on and passed by Congress.

    And besides those attributes of the Constitution mentioned above, the Second Amendment prevents not only Congress, but the entirety of the Federal government, from infringing on an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

    The President does not have the authority to do as suggested in the above article. In fact, the President does have a duty, because of his oath of office, to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend, the Constitution of the United States”. Because of that oath, I’d submit that if Obama attempts to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of We, the People, especially by ignoring the specific, explicit instructions on how law is made by the Constitution, then Obama has violated his oath, and is open for Impeachment proceedings, based on the Treason provisions for impeachment, for the purposeful disregard of the Constitution.

    ReplyReply
  3. Aleric says: 3

    I agree with the impeachement threat, but with this group of no spine republicans in office I think it would turn out like the lame duck attempt against Bill Clinton.

    ReplyReply
  4. Nan G says: 4

    Biden:

    “As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking.”

    REALY???

    Since Obama took office we have averaged 3,500 abortions EVERY DAY!

    Obama’s Fast And Furious gun program throught the DOJ has resulted in hundreds of Mexican citizens’ and at least two Americans’ deaths!

    IF Obama really feels that, ”if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking,” he should immediately get to work on collecting F&F guns from Mexico and slowing to a crawl our gigantic national demographic suicide.

    But Obama is two-faced.

    ReplyReply
  5. Hard Right says: 5

    Such an order would be a very bad idea.

    ReplyReply
  6. Greg says: 6

    There is nothing in the Constitution or federal case law that permits legislation by “executive order” — especially the lifting or disregard of fundamental rights…

    Unitary executive theory probably should have been forcefully challenged in court during the Bush administration. I didn’t like it then and I don’t like it now.

    ReplyReply
  7. johngalt says: 7

    @Greg:

    Don’t conflate two separate things, Greg. I do believe in the issuance of EO’s for the purpose of clarification on the various pieces of legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. The President, after all, is in charge of faithfully executing the laws passed and on the books in this country, and as such, should clarify to others how he/she interprets those laws.

    However, in issuing EO’s related to specific pieces of legislation, the President does not have the right, or authority, to willfully change or add to the law in question. I believe that this is what you are referring to in regards to Bush, and Obama, and Clinton, and numerous past Presidents. I don’t agree with them doing this either, but it’s Congress’ job, and the courts, to clarify what they meant in regards to the laws. Sometimes this has been done, other times it has been ignored completely.

    In regards to the above topic, though, an EO issued with no relation to a law, or piece of legislation, that essentially “makes law” where there wasn’t one previously, is expressly forbid by the Constitution, based on the instructions contained within it for how laws are put into place. Thus, if Obama were to subject us to, say, and “assault” weapons ban, by EO, he would be doing so unConstitutionally, and subject himself to charges of Treason as it relates to the Constitution.

    ReplyReply
  8. Hard Right says: 8

    Obama and co. had better tread lightly as this is a very explosive issue.

    ReplyReply
  9. Petercat says: 9

    “Obama Considering ‘Executive Order’ to Deal With Guns”
    Future headline:
    “Citizens Considering Guns to Deal With ‘Executive Order'”
    No, I’m not advocating anything. Just making a joke. Keep your mattress dry, okay?

    ReplyReply
  10. rumcrook™ says: 10

    I think its a great idea! I encourage barry wholeheartedly!

    he needs to release his inner authoritarian. free his statist marxist inner child and take that mask off.

    I think his doing something so outside the constitutional boundaries would finally bring an end to this charade that the left are tolerant, love freedom, individual liberty, private property rights and finally expose them as hating the constitution for being so limiting to their desires for control over others.

    ReplyReply
  11. Ditto says: 11

    Wyoming Threatens Arrests for Federal Gun Grabbers

    …lawmakers in Wyoming have proposed a “Firearms Protection Act” that provides a state-level annulment of any ban against semi-automatics or magazines that hold 20 or 30 rounds or more.

    If the measure passes, it would mean that anyone–even federal agents-who try to enforce a ban within the state borders could be charged with a felony.

    Is this the wave of the future for “red” states concerned about Obama’s strong anti-gun intentions?

    It is too early to tell. But it is worth noting that Montana lawmakers began pushing for the same kind of legislation as soon as conservatives took control of that state’s legislature in 2010.

    ReplyReply
  12. yes it’s for the STATES NOW TO RAISE THEIR VOICES, TO PROTECT THEIR CITIZENS
    IN DANGER OF BEING FORCE TO SURRENDER THEIR WEAPON,
    THE STATES must be strong in verbalizing their powers before OBAMA SEND HIS UNION THUGS TO MAKE TROUBLE, AND THAT IS WHAT WOULD FOLLOW,

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>