Frankly, I am skeptical that someone who has yet to be nominated for his position as Deputy Attorney General is giving press conferences designed to anger both AARP and the NRA prior to his nomination.
I googled some of the key phrases in the "article" and none of them turned up on any news site. The only place they showed up was a post on Free Republic saying "Is this real or is this satire?"
Quote:
|
"The Constitution forbids the Congress, that is, the legislative branch, from passing any laws infringing on gun ownership. The executive branch is not included in this proviso. As long as the Congress doesn't get involved, it's technically a non-issue."
|
I'm also skeptical at the supposed constitutional interpretation as well. First of all, I am not aware of any case suggesting the Bill of Rights is a restriction only on Congress. The Bill of Rights is a restriction on all of the Federal government. Second, unlike the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law...), the Second Amendment does not limit who it is applied to. Finally, even if we buy the analysis that the Constitution only forbids Congress, the authority for the President to act by Executive Order comes from either Congressional action or the Constitution. If Congress is forbidden from acting, then the only source of authority for the President to issue an Executive Order would be the Constitution - and I haven't seen anything in there about stripping elderly citizens of their fundamental liberty interests without any action from Congress.
All in all, the whole article looks like a paranoid fantasy of the type popular in ARFCOM General Discussion.