November 13, 2012, 12:38 PM | #1 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Executive Orders
The possibility of any new gun control laws passing through the legislature is almost nil. When I explain this to people, their reaction is "well, then the President's just going to do it through an executive order! ZOMG!"
That's not how it works. Executive orders exist for the President to clarify or facilitate enforcement of existing laws. They are not meant to enact new ones. The Executive branch does not have the power to create legislation. So, what is an executive order? We don't really know, as they aren't specifically defined in the Constitution. Authority for them is vaguely attributed to Article II, Section 5, which states the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." They're a mechanism for execution, not creation. The Supreme Court has come down on Presidents who've tried to overstep their authority via EO's before. They spoke on the matter in 1952, finding that President Truman's order placing steel mills under government control overstepped his authority. In 2005, the Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that President Bush lacked the authority to enact war tribunals via such orders. It's unlikely the current White House would try to enact new regulations via executive order, especially with Heller and McDonald being the 800lb gorillas in the living room. Doing so would trigger a court challenge that would not only overturn the ordinance in question, it would set further limits on what could be done with such orders.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
November 13, 2012, 01:27 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
|
November 13, 2012, 01:29 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: East Texas
Posts: 407
|
I agree with the OP.
The level of paranoia can be astounding. And self defeating. And even though President Obama is not going to have another term, he is going to have to consider Democrats in Congress who are going to run in two years. |
November 13, 2012, 03:01 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 25, 2012
Posts: 755
|
Great post sir. People need to take a breath and calm down and realize that the President cannot wave a magic wand and make it so. I am glad to see this post to calm some who have already began to panic.
__________________
" The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government...." - Thomas Jefferson |
November 13, 2012, 03:27 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Thanks, Tom Servo.
Quote:
A link to presidential orders back to Hoover: http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...sposition.html |
|
November 13, 2012, 03:36 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
|
I wish people would wait till at least an idea was proposed. Speculating on what the President might do, when he hasn't even proposed anything yet, seems pointless to me too.
I know, I know, he mentioned AWB II in a debate, but we all know that legislation won't be brought up either, at least not for 2+ years. Its called lip service to part of your base, the other side does it too on certain issues, in case anyone hasn't noticed.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (>_<) |
November 13, 2012, 07:05 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 3,881
|
What about the NATO treaty ? Can it be shoved down our throats ?
|
November 13, 2012, 07:12 PM | #8 |
Member
Join Date: September 28, 2012
Location: North Haven, CT
Posts: 31
|
Treaties generally take 2/3s of the senate "advise and consent" before the president can sign and ratify them. I see no reason why this treaty would be any different.
Of course, this would hardly be the first time I was mistaken. |
November 13, 2012, 07:45 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,946
|
So, can EOs be used to implement additional fees and restrictions on gun purchases? I’m not talking about outlawing such purchases or making us subservient to the Blue Berets, but making the process more expensive and onerous.
I know we’ve discussed the possibility before, but exactly what would be the procedure for a Government Agency to add new fees, record keeping or other restriction onto the purchase of firearms? Would it require the Legislative Branch or could it be done without their involvement?
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
November 13, 2012, 07:50 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Quote:
No need for me to go off into the weeds on it but per Executive order Interpol officers have almost unlimited powers within the boundaries of our nation... My point being this does seem to be a very law like effect... I agree the vast majority of Executive orders don't fall into the law like category but even a few is a worry.
__________________
Molon Labe |
|
November 13, 2012, 08:05 PM | #11 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
November 13, 2012, 09:43 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 647
|
Quote:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...g-interpol-do/ |
|
November 14, 2012, 12:58 AM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
Just as Tom pointed out about executive orders, federal agencies can only act within the boundaries of existing laws. |
|
November 14, 2012, 01:28 AM | #14 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
The topic at hand is executive orders and what they could cover.
It is not health care, or which politicians confront whom in the shower. If your post was deleted, consider why that might have been.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
November 14, 2012, 08:40 AM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Quote:
__________________
Molon Labe Last edited by BGutzman; November 14, 2012 at 03:13 PM. |
|
November 14, 2012, 09:17 AM | #16 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
We all know that EOs can have great effect. Millions of illegal alien "youths" just got de facto amnesty until the POTUS is gone and probably forever. We all know that a ban on the importation of firearms/ammo/magazines is but an EO or "Sporting Use" Regulation away. POTUS has stated he will make "hope and change" with or without congress. Exhibit "A" is the EO amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. That is real change you can believe in. I believe the O/P wrong. We shall see.
|
November 14, 2012, 10:17 AM | #17 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
November 14, 2012, 10:20 AM | #18 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
^ From the O/P - you are wrong
"...people, their reaction is "well, then the President's just going to do it through an executive order!"" and "...it's unlikely the current White House would try to enact new regulations via executive order..." I disagree with both the O/P and your post. BO and the EO, a match made in ... Last edited by jmortimer; November 14, 2012 at 10:48 AM. Reason: Not sure what ZOMG is or where it came from |
November 14, 2012, 10:45 AM | #19 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
November 14, 2012, 12:36 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
..
Last edited by gc70; November 14, 2012 at 10:33 PM. |
November 14, 2012, 02:00 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
The Obama Executive order involving Interpol is IAW the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945: 22 USC Chapter 7, Subchapter XVIII:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/te...bchapter-XVIII Numerous international organizations enjoy the same priviledges that Obama granted Interpol. Interpol was not granted diplomatic immunity as was stated in the sensational correspondence put forth by the muck stirrers. Interpol does not have international sleuths who travel willy nilly all over the world at will. Snopes on the Obama executive order concerning Interpol: http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/interpol.asp More: Quote:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...g-interpol-do/ Last edited by thallub; November 14, 2012 at 02:23 PM. |
|
November 14, 2012, 03:34 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Quote:
My point being if an executive order can cause a vast reinterpertation of any law then it in itself becomes a law making tool. That is not to say that every EO is creating a law but rather to illuminate the level of power that can be used. Certainly EOs can and have been reviewed but have been found in a least a case or two to exceed constitutional authority. That alone tells me in my layman way that this is a potential threat to freedom. I see no clear mandate in the constitution for EO's. I see this as a path that is ripe for abuse and given the nature of any given administration a tool that might well be misused. Freedom is not subject to presidential whim (regardless of person or party) and the fact that it takes a court review to undo a EO shows its power for misuse. Repetitively good people all over assume others read whatever given document and interpert it the same way they do, when in fact others do not. Who says the president (any president) knows what congress intended.. In any case my point remains, some have no problem using any means to get to an end and EO is a potentially potent way to do so, even if the EO ultimately gets challenged..I dont really care about the Interpol EO, its just a tool in a illustration...
__________________
Molon Labe Last edited by BGutzman; November 14, 2012 at 05:59 PM. |
|
November 14, 2012, 07:30 PM | #23 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There always has been, and always will be, disagreements about what is or is not constitutional or what a law does, or does not, mean as applied. Executive Orders have been, and no doubt will in future be, challenged, found to have been issued in excess of proper authority and consequently invalidated in whole or in part by the courts. Congress has enacted, and no doubt will in future enact, laws challenged, and found to be unconstitutional. Courts have issued ruling found to be unpalatable resulting in the enactment of laws to avoid the effects of those rulings. That all is simply our system of "checks and balances" at work and operating as originally intended. That is why we have a separation of powers.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||||
November 14, 2012, 10:03 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,526
|
George H. W. Bush declared some firearms as ineligible for importation by saying they had no sporting purpose. If Barack Obama uses an executive order to implement gun control, I would expect it to be something like that.
|
November 14, 2012, 11:02 PM | #25 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|