Skip to comments.Fact CheckóCNN's Blitzer: Sheriffs Can't Defy Executive Orders
Posted on 02/01/2013 11:53:11 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Discussing gun control, CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Friday told a Utah sheriff that if Barack Obama issues an executive order, that order is the law and the sheriff must obey. However, jurisprudence on this topic reveals exactly the opposite.
As the head of the executive branch of the federal government, a president can issue executive orders only to employees of the federal governmentand only regarding implementing federal laws or programs. A governor can likewise issue executive orders to employees of his state government regarding the laws or programs of that state.
Every sheriff is a county officer, elected by the voters of that county...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Sure they can. So can ordinary people. Hence the existance of the word "Defy" and "Defiance".
Was Wolf a Contestant on Jeopardy again?
I’ll take Executive Orders for a $1000 Alex...
If you are a federal official of any type...even a forest ranger...than you have to obey Presidential executive orders.
If you are a state official...even a state forestry official, then you have to obey the governor’s executive orders.
Beyond that, the two shall never meet. A state official of any type...is not bound by the President’s executive orders...end of the story.
When you look at your local sheriff or city police chief...he’s bound by law (city, county, state, or federal), and that is the limit. Executive orders...are a totally different ballgame, and it’s obvious that news people are the last people on the Earth that you want to get advice from.
What makes the current picture a bit comical is that the President is now telling various federal agencies not to obey the law, and they are carrying out this directive. Why bother even meeting and passing any laws at the federal level...at Congress or the Senate....if they can’t be obeyed?
Obey King Obama, insists the Wolf.
Wolf was getting his wet dream confused with reality again. It happens a lot with him.
Geeze, when did journalists become so ignorant? I knew most of them were not the brightest bulbs on the tree, but this blatant ignorance is almost embarrassing.
Maybe it is time for a whole bunch of jury nullification, in reference to gun control.
My view is simply Blitzer is an idiot. The word "defy" means to challenge, to confront, to resist, or disregard. Making a statement claiming a sheriff or anyone else can't defy something is asinine. Its like saying, "I order you to follow orders!" My response would of course be, "Good luck with that." Sure people may be fired or even arrested but no person HAS to follow an executive order.
I should photoshop a picture a Blitzer going around beeping and repeating, "Resistance is futile. Resistance is futile."
No, my little obama-bot blitzer, resistance is not futile at all. Its fun and makes ya feel good. All the cool kids are doing it.
Wolf is getting older and a little... confused.
Like CNN, it’s time for Wolf to fade away with some dignity.
I agree 100%, and that idea needs to be discussed in the open often enough that it's at the top of every patriotic American's mind. Just as the judge could do nothing (beyond hoping OJ would some day find the real killer) when the jury acquitted OJ Simpson of murder charges despite overwhelming evidence, a judge in a Second Amendment case can do nothing if the jury acquits on an unjust law despite the facts. The judge can give jury instructions, but the jury can ignore those instructions.
At least for now, the socialists can't convict without 12 out of 12 votes for conviction. Even in may cities, the odds are pretty good of getting at least one free American on the jury. As far as I'm concerned, there is no moral obligation to deal honestly with kidnappers, rapists, terrorists, pirates, or others who put our lives, our freedom, and our safety in danger. Those who enforce immoral and unconstitutional laws are in the same category - we have no moral obligation to deal honestly with them. In a Second Amendment case, I will show no interest in firearms during questioning, nor will I show any predispositions either way. Once on the jury, I will follow my military oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same." That oath had no expiration date.
Doesn’t the exec order become a law in ninety days? The process is vague, but we are just days away from this on gun control.
Similarly, the courts generally reject claims against private defendants for violations of executive orders. For example, in Cohen v. Illinois Institute of Technology, 524 F.2d 818 (7th Cir. 1975), 425 U.S. 943, 96 S. Ct. 1683, 48 L. Ed. 2d 187 (1976), the appellate court denied a professor's claim against a university to recover damages for Sex Discrimination in violation of Executive Order No. 11,246, stating that the executive order could not give rise to an independent private cause of action.
Too late - for both.
The Rule of Law is dead.
Didn’t know Obama appointed Blitzer to the Supreme Court ... They used to run their stuff before a battery of lawyers before they ran their mouth off judging by the defication and lies NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN are issuing they don’t do that any more ...NBC is soon going to learn better big time very soon..
If that were the case, why would we need a "Congress"?
We could just have the President issue Royal Decrees.
No. Executive orders are administrative instructions to executive branch agencies, such as, "Do not leave the toilet seat up in your agency office."
The executive branch executes.
The judicial branch judges.
And federal employees are only subject to executive orders in the context of employment. They can be fired for disobeying those orders, but they can’t be arrested for leaving the toilet seat up.
What that means is, that in general, an EO has not heretofor been considered part of the law, but rather is subordinate to the law in all respects. EOs have always been limited to the empty space between two or more provisions of law that appear to be in conflict, and without which neither or all could be administered.
An example was Post Office Department employee annual and sick leave rules versus those applicable in the rest off the federal government. There were laws establishing the fact all employees earned leave, but no law had been passed regarding the carriage of post offfice leave to a federal job, or vice versa. Rather, Civil Service Commission rules provided that you couldn't bring post office leave with you into the federal government agencies, but post office rules allowed federal government agency employees to bring leave but not seniority into the post oice ~ but both rules were different yet for sick leave and annual leave ~ and even today they are diferent.
I worked for the fellow at the Post Office Department who got Truman to write one EO to fix part of the conflict. He later on prevailed on IKE to write another EO to fix another part, and finally won a Civil Service case to fix even more of the problem. There were several other steps he took to get the two rules into some degree of consistency, e.g. when former railway post office guys went to the federal government, and then back to the post office (a different agency) did they get to keep seniority?
Fellow had a nice scrap book on all of these weighty matters but I think I've pretty well covered the extent of authority of an EO and what it's used for. These things aren't even federal regulations that require publication in the Federal Register ~ although most Presidential staffs do arrange for that to be done anyway!
Obama and his crowd, for the most part, were never in federal government jobs where the EO process had any relevance ~ most of them seem to be the dregs from public interest law firms, or the non-profit world. These aren't real jobs that have to deal with real public policy or processes. They came up with this idea of EOs being something a President could issue to make things happen out of thin air.
There's another item out there of more modern etiology. The Presidential Signing Statement has recently received notice simply because Democrats didn't like what George Bush was saying in them. All these statements had provided in the past was some of the President's thoughts on the topic covered in the law ~ and maybe a few items that'd be more appropriate in an EO ~ but by putting them in the PSS they'd get published with the signed or unsigned bill in the federal register.
As students of history recall one day the Merovingians Empire woke up to the fact they had a completely new regime created by a "Mayor of the Palace". This phenomenon was NOT new, though, and is a recurring theme in human history ~ an assistant to the stable master becomes the king, or a minor regulatory matter becomes the cause of war, etc. It is a rational fear on the part of educated men that the Executive Order or the Presidential Signing Document becomes the sole source off guidance for the federal bureaucracy and the military, and the law itself becomes something ignored as a matter of course.
We are, of course, well on our way. Harry Reid has substituted the back of his hand, where he writes notes, for the United States budget or example. This makes Obama's use of EOs seem far less peculiar to the uninformed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.