Skip to comments.Biden: Obama Can Use "Executive Orders" To Act On Gun Control (video)
Posted on 01/09/2013 9:05:36 AM PST by i88schwartz
click here to read article
What is the penalty for treason, Joe?
Just a reminder, the first time enforcement meets resistance.......
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND:
Obamacare was passed /signed legislation that was contested on particular legal merits/flaws--
THISSS healthcare battle is not over yet either... IMO
There is nothing in the Constitution or federal case law that permits legislation by "executive order" -- especially the lifting or disregard of fundamental rights...
If your views /predictions are true....
....A sweeping "executive order" these matters is upheld on the merits and the METHODS of infringing upon the 2nd Amendment....
Congress might as well close the doors & go home.
This is a bear-trap that soon might capture a certain overgrown narcissistic ego--
Again... just my humble...
Everyone have a nice day
Is there still anyone among the congresscritters that believes in the Constitution and is willing to stand up for it?
At the very least, he'll do something similar to what Bush 41 did, and prohibit the importation of firearms. Perhaps the importation of ammo, too.
Those who own Mosin-Nagants, SKS Carbines, etc., better have enough of the (relatively) inexpensive steel-cased ammo, to last them several lifetimes. The supply is about to dry up.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain . . .
“Clear video clip of him saying just that. It appears this administration is deliberately trying to provoke conflict. VERY important to let them start it first.”
Very important indeed!
Prudence is not paranoia.
“Meanwhile over the past 5 years the Cartels have taken over much of the interstate illegal drug trade. Most of this is being done by illegals. If the right even suggests tighter immigration enforcement against those that have broken the law to enter the U.S., we are called racist. “
Very good point. The narco traffickers blend within the illegal alien community, and yet we don’t blame the illegals for the drugs.
Why does the left want to punish law-abiding gun owners for those few who commit heinous acts with the guns. How many guns exist in America? And how many crimes are committed with guns. Only a tiny amount of guns — .001 percent? — are involved in crimes. How many people own guns? How many people commit crimes with guns? Only a time amount of people — .001 percent — of gun owners commit crimes.
I am sick of the broad brush with which gun ownership is painted in order to target a tiny segment.
There are thousands of people killed by drunk drivers each year but do I have to lose my right to drink or to drive simply because a lot of other idiots drink and drive?
The left simply doesn’t like guns, and I haven’t yet figured out why?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be INFRINGED.
Someone better get a Dictionary up the the Whitehouse before they go and do something treasonous
I wonder what the ratio will be of those who will and those who won't?
At the time I thought the nation would subsequently recognize gross stupidity in such a treacherous form of accepted public policy, but I wished for too much I suppose.
You may not pay for actions Joe, but your buddies in Congress are going to get it.
“The four cardinal virtues of Prudence, Justice, Fortitude and Temperance ... “
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right ... “
“Err No he Cannot. He can try but it will be Treason as per the US Constitution.”
Errrr.... Only a natural born citizen is eligible to be POTUS.
Look how well that’s worked.
When the people elect a President that re-elects himself and gets away with it, bad things ahead..
That is blatantly incorrect -- for if the Constitution is what the [majority of] the Supreme Court says, then any dissent listed is contrary to the Constitution, and any decision based on a prior dissent is therefore also contrary the Constitution. -- Furthermore, the if the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, then any restrictions placed upon the Supreme Court by the Constitution are meaningless, precisely because the court says what the Constitution means.
Your statement advocates not a rule of law, but a rule of men.
What’s sad is that if you read Matt’s first book and watch the news in the US as of late, you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two regarding what politicians say and do.
Hussein has written and signed many executive orders and congress has not contested even one. I feared he would try to do this by executive order and Biden says he will and Holder is working on this. I think congress will not contest gun control executive orders as this way gives them cover not to have to deal with it.
Technically we are the final deciders of what the Constitution says, the final authority is preserved in the jury power to nullify laws even if the USSC says they are ok. Dread Scott and the Fugitive Slave Act are examples.
As I watched ABC world news last night, and Diane Sawyer bring forth Gabby Giffords, leading a disabled witness like a skilled attorney to the conclusion, Giffords pronouncement of “enough”, I realized the Media and left were in full on assualt mode. The fuse has been lit, and the left won’t let go until they prevail. They won’t debate, they won’t be reasonable, or negotiate, or compromise. I have only a small hope they can be stopped after this last election. The low information, low intelligence, emotional populace is now the Majority.
With tens of thousands of firearms and millions of rounds of ammo flying off the shelves every week, We The People have already extended a middle-finger salute to the socialist democrat usurpers.
“Technically we are the final deciders of what the Constitution says, the final authority is preserved in the jury power to nullify laws even if the USSC says they are ok.”
Just don’t ever mention this during jury selection.
You are correct. Congress has not responded to these unconstitutional EOs, e.g., the backdoor amnesty that will legalize the status of 1.8 million illegal aliens.
I am certain that there will be many in law enforcement who will be happy to confiscate guns from the law-abiding public. Perhaps even a majority.
How do you think the others will be “forced” to participate?
There’s a lot more “force” behind a driveway full of armed officers on your property than there is behind deciding if your paycheck is worth more than doing what you know to be wrong.
His Supreme Court will say he can.
Impeachment will never happen. Don’t think session will happen either.
And who in the hell is going to stop the sockpuppet’s handlers from doing whatever they damn well please? Weeping Willow Boner? He’s probably playing golf today with the Kenyan-born illegal alien.
This is sure going to end up being a painful lesson for the elitist gun control crowd. Looks like the Liberty Tree may very well get some nourishment in the near future at the rate this is devolving.
Yes, look right at that corrupt judge and agree to follow the law as he claims it is. Do not discuss it in the jury room either just say not convinced there was enough evidence, use the defense points.
This video shows exactly where the radical American left is going.
I wached this video and resolved as much as I am able, and for my children, this will NOT happen on my watch or until the Lord takes me!
“The left seems very excited to light this candle- and I wonder if they realize that there are some people who are excited about hunting zombies.”
So true. This may sound redundant, and it probably is, but in my opinion, it’s the media (liberal media like Piers Morgan, Gannett papers, NYT) that are the MOST excited and seem the most intent on whipping up the rhetoric as high and as hot as it will go. Not a surprise considering those same journalistic-like outlets have demonstrated an absolute lack of responsibility for years now.
The left simply doesnt like guns, and I havent yet figured out why?
Absolutely correct. They are clearly eagerly fanning this flame. They go first!
Let him try. It is clearly unconstitutional for him to act as a law maker.
Shouldn't Holder attend on a third day when they are meeting with the perpetrators of gun violence?
If a judge tells you that you must follow the law as he gives it to you, he is lying. On that basis, a person has absolutely no reason to obey his instructions in the jury room.
“Let him try. It is clearly unconstitutional for him to act as a law maker.”
Right, and taxation bills must originate in the House.
... unless there aren’t enough votes for the leftist agenda there, and then it can can originate in the Senate, or wherever else needed.
This is not my America. My America had a constitution. This America is ruled by a damn dictator.
Realistically, where in the hell do we go from here?
You're right, Gator113: this isn't the America you were born in.
The self-proclaimed "progressives" spent the last century and longer methodically eviscerating our constitutional republic from within. It's now a "progressive" oligarchy in all but name. The Constitution now exists as a piece of parchment on exhibit in a museum. Congress and the Supreme Court have been reduced to rubber stamps for the Executive branch. The rule of law has been supplanted by the rule of cronies. We still have civil rights on paper; actually exercising them, however, has become a guessing game.
Roughly a quarter to a third of the people have voluntarily abandoned citizenship for state serfdom. They've been enticed by "free" welfare, "free" rent, "free" telephones, et cetera, and will meekly whatever they're ordered. Ironically, their votes are no longer needed: the Democratic [sic] party's shift from vote fraud to comprehensive, systematic election fraud has rendered them obsolete; ironically, their loyalty is now considerably more expensive than necessary.
I believe the oligarchy intends to unleash a "controlled" or "moderate" economic disruption as a means to justify post-constitutional legislation. If it can scare the populace badly enough, it may be able to circumvent nearly all opposition to a "national emergency rescue plan" or "temporary economic recovery measures." Between the so-called "progressives" and the crony capitalists and unions, there won't be much left for the workers and peasants.
What if the "controlled" or "moderate" economic disruption actually turns into an all-devouring economic collapse, complete with "social disorder," I'll call it in general terms? I doubt there'd be much the oligarchy could do to soften or stave off a collapse, except wish it had been more cautious.
I believe we, the people would presently restore our constitutional republic in whatever portions of the United States were still inhabitable.
Why? Holder meets with himself and the Fast and Furious DOJ crowd everyday.
Communicating any kind of coalition at this time would be considered “a Terrorist Act”and have the Homeland Security types climbing in their windows at 3am
To be clear, EO’s aren’t a Progressive or Republican problem. EO’s are an equal opportunity contagion. Both parties, all modern presidents, Congress, the Supreme Court, and, yes, We the People are culpable. If we deserve better, we will beget better.
Art I, Sec 1 of the US Constitution concisely and unambiguously provides that all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress... In sharp contrast, Art II specifically outlines Executive powers and duties, none of which include legislating in any form. And to checkmate an overreaching Chief Executive, Art II also provides for the impeachment and removal of not only the Chief Executive, but of any and all officers comprising the Executive Branch.
The rub: if the law intended to countermand an EO is vetoed by the President, to override that veto requires a 2/3 vote, a super majority, in both chambers of Congress, clearly a politically daunting task indeed. Of course, there is the laborious process of impeachment and removal of the offending President to remedy the executive overreach. But, again, removal would require a 2/3 majority in the Senate, a very unlikely scenario.