Posted on 01/10/2013 11:32:05 AM PST by LucianOfSamasota
There’s talk that President Obama will ignore Congress and issue Executive Orders to implement new gun regulations over against the clear reading of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Is an Executive Order a law? Will we be obligated to obey it?
Executive Orders have a long history. Republicans and Democrats have issued them. Only a few of them have been overturned by the courts.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats do much about Executive Orders they don’t like since both parties issue them. This is how the Washington game is played.
Republicans and Democrats like Executive Orders on difficult issues because it stops the legislative process that they’ll have to participate in and eventually vote yes or no. They can always tell the voters back home, “Well, I would have voted against that if the President hadn’t issued an Executive Order. Golly gee willikers, now my hands are tied.” Right.
An Executive Order is only valid if it’s done within the jurisdictional authority of the President’s constitutional authority. To rule against the Second Amendment is not a presidential prerogative. If it is, then the President could turn his attention to the First Amendment and issue an order that newspapers can no longer criticize him. Conservative talk radio would die a quick death if the President issued an Executive Order saying that the freedom of speech had to be limited in several ways, one of which was negative political speech, especially about him.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicaloutcast.com ...
The answer is "Yes" but it applies only to federal employees of the executive branch of the government. Of course executive orders must be legal and must not contradict either the constitution or the laws. The president is the nations highest law enforcement officer. He is sworn to protect and defend the constitution. That is why we are said to be led as a nation of laws, not of men.
The president is not the king of America, no matter what he thinks. He is more like a CEO of the Executive Branch of the government. He has no right to order the states using an executive order.
-PJ
Thanks, Rapscalion, I wasn’t sure.
I can’t remember where I heard this, and I’m not sure if this would be the angle that the President would take, but one one would simply issue an EO authorizing the removal of any legal barriers for litigation against gun and ammunition manufacturers, especially bullets. In other words, ammunition would be either priced out or litigated out of the economy. This wouldn’t address existing guns/ammunition, but additional litigation/taxes/excessive annual permit fees on existing guns could also impact ownership.
Everyone thinks that jack booted thugs will knock down everyone’s doors to pry the guns away from you...With the above, or similar strategies, you will be throwing them away, turning them in (if you have registered them previously).
This type of EO would allow the President maintain a stance that says that gun ownership is not illegal, and 2nd ammendment rights is not affected.
God only knows how traitor Chief Justice Roberts would interpret the law however.
Got a good laugh out of this one...
That thar is funny....
“Newt Gingrich last night on FOX said that obama can issue executive orders ..... but only Congress can authorize funding to carry them out.”
WEl FUBO has “hinted” that he’s just going to ignore the debt ceiling and continue to spend, so we will see!
“Most legal experts say that an Assault Weapons Ban or Gun Registration Scheme by executive order would be blatant violation of “Youngstown” and likely to get struck down by the courts.”
Perhaps, and that would be encouraging. But state nullification would also come into play where those trying to enforce unconstitutional orders would be subject to arrest by local law enforcement. Conspiring to violate constitutional rights is in itself a crime:
“Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.”
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/241fin.php
“Most legal experts say that an Assault Weapons Ban or Gun Registration Scheme by executive order would be blatant violation of “Youngstown” and likely to get struck down by the courts. “
So we will find out in short order if Obama really is a pussy won’t we!
There are provisions in the law to prevent the passage and enforcement of "Ex post facto" laws defined as :
Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10. see, e.g. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales, 514 US 499 (1995).
I'm not a lawyer (but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express once) but it seems that if Congress is not permitted to pass Ex post facto laws I'd rather doubt the Supreme Court would allow an EO to criminalize actions that have already occurred. I would think requirements for registration and such might also be questionable as purchases already made are clearly legal. What goes forward from the date on the EO is a different kettle of fish. Put your 4473 forms in a safe place, it's the only proof you have of date of purchase.
Somebody with deep pockets like the NRA will need to pursue that avenue 'cuz you and me and that man behind the tree don't have the "drag" to even peek in the door.
Regards,
GtG
I haven’t heard any sort of cohesive heartfelt condemnation from the “opposition party” (i.e., Republican Party leaders) to the daily threats against liberty made by this administration. It’s disturbing to think we need to depend on people like McConnell and Boehner to lead the defense of the Constitution and traditional American values ... but that’s where things stand today. Based on their actions over the past two years these men aren’t patriots — they’re politicians committed only to what is convenient and what benefits them.
That executive order is written and has been sitting on Obama's desk since January 2009. The first time anyone in the press criticized him he plans to sign it. It just hasn't happened yet.
I don't think that you get my point.
SCOTUS justices are elected for life tenure [if they choose]. This leaves them unbeholden to anyone.
Ever since SCOTUS asserted in Marbury v. Madison that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.", the Court has stood as a last-ditch barrier [for good or bad] against run amok Legislative and Executive departments.
To affirm that an EO can supercede the Constitution would be for SCOTUS to abdicate ALL authority that it possesses. The President could then supercede ANY legislatively enacted law AND ANY SCOTUS ruling simply by writing out an EO. This would be the end of our republican form of government.
Congress and the Supreme Court might then as well be dissolved, since the President could simply override them through use of an EO.
Roberts [and the rest of SCOTUS] WILL NEVER allow this to happen. Thus, 9-0 decision AGAINST an unconsitutional EO.
QED ...
I got your point. And I agree with you ( The words may be different but what we believe is the same.) Keep FReeping. Be strong. Do not weaken. You are right to believe in the constitution and the amendments.
Obama is unqualified per the Constitution to use any EO.
The 2A enforces it and if needed corrects the issue.
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.