Posted on 01/09/2013 9:05:36 AM PST by i88schwartz
Vice President Joe Biden, while addressing representatives of gun safety and gun violence victims' groups, says President Obama could use "executive orders" to enact gun control measures.
VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: "The president is going to act. There are executives orders -- executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the Attorney General and all the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action, we believe is required."
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Indeed
Though a question needs to be asked. If this plays out (Obama, unable to get Congress to go along, writes an edict of his own that in turn is disobeyed by the vast majority of gun owners, which results in him actively going after the guns), you’d think he would have the wherewithal to pre-emptively form a secret Praetorian guard in the event when patriotic local, state and federal law enforcement, as well as the military doesn’t go along either. Wonder if anyone here can track that down?
On this issue that is a given. And anyone that does not know what his actions will be is stupider than an obama voter. The question is, What are we going to do?
“You misunderstand. They like guns just fine if they are the ones pointing them at the rest of us.”
It’s ironic in a really scarey way, and think you make a valid point. The government does seem to be stocking up as it increasingly demands that the citizenry disarm itself.
“Prudence is not paranoia”
What you said.
Now is not the time to lose our collective cool, which is what THEY hope for.
We The People say he can’t; the Constitution recognizes our rights but does not grant them—our rights are inherent and inalienable, so long as good men are willing to fight and die to preserve them. I’m starting to fear things are turning in that direction. Just look at arms and ammunition sales over the last few weeks. That kind of sustained volume is not about a big weekend at the range. I have this sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that the People are preparing to act, just waiting for the last straw. The leftists would be well advised to be damned careful about what they set into motion in this climate. If the People are sensing an incipient tyranny, and they are in fact arming themselves to destroy it if necessary, the 1860s could end up looking like a walk in the park. Unfortunately, Americans live in “interesting times” and there’s an awful momentum building between the two opposing forces.
Our Constitutions are the instruments of the people, not of the lawyers.
-- Joseph Story, Constitution (5th ed.) 345, SS 451. "... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves. If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them ; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him. They can issue their mandamus or distringas to no executive or legislative officer to enforce the fulfilment of their official duties, any more than the President or legislature may issue orders to the judges or their officers. Betrayed by English example, and unaware, as it should seem, of the control of our Constitution in this particular, they have at times overstepped their limit by undertaking to command executive officers in the discharge of their executive duties ; but the Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary organs, as it does the executive and legislative to executive and legislative organs. The judges certainly have more frequent occasion to act on constitutional questions, because the laws of meum and tuum and of criminal action, forming the great mass of the system of law, constitute their particular department. When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves ; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Charles Jarvis "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson, fair copy of the drafts of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 "If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws -- the first growing out of the last. ... A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government." -- Alexander Hamilton, Essay in the American Daily Advertiser, 1794 "We have received it [the Constitution] as the work of the assembled wisdom of the nation. We have trusted to it as to the sheet anchor of our safety in the stormy times of conflict with a foreign or domestic foe. We have looked to it with sacred awe as the palladium of our liberties, and with all the solemnities of religion have pledged to each other our lives and fortunes here and our hopes of happiness hereafter in its defense and support. Were we mistaken, my countrymen, in attaching this importance to the Constitution...? No. We were not mistaken. The letter of this great instrument is free from this radical fault...No, we did not err!...The sages...have given us a practical and, as they hoped, a permanent Constitutional compact...The Constitution is still the object of our reverence, the bond of our Union, our defense in danger, the source of our prosperity in peace: it shall descend, as we have received it, uncorrupted by sophistical construction, to our posterity..." -- President Andrew Jackson, Proclamation of December 10, 1832 "We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution." -- Abraham Lincoln"Every word employed in the Constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, rounded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them, the people adopt them, the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common-sense, and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning or any extraordinary gloss."
We became a Banna Republin on November 4, 2008. It was confirmed November 6, 2012.
Unfortunately I agree with you.
Once Obama sign this Executive Order the courts will back him 100%. It will be up to citizens to ban together and stop it, the way they stopped the British.
Our country is no longer run by Patriotic Americans, they have been replaced with Socialists, marxists, cowards and poloiticians feathering their own nests.
It’s becoming time we took America. The easy way if possible, the hard way if not.
“Veterans and police, do your duty.”
How many of them will, when it comes down the the brass tacks?
Ultimately, it may be this which determines whether resistance will be successful or futile...
“To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.” Winston Churchill
They talk, we talk; they act, we act. FR is the 21st century letters of correspondence. The mistake the Church made in the 16th century was not first going after the printing press.
I have to go scrub a concrete basement floor with etching prep before painting. One of those jobs Americans won’t do, donchaknow.
Yeah, the American people are soft, we won’t do anything. We’ve always heard that from our enemies, for over 200 years, just before we make them horizontal.
“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.”
It sounds like you are saying that it is NOT the Supreme Court’s job to decide which laws are constitutional and which are not. Its hard to take that argument seriously since for the last 100 years that is exactly what they have been doing. Like it or not they do it based on precident and on how they interpret it’s meaning. If that is not their role, what is? Some of their recent decisions seem to ignore the obvious meaning such as McCain Feingold, or the Healthcare law. So despite how you think the court should act, we have to deal with he reality.
“Your statement advocates not a rule of law, but a rule of men.”
I didn’t advocate any such d@mn thing, I’m just saying that given the opportunity Obama will pack the court with justices who like him, who don’t give a d@mn what the constitution says.
One thing for sure, if he issues an EO banning weapons and orders any kind of buy back or confiscation scheme, this Country will be divided like no time in recent history.
But the reality is, I believe that is obama’s ultimate goal and he may just use this issue to achieve it.
No, the Constitution + 5 Supreme Court Justices are required to say he can’t.
What are the chances that John Roberts will discover that gun confiscation is a tax?
we have left wing judges who rule against the constitution because THEY don’t like it regardless of the rule of law.
We have robert’s court more concerne with HIS legacy rather than rule of law.
The only way to win this is to cultivate a new core of law based law schools and SHUT DOWN the excessive number of diploma mill law schools.
“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.”
How does that work?
But didn’t he flub the oath and have to redo it?
Robert’s new name should be Ozymandius.
He is more concerned with legacy than his job.
Civil war is coming.
That is what the kenyan wants. He will keep pushing until somebody snaps and we get an OKC bombing type event.
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.