Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Alaska
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-13-2009, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
11,839 posts, read 28,797,729 times
Reputation: 2809

Advertisements

I can understand the anger at Denny's.
Opposing Views: NEWS: Congress Considers Bill that would Ban Guns and Hunting (http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/news-congress-considers-bill-that-would-ban-guns-and-hunting - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-13-2009, 12:10 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,342,332 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkingowl View Post
I can understand the anger at Denny's.
Opposing Views: NEWS: Congress Considers Bill that would Ban Guns and Hunting (http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/news-congress-considers-bill-that-would-ban-guns-and-hunting - broken link)
I'm as pro-2nd Amendment as they come, but that article is stating some flat out lies.

First, the article states:
Quote:
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) successfully held up over 100 of these bills, until anti-gun Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rolled all of the bills into one so-called Coburn Omnibus and forced it through the Senate in January on a vote of 73-21.
The first 13 amendments to S. 22 were actually sponsored by Sen. Coburn.

Second, the article states:
Quote:
The National Landscape Conservation System groups together millions of acres of federal land and places it under one new umbrella agency. The NLCS was created during the Clinton administration and run administratively since then. S. 22 will codify the system, which raises concerns for hunters and sportsmen. Much of this land is consolidated from the BLM and the Forest Service, which have always allowed hunting and recreational shooting. It is unclear what rules will be promulgated by the new agency and if gun owners' rights will be protected.
Title II, Subtitle A, Section 2002(d)(2) of S. 22, which pertains specifically to the National Landscape Conservation System says quite plainly:
Quote:
FISH AND WILDLIFE- Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several States to manage, control, or regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations, including the regulation of hunting, fishing, trapping and recreational shooting on public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting access for hunting, fishing, trapping, or recreational shooting.
Third, the article also says:
Quote:
S. 22 strips out small concessions won by pro-gunners in the House last year that would allow state and local law to govern firearms possession and hunting on certain land
As I bolded above, and in several other locations in S. 22 the same text is used, which makes the article's assertion blatantly untrue.

Fourth, the article claims:
Quote:
S.22 allows for NO amendments. Pro-gun members who want to offer an amendment to fully repeal the NPS gun ban are prevented from doing so by the anti-gun leadership.
There were 24 amendments initially proposed for S. 22 (including 13 amendments sponsored by Sen. Coburn), 5 of them were withdrawn.

-----

Considering the article was written by Gun Owners of America, I am not surprised to find bias. I am surprised, however, that they would flat out lie and give false information.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Interior AK
4,729 posts, read 9,904,385 times
Reputation: 3393
There are actually several states joining the "Sovreignty" bandwagon with bills like NH's. Washington state just passed on, too. Along with AZ, OK, MO. Seems like 2nd Amendment was a launching point, but others are also peeved about Federal overstepping their powers under the guise of interstate commerce, etc. I think some of the state legistlatures finally woke up and realized that things like the Patriot Act and some of the Executive Orders in recent history have trampled on their rights (yes, we all realized that they trampled on our rights long ago, but the States don't care about the people anymore than the Feds do).

While I think that a balance of power needs to be restored and some of the unconstitutional crap that has been sworn into law recently needs to be repealed... from an individual standpoint, it's just a matter of which master you want abusing you and infringing on your rights and personal freedoms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Haines, AK
1,121 posts, read 4,470,324 times
Reputation: 681
Default how Obamas gonna lose control of congress

I have no doubt at all that our Kenyan born "president" is gonna lose control of congress at the mid terms, and he'll do it by treading on the second amendment. Once they try and pass a permanent version of the AWB or any of the ammo-bans floating around or some other kind of virulently anti-gun garbage, it's the beginning of the end for his administration. I have little doubt that the anti-gun forces that helped bankroll his campaign are slavering for some payback, and that he'll try to deliver like he did for the unions.

There are quite a few democratic senators and representative that hail from traditionally conservative and rural districts that were elected by some pretty slim margins, and any of them that votes for any form of gun control will be voting themselves out of a job. It remains to be seen whether "the chosen one" will be able to twist enough arms to get his payback legislation through, but if he does it means he didn't learn a thing from history. Just look at the first Clinton administration's infamous record of strategic failures on this issue for a perfect example.

The moral of the story is pretty clear : "touch the second amendment, you get burned". We'll see if mr. 'audacity of hope' is seeing clearly on this one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Interior AK
4,729 posts, read 9,904,385 times
Reputation: 3393
Lets all try to remember that the President doesn not make the laws, he only has the right accept or veto a law that is presented to him from Congress after a 2/3 majority vote. Even if he does veto, Congress can still ratify the law with a 3/4 majority vote. Pro and Anti lobbyist of all types have more people "on their payroll" and "owing them favors" than just the President. Yes, the President may be able to use some amount of leverage over members of Congress to get a particular piece of legislation passed, but it is ultimately the members of Congress who make the decision to pass it into Federal Law with their votes. The only thing that the President can do is issue Executive Orders, which are normally based upon established precedent law and can become accepted as laws without Congressional acceptance, or pertain specifically to Federal Agencies & Officials (although some do ocassionally trickle down to the average citizen). However, Congress does have oversight in these matters and many options to correct any Executive Order that they believe is incorrect or overreaching the powers vested in the Presidency.

Committee on Rules (http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/rules_hear08.htm - broken link)
Quote:
Congress has taken action in response to executive orders, frequently to sanction by ensuing statute the policy implemented by an executive order or, on occasions involving controversial matters, to seek to withhold funding for the implementation of an executive order. The options available to Congress in the face of an executive order it opposes are constrained by the nature of a system that requires legislation emerging from the Congress to be signed or allowed to become law by the President. The Congress may seek to nullify, repeal, revoke, terminate or de-fund an executive order, but each such action requires the eventual concurrence of the President (most likely the same President that issued the order in the first place).

The Congress may also seek to repeal the underlying statutory authority upon which a particular executive order was based. If the underlying statute is repealed, any ensuing executive order based upon that law is no longer valid. Another tool available to the Congress is to seek to implement a sunset or termination date for statutory authority upon which an executive order is based. In this way, when the sunset date is reached, it is up to Congress to determine whether to renew the provision or let it die. A major tool in the arsenal of the Congress with regard to executive orders lies in the power of the purse. Congress may withhold funds for the implementation of an executive order, thereby directly challenging the President's ability to put in place a particular policy.
However, it is interesting to note, that the Presidental right to issue Executive Orders is not a power granted specifically in the US Constitution and is only a matter of convention and precedence, perhaps a hold-over from the days of our Confederacy. The fact that so many poor plicies have been enacted through Presidental Executive Order in recent history is perhaps more clearly attributable to Congress being less than prudent in their duties of oversight, or even negilent with regards to the wishes and constitutional rights of their constituents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 05:46 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,342,332 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons View Post
Lets all try to remember that the President doesn not make the laws, he only has the right accept or veto a law that is presented to him from Congress after a 2/3 majority vote. Even if he does veto, Congress can still ratify the law with a 3/4 majority vote.
If Congress passes a bill with two thirds of the vote, it is considered "veto-proof" because Congress only needs two thirds of the vote to override any presidential veto. No three-quarter vote is required, nor are laws ratified. Any bill passed by Congress becomes law automatically, with or without the President's signature, after 10 calendar days (excluding Sundays) while Congress is in session.

In addition to the veto power, the President can make a "Signing Statement", where he can choose not to enforce a portion of the bill if he determines that it violates the US Constitution.

If Congress is not in session, and the President does not sign the bill, then after 10 calendar days (excluding Sundays) the bill is returned to Congress as if it were vetoed. This is called a "Pocket Veto."

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons View Post
Pro and Anti lobbyist of all types have more people "on their payroll" and "owing them favors" than just the President. Yes, the President may be able to use some amount of leverage over members of Congress to get a particular piece of legislation passed, but it is ultimately the members of Congress who make the decision to pass it into Federal Law with their votes. The only thing that the President can do is issue Executive Orders, which are normally based upon established precedent law and can become accepted as laws without Congressional acceptance, or pertain specifically to Federal Agencies & Officials (although some do ocassionally trickle down to the average citizen). However, Congress does have oversight in these matters and many options to correct any Executive Order that they believe is incorrect or overreaching the powers vested in the Presidency.
Executive Orders have nothing to do with laws. Laws, as you said, are created in the Legislative Branch. Executive Orders pertain to only the Executive Branch. They can not be used to create new laws, or effect existing law, or anything outside the Executive Branch. Congress, however, can give the President discretionary powers, which the President can then use his Executive Order authority to exercise.

Congress cannot change an Executive Order, the separation of powers prevents this. Congress can, however, enact a law that nullifies or makes moot a specific Executive Order, but they cannot terminate or alter an Executive Order.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons View Post
However, it is interesting to note, that the Presidental right to issue Executive Orders is not a power granted specifically in the US Constitution and is only a matter of convention and precedence, perhaps a hold-over from the days of our Confederacy. The fact that so many poor plicies have been enacted through Presidental Executive Order in recent history is perhaps more clearly attributable to Congress being less than prudent in their duties of oversight, or even negilent with regards to the wishes and constitutional rights of their constituents.
You are right in that Executive Orders is not specifically mentioned in the US Constitution, however, it is implied in both Article II, Section 1 where it states: "The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America". And in Article II, Section 3 where it says: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 06:21 PM
 
Location: Interior AK
4,729 posts, read 9,904,385 times
Reputation: 3393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
If Congress passes a bill with two thirds of the vote, it is considered "veto-proof" because Congress only needs two thirds of the vote to override any presidential veto. No three-quarter vote is required, nor are laws ratified. Any bill passed by Congress becomes law automatically, with or without the President's signature, after 10 calendar days (excluding Sundays) while Congress is in session.

In addition to the veto power, the President can make a "Signing Statement", where he can choose not to enforce a portion of the bill if he determines that it violates the US Constitution.

If Congress is not in session, and the President does not sign the bill, then after 10 calendar days (excluding Sundays) the bill is returned to Congress as if it were vetoed. This is called a "Pocket Veto."
Yep, you're right. A Congressional majority vote is all that is needed to present a bill for Ppresidential approval, with 2/3 majority vote to override said veto. I was getting my stupid state government rules mixed in there! Thanks for correcting me

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Executive Orders have nothing to do with laws. Laws, as you said, are created in the Legislative Branch. Executive Orders pertain to only the Executive Branch. They can not be used to create new laws, or effect existing law, or anything outside the Executive Branch. Congress, however, can give the President discretionary powers, which the President can then use his Executive Order authority to exercise.
Correct, but if unchallenged Executive Orders may become accepted as laws (even though they are only policies or regulations) which is beyond the power of the Presidency through the power of precedence and compliance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Congress cannot change an Executive Order, the separation of powers prevents this. Congress can, however, enact a law that nullifies or makes moot a specific Executive Order, but they cannot terminate or alter an Executive Order.
Congress can repeal or nullify the precedent law backing the Executive Order, thereby de facto terminating the order, as well as disallowing funding for said order... they order still stands, unchanged, but is not enforceable.

Also, the Supreme Court can declare an Exectuive Order (or Legislation for that matter) to be unlawful, unconstitutional or beyond the constitutionally granted power of the Presidency. As was the case with Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer (1952), where the Court found that President Truman had, in seizing most of the nation's steel mills in an effort to end a labor dispute stalemate, exceeded his authority under the Constitution or statute. The Court found that an executive order must be based either on an act of Congress or directly on the Constitution itself.

This is where many recent Executive Orders have tread an extremely fine line. At this point, the policy should have been brought before the Supreme Court to get a ruling on whether it was lawful, constitutional or within the President's power to enact. Or the offending President brought up for Impeachment for gross misuse of power. Since no one did this, the policies have been enacted as if they were laws through compliance.

Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult for the People to have Congressional Legislation tried by the Supreme Court, to have an Executive Order tried by the Supreme Court, or to have Impeachment proceedings brought against a President within Congress. We must rely on our Representatives and Senators to do our bidding and watch out for us... which sometimes they fail to do. All we can do is just not vote for them again. We cannot force them to step down or do their jobs properly while they are in office for their term. It is weakness (IMO) of our representative democracy that everything is done in the name of "We, the People" but we, the people, actually have very little power in National or State policy. Even in the Presidential Election, the votes counted are from the Electoral College not the actual public vote. Federal Laws are passed through Congress, not through national public referendum... and there is no provision for such. We can have state or local referendums, but they are normally extremely difficult to get through.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 07:05 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,342,332 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons View Post
Correct, but if unchallenged Executive Orders may become accepted as laws (even though they are only policies or regulations) which is beyond the power of the Presidency through the power of precedence and compliance.
True, they can be, and that is dangerous because they should have no effect beyond the Executive Branch. Clinton's Executive Order prohibiting tobacco advertising during sporting events is a fine example of an Executive Order that both exceeds its constitutional authority, and an Executive Order that was accepted as law even though it wasn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons View Post
Congress can repeal or nullify the precedent law backing the Executive Order, thereby de facto terminating the order, as well as disallowing funding for said order... they order still stands, unchanged, but is not enforceable.
That is certainly true. If an Executive Order is issued based upon a law Congress enacted, and then Congress repeals or alters that law. It would nullify or change the Executive Order.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons View Post
Also, the Supreme Court can declare an Exectuive Order (or Legislation for that matter) to be unlawful, unconstitutional or beyond the constitutionally granted power of the Presidency. As was the case with Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer (1952), where the Court found that President Truman had, in seizing most of the nation's steel mills in an effort to end a labor dispute stalemate, exceeded his authority under the Constitution or statute. The Court found that an executive order must be based either on an act of Congress or directly on the Constitution itself.
The "act of Congress or directly on the Constitution itself" phrase is critical. If an Executive Order is not based upon an act of Congress or exceeds the authority the US Constitution gives the President, then the Judicial Branch certainly can declare an Executive Order unconstitutional and nullify it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons View Post
This is where many recent Executive Orders have tread an extremely fine line. At this point, the policy should have been brought before the Supreme Court to get a ruling on whether it was lawful, constitutional or within the President's power to enact. Or the offending President brought up for Impeachment for gross misuse of power. Since no one did this, the policies have been enacted as if they were laws through compliance.
True, this is called "presumption of constitutionality" which is normally only applied to actual laws, not to Executive Orders. The courts will not get involved unless someone with standing challenges the Executive Order. Unfortunately, this means we get stuck with Executive Orders that exceed their constitutional authority, such as Clinton's Executive Order that I mentioned earlier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons View Post
Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult for the People to have Congressional Legislation tried by the Supreme Court, to have an Executive Order tried by the Supreme Court, or to have Impeachment proceedings brought against a President within Congress. We must rely on our Representatives and Senators to do our bidding and watch out for us... which sometimes they fail to do. All we can do is just not vote for them again.
I completely agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons View Post
We cannot force them to step down or do their jobs properly while they are in office for their term.
We could recall them, but that too is extremely difficult to accomplish.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons View Post
It is weakness (IMO) of our representative democracy that everything is done in the name of "We, the People" but we, the people, actually have very little power in National or State policy.
A lot of people have been citing "We the People" from the preamble, but 1) it is a preamble and not legally binding like all the powers listed; and 2) it is purely propaganda since "the People" never had a say in the document's creation or ratification.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons View Post
Even in the Presidential Election, the votes counted are from the Electoral College not the actual public vote. Federal Laws are passed through Congress, not through national public referendum... and there is no provision for such. We can have state or local referendums, but they are normally extremely difficult to get through.
State referendums and/or initiatives could be considered a violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution since those are vehicles of a direct democracy and not "a republican form of government" as the US Constitution requires.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 07:11 PM
 
Location: Interior AK
4,729 posts, read 9,904,385 times
Reputation: 3393
Precisley... damned if you do, damned if you don't... you can only pick which master flogs you
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 08:41 PM
 
Location: Nome
2,397 posts, read 4,673,493 times
Reputation: 477
Another is in the Congress and has been introduced in the House, H.R. 45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009--"To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes."

"It will make it illegal to own a firearm unless it is registered with the database in Washington D.C. As a gun owner you will have to be finger printed, you will be required to provide your DL#, SS#, you must maintain a valid address at all times, submit to mental and physical health records being put on file, you will also be required to file any address changes and you any ownership changes even if private sale. Each update will cost $25 and if you fail to comply you will lose your right to own firearms. This bill and its language mirror almost completely one defeated last year in the House of Representatives by soon to be Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel." I understand that there is also a provision that says--in effect--that as a licensee if you move and do not provide the change of address information in a particular time frame, to a-prison you be a-goin'.

Find out more about this bill at:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Alaska

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top