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.
If the executive order as it pertains to the second amendment took away the ability to acquire firearms then I'd agree with you; however, since the right to own firearms is still around, you're wrong.
No, any law that is executed via fiat is unconstitutional... We don't live in a dictatorship...
Ntwrkguy1 had it right. These liberals just keep trying the same failed policy (passing laws that only law-abiding people will obey) over and over, hoping for a different result next time.
Haven't they anything better to do?
Just passing a budget and keep government from shutting down, but hey, trumpeting more useless crap not even realted to the budgetary process is more important.
Executive Orders while the house is still in session does violate the constitution....
Executive Orders while the House is NOT in session, also violate the Constitution.
Unless they are made in direct pursuance to laws already passed by Congress and signed earlier by the President.
The usual example (pretty minor) is: Congress passes a bill saying that a couple blocks of Government buildings will be painted brown, and the Prez signs the bill into law. Then the Prez issues Executive Orders to get three bids from companies to do the work, assigns a committee to go over the bids and choose a contractor.
The Prez is issuing Executive Orders to carry out a law passed by Congress and signed into law. Those Executive Orders are constitutional, whether Congress is in session right now or not (where did you people get the idea that Congress being in session or not, has any effect on the constitutionality of Executive Orders?). And that is the ONLY legal use of Executive Orders there is.
If the President also issues Executive Orders to paint a different group of Federal buildings on the other side of town that Congress never mentioned, that Executive Order is unconstitutional.
The President also cannot issue Executive Orders that flatly violate a Constitutional provision, whether Congress has passed a bill about them or not. If Congress passes a bill saying black people can be rounded up off the street, put in chains, and forced to work on other people's farms for no pay and miserable sustenance, and the President signs it into law. The President then issues Executive Orders to train Federal officers to capture people off the street, Executive Orders to buy 10,000 sets of chains and leg irons, and a Executive Order commanding the newly-trained officers to start rounding up and kidnapping black people off the streets.
Thos Executive Orders are flatly unconstitutional (13th, 14th amendment and a lot more), even though they directly follow a law made by Congress and signed by the President.
Bottom line: The President has a lot less power to issue Executive Orders than you might think. Unfortunately, some Presidents don't know that.
No, any law that is executed via fiat is unconstitutional... We don't live in a dictatorship...
Duh? We live in a Democratic Republic. And as I said, unless it's preventing a constitutional right from happening (which it isn't) then i don't think it's a problem.
Duh? We live in a Democratic Republic. And as I said, unless it's preventing a constitutional right from happening (which it isn't) then i don't think it's a problem.
Weirder things have happened though.
Perhaps you don't see it as a problem, but it is still unconstitutional... Plain and simple...
Neither did the years of paper documentation of the man's mental issues or the verbal warnings about this man's mental instability. He was still able to keep his secret clearance and get into the Navy Yard just fine.
Background checks aren't to blame - at least they're not the only things to blame in this situation.
True. background checks are not to blame for the Navy Yard shootings.
HOWEVER, the background check that the shooter filled out AND PASSED didn't do one single damned thing to stop the shootings, did it??
THAT fact can NOT be denied nor deflected!
True. background checks are not to blame for the Navy Yard shootings.
HOWEVER, the background check that the shooter filled out AND PASSED didn't do one single damned thing to stop the shootings, did it??
THAT fact can NOT be denied nor deflected!
I'm not saying it shouldn't. I am saying that it ought to not be the ONLY thing people harp on. Yes the background check apparently failed and no one heeded the words of the police when they sent word to the Navy about this guy.
A lot of logistical errors were made and rest assured it'll never happen again. As they say, all the rules and regulations in the Navy (military as a whole) are written in blood. This just proves that statement as fact.
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.
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.
