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.
Obama issues an order, which is not law, which cannot be enforced. In clear violation of the Constitution of the United States, and beyond his Constitutional authority, Obama "orders" (mandates) background checks for online & gun show sales.
This is unenforceable, as it is not law. Obama has no authority to make law. Secondly, "executive orders" may only apply to the administration and government agencies. They do not apply to private institutions, citizens, etc.
Therefore, there is nothing to compel anyone to follow his "order."
Obama is not a King, though he may think he is. Do not comply.
In honesty, both George Bush and Reagan supported efforts to "close the loophole" so this isn't just an Obama or Democrat thing, but a politician thing. Difference being that since Obama cant find the popular support needed to do it within congress, he will do it by means of decree/fiat. He has proven himself a reckless and dangerous man.
In honesty, both George Bush and Reagan supported efforts to "close the loophole" so this isn't just an Obama or Democrat thing, but a politician thing. Difference being that since Obama cant find the popular support needed to do it within congress, he will do it by means of decree/fiat. He has proven himself a reckless and dangerous man.
Ronald Reagan did not abuse the use of E.O's. They only apply to government agencies/departments, NOT to public/private business. They are not law.
As far as I know, neither did George Bush issue any E.O.'s that were outside his authority.
There are no "loopholes." The term assumes that Congress, in making law, "accidentally" left something undone, where people can "get around" a law. This is not the case. Even if it was, Congress has refused to change current laws on background checks, and Obama has no authority apart from Congress to act on his own to change law.
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 01-05-2016 at 05:37 AM..
Most executive orders are issued under specific statutory authority from Congress and have the force and effect of law.
Quote:
Absent specific statutory authority, an executive order may have the force and effect of law if Congress has acquiesced in a long-standing executive practice that is well-known to it.
Quote:
Executive orders also may be authorized by the president's independent constitutional authority (Cunningham v. Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 10S. Ct. 658, 34 L. Ed. 55 [1890]). Various clauses of the U.S. Constitution have been cited to support the issuance of executive orders. Among them are the Vestiture Clause, which states, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America" (art. II, § 1, cl. 1); the Take Care Clause, which states that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" (art. II, § 3); and the Commander in Chief Clause, which states that the president "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" (art. II, § 2, cl. 1).
This President, as the Presidents before him, has the authority to issue executive orders. That such orders are not liked by some is a darn shame.
Does President Obama have an unusual interpretation of the executive powers of the Presidency? Let's look at the record.
Quote:
Presidents have used executive orders to direct a range of activities, including establishing migratory bird refuges; putting Japanese-Americans in internment camps during World War II; discharging civilian government employees who had been disloyal, following World War II; enlarging national forests; prohibiting racial discrimination in housing; pardoning Vietnam War draft evaders; giving federal workers the right to bargain collectively; keeping the federal workplace drug free; and sending U.S. troops to Bosnia.
The most famous executive order may be Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.
Still, President Obama seems to be issuing a LOT of Executive Orders, right? Have other Presidents issued so many executive orders? Let's look at the record.
Quote:
Name Number claimed: Actual number:
Theodore Roosevelt 3 1,081
Franklin Roosevelt 11 3,522
Harry Truman 5 907
Dwight Eisenhower 2 484
John Kennedy 4 214
Lyndon Johnson 4 325
Richard Nixon 1 346
Gerald Ford 3 169
Jimmy Carter 3 320
Ronald Reagan 5 381
George H.W. Bush 3 166
Bill Clinton 15 364
George W. Bush 62 291
Barack Obama 923 226 (to date)
Obama issues an order, which is not law, which cannot be enforced. In clear violation of the Constitution of the United States, and beyond his Constitutional authority, Obama "orders" (mandates) background checks for online & gun show sales.
This is unenforceable, as it is not law. Obama has no authority to make law. Secondly, "executive orders" may only apply to the administration and government agencies. They do not apply to private institutions, citizens, etc.
Therefore, there is nothing to compel anyone to follow his "order."
Obama is not a King, though he may think he is. Do not comply.
Obama's 25+ gun-related EOs have done nothing to reduce gun violence (gee, I wonder why) or gun sales, which are at an all-time high.
If Obama wants to reduce gun sales, maybe he should just shut up.
Obama issues an order, which is not law, which cannot be enforced. In clear violation of the Constitution of the United States, and beyond his Constitutional authority, Obama "orders" (mandates) background checks for online & gun show sales.
This is unenforceable, as it is not law. Obama has no authority to make law. Secondly, "executive orders" may only apply to the administration and government agencies. They do not apply to private institutions, citizens, etc.
Therefore, there is nothing to compel anyone to follow his "order."
Obama is not a King, though he may think he is. Do not comply.
1. What exactly did he issue?
2. If it is not law, how does it violate the constitution?
I haven't followed this closely but what it appears is all that Obama is doing is saying the gov is going to more closely monitor/crack down on people who are using the hobbyist/collector exemptions in the background check law to avoid doing background checks of their customers. Seems reasonable and certainly within the authority of the gov under the law. I wish Obama would approach immigration law with the same zeal, but that's another matter.
We all know the NRA wants everyone to have 11 guns, one for each finger & one for, what, needed manhood extensions I guess?
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.
