It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An interesting position for this administration...

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Alaska High Court Reviews Federal Gun-shop Liability law



WASHINGTON -- A Bush-era federal law that protects gun dealers from liability for murders committed with guns from their shops is under attack in an Alaska court, and that has led the Justice Department and gun-control activists to intervene in the case.


Most interesting to me is this:


That assertion prompted the Justice Department to intervene, with Obama administration lawyers seeking to protect the law signed by President George W. Bush.
The Justice Department argues that Congress was within its power to pass the firearms industry shield law because the Constitution allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce.


In my eyes, this paints a very colorful, detailed picture of just how desperate the administration is to save their health care act. There simply is no other explanation for why Obama would fight this outside of the political can of worms having "You say you're all about Congress' right to regulate interstate commerce... but look at how you felt about that in this case." thrown into his face over the Affordable Care Act.

The Act in question here, which President Bush signed is detailed Here
But what about the US Senate?
The Senate's Vote on S 397

Obama (D-IL), Nay


I find irony here, delicious, tasty irony. The fight to salvage Obamacare has essentially forced Obama to go against his own nature and attempt to defend a more minor issue which, given an open situation, history seems to indicate he would never defend. I expect more of these little "against his nature" foibles to arise in the leadup to November. Should be interesting to see how they go.




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Are we seriously to the point that people are complaining about Obama doing his job and defending America's laws no matter which president signed it???

I'm just at a loss...the man can do nothing right.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Are we seriously to the point that people are complaining about Obama doing his job and defending America's laws no matter which president signed it???

I'm just at a loss...the man can do nothing right.



he is incompetent-just like those that defend the usurper.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by nwillitts
 


Do you even know the definition of "usurper"...because it has no context here.

I think someone has been watching too much Game of Thrones.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwillitts
yea,your stupid.


Ummm... His stupid what?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The word would be "you're", not "your" and that is completely uncalled for. O.S. and I have never agreed on anything, but we don't call each other names.

That's just.... stupid.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Are we seriously to the point that people are complaining about Obama doing his job and defending America's laws no matter which president signed it???

I'm just at a loss...the man can do nothing right.


I was reading a post of yours in another thread where I was clearly in agreement with you in that thread, but after reading your post it occurred to me that I never really made that point in that thread. I am sorry for that and would like to correct that mistake now by stating that for the second time in about a day, I am in agreement with you. Not bad for two friends who find it hard to agree, no?

The President's defense of this federal legislation should not be equated with the "Affordable Health Care Act", and you know what I think of that legislation.

It is absurd to hold a gun shop accountable for the actions of its customers. People are charged with use of a deadly weapon when using their automobile in such a way to justify that charge, but no one has written up legislation going after automobile dealers for it. That's because it would be absurd.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Alaska High Court Reviews Federal Gun-shop Liability law



WASHINGTON -- A Bush-era federal law that protects gun dealers from liability for murders committed with guns from their shops is under attack in an Alaska court, and that has led the Justice Department and gun-control activists to intervene in the case.


Most interesting to me is this:


That assertion prompted the Justice Department to intervene, with Obama administration lawyers seeking to protect the law signed by President George W. Bush.
The Justice Department argues that Congress was within its power to pass the firearms industry shield law because the Constitution allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce.


In my eyes, this paints a very colorful, detailed picture of just how desperate the administration is to save their health care act. There simply is no other explanation for why Obama would fight this outside of the political can of worms having "You say you're all about Congress' right to regulate interstate commerce... but look at how you felt about that in this case." thrown into his face over the Affordable Care Act.

The Act in question here, which President Bush signed is detailed Here
But what about the US Senate?
The Senate's Vote on S 397

Obama (D-IL), Nay


I find irony here, delicious, tasty irony. The fight to salvage Obamacare has essentially forced Obama to go against his own nature and attempt to defend a more minor issue which, given an open situation, history seems to indicate he would never defend. I expect more of these little "against his nature" foibles to arise in the leadup to November. Should be interesting to see how they go.


Although mostly opaque rather than transparent as the President promised, this administration's agendas present themselves as easily as tracking an elephant in mud.

The President and his minions have classically exposed many of their attempts to circumvent law and the constitution.
As you have pointed out, unless this defense of law in Alaska is fact, which would make it one of the few attributable to this administration then it is in blatant desperation that they throw themselves on this grenade to sway opinion.

I assume this is why the President chose not to do this 'under the radar'.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Gun manufacturers are a huge.. huuuugeee part of our economy. We are the largest arms producer in the World. By opening up liability to gun shops, and thus, gun manufactures (also protected by the law) you risk having lawsuits targeting one of our best industry.

Not to mention the logical sense behind the law. If I go and shoot someone ... how the hell is it the shops fault where I originally bought the gun? Or the manufacturer? It'd be like me wanting to sue Exxon because I ran out of gas on the freeway. Makes no sense.

(in other more simplistic words.. the gun lobby stepped in.)

edit on 4/5/2012 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
I don't see what's newsworthy about this.

Obama is directing the DOJ to defend a law in court. This happens all the time.

Just because Obama voted against this law in the Senate doesn't mean anything. He may still disagree with the intent of the law, but whether he agrees or disagrees with it isn't the question here. Regardless of whether he agrees with the law or not, he is convinced that Congress had the authority to pass it. That is what he is defending - the right of Congress to regulate interstate trade - not the law itself.

If anything, it shows that Obama has the ability to distinguish between his views on individual laws and the validity of those laws. And that's pretty much an absolute requirement for any President.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join