It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Taliesien333
The fact that there are many levels of mentally ill doesn't seem to come into play, and the idea that anyone who is mentally ill is a violent danger to society is just wrong.
Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota is calling President Obama's use of executive orders to push more gun control "wrong headed," saying in a recent interview there "isn't any amount of gun regulation or gun executive orders that will solve the problem of identifying people who could potentially do this [mass shootings]."
Sen. Marco Rubio:
“Nothing the President is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook. President Obama is targeting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence. Rolling back responsible citizens’ rights is not the proper response to tragedies committed by criminals and the mentally ill. Making matters worse is that President Obama is again abusing his power by imposing his policies via executive fiat instead of allowing them to be debated in Congress. President Obama’s frustration with our republic and the way it works doesn’t give him license to ignore the Constitution.
“President Obama’s series of gun control measures amount to an executive power grab that may please his political base but will not solve the problems at hand. He paid lip service to our fundamental constitutional rights, but took actions that disregard the 2nd Amendment and the legislative process. Representative government is meant to give voice to the people; President Obama’s unilateral executive action ignores this principle,” said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has a plan to undo President Obama’s executive actions on guns. […]
“We only have descriptions of the executive actions, yet many could be construed to describe an attempt by the executive to make laws in violation of the Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment,” reads the one-page summary of the Paul plan shared with TPM by his staff.
Paul’s bill will set out to nullify Obama’s executive actions, deny any federal funding for their implementation, and allow members of Congress and state officials to challenge the actions in court.
Originally posted by okiecowboy
....he also called them executive orders
So why are even the law makers calling them that?
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by kaylaluv
This is not completely true. We are talking about them questioning about firearms when it is irrelevant to the visit. ALSO if it was nothing new he wouldn't be talking about striking unnecessary legal barriers put up by HIPPA. So you are downplaying it. Between your opinion of it and mine, and not to beep my own horn, but, beep beep, my assessment is a little more accurate.
The AAP recommends that pediatricians incorporate questions about guns into their patient history taking and urge parents who possess guns to remove them, especially handguns, from the home. Loaded firearms and unlocked firearms and ammunition represent a serious danger to children and adolescents. At especially high risk are adolescents who have a history of aggressive and violent behaviors, suicide attempts, or depression.
Originally posted by okiecowboy
reply to post by kaylaluv
please show me in what is listed on number 16 where it is talking about child safety, and if you look on ats, there are already reports of adults being asked
You have asked our opinion whether there is any substantive legal difference between an executive order and a presidential directive.
As this Office has consistently advised, it is our opinion that there is no substantive difference in the legal effectiveness of an executive order and a presidential directive that is not styled as an executive order.
We are further of the opinion that a presidential directive would not automatically lapse upon a change of administration; as with an executive order, unless otherwise specified, a presidential directive would remain effective until subsequent presidential action is taken.
We are aware of no basis for drawing a distinction as to the legal effectiveness of a presidential action based on the form or caption of the written document through which that action is conveyed.
Cf. Memorandum for Harold Judson, Assistant Solicitor General, from William H. Rose, Re: Statement of Policy Regarding Certain Strategic Materials (Aug. 28, 1945) (concluding that a letter from President Roosevelt stating the government's policy "constitute[d] a Presidential directive having the force and effect of law," notwithstanding its informality of form). It has been our consistent view that it is the substance of a presidential determination or directive that is controlling and not whether the document is styled in a particular manner. This principle plainly extends to the legal effectiveness of a document styled as a "presidential directive."
Moreover, as with an executive order, a presidential directive would not lose its legal effectiveness upon a change of administration. Rather, in our view, because a presidential directive issues from the Office of the Chief Executive, it would remain in force, unless otherwise specified, pending any future presidential action
. Cf. Memorandum for Michael J. Egan, Associate Attorney General, from John M. Harmon, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Proposed Amendments to 28 CFR 16, Subpart B (Apr. 21, 1977) (raising possible concerns about a proposal to delegate to the Deputy Attorney General certain authorities to invoke executive privilege because such a delegation could potentially be inconsistent with a 1969 Memorandum from President Nixon on executive privilege). Indeed, Presidents have frequently used written forms other than executive orders to take actions that were intended to have effect during a subsequent administration. For example, delegations of presidential authority under 3 U.S.C. § 301 have been made pursuant to presidential memoranda. (1) See also, e.g., Establishing a Federal Energy Management Program, 3 Pub. Papers Gerald R. Ford 1015 (Nov. 4, 1976) (including a directive to be carried out for FY 1977).
The Presidential Memorandum: An Evolving Policy Tool