BREAKING: Obama Signs Two New Executive Orders On Gun Control

reply to post by xuenchen


yes the congress has enacted laws regarding background checks, posession of weapons by felons, etc.

congress has enacted laws (such as the gun control act of 1968) dealing with the importation of surplus military weapons.

Article 2, section 3, clause 5 of the Constitution mandates that the president ensures that those laws are faithfully executed. That means that if those laws are not being enforced or have loopholes which prevent them from being "faithfully executed", then the prez must act.

The fact that he is doing his job makes these EOs good, regardless of your opinion of the original laws.

reply to post by silent thunder


im not an American but I would like to know the president of a Democracy keeps on bypassing his congress. Why does the congress let this guy get away with playing a Dictator?

reply to post by AthlonSavage


as I pointed out, he is not bypassing congress. The laws in question have already been enacted by Congress. again, read the laws and the section of the US constitution I pointed out.

Originally posted by aoxomoxoa
reply to post by ANNED

 

That has nothing to do with the OP.

Could you please elaborate before members tell you that you are wrong on this point?
It seems to have a lot to do with the one Executive Order.

Originally posted by aoxomoxoa
reply to post by AthlonSavage

 

as I pointed out, he is not bypassing congress. The laws in question have already been enacted by Congress. again, read the laws and the section of the US constitution I pointed out.

You're really sounding like a Obama Bot, but I digress....

First it's your OPINION that the constitution is meaning that the POTUS can use EQs to do what you are saying.

There are other ways that Obummer can carry out his duty here that actually INVOLVES congress (the represenative part of our government of we the people) and not bypass them.

If the "Loop Holes" need to be closed, then congress should have no problem at all agreeing to changes in the law to close said 'loop holes".

EQs should be rarely used in any case. One man's will should never dictate to the people. Especially when the POTUS is suppose to be part of a government that is suppose to represent the will of the people.

EQ's do not represent the will of the people. They are what one person DICTATES.

Congress already enacted the laws people. Read the constitutional sections I pointrd out. He is not bypassing congress. In fact he had tried to grt congress to work on correcting the law, but they refuse . Theyre too busy voting to repesl Obamacard to worry abouy the real world.

Originally posted by aoxomoxoa
Congress already enacted the laws people. Read the constitutional sections I pointrd out. He is not bypassing congress. In fact he had tried to grt congress to work on correcting the law, but they refuse . Theyre too busy voting to repesl Obamacard to worry abouy the real world.

And again, you're sounding like a broken record. Yes he IS bypassing congress. that is what a Executive Order is, or do you not understand that?

Congress enacted a law. Since they enacted it, they obviously approve it. If they approve it, they should not have any issues with closing any loop holes within that law. If they do, it means that the will of the people have an issue with it.

By issuing a Executive Order, Obama is not doing his "duty", he is deciding for 350 million people what HE thinks is right.

By supporting this action, it shows that you approve of a POTUS acting as a sole ruler of a country (IE King, Dictator, etc), instead of as a elected official that should seek to work with the represented population (congress) to work WITH them to close loop holes in any law.

There is a REASON our forefathers created this type of government: so that no one person can bend their will over the population. They were sick and tired of King George doing that.

President Obama apparently thinks he can just do the same thing. There are other ways to close the loop holes, and other means for closing those loop holes. It does not and should not be done by the actions of just one person.

By supporting this action, you are supporting the idea of that one person should rule over all, when it's quite clear our government is SUPPOSE to be a Represenative Republic.

There is NO emergency here. Neither of these EOs will stop gun crime nor will they keep criminals from obtaining firearms.

Criminals do not obtain guns this way. They steal them or buy them from someone in a back ally somewhere. It is not going to stop these things from happening still.

EOs should be reserved for actual emergencies: sending help in places where natural disasters have struck, sending troops to places in the US that have come under attack, etc.

EOs should NEVER be used to change laws.

reply to post by silent thunder


all of the rules and laws that our governments pass do not mean # on the streets .up here in the great white north we used to have gun control where you had to register your firearms with the government on that day they estimated that 1.5 MILLION guns went under ground by the governments guess.they have since abolished the gun registry up here but they still have the f.a.c. which entitles you to buy and sell guns and ammo so the man still has a list of every gun owner here in Canada .but we don't have any form of GUN CONTROL UP HERE NOW DO WE lol.yet every time we read the daily news up here there is another murder by GUN in our cities ,i guess that if you are a biker ,ganger or any other non conformist to the mans whim and fancy these rules need not apply.as you can buy anything you want on the streets with cash and no questions asked ,so where the hell are all of these weapons coming from . partly from break & enters but mostly they are coming from the u.s. as our u.s. and Canadian border has more holes in it than swiss cheese or they just aint doing their jobs properly at the combined border.
many days a routine traffic stop gets guns that are loaded and concealed up here which by the way is against the law but then to the law only counts if you get caught breaking it . so why not flaunt it as the chances of getting caught up here with an illegal firearm is slim to none ,and the little slap on the wrist they get for it is a great waste of of our judicial systems resources and the cops time as they usually catch them again for the same offense before they even go to court for the first one.
one very pissed off ex gun owner who was treated like the rest of us who are legal owners ,we were treated worse than the criminals were up here and still are, because quite often the police are called in to a home to investigate something and if you own guns out the door they go with the police and then try to get them back oh what a nightmare .
or here is the mans latest attempt at GUN CONTROL out west they had a massive flood and everyone was evacuated after all the people were gone in walked the great R.C.M.P. under the disguise of national safety and they broke open and removed all of the legal guns from the peoples locked steel gun cases which by the way is the law up here. and they claim that they will give them back , really and which gun is yours do you have the paper work for it how about the bill of sale or better yet a picture and the serial #`s, do you have any proof of ownership for these weapons . no why not ? because it all got wet in the great flood and i have no proof of ownership . the mans reply . SORRY ABOUT YOUR LUCK BUT WE CAN NOT GIVE THESE WEAPONS TO JUST ANYONE , YOU HAVE TO HAVE PROOF OF OWNERSHIP?
welcome to canada another great police state that dares to call itself free.gag.

reply to post by eriktheawful


you are willfully ignorant. An EO is used to clarify procedures of existing laws already enacted by congress. Read the constitution article 2, section 3, clause 5. Then read the laws ebacted regarding background checks and the importation of surplus weapons.

Then read Supreme Court rulings on EOs.

then, read the number of bills that members of congress have introduced in order to close the loopholes, and the outcome of those legislations

When Congress fails to make sure the laws they enact are faithfully executed, then the Prez is constitutionally mandated to do so.


Those are the facts. Educate yourself

reply to post by aoxomoxoa

When Congress fails to make sure the laws they enact are faithfully executed

See that word there? 'Executed'?

Execution of the laws are the job of the EXECUTIVE branch.... POTUS.
If laws aren't executed, it is an Executive branch failure.

reply to post by butcherguy


lol nice try but we dont have a dictatorship. Congress has the ultimate responsibility for ensuribg the laws they enact are carried out. When there are loopholes and congress refuses to fix their own laws, then the Prez is mandated by the cobstitution to fix it.

This stuff is elementary civics, its not rocket science

Originally posted by aoxomoxoa
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

you are willfully ignorant. An EO is used to clarify procedures of existing laws already enacted by congress. Read the constitution article 2, section 3, clause 5. Then read the laws ebacted regarding background checks and the importation of surplus weapons.

Then read Supreme Court rulings on EOs.

then, read the number of bills that members of congress have introduced in order to close the loopholes, and the outcome of those legislations

When Congress fails to make sure the laws they enact are faithfully executed, then the Prez is constitutionally mandated to do so.


Those are the facts. Educate yourself

You're not listening. You are instead, trying to find "loop holes" yourself to justify the actions of Obama (coming from you, not much of a surprise).

US Constitution, Article 3, Section 3:

Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Absolutely no where in there does it say that the president is allowed to make up his own laws, nor modify existing laws: only make sure that existing laws are faithfully executed.

The supreme court has several times reminded the POTUS that he may not do this without prior approval from congress, such as when Truman tried to take the steel mills from their owners:

Youngtown Sheet & Tube Co. Vs. Sawyer

A Executive Order has been defined as:

United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law,[1] since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution.

There is actually NO provision in the Constitution that actually grants the President this power:

Although there is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5.

Did you read that? Did you educate yourself on that? No where does the Constitution actually give the POTUS these powers, only a vague reference that to this day is debated by people.

However, these perceived justifications cited by Presidents when authoring Executive Orders have come under criticism for exceeding executive authority; at various times throughout U.S. history, challenges to the legal validity or justification for an order have resulted in legal proceedings.

Emphasis mine.

If the constitution were to actually have granted the presidential office these powers, then EOs would not come under legal proceedings of having exceeded that power.

The Constitution of the United States of America does not grant the POTUS the power to change laws, modify laws or simply make laws. No where does it say that.

It says: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"

He is to make sure that the laws that exist are to be made good on or enforced. "faithfully executed" does not mean: make changes too, add too, subtract from or modify in anyway.

Oh, and by the way: stop attacking with remarks about "being ignorant", especially to some of us that actually studied Constitutional Law in school. It's an attack by you because you can't find any supporting evidence for your cause.

My question...

How many convicted felons know, or even use a "trust" to buy a gun? How pervasive is this in real hardcore criminal syndicates?

I highly doubt the cartel or the various mafias use trusts to buy brand new high-power weapons.

Originally posted by aoxomoxoa
reply to post by butcherguy

 

lol nice try but we dont have a dictatorship. Congress has the ultimate responsibility for ensuribg the laws they enact are carried out. When there are loopholes and congress refuses to fix their own laws, then the Prez is mandated by the cobstitution to fix it.

This stuff is elementary civics, its not rocket science

Kindly explain what 'executive' means then.
Since it is elementary civics.
Who has the task of executing the laws? The executive branch or the legislative branch?

reply to post by silent thunder


Gun control won't work, because even if they don't use guns, they will find something else to hurt people with.

Jeez how many more "executive orders" is Obama gonna sign...

-SAP-

Originally posted by silent thunder

BREAKING: Obama Signs Two New Executive Orders On Gun Control

Source

Rather than wait for Congress to pass new laws Obama bypassed them today..

The first order seeks to close a loophole, which allows felons and others who would be otherwise prohibited from owning firearms to bypass the law by registering their firearms with a trust or corporation....

...The second order signed by Obama seeks to prohibit military-grade weapons from entering into America by keeping private entities from re-importing guns that the US previously sent to foreign allies...

(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 8/29/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

I personally don't give a rat's what these fools do with executive orders anymore. We need to give some executive marching orders of our own.