Executive Order to Ban Guns?
By debrakcarey
@debrakcarey (19887)
United States
January 11, 2013 8:44am CST
Vice Presidnet Biden announced, “The president is going to act. There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”
Biden stated, “As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking. But I’m convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm’s way if we act responsibly.”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/09/Biden-Obama-Will-Bypass-Congress-for-Gun-Control
To be clear; The Constitution merely talks of “executive power” and states that the executive branch shall “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Major actions, up to and including war, have been conducted through executive order but not without an authorization from Congress, even if that authorization was not an out-and-out declaration of war.
One of the more famous executive orders was made by FDR giving the Federal Government the power to inter Americans of Japanese descent in camps for the duration of WWII.
Executive Order 9066 in the infamous Korematsu v. US (1942)
This executive order took away Constitutional rights of Americans, yet was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Do you think the Obama adminitration will attempt to ban guns (of any type) by executive order? Do you think a president should legislate (not one of his Constitutionally granted powers) by executive order as a way of 'getting around Congress'?
2 people like this
4 responses
@knoodleknight18 (917)
• United States
12 Jan 13
Well reading the article it compares it to the 3 other times this power was used:
1 Internment camps for the Japanese, we know how that turned out.
2 Desegregation of schools. A time when, ironically, a lot of people exercised their second amendment right to ensure the safety of minorities not unlike our president.
3 When Truman attempted to seize the steel mills and was overturned.
What I'm waiting for now is if he actually tries this and the right starts calling for impeachment on the grounds he tried to circumvent congress to amend the constitution and take away rights.
Look at it like this. Aside from the NRA, the left regards the 2nd amendment as high as any other, it'd be like having the left make concessions on freedom of speech.
@knoodleknight18 (917)
• United States
13 Jan 13
How about? The the right to bear arms is to the right as occupy wall street is to the left.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
11 Jan 13
I think that the executive power has been abused repeatedly over generations. Every action the president takes should go through Congress, which supposedly represents the will of the people. Anything else is a form of tyranny.
I believe the president will use executive power to limit or ban "assault" weapons, the semi-automatic rifles that have magazines that hold more than 8-10 shots. After that there will conveniently be other crimes committed with the shooters using handguns where they rapidly empty and replace their 8-10 shot magazines and those, too, will be banned. In the end, if we don't stop this, all handguns will be banned or at the very least, speed-loaders will disappear. They will use the reasoning that even revolvers are dangerous since a person can carry several and wreak significant damage.
And in the end, we will still have armed criminals and gangs with automatic weapons.
Our only hope if all this happens is our military and law enforcement personnel that have sworn an oath to protect the population and uphold the constitution.
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
16 Jan 13
I don't think they'll be able to pull it off.. not yet. Though of course, I could be wrong! I believe it will be accomplished through 'education'.. attitude, or that would be, teaching attitude concerning it..
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
11 Jan 13
http://freedomrollcall.com/post/38438843900/list-of-obamas-unconstitutional-executive-orders
That is a list of unconstitutional executive orders from Obama. To be fair, HE IS NOT THE ONLY PRESIDENT TO ISSUE SUCH ORDERS.
Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits Executive Orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 2, 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 4, that has been construed as justification for the legal weight of Executive orders.
Presidents have used this Constitutional reasoning as a basis for an authorization that allows for the issuance of Executive orders as part of carrying out the President's sworn duties, the intent typically being to help direct officers of the US Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as for compliance with current statute in the regulating of normal operations of the Federal Government in spite of the fact, Article I, Clause 1 specifically grants all federal legislative authority to the United States Congress:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
For this reason, many Executive Orders cite authorization from specific acts of Congress rather than vague or perceived powers somehow granted to the Executive without explicitly saying so in the Constitution.
Those Executive Orders that are not authorized through Congressional acts frequently contain some other purported justification such as the reference above to "executive power" in Article II, Section 1. These justifications have largely gone untested by the Courts for their validity however.
