Today's JPFO Alert notes that although we know very little about the details of the upcoming new gun restrictions from the Obama administration, we know there's no way they're legitimate.
Still, if the administration feels so emboldened as to not need to bother with even the thin veneer of Constitutional legitimacy lent to it by Congressional approval of its infringements
du jour, we as a nation have fallen into a deep pit indeed. And we come to this pass because we allowed it to happen. Shame on us.
Stumble it!
7 comments:
The fact is, Obama does believe he has the right to issue decrees without going through Congress. And a significant number of Democrats agree with him.
It's already illegal for convicted felons, psychotics, people who are insane or incompetent, and people convicted of domestic violence (whether a felony or misdemeanor) to own guns. So what new "regulations" are needed? I expect new "guidelines" to make definitions of "mental illness" and "criminal record" so broad and vague that they can mean whatever the administration's own in-house "experts" want.
And "regulations" are internal policies that organizations can impose on their own employees. Citizens are not subject to government "regulations." They are only obligated to obey laws that were passed by duly elected legislatures.
"The fact is, Obama does believe he has the right to issue decrees without going through Congress. And a significant number of Democrats agree with him."
Yes, the Constitution gives the president that power. Just as Bush used that power twice as much as Obama has.
Just as Bush used that power twice as much as Obama has.
If you're waiting for me to defend Bush's unconstitutional excesses, you're in for a long wait. They don't make Obama's any more legitimate.
Not at all, just about every president has used that power, even much more than Bush, or Obama. You insinuated the power does not exist in the Constitution.
"Obama does believe he has the right to issue decrees without going through Congress. And a significant number of Democrats agree with him."
Yes, he believes it because the Constitution gives him that power, WITHOUT going through Congress. Of course a significant number of Democrats agree with him (all Americans including Republicans and Conservatives should) they ALL should since it's constitutionally authorized.
So the question is by what facts do you deny it is a constitutional power?
I don't dispute the obvious fact that the authority to promulgate executive orders is a Constitutionally enumerated power of the Presidency.
The Constitution's limits on that power, though, clearly preclude Presidents writing their own laws and inflicting them on the People.
The Emancipation Proclamation certainly became the law immediately. Lincoln's own law, "inflicted" on the people, as you say. Executive orders are law. The Supreme Court might overturn, but not because the president didn't have the power to write an order. Of course a lot of those orders have been unconstitutional, especially many Lincoln signed, but he was never held legally accountable. The Supreme Court found many of FDR's orders unconstitutional. So much so he tried to pack the court with adding extra judges. Didn't work. Executive orders are a dangerous loop hole of our government, but every party wants that power when they hold the White House.
Executive orders are law.
An obvious point that I've never denied. However, if those orders are unconstitutional, they're illegitimate "law."
Post a Comment