OBAMA TO USE EXECUTIVE ORDER TO END-RUN CONGRESS ON GUN CONTROL

A court injunction contravening an executive order has the same immediacy as an executive order. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Has they been done effectively? Who would have to bring that up?

What, or who, is going to stop him. Certainly not the 2d Amendment, and certainly not Congress, or at least the Upper House. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Congress has the power to overturn an EO.

The checks and balances are supposed to work. If the President does something that is contrary to the Constitution, (2d Amendment), the only recourse that Congress has is to bring articles of impeachment.
But, since the Senate is far to interested in sucking the Presidents dick, that will never happen, or at the very least it will be an exercise in futillity.
The Supreme Court can wait untill a challenge case finally makes it to their venue, but that could take years.
So, Like I said before, who, or what, will stop him. His word will become Law, and that will give the Police the right to be knocking on your door.
Sooner or later the President will get around to something that the Left considers sacred. I suspect it will be something concerning the first Amendment, you know, the one that gives you the Right to write pretty much what you want to and shoot your mouth off without impunity.

I hope Timpage is right, and it's Biden just "being Biden". Originally Posted by Jackie S

The checks and balances don't work because almost no one honors their oath of office. The president and everyone in Congress has sworn to "support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic."

If our leaders won't honor their oaths of office, the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

Congress has the power to overturn an EO. Originally Posted by WTF

True, but with the following caveat:

Congress has that power -- but I think it's important to note that the process is not as simple as one might think.

Congress cannot simply override an executive order with a simple majority vote. It must pass a bill canceling or modifying it as it so wishes. Then, obviously, the president would be expected to quickly veto the bill.

So a congressional attempt to nullify an executive order would be successful only if congress were able to muster enough votes to override the veto. That's generally a pretty tall order.

That article didn't indicate anybody was coming after your guns.

Why do firearm regulations cause you to shit yourselves? We've had them all along.

this mentioned a education and mental health services as well.


The fact they're looking at it with the intent of making us safe is certainly not reason for you dipshits to hunker down, locked and loaded.

I think I like the birther threads better than these...

That article didn't indicate anybody was coming after your guns.

Why do firearm regulations cause you to shit yourselves? We've had them all along.

this mentioned a education and mental health services as well.


The fact they're looking at it with the intent of making us safe is certainly not reason for you dipshits to hunker down, locked and loaded.

I think I like the birther threads better than these... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I do not have a problem with the Federal Government taking action to make us safe. As long as that action is consistent with what is REQUIRED. Where I draw the line is when they take action under the premise to "make us safe" when a legitimate argument can be made that other ideas may be better.

You like the birther threads better for your own reasons. I can only guess why. If asked to guess I would say because those are conspiratorial in nature and therefore are easier to argue and/or dismiss as false. Or you may have another reason.

In the gun control debate both sides of the issue have some valid points. Many will not acknowledge the validity of their opponents arguments choosing instead to paint them with broad strokes as though they are nuts.

This like many other divisive issues in today's political arena are not debated but rather turned into a war of soundbites that lack substance.

Has they been done effectively? Who would have to bring that up? Originally Posted by gnadfly

Yes. Here's an example where an injunction superseded an executive order until the Supreme Court could rule. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/he...anted=all&_r=0

I do not have a problem with the Federal Government taking action to make us safe. As long as that action is consistent with what is REQUIRED. Where I draw the line is when they take action under the premise to "make us safe" when a legitimate argument can be made that other ideas may be better.

You like the birther threads better for your own reasons. I can only guess why. If asked to guess I would say because those are conspiratorial in nature and therefore are easier to argue and/or dismiss as false. Or you may have another reason.

In the gun control debate both sides of the issue have some valid points. Many will not acknowledge the validity of their opponents arguments choosing instead to paint them with broad strokes as though they are nuts.

This like many other divisive issues in today's political arena are not debated but rather turned into a war of soundbites that lack substance. Originally Posted by fetishfreak

Well said. I wish this was one of those debates. Unfortunately, we've got guys advocating gun violence, arming children, making schools into arsenals and taking their guns to march on Washington.

What would YOU call them?

Congress has the power to overturn an EO. Originally Posted by WTF

But not the balls

But not the balls Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

The Republicans in the House would have the balls to try. But unfortunately, they would not have the votes, with 2/3's majority needed in both the House and Senate.

Some would have the balls. Unfortunately the biggest obstacle the GOP faces right now is its own lack of unity.

Just to brief points. Bush issued 160 EOs in his first term and Obama 139. http://factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-executive-orders/

Just a question (I own one 9mm pistol for self protection in my home) - why do we need armor piercing ammunition, or automatic weapons or large clips for self protection? Saw an interview with McChrystal where he opined that those things are intended for use by the military, not for civilians. A reminder - when the second amendment was written people had muskets. I think it's a stretch of the constitution to infer that covers anything by anyone.

The 2nd Amendment was not enacted so a person could hunt, or even protect themselves from intruders. It was enacted so individuals could defend themselves against enemies of the Constitution, foreign and domestic. It was designed to slow or stop the onslaught of tyranny.

If our leaders won't honor their oaths of office, the Constitution is just a piece of paper. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Imagine that, they don't all worship and follow YOUR interpretation of the Constitution so they must be dishonorable. BTW, the Constitution IS just a piece of parchment, not paper.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. See Article 6. The fact that 200 years of slick lawyering and incompetent justices have distorted its meaning, it is easy to read and understand, if you would just take a look at it.

Read it, Faustxjr. You might learn something.