Obama is supposedly preparing 19 executive orders on guns to avoid congress.  If he tries unilateral legislation, should the people simply ignore him?  That is, you break the law in this way and we will not follow your unconstitutional rules.

He has no Constitutional authority and should be impeached.

Obama has acted extra constitutionally so many times and gotten away with it, what's another (which is the way I'm sure he's approaching it).

This is why law abiding citizens push back on data bases. Because when ONE President decides he is above the constitution, it's still hard to determine who has what when they aren't committing any crimes with it. Once they know who what and where, and have the checklist of all these millions of new criminals (ie gun owners), there is a next logical step. You know, the one people in their right minds always say would never happen...

I think you'll find that Conservatives aren't really fond of Executive Orders no matter which party it comes out of. Part of it is the disfunction of Congress on both sides. Everyone wants their pork and that is the problem. As opposed to a high volume of simple bills, everyone wants the common ground as leverage to get their pork as opposed to passing bi-partisen legislation they have the votes on both sides to pass. The volume of passed legislation from this Congress (Remember that is House AND Senate)is sickening. They just flat aren't doing thier jobs. But I digress. George Bush isn't in office right now, and the one taking aim at my personal rights is Obama. It's his executive orders around the 2nd Amendment that has my drawers in a wad. Not some Hispanic Education Executive Order Bush passed long ago. Neither am I happy about, but the most imminant is what has me concerned the most right now. It's a biggie when you are blowing past the 2nd Amendment via Executive Fiat.

pdono wrote: Granted Rick, you don't like what is happening now, but the next time a Republican is in office and issues executive orders, I am hoping people like NFS apply comments like "He has no Constitutional authority and should be impeached" with equal vigor.

Oh, and the same rules for critique and condemnation should apply to the lack of fiscal conservation.

A president has a right to issue executive orders regarding how executive branch offices work.  But those are not laws, nor are they legally binding.  Also, I'd defy you to show me any time where in reply to one circumstance bush issued a batch of 20 orders.  Obama has no authority to issue an order that places any burden on me.

sid11 wrote: 

Obama has no authority to issue an order that places any burden on me.

O.K. which Obama executive order is putting a burden on you?

pdono wrote:

sid11 wrote: 

Obama has no authority to issue an order that places any burden on me.

O.K. which Obama executive order is putting a burden on you?

I think something like 10 of the 19 proposed would.   Bottom line is that a president can't legislate through executive order.  As I pointed out, they are non-binding mandates on the branches that the executive controls.

sid11 wrote: 

Bottom line is that a president can't legislate through executive order.  As I pointed out, they are non-binding mandates on the branches that the executive controls.

O.K. then, I guess you have nothing to worry about. I mean, if they are non binding.

pdono wrote:

sid11 wrote: 

Bottom line is that a president can't legislate through executive order.  As I pointed out, they are non-binding mandates on the branches that the executive controls.

O.K. then, I guess you have nothing to worry about. I mean, if they are non binding.

Yup, so I guess as long as you don't mind your emporer issuing pseudo-laws you have to deal with and discredit

I'm actually surprised that you're seriously going to try comparing bush giving a half-day off on christmas eve to obama issuing de facto gun laws.

sid11 wrote: 

I'm actually surprised that you're seriously going to try comparing bush giving a half-day off on christmas eve to obama issuing de facto gun laws.

Nice try. I never did that.

pdono wrote:

sid11 wrote: 

I'm actually surprised that you're seriously going to try comparing bush giving a half-day off on christmas eve to obama issuing de facto gun laws.

Nice try. I never did that.

You posted a litany of bush's EO's.  Now, if you "never did that", we can assume that you just dumped the whole thing there without reading any of them.  If you did read them, than you would see a comparison.   If you didn't read them, than why did you waste our time with them?

You are going down the crazy path again. Read what's posted, then get back to me.

An executive order is not legislation. Two different things. Of course, there have been fights in the past on the President overstepped his authority. And while I don't know the details, perhaps there could be one here

pdono wrote: You are going down the crazy path again. Read what's posted, then get back to me.

You listed Bush's EO's but never read them, so you have no basis to talk about being unconstitutional.  Obama is looking at issuing orders to avoid congress, which is clearly unconstitutional.  And EO can only be issued as a directive on the internal functioning of an executive branch agency, not as a mandate on the people.

Tell you what...  IF you have a point here, why don't you just lay it out rather than posting dozens of apparently meaningles items.

No one said that EO's in general are not constitutional.  They clearly are.  But using them to legislate and avoid congress is clearly UNconstitutional, and that's what Obama is proposing.

pdono wrote: Granted Rick, you don't like what is happening now, but the next time a Republican is in office and issues executive orders, I am hoping people like NFS apply comments like "He has no Constitutional authority and should be impeached" with equal vigor.

Oh, and the same rules for critique and condemnation should apply to the lack of fiscal conservation.

Show me which of those executive orders violates the Bill of Rights and how. I object to trying to change a Constitutionally protected right via EO.
I don't care who is doing it. I didn't like it when it was Bush and the wire tapping. I was a little more understanding, because of the terror cells in America. When you live 5 miles from Dearborn, you have a slightly heightened sense of awareness.
Its probably not morally justifiable. My bad.

sid11 wrote: Obama is supposedly preparing 19 executive orders on guns to avoid congress.  If he tries unilateral legislation, should the people simply ignore him?  That is, you break the law in this way and we will not follow your unconstitutional rules.

What was the draft dodgers mantra??....

"Hell no, we won't go"

pdono wrote: Granted Rick, you don't like what is happening now, but the next time a Republican is in office and issues executive orders, I am hoping people like NFS apply comments like "He has no Constitutional authority and should be impeached" with equal vigor.

Oh, and the same rules for critique and condemnation should apply to the lack of fiscal conservation.

You got it...consistancy.

I will be when the time comes, but, right now I am concerned about the POTUS at hand....I couldn't care any less which party is in control.

Bull sh*t is still bullsh*t regardless of the party.

FarmerTed wrote: An executive order is not legislation. Two different things. Of course, there have been fights in the past on the President overstepped his authority. And while I don't know the details, perhaps there could be one here

Thanks for being open minded, Ted.

I don't believe any POTUS, regardless of party affiliation, can circumvent the Constitution... and the last time I checked, the 2nd amendment was still a part of the Constitution...(for now at least).

I'm on a bit of an OTT vacation, but it is important to remember that all three branches are charged with interpreting the constitution. Ultimately, the judiciary gets the final say but the branches often disagree over what is and isn't constitutional. 

One branch's "reasonable regulation" is another's "infringement". Thus it always was and thus it always shall be. 

I do, however, have a challenge for the Denizens though. The court has spoken pretty recently in the Heller decision as to what the 2nd amendment does, and doesn't, provide for. So, everyone should read Heller carefully before they opine as to the constitutionality of any of the proposed legislation or executive action. 

If y'all want to have a mere political discussion, fine, but don't go bringing the constitution in unless you have a pretty good understanding of it. 

charliesanders88 wrote:

FarmerTed wrote: An executive order is not legislation. Two different things. Of course, there have been fights in the past on the President overstepped his authority. And while I don't know the details, perhaps there could be one here

Thanks for being open minded, Ted.

I don't believe any POTUS, regardless of party affiliation, can circumvent the Constitution... and the last time I checked, the 2nd amendment was still a part of the Constitution...(for now at least).

JCHeff1979 wrote:
If y'all want to have a mere political discussion, fine, but don't go bringing the constitution in unless you have a pretty good understanding of it. 

Tell you what, keep it simple.  Just go into executive orders and tell us the definition between that and legislation.

JCHeff1979 wrote: I'm on a bit of an OTT vacation, but it is important to remember that all three branches are charged with interpreting the constitution. Ultimately, the judiciary gets the final say but the branches often disagree over what is and isn't constitutional. 

One branch's "reasonable regulation" is another's "infringement". Thus it always was and thus it always shall be. 

I do, however, have a challenge for the Denizens though. The court has spoken pretty recently in the Heller decision as to what the 2nd amendment does, and doesn't, provide for. So, everyone should read Heller carefully before they opine as to the constitutionality of any of the proposed legislation or executive action. 

If y'all want to have a mere political discussion, fine, but don't go bringing the constitution in unless you have a pretty good understanding of it. 

charliesanders88 wrote:

FarmerTed wrote: An executive order is not legislation. Two different things. Of course, there have been fights in the past on the President overstepped his authority. And while I don't know the details, perhaps there could be one here

Thanks for being open minded, Ted.

I don't believe any POTUS, regardless of party affiliation, can circumvent the Constitution... and the last time I checked, the 2nd amendment was still a part of the Constitution...(for now at least).

I am really interested in what you believe the 2nd amendment does or doesn't provide for as recently spoken by the Court in the Heller v DC decision.

There are restrictions, but, the court declinded the establishment of a level of scrutiny for evaluating 2nd amendment restrictions.

WestCoastLionsFan wrote: Obama has acted extra constitutionally so many times and gotten away with it, what's another (which is the way I'm sure he's approaching it).

Your statement is incorrect.
He's issued fewer executive orders than any president in over 100 years.

LOL, you call that simple?

sid11 wrote:

JCHeff1979 wrote:
If y'all want to have a mere political discussion, fine, but don't go bringing the constitution in unless you have a pretty good understanding of it. 

Tell you what, keep it simple.  Just go into executive orders and tell us the definition between that and legislation.

pdono wrote:

WestCoastLionsFan wrote: Obama has acted extra constitutionally so many times and gotten away with it, what's another (which is the way I'm sure he's approaching it).

Your statement is incorrect.
He's issued fewer executive orders than any president in over 100 years.

Actually your statement is incorrect.  WCLF says he acted unconstitutionally.  You are assuming that all of his orders were constitutional.

pdono wrote: Granted Rick, you don't like what is happening now, but the next time a Republican is in office and issues executive orders, I am hoping people like NFS apply comments like "He has no Constitutional authority and should be impeached" with equal vigor.

Oh, and the same rules for critique and condemnation should apply to the lack of fiscal conservation.

Fair enough.  The Patriot Act was pretty scary, but even ole Georgie put an expiration date on it.  Not to bring in scale at all, but it is the SECOND Amendment... not some immigration policy.

charliesanders88 wrote:

FarmerTed wrote: An executive order is not legislation. Two different things. Of course, there have been fights in the past on the President overstepped his authority. And while I don't know the details, perhaps there could be one here

Thanks for being open minded, Ted.

I don't believe any POTUS, regardless of party affiliation, can circumvent the Constitution... and the last time I checked, the 2nd amendment was still a part of the Constitution...(for now at least).

I'm just pleading ignorance on this issue.  I don't know what the exec orders are at all.  Not paying a whole lot of attention to the gun stuff.  I seriously doubt that the GOP would let him just ride roughshed over the Constitution if they legitimately thought he was violating Separation of Powers provisions.  They'd just put the thing in Court and let the SCOTUS ultimately decide.