We are in trouble

Batousaii · Dec 21, 2012

~ Executive Order Limits?

It was my understanding that the president cannot create law through executive order. maybe someone can elaborate, correct me, or clarify?

EMNofSeattle · Dec 21, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
+1

There is no such thing as a democracy, and democracy is tyranny too.

I adhere to Rothbard's thinking on our modern government it is not us, it is them or they, they want our guns, they want our money, they want control.

Any govermental, political, or economic system is tyranny by someone against someone else. that's the simple truth of politics.

EMNofSeattle · Dec 21, 2012

Difdi said:
Given how Seattle officials feel they shouldn't have to obey state law (or even the state constitution) I've been wondering:

If a neighborhood within the City of Seattle decided to elect a council and that council passed neighborhood laws that violated city laws, would the city government talk about how the neighborhood deserves local control? Or would they send in the SWAT team?

Depends upon what the neighborhood council does.

if the neighborhood council is threatening people with violence yes the cops would be there rather quick.
Also the neighborhood council in your scenario is not legally recognized as a unit of government, thus all its actions attempting to force compliance are illegal.

As far as Seattle goes, they've been beat down into compliance by the state government and court system, their actions didn't last long at all.

EMNofSeattle · Dec 21, 2012

Batousaii said:
It was my understanding that the president cannot create law through executive order. maybe someone can elaborate, correct me, or clarify?

No executive orders can be used to determine how to carry out laws or matters of administrative policy, not to make law

There is nothing really that Obama can do to ban sport utility rifles, maybe if some are being imported he can have the ATF determine lack of "sporting use" but since the vast majority of semi autos are domestically produced it won't do much. There is no legal leeway that can be used to target semi autos, each category of the NFA is strictly defined enough for that.

Freedom1Man · Dec 21, 2012

hermannr said:
1: NO...enforce the laws you already have.
2: NO, the only loophole is in their brain
3: No
4: No,
5: Absolutely not.

Ding ding, we have a winner.

And what part of," SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED," don't the idiots understand?

For those in Washington (state), what part of ," shall not be impaired," don't they understand?

LkWd_Don · Dec 21, 2012

DocWalker said:
I guess the part he didn't specify and you didn't get was he was referring to the safety of the criminals and mass murders to commit a higher body count.

I love how they always say gun control will make everyone more safe; it actually only works to empower the criminals but liberals don't seem to get it. All the time the goverment has armed body guards, armed police, secret service with automatic weapons, and like mayor bloomburg has 6 armed body guards.

Makes me sick when you think the only reason they are doing and saying this is to disarm the general public for a future enslavement of the American people. I'm not saying in the next few years but they are slowly working on taking our freedoms away and the priority is to disarm us first using every incident to push their agenda.

Exactly, Chicago should serve as prime example of how keeping weapons out of the hands of the Law-Abiding Citizens in public, only serves to create greater crime rates.

Now that the SCOTUS ruled the Concealed Carry restrictions in Illinois unconstitutional, we will begin to see a drop in their crime rate, but not soon enough to make a difference in the present culture.

LkWd_Don · Dec 21, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
No executive orders can be used to determine how to carry out laws or matters of administrative policy, not to make law
There is nothing really that Obama can do to ban sport utility rifles, maybe if some are being imported he can have the ATF determine lack of "sporting use" but since the vast majority of semi autos are domestically produced it won't do much. There is no legal leeway that can be used to target semi autos, each category of the NFA is strictly defined enough for that.

You might want to do a bit more research before making such a statement.

President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10973 Nov. 3, 1961 establishing an agency to regulate Foreign Aid and telling Congress they had to pass whatever laws were needed to allow it to function. It became 22 USC Section 2381
http://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/usaid-history

Leading this transformation was President John F. Kennedy. President Kennedy recognized the need to unite development into a single agency responsible for administering aid to foreign countries to promote social and economic development. On November 3, 1961, USAID was born and with it a spirit of progress and innovation.

Though JFK himself did not write the laws, he forced the legislation to be written using the EO, so he did legislate via EO. He claimed such authority under the Constitutions Article 2 Section 2 to Establish Foreign Policy and declared that Congress had to comply-they did.

Seeing how BHO has twisted things to suit his own reasoning, what makes anyone beleive he will not follow in JFK's foot-steps?

EMNofSeattle · Dec 22, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
You might want to do a bit more research before making such a statement.

President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10973 Nov. 3, 1961 establishing an agency to regulate Foreign Aid and telling Congress they had to pass whatever laws were needed to allow it to function. It became 22 USC Section 2381
http://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/usaid-history

Though JFK himself did not write the laws, he forced the legislation to be written using the EO, so he did legislate via EO. He claimed such authority under the Constitutions Article 2 Section 2 to Establish Foreign Policy and declared that Congress had to comply-they did.

Seeing how BHO has twisted things to suit his own reasoning, what makes anyone beleive he will not follow in JFK's foot-steps?

And what if congress had told him to pound sand? or refused to fund it, I doubt congress was just kicking and screaming refusing to do it.

much like the claim that Vietnam war was done without congressional approval and therefore was illegal.... well congress had no problem repeatedly funding the war and never questioned johnson. congress refusing to stand up doesn't mean they had no choice.

LkWd_Don · Dec 22, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
And what if congress had told him to pound sand? or refused to fund it, I doubt congress was just kicking and screaming refusing to do it.

much like the claim that Vietnam war was done without congressional approval and therefore was illegal.... well congress had no problem repeatedly funding the war and never questioned johnson. congress refusing to stand up doesn't mean they had no choice.

We can ask "What If" all day long and get nowhere. The fact is, that Congress didn't tell him to go pound sand! Therefore, JFK legislated via EO.

sudden valley gunner · Dec 22, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
And what if congress had told him to pound sand? or refused to fund it, I doubt congress was just kicking and screaming refusing to do it.

much like the claim that Vietnam war was done without congressional approval and therefore was illegal.... well congress had no problem repeatedly funding the war and never questioned johnson. congress refusing to stand up doesn't mean they had no choice.

HUH?

It still was illegal and congress acted against constitutional provisions.

LkWd_Don · Dec 22, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
~~snipped ~~ much like the claim that Vietnam war was done without congressional approval and therefore was illegal.... well congress had no problem repeatedly funding the war and never questioned johnson. congress refusing to stand up doesn't mean they had no choice.

I'm sorry for not commenting on this earlier. Originally our involvement was supposedly restricted to being of an advisory capacity, at least that was how JFK as both President and Commander in Chief got Congress to fund the excursion in 1961. We have already seen that JFK had Congress wrapped around his finger.
Then when Johnson became President, he escalated the action, but it was still not called a war, it was a Police Action, which got him around the War Powers Act and he was able to continue to get funding from Congress for this excursion.

The whole thing was wrong from the get-go as we were there for all the wrong reasons, the Military was not being allowed to act as they felt was in Vietnam's and our Best interest, yet the MSM was portraying the Military as the Evils ones. Look at the Fonda/Kerry debacle. And now Traitor Kerry is going to be our SOS? Right! More proof that our Country is going to ~~it!

EMNofSeattle · Dec 22, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
I'm sorry for not commenting on this earlier. Originally our involvement was supposedly restricted to being of an advisory capacity, at least that was how JFK as both President and Commander in Chief got Congress to fund the excursion in 1961. We have already seen that JFK had Congress wrapped around his finger.
Then when Johnson became President, he escalated the action, but it was still not called a war, it was a Police Action, which got him around the War Powers Act and he was able to continue to get funding from Congress for this excursion.

The whole thing was wrong from the get-go as we were there for all the wrong reasons, the Military was not being allowed to act as they felt was in Vietnam's and our Best interest, yet the MSM was portraying the Military as the Evils ones. Look at the Fonda/Kerry debacle. And now Traitor Kerry is going to be our SOS? Right! More proof that our Country is going to ~~it!

Traitor Kerry? He did in fact serve in combat during the war. sure his insane liberalism is bad, But to call him a traitor after he served? you'd need some serious facts to back that up.

The War Powers Act (actually the War Powers Resolution) was passed in 1973 after Vietnam started.

Again Congress never made any effort to stop our involvement in Vietnam. Congress has that authority in the end, if they bent over for kennedy or johnson.

sudden valley gunner · Dec 23, 2012

Government apologist rationalization.

If you are going 100 down the free way and a cop decides not to pull you over for it doesn't mean you are not breaking the speed limit. Just because congress has been complicit in the centralizing of granting of powers the president doesn't have, doesn't mean its legal.

LkWd_Don · Dec 23, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
Traitor Kerry? He did in fact serve in combat during the war. sure his insane liberalism is bad, But to call him a traitor after he served? you'd need some serious facts to back that up.

The War Powers Act (actually the War Powers Resolution) was passed in 1973 after Vietnam started.
Again Congress never made any effort to stop our involvement in Vietnam. Congress has that authority in the end, if they bent over for kennedy or johnson.

You clearly do not know your history, possibly are a victim of History Revisionism if you did not attend/graduate school prior to 1980, or you:

1) Should know that the War Powers Act, 1941, was approved December 18, 1941 by the 77th Congress and became Public Law No. 354 and was then modified again in 1942. What was passed in 1941 was to expand the Presidents authority to build additional naval ships/fleets and became a declaration of war.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/War_powers_act_1941

2) Would understand that the War Powers Act/Resolution of 1973 simply modified the War Powers Act of 1941/1942 to limit the Powers of the President.
http://www.ptsdsupport.net/war_powers_act.html

3) Might recognize the phrase of "Golf of Tonkin Resolution" which occurred in 1964 that LBJ used to escalate conflict in Vietnam.

4) Would recognize that John Kerry and Jane Fonda were the two American Subversives/Traitors who sold out American POW's held in Vietnam in the 70's while actively engaged in an insurrection against the United States of America, and would know that just because he served does not change his later actions.

From here out, you should post links to credible source material supporting your contentions, maybe while looking for one, you might find personal enlightenment.

EMNofSeattle · Dec 23, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
You clearly do not know your history, possibly are a victim of History Revisionism if you did not attend/graduate school prior to 1980, or you:

1) Should know that the War Powers Act, 1941, was approved December 18, 1941 by the 77th Congress and became Public Law No. 354 and was then modified again in 1942. What was passed in 1941 was to expand the Presidents authority to build additional naval ships/fleets and became a declaration of war.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/War_powers_act_1941

2) Would understand that the War Powers Act/Resolution of 1973 simply modified the War Powers Act of 1941/1942 to limit the Powers of the President.
http://www.ptsdsupport.net/war_powers_act.html

3) Might recognize the phrase of "Golf of Tonkin Resolution" which occurred in 1964 that LBJ used to escalate conflict in Vietnam.

4) Would recognize that John Kerry and Jane Fonda were the two American Subversives/Traitors who sold out American POW's held in Vietnam in the 70's while actively engaged in an insurrection against the United States of America, and would know that just because he served does not change his later actions.

From here out, you should post links to credible source material supporting your contentions, maybe while looking for one, you might find personal enlightenment.

So Jane Fonda you have a borderline case for treason. Kerry gave testimony to a congressional committee about what he did in the war, maybe it was perjured, but not provable. So I want to err on the side of the first amendment.

I don't support our current excursions waging full scale war and propping up puppet governments in countries we don't belong in (*cough* Afghanistan) Nor do I support the [strike]undeclared war[/strike] "kinitic military action" in Libya, nor the sale of arms to foreign rebel groups who may or may not have our best interests at heart. Does that make me a traitor? I want to pull us out of full scale wars, if people like Bin Laden act up with terrorist attacks we can use air strikes and special forces raids to take them down, these large wars are bogging down our economy and taking up funds that should be invested into the US, does that make me a traitor?

maybe Kerry was more extreme by accusing fellow servicemen of atrocities, but in the end does that not fall under 1A protections?

LkWd_Don · Dec 23, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
So Jane Fonda you have a borderline case for treason. Kerry gave testimony to a congressional committee about what he did in the war, maybe it was perjured, but not provable. So I want to err on the side of the first amendment.

I don't support our current excursions waging full scale war and propping up puppet governments in countries we don't belong in (*cough* Afghanistan) Nor do I support the [strike]undeclared war[/strike] "kinitic military action" in Libya, nor the sale of arms to foreign rebel groups who may or may not have our best interests at heart. Does that make me a traitor? I want to pull us out of full scale wars, if people like Bin Laden act up with terrorist attacks we can use air strikes and special forces raids to take them down, these large wars are bogging down our economy and taking up funds that should be invested into the US, does that make me a traitor?

maybe Kerry was more extreme by accusing fellow servicemen of atrocities, but in the end does that not fall under 1A protections?

Yes Kerry served his country, yes he even was wounded and given some medals.

But, Kerry did far more than simply protest as a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, or testifying before Congress against his fellow Veterans. (That alone made most of those who served in that era consider him a traitor.)

He also carried his protest against the war outside of our Nations Borders, to the Enemy that we were at War with, an act that in and of itself was considered as subversive and traitorous, but if you wish to ignore that, that is your choice. You have good company along with the many voters he has convinced he did nothing wrong, simply because there are no documents showing what he discussed during his visit with the North Vietnamese in Paris in 1971.

If others didn't feel that he has a lot to answer for, posts such as this would not exist. http://patriotpost.us/opinion/16021/print

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=7&f=1405&t=11092763

We are in trouble

Batousaii

Regular Member

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

Freedom1Man

Regular Member

LkWd_Don

Regular Member

LkWd_Don

Regular Member

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

LkWd_Don

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

LkWd_Don

Regular Member

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

LkWd_Don

Regular Member

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

LkWd_Don

Regular Member