Obama: No stance on gun control

[Daylen]

Isn't there a problem with imposing seperate and different policies on one state over another? Wasn't this what the Civil War somewhat about? Do we have to 'go there' again? This is definitely one that I will 'hit' all my political buttons over.

Do you realize the Civil War ENABLED the north to pass laws that SPECIFICALLY only applied to the South? I'm not saying its right or legal what he did. The executive orders issued about the boarder states were not illegal because they were executive orders, that is like saying the president can only appoint the head of an organization and then never tell the organization what to do; in fact such appointments might be technically executive orders. The executive orders were not illegal because they only applied to a few states, I'm unaware of anything saying otherwise. The executive orders issued about the boarder states are illegal because they are against the laws of congress.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I'm not sure you understand the constitution. Executive orders CAN go beyond the constitution, but do not necessarily. Executive orders must be within the limits of the constitution and ammendments, they are subject to judicial review and they are for the implementation of congresses laws. An executive order is simply the president saying something with the force of his office, otherwise its just blabbing and noone need listen. Executive orders have been issued by EVERY president, I think, and certainly were issued by the first president.

Issuing an executive order is not inherently bad or unconstitutional, issuing executive orders who's subject matter violates the constitution or laws of congress would be illegal or unconstitutional.

If the Executive Order is Found to be unConstitutional, then it is.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Do you realize the Civil War ENABLED the north to pass laws that SPECIFICALLY only applied to the South? I'm not saying its right or legal what he did. The executive orders issued about the boarder states were not illegal because they were executive orders, that is like saying the president can only appoint the head of an organization and then never tell the organization what to do; in fact such appointments might be technically executive orders. The executive orders were not illegal because they only applied to a few states, I'm unaware of anything saying otherwise. The executive orders issued about the boarder states are illegal because they are against the laws of congress.

Interpretation of the Constitution is so subjective, and is subject to those in power. With the stroke of a pen President Obama, if He wanted, could, say, ban high capacity magazines, or, raise the dept ceiling.

 

[PrayingForWar]

Interpretation of the Constitution is so subjective, and is subject to those in power. With the stroke of a pen President Obama, if He wanted, could, say, ban high capacity magazines, or, raise the dept ceiling.

Or shut down GITMO.

 

[Daylen]

Interpretation of the Constitution is so subjective, and is subject to those in power. With the stroke of a pen President Obama, if He wanted, could, say, ban high capacity magazines, or, raise the dept ceiling.

Not lawfully or constitutionally. Executive orders are not laws. Executive orders are simply direction to agencies on how to operate. Enforcing a ban that has not been enacted as a law of congress has no legal basis and thus would not be a legal order by the chief executive of the United States. What you suggest would be just the same as ATF writing a regulation that bans high capacity magazines. Such would not be within the laws of congress and thus not lawful regulation. No more can parks ban the carrying of firearms than the President do as you say. The only way the president can go against the laws of congress is if congress, federal judges, the People and the states allow it. Presidents have gotten away with military action that wasn't expressly ordered by congress, but it would be a new sad day if a president was allowed to declare laws instead of simply enforce and execute laws of congress.

The last time a president did issue orders outside the laws of congress that I know of was the big progressive Franklin Roosevelt putting Japanese and Germans in concentration camps in WW2. The supreme court found it constitutional, but I'm not sure just about anyone today would agree with such a finding. If you truely think imprisoning people because of their ancestry is not against the constitution... well I think I'd be done as I don't care to have discussions with racists.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Not lawfully or constitutionally. Executive orders are not laws. Executive orders are simply direction to agencies on how to operate. Enforcing a ban that has not been enacted as a law of congress has no legal basis and thus would not be a legal order by the chief executive of the United States. What you suggest would be just the same as ATF writing a regulation that bans high capacity magazines. Such would not be within the laws of congress and thus not lawful regulation. No more can parks ban the carrying of firearms than the President do as you say. The only way the president can go against the laws of congress is if congress, federal judges, the People and the states allow it. Presidents have gotten away with military action that wasn't expressly ordered by congress, but it would be a new sad day if a president was allowed to declare laws instead of simply enforce and execute laws of congress.

What was it Nixon stated, "[if the President does it, it's not illegal]."

The last time a president did issue orders outside the laws of congress that I know of was the big progressive Franklin Roosevelt putting Japanese and Germans in concentration camps in WW2. The supreme court found it constitutional, but I'm not sure just about anyone today would agree with such a finding. If you truely think imprisoning people because of their ancestry is not against the constitution... well I think I'd be done as I don't care to have discussions with racists.

You proved my point in this response that if the President does it it is not illegal. The Court found it to be Constitutional. How interesting, a system that is self-preserving.

Let me guess, Bush thinking up GITMO make him a progressive? Everyone wants to blame progressives for everything. Funny thing is the other side blames Conservatives for every thing...I suppose not one of us are ever going to come to the truth of any matter now are we.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Or shut down GITMO.

I have come to the conclusion that Bush could f-up a cup of coffee. GITMO is obviously a legal nightmare to unravel.

 

[PrayingForWar]

I have come to the conclusion that Bush could f-up a cup of coffee. GITMO is obviously a legal nightmare to unravel.

Horse$#!t, if it was illegal in anyway it would have to be shut down. Obozo has no idea what to do with the flea bitten bearded sociopaths who've shown dedication to commit murders and any other brutality to further the cause of jihad. They aren't "soldiers", no other country wants them, and no citizen of this country is stupid enough (I hope) to think they would be best served if jihadists were put in domestic prisons.

The moonbat messiah had NO CLUE WTF HE WAS TALKING ABOUT, and we've seen that trend continue, while he was posturing about GWB's "mistakes" until he actually ended up in a position to fully understand the reasons for the creation of GITMO. He's probably also aware that many of his own supporters are too stupid to understand even an elementary explaination, therefore he's done nothing about it, and his lapdog supporters in the "land of moonbat journalism" are all too happy to ignore that fact. Just as you're all to happy to spin it. Do you work for MSNBC?

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

President Obama has surely not went as far as most of us hoped with regard to everything other than firearms. Then again, the Republican pool looks pretty damn week. If President Obama is so bad then Republican, and the soon-to-be dead "tea party" movement should be able to come up with a viable candidate to run against the President.

I read every day, probably much more than I should, but, in my readings, I have yet to see a viable Republican candidate.

President Obama still has a pretty damn good approval rating, so I anticipate that Republicans are going to get their sh*t together soon, and find themselves a good runner. McCain, possibly, again LOL?

I hope not McCain. The "TEA(Taxed Enough Already) Party" is healthier than either of the so called Major parties. The whole country would be healthier if they were both to just disappear.

As to Obama, the whole country and a large part of the rest of the world would be better off if both he and Biden were to suddenly disappear from politics. Hopefully Immediately. Then we could get started on fixing everything he, Biden, Reid, Pelosi and their cohorts destroyed.

 

[PrayingForWar]

I hope not McCain. The "TEA(Taxed Enough Already) Party" is healthier than either of the so called Major parties. The whole country would be healthier if they were both to just disappear.

As to Obama, the whole country and a large part of the rest of the world would be better off if both he and Biden were to suddenly disappear from politics. Hopefully Immediately. Then we could get started on fixing everything he, Biden, Reid, Pelosi and their cohorts destroyed.

A "pretty darn good approval rating" she says...

Amoungst whom, patrons of a San Fransicko bath house?

The reality seems to be here:http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...21/poll-weakened-obama-would-lose-vote-today/

All any candidtate has to do is debate the moonbat messiah ONCE. Remind people what he said in 2008, what he's done since then, and how the new president will fix it. Anyone can beat this clown, hopefully it won't be some squishy moderate like Romney. I'm actually starting to like the idea of President Rick Perry. I don't care if he's a burgerbuilder.

 

[Alexcabbie]

PFW: Have you ever notice how the Lefties "debate" ? Look at the way this debt ceiling biz is being handled. They won't discuss the DETAILS of their "plan". They just for example note that 72 percent of the people support a Balance Budget Amendment and then say that their plan is a "balanced approach", then ladle arglebargle over the whole mess.

When pressed, a Leftie resorts to SIN: SWITCH the subject (usually to George Bush) and attack; IGNORE the facts, and when all else fails, NAMECALL and lie.

The current Chairman of the Demonrat Nazionale Komittie is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (nice Deutches name for a black girl), and she is a real fire-breathing bomb-throwing extremist flaming btch. She is saying the wildest, most radical, racially based vile things I have ever heard, and doing it publicly as the head of her party. She's better for the Republicans than Howard Dean ever was. She even disgusts black folks.

This debt debate boils down to three DemonRat points: (1) The Republicans want a default (2) All ye who oppose Obama be racists and (3) Obama is just a po' black victim of evil George W Bush, who left him this mess to clean up.

It's wearing WAY thin on damn near EVERYBODY.

 

[PrayingForWar]

PFW: Have you ever notice how the Lefties "debate" ? Look at the way this debt ceiling biz is being handled. They won't discuss the DETAILS of their "plan". They just for example note that 72 percent of the people support a Balance Budget Amendment and then say that their plan is a "balanced approach", then ladle arglebargle over the whole mess.

When pressed, a Leftie resorts to SIN: SWITCH the subject (usually to George Bush) and attack; IGNORE the facts, and when all else fails, NAMECALL and lie.

The current Chairman of the Demonrat Nazionale Komittie is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (nice Deutches name for a black girl), and she is a real fire-breathing bomb-throwing extremist flaming btch. She is saying the wildest, most radical, racially based vile things I have ever heard, and doing it publicly as the head of her party. She's better for the Republicans than Howard Dean ever was. She even disgusts black folks.

This debt debate boils down to three DemonRat points: (1) The Republicans want a default (2) All ye who oppose Obama be racists and (3) Obama is just a po' black victim of evil George W Bush, who left him this mess to clean up.

It's wearing WAY thin on damn near EVERYBODY.

Dippy Waterhead-Schultz is an aryan, no self respecting black woman could be that ignorant. Even that raving lunatic Shelia Jackson Lee is more firmly grounded in reality. I was amused by the tift between DWS and Col. West.

You're right about the moonbat tactic, that's why I have no problem turning the tables on them. For years they called US nazis until it became easy to point out the parallels between the DNC platform and the tenets of the National Socialist Workers Party. Now when you point out these paralells such as the demonization of the wealthy, or the rabid contempt for Israel they like to throw up "Goodwins Law" and claim victory in the arguement.

The crap about it being GWB's fault, regardless of the problem is easily refuted. The nice thing about online forums is that they can't talk over you or silence you by saying something so insipid it's stuns you. I think that's another tactic, I watch debates occassionally on TV. Sometimes the lib will say something so off the wall, the conservative is actually stunned that they heard a person say something that idiotic.

 

[Daylen]

PFW: Have you ever notice how the Lefties "debate" ? Look at the way this debt ceiling biz is being handled. They won't discuss the DETAILS of their "plan". They just for example note that 72 percent of the people support a Balance Budget Amendment and then say that their plan is a "balanced approach", then ladle arglebargle over the whole mess.

When pressed, a Leftie resorts to SIN: SWITCH the subject (usually to George Bush) and attack; IGNORE the facts, and when all else fails, NAMECALL and lie.

The current Chairman of the Demonrat Nazionale Komittie is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (nice Deutches name for a black girl), and she is a real fire-breathing bomb-throwing extremist flaming btch. She is saying the wildest, most radical, racially based vile things I have ever heard, and doing it publicly as the head of her party. She's better for the Republicans than Howard Dean ever was. She even disgusts black folks.

This debt debate boils down to three DemonRat points: (1) The Republicans want a default (2) All ye who oppose Obama be racists and (3) Obama is just a po' black victim of evil George W Bush, who left him this mess to clean up.

It's wearing WAY thin on damn near EVERYBODY.

Hmm.. I'll assume you get confused easily and simply say Shultz is the white female Democrat and the person she is attacking recently is West, the black male republican. Perhaps its easy for some to mix race up to always get black female Democrats and white male Republicans, but lets try to get those little things like facts right.

 

[Alexcabbie]

See? Change the subject and attack

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Reagan just loved those Executive Orders, didn't he?

GW Bush 268 Approx.
Clinton 363
G. Bush 165
Reagan 380

As one poster had stated on the link provided, the Executive Order can be un-ordered by the next president.
​

So? Two wrongs don't make a right. Why do you keep assuming I am a republican right winger? Is it because I don't like the fake left wing's agenda. I reiterate I don't like either fake side. They both continue to grow government and encroach upon our liberties.

I'm not sure you understand the constitution. Executive orders CAN go beyond the constitution, but do not necessarily. Executive orders must be within the limits of the constitution and ammendments, they are subject to judicial review and they are for the implementation of congresses laws. An executive order is simply the president saying something with the force of his office, otherwise its just blabbing and noone need listen. Executive orders have been issued by EVERY president, I think, and certainly were issued by the first president.

Issuing an executive order is not inherently bad or unconstitutional, issuing executive orders who's subject matter violates the constitution or laws of congress would be illegal or unconstitutional.

Not lawfully or constitutionally. Executive orders are not laws. Executive orders are simply direction to agencies on how to operate. Enforcing a ban that has not been enacted as a law of congress has no legal basis and thus would not be a legal order by the chief executive of the United States. What you suggest would be just the same as ATF writing a regulation that bans high capacity magazines. Such would not be within the laws of congress and thus not lawful regulation. No more can parks ban the carrying of firearms than the President do as you say. The only way the president can go against the laws of congress is if congress, federal judges, the People and the states allow it. Presidents have gotten away with military action that wasn't expressly ordered by congress, but it would be a new sad day if a president was allowed to declare laws instead of simply enforce and execute laws of congress.

The last time a president did issue orders outside the laws of congress that I know of was the big progressive Franklin Roosevelt putting Japanese and Germans in concentration camps in WW2. The supreme court found it constitutional, but I'm not sure just about anyone today would agree with such a finding. If you truely think imprisoning people because of their ancestry is not against the constitution... well I think I'd be done as I don't care to have discussions with racists.

I understand what you are saying but executive orders that become law for U.S. citizens or that infringe upon our rights are unconstitutional. The president is not supposed to have the ability to make law. Many presidents do what they want and get a rubber stamp form congress, Like Lincoln. This is unconstitutional.

George Washington's Neutrality Proclamation was ruled unconstitutional.

I think you need to dig a little deeper just because previous presidents set a precedent don't make it right.

FDR's Labor orders, bad.

Harry Truman seized steel mill, bad.

Bush had many bad ones.

 

[Daylen]

So? Two wrongs don't make a right. Why do you keep assuming I am a republican right winger? Is it because I don't like the fake left wing's agenda. I reiterate I don't like either fake side. They both continue to grow government and encroach upon our liberties.





I understand what you are saying but executive orders that become law for U.S. citizens or that infringe upon our rights are unconstitutional. The president is not supposed to have the ability to make law. Many presidents do what they want and get a rubber stamp form congress, Like Lincoln. This is unconstitutional.

George Washington's Neutrality Proclamation was ruled unconstitutional.

I think you need to dig a little deeper just because previous presidents set a precedent don't make it right.

FDR's Labor orders, bad.

Harry Truman seized steel mill, bad.

Bush had many bad ones.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm saying just because it is an order by the executive it is not unconstitutional or illegal. Unconstitutionality and illegality must be determined by the text of the order not its mere existence. I have not contended that presidents can make law, they can proclaim law but that is a very different thing and has to be backed up by congress. Please don't use a strawman argument.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm saying just because it is an order by the executive it is not unconstitutional or illegal. Unconstitutionality and illegality must be determined by the text of the order not its mere existence. I have not contended that presidents can make law, they can proclaim law but that is a very different thing and has to be backed up by congress. Please don't use a strawman argument.

Yes anything that is "extra" constitutional is illegal. The constitution specifically numbers the powers of the federal government and who is allowed to do what. A president can issue executive orders that tell how he is going to carry out the laws passed by congress. He cannot make "law" even if it is backed up by congress, the exact reverse is what is spelled out in the constitution. Unfortunately they have been getting away with it for so long. In effect making the president an elected King.

So if this is what you are saying than yes I misunderstood, if not than we disagree on presidential powers.