Vice President Joe Biden revealed that President Barack Obama might use an executive order to deal with guns.
"The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."
Biden said that this is a moral issue and that "it's critically important that we act."
Biden talked also about taking responsible action. "As the president said, if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly."
Biden, as he himself noted, helped write the Brady bill.
Eric Holder was scheduled to be at the meeting that's currently taking place at the White House.
Vice President Joe Biden revealed that President Barack Obama might use an executive order to deal with guns.
If Obama tries to use an Executive Order to undermine the 2nd Amendment, imho he is setting himself up for a big fail at the SCOTUS level, if not at the Congressional level where a super majority vote is required to veto an Executive Order.
His attempt to use an EO to subvert the 2nd amendment might in fact harm the Dem Party in elections for years to come. The Dem Party is not just supported by special interest ( far left extremist) groups - there are also millions of moderate (non-special interest aligned) Dem voters ( who own guns) who would be PO'd, me thinks.
Right. I won't bore you with the facts. I might add that the "Brits" still believe in the divine right to rule by Royal Bloodlines and Americans believe there's a constitution.
Faith in fake money makes a fraud out of the consti-stupid.
You seemed a bit more Constitution-friendly in the posts I was reading before this one.
I love the Constitution. It's just not operable in a debt based fiat credit and currency - COMMERCIAL JURISDICTION.
If and when people learn how the law really works and then decide to withdraw from the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK GOVERMENT OF THE CORPORATE UNITED STATES, maybe then we can all happily return to Constitutional Rule.
I do too and don't know how I missed this post before I replied to the last one.
It's just not operable in a debt based fiat credit and currency - COMMERCIAL JURISDICTION.
If and when people learn how the law really works and then decide to withdraw from the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK GOVERMENT OF THE CORPORATE UNITED STATES, maybe then we can all happily return to Constitutional Rule.
There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits We the People from having our own money system.
There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits We the People from having our own money system.
We truly need the genius to create it and some cooperation in taking over the clearing houses used to process commercial paper. There will need to be two systems. One for the common everyday business of life, and another for strictly commercial transactions.
We've been drafted into this commercial system and have no business there.
We truly need the genius to create it and some cooperation in taking over the clearing houses used to process commercial paper. There will need to be two systems. One for the common everyday business of life, and another for strictly commercial transactions.
We've been drafted into this commercial system and have no business there.
So far, I'm 100% in agreement with all you said in sentences 2-4 -- 75% overall. Can't we just start our own commercial payment system too?
Can't we just start our own commercial payment system too?
Sure. My point was that their clearing house operation works extremely well and we should nationalize the machinery.
The major problem with the current fiat system is that most people do not realize they lose their republican form of government when participating in a variety of commercial activities under contract. That will never change. The thing that matters is for the people to make an intelligent choice regarding these matters and willingly deciding to forfeit the common-law for a particular transaction by agreeing to some form of contract.
There are lots of people that may choose the nanny STATE under commercial law and privileges granted by govt. There are others that will shun the nanny STATE choosing to be independent and free under common-law.
The Constitution allows for a commercial/contract environment. But what we've experienced is a system where the controllers have seduced the populace into a system without their full understanding of the consequences. This is fraud.