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.
Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution -- that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders. Congressional Recourse
If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority is often required to override an Executive Order.
ThisNation.com is researched and written by Jonathan Mott, Ph.D. [sic] has taught [sic] at Brigham Young University.
Besides being associated with the staff of Brigham Young University, an org which I tend to distrust for various reasons, his goal seems to be to condition Americans to accept Unconstitutional governance. So, I'll not be considering him a credible source. No 2/3 majority is required to override an Executive Order, a phrase that is not even listed in the Constitution. The Executive Branch is not empowered to legislate anything by Executive Order. What those amount to are inter-office memos/directives. Most of them are directives in violation of the Constitution and so are unlawful "orders", as well as wrongful power-grab attempts.
EOs are being implemented whether or not they find support in the consti- stupid - so maybe, just maybe the government utilizing them and the morons following them are on a different planet where they don't have a constitution.
It seems to me that you consistently dream of living under a constitutional government. I think you'll have to move elsewhere because none exists here.
It's almost like the wife who finds her hubby in bed with another woman and he denies it saying "what're you gonna believe, me, or your lying eyes" ...
We all know he ain't supposed to be in bed with her but HE IS !
EOs are being implemented whether or not they find support in the consti- stupid - so maybe, just maybe the government utilizing them and the morons following them are on a different planet where they don't have a constitution.
The Constitution is our real government -- not them. That they don't adhere to it is just more evidence that those treasonous transients are ideologically-alien interlopers aligned with some other hostile and foreign system(s). As such, they should be arrested.
The Constitution is our real government -- not them. That they don't adhere to it is just more evidence that those treasonous transients are ideologically-alien interlopers aligned with some other hostile and foreign system(s). As such, they should be arrested.
You're standing in the midst of the system that exists in real time and every element of that system (3 branches) operate in harmony and in opposition to the constitution / common law. You can't get anyone in that system to arrest theirself because you can't get a conviction because they haven't broken THEIR SYSTEM'S LAW.
Your in their system because you found something about it that appealed to you enough that you left the republic and entered the socialist democracy. You likely found that a driver license, a bank account, a credit card, a SSN or something offered by their system was something worth your freedom.
Can valid contracts be made so under duress and threat of harm for refusing? Do they have any legit authority to alter our status to annexed Slaves of their farce? I think not.
Can valid contracts be made so under duress and threat of harm for refusing? Do they have any legit authority to alter our status to annexed Slaves of their farce?
In the current realm it is said (case law) the only person to have rights is a belligerent claimant. I don't particularly like that one.
I don't think it's legit but it is what it is. I really don't like it when I see someone attempting to base their position on a constitutional claim that the courts don't recognize (even though at times they act as if they consider the constitution.)
Can valid contracts be made so under duress and threat of harm for refusing? Do they have any legit authority to alter our status to annexed Slaves of their farce? I think not.
I agree with your opinion but the vast majority of Americans support their system to such a degree that it makes those of us arguing against it look nuts and lends legitimacy to their side.
That's why juries find our side guilty in their courts.
The real fraud starts when schools teach us lies and half truths that give us the impression that we're free.
US is a Corp. Supreme Court confirms Federal Zone (zip codes)
District of Columbia, corporation possession of the Queen of England
1788 Original Constitution for the united states, original organic, of the people government.
1871 Amended version CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, US is a private corporation.
The UNITED STATES was formed in 1871, which controls only the District of Columbia and the territories it purchases or acquires; Puerto Rico, Guam, Virginia Islands. Many think that income taxes, and some laws do not effect people in the sovereign states of the union as they are outside of the control / jurisdiction of the United States corporation. The United States of America is different from the "United States" [corporation].
The terms UNITED STATES and/or United States of America and/ or United States Government are all a private corporation, even with registered trademark
The US corporation (originally called the District of Columbia) does not effect or control the 50 sovereign states that are protected from the federal government by the US Constitution for the United States adopted in 1788.
There are 2 United States, one formed in 1787, the collection of the several sovereign states of the union, and another separate and different one formed in 1871, which only controls the District of Columbia and it’s territories. Others may can give you specific references and explain this further. Here is an outline of the concepts.
The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.
The Constitution for the United States of America was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in each U.S. state in the name of "The People".
STOUTENBURGH, Intendant of Washington Asylum, v. HENNICK.
January 14, 1889
Sections 1 and 18 of the act of congress of February 21, 1871, entitled 'An act to provide a government for the District of Columbia,' (16 St. 419,) are as follows: 'Section 1. That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act.' 'Sec. 18. That the legislative power of the District shall [129 U.S. 141, 144] extend to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistent with the constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act, subject, nevertheless, to all the restrictions and limitations imposed upon states by the tenth section of the first article of the constitution of the United States; but all acts of the legislative assembly shall at all times be subject to repeal or modification by the congress of the United States, and nothing herein shall be construed to deprive congress of the power of legislation over said District in as ample manner as if this law had not been enacted.' These sections are carried forward into the act of congress of June 22, 1874, entitled 'An act to revise and consolidate the statutes of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, relating to the District of Columbia, in force on the first day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy- three,' as sections 2, 49, 50.
- - - also note:
And Whereas: The Constitution does provide that Congress has the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district not exceeding ten miles square, as may, by session of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States.
And Whereas: On February 21, 1871, the Forty First Congress passed an act entitled "An Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia," legislating the organization of a municipal corporation to run the day to day affairs of the District of Columbia, the seat of government, which transferred the United States of America, the Republic, into "a corporate entity" entitled UNITED STATES, in capital letters, having "no" jurisdiction outside the District of Columbia.
And Whereas: Congress adopted the text of the federal constitution as the constitution or charter of this municipal corporation. This municipal corporation was granted the power to contract to provide municipal services to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia and necessarily as an operation of the privileges and immunity clause of Article Four of the Constitution, any other person who chooses to contract for its services.
- - Is there fraud in our ranks ?
The Webster’s Dictionary states that Fraud means Deceit, Trickery, intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.
The Blacks Law Dictionary states pretty much what the Webster’s Dictionary does but adds about two pages full of information. My favorite part is: A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.
- - - -
February 21, 1871 Congress Passes an Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871*
With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see, Acts of the Forty-first Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).
The act -- passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War -- was a strategic move by foreign interests (international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the coffers and neck of America.
Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the United States.
The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the original Constitution for the united States (1788) was defaced in effect vandalized and sabotage when the title was capitalized and the word "for" was changed to "of" in the title
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (1871)
is the constitution of the INCORPORATED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does is not !
Capitalization is significant when one is referring to a legal document. This seemingly "minor" alteration has had a major impact on every subsequent generation of Americans.
What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government. This newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely outside the original Constitution.
Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the original Constitution, we the people now have "relative" rights or privileges. One example is the Sovereign's right to travel, which has now been transformed (under corporate government policy) into a "privilege" that requires citizens to be licensed.
By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the original Constitution.
On May 3rd, 1802 an Act was passed to incorporate the City of Washington. (2 Stat. at L. 195.)
In 1871 an important modification was made in the form of the district government -- a Legislature was established, with all the apparatus of a distinct government. By the Act of February 21st, of that year, entitled "An Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia (16 Stat. at L. 419), it was enacted (sec. 1) that all that territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia by which name it was constituted a "a body corporate for municipal purposes," with power to make contracts, sue and be sued, and "to exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. …
This Constitution lasted until June 20th, 1874, when an Act was passed entitled "An Act for the Government of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes." (18 Stat. at L. 116) By this Act the government established by the Act of 1871 was abolished.
p 234
By a subsequent Act, approved June 11th, 1878 (20 Stat. at L. 102), it was enacted that the District of Columbia should "remain and continue a municipal corporation," as provided in section two of the Revised Statutes relating to said District, and the appointment of commissioners was provided for, to have and to exercise similar powers given to the commissioners appointed under the Act of 1874. All rights of action and suits for and against the District were expressly preserved in status quo. p. 234
All municipal governments are but agencies of the superior power of the State or government by which they are constituted, and are invested with only such subordinate powers of local legislation and control as the superior Legislature sees fit to confer upon them. p. 234
The people are the recognized source of all authority, state or municipal, and to this authority it must come at last, whether immediately or by circuitous route. Barnes v. District of Columbia, 91 U.S. 540, 545 [23: 440, 441]. p 234
Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for this court, in the case of Hepburn v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 2 Cranch, 445 [ 2:332 ], where the question was whether a citizen of the District could sue in the circuit courts of the United States as a citizen of a State. The court did not deny that the District of Columbia is a State in the sense of being a distinct political community; but held that the word "State" in the Constitution, where it extends the judicial power to cases between citizens of the several "States," refers to the States of the Union. It is undoubtedly true that the District of Columbia is a separate political community in a certain sense, and in that sense may be called a State; but the sovereign power of this qualified State is not lodged in the corporation of the District of Columbia, but in the government of the United States. Its supreme legislative body is Congress. The subordinate legislative powers of a municipal character which have been or may lodged in the city corporations, or in the District of Columbia, do not make those bodies sovereign.
- - -
Text of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871