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.
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.
Ok.
Fyi, no offense, but I don't consider you to be a "credible source" of information. Please provide me with research that shows that Congress cannot use a super majority vote to put an end to an EO in the first 30 days after an EO is issued.
Here's another article written by an attorney (a former prosecutor) that references super majority vote by Congress and EO's. But maybe you will "distrust" this guy, too.
Since President Herbert Hoover, more than 8,700 executive orders have been signed, and although they sometimes serve the legitimate purpose of facilitating laws passed by Congress, many presidents have abused their function to create laws that Congress has voted against – giving rise to an almost omnipotent administrative state controlled by the White House...
The legislative branch has remedies to challenge executive orders – nullify, repeal, revoke, terminate or defund – but each remedy can be vetoed by the president, leaving Congress powerless unless it can overturn the veto with a two-thirds vote; a rare occurrence...
Fyi, no offense, but I don't consider you to be a "credible source" of information.
I'm not the source. The Constitution is the source.
Please provide me with research that shows that Congress cannot use a super majority vote to put an end to an EO in the first 30 days after an EO is issued.
Don't confuse invented "conventions" with Constitutional procedures. There's nothing in the Constitution that says they have to override Executive Orders with a super majority vote so why would they even want to go that route? It's not necessary. If you post a million sources in agreement with your bizpacreview.com site claiming that Presidents can create laws by EOs, they'll still all be wrong. The Legislative branch most certainly is not powerless to strike down such wrongful, unlawful orders and neither is the Supreme Court. No law or 2/3 majority is required from Congress to counteract a power that isn't even enumerated to the Executive Branch. The Legislative branch absolutely does have an unvetoable remedy for Unconstitutional Executive branch overreach by EOs and it's called Impeachment. You should distrust any source telling you differently as no real ally of the Constitution.
If you post a million sources in agreement with your http://bizpacreview.com site claiming that Presidents can create laws by EOs, they'll still all be wrong...No law or 2/3 majority is required from Congress to counteract a power that isn't even enumerated to the Executive Branch. The Legislative branch absolutely does have an unvetoable remedy for Unconstitutional Executive branch overreach by EOs and it's called Impeachment.
Right. Uh huh. I see clearly now. Impeachment is the remedy for EO's. What a pity that for hundreds of years Congress has not identified or applied the proper solution for EO's. But 4um gets lucky to have a one-of-a-kind Constitutional Genius like yourself in its midst.
So your point in #23 and #39 was to give yourself the opportunity to showcase your "special" knowledge of the Constitution, which you think no one else on 4um possesses but you? In your dreams, sistuh.
EO's are a reality. Most if not all Presidents have exercised the "implied" powers of Article II, Section 3 "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." I don't recall reading that any Presidents have been impeached for issuing EO's.
Impeaching a President for EO's ( high crimes and misdemeanors, I suppose?)is not a reality based "solution." Only in your imaginary constitution expert head space will that happen.
Btw, here's a pretty solid list of impeachable offenses committed by Obama, yet he has not been impeached to this day. Perhaps you have forgotten the "process" for impeachment: a 2/3 vote in the House of Representatives to impeach, and a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict. Even if Boehner were motivated to impeach Obama ( which is questionable in itself), he does not have a super majority in Congress and the Dems are the majority in the Senate. Oh I'm sure you'd respond - "well, party affiliation should not matter if a President has done impeachable crimes." So on and on it would go - you spouting Constitutional theory that you think only you know. And me telling you that at 4um, we are all as familiar with the Constitution as you, but unlike you, some of us - myself included - choose to live in the real world, which is neither moral or virtuous.
Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed. The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified.
Most politicians and pundits are aware of the problems we face but spend all their time in trying to reform government. The sad part is that the suggested reforms almost always lead to less freedom and the importance of a virtuous and moral people is either ignored, or not understood. The new reforms serve only to further undermine liberty. The compounding effect has given us this steady erosion of liberty and the massive expansion of debt. The real question is: if it is liberty we seek, should most of the emphasis be placed on government reform or trying to understand what "a virtuous and moral people" means and how to promote it. The Constitution has not prevented the people from demanding handouts for both rich and poor in their efforts to reform the government, while ignoring the principles of a free society. All branches of our government today are controlled by individuals who use their power to undermine liberty and enhance the welfare/warfare state-and frequently their own wealth and power.
If the people are unhappy with the government performance it must be recognized that government is merely a reflection of an immoral society that rejected a moral government of constitutional limitations of power and love of freedom.