Skip to comments.Executive Orders Explained for Low-Information Voters
Posted on 01/15/2013 1:39:34 PM PST by servo1969
RUSH: Joe Biden, the vice president of the United States. Now, we were told last week that Biden was heading up a commission made up of administration officials and cabinet officials on what to do about guns and the increasing proliferation of guns. One of the things that Biden suggested was they're looking at legislation, executive orders, so forth and so on. The Politico, a joyous Politico, I should say, has a story today: "The White House has identified 19 executive actions for President Barack Obama to move unilaterally on gun control."
This is what Biden told a group of House Democrats yesterday. Only 19? Only 19? We were worried the Second Amendment was in trouble here. "Later this week, Obama will formally announce his proposals to reduce gun violence, which are expected to include renewal of the assault weapons ban," which, look, I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud here, but we already did one of these once, and it didn't matter, folks.
We've had an assault weapons ban before. See, the problem is there really isn't such a thing as an "assault weapon." It's just a creation. It's nothing more than a name that Democrats and people on the left created to gin up anti-gun sentiment among people. But there really is no official classification of "assault weapon." It doesn't exist. What gun isn't an assault weapon? I mean, even if you're shooting skeet you're assaulting the skeet. So the title here is purely a psychological creation. So "renewal of the assault weapons ban, universal background checks and prohibition of high-capacity magazine clips..."
These are just some of the brilliant ideas. "But Biden spent two hours briefing a small group of sympathetic House Democrats on the road ahead in the latest White House outreach to invested groups. The focus on executive orders is the result of the White House and other Democrats acknowledging the political difficulty of enacting any new gun legislation, a topic Biden did not address in Mondays meeting." Now, ladies and gentlemen, pardon me for a moment as I take a few minutes here -- a very few precious minutes -- to say something for the low-information voters in the audience. I know you're there, and you know who you are.
I want to talk to you about executive orders. You see, there's a thing in this country. It's called the Constitution, and while presidents and members of Congress and mayors and others run for election every year (or every two years, or every four years, depending), the Constitution is constant. There's not one elected official who has the power to change it. There is a way to amend the Constitution, and the Constitution spells out the procedures that must be taken to change it. Presidents cannot. Now, I know this is gonna shock many of you in the low-information community.
Many of you believe... This is what you've been taught. This is what you have been educated with, and many of you have been taught to actually support this kind of presidential power, that a president, if he doesn't like something, can just "fix" it. But there is no such power granted to the president by the Constitution, and executive orders are not a way for the president to get around the Constitution. Executive orders were not established for that purpose. Executive orders are to take care of emergencies during times when Congress is not in session.
That's one of many examples for their usage, but the executive order does not contain the power to violate the Constitution. The executive order does not give the president the authority to say, "I don't like the Second Amendment, and I'm going to write a law that supersedes it." No president has ever had that power. No president today has that power. Barack Obama doesn't have it. If he acts in such a way, he is in violation of the Constitution. The Constitution is what holds this country together. The Constitution is what defines this country.
There isn't enough knowledge, nor is there enough respect, for the Constitution in our country today, which is why I'm trying to help a little bit here. Nineteen executive orders to deal with something they are not permitted to deal with, in a way they're not permitted to do it. But if nobody is willing to stand up and oppose the president and this usurpation of power -- which does not exist and which he does not have -- then, of course, he will get away with it. But I just want you to know this. I want those of you in the low-information voter community to know that executive orders do not exist so that the president can break the law. They do not exist so the president can change the law. That is not why they exist.
Executive orders do not grant authoritarian, dictatorial power.
The founders of this country never intended the chief executive to have anywhere near that kind of power, and I just want you to understand and know this.
I also want you low-information voters to know that I would never lie to you.
RUSH: Once again, ladies and gentlemen, I'll read from this joyous Politico story on the White House looking at 19 executive order actions on guns. It's Reid Epstein doing the story. The Politico says, "The focus on executive orders is the result of the White House and other Democrats acknowledging the political difficulty of enacting any new gun legislation, a topic Biden did not address in Mondays meeting." What this means is, this is a tantamount admission that this administration cannot muster the votes to legally create new legislation on guns.
You see, the laws of this country... Again, pardon me for a second as I address the low-information voter community. The laws in this country are written in Congress. That would be the Senate and the House. The president does not write laws. The president does not make law. Well, he's not supposed to. Judges are not supposed to make laws. Judges are not supposed to create laws. That's only supposed to happen in Congress. When Congress refuses to vote for a law, then it's dead. What the administration and Biden are admitting here is that they can't legally enact the gun laws that they prefer.
So they're just going to do it unilaterally with the executive order.
Now, I'm not lying to you when I tell you that is not what executive orders permit. It's not why they were created; it's not what they're for. Executive orders do not grant dictatorial power to presidents. They do not grant the power to the president to violate existing law. Executive orders do not grant the power to the president to write new law. The president and his team will be in violation of the Constitution if they do this. Now, there are certain things that can be done with executive orders, but they can't write new law. But if nobody stops them, what's the point?
They can get away with it.
There's always a way to get away with it.
If Congress doesn't oppose what the president does, then it's not a political power struggle. And if the Congress is going to cede to the president the authority to write law, then he'll get away with it. Washington Post: "White House to Announce Gun Plans Today." They're all excited, too. Their tongues are on the floor. "President Obama will unveil a sweeping set of gun-control proposals at midday Wednesday, including an assault weapons ban, universal background checks and limits on the number of bullets magazines can hold..." These are not plans; these are what they intend to do with executive orders.
They may go to Congress try to get some of this stuff passed.
But if they fail -- legally, constitutionally -- it is over at that point.
Both of these communists pric!s, Biden and the King Obama, think they can get away with this. Come to my door as ask about my guns and you might get a rude awaking. Enough is enough. We have to impeach these two insane jackasses.
Boener should come out after the PR event tomorrow and say the following ... “I hereby exercise my authority as Speaker of the House to nullify all the executive orders signed today. The Constitution gives me this power, I exercise it without hesitation.”
And for good measure, turn off funding to the White House and entertain a motion for impeachment of 0bama and BiteMe.
I don't think he can do that.
I ABSOLUTELY LOVE the use of the term “Low Information voter” and think we should think up additional (though equally derogatory) terms such as -
1 Factually Impairment disability
2 Work place phobia and dementia
3 Employment impaired skeptics
4 Thought process inept
5 Suffer from low Logic processes
6 Leisure enhanced
7 (come on guys, bet you can come up with some really good categories.....)
I have already told my Congressman that if Obama tries to move to ban ‘assault’ rifles, magazines or implement gun registration, that things are going to get ‘messy’ here in Pa.
Executive orders are not law. Therefore, they do not have to be obeyed by the populace. If one gets arrested for not obeying an executive order, what law would be cited that was broken? An illegal law that was not properly enacted has no teeth to it. Even if he issues a very innocuous executive order, to obey it in any way would then open the door to further eo’s that would be more strident. It would set a dangerous precedent. As far as impeachment, I seriously doubt that he is worried about that. He is no more afraid of Boehner that the man in the moon.
I thought the spelling was “Boner” for all the dumb, duphis, spineless actions he seems to come up with.
My version of The Constitution does not say that.
Which edition are you using?
As for myself, I have petitioned the Arizona Governor to strongly consider succession.
I have already stated that if Arizona does not Succeed I will move to the first state that does.
Kind of looks like I may become a Texan very shortly.
Interesting.... That must be in the revised version of the Constitution....
Funny... Obama couldn’t be bothered to write a single piece of legislation when he was a legislator, yet now he wants to issue the law of the land from the Oval Office.
Obama is a cancer that needs to be cut out of this nation, and soon.
Must be a new beta version.
If Obama uses his executive office to usurp the Constitution, then Boehner can undo the Ex. Orders the same way. Not that he would. Boehner is probably thrilled that Obama has taken away an issue away from Congress that he won’t have to bother with.
Heh. I see what you did there....
Specifically, Bill Clinton banded the import of certain Chinese military surplus ammo. He banned the import of certain Norinco Chi-com military style firearms.
We should not think that the Big Zero is stupid or that those advising him are stupid. There are things that they “can” do and that they will probably do.
I fully expect that ATF will come up with a new definition of what “features” of firearms make it ineligible to import for sporting purposes. I fully expect that ATF will make it more difficult to import ammunition and ammunition components for overseas. I fully expect that ATF will clamp down on the import and sale of parts kits and “demilled” military surplus weapons.
I am looking with a grim sense of disgust at what the 19 Executive orders are likely to include. But saying that the President can no anything by Executive Order has been proven otherwise by history. I don’t feel that he can confiscate my firearms or do a number of things by Executive Order, but that doesn’t mean he cannot do anything.
You: “Boener should say I hereby exercise my authority as Speaker of the House to nullify all the executive orders signed today. The Constitution gives me this power.”
Me: “Which edition of The Constitution are you using?”
You: “The same one used in the construction of the executive orders.”
“Executive Orders” are rooted in
Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution
which grants “executive power” to the president; and
Article II, Section 3, Clause 5 of the Constitution
which requires he “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.
Every president, beginning with George Washington in 1789, has issued executive orders.
In our entire history, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders:
one by Harry Truman (a democrat)and one by Bill Clinton (a democrat).
Where is it that you see the Constitution grants any authority
for the Speaker of the House to nullify these?
Bush did it.
Obama is taking a serious risk. If his executive orders are ignored, then invalidated by the courts, he is truly a lame duck for the rest of his term.
Where is it that you see the Constitution grants any authority for the Speaker of the House to nullify these?
It's in the same section where it gives the president the authority to change the meaning of the 2nd Ammendment.
yeah ... lol.
“...Lemme try it this way...”
If you think it would be a good thing
for the Speaker of The House to act outside of the Constitution
in response to the President acting outside of the Constitution,
then I have to disagree with you.
If you think it would be a good thing for the
Speaker of The House President to act outside of the Constitution in response to the President acting outside of the Constitution,, Newtown shooting then I have to disagree with you. say you finally see my point.
Please have your doctor adjust your medications prior to contacting me again.
I like what you did there...DARTUSER and I agree with you.
People today believe what is put out into the “populace” by way of the media. Boehner needs to put something “out there” and start using his Speaker Bully Pulpit!
Any executive order can be INSTANTLY reversed by the next President in office, and are not law. Obama can do his EOs, and all we need is to put someone else in office in 2016 to roll them back.
Executive orders only apply to the “executive branch”
Judge Napolitano was on today and said that he could also use the EPA to make it so expensive to clean lead from making bullets that it would be hard to afford.
Artfully done, Dartuser.
I agree. That was well played.
Will do. And for my part I'll try to dumb down my humor from now on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.