HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If an executive order can...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:02 PM

 

If an executive order can limit guns, can it also restrict abortion rights?

It seems Obama is about to expand the power of the Presdency. What implications does this have on the power of executive orders and the President?

Have Presidents always had this power but declined to use it?

113 replies, 6435 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 113 replies Author Time Post
Reply If an executive order can limit guns, can it also restrict abortion rights? (Original post)
dkf Jan 2013 OP
upaloopa Jan 2013 #1
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #2
valerief Jan 2013 #6
dkf Jan 2013 #12
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #15
dkf Jan 2013 #25
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #38
WinkyDink Jan 2013 #75
dkf Jan 2013 #86
uppityperson Jan 2013 #103
WinkyDink Jan 2013 #73
dkf Jan 2013 #87
valerief Jan 2013 #3
dkf Jan 2013 #8
valerief Jan 2013 #14
alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #34
dkf Jan 2013 #90
uppityperson Jan 2013 #104
dkf Jan 2013 #108
uppityperson Jan 2013 #109
cali Jan 2013 #23
sadbear Jan 2013 #4
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #17
RandiFan1290 Jan 2013 #5
Agnosticsherbet Jan 2013 #7
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #21
Agnosticsherbet Jan 2013 #33
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #40
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #110
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #111
The Magistrate Jan 2013 #9
NeedleCast Jan 2013 #24
dkf Jan 2013 #26
The Magistrate Jan 2013 #35
Guy Whitey Corngood Jan 2013 #43
abelenkpe Jan 2013 #88
NeedleCast Jan 2013 #69
trumad Jan 2013 #55
The Magistrate Jan 2013 #89
dkf Jan 2013 #91
angelus__ Jan 2013 #10
uppityperson Jan 2013 #16
azurnoir Jan 2013 #20
PeaceNikki Jan 2013 #32
hrmjustin Jan 2013 #46
Agschmid Jan 2013 #51
hrmjustin Jan 2013 #94
pinto Jan 2013 #57
Iggo Jan 2013 #60
bongbong Jan 2013 #11
jody Jan 2013 #13
The Magistrate Jan 2013 #28
jody Jan 2013 #39
The Magistrate Jan 2013 #49
jody Jan 2013 #53
The Magistrate Jan 2013 #56
jody Jan 2013 #62
The Magistrate Jan 2013 #77
alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #37
jody Jan 2013 #42
Rosco T. Jan 2013 #58
jody Jan 2013 #64
Hosnon Jan 2013 #63
jody Jan 2013 #66
Hosnon Jan 2013 #78
jody Jan 2013 #96
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #65
jody Jan 2013 #68
Kingofalldems Jan 2013 #72
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #93
jody Jan 2013 #95
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #99
jody Jan 2013 #105
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #106
jody Jan 2013 #107
forestpath Jan 2013 #18
Enrique Jan 2013 #19
dkf Jan 2013 #36
randome Jan 2013 #22
dkf Jan 2013 #29
randome Jan 2013 #41
jody Jan 2013 #44
randome Jan 2013 #52
jody Jan 2013 #59
randome Jan 2013 #67
Xithras Jan 2013 #50
randome Jan 2013 #71
MADem Jan 2013 #27
dkf Jan 2013 #31
MADem Jan 2013 #45
hughee99 Jan 2013 #54
MADem Jan 2013 #61
unblock Jan 2013 #30
jody Jan 2013 #48
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #79
jody Jan 2013 #85
MADem Jan 2013 #70
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #47
MADem Jan 2013 #80
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #97
MADem Jan 2013 #100
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #112
MADem Jan 2013 #113
1-Old-Man Jan 2013 #74
MADem Jan 2013 #83
elleng Jan 2013 #76
Taverner Jan 2013 #81
Skip Intro Jan 2013 #82
still_one Jan 2013 #84
Spazito Jan 2013 #92
Robb Jan 2013 #98
dkf Jan 2013 #101
MADem Jan 2013 #102

Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:06 PM

1. Executive order desegregated the military

Also created national monuments to preserve open space.
Many other uses I can't remember

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:06 PM

2. Now Obama invented the executve order??

Here's a list of Bush executive orders.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/orders/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:09 PM

6. cool list!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:11 PM

12. Doesn't look like anything there is very contentious.

 

From what I saw at least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:14 PM

15. The very first one is. Significantly reduces seperation of church and state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:21 PM

25. How so? It sounds like he just wanted people to coordinate things in the White House.

 

Am I misreading it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:35 PM

38. It also gives preferences to religious organizations in their efforts to obtain fed funding.

I could have gone with this one ... stem cells ... a gift to the anti-abortion folks.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070620-6.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:11 PM

75. Am I misreading your quick defense of Bush?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #75)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:25 PM

86. I'm not defending him anywhere near what the people who support the Bush tax cuts are doing.

 

That seems pretty insignificant to me as opposed to possible gun control or abortion control through executive order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #75)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:10 PM

103. No. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:10 PM

73. "Contentious" isn't the point, is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #73)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:26 PM

87. I would say it is.

 

Matters of contention are more appropriately addressed through the legislative branch so that the people feel they are properly represented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:06 PM

3. Why would anyone want abortion rights restricted? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:09 PM

8. Because they are pro-life, anti-abortion or whatever you call it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:13 PM

14. So they shouldn't get abortions. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:27 PM

34. What do YOU call it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:29 PM

90. I'm not one for labels.

 

I consider them in the category of people who want to dictate how others live and I don't like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #90)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:11 PM

104. Seriously. Next thing you know they'll speak out against mosques in NYC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #104)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:58 PM

108. That was a suggestion for PR purposes, not for legal action.

 

I actually thought it was odd there wasn't more sensitivity towards survivors that is all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #108)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:09 PM

109. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:18 PM

23. use your imagination. try an anti-choice President.

you do know there have been anti-choice Presidents in the past, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:06 PM

4. Good question.

I know we'd all be up in arms if bush tried to do anything like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:15 PM

17. Romney said he'd stop funding for planned parenthood.

Also said he'd stop the roll out of Obamacare.

Bush ended federal funding for stem-cell research.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:08 PM

5. ...



edit to add:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:09 PM

7. No, he could not restrict aboriton rights. Limits on guns are very limited. see link to Atlantic.

What Obama Can Do On Guns Right Now, Without Congress
Options for immediate executive action may include:
* Incorporating more information in background checks, like a potential buyer's history of mental illness.
* Sharing more information with state and local officials about gun purchases that could be illegal.
* Keeping information on gun sales longer.
* Limiting the importation of military-style weapons.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg also suggested this morning on MSNBC that Obama can appoint new officials, force prosecutors to process gun buyers lying on their applications, insist on tracking down rogue gun dealers, and more:

So, as you can see, without Congressional action he is very limited. None of those things apply to abortions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:17 PM

21. I think he could end government contracts to companies who supply certain weapons

to the civilian population.

The US military is a big customer for the gun companies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:27 PM

33. I would be interested in seeing him try that..

Though I suspect it would not work. They could easily split the civilian firearms manufacturers into different companies. Those that use the same facilities for manufacture of weapons could be licensed to make those new companies weapons.

The civilian firearms market is so huge and so lucrative that an executive order is not going to make them go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #33)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:37 PM

40. Just the threat might cause the gun industry to play ball

and work to find realistic ways of legislating this space.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:57 PM

110. Be a violation of Federal Law if he tried

The FAR is pretty clear

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #110)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:58 AM

111. I suspect there are ways the DFARs could be updated to move in this direction.

It already includes restrictions on contracts with lobbyists and which countries the DOD can buy things from.

I suspect that there would be some provisions already in that document to which the President could provide an executive order providing guidance on how to interpret various sections.

Its time to get creative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:09 PM

9. Jumpin' the Gun There a Bit, Ma'am, Aint'Cha?

You have no idea what Executive orders are contemplated. Since A.T.F. is an Executive agency, directives concerning how it is to execute various laws and regulations could have significant effect. And have it without any 'expansion' of Presidential power. But of course the red flag is your invocation of abortion....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:19 PM

24. Very Much Jumping The Gun

But where would we be without rabid speculation, sir?!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeedleCast (Reply #24)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:22 PM

26. Well Biden laid it out there with no specifics.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:29 PM

35. So You Are Talking Through Your Hat, Ma'am

The technical term for what you are engaged in here is 'shit-stirring'....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #35)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:39 PM

43. Nothing new with that one, sir. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guy Whitey Corngood (Reply #43)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:27 PM

88. exactly nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:08 PM

69. Yes, and it was dumb when Biden did it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:51 PM

55. Of course---teh concern burns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trumad (Reply #55)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:28 PM

89. And the Framing, Sir: 'Support Abortion Rights? can't Be For Gun Control!'

Then sit back and watch --- like dropping bread into a duck pond, they scurry so....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #89)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:33 PM

91. It's a tit for tat world out there.

 

Once one party crosses the line it's more likely the other will too.

That is what worries me about getting rid of the filibuster even though it is getting ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:10 PM

10. Obama's very first executive order

 


Signed the day after inauguration in 2009.


http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13489


My question is.......why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angelus__ (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:15 PM

16. Transparency. Here is more on it and why he signed that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13233
Executive Order 13233 limited access to the records of former United States Presidents. It was drafted by then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and issued by George W. Bush on November 1, 2001. Section 13 of Order 13233 revoked Executive Order 12667 which was issued by Ronald Reagan on January 18, 1989.

The Order was partially struck down in October 2007, and Barack Obama completely revoked it by Executive Order 13489 on January 21, 2009, his first full day in office. However, as long as no bill is passed by Congress with regard to this issue, any future president is free to issue yet another order to take the place of the revoked order 13233, just as Order 13233 revoked Order 12667.

(clip)

The Society of American Archivists and the American Library Association were critical of the president's exercise of executive power by issuing EO 13233. They claimed that the action "violates both the spirit and letter of existing U.S. law on access to presidential papers as clearly laid down in 44 U.S.C. 2201 2207 ," noting that the order "potentially threatens to undermine one of the very foundations of our nation."
(clip)

On January 21, 2009, Executive Order 13233 was revoked by executive order of President Barack Obama. Obama essentially restored the wording of Executive Order 12667, by repeating most of the text of that order with minor changes. One notable change is that vice presidential records are explicitly covered by his new order

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angelus__ (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:16 PM

20. To revoke Bushes Executive order of 1/11/2001

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angelus__ (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:27 PM

32. Oh, is where you try to convince us this is the EO that keeps his college transcripts and BC secret?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angelus__ (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:40 PM

46. How do you feel about President Obama?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #46)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:46 PM

51. I know... I sense the farce is strong with this one. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to angelus__ (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:52 PM

57. I'll echo the comment above. It revoked GW Bush's Exec Order that set a 12 year hold on records.

Unless both the former President and current President concurred or by court order. Interestingly, GW's Exec Order included the VP's records.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angelus__ (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:00 PM

60. Why do YOU think he did that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:11 PM

11. When Bush made Executive Orders

 

That, among other things, trashed the 4th Amendment, where were the "Mighty Defenders Of The 2nd Amendment" (copyrighted name) to fight that assault on the Constitution?

Oh, I forgot. They don't actually care about it, just the part in it that has been mis-used to justify being able to buy a Precious so they can work up enough courage to crawl out from under the bed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:13 PM

13. Only dictators claim authority to use government power to abolish rights that preexist our

 

Constitution and do not depend upon it and declared by states constitutions to be natural, inherent, and inalienable/unalienable.

When that happens, Lincoln's dream of a People's government will perish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:23 PM

28. This Is Just Pitiful, Sir: Seriously, Pitiful....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #28)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:35 PM

39. Glad you liked it because it's true. It's PITIFUL that anyone would believe otherwise. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:44 PM

49. Your Immediate Recurrence To 'They're Gonna Grab My Gun!' Sir, Is Simply Pitiable

It drops down below the threshold for contempt or even disgust, and just leaves one feeling a bit sad, and sorry for you, for the limitations circumscribing your intellect, your reason, and your common human feeling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #49)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:48 PM

53. Are insults your best? Why not use facts or perhaps there are none to support your assertion? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #53)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:51 PM

56. Flat, Factual Description, Sir, Which I Do Not Mind Repeating....

Your immediate recurrence to 'they're gonna grab my gun!' Sir, is simply pitiable. It drops down below the threshold for contempt or even disgust, and just leaves one feeling a bit sad, and sorry for you, for the limitations circumscribing your intellect, your reason, and your common human feeling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #56)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:01 PM

62. LOL because insults are all you have. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #62)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:12 PM

77. You Just Keep Telling Yourself That, Fella....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:30 PM

37. Oh, the melodrama!



I'm gonna be laughing directly at you for four years! Oh gawd it's delicious!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #37)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:37 PM

42. Dubya did the same with executive orders and I protested. Did you support him? I didn't. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:53 PM

58. Oh. Bull. Shit.

nothing more to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosco T. (Reply #58)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:03 PM

64. I see you exhausted yourself with that post. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:03 PM

63. The idea of natural rights is nice and all, but pretty meaningless in a practical sense.

A right may "exist" but if not a single person recognizes it, it might as well not exist.

You could've stopped at the Constitution itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hosnon (Reply #63)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:05 PM

66. No, states ratified our Constitution only under the condition a Bill of Rights were to be added. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #66)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:13 PM

78. Well, not "only".

They would be pretty shitty negotiators if the agreed to ratify it only if they got a Bill of Rights, and then ratified it before getting it.

But that wasn't my point. Discussions of natural law are mostly academic. Until the "governed" agree (via a state constitution, federal constitution, law, etc.) that a right is a right, it really isn't (for all practical purposes).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hosnon (Reply #78)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:53 PM

96. I'll stick with SCOTUS' decisions. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:04 PM

65. The right to own a gun existed before the Constitution?

Its natural and inherent?

If you are found guilty of the right crime, the government can take your life it so chooses. If it can do that, it can surely regulate the weapons that you can have access to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #65)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:07 PM

68. Please read and understand SCOTUS UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL. 92 U.S. 542 (1876) nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #68)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:10 PM

72. Wow, you and dkf on the same thread--just awesome!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #68)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:47 PM

93. The SCOTUS, from time to time, looks back on prior rulings, and then ...

it changes its mind.

Not sure what a case from 1876 says about the inherent right you claimed existed even before the Constitution was written.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #93)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:52 PM

95. Read DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (2008) citing CRUIKSHANK nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #95)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:57 PM

99. So that case says gun ownership is an inherent right that predates the US Constitution?

And you mean a RW SCOTUS ruled in favor of weaker gun regulation??

Big Surprise there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #99)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:14 PM

105. Obviously you didn't read Steven's dissent. He cited CRUIKSHANK and did not dispute the Courts

 

opinion "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent on that instrument for its existence."

That together with PA (1776) constitution that said:
A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776
"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
And
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

VT (1777) constitution had the same words except for substituting "unalienable" for "inalienable".



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #105)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:31 PM

106. If its in his DISSENT, its not included in the Majority opinion ...

the one in which the SCOTUS describes how things are to be interpreted going forward.

While others can use his dissent in future arguments, by definition, his dissent is not the over-riding document on this case.

And the US Constitution supersedes the State Constitutions. Even as it drew aspects from some of those in existence at the time.

Interestingly, the example you used provides these rights to "men" ... not slaves, or women. And of course now, that oversight by the founders has been corrected.

The Constitution, and its interpretation, gets "corrected" from time to time.

Having said all this ... I'm not sure what your point is regarding an Obama executive order. I suppose you might have apoint if he tries to declare all guns illegal, but no one who is serious anticipates that, or anything close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #106)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:37 PM

107. Your posts were ultimately to my #13. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:16 PM

18. EO's can expand abortion rights - why couldn't they limit them?

 

One of the very first things Clinton did in office was to sign an EO revoking several abortion restrictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:16 PM

19. you kind of sneak the "expand the power" in there

before we discuss Obama's supposed power grab, why don't you lay out why you think it IS a power grab?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:29 PM

36. Based on Biden's comments.

 

"The president is going to act," Biden said. "Executive order, 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 all the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action, we believe, is required."

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/biden-on-guns-executive-order-is-on-table

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:18 PM

22. Any President can issue any executive order for any reason.

But we have checks and balances in the government. If it was egregiously against popular will, Congress would react.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:24 PM

29. So congress has the power to supercede executive orders?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:37 PM

41. By passing a law. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #41)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:39 PM

44. That is not veto proof! That's a real laugh. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:48 PM

52. That's part of the 'checks and balances' thing.

If it's not veto-proof, then clearly Congress thinks they are reflecting their constituents in leaving the Executive Order alone.

That's how the system is SUPPOSED to work, anyways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #52)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:00 PM

59. I'm not sure authors of our Constitution expected a two-party system with one party holding the

 

presidency with veto power and also 1/3 of one house to prevent veto override.

Hypothetically all 435 members of the House and 66 Senators could vote to override a president's veto only to be thwarted by 34 senators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #59)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:06 PM

67. Yeah. The system could definitely use some 'tweaking'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:44 PM

50. No, that's not correct. There are limits to Executive Orders.

EO's can only be issued to clarify operations and wield powers that are ALREADY granted to the President by the Constitution or Congress. As I mentioned in another thread, Harry Truman once issued an Executive Order to nationalize American steel mills. That order was slapped down by the Supreme Court because property seizure wasn't a power that had ever been given to the President. Executive Orders also cannot be used to override any laws that have been passed by the states or Congress.

The President can issue an Executive Order to desegregate the military, because the Constitution places control of the military under the Executive. The President can issue an Executive Order to create a new national park, because the NPS is under the Executive branch and Congress has given it the power to acquire new land. There are lots of things that the President can do with Executive Orders, but they are limited in scope to the powers delegated by Congress.

The President could order the TSA to stop using radiation scanners in airports. The President could NOT order the TSA to start doing random vehicle checks on the interstate freeways (Congress has not given the TSA any authority over our freeways). That's how it works.

Congress has already empowered the FBI and BATF with the ability to perform background checks and control some firearms features. The President COULD use an EO to further refine these powers an potentially expand them. The President could NOT issue an EO that simply banned firearms. One is within the scope of his powers, and the other isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #50)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:09 PM

71. Thanks for the info.

I suppose it would still be possible to issue any type of Executive Order (the language can always be worded in a way to skirt those restrictions) but the Supreme Court is also one of those 'checks and balances' that prevent it from getting out of hand.

And any President who issued an overly broad EO would likely be committing political suicide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:23 PM

27. Executive orders can limit lots of things.

How do you think a Republican President (Nixon) forced "Drive 55" down the throats of unwilling states? The attitude was "You don't have to do what we ask, but we don't have to give you money, either."

The National Maximum Speed Limit of 55 m.p.h. was created in 1974 when Richard Nixon signed the Emergency Energy Highway Conservation Act. Before that, states had been free to set their own speed limits, but the new law threatened to strip federal highway funding from any state straying above the national standard. The ostensible purpose of this limit was to keep down gas prices, which had been driven through the roof by an OPEC embargo touched off by the 1973 Arab-Israeli war....

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1826694,00.html#ixzz2HVVTRcvR



He withheld their Federal Highway funds. It gets pretty frigging onerous to spend millions in STATE money to keep some of those roads up to snuff.

The same tactic was used to raise the drinking age to 21 (the "hook" was motor vehicle fatalities):

When the U.S. repealed the prohibition of alcohol in 1933, states were free to legalize, regulate or prohibit access to it as they saw fit. Most legalized but regulated it. In particular, 32 states adopted an MLDA of 21, while 16 chose an MLDA between 18 and 20. With few exceptions, these disparities persisted through the late 1960s.

Between 1970 and 1976, 30 states lowered their MLDA from 21 to 18. These changes coincided with other national efforts to enfranchise youth, exemplified by the 26th Amendment, which granted those 18+ the right to vote.

In 1984, however, Congress passed the Federal Underage Drinking Act (FUDAA), which withholds transportation funding from states that do not have an MLDA21. The justification given for the act was that higher MLDAs would result in fewer traffic fatalities.

By the end of 1988, after passage of the FUDAA, all states adopted an MLDA21. Several states had adopted an MLDA21 before the FUDAA, but the other states were less eager to change. Several passed MLDA21 legislation but set it up for repeal if the FUDAA were held unconstitutional. Others enacted "sunset provisions" in case federal sanctions expired. But when the Supreme Court upheld the FUDAA, states faced a strong incentive to maintain an MLDA21.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/15/lowering-legal-drinking-age-opinions-contributors-regulation.html

Abortion is the law of the land, but implementation is left to states. Already many states make it difficult to impossible to establish clinics, with bullshit rules about door width and number of parking spaces (often in a city environment where everyone takes public transportation). They also create onerous hoops that women are made to jump through before they can access the procedure (ultrasounds, waiting periods, stuff like that). The end result is that states hostile to abortion remain, in a de facto way, hostile to it, without barring it outright, and states that are not hostile operate clinics without too much of an issue, save the occasional protesters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:25 PM

31. Drive 55 was done by executive order?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:40 PM

45. Yes, but the states blew Nixon off--that's why the act was ginned up to snatch back that highway

dough and bend them to his will.

I'm afraid I spoke in shorthand, above--here's more that makes it clearer:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/07/27/55-mph-speed-limit-is-unenforceable-and-counterproductive


In the fall of 1973, in response to the OPEC oil embargo, President Nixon issued an executive order mandating a 55 mph national maximum speed limit. The following January, Congress made it official and passed a "temporary" one-year continuation of the limit. And so began a 22-year odyssey where reality and rational public policy never crossed paths.

Initially, this law was passed to conserve motor fuels, but it soon became lauded as a safety measure. It was for safety purposes that the law was made permanent in 1975. (It was eventually learned/admitted that the reduction in highway fatalities in 1974 was largely the result of reduced travel. The high fuel costs and recession in 2008 had exactly the same effect, although to a lesser degree, because fuel availability was not an issue, unlike the 1973-74 era.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:49 PM

54. Perhaps I'm not reading this correctly, what do either have to do with Executive Orders?

Both the Emergency Energy Highway Conservation Act and the Federal Underage Drinking Act came through congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #54)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:01 PM

61. Drive 55 was preceded by an Executive Order.

See Post 45. The Act was to compel compliance after the EO had been issued.

The drinking age change started with an EO as well, issued by Reagan. The nexus of the EO was booze and driving. He didn't issue an EO to raise the age, though, he issued an EO to establish a commission to come up with recommendations--one of the recommendations was to raise the drinking age:

The Reagan Administration, however, did recognize the threat presented by alcohol-impaired driving, and in 1982 President Reagan issued Executive Order 12358 to create the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving. The group was charged with increasing public awareness of drunk driving, persuading states to attack the problem in an organized and systematic manner, encouraging state and local officials to use the latest techniques and methods to address the problem and generating public support for increased enforcement of drunk driving laws. In 1983, the 32-member Commission, chaired by former Secretary of Transportation John Volpe, issued a report that recommended a three-pronged approach to attack drunk driving: (i) improve education, (ii) enact stronger legislation, and (iii) increase enforcement of existing legislation. A prominent recommendation of the Commission was to encourage all states to raise their MLDA to 21.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02742.x/full

Once they had the blessings of Ronnie, it was a hop-skip-jump to passing the legislation, even though Ronnie initially balked (he had a drunkard father, though, which might have swayed him at the end of the process). But it all started with an EO, which is frequently a kick start to get legislation rolling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:24 PM

30. executive orders are essentially commands only to the rest of the executive branch

there's no power over the congressional or judicial branches, nor directly over the states or the people.

so an example of an executive order on guns might be to ban certain kinds of weapons *on federal property* such as national parks.

i'm not sure this would have much more than a symbolic effect unless the politics is such that state follow suit with similar laws.


often executive orders are done when a president believes he can't get an actual law passed, so he can declare a small victory.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #30)


Response to jody (Reply #48)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:15 PM

79. You might want to research that further

There are no criminal penalties for violation an EO. He was charged with 10 violations of the USC and pleaded to 2. Son of Sam law was also invoked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh#Trial

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #79)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:20 PM

85. Mea culpa, nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:09 PM

70. There's also the "Stop Enforcing That Law" type of EO....

Example--Obama and the Dream Act:

DREAM Act stalled, Obama halts deportations for young illegal immigrants

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0615/DREAM-Act-stalled-Obama-halts-deportations-for-young-illegal-immigrants-video

The Obama administration issued a politically charged policy directive Friday that will make about 800,000 young people who were brought to the United States illegally as children safe from deportation proceedings, and may make them eligible for work permits.

...Under the order, individuals need to be at least sixteen years old and no older than thirty to be eligible for the deferred action policy. They need to have been brought to the United States before they turned sixteen and need to have resided in the country for at least five continuous years before their application. They also need to be currently in school, or to have graduated from high school or gotten a G.E.D., or have been honorably discharged from the military.


Those kinds of EOs ripple beyond the Executive Branch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:42 PM

47. Obama could order the federal government, including the US military, to end all contracts with

weapons manufacturers who supply a selected set of weapons, or ammo, into the civilian gun market.

The right remains in place.

This is basically what Romney said he wanted to do to planned parenthood ... stop all federal funding of them entirely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #47)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:16 PM

80. The manufacturer would simply split the company and produce "separate but equal" guns n ammo.

All of the greedy Gus's on the weapons facility's Board of Directors would just have to serve on another board, and take two fat checks instead of one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #80)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:54 PM

97. Have the order include suppliers too. And restrict the board members.

See, when you write the law, you use lawyers who help craft the order such that the effort to try and wiggle out via such approaches, becomes extremely onerous.

Then, make sure it includes a multi-year penalty for those who go outside the bounds. Break the rules, all current contracts are cancelled, and you can't get any for N years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #97)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:00 PM

100. They'd put their spouses on the boards--or their kids.

Believe me, these turds would find a work around. And they'd probably find some loophole in commerce law that says that the gubmint can't trample on them overmuch with regard to their customer base.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #100)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:00 AM

112. So let's throw up our hands and do nothing.

Nope ... make sure immediate and extended family can't be on the boards either.

Can't hold more than X% stock in one of those companies.

This is what you pay lawyers to figure out.

And keep closing loop holes. Make it harder and harder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #112)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:10 AM

113. No one's advocating that, but trying to make a law limiting commerce is not the answer.

We were starting with an unworkable premise, there--I could see the problem at 100 yards, one of those sharp lawyers you mention could rip it to shreds in a NY minute.

You're better off taxing their asses, requiring their assets to be HQ'd in USA and vigorously enforcing Buy American provisions on the military side, and enacting Cuomo-style gun control laws on the civilian side. That might not be the answer, either, but trying to limit how much business a businessperson can do usually doesn't go over very well.

It's a good idea to propose laws that have a hope in hell of passing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:11 PM

74. Executive Orders only can apply to employees of Executive Agencies, they are not law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #74)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:19 PM

83. They can affect regular people, when the EO says "Stop enforcing that law."

The Obama EO that stepped out in front of the Dream Act, for example....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:12 PM

76. No.

There are limitations on what executive orders can do, and they cannot violate the Constitution. They can more quickly empower executive agencies to take actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:16 PM

81. We will see. I want to see how he does it.

 

Devil is in the details on these things....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:17 PM

82. A reasonalbe and forward-looking question.

Of course precedent set by a president we may favor can then be used in a manner we may detest by a subsequent president.

Don't know why simply pondering the issue elicits insults from some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:19 PM

84. If they were so inclined they would do it anyway regardless of this. It did not stop bush

If there are problems with an executive order that is for the courts and congress to work out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:36 PM

92. "Have Presidents always had this power but declined to use it?"

Seriously?

"Executive Orders Signed by George W. Bush - 262, EOs 13198 - 13466 (17 July 2008)
Executive Orders Signed by William J. Clinton - 364, EOs 12834-13197
Executive Orders Signed by George Bush - 166, EOs 12668-12833
Executive Orders Signed by Ronald Reagan - 381, EOs 12287-12667
Executive Orders Signed by Jimmy Carter - 320, EOs 11967-12286
Executive Orders Signed by Gerald Ford - 169, EOs 11798-11966
Executive Orders Signed by Richard Nixon - 346, EOs 11452-11797
Executive Orders Signed by Lyndon B. Johnson - 324, EOs 11128-11451
Executive Orders Signed by John F. Kennedy - 214, EOs 10914-11127
Executive Orders Signed by Dwight D. Eisenhower - 486, EOs 10432-10913
Executive Orders Signed by Harry S. Truman - 896, EOs 9538-10431
Executive Orders Signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt - 3,728, EOs 6071-9537

Revoking An Executive Order
In 1988, President Reagan banned abortions at military hospital except in cases of rape or incest or when the mother's life is threatened. President Clinton rescinded it with another executive order. A Republican Congress then codified this restriction in an appropriations bill. Welcome to the Washington, D.C. merry-go-round.

Because executive orders relate to how one president manages his executive branch team, there is no requirement that subsequent presidents follow them. They may do as Clinton did, and replace an old executive order with a new one or they may simply revoke the prior executive order.

Congress can also revoke a presidential executive order by passing a bill by a veto-proof (2/3 vote) majority. For example, in 2003 Congress unsuccessfully attempted to revoke President Bush's Executive Order 13233, which had rescinded Executive Order 12667 (Reagan). The bill, HR 5073, did not pass."

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/presidenc1/a/executive_order.htm



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:55 PM

98. This OP is so transparent, I want to wear it to the Oscars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #98)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:03 PM

101. I tend to think a step ahead, to judge possible consequences.

 

I'm not a leap first type of person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #98)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:03 PM

102. Cher--is that you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread