Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:02 PM Jan 2013

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If an executive order can limit guns, can it also restrict abortion rights? (Original Post) dkf Jan 2013 OP
Executive order desegregated the military upaloopa Jan 2013 #1
Now Obama invented the executve order?? JoePhilly Jan 2013 #2
cool list!!! valerief Jan 2013 #6
Doesn't look like anything there is very contentious. dkf Jan 2013 #12
The very first one is. Significantly reduces seperation of church and state. JoePhilly Jan 2013 #15
How so? It sounds like he just wanted people to coordinate things in the White House. dkf Jan 2013 #25
It also gives preferences to religious organizations in their efforts to obtain fed funding. JoePhilly Jan 2013 #38
Am I misreading your quick defense of Bush? WinkyDink Jan 2013 #75
I'm not defending him anywhere near what the people who support the Bush tax cuts are doing. dkf Jan 2013 #86
No. eom uppityperson Jan 2013 #103
"Contentious" isn't the point, is it? WinkyDink Jan 2013 #73
I would say it is. dkf Jan 2013 #87
Why would anyone want abortion rights restricted? nt valerief Jan 2013 #3
Because they are pro-life, anti-abortion or whatever you call it. dkf Jan 2013 #8
So they shouldn't get abortions. nt valerief Jan 2013 #14
What do YOU call it alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #34
I'm not one for labels. dkf Jan 2013 #90
Seriously. Next thing you know they'll speak out against mosques in NYC. uppityperson Jan 2013 #104
That was a suggestion for PR purposes, not for legal action. dkf Jan 2013 #108
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh. eom uppityperson Jan 2013 #109
use your imagination. try an anti-choice President. cali Jan 2013 #23
Good question. sadbear Jan 2013 #4
Romney said he'd stop funding for planned parenthood. JoePhilly Jan 2013 #17
... RandiFan1290 Jan 2013 #5
No, he could not restrict aboriton rights. Limits on guns are very limited. see link to Atlantic. Agnosticsherbet Jan 2013 #7
I think he could end government contracts to companies who supply certain weapons JoePhilly Jan 2013 #21
I would be interested in seeing him try that.. Agnosticsherbet Jan 2013 #33
Just the threat might cause the gun industry to play ball JoePhilly Jan 2013 #40
Be a violation of Federal Law if he tried ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #110
I suspect there are ways the DFARs could be updated to move in this direction. JoePhilly Jan 2013 #111
Jumpin' the Gun There a Bit, Ma'am, Aint'Cha? The Magistrate Jan 2013 #9
Very Much Jumping The Gun NeedleCast Jan 2013 #24
Well Biden laid it out there with no specifics. dkf Jan 2013 #26
So You Are Talking Through Your Hat, Ma'am The Magistrate Jan 2013 #35
Nothing new with that one, sir. nt Guy Whitey Corngood Jan 2013 #43
exactly nt abelenkpe Jan 2013 #88
Yes, and it was dumb when Biden did it NeedleCast Jan 2013 #69
Of course---teh concern burns. trumad Jan 2013 #55
And the Framing, Sir: 'Support Abortion Rights? can't Be For Gun Control!' The Magistrate Jan 2013 #89
It's a tit for tat world out there. dkf Jan 2013 #91
Obama's very first executive order angelus__ Jan 2013 #10
Transparency. Here is more on it and why he signed that one. uppityperson Jan 2013 #16
To revoke Bushes Executive order of 1/11/2001 azurnoir Jan 2013 #20
Oh, is where you try to convince us this is the EO that keeps his college transcripts and BC secret? PeaceNikki Jan 2013 #32
How do you feel about President Obama? hrmjustin Jan 2013 #46
I know... I sense the farce is strong with this one. n/t Agschmid Jan 2013 #51
He has gone off to the land of PPR. hrmjustin Jan 2013 #94
I'll echo the comment above. It revoked GW Bush's Exec Order that set a 12 year hold on records. pinto Jan 2013 #57
Why do YOU think he did that? Iggo Jan 2013 #60
When Bush made Executive Orders bongbong Jan 2013 #11
Only dictators claim authority to use government power to abolish rights that preexist our jody Jan 2013 #13
This Is Just Pitiful, Sir: Seriously, Pitiful.... The Magistrate Jan 2013 #28
Glad you liked it because it's true. It's PITIFUL that anyone would believe otherwise. nt jody Jan 2013 #39
Your Immediate Recurrence To 'They're Gonna Grab My Gun!' Sir, Is Simply Pitiable The Magistrate Jan 2013 #49
Are insults your best? Why not use facts or perhaps there are none to support your assertion? nt jody Jan 2013 #53
Flat, Factual Description, Sir, Which I Do Not Mind Repeating.... The Magistrate Jan 2013 #56
LOL because insults are all you have. nt jody Jan 2013 #62
You Just Keep Telling Yourself That, Fella.... The Magistrate Jan 2013 #77
Oh, the melodrama! alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #37
Dubya did the same with executive orders and I protested. Did you support him? I didn't. nt jody Jan 2013 #42
Oh. Bull. Shit. Rosco T. Jan 2013 #58
I see you exhausted yourself with that post. nt jody Jan 2013 #64
The idea of natural rights is nice and all, but pretty meaningless in a practical sense. Hosnon Jan 2013 #63
No, states ratified our Constitution only under the condition a Bill of Rights were to be added. nt jody Jan 2013 #66
Well, not "only". Hosnon Jan 2013 #78
I'll stick with SCOTUS' decisions. nt jody Jan 2013 #96
The right to own a gun existed before the Constitution? JoePhilly Jan 2013 #65
Please read and understand SCOTUS UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL. 92 U.S. 542 (1876) nt jody Jan 2013 #68
Wow, you and dkf on the same thread--just awesome! Kingofalldems Jan 2013 #72
The SCOTUS, from time to time, looks back on prior rulings, and then ... JoePhilly Jan 2013 #93
Read DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (2008) citing CRUIKSHANK nt jody Jan 2013 #95
So that case says gun ownership is an inherent right that predates the US Constitution? JoePhilly Jan 2013 #99
Obviously you didn't read Steven's dissent. He cited CRUIKSHANK and did not dispute the Courts jody Jan 2013 #105
If its in his DISSENT, its not included in the Majority opinion ... JoePhilly Jan 2013 #106
Your posts were ultimately to my #13. nt jody Jan 2013 #107
EO's can expand abortion rights - why couldn't they limit them? forestpath Jan 2013 #18
you kind of sneak the "expand the power" in there Enrique Jan 2013 #19
Based on Biden's comments. dkf Jan 2013 #36
Any President can issue any executive order for any reason. randome Jan 2013 #22
So congress has the power to supercede executive orders? dkf Jan 2013 #29
By passing a law. Yes. randome Jan 2013 #41
That is not veto proof! That's a real laugh. nt jody Jan 2013 #44
That's part of the 'checks and balances' thing. randome Jan 2013 #52
I'm not sure authors of our Constitution expected a two-party system with one party holding the jody Jan 2013 #59
Yeah. The system could definitely use some 'tweaking'. randome Jan 2013 #67
No, that's not correct. There are limits to Executive Orders. Xithras Jan 2013 #50
Thanks for the info. randome Jan 2013 #71
Executive orders can limit lots of things. MADem Jan 2013 #27
Drive 55 was done by executive order? dkf Jan 2013 #31
Yes, but the states blew Nixon off--that's why the act was ginned up to snatch back that highway MADem Jan 2013 #45
Perhaps I'm not reading this correctly, what do either have to do with Executive Orders? hughee99 Jan 2013 #54
Drive 55 was preceded by an Executive Order. MADem Jan 2013 #61
executive orders are essentially commands only to the rest of the executive branch unblock Jan 2013 #30
This message was self-deleted by its author jody Jan 2013 #48
You might want to research that further ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #79
Mea culpa, nt jody Jan 2013 #85
There's also the "Stop Enforcing That Law" type of EO.... MADem Jan 2013 #70
Obama could order the federal government, including the US military, to end all contracts with JoePhilly Jan 2013 #47
The manufacturer would simply split the company and produce "separate but equal" guns n ammo. MADem Jan 2013 #80
Have the order include suppliers too. And restrict the board members. JoePhilly Jan 2013 #97
They'd put their spouses on the boards--or their kids. MADem Jan 2013 #100
So let's throw up our hands and do nothing. JoePhilly Jan 2013 #112
No one's advocating that, but trying to make a law limiting commerce is not the answer. MADem Jan 2013 #113
Executive Orders only can apply to employees of Executive Agencies, they are not law. 1-Old-Man Jan 2013 #74
They can affect regular people, when the EO says "Stop enforcing that law." MADem Jan 2013 #83
No. elleng Jan 2013 #76
We will see. I want to see how he does it. Taverner Jan 2013 #81
A reasonalbe and forward-looking question. Skip Intro Jan 2013 #82
If they were so inclined they would do it anyway regardless of this. It did not stop bush still_one Jan 2013 #84
"Have Presidents always had this power but declined to use it?" Spazito Jan 2013 #92
This OP is so transparent, I want to wear it to the Oscars. Robb Jan 2013 #98
I tend to think a step ahead, to judge possible consequences. dkf Jan 2013 #101
Cher--is that you? MADem Jan 2013 #102

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
1. Executive order desegregated the military
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:06 PM
Jan 2013

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

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
25. How so? It sounds like he just wanted people to coordinate things in the White House.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:21 PM
Jan 2013

Am I misreading it?

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
38. It also gives preferences to religious organizations in their efforts to obtain fed funding.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:35 PM
Jan 2013

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

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
86. I'm not defending him anywhere near what the people who support the Bush tax cuts are doing.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:25 PM
Jan 2013

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

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
87. I would say it is.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:26 PM
Jan 2013

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

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
90. I'm not one for labels.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:29 PM
Jan 2013

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

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
108. That was a suggestion for PR purposes, not for legal action.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:58 PM
Jan 2013

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

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
23. use your imagination. try an anti-choice President.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:18 PM
Jan 2013

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

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
17. Romney said he'd stop funding for planned parenthood.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:15 PM
Jan 2013

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

Bush ended federal funding for stem-cell research.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
7. No, he could not restrict aboriton rights. Limits on guns are very limited. see link to Atlantic.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:09 PM
Jan 2013
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.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
21. I think he could end government contracts to companies who supply certain weapons
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:17 PM
Jan 2013

to the civilian population.

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

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
33. I would be interested in seeing him try that..
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:27 PM
Jan 2013

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.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
40. Just the threat might cause the gun industry to play ball
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:37 PM
Jan 2013

and work to find realistic ways of legislating this space.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
111. I suspect there are ways the DFARs could be updated to move in this direction.
Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:58 AM
Jan 2013

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.

The Magistrate

(95,392 posts)
9. Jumpin' the Gun There a Bit, Ma'am, Aint'Cha?
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:09 PM
Jan 2013

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....

The Magistrate

(95,392 posts)
35. So You Are Talking Through Your Hat, Ma'am
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:29 PM
Jan 2013

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

The Magistrate

(95,392 posts)
89. And the Framing, Sir: 'Support Abortion Rights? can't Be For Gun Control!'
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:28 PM
Jan 2013

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

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
91. It's a tit for tat world out there.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:33 PM
Jan 2013

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.

uppityperson

(115,687 posts)
16. Transparency. Here is more on it and why he signed that one.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:15 PM
Jan 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13233
Executive Order 13233[1] 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[2] 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[6] and the American Library Association[7] 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.[17] 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

pinto

(106,886 posts)
57. I'll echo the comment above. It revoked GW Bush's Exec Order that set a 12 year hold on records.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:52 PM
Jan 2013

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

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
11. When Bush made Executive Orders
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:11 PM
Jan 2013

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.

 

jody

(26,624 posts)
13. Only dictators claim authority to use government power to abolish rights that preexist our
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:13 PM
Jan 2013

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.

The Magistrate

(95,392 posts)
49. Your Immediate Recurrence To 'They're Gonna Grab My Gun!' Sir, Is Simply Pitiable
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:44 PM
Jan 2013

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.

The Magistrate

(95,392 posts)
56. Flat, Factual Description, Sir, Which I Do Not Mind Repeating....
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:51 PM
Jan 2013

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.

Hosnon

(7,800 posts)
63. The idea of natural rights is nice and all, but pretty meaningless in a practical sense.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:03 PM
Jan 2013

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.

 

jody

(26,624 posts)
66. No, states ratified our Constitution only under the condition a Bill of Rights were to be added. nt
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:05 PM
Jan 2013

Hosnon

(7,800 posts)
78. Well, not "only".
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:13 PM
Jan 2013

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).

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
65. The right to own a gun existed before the Constitution?
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:04 PM
Jan 2013

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.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
93. The SCOTUS, from time to time, looks back on prior rulings, and then ...
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:47 PM
Jan 2013

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.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
99. So that case says gun ownership is an inherent right that predates the US Constitution?
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:57 PM
Jan 2013

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

Big Surprise there.

 

jody

(26,624 posts)
105. Obviously you didn't read Steven's dissent. He cited CRUIKSHANK and did not dispute the Courts
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:14 PM
Jan 2013

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".



JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
106. If its in his DISSENT, its not included in the Majority opinion ...
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:31 PM
Jan 2013

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.

 

forestpath

(3,102 posts)
18. EO's can expand abortion rights - why couldn't they limit them?
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:16 PM
Jan 2013

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

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
19. you kind of sneak the "expand the power" in there
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:16 PM
Jan 2013

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

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
36. Based on Biden's comments.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:29 PM
Jan 2013

"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

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
22. Any President can issue any executive order for any reason.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:18 PM
Jan 2013

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

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
52. That's part of the 'checks and balances' thing.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:48 PM
Jan 2013

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.

 

jody

(26,624 posts)
59. I'm not sure authors of our Constitution expected a two-party system with one party holding the
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:00 PM
Jan 2013

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.

Xithras

(16,191 posts)
50. No, that's not correct. There are limits to Executive Orders.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:44 PM
Jan 2013

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.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
71. Thanks for the info.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:09 PM
Jan 2013

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.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
27. Executive orders can limit lots of things.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:23 PM
Jan 2013

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.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
45. Yes, but the states blew Nixon off--that's why the act was ginned up to snatch back that highway
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:40 PM
Jan 2013

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.)

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
54. Perhaps I'm not reading this correctly, what do either have to do with Executive Orders?
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:49 PM
Jan 2013

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

MADem

(135,425 posts)
61. Drive 55 was preceded by an Executive Order.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:01 PM
Jan 2013

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.

unblock

(52,880 posts)
30. executive orders are essentially commands only to the rest of the executive branch
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:24 PM
Jan 2013

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.


Response to unblock (Reply #30)

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
79. You might want to research that further
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:15 PM
Jan 2013

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

MADem

(135,425 posts)
70. There's also the "Stop Enforcing That Law" type of EO....
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:09 PM
Jan 2013

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.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
47. Obama could order the federal government, including the US military, to end all contracts with
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:42 PM
Jan 2013

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.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
80. The manufacturer would simply split the company and produce "separate but equal" guns n ammo.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:16 PM
Jan 2013

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!

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
97. Have the order include suppliers too. And restrict the board members.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:54 PM
Jan 2013

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.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
100. They'd put their spouses on the boards--or their kids.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:00 PM
Jan 2013

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.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
112. So let's throw up our hands and do nothing.
Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:00 AM
Jan 2013

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.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
113. No one's advocating that, but trying to make a law limiting commerce is not the answer.
Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:10 AM
Jan 2013

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.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
83. They can affect regular people, when the EO says "Stop enforcing that law."
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:19 PM
Jan 2013

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

elleng

(132,285 posts)
76. No.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:12 PM
Jan 2013

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.

Skip Intro

(19,768 posts)
82. A reasonalbe and forward-looking question.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:17 PM
Jan 2013

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.

still_one

(92,766 posts)
84. If they were so inclined they would do it anyway regardless of this. It did not stop bush
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:19 PM
Jan 2013

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

Spazito

(50,999 posts)
92. "Have Presidents always had this power but declined to use it?"
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:36 PM
Jan 2013

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



 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
101. I tend to think a step ahead, to judge possible consequences.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:03 PM
Jan 2013

I'm not a leap first type of person.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If an executive order can...