Biden: Obama considering "Executive Order" To Deal with Guns

[No1]

If they ban assault rifles im voting republican next election. These dems wanna be your fukkin daddy when you dont even want them to. Like no im good dawg seriously but here they come

*no no i have to protect you from nerds like adam lanza*

Nah seriously dawg ima just cop a rifle and some pistols and give lanza that work if its on like that.

*no no you shouldnt do that, let me protect you. I'll save you. If i let you have guns well more lanzas are going to show up*

Someones in Obamas ear making him look like a suckuh again.

Really shuckin n jivin out there.

The last assault rifle ban didn't expire until like 2004...you were out there putting in work for the cause huh

But I respect that you're just against the bans in general. I thought you were one of those "oh no, he's over stepping constitutional grounds...............by threatening to do something that we're not sure of yet" people. I'm never going to be down for citizens with assault rifles. It is, what it is.

 

[Type Username Here]

The last assault rifle ban didn't expire until like 2004...you were out there putting in work for the cause huh

But I respect that you're just against the bans in general. I thought you were one of those "oh no, he's over stepping constitutional grounds...............by threatening to do something that we're not sure of yet" people. I'm never going to be down for citizens with assault rifles. It is, what it is.

What Constitutional grounds does the president have on issuing an executive order on this issue? Is there a precedent?

 

[No1]

What Constitutional grounds does the president have on issuing an executive order on this issue? Is there a precedent?

Before anything, where are your constitutional grounds to say he cannot? Executive orders are limited in scope, not substance. If there was a federal bill passed tomorrow that banned assault rifles the president could pass an executive order executing that ban in a specific way if he so chose (without getting overly technical)....which would probably involve delegating it to an agency where they would interpret the law and carry out the procedure in a specific fashion. That's the problem, you jumped and ran into your "i'm not surprised" bit without even understanding or knowing what the issue is and I don't know what it is yet either because none of us know what the attorneys in the US attorneys are thinking about doing. There does not need to be a precedent, that just makes cases stronger, but novel interpretations happen all the time.

Look at the debt ceiling debate and all the Democrats imploring the president to just use the constitution in a way in has never been used before. The fact is, I'm no expert on 2nd amendment jurisprudence, it has yet to interest me undergrad or law school, but I know the basic principle of waiting until an issue develops before responding to it. I can't feel either way right now. I don't get how anyone except the Wal-Marts and NRAs that are at that negotiating table can.

 

[jackswstd]

Obeezy should just go head and make himself Supreme Ruler, piss off the cacs even further

 

[Type Username Here]

Before anything, where are your constitutional grounds to say he cannot? Executive orders are limited in scope, not substance. If there was a federal bill passed tomorrow that banned assault rifles the president could pass an executive order executing that ban in a specific way if he so chose (without getting overly technical)....which would probably involve delegating it to an agency where they would interpret the law and carry out the procedure in a specific fashion. That's the problem, you jumped and ran into your "i'm not surprised" bit without even understanding or knowing what the issue is and I don't know what it is yet either because none of us know what the attorneys in the US attorneys are thinking about doing. There does not need to be a precedent, that just makes cases stronger, but novel interpretations happen all the time.

Look at the debt ceiling debate and all the Democrats imploring the president to just use the constitution in a way in has never been used before. The fact is, I'm no expert on 2nd amendment jurisprudence, it has yet to interest me undergrad or law school, but I know the basic principle of waiting until an issue develops before responding to it. I can't feel either way right now. I don't get how anyone except the Wal-Marts and NRAs that are at that negotiating table can.

You're right. I should wait. I'm making a leap based on his past behavior.

That being said, I was under the impression the President only had domain over certain issues in executing an executive order: certain issues regarding the country's economy, the military, and several others which I have forgotten.

The way Biden worded it seemed as if he was going to use the order to push this through no matter what.

 

[Type Username Here]

Just from wiki:

U.S. Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789, usually to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law, since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution. However, these perceived justifications cited by Presidents when authoring Executive Orders have come under criticism for exceeding Executive authority; at various times throughout U.S. history, challenges to the legal validity or justification for an order have resulted in legal proceedings.

U.S. presidents have issued executive orders since 1785. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties, the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.

 

[aqualung]

Obama ain't gone do SHEEEEEIT about guns except let these yt school kids kill each other. It aint nothin' compared to the black-on-black violence he was surrounded by in Chicago.

BHO provided Obamacare so that psychiatric pills would be more accessible. If yt suburban folk **still** wanna go OFF their meds, then that might just be deh chickens comin' home to ROOST. u_u

New year new you, deranged yt ppl.

--> aq out <--

 

[ROFL_GUY]

"When any nation mistrusts it's citizens with guns , it is sending a clear message that it no longer trusts it's citizenry , because such a government has evil plans"

-George Washington-

 

[No1]

Just from wiki:

The wiki quotes prove the point of my initial response to GreatScott and Mowgli. I said executive orders usually pertain to: federal laws or statutes, treaties or constitutional provisions.

That's why I said I can't critique because I don't know where they are going for the authority. I personally just think it's Biden blowing smoke to prove a point, and to get everyone to the table to earnestly talk about what should be done. Given the splintered government, I think you end up with legislation that requires greater registration and bans on assault rifles in very broad language which administrative agencies then interpret the way the president wants them to. It'll be a case of being purposefully vague to get legislation through and you'll hear a lot of posturing and debating on both sides just to get it all on the congressional record so if the inevitable challenge arises, it will be there on the record.