Obama confirms he will bypass Congress on gun control - National Government | Examiner.com

 

Rand Paul reacts:

I'm against having a king. I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress -- that's someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch.

 

I've been opposed to executive orders, even with Republican presidents. But one that wants to infringe on the Second Amendment, we will fight tooth and nail.

I think Rand Paul's a certifiable looney, but I agree with him on this and I'm happy he might be willing take a stand.

 

There's only one group of people equipped to put a stop to the century-long rise of executive power and that group has been, up to now, unwilling to do so. That group is the United States Congress. Historically, they've been happy to cede power to the executive whenever the executive is in their party and decry it otherwise. As least Paul has the right idea: it's only going to get worse as long as the attitude of "it's my guy and I like the thing he's doing" continues.

 

I'm skeptical anything actually changes here, but I hope otherwise.

What is the penalty for disobeying an 'Executive Order' as a non-government, non-military member? Can EOs be directed at non-government, non-military Citizens? Who enforces such order for non-government, non-military members?

The Jackson County KY Sheriff says he will defy any EO that he feels violates the Constitution.

What would be the nature of the executive order he would issue?

I read that only 2 EOs have ever been overturned by the Supreme Court.

I read that only 2 EOs have ever been overturned by the Supreme Court.

 

One I know was in the 50s, when someone had the bright idea of trying to nationalize the entire American steel industry.

 

I'm pretty sure the other was the early Rehnquist court fighting with Clinton about something.

 

... so they're almost never overturned by the courts and given the manner in which it has to be done, almost impossible for Congress to undo.

One I know was in the 50s, when someone had the bright idea of trying to nationalize the entire American steel industry.

 

I'm pretty sure the other was the early Rehnquist court fighting with Clinton about something.

 

Correct. President Clinton tried to bar govt contracts with companies that hired strike breakers.

Correct. President Clinton tried to bar govt contracts with companies that hired strike breakers.

 

There's so much really good jurisprudence that comes from that Rehnquist court in the early- to mid-90s when his vision for the court was coming squarely against Clinton's vision for the Office of the President and the government in general. Really good stuff.

Are not EOs government to government directives?

 

If an EO says Walmat do not sell ammo and Walmarts ignores it how is it enforced? No law has been broken. EOs are not laws.

There's so much really good jurisprudence that comes from that Rehnquist court in the early- to mid-90s when his vision for the court was coming squarely against Clinton's vision for the Office of the President and the government in general. Really good stuff.

 

Did you read "Turning Right: Making of the Rehnquist Supreme Court?" Good read.

 

Booknotes :: Watch

Are not EOs government to government directives?

 

If an EO says Walmat do not sell ammo and Walmarts ignores it how is it enforced? No law has been broken. EOs are not laws.

 

Not by definition but they carry the full force of the law behind them as they're usually issued pursuant to an enabling act. I don't know how this could possibly be phrased or what enabling act or inherent power of the office it will draw on. For me, I don't know how he could use EO's to initiate greater gun control, but I guess we'll find out.

Are not EOs government to government directives?

 

If an EO says Walmat do not sell ammo and Walmarts ignores it how is it enforced? No law has been broken. EOs are not laws.

 

EOs can be considered equal to law. If it has support from Congress it is generally considered to be law. If it's not it depends on how Congress has acted in the past regarding the subject at hand. My guess is your Walmart example would not meet the criteria.

EOs can be considered equal to law. If it has support from Congress it is generally considered to be law. If it's not it depends on how Congress has acted in the past regarding the subject at hand. My guess is your Walmart example would not meet the criteria.

 

What enabling act or constitutional power of the presidency would any such order be based on? I have a really hard time believing that a court would let stand an executive order so sweeping that isn't based on something pretty concrete.

What enabling act or constitutional power of the presidency would any such order be based on? I have a really hard time believing that a court would let stand an executive order so sweeping that isn't based on something pretty concrete.

 

We agree if you're talking about the Walmart example.