Exec Orders and Gun Control

[PlayboyPenguin]

Well heck..lets start here....List of United States federal executive orders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I bet we can find out all kind of freedoms they can take away...I meant protections for the greater good of Americans.

Wow, leave it to you to mislead and misdirect. You cut and past a bunch of stuff you do not even understand and I bet you still can't tell me the limits of executive order without looking it up.

 

[Partsproduction]

Wow, leave it to you to mislead and misdirect.

Yeah, anyone who doesn't agree with the party line is an idiot, right.

Assuming obummer voters who actually value the bill of rights exist, I'm wondering what it would take before they actually WAKE UP!

 

[salmonriverjohn]

Wow, leave it to you to mislead and misdirect. You cut and past a bunch of stuff you do not even understand and I bet you still can't tell me the limits of executive order without looking it up.

Well constitutional professor, were waiting. Perhaps you shall bestow upon us this great wealth of knowledge you have. I for one would love to hear your depictions of its limitations,,,

 

[Father of four]

Wow, leave it to you to mislead and misdirect. You cut and past a bunch of stuff you do not even understand and I bet you still can't tell me the limits of executive order without looking it up.

Mislead and misdirect? How so?

I don't understand which part? The parts where the federal government is working with the state to coincide the twos agendas? Or the parts I pointed out that says in a nut shell that the feds will do what they want if no agreement can be made. In essence "preempting" states rights with federal rights.

You are right, I do cut and paste stuff for everyone to see and make their own judgements.

And BTW...I really do not think that there are limits of executive orders. I have not looked it up, and I don't think I would believe it anyways. I believe the president will make the exec orders if he feels he needs too and even work around congress to fulfill his agendas.

 

[Father of four]

I guess I am stupid because I do not know everything. Yep, you got me I admit it.

 

[skydiver]

Ask my wife if you want to know anything about executive orders. She gives them to me everyday!

 

[Father of four]

 

[salmonriverjohn]

I guess I am stupid because I do not know everything. Yep, you got me I admit it.

Don't go there, demeaning others seems to be the specialty of some around here.

 

[fd15k]

Sorta like this one?...Executive Order 13132 - Wikisource, the free online library

"Sec. 4. Special Requirements for Preemption.

Agencies, in taking action that preempts State law, shall act in strict accordance with governing law.

(a) Agencies shall construe, in regulations and otherwise, a Federal statute to preempt State law only where the statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other clear evidence that the Congress intended preemption of State law, or where the exercise of State authority conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute.

(b) Where a Federal statute does not preempt State law (as addressed in subsection (a) of this section), agencies shall construe any authorization in the statute for the issuance of regulations as authorizing preemption of State law by rulemaking only when the exercise of State authority directly conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute or there is clear evidence to conclude that the Congress intended the agency to have the authority to preempt State law.

(c) Any regulatory preemption of State law shall be restricted to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the statute pursuant to which the regulations are promulgated.

(d) When an agency foresees the possibility of a conflict between State law and Federally protected interests within its area of regulatory responsibility, the agency shall consult, to the extent practicable, with appropriate State and local officials in an effort to avoid such a conflict.

(e) When an agency proposes to act through adjudication or rulemaking to preempt State law, the agency shall provide all affected State and local officials notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the proceedings."


Clearly there is nothing in them executive orders that the people in their states should worry about. That word "preempt" really does not mean what we think it means. The feds wouldn't possibly "preempt" state laws now would they?

I think you misunderstood this text. It is an instruction to the agencies under the Executive branch on how to handle conflicts between State and Federal laws. This in itself doesn't create any law, or preempts any state law. Instead it clarifies how to determine whether the State law is preempted, and what are the limits on such preemption.

 

[Just Me]

He is also sworn to uphold the constitution and failure to do so is impeachable!

Yeah, well the president is also supposed to be natural born in America. Look how that argument went. Holding him to the Constitution won't happen, he is above all.

 

[fd15k]

Yeah, well the president is also supposed to be natural born in America. Look how that argument went. Holding him to the Constitution won't happen, he is above all.

Maybe Sheriff Joe can double check Obama's medical records for the signs of a c-section...

 

[Grunwald]

Maybe Sheriff Joe can double check Obama's medical records for the signs of a c-section...

Make fun of it all you like but the facts are that Obama's lawyers fought to keep every single case, that questioned his eligibility for the office of president, from going to trial.
The Obama team provided his "birth certificate" to friendly media outlets where discovery of forgery was highly unlikely and carried zero legal liability.
To really put the issue to rest all he had to do is present his proof in a court of law where it can be examined by the plaintiff's experts and carries the legal danger for presenting false evidence.
He has chosen not to do that. Do I know that he is not eligible for the office he holds? No, I do not, but I do find his actions suspicious.

 

[Baggerman]

I have read all the posts and have stayed out of the discussion but would like to add one thing to think about. For approximately 3 years Obama said he did not have the authority to force the issue of the dream act that congress would not pass. He signed an EO that went around congress and in essence the dream act became law. Congress be damned, he will do what ever he thinks he can get away with and I expect this time will be no different.

 

[fd15k]

I have read all the posts and have stayed out of the discussion but would like to add one thing to think about. For approximately 3 years Obama said he did not have the authority to force the issue of the dream act that congress would not pass. He signed an EO that went around congress and in essence the dream act became law. Congress be damned, he will do what ever he thinks he can get away with and I expect this time will be no different.

You're misrepresenting it. Executive branch is in charge of enforcing laws that are created by Congress. The loophole is that the President can instruct the agencies not to enforce certain laws for whatever reason. The law stays the same, enforcement changes. Congress has ability to apply pressure and change that, but often chooses not to. This is also common practice at other levels of the government, from the city all the way to the feds.

 

[Father of four]

I think you misunderstood this text. It is an instruction to the agencies under the Executive branch on how to handle conflicts between State and Federal laws. "the federal government is working with the state to coincide the twos agendas?"


This in itself doesn't create any law, or preempts any state law. Right but read Sec 5.

Agencies shall not submit to the Congress legislation that would:


(c) preempt State law, unless preemption is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles set forth in section 2, and unless a clearly legitimate national purpose, consistent with the federalism policymaking criteria set forth in section 3, cannot otherwise be met."

Instead it clarifies how to determine whether the State law is preempted, and what are the limits on such preemption. Yes, what regulations the agency should show congress, but also...how the fed can preempt the state if needed.

That is just a little of it. I could write a long explanation of it but We all should just read the whole executive order and understand that the feds via the executive order has the ability to 'preempt' state. That is what it is saying. The fed wants to work with the states rights, the agency of the fed may come up with ideas, they will try to stay away from the states rights but if they cant they will give the state a warning about the new regulation or changes and if the state and the fed cant come to an agreement then the fed will preempt the states rights.

 

[RICKRWS]

Obama and Biden are going to do what they do best. Waste the taxpayers money and do nothing. They do not have the power to change anything.

 

[fd15k]

That is just a little of it. I could write a long explanation of it but We all should just read the whole executive order and understand that the feds via the executive order has the ability to 'preempt' state. That is what it is saying. The fed wants to work with the states rights, the agency of the fed may come up with ideas, they will try to stay away from the states rights but if they cant they will give the state a warning about the new regulation or changes and if the state and the fed cant come to an agreement then the fed will preempt the states rights.

And section 5 only instructs agencies on what proposals to submit to Congress. In the end, it is up to the Congress to create the law, texts you have cited do not create any laws.

 

[fd15k]

Obama and Biden are going to do what they do best. Waste the taxpayers money and do nothing. They do not have the power to change anything.

Last time I checked, it was Congress to pass the budget, including for the needs of the Executive branch.

 

[Father of four]

I'll break this one section down...

Sec 5. Special Requirements for Legislative Proposals.

Agencies shall not submit to the Congress legislation that would: (c) preempt State law,

a. unless preemption is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles set forth in section 2,

b. unless a clearly legitimate national purpose, consistent with the federalism policymaking criteria set forth in section 3, cannot otherwise be met.


Which mean the fed can and will "preempt" state laws rule and regulations if needed and offer legislative to the congress.

 

[Father of four]

And section 5 only instructs agencies on what proposals to submit to Congress. In the end, it is up to the Congress to create the law, texts you have cited do not create any laws.

It is not the creating of the laws that is disturbing in that executive order. It is the ability of the fed, its agency and the congress to circumvent the rights of the state.