Skip to main content

View Diary: This guy right here ... (753 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, in a government that follows the rule of law (11+ / 0-)

    Executive Orders are only constitutionally valid if they are executing on actual, real laws Congress passes.

    The President can't just (legally, or constitutionally) issue an Executive Order for any old reason or to do any old thing.

    •  ... (15+ / 0-)

      http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/...

      A presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty.

      The president's power to issue executive orders comes from Congress and the U.S. Constitution.

      Executive orders do not require congressional approval.

      "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

      by indycam on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 01:35:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Precisely. (6+ / 0-)
        implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty.
        What I said was
        He can certainly focus resources on enforcing existing laws (and he should).  But the President can't make law.

        "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

        by JesseCW on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:44:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vcmvo2
          There's not the slightest hint that he's even considering such a power grab, such a blatant violation of the separation of powers.

          "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

          by indycam on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:18:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The President cannot make law, and there's (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poligirl, triv33, 43north

            no hint that he intends to try to do so.

            My personal belief is that we ought to just import the whole package of Canadian firearms laws with a few tweaks here and there - but if the President tried to do that through an Executive Order you can bet your ass I'd be protesting.

            There's not the slightest hint that he's even considering such a power grab, such a blatant violation of the separation of powers.

            Where's you point of confusion?

            "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

            by JesseCW on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:48:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Is an Executive Order (0+ / 0-)

              "a blatant violation of the separation of powers" ?

              "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

              by indycam on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:57:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Are you going to continue to pretend that most (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                poligirl, 43north

                of my comment simply does not exist, and if so, why?

                "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

                by JesseCW on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:17:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Is my question to difficult to answer directly ? (0+ / 0-)
                  Is an Executive Order
                  "a blatant violation of the separation of powers" ?

                  "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                  by indycam on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:40:04 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Are you acting dense just to troll (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    43north, buddabelly

                    me or is this genuine confusion on your part?

                    Are you asking me if no Executive Order can ever be a blatant violation of the separation of powers, or if all Executive Orders are always a blatant violation of the separation of powers?

                    If a person of good faith and even modest intelligence reads my original comment, the answer to both of those questions is extremely clear.

                    I have to assume that you're asking me some other question, or that you cannot read my entire comment as one cohesive statement, or that you honestly don't understand the issues under discussion.

                    "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

                    by JesseCW on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:50:00 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Your abuse is not going unnoticed . (0+ / 0-)

                      If you can't control yourself and act like a grown up ...

                      You typed out a comment .
                      In it was the sentence ,
                      it was separated from the rest by an empty line .
                      This separation means what in your view ?
                      That it is connected or disconnected ?

                      See this ?

                      Power Grab ? (13+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                          Jim M, Crabby Abbey, poleshifter, smartdemmg, sethtriggs, Lying eyes, wishingwell, reflectionsv37, murrayewv, KayCeSF, Buckeye Nut Schell, Kentucky Kid, vcmvo2
                      Do all these people deserve abuse from you also ?

                      "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                      by indycam on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:10:26 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You're seriously pretending that you're being (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        buddabelly

                        "abused"?

                        I suppose that beats admitting what's really happening here.

                        I'm now convinced this isn't an act on your part.

                        "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

                        by JesseCW on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:22:48 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  What do you call this ? (0+ / 0-)
                          Are you acting dense just to troll
                          me or is this genuine confusion on your part?
                          I call it abuse from you .
                          You are not talking about the subject , you have started abusing me .

                          "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                          by indycam on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:34:33 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I cannot resolve your confusion if it is feigned. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            annieli, buddabelly

                            Since I've explained the same thing to you at least three different ways in the last three hours, you're either jerking my chain or I am unable to explain it to you.

                            At this point, I feel justified in inquiring which is the case.

                            When you decided to pretend to be some sort of martyr simply because you don't understand (or pretend not to understand) some very simple statements, it just adds to my suspension that you're amusing yourself.

                            At this point, it looks like you're just looking for a chance to pretend to be an aggrieved lil' victim.

                            If I honestly was unable to explain simple concepts in a way you could understand, then I am very, very sorry.

                            "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

                            by JesseCW on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:46:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  and I notice you still haven't answed the question (0+ / 0-)
                      Is an Executive Order
                      "a blatant violation of the separation of powers" ?

                      "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                      by indycam on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:12:49 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  . (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        buddabelly
                        Are you asking me if no Executive Order can ever be a blatant violation of the separation of powers, or if all Executive Orders are always a blatant violation of the separation of powers?
                        Do you understand the distinction I am making or are you confused by it?

                        "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

                        by JesseCW on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:24:29 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So you answer with a question ? (0+ / 0-)

                          How about just answering the question ?

                          Here is the question again .

                          Is an Executive Order
                          "a blatant violation of the separation of powers" ?
                          Please answer the question without providing another question . Don't dodge the question by asking if I'm confused . Don't dodge the question , just answer straight up without any games .

                          "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                          by indycam on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:38:45 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  this is absolutely classic indycam, yes they troll (0+ / 0-)

                          just to troll as far as I have been able to tell....

                          Seems to enjoy reasking the question you have answered as long as you will keep playing....

                          Never did understand the point except maybe trolling for trollings sake......

                          Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
                          I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
                          Emiliano Zapata

                          by buddabelly on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:55:45 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

      •  They don't require approval, but they do (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW, poligirl, 43north

        require a basis in the Constitution, i.e. powers explicitly granted to the Executive in that document, or legislation passed by Congress (e.g. laws, treaties that have been ratified).

        He can't just write new law with Executive Orders. At least not legally.

        •  indycam cited Nixon. (0+ / 0-)
          1969: Executive Order 11478: Prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, or age in the competitive service of the federal civilian workforce, which includes civilians employed by the armed forces and by federal contractors and contractors performing under federally assisted construction contracts.[12] Some categories were added by Executive Order 13087 in 1998 and Executive Order 13152 in 2000.
          Thus, by E.O. Nixon banned discrimination.  
          Oh, wait... that was how many years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act?  Five?
          Crap.  
          I think indycam just answered his own question as to limitations on Presidential Powers.
    •  Right (19+ / 0-)

      So while Obama could use an executive order to require all gun sales to do background checks, and to prosecute any dealer or individual who sells a gun without doing so, that's not writing new law.

      That law exists. Now, if you put ATF agents at all gun shows to ensure that that law is being followed, it would take about a month before there wouldn't be any gun shows.

      He could likely institute a buy back program as well, since I don't think new law would be required for that. Finding the money might be problematic, but I suspect they might find some money in the DOJ and DHS for it.

      •  Try finding enough ATF agents. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Susipsych, sethtriggs, PsychoSavannah

        It's been defunded and beheaded by the GOP. It's a hollow shell.

        "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

        by sidnora on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:30:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why do you think gun shows wouldn't exist anymore? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buddabelly

        I have never once bought a gun at one in which I didn't have to do a background check.  Matter of fact, most dealers there won't even allow me to handle a weapon for more than a second without asking for my licence to hold, while I do so.  It is a huge myth that there are incredible amounts of private sales going on at gun shows.  Most of the time you might see 3 or 4 lone guys walking around with a sign that has a gun listed and a price.

         Only those kind of private sales fall under the category of no background check.  Everyone is conducting them.

      •  How so? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annieli, buddabelly, KVoimakas

        The legislative authority for all Federal background checks lies in the 1968 Gun Control Act, which specifically exempts intrastate transfers not conducted by an FFL.

        In other words, no, he can't.

        --Shannon

        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

        by Leftie Gunner on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:24:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  If law was working, this nut would be locked-up (6+ / 0-)

      as menace to society.

    •  President Obama instituted a limited Dream Act (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, sethtriggs

      through Excutive Order.

      **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

      by glorificus on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 02:36:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site