What's new

Executive Order

He can if Congress lets him.
No, he can not.

If anyone brings a suit, he would lose. If congress would "allow" it is a moot point. Unless they pass a law overriding SCOTUS case law, or repeal the second amendment, the order would fail.

Obama taught constitutional law. He knows what he could get by and not get by.

An assult weapons ban is not one of them. He could prohibit them from being used by Federal Agencies under an EO.
 
Congress doesnt have the power, they are part of the process, any changes to the amendments have to go to each state also.


The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.
 
Like I said.....he can do what he wants to........its up to Congress to look the other way or do something about it.
 
He cannot issue an executive order that is illegal or goes against the constitution.
 
I'll say it again, the US govt has plenty of enemies who would be happy to arm anyone who wants to overthrow it. Just like they (foreign govts) did during the revolution.

you gun enthusiasts keep saying we already have enough gun laws but every day you are proven wrong. You claim you have a constitutional right to bear arms. But we can change that right for you.

Our great military is getting it asses, arms and legs handed to them by iliterate afghanis who can improvise.

the tyranny argument is empty

First, I don't own or possess a gun or firearm.
Now what exactly would the laws do? Eliminate particular guns? Eliminate ALL guns? Whose guns are you going to eventually take away? I doubt those who intend to do you harm will give up their firearms. Only the honest citizens will have their guns removed. The criminal and the insane will still have their guns and assault rifles.

Then by your own words, if the iliterate afghanis can improvise, don't you think that the criminal geniuses can do better?

We live in a violent society and living in a picket fence community where you're an armchair warrior, won't give solutions to the violence.
 
A presidential executive order (EO) is a directive issued to federal agencies, department heads, or other federal employees by the President of the United States under his statutory or constitutional powers.

In many ways, presidential executive orders are similar to written orders, or instructions issued by the president of a corporation to its department heads or directors.

Thirty days after being published in the Federal Register, executive orders become law. While they do bypass the U.S. Congress and the standard legislative law making process, no part of an executive order may direct the agencies to conduct illegal or unconstitutional activities.
 
No he cant, he doesnt have the authority to change the constitution, is that too hard to comprehend?
 
No he cant, he doesnt have the authority to change the constitution, is that too hard to comprehend?

Its your comprehension that is afoul. I never said anything about changing the Constitution or the 2nd amendment.

I used a little keyword in my first post 'circumvent'. You know....."go around".

And you miss the point that he can do as he wishes until Congress and/or the Supreme Court stop him.
 
First, I don't own or possess a gun or firearm.
Now what exactly would the laws do? Eliminate particular guns? Eliminate ALL guns? Whose guns are you going to eventually take away? I doubt those who intend to do you harm will give up their firearms. Only the honest citizens will have their guns removed. The criminal and the insane will still have their guns and assault rifles.

Then by your own words, if the iliterate afghanis can improvise, don't you think that the criminal geniuses can do better?

We live in a violent society and living in a picket fence community where you're an armchair warrior, won't give solutions to the violence.

I don't own a gun either. I wouldn't want to rip all guns away from people. My brother is different from me...he has lots of guns. Tens of thousands of dollars worth. But you know what he DOESN'T have? An assault rifle. They tend to take the "sport" out of hunting and he feels his 44 magnum will protect him from any intruder to his home. But if we say "who really needs an assault rifle", we get lectures about how we have the right to protect us from our own government. Here's a tip...your government has a freaking H-Bomb - your AK47 won't help much if they REALLY want to oppress you. And in the 230+ years, not a single American (of sound mind anyway) has had to need to rise up against their government. Hunting rifles were meant to hunt wild game. Handguns were to provide personal protection. Automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles were designed to do one thing....kill lots of people in a very short time. And I would support a ban on individuals owning those guns.
 
Murders in U.S 2011:

By gun 8583
By other means 4081
Total: 12664

U.S. deaths by automobile 2011
32,367

Clearly the automobile has got to be banned. Those things are killers.
 
Murders in U.S 2011:

By gun 8583
By other means 4081
Total: 12664

U.S. deaths by automobile 2011
32,367

Clearly the automobile has got to be banned. Those things are killers.

Now lets take your silly example to the other extreme....having some bonehead who "bump fires" an AR15 for "sport" is akin to driving my car down the sidewalk at 70 mph....the only thing I'm going to accomplish is killing lots of people in a very short time.
 
A car wasnt designed to kill, a firearm and assault weapons were.

Big difference.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top