» 15 Comments

  1. Seig Heil

    January 14th, 2013

    I wonder why he wants to get rid of guns? What is he up too?

    Thumb up +9

     
  2. Dagney

    January 14th, 2013

    EXECUTIVE ORDERS (EOs) agains guns coming your way!

    THE EXCEPTION WILL BECOME THE NORM. THE CONSTITUTION WILL BE INACTIVE FOREVER.

    Article 1 of the Constitution establishes that “the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, UNLESS when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it” — but it does not specify which authority has the jurisdiction to decide on the suspension.

    Another passage of Article 1 declares that the power to DECLARE WAR and to raise and support the army and navy rests with Congress, BUT Article 2 states that “the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”

    Here are a few instances of past presidents that used EO; I’m providing them here so as to understand the role of Executive Orders in past situations of emergency.

    The main difference between Lincoln, Wilson (a really nefarious President, responsible for the Federal Reserve and antichristian acts) and FDR, — is that Obama’s executive order will be PERMANENT, FOREVER, without any grandfather clause.

    LINCOLN
    During the Civil War (1861–1865), Lincoln acted counter to the text of Article 1 (on April 15, 1861) by proclaiming that an army was to be raised; he convened a special session of Congress for July 4. In the ten weeks that passed between April 15 and July 4, Lincoln acted de facto as a TOTAL DICTATOR. On April 27, Lincoln authorized the General in Chief of the Army to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus whenever he deemed it necessary along the military line between Washington and Philadelphia. Furthermore, on February 1862, Lincoln imposed censorship of the mail and authorized the arrest and detention in military prisons of persons suspected of “disloyal and treasonable practices”.

    In the speech he delivered to Congress July 4 1861, President Lincoln justified his actions as the holder of a supreme power to violate the Constitution in a situation of necessity:

    “Whether strictly legal or not, [the measures he had adopted had been taken] under what appeared to be a popular demand and a public necessity” in the certainty that Congress would ratify them. Those exceptional measures were based on the conviction that even fundamental, natural law could be violated IF the very existence of the union and the juridical order were at stake:

    “Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated?”
    –Lincoln

    Although Congress was aware that the constitutional jurisdictions had been transgressed, it could do nothing but ratify the actions of the President (it did on August 6, 1861). Strengthened by this approval, Lincoln proclaimed on September the emancipation of the slaves on his authority alone and later generalized the STATE OF EMERGENCY throughout the entire territory of the United States, authorizing the arrest and trial before courts martial of “all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of the United States.”

    WILSON
    During World War One President Wilson assumed broader powers than those Lincoln had claimed. However, instead of ignoring Congress, as Lincoln had done, Wilson had those extraordinary powers delegated to him by Congress. Instead of declaring a state of emergency, he had exceptional laws issued. From 1917 to 1918, Congress approved a series of acts (from the Espionage Act of 1917 to the Departmental Reorganization Act of 1918) that granted the President COMPLETE CONTROL over the administration of the United States and not only prohibited disloyal activities (such as collaboration with the enemy and the diffusion of false reports), but even made it a crime to “willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States” (from the Sedition Act of 1918).

    FDR
    Since the power of the President is grounded in the emergency linked to a state of war, the metaphor of war became a part of the presidential vocabulary whenever decisions considered to be of vital importance are being imposed.

    In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was able to assume extraordinary powers by presenting his actions as those of a Commander in Chief during a military campaign:

    “I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.…I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken Nation in the midst of a stricken world may require.…But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take [the necessary measures] and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”
    –Franklin D. Roosevelt, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933

    From the constitutional point of view, the New Deal was realized by delegating to the President (through a series of statutes culminating in the National Recovery Act of June 1933) an UNLIMITED POWER to CONTROL every aspect of the economic life.

    The outbreak of World War Two extended these powers with the creation of a “Office of Emergency Management” [the ancestor of today's FEMA]. On September 7, 1942, FDR renewed his claim to TOTAL CONTROL during the emergency:

    “In the event that the Congress should fail to act, and act adequately, I shall accept the responsibility, and I will act.…The American people can…be sure that I shall not hesitate to use every power vested in me to accomplish the defeat of our enemies in any part of the world where our own safety demands such defeat.”

    On February 19, 1942, the FDR administration proceeded with the internment of seventy thousand American citizens of Japanese descent who resided on the West Coast (along with forty thousand Japanese citizens who lived and worked there).

    Thumb up +8

     
  3. Dagney

    January 14th, 2013

    I took this from a post I crafted there: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2975695/posts?q=1&;page=201

    Thumb up +5

     
  4. I have a red bushy strip midline on my helmet

    January 14th, 2013

    “Molon Labe” has never been less of a cliche than it’s about to be.

    Thumb up +3

     
  5. Dagney

    January 14th, 2013

    So when lefties will say, “yes, but Lincoln did it,” — we say: “yes, but Lincoln did not try to make an exception PERMANENT.”

    He did not want to become a total dictator forever. The emergency had a clear expiration date; once the war is over, the exception is no more. The same goes with Wilson.

    FDR is more tricky. He could not have enacted the New Deal without dictatorial powers, the Social Security and the National Rifle Act are still here to haunt us.

    The lefties are declaring a war on guns, and they want this war to be PERMANENT.

    They want the exception to become the norm. Forever.

    That’s why a hot war is inevitable.

    Noteworthy Comment Thumb up +12

     
  6. Poonces

    January 14th, 2013

    Hopfully what he can do without Congress, a future President can undo the same way.

    Thumb up +7

     
  7. One Notch Above A Congresscritterw

    January 14th, 2013

    The man is a fool. And when he is taken down we can fix the rest of this clusterfuck.

    Thumb up +5

     
  8. Stranded in Sonoma

    January 14th, 2013

    @Dagny — I have a somewhat different take on the Executive Order power of a president, which I blogged here.

    Basically, an executive order is not binding on the citizens, the legislature, or the courts. It does not have the force of law. When Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR did it, there was a war. Also, Congress passed laws based on those EO’s so there was some type of legislative action. The old adage of The Constitution is not a suicide pact is true and at some point, extraordinary power is “granted” so the union can be preserved.

    This is not the case with 0bama. He will propose EO’s that split the union and cause civil unrest if not outright civil war.

    Thumb up +6

     
  9. Dagney

    January 14th, 2013

    @Stranded in Sonoma

    Yes. I agree with “He will propose EO’s that split the union and cause civil unrest if not outright civil war.”

    But I disagree with ” an executive order is not binding on the citizens, the legislature, or the courts. It does not have the force of law. ”

    Let’s discuss. What is the FORCE we are speaking about when we say “FORCE OF LAW”?

    Is it not the force of executive power? The police, even the army?

    In order to legally suspend the effectivity of the law, and thus to use ‘legally’ the FULL SPECTRUM of executive power (mainly via the POLICE), Presidents have been using the metaphor of WAR, because of Article 2, “the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”

    Article 1 does not specify which authority has the jurisdiction to decide on the exceptional suspension of the Constitution: the Executive, the Judiciary, the Legislative?

    So by using the metaphor of war (to protect the children against evil, for instance), in the name of PUBLIC SAFETY, the President can justify any decision considered to be of vital importance for the safety of the nation.

    Doing this, he becomes able to use the FORCE while the LAW is deactivated, out of order.

    Thumb up +3

     
  10. Stranded in Sonoma

    January 14th, 2013

    When I say force of law, I mean the duly enacted laws per the constitution. A bill introduced into one side of congress, also passed by the other side, and signed into law by the president. That is The Force of Law.

    Executive Orders are not the force of law. They are the president trying to impose his will on the country through one person fiat. That is a monarchy and as I stated, that is why we have a constitution in the first place. Rand Paul said pretty much the same thing in his video interview.

    The president may sign executive orders. That is his prerogative. However, they are not binding on the other departments of gov’t nor on the citizens. If 0bama signs an executive order outlawing all guns, the people don’t have to run to the re-education camps and turn in their guns. There is no force of law. Does the department of justice have to collect them? Yes. They were ordered to do so by the president. But the citizens are under no order to comply. Will 0bama force the citizens to turn over their guns? Yes, he will try. And we’ll have a lot of dead federal, state, and local LEO’s, not to mention all of the citizens that 0bama will murder to force his socialism on us.

    He is emboldened now with his “re-election.” He thinks he has a mandate. The press and academia tells him how great he is. He is just like a hollyweird celebrity with her entourage whispering in her ear, telling her just what she wants to hear and believing that everyone thinks she is smart and pretty and funny and talented. No, she’s a drunken skank. And 0bama is a narcissistic socialist.

    Thumb up +4

     
  11. Dagney

    January 14th, 2013

    Yes sir, I’m all there with you.

    If the governed do not consent with the EO, that EO does not have any authority, and thus the EO is illegitimate, not from a legal perspective (Hitler always stayed withing the law because the law was suspended and only the executive orders were active), but from the perspective of GOD, or life.

    I think the concept of authority is better than the concept of force of the law to make the point upon which we both agree.

    Thumb up +2

     
  12. norman einstein

    January 14th, 2013

    WTF? How much make-up is he wearing?

    Thumb up +3

     
  13. Houston

    January 14th, 2013

    @Poonces You assume there will be another president after Obama. I am not so optimistic.

    After watching the left drunk with power since 2007 I fully believe them capable of destroying America and establishing a dictatorship.

    Thumb up +3

     
  14. grayjohn

    January 14th, 2013

    Hey, the fake gray hair is back too. How do guns fall into the hands of drug cartels? Lets focus on that.

    Thumb up +3

     
  15. Dadof3

    January 15th, 2013

    The idea of all the police and such co-operating is doubtful.

    Thumb up 0