Execute Order 66

flawless argument.

theres very little an executive order cant do constitutionally as if it is approved it supercedes most amendments and is supported by the constitution to do so. its basically designed as a all hell broke loose and congress is fucking useless power. its a blue mana counter deck, its a trap card, its a team of dittos, its the undisputed fuck you of all democracy

"its basically designed as a all hell broke loose and congress is fucking useless power"

Actually it isn't

Well Congress is fucking useless, so half of that bill is filled...

Lots of Presidents use it, but it's generally not on issues like these. And, if anyone is wondering, Obama used the executive order 35 times in 2010 alone, so this is really nothing new, only that it's on a much more public issue.

George Washington used executive orders. I really is nothing new..

actually I take that back, what I was thinking of was not exactly an executive order as we see it today

It still isn't new, though. It's done all the time.

Even if you happen to agree with what the president eventually says in this hypothetical executive order, a move like that should trouble you. Our president isn't a king who can rule by decree, the executive is coequal with Congress. No matter how good the policy may be, nothing is worth setting the precedent that a president can just do as he damn well pleases provided that it looks like Congress won't pass what he wants. If Obama can issue an executive order severely restricting gun rights, then what's to stop a future President Rand Paul from dissolving the EPA or President Rick Santorum making sodomy a federal crime? Our government has limits in order to keep arbitrary rule from happening, with regard to whether it happens to be good policy in certai ncases.

without regard

Perhaps Barack Obama can issue an executive order that disables a future President Rick Santorum from issuing executive orders. I would find that a comforting thought.

I reckon that if Obama uses executive powers to bring in gun control laws he will be assassinated.

Congratulations, NigeeBaby. You now have a file with the NSA.

It's about time after all the insults I hurl at my Yankee cousins, I'm sure I'll be the first person interviewed in the event it happens and knowing the UKs suspect extradition laws with the US I'll be charged with incitement. You can scoff but after watching the oracle Alex Rose on the Piers Morgan show I now know the truth about the police state you call the land of the free. Anyway I've been to prison before, they don't scare me.

NSA File 1568325/359c-NigeeBaby: Mostly harmless.

Sorry not Alex Rose - Alex Jones, the lunatic Welshman now living in Texas, the Welsh are nuts and that is just common knowledge.

Well then it makes sense that he'd go to Texas. (Commence personal insults.)

The executive order you mention would probably stand, SC. If he did something along the lines of banning assault weapons (either their sale or possession), limiting some kind of ammunition, or unilaterally instituting some of the other kinds of gun control meastures that have been discussed, he would probably be on disastrously thin ice, i.e., he would probably lose in court (say 65/35). It would be a Youngstown analysis, and the court would additionally consider the fact that he was (a) acting in a sphere that implicated a constitutional right (second amendment), (b) in an area that fell within Congress's, not his usual powers, (c) without a very good argument for an emergency, and (d) arguably against Congress's explicit wishes. (cf. Justice Jackson's concurrence).

@ SantaClausowitz

"The United States Military will not conduct business with any company that markets X Y or Z to the U.S. public."

That is the easiest gun law to skirt ever.

First of all, most gun manufacturers with military contracts do not sell directly to the general public. Example: Colt Defense and Colts Manufacturing are both descendants of the original Colt company, but CD makes weapons for military/police/defense contractor sale only, whereas CM makes guns for the general public.

Second, the general public cannot buy military weapons under current laws. Military firearms, such as the M16A4 and M4 Carbine are capable of three round burst fire (M16A4 and M4A1 Carbine) or fully automatic fire (M4 Carbine) have been heavily restricted since *1934* and banned from manufacture for general public use since 1986. Many *semi-automatic* rifles and carbines out there for civilian use are based on Eugene Stoner's original AR (ArmaLite Rifle, not assault rifle)-15 design. Their gas systems, trigger groups, and *visual appearance* are *identical or nearly identical* to their full auto military cousins, but they are incapable of full auto fire without modifications requiring an extensive knowledge of the trigger system and highly illegal, rare, military-only parts and tooling.

Your proposed gun executive order would do literally nothing to restrict scary-looking semi-automatic rifles and would only be another example of Obama's complete disregard/ignorance/arrogance for the other two branches of government and the Constitution.

There's no way the executive order would take that form. It would probably exercise whatever unusued authority Congress has granted the executive in existing legislating, and I am guessing it would be relatively minor in comparison to the traditional gun control reforms which have been posed.

Stakelberg is right. Even Obama knows enough about guns to know that SC's proposal would be legally worthless.

But I think the fact that the president is considering totally, unilaterally violating the Constitution with an executive order immediately after stacking the court with two radicals is cause for alarm in my opinion

I don't give a thread about legal matters any weight until semck shows up. I form my opinion, read his, then read any debate he got himself mixed up into, then usually side somewhere closer to him. Usually. This time, I think he said exactly what I was already thinking.