1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Question - Why did Obama use Executive Actions?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Alaska444, Jan 29, 2013.

  1. Alaska444

    Alaska444 member

    Not sure what the purpose of Executive Actions instead of EO for gun proposals is as far as benefit to him. It would seem that EO's carry more weight. Puzzled in Idaho.
  2. InkEd

    InkEd Well-Known Member

    You guys are getting very confident for some reason about he AWB not getting passed. You're counting your chickens before they have hatched.
    Our 2A are still in grave danger.
  3. Alaska444

    Alaska444 member

    Sorry, folks, I am NOT talking about the AWB. I don't disagree with your comments, but this isn't what I asked. In such, while good comments, you haven't helped me answer my question. There are several other threads going over the AWB.

    Back to topic,

    Why executive action instead of EO? What is the legal ramifications of an executive action compared to an EO and why would an EO not be more beneficial and stronger to his position. He has used executive actions in other situations instead of the EO. Why? What is the legal benefit to Obama and his agenda?

    Thank you.
  4. radiotom

    radiotom Well-Known Member

    They'll gut the bill for a weaker one. Just like how they didn't get single payer with Obamacare.
  5. mcdonl

    mcdonl Well-Known Member

    Right, but their rock bottom (And seems to have at least some bipartisan support is AWB and 20+ round magazines...)

    Let's not forget the original list (that had no bipartisan support) included things like not allowing free floating barrels (Step one in eliminating hunting rifles) and other absord items that were immediatley removed from the discussion. What they ended up with was a bill that CAN pass. They were BRILLIANT by listing all of the guns not impacted by this. For every fudd, occasional hunter and novice gun owner that has one of those guns listed they gained their support.

    As far as the original question, I can only assume AE's are easier to pass with little resistance so it gives the President the appearance of "taking action" which means his party will get continued support from the gun control lobby. If he had taken a more difficult, let more effective (For them) route he would have had battles to fight and would not get that instant feather (albiet synthetic) in his hat.
  6. lemaymiami

    lemaymiami Well-Known Member

    "How do you eat an elephant?" One bite at a time....

    Here's the situation as I see it. All too many folks in our country who's only knowledge about weapons is what they've seen on television or in the movies, and a substantial number of them are in the gun control camp. If you have any doubts about this, remember how many voted our president back into office.... No, I don't believe the proposed AWB will pass as proposed -but I do think they'll pass something, unfortunately.

    Back to my first statement. These folks aren't going away and if we don't do a better job of persuading them to our point of view we're going to see new restrictions - then a few years later (or right after the next tragedy that they can use.....) we'll see more. I'd like to be wrong about this but changing viewpoints is critical (and doing our level best to defeat politicians that embrace them when ever we can...).
  7. JFtheGR8

    JFtheGR8 Well-Known Member

    It was nothing more than grandstanding on national television. A publicity stunt to try to garner support from the American public. Targeted at those who know nothing of firearms and believe what they see and hear from the media. It boils down to it being a to do list for Obama much like we make out a shopping list before going to the store.

    Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
  8. JFtheGR8

    JFtheGR8 Well-Known Member

    We don't need to persuade them, we need to vote them out. I believe the majority of Americans share the same values and beliefs as the members of this forum. They just don't take the effort to register and then vote like our opposition does. Those executive actions really didn't do a whole lot seeing as the people the President put in place to run the day to day operations of the organizations involved are already anti 2A.

    Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
  9. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Well-Known Member

    EA v EO? A distinction without a difference. (In this case at least.)

    As for everyone saying that they are pushing a big bill to get away with a smaller one....why are they in a position to force anything? The fervor has passed, they aren't going to get MORE votes than they had three weeks ago. No one is saying to be complacent. But if this is the hand they have been dealt, they don't have the cards.
  10. Tirod

    Tirod Well-Known Member

    Which all strays from the OP.

    Why "actions" instead of "orders." If there is nothing different in what they do except the name, then the name itself is the point.

    It's politics. He can say he didn't "order" anyone, but called for his administration to look at things to produce actions. When he's getting called King Obama, it's significant to his image managers to downplay being overly directive. And that goes to legacy, and how that little display in His Majesty's Library will depict the events.

    These people think longer term than just the announcement, it's also how to use it later when things do, or don't work out. Near term, they can honestly refute he used orders. Semantics, yes, but we're talking about people who manage nuance for a living.
  11. SSN Vet

    SSN Vet Well-Known Member

    why executive actions?

    Because he wants to play the part of "brave and bold and fearless leader" so he can brag it up and diss the Republican congress as obstructionist at the next mid term. When all he really did is say "by exectutive action I will now make the executive brance actually do the job they were supposed to be doing all along"

    I hope the stinging arses of all the pro 2A people who voted D will still smart enough to get them to the poles at the mid term and see his party properly trounced.

    You'll notice they're on the warpath to quickly add 11 million appreciative Latino voters to the electorate to ensure their success.
  12. Franco2shoot

    Franco2shoot Well-Known Member

    I heard that an EA has no legal impact, its a "Wish list" EA is not defined in the Constitution. On the other hand, an EO instructs with the weight of law, problem here is that an EO must relate to current law, and can't cost anything. So Bo, in typical fashion, is merely going for the optics... "See I did something" and even then, what little that is called out is stuff that is supposed to happen..

    At least that's what I understand.

  13. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Well-Known Member

    Why EA instead of EO?

    Because every word uttered by a politician is carefully selected in custom crafted speeches. It's no accident that very little any major politician speaks out on is carefully written and screened beforehand, often with days advance notice.

    Politicans, perhaps more than any other breed of human, know how the nuances and interpretations of words can be carefully groomed to say one thing while implying another entirely.

    Whether or not there is any "legal" distinction between "Executive Action" and "Executive Order" in this context doesn't matter nearly so much as what is implied by the wording.

    "Executive Order" implies the President is directing a specific set of actions, or interpretations which allow specific actions, to take place on his sole authority.

    "Executive Action", in these circumstances, implies the President is establishing an agenda that he wants OTHERS to act on in order to get the results he wants (additional laws which he can enforce).

    If he actually unilaterally directs specific actions to take place contrary to the authority he is currently authorized, then the legality of his actions would be shot down and this would do great harm not only to his standing, but his political party which supported it.

    As he has currently expressed his 23 action items, they provide him with an ongoing politically charged support base which benefits him and his party by energizing activists who support that cause. It gives him "breathing room" in which to maneuver politically in order to further sculpt the political landscape in the coming months and years.

    One of the lessons learned by the Democrats after the last AWB fiasco was that the political backlash cost them many seats in the subsequent elections. This is NOT a long term goal of any political party, much less the Democratic Party.

    Taking the path he did allows him and his party to continue working towards stronger political positions through subsequent elections. Not only that, but remember that the President is the one who appoints Supreme Court Justices (through confirmations). This is another long term goal of the Democratic Party...and losing too many seats in elections won't help that confirmation process. And, if they should somehow NOT get a chance to appoint any new SC Justices during his term, a subsequent loss of the Presidental election in 2016 will really set the democrats back politically.

    Make no mistake...this issue with gun rights is HUGE politically...and the Democrats cannot afford to go whole-hog in taking actions which would certainly be shot down as both illegal and unConstitutional. The battlefield has thus been shifted to Congress and the many state and local governments, where smaller battles can be fought and won...or lost at great expense to gun rights activists.

Share This Page