AWB and senate control?

[mljdeckard]

The president can't just make new laws with executive orders. He can administrate regulations within the purview of the executive branch.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

The colture rule is under attack in the Senate in an effort to change how a filibuster in the Senate is conducted. Letters to Ried and other Senators should be sent in asking that they respect the history and rules of the Senate. If we fail to do so the Anti gun bills will only need a simple majority vote to accomplish their goals. So 2 letters are required. One to members of the House asking them to kill any gun control Bill and one to the Senate to support the current rules of the Senate. If the colture rule is changed or elimated we have lost a tool to defend the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Sam1911]

Obama Executive Orders Impose New Gun Rules July 2011

Through an Executive Order, the Obama administration is implementing new restrictions on the sale of certain weapons in border states, and increasing the penalties for violating certain firearms laws.

Sigh. Again, an Exective order defines how the President wants his law enforcement folks to handle various details about enforcing EXISTING laws. He doesn't get to create a new law (ever) or do anything specifically counter to the law.

How he inteprets the laws as written may not make us happy, but he has to stay fairly close to the original writing or he risks getting "checked and balacned" by the other 2 branches of government.

 

[2ifbyC]

I lost my thrill on Capitol Hill.

You should watch the movie, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It will give you some insight to the dirty world of politics. The movie was made in 1939 but nothing has changed in Washington since then or for that matter, since this country has become a Republic.

 

[Hacker15E]

I have a question since I don't fully understand our political system. Since Feinstein is in the senate and the senate is under democratic control does that mean that we can't stop her bill if all or a majority of Democrats support her? Republican house control wouldn't make a difference in this case would it? Sorry for such a dumb question. Thanks for any help.

I'm glad you asked the question and received an accurate answer....

...but the bigger issue here is that, as an American, it is your civic duty -- part and parcel with being a free man and a citizen in this republic -- to know and understand this system.

I apologize if that sounds condescending, as I surely don't intend it that way, but it is simply dangerous for anyone to be governed by a system they do not understand.

 

[x_wrench]

yes, a bill has to pass both the house and senate and then be signed into law by the president. also along the way, any member of the house and or senate can attach another bill to the original, which if ratified by both houses and signed into law, that bill also gets signed into law. even though it may have nothing to do with firearms. a house rep or senator could attach a funding bill for a highway, or any pet project he or she wants to pass, and if the original bill is signed into law, that one is also. also, any of the reps or senators can modify the bill, then it has to go thru the ratification all over again in both houses. it is an extremely stupid set up. one in which all kinds of games to be played, which can and do get played. it not only wastes tax payers money, it keeps many good bills from passing and gets some really bad legislation passed, that would otherwise stand no chance of getting thru. realistically, our government rules NEED to be rewritten so all of the stupid game playing, including filibusterers stop. the government was SUPPOSED to work FOR this country. but it has not for a long time. they work for their pet projects, what special interest groups can bribe them into, and have little interest what this countries people want. they work for themselves, or the highest bidder and to heck with what is good for this country. v

 

[barnbwt]

He doesn't get to create a new law (ever) or do anything specifically counter to the law.

Was there already a law on the books limiting the bullion and individual could possess when the Roosevelt administration issued EO 6102
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

The order was rationalized on the grounds that hard times had caused "hoarding" of gold, stalling economic growth and making the depression worse.[

I didn't see anything in the article or order itself about exisitng laws. The Presdiency has definitely exceeded its authority in the past and gotten away with it, but fortuntely that is rarely the case. The function of this law was to force citizens to surrender their holdings at 20.67$ per oz, and the Feds then resold it at 35$ an ounce--inflation through confiscation.

The law was completely bogus, of course:
"There was only one prosecution under the order, and in that case the order was ruled invalid by federal judge John M. Woolsey, on the grounds that the order was signed by the President, not the Secretary of the Treasury as required"

But that didn't stop plenty of people from following it against their will:
"The price of gold from the Treasury for international transactions was thereafter raised to $35 an ounce ($587 in 2010 dollars) resulting in an immediate loss for everyone who had been forced to surrender their gold. The resulting profit that the government realized funded the Exchange Stabilization Fund established by the Gold Reserve Act in 1934."
From the page on the ESF:
"The fund began operations in April 1934, financed by $2 billion of the $2.8 billion paper profit the government realized from raising the price of gold to $35 an ounce from $20.67."
Whatever happened to the other $.8 billion, I wonder?

Governments are made of people, and people can try whatever they want--so long as no one questions them.

TCB

 

[Sam1911]

I haven't studied that matter, so I'm not qualified to speak on it. However, I have called out FDR, as well as others like good old Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, etc., as Presidents who have pushed executive power far beyond all reason -- to degrees far greater than anything our current President has attempted.

Agreed, though, the checks and balances have to be applied if such things are attempted.