Bartholomew Roberts
Member
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,574471,00.html
Make sure they aren't the only ones being heard!
Make sure they aren't the only ones being heard!
Brady Campaign Targeting September 9th For pro-ban call in!
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
I am laffin my butt off.
These guys don't know squat.
They want everyone to call the whitehouse, to encourage Bush to renew the ban, as if he could wave his magic wand.
They don't seem to realize that it's not his call, and there's no legislation for him to sign.
Perhaps we should encourage them to waste time thus?
What a bunch of marooons.
These guys don't know squat.
They want everyone to call the whitehouse, to encourage Bush to renew the ban, as if he could wave his magic wand.
They don't seem to realize that it's not his call, and there's no legislation for him to sign.
Perhaps we should encourage them to waste time thus?
What a bunch of marooons.
Brett Bellmore
Member
They know that it's not passing as things stand. But Bush IS on record as favoring it's renewal, a position he's never abandoned. (Even if he has had the sense to keep quiet about it.) IF he were, this close to the election, to come out publicly and make a big deal about wanting it on his desk, Republicans in Congress would have 2 choices:
1. Tell him no, and watch him go down to defeat when his own party repudiates him.
or,
2. Give it to him, and hope like hell that the fallout nets out in his favor.
There's not much chance of Bush taking the bait, but I think it probably is their best hope at this point. It's win-win for them if he bites; They either do or don't get the ban renewed, but in any event they get Kerry in the White House, or Bush there, a lame duck, and out of the closet as their ally.
1. Tell him no, and watch him go down to defeat when his own party repudiates him.
or,
2. Give it to him, and hope like hell that the fallout nets out in his favor.
There's not much chance of Bush taking the bait, but I think it probably is their best hope at this point. It's win-win for them if he bites; They either do or don't get the ban renewed, but in any event they get Kerry in the White House, or Bush there, a lame duck, and out of the closet as their ally.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
I'm afraid it could be done. I doubt Bush would; I have no doubt that Kerry creature would sign such an order in a heart beat.
one45auto
Member
I don't think Bush is going to do anything about renewing the AWB, certainly not before the election, because I'm sure he doesn't want to risk alienating gun owners in such a tight race ~ especially not when he knows that doing so cost Al Gore the presidency four years ago. That being said, it's a given that the next Democratic administration, when it comes, will push hard for a new ban so take advantage of the opportunity and stock up while you can.
tulsamal
Member
Why do you guys keeping saying things like this? Bush could no more issue an executive order extending the AWB than he could any other law. Do you think he could sign a piece of paper and bring back prohibition or nullify the Voting Rights Act? The law is going to sunset. An Executive Order lays out guidelines for how the executive branch should enforce some given law. If the law is gone, they is nothing to enforce and therefore no EO can have any effect!
If we really lived in such a system, it would be called a monarchy!
Gregg
Graystar
Member
Glad *someone* said it. Now I don't have to!
"Why do you guys keeping saying things like this? Bush could no more issue an executive order extending the AWB than he could any other law."
Sorry, but that's simply not the case.
Executive orders have been used not only to clarify new law, but also make new law.
There are really few limits on the powers that can be exercised by the President under the guise of an executive order.
Interesting summary from the Cato Institute...
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-358es.html
In part...
"...the Constitution defines presidential powers very generally; and nowhere does it define, much less limit, the power of a president to rule by executive order—except by reference to that general language and the larger structure and function of the Constitution. The issue is especially acute when presidents use executive orders to legislate, for then they usurp the powers of Congress or the states, raising fundamental concerns about the separation and division of powers."
From Fact Index...
http://www.fact-index.com/e/ex/executive_order_1.html
"An executive order is a legally binding edict issued by a member of the executive branch of a government, usually the head of that branch.
In the United States, Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789. There is no Constitutional law or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3. However, executive orders have legal force unless in conflict with a law approved by the Legislative or a court decision by the Judicial branch of government."
"Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the President could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled that an executive order from President Harry S. Truman that placed all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are allegedly furthering when making new executive orders."
"Many critics have accused the Presidents of abusing executive orders, both to make new laws without Congressional approval and to move existing laws away from their original mandates. Large policy changes with wide-ranging effects have been passed into law through executive order, including the integration of the Armed Forces under Harry Truman and the desegregation of public schools under Dwight D. Eisenhower. Even entire wars have been fought upon executive order, including Bill Clinton's 1999 Kosovo War. Critics fear that the President could make himself a de facto dictator by side-stepping the other branches of government and making autocratic laws. The Presidents, however, cite executive order as often the only way to clarify laws passed through the Congress, laws which often require vague wording in order to please all political parties involved in their creation."
Those are just summations that I've extracted from the sites referenced.
But, the way I see it, Bush could issue an executive order extending the law, and it would be legally binding until the Supreme Court or Congress took action against it.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, didn't President Bush I in 1989 issue an executive order that legally banned the importation of many semi-automatic rifles based solely on their cosmetic characteristics?
While I'm not very cognizant about this, I'm under the impression that prior to that these rifles had been coming in legally, and that Congress passed no law to ban their import.
Bush I did that all on his own, essentially making law.
Sorry, but that's simply not the case.
Executive orders have been used not only to clarify new law, but also make new law.
There are really few limits on the powers that can be exercised by the President under the guise of an executive order.
Interesting summary from the Cato Institute...
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-358es.html
In part...
"...the Constitution defines presidential powers very generally; and nowhere does it define, much less limit, the power of a president to rule by executive order—except by reference to that general language and the larger structure and function of the Constitution. The issue is especially acute when presidents use executive orders to legislate, for then they usurp the powers of Congress or the states, raising fundamental concerns about the separation and division of powers."
From Fact Index...
http://www.fact-index.com/e/ex/executive_order_1.html
"An executive order is a legally binding edict issued by a member of the executive branch of a government, usually the head of that branch.
In the United States, Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789. There is no Constitutional law or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3. However, executive orders have legal force unless in conflict with a law approved by the Legislative or a court decision by the Judicial branch of government."
"Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the President could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled that an executive order from President Harry S. Truman that placed all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are allegedly furthering when making new executive orders."
"Many critics have accused the Presidents of abusing executive orders, both to make new laws without Congressional approval and to move existing laws away from their original mandates. Large policy changes with wide-ranging effects have been passed into law through executive order, including the integration of the Armed Forces under Harry Truman and the desegregation of public schools under Dwight D. Eisenhower. Even entire wars have been fought upon executive order, including Bill Clinton's 1999 Kosovo War. Critics fear that the President could make himself a de facto dictator by side-stepping the other branches of government and making autocratic laws. The Presidents, however, cite executive order as often the only way to clarify laws passed through the Congress, laws which often require vague wording in order to please all political parties involved in their creation."
Those are just summations that I've extracted from the sites referenced.
But, the way I see it, Bush could issue an executive order extending the law, and it would be legally binding until the Supreme Court or Congress took action against it.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, didn't President Bush I in 1989 issue an executive order that legally banned the importation of many semi-automatic rifles based solely on their cosmetic characteristics?
While I'm not very cognizant about this, I'm under the impression that prior to that these rifles had been coming in legally, and that Congress passed no law to ban their import.
Bush I did that all on his own, essentially making law.
goalie
Member
The law will not exist when the 14th rolls around. It is impossible to "further" a law that does not exist.
Damn, I just lost a revision/clarification to what I posted earlier.
"It is impossible to "further" a law that does not exist."
But it is possible to further a law that does exist, such as one of the laws dealing with, oh, say, Homeland Security, by extending the AW ban under its auspices.
"It is impossible to "further" a law that does not exist."
But it is possible to further a law that does exist, such as one of the laws dealing with, oh, say, Homeland Security, by extending the AW ban under its auspices.
>>>It is impossible to "further" a law that does not exist.<<<
My friend, nothing is impossible to flakey liberal do gooders that lie to themselves 99.95% of the time anyway!
"Hey lets call up everyone, make a ruckus and pretend we are doing something for the children because we can! Now put that in your pipe you savage gun toters!"
Seriously though. If Bush actually DID do an executive order it would have to be AFTER the election or it would be extreamly stupid for him to do so. If he would do anything with an executive order prior to the election pretty much the entire gun toting state of Texas AND EVERY single NRA member would immediately vote against him.
Then again nothing he could possibly do would surprise me in the slightest.
We will see......
My friend, nothing is impossible to flakey liberal do gooders that lie to themselves 99.95% of the time anyway!
"Hey lets call up everyone, make a ruckus and pretend we are doing something for the children because we can! Now put that in your pipe you savage gun toters!"
Seriously though. If Bush actually DID do an executive order it would have to be AFTER the election or it would be extreamly stupid for him to do so. If he would do anything with an executive order prior to the election pretty much the entire gun toting state of Texas AND EVERY single NRA member would immediately vote against him.
Then again nothing he could possibly do would surprise me in the slightest.
We will see......
God, I've just spent 30 of the most frustrating minutes of my life trying to find the text of the EO that George HW Bush signed in 1989 regarding importation of "assault weapons."
The Federal Register/Archives sites are IMPOSSIBLE!
Does anyone know what the EO number for this one was?
I want to see what the "crutch laws" were that Bush used.
The Federal Register/Archives sites are IMPOSSIBLE!
Does anyone know what the EO number for this one was?
I want to see what the "crutch laws" were that Bush used.
Graystar
Member
that's not possible either.
In the case of the AWB, it is written in the law that the provisions will expire. Any extension that does not involve congress is a direct violation of that law.
And once again, I think you're underestimating the power of the Executive Order as the President's "bully pulpit."
The terminology might very well be the issue here.
But, you may be right, issuing an order extending the current law may very well be illegal (but that can only be decided by the Supreme Court, and when was the last time that the Supreme Court ruled favorably on a law regarding firearms?)
So, taking a cue from his Father's EO of 1989, Bush II doesn't "extend" the law.
He simply issues an EO mandating that the same restrictions of the old expired 1994 law are now, out of national necessity, enabled under the Patriot Act or the act that created Homeland Security in order to keep these weapons out of the hands of terrorists.
Illegal?
Not the way I read it.
And, by definition, it would be legally binding until either Congress or the Surpeme Court strikes it down.
And then we're back to where we started...
But, I'm curious, as I really don't have a comprehensive understanding of EOs.
What laws/court opinions are you referencing to support your assertions that extending, if not the 1994 law, but its spirit, is illegal?
The terminology might very well be the issue here.
But, you may be right, issuing an order extending the current law may very well be illegal (but that can only be decided by the Supreme Court, and when was the last time that the Supreme Court ruled favorably on a law regarding firearms?)
So, taking a cue from his Father's EO of 1989, Bush II doesn't "extend" the law.
He simply issues an EO mandating that the same restrictions of the old expired 1994 law are now, out of national necessity, enabled under the Patriot Act or the act that created Homeland Security in order to keep these weapons out of the hands of terrorists.
Illegal?
Not the way I read it.
And, by definition, it would be legally binding until either Congress or the Surpeme Court strikes it down.
And then we're back to where we started...
But, I'm curious, as I really don't have a comprehensive understanding of EOs.
What laws/court opinions are you referencing to support your assertions that extending, if not the 1994 law, but its spirit, is illegal?
tulsamal
Member
In the first place, it's a lot easier for a President to affect things that happen in relation to foreign countries. The Executive Branch is basically "in charge" of foreign policy. That includes a lot of trade issues. But the whole 89 thing was straightforward. The existing law said that imported firearms had to be "sporting in purpose." Bush 41 just redefined what that meant. He interpreted it to be hunting rifles basically instead of something like three gun matches, etc.
And, I seem to remember, that executive order was later incorporated into a law under the Clinton Administration. So Bush 43 (or any other President) can't just issue another EO "taking it back." Yes, you have a lot of wiggle room with EO's but you can't actually go against an existing law or constitutional provision. You will end up in federal court very fast if you try it!
Gregg
tulsamal
Member
I don't think the SCOTUS would see such a thing as a "gun case." They would see it as an Executive trying to outright circumvent the whole legislative process. If the President could really do such things we might as well dismiss the House and Senate and send them home. The President could just issue an EO "invalidating" any law they passed while also signing EO's that did the things he thought were important.
The SCOTUS would be willing to "stay up late" to issue an emergency declaration for something like that! It would be the most serious effort to undermine our type of government since the Civil War. And it would have nothing at all to do with guns.
Gregg
"In the first place, it's a lot easier for a President to affect things that happen in relation to foreign countries."
Then why do something like 70% or better of the EOs issued deal with purely American issues?
"circumvent the legislative process"
And, once again, I'll note that only two executive orders have ever been overturned by the Supreme Court, (Truman's and one by Clinton), and to the best of my knowledge not a single one has ever been overturned by Congress.
I've already provided the wiggle room for the passage of just such an executive order -- homeland security/patriot act.
Everyone seems to agree that clarification of existing laws is a valid avenue for the exercising of an EO.
Oh, and also please note that in 1999 an Executive Order by Bill Clinton took the United States into the Balkans Conflict, which essentially usurped Congress as the ONLY Constitutional entity that can declare war.
The Supreme Court was absolutely mute on that point.
If you go back through and look at the bulk of EOs, you'll find quite a few that are nothing more than lawmaking (not law clarification, but law MAKING), and the Supreme Court has been loath to act on virtually all of them.
Then why do something like 70% or better of the EOs issued deal with purely American issues?
"circumvent the legislative process"
And, once again, I'll note that only two executive orders have ever been overturned by the Supreme Court, (Truman's and one by Clinton), and to the best of my knowledge not a single one has ever been overturned by Congress.
I've already provided the wiggle room for the passage of just such an executive order -- homeland security/patriot act.
Everyone seems to agree that clarification of existing laws is a valid avenue for the exercising of an EO.
Oh, and also please note that in 1999 an Executive Order by Bill Clinton took the United States into the Balkans Conflict, which essentially usurped Congress as the ONLY Constitutional entity that can declare war.
The Supreme Court was absolutely mute on that point.
If you go back through and look at the bulk of EOs, you'll find quite a few that are nothing more than lawmaking (not law clarification, but law MAKING), and the Supreme Court has been loath to act on virtually all of them.
Graystar
Member
The 1994 ban is a criminal statute. You can’t extend the law in spirit because you can’t criminally prosecute someone for violating an executive order.
"The 1994 ban is a criminal statute. You can’t extend the law in spirit because you can’t criminally prosecute someone for violating an executive order."
And here's where we get to the spirit of the law...
Who said anything about it having to be extended as a criminal statute?
As I understand it (and given my limited knowlede of it, I'll admit that it might be faulty), the 1994 law contains manufacturing and distribution prohibitions, as well, correct?
Those prohibitions could be moved into place under the acts that I cited.
Perhaps not the same teeth as the 1994 law, but certainly still a chill on the situation.
Oh, and once again, where's the law or limitation that says that an Executive Order can't deal with criminal statutes?
Does one exist from either Congress or the Supreme Court, or is that only supposition?
And here's where we get to the spirit of the law...
Who said anything about it having to be extended as a criminal statute?
As I understand it (and given my limited knowlede of it, I'll admit that it might be faulty), the 1994 law contains manufacturing and distribution prohibitions, as well, correct?
Those prohibitions could be moved into place under the acts that I cited.
Perhaps not the same teeth as the 1994 law, but certainly still a chill on the situation.
Oh, and once again, where's the law or limitation that says that an Executive Order can't deal with criminal statutes?
Does one exist from either Congress or the Supreme Court, or is that only supposition?
Wildalaska
member
JPL...your analysis is wrong...unfortunately I am both too tired and too disinterested to argue with you.
The ban is dead.
End.
Have fun.
WildZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzAlaska
The ban is dead.
End.
Have fun.
WildZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzAlaska
Graystar
Member
Nowhere. EOs *can* deal with criminal statutes. What they can't do is replace a criminal statute (or any statute for that matter.)
"Nowhere. EOs *can* deal with criminal statutes. What they can't do is replace a criminal statute (or any statute for that matter.)"
And once again, I'm asking for a citation on this -- where is this codified?
I'll note again that Harry Truman did by executive order what Congress refused to do legislatively.
I'm not sure, but I think that military unit segregation was a law (perhaps an executive order, though) stemming from Woodrow Wilson's resegregating federal service around 1912 or so.
I truly hope I am wrong about this.
Executive orders are potentially very serious avenues for executive branch abuse.
And, as I've noted, until Congress or the Supreme Court acts, executive orders are law -- both Congress and the court agrees on that point.
Finally, sorry to bore you, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAboredinGnomeska.
I'll try harder next time.
So much for Irwin's claim that this was a site willing to discuss, and share, viewpoints.
And once again, I'm asking for a citation on this -- where is this codified?
I'll note again that Harry Truman did by executive order what Congress refused to do legislatively.
I'm not sure, but I think that military unit segregation was a law (perhaps an executive order, though) stemming from Woodrow Wilson's resegregating federal service around 1912 or so.
I truly hope I am wrong about this.
Executive orders are potentially very serious avenues for executive branch abuse.
And, as I've noted, until Congress or the Supreme Court acts, executive orders are law -- both Congress and the court agrees on that point.
Finally, sorry to bore you, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAboredinGnomeska.
I'll try harder next time.
So much for Irwin's claim that this was a site willing to discuss, and share, viewpoints.
2nd Amendment
member
I am researching EO's, as I think I said before(OK, I researched 'em once before but that was long ago, so whatever). Basically though the fact is an EO can indeed "create" law. A president can, with a stroke of his pen, enact damn near anything he wants. In point of fact I can't find any actual set restriction. Of course there are a variety of things a president would have to be utterly insane to try and enact through EO but these are not codified restrictions.
If George Bush tomorrow wanted to ban firearms by EO he could "do" it. Whether it would be carried out, whether he would still be president November 1 for that matter, is open to debate but there is no legal restriction to stop him, or any president, from doing as he pleases with an EO. Caveat: So far as I have yet discovered.
If George Bush tomorrow wanted to ban firearms by EO he could "do" it. Whether it would be carried out, whether he would still be president November 1 for that matter, is open to debate but there is no legal restriction to stop him, or any president, from doing as he pleases with an EO. Caveat: So far as I have yet discovered.
- Status