This isn't the first discussion of what E.O.'s can and can't do, or what can be or not be done thru powers delegated to the three branches of Government.
What a lot forget is that those powers are known as checks and balances, and have worked as such in the past. When LEO's began confiscating firearms in the aftermath of Katrina, lawsuits in Federal court stopped it within days.
The courts hold themselves quite capable of interpreting the law, and just because some of us are concerned about a politician running amok with extraordinary powers, it doesn't make it so. If the courts say "This must stop," then that is exercising THEIR power. Contempt of Court isn't something to be trifled with, either. Judges won't put up with it, they have to act to protect their authority along Constitutional lines.
If anything, what I read from a lot of posts is this: too many don't have a good grasp of what each branch of Government can and can't do. Times with questions like these provide answers - like whether a Senator can introduce a bill when the House has to vote on it, too. Both houses still require the bill to go thru committee, and that alone is a gauntlet of Constitutional review and insider politics. In the face of the current debacle on the fiscal cliff, is that such a slam dunk?
If there is actually one side or the other who seems to be reacting hysterically, is it the side spouting off solutions contrary to law, the Constitution, or even common sense, or the side scrambling feverishly to acquire firearms in the view they will be banned, prohibited, or even taken from them? It's sounds pretty ignorant on both parts. At the worst, it makes the panic buyers look as if they have already given up, have no part in politics, and know they won't win.
This is going to go on a lot longer than their credit limit will allow - time to suck it up and start thinking about the long run, how to protect your rights, and worry less about how to satisfy an itch to have another toy.
"Wolverines!!!" Right?
