Executive order vs Supreme Court

[Zoogster]

This is substantially different in scope than an executive order which would strip a constitutional right from every law abiding US citizen inside of the USA.

Well if they disobeyed they wouldn't be "law abiding" US citizens anymore, so no law abiding US citizen would be stripped of any rights

Be careful how comfortable you get with certain terms, even if many do use them in pro gun arguments.

Remember no law abiding non LEO, regular unconnected citizen in Washington D.C. has a handgun or an assembled and working longarm, nevermind loaded firearm in the whole city.

It is against the law to store them that way.

So anyone who does in fact have one, is a criminal, whether they have a past record or not. Some just have not been caught or charged.






Now in reality I doubt such a sweeping thing would be done. Instead I think an increasing amount of the American public will be made prohibited persons by various reasons, and the Second Amendment will only apply to a smaller and smaller actual amount of people who excercise it.
We have legislation currently to take away the rights to people deemed unfit for psycological reasons even with no criminal conduct, simply the determination of "qualified" people.
We have legislation to remove that right from anyone who commits a felony, any felony, even the Martha Stewarts. Anyone that stood up to government too firmly, or voiced a disagreeable opinion too loudly would likely find themselves a felon of some sort.
Then we have legislation to remove the right for domestic violence, which covers a lot more than the wife beating image people assume. Well one of the most common calls police respond to are those involving domestic disputes, so it is fair to say one of the most common call police respond to is one that is removing rights.
Yet gun owners as a group continue to support this, in fact it rarely is not mentioned in any lengthy debate as a prog gun comment, only law abiding people are legaly allowed to have firearms. I don't see how that would change even if only 20% of the population remained legal. So gun rights supporters would support thier own demise, even while feeling like they are doing the opposite.

Well once a large enough people are not allowed to legaly have firearms, and a good number of those who can don't excercise that right anyways, you will have a substantial amount of the population against firearm ownership for others.
That helps gain support to ban more and more types of weapons.

We even have all new territory in banning taking place. Since the law limiting small arms to no greater than .50 caliber (with minor exceptions, obviously including "sporting weapons" like shotguns and some exempted cartridges) there was never ever a caliber outlawed. Types of weapons used or owned, but never a caliber. All that has changed now, and new roads have been paved with the banning of the .50 BMG in places like CA. No longer are just weapons up for grabs, but cartridges too. What about those equal to the BMG? Can they be next? What about those almost as good?
You have experienced the first banning ever of a single shot firearm in your lifetime already, even a rifle that has to be dissassembled to reload is against the law in CA if chambered in .50 BMG.
That is unprecedented in US history.

So I don't think the route those who do not wish people other to be armed will take is direct revocation of the entire population. Rather it will be gradual revocation for an increasing number of Americans, and an increasing number of firearms. Increasing cost of firearms and ammunition, and laws targeting ammunition and firearms in ways that encourage that, and discourage firearm use and ownership, as well as trying to document firearms and ammunition to better implement future laws against those documented.

 

[Master Blaster]

NO, but you would probably have to take it to court.

 

[deadasslast2004]

executive order

I hope this dies and they leave our second ammendment rights alone for the good of ALL of us.

 

[ozwyn]

So... does this mean after a big Heller win someone needs to sue to allow FA-MAS, AUG's and SPAS-12 shotguns to be re-imported into the country?

I think between the SC ruling and before the new president is sworn in, is the time for individual activist groups to rally the supporters and hit the courts.

what about the prospect of quality AK's for 50 bucks?

How about lower prices on import ammo?

A lot of options will be on the table, we just need a army of lawyers and lots of people to support them.

And, beating these executive orders in court may provide an obvious deterrent to future executive orders.

The ball will be in our court. Return it with great enthusiasm.

 

[green-grizzly]

There is a supreme court case that came down today, where George II argued that Texas should have to comply with an international treaty regarding the rights of Mexican murderers because he said so. None of the justices bought that argument (although three justices said that Texas should obey the treaty on other grounds).

Executive orders have no effect when they are contrary to an Act of Congress or the constitution.

 

[MechAg94]

To me this decision is sort of a double victory as it said that the IC has no authority over Texas criminal procedure in addition to saying Bush didn't.
===================================
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/2...d-bush-administration-upholds-us-sovereignty/

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i0V7A97KgoY8Goz9la5CWe8bm7ewD8VKGOV80
Court Backs Texas in Dispute With Bush

By MARK SHERMAN – 9 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush overstepped his authority when he ordered a Texas court to grant a new hearing to a Mexican on death row for rape and murder, the Supreme Court said Tuesday.

In a case that mixes presidential power, international relations and the death penalty, the court sided with Texas 6-3.

Bush was in the unusual position of siding with death row prisoner Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican citizen whom police prevented from consulting with Mexican diplomats, as provided by international treaty.

An international court ruled in 2004 that the convictions of Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on death row around the United States violated the 1963 Vienna Convention, which provides that people arrested abroad should have access to their home country's consular officials. The International Court of Justice, also known as the world court, said the Mexican prisoners should have new court hearings to determine whether the violation affected their cases.

Bush, who oversaw 152 executions as Texas governor, disagreed with the decision. But he said it must be carried out by state courts because the United States had agreed to abide by the world court's rulings in such cases. The administration argued that the president's declaration is reason enough for Texas to grant Medellin a new hearing.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, disagreed. Roberts said the international court decision cannot be forced upon the states.

The president may not "establish binding rules of decision that pre-empt contrary state law," Roberts said.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22836

 

[Samuel Adams]

Neither the Executive Branch nor the Judicial Branch are permitted by the US Constitution to make law. Executive Orders are null and void if anybody cares.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Neither the Executive Branch nor the Judicial Branch are permitted by the US Constitution to make law. Executive Orders are null and void if anybody cares.

The authority for Executive Orders comes from Congress. The Executive is delegated authority from Congress to carry out the laws passed by Congress. Sometimes this also involves regulatory/administrative rulemaking. For example, the 1968 Gun Control Act says that only firearms suitable for "sporting purposes" may be imported into the United States. Congress has delegated a great deal of authority to the Executive to make regulatory decisions on what is "suitable for sporting purposes."

However, Congress can override any regulatory/administrative authority it delegates to the Executive by simply passing a new law.

As to your contention that Executive Orders are null and void, it is not supported by any historical fact. The first Executive Order was issued in 1789 by George Washington. I think you are going to have a difficult time arguing that the founders of this country decided to immediately start using a power that was unconstitutional and unintended for the Executive. From a practical standpoint, it is simply impossible for Congress to personally administer the vast body of laws they have created. If they were unable to delegate any rulemaking authority to the Executive, there would be no functioning agency left at the federal level. Whether that is a bad thing might be debateable; but the inherent power of the President to carry out some rulemaking functions in order to execute the will of Congress has never been in question.

 

[Samuel Adams]

For clarification, I'm not going to argue the fact that the Executive can issue orders as long as those orders are to execute those laws passed by Congress as stated in Article II, Section 1. That being said, the most notable of the executive orders passed these days along with the infamous "Signing Statements" are those making law and the other two branches let him get away with it. So much for Checks and Balances.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Signing statements are mostly manufactured controversy. The minority party complained about them greatly when they did not have the votes to change them. Now they do have those votes and how many have they changed?

As for checks and balances, I would suggest that if the other party in a two-party system doesn't care enough to check a supposed abuse of power, it could be because it wasn't really as big a deal as they were claiming when they did not have the power to do something about it.

 

[damien]

"For clarification, I'm not going to argue the fact that the Executive can issue orders as long as those orders are to execute those laws passed by Congress as stated in Article II, Section 1."

Also, I don't think it is debatable that the Executive can pass orders related to powers directly delagated to him by the Constitution, e.g. his power as Commander in Chief, etc.

 

[Defensory]

Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican national convicted of the 1993 rape and murder of two Texas girls, was executed Tuesday night in Texas after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant a reprieve.

Entire article at:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-execute6-2008aug06,0,2738895.story

 

[JWarren]

Quote:
Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican national convicted of the 1993 rape and murder of two Texas girls, was executed Tuesday night in Texas after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant a reprieve.

Entire article at:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2738895.story

And?



-- John

 

[762 shooter]

I'm not sure that a MINORITY of 85 million gunowners would equate with say 85 million dog owners, or 85 million basket weavers in terms of what a government could FORCE on them.