Obama to issue executive order regarding guns?

[pr_capone]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...ntrol-n1485645

Vice President Joe Biden is meeting with victims of gun violence today. Speaking with reporters beforehand, Biden said President Obama may use an executive order to push through more gun control and Second Amendment restrictions. More from the Weekly Standard.

"The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."

Biden said that this is a moral issue and that "it's critically important that we act."

Biden talked also about taking responsible action. "As the president said, if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly."

We knew this was coming. The White House has been saying for a month that they are acting "quickly" on new gun control measures. Senator Dianne Feinstein's sweeping new gun control legislation hasn't even been introduced yet and Obama isn't the kind of president who has shown a willingness to wait on Congress.

If Obama pushes through new regulations using executive powers, the process will unfold in different parts. After an order is signed, the Department of Justice led by Attorney General Eric Holder, will be in charge of enforcement through the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. Now, how far the order will go is the big question. You can bet it will ban semi-automatic rifles and large ammunition magazines, but how Obama grandfathers in old, lawfully purchases semi-automatic rifles remains unknown. Will he require citizens who already own these weapons to be fingerprinted as Feinstein's bill requires? Or will he go so far as confiscation as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has suggested? Time will tell.

Can the SCOTUS overturn an executive order? (at work and don't hav ethe time to look it up)

[Iowanian]

I'll stay out of your bedroom, you stay out of my gun cabinet.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

I'll stay out of your bedroom, you stay out of my gun cabinet.

I could not agree more with this post~

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by pr_capone

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...ntrol-n1485645



Can the SCOTUS overturn an executive order? (at work and don't hav ethe time to look it up)

Yes.

Congress can also kinda sorta overturn an EO if they pass a law that conflicts with the EO. The Pres would likely veto it, but then Congress could override the veto.

[BucEyedPea]

What the SCOTUS needs to do is rule on how EO's are being abused as in used to by-pass congress because, there's no time to wait for them to Obama. <------ the lawbreaker governing like Allende as I predicted.

[listopencil]

Here's one rebuff:

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), also commonly referred to as The Steel Seizure Case, was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the United States Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. It was a "stinging rebuff" to President Harry Truman.[1]

Justice Hugo Black's majority decision was, however, qualified by the separate concurring opinions of five other members of the Court, making it difficult to determine the details and limits of the President's power to seize private property in emergencies. While a concurrence, Justice Jackson's opinion is used by most legal scholars and Members of Congress to assess Executive power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_10340

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

What the SCOTUS needs to do is rule on how EO's are being abused as in used to by-pass congress because, there's no time to wait for them to Obama. <------ the lawbreaker governing like Allende as I predicted.

Would that be a proper thing for the Supreme Court to rule on? Because it seems to be a political issue that the courts don't typically engage in.

[listopencil]

To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1995 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll.^[8] Congress was able to overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it during the period of 1939 to 1983 until the Supreme Court ruled in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha that the "legislative veto" represented "the exercise of legislative power" without "bicameral passage followed by presentment to the President."^[9] The loss of the legislative veto has caused Congress to look for alternative measures to override executive orders such as refusing to approve funding necessary to carry out certain policy measures contained with the order or to legitimize policy mechanisms. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.^[10]

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Literature

Would that be a proper thing for the Supreme Court to rule on? Because it seems to be a political issue that the courts don't typically engage in.

I think that it absolutely would. If two of the branches of our federal government are at a stalemate then I think the other branch has an obligation to weigh in.

[BucEyedPea]

So long as there is cause, someone could make a case.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

So long as there is cause, someone could make a case.

What could a "cause" be?

[kcfanXIII]

Originally Posted by Literature

Would that be a proper thing for the Supreme Court to rule on? Because it seems to be a political issue that the courts don't typically engage in.

it is absolutely their business. obama is attempting to bypass congress to limit your constitutional rights. he is circumventing checks and balances on a whole new level. this is unacceptable, and should be grounds for impeachment.

[WV]

Originally Posted by kcfanXIII

it is absolutely their business. obama is attempting to bypass congress to limit your constitutional rights. he is circumventing checks and balances on a whole new level. this is unacceptable, and should be grounds for impeachment.

I'm no tin foil hat wearer, but this X100000000000.

[kcfanXIII]

Originally Posted by WV

I'm no tin foil hat wearer, but this X100000000000.

i hate throwing that word around, but there is no other path to take as a country if our president starts that type of a power grab. as much as i disagree with the policies implemented during bush jr's presidency, this would be a million times worse.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by kcfanXIII

i hate throwing that word around, but there is no other path to take as a country if our president starts that type of a power grab. as much as i disagree with the policies implemented during bush jr's presidency, this would be a million times worse.

I said it before you earlier.