Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THEBEARRRRRRJEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eric Bryant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THEBEARRRRRRJEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've spoken with a few different folks and there seems to be confusion about how much power the President actually has when it comes to executive orders.
I've had folks tell me he can easily sidestep the Senate and House to push a weapons ban through. I've also had folks say it'll never happen, he doesn't have the power, etc.</div></div>
Executive orders have already been used by the past three administrations to ban the importation of certain firearms, parts, and ammunition. I don't know how far this can be extrapolated to a larger ban.
</div></div>
That's where I'm lookin for clarity. Anyone?</div></div>
If you are looking for clarity, then look at the Constitution which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. If you are confused about our current state of affairs then you have good reason: modern Presidents do not limit themselves to their Constitutional authorities and have seized powers not granted to them by the people in that document.
The Constitution has a succinct list of authorities for the President:
1. Is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces
2. May require reports in writing from the cabinet officers on their duties
3. May grant pardons except in case of impeachments
4. May make treaties, but only with the advice and CONSENT of the Sentate
5. May appoint senior officers and judges, again with the advice and consent of the Senate
6. Must deliver a message on the State of the Union
7. May recommend legislation
8. May call special sessions of Congress
9. May resolve disputes between the House and Senate on adjournment
10. May receive ambassadors
11. Must take care that the laws are faithfully executed
12. Gives all military and other officers their commissions.
This list should be significant to you for what it does not contain:
1. The President does not have the power to make war.
That power is reserved in Constitution for the Congress and Congress alone in Article 1. Yet we have had over 115,000 Americans killed since World War Two in wars which have not been Congressionally declared as required by law.
2. The President does not have the power to enact law/legislation.
That authority is granted by the people to the Congress. Article 1 Section 1 reveals that Congress has 100% of the legislative authority. Yet we have a running total of around 14,000 executive orders from Presidents that have the force of law. Worse, we have over 200 books making up the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) from Presidential Administrative Agencies such as the EPA, USDA, FDA, etc. These "regulations" have the force of law, despite the fact that such lawmaking power is supposed to be fully vested in Congress, not the President. The Constitution grants no such authority to Presidential agencies - they are supposed to be administering and executing Congressional law, and advising the President so he may recommend legislation.
You might wonder if we still have a republican form of government, one in which law is made by elected representatives of the people, when unelected bureaucrats make far more "laws" than your elected lawmakers. Here is some clarity - we clearly do not. Here the federal government has completely annihilated the letter and intent of the Constitution, and indeed even the Declaration of Independence, since these "laws" are enacted by fiat like a king. In fact it may be worse, since a king at least has a face and may opposed. Go ahead and try to penetrate the dozens of executive bureaucracies and hold accountable specific individuals cranking out these laws by the tens of thousands. These individuals which will never appear on a ballot hold sway over the majority of law in this nation.
3. The President cannot unilaterally enter treaties.
That has not stopped them from doing so. While we have over 900 treaties that have been enacted with the consent of the Senate, we are also party to over 5000 "executive agreements" that in effect have the force of law through the President's administrative agencies. These "executive agreements" are called by that name here because to call them treaties would require Senate consent. The State Department simply renames them, though they are referred to as treaties elsewhere. Notice that again, we have far more un-Constitutional treaties than lawful treaties. Treaty power is serious, as the Constitution says that treaties become the law of the land like the Constitution itself. That is precisely why that power was distributed...the President confers with foreign powers but the Senate must consent.
So. The President goes to war when he pleases. He makes the laws he pleases. He makes the treaties he pleases. The elite club of 9 looks the other way, while Congress contemptibly abdicates their duty to the President so they may have more time to confiscate and spend your money to their own purposes.
Now that you have some clarity, do you feel better or worse?
