AK Sponsor
Posted: 8/1/2004 8:35:00 AM EDT
| How would it work if the AW sunsets, and then if Bush looses the election? Could Kerry re-sign it? And if that we're to happen, would that make my rifles that we're built after the original Klinton ban be considered Pre-ban? Or would it be same as before with the exception of a short window between September and when Kerry Re-signs it? |
This should answer your question............ Instructions for passing new AWB legislation |
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the POTUS can sign an Executive Order and do whatever he wants........within the parameters of US law. Keep in mind he can always face impeachment for doing something totally off the wall..... If he can justify (in the public's best interest) the absence of need for any type of military style weapon, then he can do it. [Kerry]"When I was in Vietnam, we needed to have assault rifles to fight the enemy. There are no requirements for Americans to own assault style weapons, However, I see no problem with them owning sporting type shotguns and bolt action rifles"[/Kerry] WHOOOSH..........There goes are AKs, FALs, ARs, HKs, etc. By doing this type of stunt, he does not eliminate the citizen's right to keep and bear arms, but merely twists the gun control noose a bit more. Make sense???? Vote Republican, vote Bush on November 2nd, 2004. KF |
He cannot do what you propose, that is beyond the scope of his authority. If Clinton could have done that, don't you think he would have? |
|
www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/ www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-358es.html Executive Orders and National Emergencies: How Presidents Have Come to "Run the Country" by Usurping Legislative Power by William J. Olson and Alan Woll William J. Olson heads a McLean, Virginia, law firm (www.wjopc.com) that focuses on constitutional, administrative, and civil litigation. Alan Woll is an attorney in Blevins, Arkansas ([email protected]). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Summary During the recent presidential scandals, concluding with the impeachment of President Clinton, many people were heard to say that the investigations should end so that the president could get back to "the business of running the country." Under a constitution dedicated to individual liberty and limited government—which divides, separates, and limits power—how did we get to a point where so many Americans think of government as embodied in the president and then liken him to a man running a business? The answer rests in part with the growth of presidential rule through executive orders and national emergencies. Unfortunately, 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. The problem of presidential usurpation of legislative power has been with us from the beginning, but it has grown exponentially with the expansion of government in the 20th century. In enacting program after program, Congress has delegated more and more power to the executive branch. Thus, Congress has not only failed to check but has actually abetted the expansion of presidential power. And the courts have been all but absent in restraining presidential lawmaking. Nevertheless, the courts have acted in two cases—in 1952 and 1996—laying down the principles of the matter; the nation's governors have just forced President Clinton to rewrite a federalism executive order; and now there are two proposals in Congress that seek to limit presidential lawmaking. Those developments offer hope that constitutional limits—and the separation and division of powers, in particular—may eventually be restored. |
|
www.stopcovertwar.com/executive.html The Power of the Presidency Executive Orders All presidents have the power to establish themselves as dictator! Listed below are some of the executive orders that would accomplish abolute dictatorship: EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports. EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media. EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals. EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President. *** A Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. Congress is by-passed. This means that the government may, upon declaration of a state of local or national emergency, seize any of the above, private or otherwise, including manpower. |
|
Pay attention to the bolded area down below. What makes you think a John Kerry administration would be any different then the Clinton Administration? KF -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- www.eagleforum.org/column/1998/aug98/98-08-05.html Power Grab by Executive Order August 5, 1998 The President who got by with issuing Presidential Decision Directive 25 asserting his authority to assign U.S. troops to serve under foreign commanders -- without any uproar from Congress or the public -- apparently now thinks he can get by with an even bigger grab for power. On May 14, Bill Clinton quietly issued Executive Order (EO) 13083 called "Federalism." It's unclear why he issued this EO in Birmingham, England, unless he did it to minimize media coverage. Clinton has been issuing what the press has variously called a "blizzard" or a "blitz" of executive orders. When you cut through the reassuring window dressing restating the obvious (e.g., "the Constitution is premised upon a system of checks and balances"), it becomes clear that this Executive Order's real purpose is to grab large new federal executive-branch powers at the expense of the states. Clinton's Executive Order reminds us that "There should be strict adherence to constitutional principles," but (in Shakespeare's words) he "doth protest too much, methinks." The real key to this Clinton Executive Order is that it revokes President Ronald Reagan's 1987 Executive Order 12612 on Federalism. Reagan had a healthy respect for our unique American system of federalism, under which many powers are reserved to the states. Reagan's EO required a federalism assessment for new regulations or agency action. Clinton's EO has no such requirement and leaves it to federal agencies to develop "an effective process" for state and local officials to provide "input" to the federal overlords. Written in broad and ambiguous language, Clinton's EO amounts to a bold and overreaching attempt to rewrite the U.S. Constitution, especially the Tenth Amendment, and sets up a framework under which federal bureaucrats can meddle whenever they think they have more "expertise" than the states. Here are some of the matters that Clinton's EO asserts "justify Federal action": "When there is a need for uniform national standards." The meddling bureaucrats, of course, will decide when the "need" exists. The Clinton Administration is already claiming a "need" for uniform federal computerization of all personal medical records. What's next? A "need" for uniform gun control laws? "When decentralization increases the costs of government thus imposing additional burdens on the taxpayer." It's hypocritical to feign concern about the burden of state taxes when Clinton has never shown concern about the far more oppressive burden of federal taxes. "When States have not adequately protected individual rights and liberties." The Clintonistas have often manifested their creative ideas about the kinds of "rights" that government should defend. "When States would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations because of fears that regulated business activity will relocate to other States." Clinton has never expressed any fears about the federal regulations that have induced businesses to relocate to Mexico, Asia or other Third World countries. "When placing regulatory authority at the State or local level would undermine regulatory goals because high costs or demands for specialized expertise will effectively place the regulatory matter beyond the resources of State authorities." The Clinton mindset is that the feds have more expertise than the states! "When the matter relates to Federally owned or managed property or natural resources, trust obligations, or international obligations." In addition to the vast tracts of land already owned by the Federal Government, Clinton has repeatedly demanded federal regulations and taxes to fulfill what he has unilaterally decided are our international "obligations," even when they originated in treaties that the Senate refused to ratify. Will this authorize the feds to implement the Global Warming Treaty that Al Gore agreed to in Kyoto, even though it has never been ratified by the Senate, and probably can't be ratified? The Executive Order has long been recognized as a presidential prerogative. But it certainly is not a blank check to rewrite the Constitution or to assume powers that belong to other branches of government or to the states. Clinton is using Executive Orders not only to press the envelope of his regulatory authority, but also to bypass Congress's legislative powers and the Senate's treaty power. As Paul Begala, one of the few who is willing to say he believes Clinton's statements about his sex scandals, says, "The President has a very strong sense of powers of the presidency, and is willing to use all of them." Clinton's greatest skill is with words. The words of Executive Order 13083 were artfully chosen to sound harmless but, when interpreted by his activist judges and bureaucrats, can rationalize the exercise by the President of open-ended, high-handed regulatory powers. If Y2K causes crucial computers to crash and precipitate a national emergency, Clinton will be ready with Executive Order 13083 to assume emergency dictatorial powers that no American President has ever had before. Indeed, Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) is already asking the U.S. military to be ready to respond if Clinton declares martial law on or about January 1, 2000. Congress should immediately repudiate Clinton's impudent grab for power. |
|
But as you saw in my post above: "The problem of presidential usurpation of legislative power has been with us from the beginning, but it has grown exponentially with the expansion of government in the 20th century. In enacting program after program, Congress has delegated more and more power to the executive branch. Thus, Congress has not only failed to check but has actually abetted the expansion of presidential power. And the courts have been all but absent in restraining presidential lawmaking." They would all point fingers at each other, but in the end Congress would claim it was the action of the Executive Branch, and absolve themselves of any wrong-doing in the eyes of their constituents. An impeachment initiative would bog down in partisan politics and most probably never get off the House Floor. So what we would have is a POTUS content with eliminating assault weapons, with no fear of retribution by congress or public majority.....because he let normal citizens keep their shotguns and bolt-action rifles.....Look at England.....Look at Australia.....and all other countries that do not allow ownership of guns by their citizens. |
And withhold funding. You cannot step on the dicks of congress without impunity. |
|
Do you think the POTUS would worry about funding being withheld by Congress on account of his executive order eliminating assault style weapons? No way. He would point a finger at everyone of them and say "Look, they are preventing funding to run the country because I tried to make America's streets, neighborhoods, etc. safer by eliminating assault style weapons." And please keep in mind that I support the Second Amendment with every breath I take. We have the right to keep and bear arms no matter what type of firearm it is. I'm merely telling you what I think a Liberal Democrat administration would probably try and do..... Vote Republican, vote Bush on November 2nd, 2004. 
|
|
If it could be done with an executive order, why didn't Clinton do it with one? Why did he also not stop foreign ammo imports? My congressman wouldn't care about Kerrys grandstanding the issue, he would simply cut the legs out from under him. He is responsive to me, not JKerry. I vote for him, Karry doesn't. I am not telling anyone to vote for Kerry. Hell, i sent Dubya $75 last night! I just think you are assignining more power to the President than he is due. |
|
I'm saying I wouldn't put it past a Democrat POTUS to screw us gunowners good.....all the while with Diane Feinstein behind him ramming him with a strapon...... Anyway, let's hope it never comes to that..... Vote Republican, vote Bush on the 2nd of November, 2004. KF |
|
The real problem with Kerry getting elected is this.. In the next 4 years 80% of the Supreme Court Justices will die or retire.. And guess who appoints SC Justices?? Thats right, the president. Just think a SC ceam packed full of pinko commie liberal raticalls appointed by Kerry.. We would have to put up with 20-30 years of his appointees.. Now that would be bad.. |
I was thinking the same thing tonight. Bush has pissed me off so much lately but I despise Kerry/Heinz. A president can also just call Homeland Security Dept/Customs/BATF whatever department it is now and tell them to approve no more imports of firearms and parts from countries A,B,C,D......until such and such a time as happened to B-West some years ago even after they had the approved import papers in their hands..The result was bankruptcy. |
|
The fact remains, Krink, that POTUS can only issue an EO that is backed by statute. This is why the 89 ban only affects imported guns - Bush Sr would have benned them all back then if he COULD, but he only had statutory backing to hit imports (68 GCA)... This is why the 'souped up' AW ban that was floating around to replace instead of renew the exisiting one added a "SPORTING PURPOSES" test for domestic guns... Once "SPORTING PURPOSES" is no longer for imports only, THEN the Prez can ban anything by EO. Fortunately, that never became law... |
The AWB is due to sunset September 13th. The election isn't until November 2nd and doesn't take effect until January 2005. It will be long dead and burried by the time Kerry could do anything about it. It would be like it never existed, He would have to start from scratch. |
AK Sponsor