View Full Version : Stroke of the pen, law of the land--cool!"
The whole "health care"-contraception flap now going on brings back memories of a comment a Clinton-era flunky made back in the day--"Stroke of the pen, law of the land--cool". It may have been a thrill up the leg for the staffer and his ilk, but it made my blood run cold, then and now.
This latest case of governmental over-reach makes it crystal clear that We, The People" is fast turning into rule by diktat--and it's working all too well. Apparently there is nothing in the Bill of Rights (including the 2A) that is safe if might now makes right.
But then most of us know that in the dark hours of the night...
pilotguyo540
02-10-12, 11:55
There are so many threads about the gov going too far today. If now isn't a breaking point, I don't know that there is a breaking point.
There are so many threads about the gov going too far today. If now isn't a breaking point, I don't know that there is a breaking point.
Never gonna happen. From 2002.
The SECOND Revolution... (http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=146747)
OK, I know the general consensus among patriotic, freedom loving, constitutional gun owners is that we stand ready to feed the gun grabbers and other "domestic" enemies to the hogs.
Gun boards (especially those with a "militia" edge)are ripe with Phase ONE (Expose the Bildeburgs, etc.) plans of the coming revolution that will wipe out socialism and restore constitutional representation to "the people." The logic being once the "citizenry" is made aware of the diabolical plot and awakened we will "throw the bums out" and restore a truly representative government in Phase TWO.
After all we have at least 750 men with SKSs waiting for the "marching orders." And once these fine Americans fire the "first shot heard round the county" everyone will jump on the bandwagon and join the winning team. Just a couple problems.
1. The populace has already been enlightened to the problem and they just don't give a shit. Seriously, Bill Clinton openly wiped his ass with the Constitution on a regular basis and the average Oprah viewer thinks he's some kind of ****ing hero. Hillary commuted felony (and probably capital) crimes and was duly elected Senator.
I firmly believe you could publish photos of the Clintons having 3 way sex with Janet Reno while negotiating the sale of NORAD systems to China while Osama Bin Laden films the decadence and 54% of the country would still vote for them. Just remember Marion Barry got RE ELECTED if you were about to say it would NEVER Happen.
2. The average "gun owner" doesn't even know what is legal anymore or what laws have been passed until AFTER he has been arrested for an illegal configured firearm. he ain't exactly in touch with anything let alone waiting for "marching orders."
At best the MOST any gun owner will do is occasionally spend $25.00 on a NRA membership every couple of years to help fight the good fight. But don't ask him to be a annual member every year or give anything extra. After all $25.00 is a shitload of money. You can get a gun "transferred" for $25.00.
3. As soon as the 37 members of the various militias "open fire" when the timing is right, they will be immediately portrayed as extremist fringe groups and tied to white supremecists, doomsday cults, Mormons, stanists and NAMBLA. NAMBLA will sue for defamation and win. When these patriots are rounded up and sentenced to life for "crimes against the Constitution" the nation will breath a collective sigh of relief. After all these 37 rednecks with pump action shotguns are certainly the GREATEST threat to national security that has ever been faced.
4. Mr. average gun owner will watch it all on TV from the comforts of his lazy boy in his air conditioned living room on a SONY Big Screen. He will think to himself that gun owners like that give him a bad name. He will feel safe that he owns a pump action shotgun in case he ever needs to defend himself from such terrorists. He has no idea that Congress is currently in a closed door session drafting legislation to outlaw the NEW weapon of choice for terrorists, the Pump Action Assault Shotgun.
pilotguyo540
02-10-12, 14:06
Very well said, then and now.
We, the gun crowd, have no leadership. There is no commonality between us as a whole. The fudds think black rifles are the work of the devil. Many of us think that the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Many are, dyed in the wool, republicans, who follow that line without thought or deviation. After all, Rush assured them that the republicans are the good guys.
I heard it said best, by a communist none the less, that America is run by an extreme center. The left and right of the center differ only enough to keep up the charade. The extreme center is extreme in the fact that it is very in accepting of differing political views. While I dispise communism, this guy hit the nail on the head here.
There is no voting ourselves freedom and liberty. Both sides chip away at our freedoms from opposite ends.
QuietShootr
02-10-12, 14:56
Never gonna happen. From 2002.
The SECOND Revolution... (http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=146747)
OK, I know the general consensus among patriotic, freedom loving, constitutional gun owners is that we stand ready to feed the gun grabbers and other "domestic" enemies to the hogs.
Gun boards (especially those with a "militia" edge)are ripe with Phase ONE (Expose the Bildeburgs, etc.) plans of the coming revolution that will wipe out socialism and restore constitutional representation to "the people." The logic being once the "citizenry" is made aware of the diabolical plot and awakened we will "throw the bums out" and restore a truly representative government in Phase TWO.
After all we have at least 750 men with SKSs waiting for the "marching orders." And once these fine Americans fire the "first shot heard round the county" everyone will jump on the bandwagon and join the winning team. Just a couple problems.
1. The populace has already been enlightened to the problem and they just don't give a shit. Seriously, Bill Clinton openly wiped his ass with the Constitution on a regular basis and the average Oprah viewer thinks he's some kind of ****ing hero. Hillary commuted felony (and probably capital) crimes and was duly elected Senator.
I firmly believe you could publish photos of the Clintons having 3 way sex with Janet Reno while negotiating the sale of NORAD systems to China while Osama Bin Laden films the decadence and 54% of the country would still vote for them. Just remember Marion Barry got RE ELECTED if you were about to say it would NEVER Happen.
2. The average "gun owner" doesn't even know what is legal anymore or what laws have been passed until AFTER he has been arrested for an illegal configured firearm. he ain't exactly in touch with anything let alone waiting for "marching orders."
At best the MOST any gun owner will do is occasionally spend $25.00 on a NRA membership every couple of years to help fight the good fight. But don't ask him to be a annual member every year or give anything extra. After all $25.00 is a shitload of money. You can get a gun "transferred" for $25.00.
3. As soon as the 37 members of the various militias "open fire" when the timing is right, they will be immediately portrayed as extremist fringe groups and tied to white supremecists, doomsday cults, Mormons, stanists and NAMBLA. NAMBLA will sue for defamation and win. When these patriots are rounded up and sentenced to life for "crimes against the Constitution" the nation will breath a collective sigh of relief. After all these 37 rednecks with pump action shotguns are certainly the GREATEST threat to national security that has ever been faced.
4. Mr. average gun owner will watch it all on TV from the comforts of his lazy boy in his air conditioned living room on a SONY Big Screen. He will think to himself that gun owners like that give him a bad name. He will feel safe that he owns a pump action shotgun in case he ever needs to defend himself from such terrorists. He has no idea that Congress is currently in a closed door session drafting legislation to outlaw the NEW weapon of choice for terrorists, the Pump Action Assault Shotgun.
Perception...you has it.
Perception...you has it.
My favorite one from the old days...
Mass Shooting Near Boston, Right Wing Extremists Shoot Govt. Agents... (http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=596081)
These guys are gonna cost us all our rights. It's guys like this who give us a bad name.
Terrorists Ambush Government Agents (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/lexington.htm)
Armed Radical Group Assaults Government (http://www.justice101us.com/concordgreen.htm)
Members of a radical militia group ambushed government agents in a massive shootout today at a small town near Boston. Government agents as part of an ongoing investigation into the groups criminal activities were preparing to raid known stockpiles of military weapons and ammunition and arrest group leaders.
Tipped off about the raid several members of the group, led by a Colonel James Barrett moved their stockpile of assault weapons (including artillery pieces) to alternate locations. They then gathered members of their group at a local bar Wright's Tavern and made plans to ambush the agents they knew were coming. They then placed armed members at key points in preparation for the attack.
The arriving agents soon spotted several armed men. Despite the show of force, they were not to be intimidated and moved into position. Government agents, under orders to not fire unless fired upon, took up defensive positions.
Believing that government agents were burning their buildings the militia group advanced on the agents positions. Government agents fired warning shots hoping to stop the assault. In the confusion several agents directly engaged members of the advancing militia group, who then returned fire.
Several men were killed and wounded in the ensuing gun battle.
Government agents have identified and issued warrants for the key leadership of the militia group. Among the wanted are James Barrett, Paul Revere, William Dawes, John Parker, Samuel Prescott, Samuel Adams and John Hancock.
Cesiumsponge
02-10-12, 19:00
I'm done with human overlords. Where are our robot overlords?
Gutshot John
02-11-12, 08:29
Seriously, again? I don't know how many we've addressed this issue.
Executive Orders only apply to Executive Branch employees or to the enforcement of laws already passed by Congress.
The President can't simply create a Law/EO on his own and make it be law. Begala's quote is unfortunate because it is so often taken out of context and misrepresented.
I just wish people would take the time to understand the issues before they start going off on executive overreach.
There is legitimate executive overreach but when people start making bizarre claims like diktat, it discredits the very real criticism.
The_War_Wagon
02-11-12, 09:18
Keep in mind, when 'the law' has determined Mr. X guilty of Felony Spitting on the Sidewalk, the warrants issued, and it's also WELL KNOWN, that he owns A gun... SWAT, the Feds, & local TV cameras are dispatched post-haste, to show exactly how much power can be brought to bear against ONE, SOLITARY, gun owner. Then it's televised LIVE, so as to cow the rest of us sheeple into remembering who has the WILL to use the POWER.
That's because, if you gather EVERY active duty, reservist, INactive reservist, and recently retired .mil, AND conscripted EVERY badde in the country (constables, local police, sheriff's deputies, city police, county police, feder badge toters, et.al.), and lined them up as, "the opposition"... what have you GOT?
5 million? Maybe?
Versus...
90 million gun owners? Maybe more?
And lets say that part of the 90 million, is the 5 million LE/MIL above. In fact, let's give 'em ALL that 5 million. 85: 5 - sounds like decent odds to me.
And of course, that assumes NO DEFECTIONS from among the 5 million... which I WOULDN'T bank on... Ditto for the 85 million, but I still like the odds better, even IF only 10% get off their arse to say, "NO MORE!"
WHAT will be the breaking/tipping point? Like many of you, I'm STILL amazed some days, that it hasn't happened already! It does seem we've forgotten Ben Franklin's admonition however.
"If we don't hang TOGETHER, most assuredly, we shall all hang seperately..."
http://pastreunited.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/2424506557_953c9d4e0f.jpghttp://mommylife.net/archives/2009/01/16/elian.jpghttp://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7g2CQwnlTjU/Tf_A2sVxEUI/AAAAAAAABfc/WeV1jcS5GdY/s1600/1.jpg
Moose-Knuckle
02-11-12, 11:35
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/frog_boiling.jpg
John,
Some observations. Oddly enough, my massive unabridged dictionary doesnt have an entry for "diktat". However, I did find "ukase" which I believe to be the Russian equivalent--an arbitrary, illicit exercise of raw power.
Maybe there ought to be more discussion of what these words do or do not mean. Hell, until I almost accidentally took a course in political theory in grad school years ago, all I knew about government was the Government 101 "how a bill becomes law" boilerplate. After a bunch of years in and around government as a participant/observer and getting my head handed to me more than once, I think out of the box more now.
I believe it was Washington who compared government to fire--useful, but very dangerous when out of control. He also defined it as, in the end, FORCE. I agree that its abuse is not necessarily just an executive branch offense, as a supine legislature can function as an enabler (Hitler's Reichstag); same with an arrogant judiciary (Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade).
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war. FDR interned citizens of Japanese descent in WWII. DHS--well, you get the idea. My old agency (Immigration) takes the other tack--wilful refusal to enforce the laws by executive mis, mal, and non-feasance. Being a gun forum, I'll throw in "Fast and Furious". Examples, unfortunately, abound.
The point is that without a certain degree of civic virtue and integrity, and citizen involvement, the Constititution and Bill of Rights are "scraps of paper" with no power of their own.
One of the few things I remember from my high school history classes was a Thomas Nast cartoon about the NY machine politician "Boss" Tweed who was the soul of NYC corruption in the 1870s. Nast portrayed a corpulent Tweed (with diamond stickpin) sitting on bags of money, saying, "What are you going to do about it?"
"Something" was eventually done about it. Tweed was eventually indicted, fled to Europe, was brought back to the US, and convicted. He died in jail.
Sometimes I think that cartoon made me an "optomistic realist".
Onward thru the fog.
Gutshot John
02-11-12, 13:45
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war. FDR interned citizens of Japanese descent in WWII.
1. Lincoln didn't suspend habeas corpus everywhere, only in specific states that were under threat of further secession like Maryland.
2. Congress endorsed Lincoln's actions, you'll notice under Article I, Congress can suspend habeas corpus in times of insurrection and national emergency.
3. Rightly or wrongly, FDR followed the same course of action.
4. Both actions were declared unconstitutional by the supreme court
Ordering the detention of individuals in order to enforce the law, is not the same as creating law by decree. The Executive Branch is constitutionally required to enforce the law, it cannot however create law.
The distinction is subtle but still pretty clear.
The President can't simply create a Law/EO on his own and make it be law. Begala's quote is unfortunate because it is so often taken out of context and misrepresented.
Isn't that exactly how we got the 89 Import Ban?
You are right on suspension of habeas corpus: - article 1' section 9, paragraph 2.
I still maintain that we are plagued by governmental over-reach far beyond the Founder's wildest expectations.
You are right on suspension of habeas corpus: - article 1' section 9, paragraph 2.
I still maintain that we are plagued by governmental over-reach far beyond the Founder's intentions.
Isn't it also how we got the "no sale of surplus mil. ammo on the commercial market" ban?
Isn't that exactly how we got the 89 Import Ban?
Gutshot John
02-11-12, 14:54
Isn't that exactly how we got the 89 Import Ban?
Sure, which department handles customs and importation? Which branch of government does that department fall under.
One guess.
There is no constitutional right to import anything. The government has the right to determine what is and what is not permitted to cross its borders, always has had that right.
The 89 importation ban didn't apply to ownership of weapons already in the country nor does it apply to similar types of weapons manufactured here. Which is how Arsenal et al. make their money.
Gutshot John
02-11-12, 14:55
Isn't it also how we got the "no sale of surplus mil. ammo on the commercial market" ban?
What ban is that? I buy surplus military ammo all the time.
Maybe I'll end up eating crow but I recall it mentioned here that it is illegal to sell real M855 on the commercial market. Hence the reason we have XM855, etc.
What ban is that? I buy surplus military ammo all the time.
pilotguyo540
02-11-12, 15:10
John, I think you are looking too close. You can't see the forest for the trees. The executive branch is the face of the problem. Congress is as much at fault. Career politicians are working as a machine. None of them are among us or even from us. Sure they put on a show for the camera, with their unbuttoned shirt, loose tie, and "work boots." every damn one of them is there because they kissed the right asses and are working to gain opulence. The political monstrosity as a whole is far more powerful than it ever should have been. They are working together for their own advantage and power, while we squabble over technicalities. They have us divided. Pretty freaking well if you ask me. We are powerless because we bicker.
In the original revolution that founded our country, 3% were willing to make a stand against the British. We as a nation have 300 million(ish) people. 3% of that is about 10 million. I believe much of the fighting force would be our mil/le who took their oath serious. Their 5 million just shrank. The union minions would, for the most part, side with the socialist agenda. I don't know how to quantify that, but it is worth noting.
In recent days the FBI has said that a cyber attack is imminent. That has set the stage for a false flag op, so the government can strip away our freedom to protect us.
Maybe I need to step out of the faraday cage and chew on fresh grass with the rest of the sheep. Surely the wolves are here for our own good. After all, those sheep are still alive and well....
Sure, which department handles customs and importation? Which branch of government does that department fall under.
One guess.
There is no constitutional right to import anything. The government has the right to determine what is and what is not permitted to cross its borders, always has had that right.
The 89 importation ban didn't apply to ownership of weapons already in the country nor does it apply to similar types of weapons manufactured here. Which is how Arsenal et al. make their money.
But the net result was a President "simply creat[ing] a Law/EO on his own" despite your assertions that "The President can't simply create a Law/EO on his own and make it be law."
What ban is that? I buy surplus military ammo all the time.
Probably grandfathered in if it was Lake City. Clinton signed a ban that the US military cannot import surplus ammo (and even brass at one time) for resale to the private sector. You can still import military surplus from many other nations (China mostly excluded due to a couple of Bush Jr. bans).
You can also still buy Lake City ammo as it is sold to regular distributors. But once it goes into the US military inventory, it can't go back to the private sector.
Gutshot John
02-11-12, 17:28
But the net result was a President "simply creat[ing] a Law/EO on his own" despite your assertions that "The President can't simply create a Law/EO on his own and make it be law."
No he didn't create law.
1. He ordered executive branch employees to enforce the border consistent with his constitutional obligations and authority
2. He was enforcing statutory authority given to him by Congress in the creation of the Treasury/Customs Department
No he didn't create law.
1. He ordered executive branch employees to enforce the border consistent with his constitutional obligations and authority
2. He was enforcing statutory authority given to him by Congress in the creation of the Treasury/Customs Department
So it is your argument that the EO he did create isn't a "law"?
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/april-1998-sporting-suitability-of-modified-semiautomatic-assault-rifles.pdf
"unlawful to import any frame, receiver, or barrel of such"
Belmont31R
02-11-12, 18:12
There is no constitutional right to import anything. The government has the right to determine what is and what is not permitted to cross its borders, always has had that right.
Please tell me what sections of the Constitution list the "rights" of the government?
Thank you. I knew it was Clinton but I couldn't remember the details.
Probably grandfathered in if it was Lake City. Clinton signed a ban that the US military cannot import surplus ammo (and even brass at one time) for resale to the private sector. You can still import military surplus from many other nations (China mostly excluded due to a couple of Bush Jr. bans).
You can also still buy Lake City ammo as it is sold to regular distributors. But once it goes into the US military inventory, it can't go back to the private sector.
Gutshot John
02-11-12, 19:03
So it is your argument that the EO he did create isn't a "law"?
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/april-1998-sporting-suitability-of-modified-semiautomatic-assault-rifles.pdf
"unlawful to import any frame, receiver, or barrel of such"
Are you kidding me? Seriously?
No He did NOT create the law by the EO. He is ENFORCING a law. That's what "unlawful" means. If you do something unlawful, it gets enforced. No one since the nullification crisis of 1832 has seriously challenged the authority of the national government to regulate international commerce, and that was thrown out...almost 200 years ago.
The law was created by Congress when it gave authority to Treasury/Customs to govern/enforce importation of all products crossing into our borders.
Gutshot John
02-11-12, 19:08
Please tell me what sections of the Constitution list the "rights" of the government?
Oh for crying out loud, "powers" if you prefer. You knew exactly what I meant.
Relevant to Congress read Article I of the Constitution, it's spelled out pretty clearly in Section 8.
Congress Article I, Section 8 Paragraph 3 - "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Relevant to the Executive read Article II, particularly the "vesting" clause.
Belmont31R
02-11-12, 19:15
Relevant to Congress read Article I of the Constitution, it's spelled out pretty clearly.
Congress Article I, Section 8 Paragraph 3 - "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Relevant to the Executive read Article II, particularly the "vesting" clause.
The Federal government has powers not rights.
Article 1 Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Article 2 Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Article 3 Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Please, again, tell me which section lists the "Rights" of the government....
Gutshot John
02-11-12, 20:09
The Federal government has powers not rights.
Don't be obtuse. Small-r "rights" i.e. authority/powers...distinction without a difference. Government has the authority/power to govern what crosses its borders.
You know it, I know it.
Belmont31R
02-11-12, 20:31
Don't be obtuse. Small-r "rights" i.e. authority/powers...distinction without a difference. Government has the authority/power to govern what crosses its borders.
You know it, I know it.
No...there is a huge difference between a right and a granted power. If you're going to argue constitutional law you should at least use the correct terms.
The distinction is subtle but still pretty clear.
QuietShootr
02-11-12, 21:19
No he didn't create law.
1. He ordered executive branch employees to enforce the border consistent with his constitutional obligations and authority
2. He was enforcing statutory authority given to him by Congress in the creation of the Treasury/Customs Department
I love this ignore list - all I have to do is click "view this post" every once in a great while and nearly every time, it confirms my decision. :-)
QuietShootr
02-11-12, 21:25
Oh, I forgot: **** Abraham Lincoln with a rusty AIDS-covered rake. If there IS any justice in the hereafter, he's roasting on the brazier right this instant.
Gutshot John
02-11-12, 22:32
No...there is a huge difference between a right and a granted power. If you're going to argue constitutional law you should at least use the correct terms.
Except you're taking the narrowest possible construction of the word "right" when you know damn well what I was talking about...
According to the dictionary here are other definitions of "right" several of them are appropriate in the context I was using it...
Adjective:
Morally good, justified, or acceptable.
Adverb:
To the furthest or most complete extent or degree: "the car spun right off the track".
Noun:
That which is morally correct, just, or honorable: "the difference between right and wrong".
Verb:
Restore to a normal or upright position.
Exclamation:
Used to indicate one's agreement with a suggestion or to acknowledge a statement or order.
Synonyms:
adjective. correct - proper - just - true - straight - fit - fair
adverb. straight - directly - just - rightly - exactly
noun. justice - law - title
verb. straighten - redress - rectify - correct
Belmont31R
02-11-12, 22:47
Except you're taking the narrowest possible construction of the word "right" when you know damn well what I was talking about...
According to the dictionary here are other definitions of "right" several of them are appropriate in the context I was using it...
Adjective:
Morally good, justified, or acceptable.
Adverb:
To the furthest or most complete extent or degree: "the car spun right off the track".
Noun:
That which is morally correct, just, or honorable: "the difference between right and wrong".
Verb:
Restore to a normal or upright position.
Exclamation:
Used to indicate one's agreement with a suggestion or to acknowledge a statement or order.
Synonyms:
adjective. correct - proper - just - true - straight - fit - fair
adverb. straight - directly - just - rightly - exactly
noun. justice - law - title
verb. straighten - redress - rectify - correct
You are wrong. In this context they mean very different things. Not going to play word games with you so you can find some little 'out'.
In this context rights are things every human is naturally born with and which the Founders believed were God given. They do not apply to the Federal government since no where in the Constitution is government authority referred to as a 'right'.
Powers are given to a governing body, in this case, the US Federal government, and came from the states via the people. The states created the Federal government. If rights are natural born attributes of people then a governing body cannot have 'rights'. A government is not naturally born.
Black and white differences in this context...not what some definition you found on the internet says which is not written in the context of the US Constitution.
Gutshot John
02-11-12, 22:47
I love this ignore list - all I have to do is click "view this post" every once in a great while and nearly every time, it confirms my decision. :-)
I love people who have to make a show of bombastic nonsense like the above when they know damn well it's all pretense. If I was really being ignored...you'd just ignore me. Why the pretense?
Do me a favor and actually put me on your ignore list, I'll reciprocate the favor and that way I won't have to read inanities like the above.
Gutshot John
02-11-12, 22:49
Oh, I forgot: **** Abraham Lincoln with a rusty AIDS-covered rake. If there IS any justice in the hereafter, he's roasting on the brazier right this instant.
So you did read more than one of my posts...interesting. I guess I called it.
I find it funny that you heap scorn on Lincoln rather than the confederacy which tried to bring down the very Constitution you seem to care so much about as well as literally enslaving its citizens.
Your sense of liberty is as shallow as your intellect.
Gutshot John
02-11-12, 22:54
You are wrong. In this context they mean very different things. Not going to play word games with you so you can find some little 'out'.
Pure unadulterated Horsepuckey. You can't argue substance so you go the pedantic route.
You know damn well what I was saying, instead you have to get into a bullshit semantic argument about the definition of "right" when you know that substantively the government has the power to control its borders and that the Executive Branch was given full authority under Congressional statute to do so.
It's a chickenshit argument. I've longed since acknowledged that if you define "right" as narrowly as you do, then yes the government has no rights. If you take the clear intent of what I was saying, then you're dead wrong. Where have I argued the government has actual rights, like an individual citizen? You have to be braindead not to see that the clear intent of my meaning was that the Executive has the clear Constitutional and statutory authority to enforce the borders.
Now then can you come up with a better argument to have? or do you want to keep chasing your tail like a squirrel on crack?
Belmont31R
02-11-12, 23:08
Pure unadulterated Horsepuckey. You can't argue substance so you go the pedantic route.
You know damn well what I was saying, instead you have to get into a bullshit semantic argument about the definition of "right" when you know that substantively the government has the power to control its borders and that the Executive Branch was given full authority under Congressional statute to do so.
It's a chickenshit argument.
Not at all. Someone with such a broad and detailed vocabulary such as you possess would most assuredly understand the difference, and use the proper word.
I mean if you can use the word "pedantic" you can understand the difference between a granted power and a right as understood in the context of the US Constitution. You're attempt at confusion in an attempt to blend the two words together is beneath the broad exhibition of the English language you have displayed for us previously in all but you're most cursory of postings.
Gutshot John
02-11-12, 23:19
Not at all. Someone with such a broad and detailed vocabulary such as you possess would most assuredly understand the difference, and use the proper word.
Dude you have to be kidding me. Are you really this obtuse????
First the word "right" has a variety of meanings. You projected your meaning onto my word, when clearly I meant something else. Moreover I repeatedly restated it as "power" or "authority".
Second, I've long since acknowledged that if you want to define "right" as something like a civil or constitutional right than indeed the government has no rights like a citizen has rights. I've NEVER ONCE disputed that.
If you take the plain intent of my words, throughout this thread, it's pretty clear I was talking about legal authority. And so far you can't offer a single argument to contradict the basic premise that the Executive branch has the legal and constitutional authority to secure the borders and prevent a good from being imported.
Instead you want to pick one word and argue that...pedantically...instead of arguing the substance of my point.
That's pure chickenshit.
TAKE YES FOR AN ANSWER!
pilotguyo540
02-11-12, 23:26
Holy crap! Thread drift.
Are we gearing up to fight red coats, or not?
BTW, Lincoln was a terrible leader. He almost lost half of the country. The north had slaves too, ya jack wagon. The war wasn't over slavery. That was thrown in after to punish the south.
Gutshot John
02-11-12, 23:34
Holy crap! Thread drift.
Are we gearing up to fight red coats, or not?
BTW, Lincoln was a terrible leader. He almost lost half of the country. The north had slaves too, ya jack wagon. The war wasn't over slavery. That was thrown in after to punish the south.
The war wasn't about slavery? Have you read the secession documents of those states that seceded? Funny that those predate the war.
Try again.
Belmont31R
02-11-12, 23:38
Dude you have to be kidding me. Are you really this obtuse????
First the word "right" has a variety of meanings. You projected your meaning onto my word, when clearly I meant something else. Moreover I repeatedly restated it as "power" or "authority".
Second, I've long since acknowledged that if you want to define "right" as something like a civil or constitutional right than indeed the government has no rights like a citizen has rights. I've NEVER ONCE disputed that.
If you take the plain intent of my words, throughout this thread, it's pretty clear I was talking about legal authority. And so far you can't offer a single argument to contradict the basic premise that the Executive branch has the legal and constitutional authority to secure the borders and prevent a good from being imported.
Instead you want to pick one word and argue that...pedantically...instead of arguing the substance of my point.
That's pure chickenshit.
TAKE YES FOR AN ANSWER!
Wrong again, and try not to be so dramatic. All you have to do is say, "I used the word incorrectly."
Instead you chose to blend the two words together into one when you posted your dictionary definition, and entrench yourself into a rather poor position.
You didn't "long since acknowledge..." anything. Your hint was when I first asked you under what section of the Constitution the rights of the government were listed, and you actually gave me a section and article number. Not, "Oh I meant XYZ". Now you're just fighting tooth and nail to avoid acknowledging a simple but important mistake and digging yourself in deeper. Have such a hard time acknowledging a error do you?
Like I said if you're going to argue con law use the proper terms since they do have meaning, and are not as vague as a random definition pulled off the internet which suits your specific purposes. Especially when you are harping on other people about such things as distinctions...
The distinction is subtle but still pretty clear.
Gutshot John
02-11-12, 23:44
Wrong again, and try not to be so dramatic. All you have to do is say, "I used the word incorrectly."
From my first reply to you about 20 posts ago...
Oh for crying out loud, "powers" if you prefer. You knew exactly what I meant.
Talk about being overly dramatic.
pilotguyo540
02-11-12, 23:48
The war wasn't about slavery? Have you read the secession documents of those states that seceded? Funny that those predate the war.
Try again.
No, and neither did Lincoln, they were too long winded. That's what the war was about. If they could have said that in 50 words or less, it may have been believable. Lincoln tried reading it, then got bored and said, "**** this," and attacked the south.
Forgive my public education. I was wrong on that particular point.
Gutshot John
02-11-12, 23:51
No, and neither did Lincoln, they were too long winded. That's what the war was about. If they could have said that in 50 words or less, it may have been believable. Lincoln tried reading it, then got bored and said, "**** this," and attacked the south.
Uhm, you don know that the South fired the first shots of the war? Place called Fort Sumter?
South Carolina, the first state that seceded, a full 4 months before the start of the war, mentions slavery almost a half-dozen times in their secession document. The notion that Lincoln didnt read a two page document, that directly affected his presidency strikes me as half-baked.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=432
pilotguyo540
02-11-12, 23:55
Uhm, you don know that the South fired the first shots of the war? Place called Fort Sumter?
South Carolina, the first state that seceded, a full 4 months before the start of the war, mentions slavery almost a half-dozen times in their secession document.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=432
Dude, seriously.... It was just a joke. Cut a brother some slack. I know about fort Sumter.
You seem angry today. Is everything okay?
Gutshot John
02-11-12, 23:58
Dude, seriously.... It was just a joke. Cut a brother some slack. I know about fort Sumter.
You seem angry today. Is everything okay?
Sorry, just tired of dealing with nonsense.
It's hard to recognize someone is joking here online...especially when they don't use available emoticons like...
;) :D :o :p :jester:
pilotguyo540
02-12-12, 00:01
My bad. I thought it was so over the top that emoticons were not necessary.
Are you kidding me? Seriously?
No He did NOT create the law by the EO. He is ENFORCING a law. That's what "unlawful" means. If you do something unlawful, it gets enforced. No one since the nullification crisis of 1832 has seriously challenged the authority of the national government to regulate international commerce, and that was thrown out...almost 200 years ago.
The law was created by Congress when it gave authority to Treasury/Customs to govern/enforce importation of all products crossing into our borders.
George Bush "created the law" when he signed the EO which resulted in a "law" that prevents the importation of those weapons.
The fact that he was empowered to do so does NOT mean anyone else created the law. The fact of the matter is Bill Bennett (then drug czar) asked for the Ban and Bush created it with an EO.
Bush didn't simply "enforce" it because no such ban existed PRIOR to his creation of it with the EO that was the 1989 Import Ban.
Belmont31R
02-12-12, 01:46
From my first reply to you about 20 posts ago...
Talk about being overly dramatic.
Don't be obtuse. Small-r "rights" i.e. authority/powers...distinction without a difference.
No difference, eh? Its funny, in a way, and sad in others...how you weave and wind your way through debates/arguments.
Have a good night.. :cool:
John, they got you - not on substance, but on emotion. You are arguing with people who think that every mouse fart in their house is being recorded by the Feds. Grab a bottle of Pinot and relax. You will not convince them to change their beliefs, and they will turn it into a semantics or grammar battle rather than concede any ground.
Does that make their analysis less valuable or accurate? Its easy to dismiss someone as some sort of mental defective just because you don't like what they have to say. And its not as if this scenario has no possibility of actually happening...
...people who think that every mouse fart in their house is being recorded by the Feds.
I'm no legal or political expert and I don't know the ins and outs of EO's or other executive powers but from what I do know about law, it is critical that one is very discriminating in the terms they use when making a legal argument.
pilotguyo540
02-12-12, 11:20
John, they got you - not on substance, but on emotion. You are arguing with people who think that every mouse fart in their house is being recorded by the Feds. Grab a bottle of Pinot and relax. You will not convince them to change their beliefs, and they will turn it into a semantics or grammar battle rather than concede any ground.
If you like the government Issued kool-aide that's cool. I don't. I can smell bull shit. Nobody is recording any mouse fart in my house. Referring to us as paranoid and dillisional is dishonest and rude. We have legitimate concerns with the size and scope of the government. You can keep your blinders on if you like.
Gutshot John
02-12-12, 11:58
If you like the government Issued kool-aide that's cool. I don't. I can smell bull shit. Nobody is recording any mouse fart in my house. Referring to us as paranoid and dillisional is dishonest and rude. We have legitimate concerns with the size and scope of the government. You can keep your blinders on if you like.
Ok, I've tried the substantive argument approach, with nary a soul who can show that an EO equates to law by decree.
Instead they've relied on chickenshit nonsense such as the semantic difference between a "right" and a "power" when my intent was not only clear but I conceded as such from the beginning.
So if you've got some substance behind you, I'm all ears.
Gutshot John
02-12-12, 12:04
No difference, eh? Its funny, in a way, and sad in others...how you weave and wind your way through debates/arguments.
Have a good night.. :cool:
Dude if you were any sharper you'd cut yourself. In the plain meaning of my intent there is no difference. That you insisted on projecting your meaning onto my words to make a bullshit semantic argument rather than a substantive one means you conceded that I'm correct.
It's funny and sad how you weave/wind your way through arguments and still can't address the substance of the issue.
If you've got something substantive to argue, then do so. Otherwise you lost, you know it and I know it.
Gutshot John
02-12-12, 12:10
George Bush "created the law" when he signed the EO which resulted in a "law" that prevents the importation of those weapons.
The fact that he was empowered to do so does NOT mean anyone else created the law. The fact of the matter is Bill Bennett (then drug czar) asked for the Ban and Bush created it with an EO.
Bush didn't simply "enforce" it because no such ban existed PRIOR to his creation of it with the EO that was the 1989 Import Ban.
Sorry you really don't have a clue what you're talking about. I don't know who filled your head with that nonsense but it's COMPLETELY, demonstrably, and irrevocably wrong. I love how you guys spout off about the Constitution and yet don't have a freaking clue about what it says and how it is constructed. How can you be proud of your ignorance? Seriously crack a textbook on Constitutional law and learn how EO's work because it's getting very tedious to argue with someone who thinks black is white and the sun rises in the west. Your argument is really that dumb.
I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand, though I think you do, you just can't bring yourself to admit it. It didn't CREATE law, it dealt with enforcing an EXISTING law, see the act of Congress that established the Treasury/Customs department and VESTED the authority to enforce that law with the President/Executive in 1789 (that's 220 years ago), 31 U.S.C.A. § 301 it ain't exactly a new thing. Again an EO only has the force of law for members of the Executive Branch or when it deals with enforcing an existing statute passed by Congress.
The 1989 ban MEETS BOTH STANDARDS. :blink:
pilotguyo540
02-12-12, 13:36
Why are we stuck on the executive branch? Congress needs to be held to the fire as well. They have passed many a law that we don't agree with. Remember the obamacare fiasco? That's 2 branches of the government working together to fick us over. It may have passed constitutional muster as far as how it got put into law, but that does not make the text of the law legal as per the constitution. Same for the assault weapons ban of 1993. The mechanics were legit, as you say, but it is still in contradiction to the second amendment. There have been people more educated than me to argue both sides of the argument.
You obviously are far more read on this than I am. I am not looking for a pissing match either. I would like to walk through this step by step.
Belmont31R
02-12-12, 14:24
Dude if you were any sharper you'd cut yourself. In the plain meaning of my intent there is no difference. That you insisted on projecting your meaning onto my words to make a bullshit semantic argument rather than a substantive one means you conceded that I'm correct.
It's funny and sad how you weave/wind your way through arguments and still can't address the substance of the issue.
If you've got something substantive to argue, then do so. Otherwise you lost, you know it and I know it.
I didn't project my meaning. When the Constitution was written, and in that context, there is a HUGE difference in the words in which in your mind there is no difference and you have stated that numerous times now. You're definitions of the words in this context are wrong. Just like 'regulate' in the sense of the 2nd Amendment does not mean the same thing as the modern word 'regulate'.
I don't really care what your intent was...the usage as you laid out originally was mixing and mashing words with very different meanings. As I said before if you're going to argue con law you can at least use the correct terms in your arguments. When someone throws around those terms interchangeably it tells me they don't know what they are talking about. So theres no need to argue a point of substance when the other party doesn't think there is a large difference between basic terms in the Constitution.
The fact you're resorting to snide little personal attacks is also a clue. Almost every post of yours in this thread is filled with derogatory words and basically telling other people they are 'stupid'. The crux of your argument is other people are wrong and you are right.
Anyways...Yes the Executive has the power to to issue EO's within their granted authority. If Congress passed a law that had some vague wording in it, like they usually do, and then tell the Executive to create regulations to enforce the law then an import ban on a specific item is conceivable. Congress likes to do that so it absolves themselves of actually having to pass bills and take responsibility for it. Instead they pass the buck to the Executive, and we get departments like the ATF who creates regulations that are legally enforceable. Its not a law in the strict sense of con law terms as only Congress and the Executive together can pass a law. So while an EO is not a law its a legally enforceable 'order' based on pre existing authority. The president cannot pass a law all on his own. Now one thing might have been legal before and illegal after an EO is signed but the EO was enforcing a pre existing law. Maybe the law was not enforced before or the wording was so vague and Congress put something in there about the Executive (or a specific department) creating regulations to enforce the law. Regulatory power is not the same thing as creating a law although they can have the same impact. Congress, as I said, passed the buck on to make specific things up to the Executive to be outlawed rather than doing it themselves.
The way the checks and balances should work is that if Congress doesn't like an EO they can revoke a law but that would also require Executive approval or veto proof majority, and its unlikely a president would sign a law removing authority from an EO he signed. If the EO is unconstitutional, like seizure of firearms, and has no law to back it up the Supreme Court can rule the EO invalid.
There are all kinds of terms with specific meanings. In the context of con law and actual wording in the Constitution right, power, law, regulation, and EO all mean different things.
Gutshot John
02-12-12, 15:17
I didn't project my meaning. When the Constitution was written, and in that context, there is a HUGE difference in the words in which in your mind there is no difference and you have stated that numerous times now. You're definitions of the words in this context are wrong. Just like 'regulate' in the sense of the 2nd Amendment does not mean the same thing as the modern word 'regulate'.
I don't really care what your intent was...the usage as you laid out originally was mixing and mashing words with very different meanings. As I said before if you're going to argue con law you can at least use the correct terms in your arguments. When someone throws around those terms interchangeably it tells me they don't know what they are talking about. So theres no need to argue a point of substance when the other party doesn't think there is a large difference between basic terms in the Constitution.
The fact you're resorting to snide little personal attacks is also a clue. Almost every post of yours in this thread is filled with derogatory words and basically telling other people they are 'stupid'. The crux of your argument is other people are wrong and you are right.
Anyways...Yes the Executive has the power to to issue EO's within their granted authority. If Congress passed a law that had some vague wording in it, like they usually do, and then tell the Executive to create regulations to enforce the law then an import ban on a specific item is conceivable. Congress likes to do that so it absolves themselves of actually having to pass bills and take responsibility for it. Instead they pass the buck to the Executive, and we get departments like the ATF who creates regulations that are legally enforceable. Its not a law in the strict sense of con law terms as only Congress and the Executive together can pass a law. So while an EO is not a law its a legally enforceable 'order' based on pre existing authority. The president cannot pass a law all on his own. Now one thing might have been legal before and illegal after an EO is signed but the EO was enforcing a pre existing law. Maybe the law was not enforced before or the wording was so vague and Congress put something in there about the Executive (or a specific department) creating regulations to enforce the law. Regulatory power is not the same thing as creating a law although they can have the same impact. Congress, as I said, passed the buck on to make specific things up to the Executive to be outlawed rather than doing it themselves.
The way the checks and balances should work is that if Congress doesn't like an EO they can revoke a law but that would also require Executive approval or veto proof majority, and its unlikely a president would sign a law removing authority from an EO he signed. If the EO is unconstitutional, like seizure of firearms, and has no law to back it up the Supreme Court can rule the EO invalid.
There are all kinds of terms with specific meanings. In the context of con law and actual wording in the Constitution right, power, law, regulation, and EO all mean different things.
Except I never once said "right" as in Constitutional right. You'd have to either be completely disingenuous or pathologically stupid not to understand that I meant "power". More to the point I SAID SO MULTIPLE TIMES.
You've said nothing that challenges the underlying substance of the argument that the 1989 Ban was indeed consistent with the Executive Branches constitutional authority to both enforce laws passed by Congress and direct the actions of the Executive Branch. This is called VESTING and it's explicit in the Constitution. That you don't understand this very basic Constitutional concept means I'm having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
From the act that created the treasury...http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/03C4.txt
The President of the United States is authorized to designate and
empower the head of any department or agency in the executive
branch, or any official thereof who is required to be appointed by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform without
approval, ratification, or other action by the President (1) any
function which is vested in the President by law, or (2) any
function which such officer is required or authorized by law to
perform only with or subject to the approval, ratification, or
other action of the President:
Instead you have to rely on this bullshit argument about the meaning of "right" rather than addressing the substance of what I've said. I can only conclude that you either have no interest in an honest debate or have no fundamental understanding of the issues at hand. Either way, I'm done and I weep for conservatism if your understanding is what passes for constitutional thought.
Belmont31R
02-12-12, 17:28
Except I never once said "right" as in Constitutional right. You'd have to either be completely disingenuous or pathologically stupid not to understand that I meant "power". More to the point I SAID SO MULTIPLE TIMES.
You've said nothing that challenges the underlying substance of the argument that the 1989 Ban was indeed consistent with the Executive Branches constitutional authority to both enforce laws passed by Congress and direct the actions of the Executive Branch. This is called VESTING and it's explicit in the Constitution. That you don't understand this very basic Constitutional concept means I'm having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
From the act that created the treasury...http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/03C4.txt
Instead you have to rely on this bullshit argument about the meaning of "right" rather than addressing the substance of what I've said. I can only conclude that you either have no interest in an honest debate or have no fundamental understanding of the issues at hand. Either way, I'm done and I weep for conservatism if your understanding is what passes for constitutional thought.
Man you are a piece of work.
I was AGREEING with you that an EO is not a "law", and you go off on a spiel about how dumb I am. Like many debates you've gotten into on this site you quickly devolve down into personal attacks and basically calling anyone who doesn't toe your line stupid and arrogant. Try some different debate tactics because resorting to that sort of childishness doesn't do anything for you. Try stepping down off the high horse of intellectual superiority you are constantly riding around here. You try so hard to be "right" you can't even see when someone agrees with you on "substance" (which you were so eager to discuss) and jump to the defensive so quickly its astonishing.
You're perfectly willing to play the "you knew what I meant" card when you harp on other people about distinctions between words... :rolleyes:
Begala's quote is unfortunate because it is so often taken out of context and misrepresented.
I feel the same way when government powers as referred to as rights. ;)
The distinction is subtle but still pretty clear.
As in this case, too...
My first question about what section of the Constitution the rights of the government were under was mostly in jest because you were the one talking about context and distinction before I even posted in this thread. Then you use a word entirely out of context, and you jump on the defensive with:
Oh for crying out loud
You're perfectly willing to pick apart other people's posts and I thought it was ironic you were calling other people out on the distinctions between words then turn around and are interchanging two words with entirely different meanings in this context. Now you want to be a victim that you simply can't debate with us little intellectually inferior peons, you're getting picked on, and call people names?
I get it...John is always right, other people are stupid/ignorant, and if John gets called out in an error he's a victim and doesn't hold himself to the same standard he places on others. :rolleyes:
As the originator of this thread, I'd say that it sure strayed from the original intent and went "ad hominem". Considering we're all supposed to be concerned with where our country's going--it's just possible we could do better...
Full disclosure--I got this course some years back, have listened to it 2 or 3 times, am still grappling with it. But damn, it's good. If I had gotten a real education this would have been on the menu. Even with my understanding of it I can penetrate a lot of political BS nowadays--and rant at the TV. (It's a lot cheaper on sale.)
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=4294
Cheers.
If you like the government Issued kool-aide that's cool. I don't. I can smell bull shit. Nobody is recording any mouse fart in my house. Referring to us as paranoid and dillisional is dishonest and rude. We have legitimate concerns with the size and scope of the government. You can keep your blinders on if you like.
Both John and I agree that there is government over-reach. It's the comments about Lincoln and the Civil War that strike me as illinformed. I also share his frustration with some of the back and forth over semantics. I suppose there is some bleed-over bewilderment on my part from the Drone thread hysteria. Sorry if you were offended by by poor attempt at being cute.
It didn't CREATE law, it dealt with enforcing an EXISTING law, see the act of Congress that established the Treasury/Customs department and VESTED the authority to enforce that law with the President/Executive in 1789 (that's 220 years ago), 31 U.S.C.A. § 301 it ain't exactly a new thing. Again an EO only has the force of law for members of the Executive Branch or when it deals with enforcing an existing statute passed by Congress.
So exactly HOW was it just enforcing a law that didn't exist yet? Prior to the 89 Import Ban there was no 89 Import Ban. NOBODY, except you, is arguing where the power comes from.
There was no "existing statute" which was passed by Congress banning firearms covered in the 89 import ban.
So exactly HOW was it just enforcing a law that didn't exist yet? Prior to the 89 Import Ban there was no 89 Import Ban. NOBODY, except you, is arguing where the power comes from.
There was no "existing statute" which was passed by Congress banning firearms covered in the 89 import ban.
GSJ said "force of law for members of the Executive Branch or when it deals with enforcing an existing statute passed by Congress"
There is an "or"
The EO for the 89 ban was a given to members of the executive branch, the federal agencies responsible for import regulations concerning firearms.
Personally I think it is a bogus power grab and I don't think EO were meant for the executive branch to get around Congress but that is how it happened.
So exactly HOW was it just enforcing a law that didn't exist yet? Prior to the 89 Import Ban there was no 89 Import Ban. NOBODY, except you, is arguing where the power comes from.
There was no "existing statute" which was passed by Congress banning firearms covered in the 89 import ban.
My understanding is that the preceding legislation was the Gun Control Act of 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968). With the 1989 Importation Ban, Bush 41 used executive authority via the ATF to insure that aspects of the "sporting purposes" test required by the GCA of 1968 were being met for imported military surplus weapons. ATF then used its power/authority to come up with the criteria that we all know and love to insure that imported firearms complied with the GCA of 1968.
Please feel free to correct me as history was not my strongest subject.
My understanding is that the preceding legislation was the Gun Control Act of 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968). With the 1989 Importation Ban, Bush 41 used executive authority via the ATF to insure that aspects of the "sporting purposes" test required by the GCA of 1968 were being met for imported military surplus weapons. ATF then used its power/authority to come up with the criteria that we all know and love to insure that imported firearms complied with the GCA of 1968.
Please feel free to correct me as history was not my strongest subject.
You are correct about the 68 GCA and the sporter clause.
But GSJ claimed no EO became a law, and I provided an example of one that did. Regarding pre89 imports, they were lawful to import and own and then they weren't. And that is the result of an EO.
GSJ can try and spin it anyway he likes, at the end of the day chadbag is correct, the EO was a way "for the executive branch to get around Congress."
GSJ also seems to question Billl Bennetts role in the matter.
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/kerlikowske.htm
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.