Poll - Was Obama within his rights as President to issue an Executive Order for new gun laws?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by tshrimp, Jan 6, 2016.

?

Do you think Obama should have issued an Executive Order for strickter gun laws.?

  1. POTUS did not overstep his authority.

    31 vote(s)
    47.0%
  2. POTUS overstepped his authority.

    31 vote(s)
    47.0%
  3. POTUS did not overstep his authority, but I think he still should have gone through congress.

    3 vote(s)
    4.5%
  4. POTUS overstepped his authoirty, but the end justifies the means.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Other

    1 vote(s)
    1.5%
  1. tshrimp, Jan 6, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2016

    tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #1
    I am hoping this thread stays a little more inline with Executive Order route than Gun control itself. This isn't even about the legality of it, although that topic should be included here as well, but do you think a law of this magnitude should have been made by one man?

    I assume most already know my stance. I think that even if this was legal for him to do it degrades the office in which he holds. We are a Republic that is represented by a group of people and not just one man. Using EO for small things is understandable, but for things that you know won't pass unless you do is an abuse of power IMO.

    Edit: Some have posted about background check, but wanted to send a link for the 23 items in the EO.

    Executive Orders for gun safety.
     
  2. shinji macrumors 65816

    shinji

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    #2
    The vast majority of the American people, including Democrats, Republicans, and gun owners, support universal background checks.

    Congress doesn't because the gun lobby tells them not to. If anything is out of line, it's the lobbyists working against the will of the people, not the President acting in favor of it.
     
  3. ericgtr12 macrumors 6502a

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #3
    Thanks for pointing this out, they keep leaving it out of the discussion because it doesn't fit their point of view.

    This being the case, then 85% of the American people supporting universal background checks should make a difference, no?
     
  4. tshrimp thread starter macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #4
    That is one of 23.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...-on-gun-safety-signed-today-by-the-president/

    Also you think that gun companies against gun regulation? Think again. Sales skyrocket with record profits when these things happen.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 6, 2016 ---
    You are correct most people are, but as mentioned above there are 23 items in this executive order. If congress ignores its people they will be voted out of the office. Note the switch from democrat to republican in the last election. People did not like what the democrats where doing, so they spoke up at the voting booth. That is the way the system works.
     
  5. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #5
    First, you spelled Obama wrong.

    I'm not sure that the President's orders are all that sweeping.

    And, I would consider that Dwight Eisenhower issued an executive order placing the Arkansas National Guard under federal control, and sent paratroopers from the 101st Airborne to enforce the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education.

    And, that Ronald Reagan used an executive order to create the National Security Agency, expanding the roles of U.S. intelligence agencies, as well as prohibiting the use of assassinations.

    While most E.O.'s are more symbolic than anything else, there are many cases over the last dozen or so presidencies that have used the E.O. system to circumvent a recalcitrant Congress, or otherwise push forward "one man's" agenda.

    Really, we should remember that the White House isn't one man, but really the symbolic head of an entire branch of government. While the President leads the White House, he can't do whatever he wants and is hemmed in by dozens of federal laws. While this means who occupies the Oval Office matters, let's set aside the rhetoric that he's acting like a monarch.

    We wouldn't make the same argument about the Speaker of the House or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which are also positions held by a single person.
     
  6. shinji macrumors 65816

    shinji

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    #6
    Yes, but that's the most important one. Few people question if Obama has the authority for, "11. Nominate an ATF director" or "10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."

    The NRA, who ultimately represents the gun industry, opposes the executive order https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...mas-proposed-executive-actions-on-gun-control and that's who bribes lobbies Congress.
     
  7. tshrimp thread starter macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #7
    Can't edit the main title or I would (and that is always were I put my typos). But I at least got it right during the question. I am not above making a typo, that's for sure.

    I think when it is directly affecting a major debated part of the constitution it is major, but that is my opinion. And yes, other presidents have used it. That does not make it right, and if Trump is elected you can rest assured I will be up in arms if he does something like this. Book mark this page as I can bet this will happen if either he or Clinton is elected.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 6, 2016 ---
    Of coarse gun companies are not directly lobbying (at least not that I know of). Like I said, they love government regulation as it sells more guns, and they are in the business to make money. Now if it were business affecting I would think that would be different.
     
  8. steve knight, Jan 6, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2016

    steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #8
    even more so with mass shootings. thats the sad part of Americans really guns will fix everything and the gubberment is gonna take our guns away. one of the things oboma is trying to stop is people buying machine guns with the loophole that is now in existence. I think it was last year 90,000 corporations (trusts to buy machine guns) applied for permits to buy them.
     
  9. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #9
    I keep forgetting that you can't edit the title. And, sorry to mention it, but it was just bugging me.

    I just don't think that the Executive Order process is that problematic. It's already limited by federal law and Congress could get off its duff and pass a law countermanding the E.O.

    Certainly, narrow partisans will cheer or decry the E.O. system depending on their affiliation, but I just don't think that the President went that far with his orders this week. In part, a great number of pro-gun types have talked about how meaningless the E.O. is and how federal law already limits the sale of firearms, so I just can't get my dander up.

    Now, of course, Trump might issue some crazy executive orders, but that doesn't illustrate a problem with the process, but a problem with his candidacy.
     
  10. tshrimp thread starter macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #10
    Now Steve Knight is making fun of my typo :).

    You make a good point about why congress is not doing anything about it if they have that ability. I admit I am not sure what recourse they have if the president does this. Do you know? If it is a 2/3rd thing that will never happen with the "we vs them" mentality of both sides of congress.
     
  11. fitshaced macrumors 68000

    fitshaced

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
  12. tshrimp thread starter macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #12
    I don't believe so.

    What is the USA Patriot Act?

    The USA PATRIOT Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President in October 2001, imposed or enhanced civil and criminal penalties for knowingly or intentionally aiding terrorists.

    You might be talking about Executive Order 13224 which is on that same link.
     
  13. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #13
    What does one have to do with the other?
     
  14. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #14
    As I recall from another thread with a title typo, there's a tool or gear icon that appears next to the thread title in the forum listing, for threads you create.

    You could also report your first post (circled ! icon) and ask a mod to fix it.
     
  15. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #15
    Executive Orders have been used by the presidents since Washington on. They're a power granted to the executive office, but have to be held to standard by the constitution, judicial precedence, and all the other various checks and balances in government. Think of them more like this: they're the will and acts of a president, but aren't law in and of themselves. They can be overridden by congress at any time, or immediately stricken down if they're found to be unconstitutional.

    This most recent EO wouldn't be considered unconstitutional, because there's already plenty of precedence of government regulation of the 2nd Amendment via background checks that's already passed muster. Basically, he isn't doing anything that hasn't already been done before, merely tightening up what's already there.
     
  16. fitshaced macrumors 68000

    fitshaced

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    #16
    Zero as i've been advised it wasn't an executive order.
     
  17. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #17
    Correct me if I am wrong, but Obama is using existing laws and Presidential authority as head of the executive branch, is he not?
     
  18. dejo Moderator

    dejo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Centennial State
    #18
    Report the post to the mods, let us know what you want changed and we will gladly take care of it. Thanks.
     
  19. tshrimp thread starter macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #19
    I understand executive orders have been done before, and I do not agree with all of those either. It is the magnitude of the order. I would guess this type of EO would concern 2nd amendment people more than those who are opposed to that part of the constitution.

    The thing is the background check is only one of 23 items listed in the EO. Are the others covered as well? And you have addressed my concern when you state "doing anything that hasn't already been done before,". I am concerned that severity of Executive Orders will increase in the coming years.

    Do you know of any Executive Orders that are as questionable as this one? I would actually like to know. I don't care if it's republican or democrat. It might be good for us to list a few that are as bad or worse.
     
  20. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #20
    But it's gunz so it doesn't really matter
     
  21. tshrimp thread starter macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #21
    I think they do. If some one like myself is complaining that Obama is overstepping his authority on this issue, and Bush had done worse (and if that would have been an EO it would have been more overstepping than Obama's IMO) then it is important to see if EO is being abused no matter what party it is.
     
  22. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #22
    Congress has a few options. Congressional members could write a law that simply overrides the E.O., but would need to successfully override a Presidential veto, so yes, they need a two-thirds vote in both houses. They could also limit the funds available for a program or section of government.

    This is why it's relatively rare for Congress to attack executive orders, there's always some support for the current President to protect him from such a challenge. However, it's not impossible.

    And, of course, the U.S. Supreme Court can also toss back executive orders if the justices believe it violates the U.S.C. So, there remains a fundamental balance of power that limits a president.
     
  23. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #23
    What does the presidents issuing of and executive order have anything to do with the patriot that was passed by congress...

    The poster though the PA was an executive order...

    This thread wouldn't exist if this order had not been about guns or immigration he's had 30 odd EO's we don't talk about those or have polls.
     
  24. fitshaced macrumors 68000

    fitshaced

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    #24
    I wonder would US citizens prefer a referendum on the 2nd amendment in place of the President or congress making decisions on the fringes of it. A vote on to keep it or to not keep it could go either way but would address concerns over one person or a small number of people (who are probably heavily lobbied) to decide either way. Maybe a referendum wouldn't be applicable legally but if it were an option, would it be what people would want? A general assumption from me would be that the people who want guns to go would be in favour, the people who want their guns would be deadset against it. I also believe that a referendum would make easy work out of removing or massively reducing gun ownership rights in the US.

    My point, sort of, is that an EO enrages people who are against the order. It inspires people who want it. If the was an EO for banning Muslims there would be many supporters, many of whom would be deadset against an EO on gun laws.
     
  25. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #25
    I'm kind of against to order and it doesn't enrage me because it is temporary and not worth the hassle of getting my panties in a bunch.
     

Share This Page