Biden wrong again; Exec Order not a viable Option.

[dos gris]

.

 

[Peacemaker]

Could you imagine what life would be like for those Apache pilots who shot up American citizens like they were the Taliban you referenced? Not just the moral aspects, but what their family would have to worry about for the rest of their lives?

No one wants to go there (except apparently, a few tatooed, bald-headed, nut job firearms instructors)!

I like your style...

 

[Emperor]

Please cite examples of the laws your referring to.

Perhaps too broad a stroke for my point portraying their cowardice in standing up for what is right. They did repeal most of their exemptions in 1994's Congressional Accountability Act.

However here is an example from a Yale Law Professor's viewpoint of some leftovers.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/307509/

However, staying on topic; I have no trouble believing that the pretender will not hesititate to test the legal waters at every ideological turn he deems fit.

 

[Leonidas]

OSHA Exemption

Actually, the entire federal government is exempted from OSHA. But federal agencies are at least required to develop operational rules that are *consistent with* OSHA standards. This minimal requirement doesn’t include Congress, which turns out not to be an agency.

Then there is financial regulation. Critics have lamented that no equivalent of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act applies to Congress. The chief executives of public companies must certify their accounts, and face fines of up to $5 million and as many as 20 years in prison if they do so falsely. Members of Congress (like all federal officials) can make up numbers out of whole cloth without any sanction at all. Incorrect corporate numbers can mislead markets. Incorrect federal budget numbers can mislead the nation. (Perhaps the federal budget, like corporate balance sheets, should be vetted by independent third-party auditors.)

Examples abound. Federal minimum-wage laws apply to private employers and federal agencies; but, once again, Congress isn’t an agency. For the same reason, the Freedom of Information Act doesn’t apply. The National Labor Relations Act exempts the federal government generally, but there are special rules relating to collective bargaining and unfair labor practices of federal employees -- rules that don’t, however, apply to Congress. The Merit System Protection statutes shield personnel in executive agencies, and even in the Administrative Office of the United States Courts; not in Congress. And so on.

Even when Congress does decide to apply statutes to itself, members have trouble resisting the temptation to treat themselves differently. So, for example, Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 extended the reach of several (not all) antidiscrimination statutes to cover congressional employees, but with provisos stripping the protections of much of their force. One has to love this sentence, amending Title VII, the most prominent federal law against employment discrimination: *Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the provisions of this title shall apply to the Congress of the United States, and the means for enforcing this title as such applies to each House of Congress shall be as determined by such House of Congress.*

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-08/congress-isn-t-supposed-to-be-above-the-law-commentary-by-stephen-carter.html

Now, many would call me stupid, but I'm just stupid enough to think this doesn't quite dovetail with the 14th Amendment. As far as the Supreme Court being an effective check on anything, consider that they never got around to ruling on the unconstitutionality of slavery.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

The Supreme Court didn't have to rule on Slavery. One it was never challenged in court and 2: Congress outlawed it.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Could you imagine what life would be like for those Apache pilots who shot up American citizens like they were the Taliban you referenced? Not just the moral aspects, but what their family would have to worry about for the rest of their lives?


No one wants to go there (except apparently, a few tatooed, bald-headed, nut job firearms instructors)!

I certainly don't want to go there. In fact I'm disgusted by the number of people I heard advocating it. I think we need to all be far less cavalier and realistic about voting from roof tops and work the democratic process. We have established a nation of laws. We are past legislating through violence.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Actually google what happened to Barney Frank when he falsified financial information.

 

[Emperor]

Even when Congress does decide to apply statutes to itself, members have trouble resisting the temptation to treat themselves differently. So, for example, Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 extended the reach of several (not all) antidiscrimination statutes to cover congressional employees, but with provisos stripping the protections of much of their force. One has to love this sentence, amending Title VII, the most prominent federal law against employment discrimination: *Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the provisions of this title shall apply to the Congress of the United States, and the means for enforcing this title as such applies to each House of Congress shall be as determined by such House of Congress.*

Now, this is how you check and balance.

Can I get an AMEN on a fox to guard the hen house, please?

 

[J-UNO]

I haven't read the thread yet. My first thought is Scalise needs to put down the crack pipe. Obama doesn't care about the law on this issue. Come on.

 

[J-UNO]

I'm encouraged by people discussing it. The legislative process is a joke. The discussion shows more and more people are realizing this.

I also seriously doubt that if it comes down to violence (not advocating anything just speculating for the sake of discussion) people will try to fight the military straight up. It would be fought based on 4th generation warfare principles and guerrilla warfare.

 

[J-UNO]

I've been told Obama can ban imported ammo via EO. If true, it would make ammo pretty much unobtainable due to astronomically high prices.

 

[dos gris]

.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Joke or not it's the system we got. It works. Far better than making YouTube videos threatening to kill people.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

I've been told Obama can ban imported ammo via EO. If true, it would make ammo pretty much unobtainable due to astronomically high prices.

Free market will determine prices.

 

[dos gris]

.

 

[J-UNO]

Too bad the authorities in Tennessee aren't getting as worked up over the US government working to undermine the right to self-defense and the 2A.

But, hey they got the guy on YT. I'm sure he was a bigger threat to the country than Obama, Biden, Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, Brady [/snark].

 

[J-UNO]

Too bad the authorities in Tennessee aren't getting as worked up over the US government working to undermine the right to self-defense and the 2A.

But, hey they got the guy on YT. I'm sure he was a bigger threat to the country than Obama, Biden, Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, Brady [/snark].

 

[Vermiform]

Of course not, but that idea sure worked out for one witty fellow -

Looks like the "big ego guy with the little brain" lost his concealed weapons permit….for starters.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/state-suspends-handgun-carry-permit-of-tactical-response

Ouch. How many CCW holders do we have on this board advocating for the same thing he said?

 

[J-UNO]

Free market will determine prices.

Of course it will. That's why ammo prices will be astronomically high if Obama issues an EO restricting ammo imports. The net effect would be a huge reduction in supply during a time of great demand.

 

[Vermiform]

Of course it will. That's why ammo prices will be astronomically high if Obama issues an EO restricting ammo imports. The net effect would be a huge reduction in supply during a time of great demand.

I don't think there is anything in USC about ammo that he could "reinterpret" or "clarify" through EO. Possibly reclassify some imported rifle ammo as armor piercing? But if he did that, then he would have to reclassify it all, domestic and imports.