Executive Order background checks

[spence]

Originally Posted by Rockport24

Do doctors have to become government informants now?

Many states already have statutes to protect health workers from prosecution if they disclose private information when there's a threat against a 3rd party.

[Nebe]

Um. I would think that anyone who shoots anyone not in self defense is considered mentally ill. Or have we all been conditioned into thinking that it's normal human behavior to bust a cap in a few asses ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[TheSpecialist]

[TheSpecialist]

http://danaloeschradio.com/judge-app...r-in-cops-murd

[spence]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

The context for this isn't Executive overreach, it's Congressional inaction.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The context for this isn't Executive overreach, it's Congressional inaction.

Originally Posted by spence

The context for this isn't Executive overreach, it's Congressional inaction.

Executive orders or actions are constitutional if they fall within the purview of the Presidents enumerated powers. If they don't,
congressional inaction does not constitutionally give the executive the power to act in the place of Congress. If that were allowed, there would be no need for Congress. If that were the case, the Framers could have eliminated Article One of the Constitution which describes the powers and duties of Congress, and incorporated all of that Article's enumerated powers into Article Two which is the Executives list of duties and powers. There is no magic constitutional "context" in which the executive can simply say "if the Congress won't do it, I will." It is Congress's prerogative to act or not act on something regardless of what the President wants.

I'm pretty sure Obama would be screaming foul play if the Congress went about doing the executive's job when he wouldn't. Yet, there are many instances during Obama's tenure where he didn't, as required, enforce Congressional legislation. So would those instances have given Congress the power to say "if the President won't do it we will?" No. And Obama's administration were all up in a hissy fit when Congress wrote a letter to the Iranian government regarding the negotiations it was making with Obama's surrogates saying that Congress was unconstitutionally overreaching their power with incursion into Executive power. Even though the Congress actually did have a right to do so as they had every right to inform the Iranians what it would do if the deal was struck. Just as the President has a right to say he will veto a bill if it is passed.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The context for this isn't Executive overreach, it's Congressional inaction.

this is idiotic......


we've "progressed" to a point where a significant number of Americans have, either through ignorance, arrogance or obstinance... no regard for Constitutionally enumerated individual rights....Constitutionally designated and limited government powers and separations and often varying interpretations regarding accountability depending on who is in power and which pet issue is at stake....tell me exactly how we reach compromise again?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is idiotic......


we've "progressed" to a point where a significant number of Americans have, either through ignorance, arrogance or obstinance... no regard for Constitutionally enumerated individual rights....Constitutionally designated and limited government powers and separations and often varying interpretations regarding accountability depending on who is in power and which pet issue is at stake....tell me exactly how we reach compromise again?

yes it is Idiotic the Gun guys have be saying their coming to take our gun's they have been saying this for years and it hasn't happen and it will never happen . but they keep talking about it. 2a Constitutionally enumerated individual rights to bare arms shall no be infringed its a broken record and Americans are becoming tone deaf to the topic.

its just like abortion only the Base's care and climate change 1 side thinks there an issue and the other side says there isn't ...

Just beacuse both parties feel if the R or D are for it we will be against it.. reguardless of Facts or logic or historical examples

And Those who dont own gun do we not have inalienable right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” Via United States Declaration of Independence not be shot by 2a guys stolen guns .. every ones a law abiding citizen until they commit a crime and are Convicted

[Rockport24]

Good point Jim. It's rare that someone is that disturbed and there are no warning signs.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

yes it is Idiotic the Gun guys have be saying their coming to take our gun's they have been saying this for years and it hasn't happen and it will never happen . but they keep talking about it. 2a Constitutionally enumerated individual rights to bare arms shall no be infringed its a broken record and Americans are becoming tone deaf to the topic.

The Second Amendment has been the thorn in the side of gun control advocates and will continue to be until it is repealed. Those who say that can't happen are wrong. All it takes is a majority sentiment in enough states to favor and trust in government's superior wisdom and its faithfulness to always do what is "best" for the American people. The attempt by those who believe that an all powerful Progressive Administrative State ("the government" for those who's eyes glaze over and brain gets fogged by longer unfamiliar abstract titles) knows best and will do the best have been attempting to do just that--to gain favor for "current" government needing unhindered power to solve "current" problems. Emotional pleas over heart wrenching massacres as well as "common sense" arguments that old "rights" don't apply to new problems are constantly plied and convince more people, who are educated in such ways, over time.

Opinions and articles like these chip away at notions of inalienable rights and will most likely, eventually, lead the way to not only the repeal of the Second Amendment, but the total replacement of the Constitution with some new document. You can make your own guess what that document would say. No doubt, you will have faith that it will say good things.:

http://www.salon.com/2007/04/18/Second_Amendment/

And Those who dont own gun do we not have inalienable right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” Via United States Declaration of Independence not be shot by 2a guys stolen guns .. every ones a law abiding citizen until they commit a crime and are Convicted

You have the right to own a gun to protect yourself. But you don't have the right to deny others owning a gun to protect themselves from government as well as from those who do own guns. But you do not have the right to be free of calamity. You don't have the right not to be blown away by a tornado. You may do all the wise things that may prevent that from occurring, but you don't have a right against it happening. We can do whatever we can, so long as it doesn't infringe other's rights, to protect ourselves from being shot by a criminal who doesn't respect our right to life, and government has the responsibility to prosecute those who infringe on our rights.

But when government restricts, or denies rights, in order to prevent a loss of rights, that is not only a contradiction, it is tyranny. And it results from that notion that rights are not merely TO something, but also FROM something. A right TO something can be unalienable. A right FROM something can only be provided by government. And when rights FROM override rights TO, then government controls and owns the giving of all rights. None are then unalienable.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You have the right to own a gun to protect yourself. But you don't have the right to deny others owning a gun to protect themselves from government as well as from those who do own guns. But you do not have the right to be free of calamity. You don't have the right not to be blown away by a tornado. You may do all the wise things that may prevent that from occurring, but you don't have a right against it happening. We can do whatever we can, so long as it doesn't infringe other's rights, to protect ourselves from being shot by a criminal who doesn't respect our right to life, and government has the responsibility to prosecute those who infringe on our rights.

But when government restricts, or denies rights, in order to prevent a loss of rights, that is not only a contradiction, it is tyranny. And it results from that notion that rights are not merely TO something, but also FROM something. A right TO something can be unalienable. A right FROM something can only be provided by government. And when rights FROM override rights TO, then government controls and owns the giving of all rights. None are then unalienable.

If this happens involving 2a or 14a or 1st a
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, Thats how it works
its doubtful to ever happen.. but if I listen to you its already has happen why say something that is untrue I can go buy a gun today why because its my right hasn't been taken as you keep suggesting !

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

If this happens involving 2a or 14a or 1st a
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, Thats how it works
its doubtful to ever happen..

It would have seemed impossible to happen when the Constitution was drafted and the Second Amendment was added. It is not deemed so impossible now. The Constitution has been amended 27 times, 17 times after the first 10.

I don't think the Framers would have thought it was possible to pass an amendment such as the 18th which prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcoholic beverages. But alcohol consumption was characterized and demagogued (by Progressives) as a crisis which was a danger to the country. So enough bad press and political ranting changed the national sentiment to have enough votes for ratification.

And, enough votes were able to be garnered for the repeal the 18th Amendment with the 21st Amendment.

The same type of demagoguery and anti-gun press has been steadily but slowly, mounting (by Progressives) which, if all else fails to "control the epidemic of gun violence" as the mantra goes, there may come a tipping point in opinion which could provide the necessary votes for a new amendment which could repeal the Second.

I don't know if that is as unlikely as most think.

but if I listen to you its already has happen why say something that is untrue I can go buy a gun today why because its my right hasn't been taken as you keep suggesting !

Are you the one being untrue here, or did you merely misread what I said.? When did I say it already happened?