catzmeow
Gold Member
- Banned
- #21
With the pending Executive Orders to come out regarding the second amendment and gun control, what is everyones opinion in regards to limitations on the Executive Order if any?
Executive orders are issued by the President in his role as CEO of the government, and are designed to expedite implementation of legislation, not circumvent it.
If Obama's EO's exceed these limitations, they will likely be challenged in court and overturned. That's how the checks/balances system in our government works.
As far as FDR's incarceration of the Japanese in internment camps, sometimes it takes a while for the process to work:
In 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government. The legislation said that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership".[13] The U.S. government eventually disbursed more than $1.6 billion in reparations to Japanese Americans who had been interned and their heirs.[14]
The process doesn't always work perfectly, but that's how our founding fathers set it up.
Actually, in the case of FDR the checks and balances never worked.
They did, but not until 1988, when Congress and the president regulated themselves.
Small, unpopular groups of people in the U.S. can be particularly vulnerable. There were only about 10,000 Japanese-Americans at the time of the EO, and Americans were terrified of terroristic acts on American shores after Pearl Harbor. The potential is ripe for abuse when you have a frightened, racist populace that is at war.
On the flip side, using an EO to dismantle a constitutional amendment that is extremely popular in the U.S., with widespread support from over 140 million gun owners, is unlikely to last very long.
Last edited: