If our dictator;

[Uncensored2008]

What BULLSHIT. He can't do anything that Congress hasn't authorized. If his executives orders have the force of law, it's because Congress wrote bills that way.

And yet, that is what he has precisely said he will do - "bypass congress" and declare semi-automatic weapons illegal.

Will you support him as he takes up the mantle of Fuhrer?

 

[Votto]

i doubt he will need to.
1) he isnt going to ban every gun. They are looking to put back in place the assault gun ban. ( which you won't be able to argue in court either )

2) something has to be done, and while this would be a bandaid, Most americans want something done.

3) these where children, not adults. So it just makes you look bad to be on the other side of this.

Why won't you answer the question?

Do you favor Obama using an Executive Order to restrict guns in anyway if he can't push through restrictions in Congress?

not really.....I don't really care for that style of governing. Washington never should have started it

So you really are a right winged Teabagger at heart? Who knew?

 

[Seawytch]

I'd call it an executive order allowed within a representative republic. Bush did it 291 times.

.

Then you are simply ignorant.

Executive orders direct federal agencies which report to the executive branch, they do not and cannot impose laws on the people.

Obama is seeking to assume dictatorial powers, and you of the left love it.

Cite this Executive order? Oh, there isn't one...

 

[Oldguy]

The amount of ignorance in this thread is saddening. Did y'll sleep through Gov. 101 or have you never read and understood the Constitution? It doesn't say what you want it to say; it says what it says. And, Executive Orders are perfectly Constitutional, whether you want to accept it or not.

Why don't you enlighten us then?

All that stuff about checks and balances is moot, right? We have one ruler, who is the law unto himself?

Good thing we have you progressives to clarify this, in case we dupes get confused by the constitution and the precedent of 200 years of Republican government,

If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and refuse to abide by one. Better yet, go ahead and start your damn revolution. I'm sick of hearing about it.

I think you're a mindless thug who dreams of an authoritarian system similar to Cuba or North Korea, in other words, a typical democrat.

But be clear that no "revolution" is needed, since I simply hold to constitutional governance. It is you attempting to subvert the nation and violate the social contract.



Obama has declared that he will openly violate the constitution of the United States and declare law by fiat - should he do so, that is an act of treason and invalidates any position.

Any edict illegally declared by Obama does not carry the weight of law and will be viewed as a treasonous act.

Really...what a tragedy for our country that there are so many malcontented, nitwit sore losers who put their own, personal preferences ahead of the Will of The People and, worse, would IMPOSE those preference on us against our will.

It's a tragedy for our country that you bathe in the blood of children while seeking to overthrow the constitution of the United States. I realize that you see yourself as empowered, you won an election and believe that renders the constitutional government null and void, that you have a mandate to rule as a social dictatorship.

But you will not, and if you attempt to, you will be resisted.

Thank God there's only a few of you screwballs and you stand literally NO chance of overthrowing the Constitution or our legitimately elected government.

There are 200 million legal gun owners, should you Bolsheviks move to disarm them, you may find that resistance is far more widespread than you think.

You believe you've already won, that the Republic is defeated and gone, the constitution and bill of rights burned on the ash heap of history, the great experiment in self-government of the people, by the people, for the people, driven forever from the land. You may think that you will rule with an iron fist, Dear Leader Obama declaring law and the hoards of Progressive Bolsheviks goosestepping to enforce his orders.

I am simply telling you that this is not 1917 Moscow, or 1928 Berlin, or 1949 Peking.

This time, you WILL be resisted. You may win, you may impose your dictatorship and drive liberty from these shores, but you will be resisted.

I.....really have nothing to say to all this. You're SO wrong on just about every point that I wouldn't know where to start. And, besides, it probably wouldn't do any good anyhow as you've been misled by SOMEBODY into believing some of the greatest lies ever told.

Your delusions are real to you and you can have them with my blessings.

 

[Seawytch]

What BULLSHIT. He can't do anything that Congress hasn't authorized. If his executives orders have the force of law, it's because Congress wrote bills that way.

And yet, that is what he has precisely said he will do - "bypass congress" and declare semi-automatic weapons illegal.

Will you support him as he takes up the mantle of Fuhrer?

No he didn't. In fact (your garlic) he said, SPECIFICALLY, that he would need the help of Congress.

Tinfoil

 

[Uncensored2008]

Tantamount to treason is too extreme.

No, it is not. If the Chief Executive openly flouts the legislative process, as Obama has done and continues to do, in direct violation to the constitution, then there is no term OTHER than treason that can be applied.

IF Obama carries through with his threat of earlier today, he is engaging in treason against the United States.

If it is just rhetoric to stir up the Progressive scum who make up his base, then we go on with life. But this is a man who openly murdered a United States citizen - for which he should be impeached.

Congress and the courts can stop presidents that go too far with the E.O. power. Both Clinton and Bush had E.O.'s overturned.

But you do what you gotta do.

Resist.

I will support the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If Obama engages in further treason....

 

[Oldguy]

If Obama engages in further treason....

You'll do what?

 

[ERGO]

Executive Orders and Proclamations
Introduction

Typically, an inquiry concerning executive orders and proclamations may only be related to one particular issue. However, it is useful to fully understand the dynamics behind executive orders and proclamations. Otherwise, the reader may be disappointed when it becomes apparent that there is no hard and fast rule concerning these presidential instruments. The fact is, executive orders and proclamations encompass so many aspects of government and society that each of them must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, this report seeks to give a better understanding of executive orders and proclamations, but may not provide ready answers to questions concerning specific presidential actions. This report examines the origin and usage of these presidential instruments. It also analyzes the scope of the President's authority to use such instruments and possible responses by Congress and the Judiciary.

The first task is to define executive orders and proclamations. Unfortunately, there is no exact meaning since neither the Framers of the Constitution nor Congress defined executive orders or proclamations. However, many commentators have expressed their understanding of such instruments. The most commonly cited description is that prepared by the House Government Operations Committee:

Executive orders and proclamations are directives or actions by the President. When they are founded on the authority of the President derived from the Constitution or statute, they may have the force and effect of law . . . . In the narrower sense Executive orders and proclamations are written documents denoted as such . . . . Executive orders are generally directed to, and govern actions by, Government officials and agencies. They usually affect private individuals only indirectly. Proclamations in most instances affect primarily the activities of private individuals. Since the President has no power or authority over individual citizens and their rights except where he is granted such power and authority by a provision in the Constitution or by statute. The President's proclamations are not legally binding and are at best hortatory unless based on such grants of authority. The difference between Executive orders and proclamations is more one of form than of substance . . . .

As executive orders and proclamations are not defined in the Constitution, there is also no specific provision in the Constitution authorizing the President to issue executive orders and proclamations. However, the fact remains that Presidents have been issuing them since the inception of the Republic. Often Presidents have relied upon Article II of the Constitution as the sole basis for issuing executive orders and proclamations. For present purposes, Article II states that "the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States," "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States," and "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The President's ability to issue executive orders and proclamations is also derived from express or implied statutory authority from Congress.

The ambiguity behind executive orders and proclamations poses a great concern for Congress and the public. At issue is the possibility that these presidential instruments may directly or indirectly affect the substantive rights, duties or obligations of persons outside the government. As a consequence, since executive orders and proclamations are a species of executive legislation, they have important constitutional implications, particularly with respect to the separation of powers. Furthermore, these instruments, if issued under a valid claim of authority and published, have the force and effect of law and courts are required to take judicial notice of their existence. Thus, it is important to examine the legal basis for each executive order and proclamation issued and the manner in which the President has used these instruments.

The primary focus of this report is to determine the limits of the President's authority to issue executive orders and proclamations and to determine the role of the legislature and judiciary in shaping the President's use of these powerful instruments. This report will also compare presidential memoranda, a frequently used executive instrument, to executive orders.

The rest can be read at...
Source link: Executive Orders and Proclamations - Wikisource, the free online library

 

[Uncensored2008]

Cite this Executive order? Oh, there isn't one...

No, there isn't one. Obama has simply STATED he will "bypass congress" and declare law in open treason.

Obama: I Will Use Every Power of My Office to Push Gun Control - Katie Pavlich

You're right, he hasn't done it yet. (Though he has murdered U.S. Citizens, so treason isn't really a stretch.)

Again, it MIGHT just be rhetoric to stir you goose-stepping progressives up. But the left appears ready to to move against the constitution and establish the authoritarian system you all dream of.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Stay here and post away nutjobs. We know you are cowards.....but you are armed cowards. We prefer that you are kept occupied here. Thanks.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I.....really have nothing to say to all this.

Really? Not even "Obama Akbar?" Not that you have tingles up your leg?

You're SO wrong on just about every point that I wouldn't know where to start.

Where you could start is with an introductory civics class that explains the functions of the judicial, legislative and executive branches; and perhaps the concept of checks and balances.

But then, you honestly believe that such a government is defeated and we now have to rule of a man who shepherds us with love and immortal wisdom, our Dear Leader; so why bother?

And, besides, it probably wouldn't do any good anyhow as you've been misled by SOMEBODY into believing some of the greatest lies ever told.

Your delusions are real to you and you can have them with my blessings.

Greatest lies ever told, by men like Jefferson, Washington, Payne, Madison, Mason, Franklin, et al.

Where you cling to the "truth" of Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Castro....

I understand.

The masks are off.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No he didn't. In fact (your garlic) he said, SPECIFICALLY, that he would need the help of Congress.

Tinfoil

Congress has the authority to create law, which I will abide by.

But you know full well that Obama stated he will dictate law without congress, if he cannot push his agenda through. Obama knows, as you do, the House will never violate the 2nd Amendment. Diane Feinstein can push whatever she likes, but it won't get past the house.

So Obama well may attempt to discard the constitution and dictate law, AS HE SAID HE WOULD.

This thread is a reaction to what Obama declared, TODAY. If he engages in treason as he has vowed to do, I will resist in any way I can.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You won't DO shit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You won't DO shit.

Resistance is reactive by nature.

What are you goose-steppers willing to do? How far will you go? Kicking down doors? Disappearing people in the middle of the night?

We've all seen this before, time and again. We know how it ends. Will we allow you the leeway of 1928? You may be in for a surprise.

 

[ERGO]

Stay here and post away nutjobs. We know you are cowards.....but you are armed cowards. We prefer that you are kept occupied here. Thanks.

Fortunately for me I can multi-task. If some criminal broke into my house while I was on my computer I would be able to take them out, as in bang your dead, since my 9mm is right by me. My assault rifles, however, are locked up in my gun safe and only require six steps and my key.

If someone broke into a liberal collectivist sheep's house, the cowering liberal sheep would make a frantic 911 call and the police would be there in what... 15...20...30... 45 minutes... meanwhile the collectivist liberal sheep is pissing their pants waiting for the POlice to arrive.

 

[BlindBoo]

Tantamount to treason is too extreme.

No, it is not. If the Chief Executive openly flouts the legislative process, as Obama has done and continues to do, in direct violation to the constitution, then there is no term OTHER than treason that can be applied.

IF Obama carries through with his threat of earlier today, he is engaging in treason against the United States.

If it is just rhetoric to stir up the Progressive scum who make up his base, then we go on with life. But this is a man who openly murdered a United States citizen - for which he should be impeached.

Congress and the courts can stop presidents that go too far with the E.O. power. Both Clinton and Bush had E.O.'s overturned.

But you do what you gotta do.

Resist.

I will support the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If Obama engages in further treason....

The has been no violation of the Constitution by President Obama. If an E.O. goes beyond the bounds of the office then the other two branches of Government have the power to Check it.

If a US citizen joins a group who has declare war on our country and attacked us, killing thousands of our citizens, his citizenship status does not and should not protect him from a military strike.

 

[ERGO]

No he didn't. In fact (your garlic) he said, SPECIFICALLY, that he would need the help of Congress.

Tinfoil

Congress has the authority to create law, which I will abide by.

But you know full well that Obama stated he will dictate law without congress, if he cannot push his agenda through. Obama knows, as you do, the House will never violate the 2nd Amendment. Diane Feinstein can push whatever she likes, but it won't get past the house.

So Obama well may attempt to discard the constitution and dictate law, AS HE SAID HE WOULD.

This thread is a reaction to what Obama declared, TODAY. If he engages in treason as he has vowed to do, I will resist in any way I can.

I believe Obama is shooting, pardon the pun, for international law.

Hours After Reelection, Obama Green Lights UN Gun Grab

A story ran on the Oklahoma City NBC news affiliate on Wednesday (the day after the 2012 election) reporting that “sporting goods stores in the Sooner state are seeing a spike in gun sales following President Barack Obama's re-election.”

Similar reports ran nationwide after the president was elected the first time in 2008.

While many accused those making a run on gun stores of reacting rashly, there may be some wisdom in this latest sales spike.

Reuters reports that within hours of his securing his reelection, President Obama ordered the U.S. United Nations delegation to vote in favor of a UN proposal to fast track an international gun control treaty.

Immediately the word went out that the United States was going to play ball (after having scuttled the last round of talks on the Arms Trade Treaty in July), and a new round of negotiations on the treaty was scheduled for March 18-28 at the UN headquarters in New York City.

A press release was sent out early Wednesday morning from the United Nations (make that Usurper Nations) General Assembly’s First Committee proclaiming the good news of President Obama’s go-ahead for the gun grab and setting the agenda for the next gun control conference

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants power to the President to make treaties with the "advice and consent" of two-thirds of the Senate. This is different from normal legislation which requires approval by simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The has been no violation of the Constitution by President Obama.

Actually his murder of Anwar al-Awlaki is a violation of the 5th Amendment. So yes, there has been violation of the consittution.

Further, the dictating of the Dream Act represents a violation of Article I of the constitution.

If an E.O. goes beyond the bounds of the office then the other two branches of Government have the power to Check it.

I would hope impeachment is the first check and balance used - in this case.

If a US citizen joins a group who has declare war on our country and attacked us, killing thousands of our citizens, his citizenship status does not and should not protect him from a military strike.

Our constitution does not provide for the summary execution - or rather assassination of criminal suspects. Obama is guilty of murder and of violating the United States Constitution.

 

[Oldguy]

No he didn't. In fact (your garlic) he said, SPECIFICALLY, that he would need the help of Congress.

Tinfoil

Congress has the authority to create law, which I will abide by.

But you know full well that Obama stated he will dictate law without congress, if he cannot push his agenda through. Obama knows, as you do, the House will never violate the 2nd Amendment. Diane Feinstein can push whatever she likes, but it won't get past the house.

So Obama well may attempt to discard the constitution and dictate law, AS HE SAID HE WOULD.

This thread is a reaction to what Obama declared, TODAY. If he engages in treason as he has vowed to do, I will resist in any way I can.

Alright. Here's the complete text of today's press conference and the questions asked of him relating to guns and Newtown.

Show me where he said that.


THE PRESIDENT: *Good morning, everybody. *It’s now been five days since the heartbreaking tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut; three days since we gathered as a nation to pray for the victims. And today, a few more of the 20 small children and six educators who were taken from us will be laid to rest.
*
We may never know all the reasons why this tragedy happened. We do know that every day since, more Americans have died of gun violence. *We know such violence has terrible consequences for our society. *And if there is even one thing that we can do to prevent any of these events, we have a deep obligation -- all of us -- to try.
*
Over these past five days, a discussion has reemerged as to what we might do not only to deter mass shootings in the future, but to reduce the epidemic of gun violence that plagues this country every single day. *And it’s encouraging that people of all different backgrounds and beliefs and political persuasions have been willing to challenge some old assumptions and change longstanding positions. *
*
That conversation has to continue. *But this time, the words need to lead to action.
*
We know this is a complex issue that stirs deeply held passions and political divides. *And as I said on Sunday night, there’s no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. *We’re going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to a gun. *We’re going to need to look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence. *And any actions we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts.
*
But the fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing. *The fact that we can’t prevent every act of violence doesn’t mean we can’t steadily reduce the violence, and prevent the very worst violence.
*
That’s why I’ve asked the Vice President to lead an effort that includes members of my Cabinet and outside organizations to come up with a set of concrete proposals no later than January -- proposals that I then intend to push without delay. *This is not some Washington commission. *This is not something where folks are going to be studying the issue for six months and publishing a report that gets read and then pushed aside. *This is a team that has a very specific task, to pull together real reforms right now. *I asked Joe to lead this effort in part because he wrote the 1994 Crime Bill that helped law enforcement bring down the rate of violent crime in this country. *That plan -- that bill also included the assault weapons ban that was publicly supported at the time by former Presidents including Ronald Reagan. *
*
The good news is there’s already a growing consensus for us to build from. *A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons. *A majority of Americans support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips. *A majority of Americans support laws requiring background checks before all gun purchases, so that criminals can’t take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who won’t take the responsibility of doing a background check at all. *
*
I urge the new Congress to hold votes on these measures next year in a timely manner. *And considering Congress hasn’t confirmed a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in six years -- the agency that works most closely with state and local law enforcement to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals -- I’d suggest that they make this a priority early in the year.*
*
Look, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. *This country has a strong tradition of gun ownership that’s been handed down from generation to generation. *Obviously across the country there are regional differences. *There are differences between how people feel in urban areas and rural areas. *And the fact is the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible -- they buy their guns legally and they use them safely, whether for hunting or sport shooting, collection or protection. **
*
But you know what, I am also betting that the majority -- the vast majority -- of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war. *I’m willing to bet that they don’t think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas -- that an unbalanced man shouldn’t be able to get his hands on a military-style assault rifle so easily; that in this age of technology, we should be able to check someone’s criminal records before he or she can check out at a gun show; that if we work harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one in Newtown -- or any of the lesser-known tragedies that visit small towns and big cities all across America every day.
*
Since Friday morning, a police officer was gunned down in Memphis, leaving four children without their mother. *Two officers were killed outside a grocery store in Topeka. *A woman was shot and killed inside a Las Vegas casino. *Three people were shot inside an Alabama hospital. *A four-year-old was caught in a drive-by in Missouri, and taken off life support just yesterday. Each one of these Americans was a victim of the everyday gun violence that takes the lives of more than 10,000 Americans every year -- violence that we cannot accept as routine.
*
So I will use all the powers of this office to help advance efforts aimed at preventing more tragedies like this. *We won’t prevent them all -- but that can’t be an excuse not to try. *It won’t be easy -- but that can't be an excuse not to try. *
*
And I'm not going to be able to do it by myself. *Ultimately if this effort is to succeed it’s going to require the help of the American people -- it’s going to require all of you. *If we're going to change things, it’s going to take a wave of Americans -- mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, pastors, law enforcement, mental health professionals -- and, yes, gun owners -- standing up and saying “enough” on behalf of our kids. *
*
It will take commitment and compromise, and most of all, it will take courage. *But if those of us who were sent here to serve the public trust can summon even one tiny iota of the courage those teachers, that principal in Newtown summoned on Friday -- if cooperation and common sense prevail -- then I’m convinced we can make a sensible, intelligent way to make the United States of America a safer, stronger place for our children to learn and to grow. *
*
Thank you. *And now I'm going to let the Vice President go and I'm going to take a few questions. *



Q * *Sir, may I ask a question about Newtown, please?
*
THE PRESIDENT: *Yes, I've got David Jackson. *
*
Q * *Thank you, Mr. President. *Getting back to the gun issue, you alluded to the fact that Washington commissions don't have the greatest reputation in the world. *What makes you think this one is going to be different given the passage of time and the political power of gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association?
*
THE PRESIDENT: *Well, this is not going to be a commission. Joe is going to gather up some key Cabinet members who have an interest in this issue. *We're going to reach out to a bunch of stakeholders. *We're going to be reaching out to members of Congress who have an interest in this issue. *It's not as if we have to start from scratch. *There are a whole bunch of proposals that have been thought about, debated, but hopefully also some new ideas in terms of how we deal with this issue.
*
Their task is going to be to sift through every good idea that's out there, and even take a look at some bad ideas before disposing of them, and come up with a concrete set of recommendations in about a month. *And I would hope that our memories aren't so short that what we saw in Newtown isn't lingering with us, that we don't remain passionate about it only a month later. *
*
And as soon as we get those recommendations, I will be putting forward very specific proposals. *I will be talking about them in my State of The Union and we will be working with interested members of Congress to try to get some of them done. *
*
And the idea that we would say this is terrible, this is a tragedy, never again, and we don’t have the sustained attention span to be able to get this done over the next several months doesn’t make sense. *I have more confidence in the American people than that. *I have more confidence in the parents, the mothers and fathers that I’ve been meeting over the last several days all across the country from all political persuasions, including a lot of gun owners, who say, you know what, this time we’ve got to do things differently.
*
Q * *What about the NRA?
*
THE PRESIDENT: *Well, the NRA is an organization that has members who are mothers and fathers. *And I would expect that they’ve been impacted by this as well. *And hopefully they’ll do some self-reflection. *
*
And here’s what we know -- that any single gun law can’t solve all these problems. *We’re going to have to look at mental health issues. *We’re going to have to look at schools. *There are going to be a whole range of things that Joe’s group looks at. *We know that issues of gun safety will be an element of it. And what we’ve seen over the last 20 years, 15 years, is the sense that anything related to guns is somehow an encroachment on the Second Amendment. *What we’re looking for here is a thoughtful approach that says we can preserve our Second Amendment, we can make sure that responsible gun owners are able to carry out their activities, but that we’re going to actually be serious about the safety side of this; that we’re going to be serious about making sure that something like Newtown or Aurora doesn’t happen again.
*
And there is a big chunk of space between what the Second Amendment means and having no rules at all. *And that space is what Joe is going to be working on to try to identify where we can find some common ground.
*
So I’ve got -- I’m going to take one last question.
*
Go ahead, Jake.
*
Q * *It seems to a lot of observers that you made the political calculation in 2008 in your first term and in 2012 not to talk about gun violence. *You had your position on renewing the ban on semiautomatic rifles that then-Senator Biden put into place, but you didn’t do much about it. *This is not the first issue -- the first incident of horrific gun violence of your four years. *Where have you been?
*
THE PRESIDENT: *Well, here’s where I’ve been, Jake. *I’ve been President of the United States dealing with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, an auto industry on the verge of collapse, two wars. *I don’t think I’ve been on vacation. *
*
And so I think all of us have to do some reflection on how we prioritize what we do here in Washington. *And as I said on Sunday, this should be a wake-up call for all of us to say that if we are not getting right the need to keep our children safe, then nothing else matters. *And it’s my commitment to make sure that we do everything we can to keep our children safe. *
*
A lot of things go in -- are involved in that, Jake. *So making sure they’ve got decent health care and making sure they’ve got a good education, making sure that their parents have jobs -- those are all relevant as well. *Those aren’t just sort of side issues. *But there’s no doubt that this has to be a central issue. *And that’s exactly why I’m confident that Joe is going to take this so seriously over the next couple months.
*
All right. *Thank you, everybody.
*

Remarks by the President in a Press Conference | The White House

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shame on you, and I am sure you have already been reported to Homeland.

If the dictator of the United States, Barack Obama, declares laws by pronouncement, bypassing the legislature, in his bid to violate the constitution and bill of rights, I will not comply and will view his actions as treason and an act of war.

Obama: I Will Use Every Power of My Office to Push Gun Control - Katie Pavlich

We are not a dictatorship and Obama does not have the authority to declare law - his word is NOT law and attempts to subvert the constitution through executive orders or other non-legislative means constitute an act of treason by Obama.