Why do so many leftists believe in the Executive Order?

[jc456]

Come on bro.

BOTH sides abuse the fuck out of this. And who can complain when the fuckers we voted for ceded that power to the executive branch.
Biden is just the latest one to ABUSE HIS POWER

50 years and counting

 

[Flopper]

If you say so.

Either way, now using it as precedent the Biden admin can use equally twisted logic to ban all sorts of things associated with guns.

It depends on what those things are, there purpose and use. As far as the second amendment goes, bumps tocks are not firearms, and not required to operated them so they not protected by the 2nd amendment. The purpose of bumpstocks is to increase fire rate to making the weapon as fast as some automatic weapons which are illegal. The Supreme Court rejected gun rights advocates challenge to bump stocks bans.

There is no doubt that a general ban on ammunition would be blocked by the courts because it would make firearms useless and that would be considered a violation of the 2nd amendment. However, for other accessories the purpose and use would determine whether they are lawful.

 

[Flopper]

that was an executive action not an executive order,, and it was wrong of him to do either way,,

An executive action is any action by the president which includes executive orders, proclamation, and statements of policy.

 

[DudleySmith]

Biden making noise about banning guns with an EO, but we in this country seem too stupid to know that it would not effect the population, because a President can not change law on his own, and certainly can't change the Constitution...

Congress has abdicated its role as a branch of govt. The Courts and Executive branches have moved into the power vacuum.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

The

It's irrelevant what I think. I think we should ban EO's outright. What's important is what the Supreme Court thinks.

The Supreme Court is saying a president can ban aspects of a gun with an EO. Do you understand the ramifications of that?

Supreme Court never said that.

 

[jbander]

I'm not addressing ANY POST in particular lol. Look at MY FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD. The one you took issue with like a child.

Hey butter cup What I'm responding to is what you wrote. As in "Biden making noise about banning guns with an EO, but we in this country seem too stupid to know that it would not affect the population, because a President can not change law on his own, and certainly can't change the Constitution..., everyone knows I'm responding to the above. So I'll say it again in response to your post,
Congress does not give the president the executive order or the right to use the executive order , as you said ,the constitution does ace.

 

[jbander]

It depends on what those things are, there purpose and use. As far as the second amendment goes, bumps tocks are not firearms, and not required to operated them so they not protected by the 2nd amendment. The purpose of bumpstocks is to increase fire rate to making the weapon as fast as some automatic weapons which are illegal. The Supreme Court rejected gun rights advocates challenge to bump stocks bans.

There is no doubt that a general ban on ammunition would be blocked by the courts because it would make firearms useless and that would be considered a violation of the 2nd amendment. However, for other accessories the purpose and use would determine whether they are lawful.

Actually, they can exclude certain types of ammunition as long as they aren't excluding all ammunition for a gun type that is legal. As in exploding bullets. There is no law that says that guns, ammunition or anything to do with guns can't be regulated/ They can and they are.They will be regulated more in the future because of the insane level of deaths in this country because of guns , as they should be.

 

[pknopp]

The

Supreme Court never said that.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects challenge to ban on gun 'bump stocks'

 

[j-mac]

That has NOTHING to do with partisanship. I believe Biden should do as he said and make the rich pay more rather than the poor.

Ok, how much more would qualify as a fair share?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Hey butter cup What I'm responding to is what you wrote. As in "Biden making noise about banning guns with an EO, but we in this country seem too stupid to know that it would not affect the population, because a President can not change law on his own, and certainly can't change the Constitution..., everyone knows I'm responding to the above. So I'll say it again in response to your post,
Congress does not give the president the executive order or the right to use the executive order , as you said ,the constitution does ace.

I never mentioned ANY PARTICULAR EO. My statement was general in nature and YOU KNOW IT so go blow smoke up someone else's ass

 

[j-mac]

I never mentioned ANY PARTICULAR EO. My statement was general in nature and YOU KNOW IT so go blow smoke up someone else's ass

He doesn’t care, he just comes in here to be an asshole to people..probably after his wife beats him…

 

[FA_Q2]

Neither are bullets, I guess it would be cool for them to be banned.

I cannot believe all you staunch 2nd Amendment folks are defending such an anti-gun EO by Trump

Yes you can.

 

[jc456]

It depends on what those things are, there purpose and use. As far as the second amendment goes, bumps tocks are not firearms, and not required to operated them so they not protected by the 2nd amendment. The purpose of bumpstocks is to increase fire rate to making the weapon as fast as some automatic weapons which are illegal. The Supreme Court rejected gun rights advocates challenge to bump stocks bans.

There is no doubt that a general ban on ammunition would be blocked by the courts because it would make firearms useless and that would be considered a violation of the 2nd amendment. However, for other accessories the purpose and use would determine whether they are lawful.

Talking points only

 

[FA_Q2]

The railing against EO's by pointing out who signed more or that Washington himself signed them is dumb as fuck. There is no inherent problem with executive orders . Indeed, they are, by definition, necessary. It is how the president manages the various agencies he is supposed to. If you were to ban executive orders in their entirety they would still exist just with another name as the president still needs to communicate with the agencies he heads.

The problem with them is when the President wants to take powers from congress and uses those executive orders to tell agencies to do things they do NOT have the power to do. Like randomly forgiving loans. This is inherent in the position, it has nothing to do with the tool. Presidents would do this with or without executive orders.

And both parties love to do this as much as they can. It give congress cover so they can continue to do nothing whatsoever and not get blamed when shit goes wrong. It allows the president to act like an authoritarian, something every president wants to be.

 

[jbander]

I never mentioned ANY PARTICULAR EO. My statement was general in nature and YOU KNOW IT so go blow smoke up someone else's ass

The ability for a president to use a EO is given to him by the constitution not by congress as you said, Congress has no say on whether he uses his EO , They can override with a 2/3 vote or the courts can find it unconstitutional But congress using the house's ability to set the budget to stop the president is clown talk. and that is all you have been offering in argument to the fact that you are just simply wrong and don't know what you are talking about. Ace! Everyone here ,who has followed this conversation, know you're just trying to cover up for the fact that you don't know what you are talking about and think you can cover it up with endless bullshit.

 

[jbander]

He doesn’t care, he just comes in here to be an asshole to people..probably after his wife beats him…

I'm only a asshole to other assholes and since your hate group you call a party is made up of hateful bigoted assholes, you all become a very easy target , that and the fact that you operate on lies and distortions and not facts. So that makes you a easy target, and that's why you get massacred every time you try to hang in on a argument from the left. You always end up looking like idiots. By the way, you pointing out that I run right over you people in these forums is a compliment , so thanks.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Biden making noise about banning guns with an EO, but we in this country seem too stupid to know that it would not effect the population, because a President can not change law on his own, and certainly can't change the Constitution...

As to the answer why, it is because today's leftists despise liberal values.

 

[jbander]

The railing against EO's by pointing out who signed more or that Washington himself signed them is dumb as fuck. There is no inherent problem with executive orders . Indeed, they are, by definition, necessary. It is how the president manages the various agencies he is supposed to. If you were to ban executive orders in their entirety they would still exist just with another name as the president still needs to communicate with the agencies he heads.

The problem with them is when the President wants to take powers from congress and uses those executive orders to tell agencies to do things they do NOT have the power to do. Like randomly forgiving loans. This is inherent in the position, it has nothing to do with the tool. Presidents would do this with or without executive orders.

And both parties love to do this as much as they can. It give congress cover so they can continue to do nothing whatsoever and not get blamed when shit goes wrong. It allows the president to act like an authoritarian, something every president wants to be.

That authority was given to him by the writers and signers of the constitution. It is supported in multiple parts of the constitution and philosophically supported by separate writing of many of the writers and signers of the constitution/ That extra power was given to him purposely. And yes, that makes him more powerful than any other part of our government.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Lowlife is now a crime?

Criminal lowlife is, I believe he said criminal lowlife. Yup the poster certainly did.

 

[Aldo Raine]

its definitely true that all Presidents like EOs regardless of party. I will say the content of the EO matters. There are things that fall under the purview of the Executive that require EOs. George Washington issued the first in back in 1798 so, it’s not like its something modern Presidents made up. The issue is that their usage bothin number and what they are used for has increased beyond what they were intended for IMO

And every one of them should be disallowed.