Obama defends forthcoming gun restrictions as constitutional

[webfact]

Obama defends forthcoming gun restrictions as constitutional
By JOSH LEDERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Gearing up for a certain confrontation with Congress, President Barack Obama defended his plans to tighten the nation's gun-control restrictions on his own, insisting Monday that the steps he'll announce fall within his legal authority and uphold the constitutional right to own a gun.

Opening his final year in office on an aggressive note, Obama summoned his attorney general and FBI chief to the Oval Office to firm up a set of measures he said he'd announce over the next few days. Although the details are still uncertain, Obama's administration has been preparing behind the scenes to expand background checks on gun sales by forcing more sellers to register as dealers.

"This is not going to solve every violent crime in this country," Obama said, tempering expectations for gun control advocates calling for far-reaching executive action. "It's not going to prevent every mass shooting; it's not going to keep every gun out of the hands of a criminal. It will potentially save lives and spare families the pain of these extraordinary losses."

More than three years after the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, with many other mass shootings since, Obama is training his attention once again on a policy goal that has eluded his administration. He tried the legislative route in 2013, pushing hard for a package that included expanded background checks. But that effort collapsed spectacularly in Congress. Obama and his aides have described their inability to move the issue forward as one of the most frustrating failures in his presidency.

This time, with barely a year left in office and his political currency dwindling, Obama is eschewing Congress in favor of presidential action. Any proposal for new gun laws would be a non-starter in the Republican-controlled Congress — especially in a presidential election year.

Obama's steps were certain to draw intense opposition in Congress, and indeed, lawmakers and Obama's political opponents had already started pre-emptively panning Obama's plan. House Speaker Paul Ryan said he wasn't sure exactly what Obama would announce, but dismissed it as an attempt to divide the country and distract from Obama's "failed policies" to address terrorism.

"The president is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will," said Ryan, R-Wis.

The changes to the background check would be aimed at some unregistered sellers who skirt the requirement by selling at gun shows, online or informal settings. Under current law, only federally licensed firearms dealers are required to seek background checks. The administration is expected to require more people to register as dealers by altering the criteria, such as the number and frequency of guns sold, whether sellers profit off sales, whether they advertise, rent space or tables at gun shows and pay taxes.

Other moves being considered include improving reporting of lost and stolen weapons and beefing up inspections of licensed dealers, according to people familiar with the plans who weren't authorized to disclose details before the announcement.

Yet from the campaign trail to the halls of Congress, critics were already taking the president to task, both for the expected content of the actions and for the manner in which he's taking them. Republicans and gun rights advocates pledged to derail them before they can be implemented.

Although the likeliest venue for a challenge appeared to be the courts, opponents were also examining other ways to try to stop Obama's actions. Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, the House panel chairman who oversees the Justice Department budget, threatened in a letter Monday to Attorney General Loretta to withhold money for the department if it tries to implement executive action on guns.

Mindful of inevitable challenges, the White House carefully crafted the steps with legal justifications in mind, White House officials said, and Obama added he was acting "well within my legal authority."

"I'm also confident that the recommendations that are being made by our team here are ones that are entirely consistent with the Second Amendment and people's lawful right to bear arms," Obama said.

Aiming to set the stage for a productive final year in office, Obama planned to spend the week promoting the gun effort and pushing back on its critics. He met at the White House on Monday with Democratic lawmakers who have supported stricter gun control, and planned to take his argument to prime time on Thursday with a town hall discussion about gun violence on CNN.

The initiative also promised to be prominent in Obama's final State of the Union address next Tuesday, scheduled earlier than usual this year.

Already, the issue has become a hot topic in the presidential campaign, ensuring that whatever steps Obama takes will be heavily politicized by both sides.

Democrat Hillary Clinton, who has already proposed closing the gun show loophole, cheered Obama's plans, and her chief primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders, called it the "right thing to do." But on the GOP side, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called Obama a "petulant child" peddling illegal executive actions, while Donald Trump said he saw no need for changes.

It's not clear how large an effect the president's action would have on keeping guns from violent criminals. Philip Cook, a Duke University professor who researches gun violence and policy, said gun shows are at least occasionally a source of weapons for traffickers, but that surveys of prisoners don't show them to be a major source.

But Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, predicted a "dramatic impact" from the steps.
___

Associated Press writers Kathleen Hennessey, Eric Tucker and Donna Cassata contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-01-05

[webfact]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Obama moves to require background checks for guns bought from dealers online, at gun shows.

[sanukjim]

Now what does this guy pretend to know about The Constitution ? He walks all over it trying to use said Presidential Powers.

Edited January 5, 2016 by sanukjim

[Langsuan Man]

Because he is dealing with an obstructionist Congress who refuse to stand up to the NRA

The vast majority of American's have no problem with background checks and want the loopholes closed

Google: Q: Polls in the US supporting background checks for gun purchases (About 1,020,000 results (0.59 seconds)

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release/2015/11/17/125618/release-gun-owners-overwhelmingly-support-background-checks-see-nra-as-out-of-touch-new-poll-finds/

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/oct/05/jeremy-bird/jeremy-bird-says-90-percent-americans-want-mandato/

[IAMHERE]

There is no Gun Show Loophole. Dealers have to get background checks, private citizens can sell their guns without the permission of the US Government. Semantics being used to deprive Americans of their rights. Private citizens should not be unduly burdened by Government Regulations.

[nuananddon]

This all political grandstanding by the democrats. More laws on the books will do absolutely nothing to stop crazy people from doing crazy deeds. Just look at some of the cities where there are very strict gun laws and they have the highest rates of violence. This will only affect law abiding citizens, since when do the bad guys obey the laws. I would totally agree with stiffer punishment for anyone convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a crime and cannot be used in any plea bargain. Automatic 10 for murder, 7 to 10 for armed robbery depending if it was discharged or not, and automatic 5 years for anything else. If you are a felon and are caught with a firearm in your position you get the max 10 years. If you are a law abiding citizen you should not be punished because of this criminal element that is causing almost all the gun deaths.

[CMNightRider]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Obama moves to require background checks for guns bought from dealers online, at gun shows.

Obama wants $5.8M annually to close a non-existent gun trust loophole. The liberals have to be the most naive group of people on this planet.

[sirineou]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Obama moves to require background checks for guns bought from dealers online, at gun shows.

Obama wants $5.8M annually to close a non-existent gun trust loophole. The liberals have to be the most naive group of people on this planet.

$5.8M annually??? it will surely bankrupt the US and send the world in to an economic depression .

[Prbkk]

About time someone had the guts to take on the gun lobby loonies ( most of whom slink in the shadows with arguments falsely framed as individual , constitutional rights).

[chuckd]

Obama is simply trying to build a legacy that he can point to in his later life and tell everybody what he accomplished.

What the Democrats, and the liberals on this forum, don't realize is that most Americans just simply don't think gun control is an issue.

But the squeeky wheel gets the grease.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Gallup: Only 2% Say 'Guns/Gun Control' Among Nation's Most Important Problems

By Susan Jones

January 4, 2016 | 5:53 AM EST

(CNSNews.com) - As President Obama prepares to announce new executive actions on gun control Monday, a newly released Gallup Poll shows that "guns/gun control" ranked near the bottom of Americans' most pressing concerns in 2015.

In fact, guns/gun control ranked 19th out of 23 top problems facing the country last year.

According to Gallup, only one percent of respondents mentioned guns/gun control as a concern for most of the months in 2015, although mentions spiked to 7 percent in October and December following mass shootings in those months that dominated the news. (The overall average for the year was 2 percent.)

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/gallup-only-2-americans-name-gunsgun-control-among-nations-most-important

[GeorgesAbitbol]

This all political grandstanding by the democrats. More laws on the books will do absolutely nothing to stop crazy people from doing crazy deeds. Just look at some of the cities where there are very strict gun laws and they have the highest rates of violence. This will only affect law abiding citizens, since when do the bad guys obey the laws. I would totally agree with stiffer punishment for anyone convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a crime and cannot be used in any plea bargain. Automatic 10 for murder, 7 to 10 for armed robbery depending if it was discharged or not, and automatic 5 years for anything else. If you are a felon and are caught with a firearm in your position you get the max 10 years. If you are a law abiding citizen you should not be punished because of this criminal element that is causing almost all the gun deaths.

Problem is : law abiding citizen can turn violent as well because of alcohol, road rage, family/couple issues, kids finding the guns, reselling the guns to "trusted friend" who turn to be a lunatic....

When a country culture leads to create rifles designed for kids with shiny colors (http://www.crickett.com/crickett_rifles.php), tv channel dedicated to gun sales and so much more, you know there is a problem somewhere

[GeorgesAbitbol]

Obama is simply trying to build a legacy that he can point to in his later life and tell everybody what he accomplished.

What the Democrats, and the liberals on this forum, don't realize is that most Americans just simply don't think gun control is an issue.

But the squeeky wheel gets the grease.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Gallup: Only 2% Say 'Guns/Gun Control' Among Nation's Most Important Problems

By Susan Jones

January 4, 2016 | 5:53 AM EST

(CNSNews.com) - As President Obama prepares to announce new executive actions on gun control Monday, a newly released Gallup Poll shows that "guns/gun control" ranked near the bottom of Americans' most pressing concerns in 2015.

In fact, guns/gun control ranked 19th out of 23 top problems facing the country last year.

According to Gallup, only one percent of respondents mentioned guns/gun control as a concern for most of the months in 2015, although mentions spiked to 7 percent in October and December following mass shootings in those months that dominated the news. (The overall average for the year was 2 percent.)

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/gallup-only-2-americans-name-gunsgun-control-among-nations-most-important

So i presume you re a pro "a2" yourself...Please let me know how you manage your daily stress in Thailand as you can't have a gun with you

Republican on this forum and in general seem to not see the evident truth : the more gun you have in a place, the more chance you have to get shot by lunatic, errands, drunk, angry neighbor, your own kid who play with it.

I can drive perfectly my car at 250miles/hour but because some stupid cannot i must drive slow...what a shame!

I can drive and drunk without any problem, but because a stupid moron killed a kid while drunk and driving, i must be sober while in my car.

I take drugs lke a .ing champion but because some people die of OD they are banned...

You accept those laws, right?

So why not do the same with gun?

Edited January 5, 2016 by GeorgesAbitbol

[sirineou]

There is no Gun Show Loophole. Dealers have to get background checks, private citizens can sell their guns without the permission of the US Government. Semantics being used to deprive Americans of their rights. Private citizens should not be unduly burdened by Government Regulations.

"Private citizens should not be unduly burdened by Government Regulations"

so, if I can't pass a back ground check, all I need to do is buy it from a private individual?

[chuckd]

<snip>

So i presume you re a pro "a2" yourself...Please let me know how you manage your daily stress in Thailand as you can't have a gun with you

Republican on this forum and in general seem to not see the evident truth : the more gun you have in a place, the more chance you have to get shot by lunatic, errands, drunk, angry neighbor, your own kid who play with it.

I can drive perfectly my car at 250miles/hour but because some stupid cannot i must drive slow...what a shame!

I can drive and drunk without any problem, but because a stupid moron killed a kid while drunk and driving, i must be sober while in my car.

I take drugs lke a .ing champion but because some people die of OD they are banned...

You accept those laws, right?

So why not do the same with gun?

What makes you possibly believe I owe you an explanation for anything?

[GeorgesAbitbol]

<snip>

So i presume you re a pro "a2" yourself...Please let me know how you manage your daily stress in Thailand as you can't have a gun with you

Republican on this forum and in general seem to not see the evident truth : the more gun you have in a place, the more chance you have to get shot by lunatic, errands, drunk, angry neighbor, your own kid who play with it.

I can drive perfectly my car at 250miles/hour but because some stupid cannot i must drive slow...what a shame!

I can drive and drunk without any problem, but because a stupid moron killed a kid while drunk and driving, i must be sober while in my car.

I take drugs lke a .ing champion but because some people die of OD they are banned...

You accept those laws, right?

So why not do the same with gun?

What makes you possibly believe I owe you an explanation for anything?

you' re right, we are just here to read ourselves and not share opinion

-"Ho I really wrote something coo i will reread myself" and criticize other posts, but never answer to those who question me"

...typical from someone who has not any argument,

Thanks for your enlightenment

Edited January 5, 2016 by GeorgesAbitbol

[arjunadawn]

Mother died, wife sick with cancer, daughter a crack hooker, man sees family doctor of 35 years.

"What's the point? They were my whole life. Just doesn't seem much to live for any longer."

Doctor prescribes short term SSRI drug so patient can manage the melancholy; gets support group info to patient.

Man drives away. Doctor notes "jesus saves" bumper sticker on rear car bumper or "Public School Teacher and Proud."

Patient data uploaded to State/Federal database IAW with doctor mental health reporting requirements- doctors are now gateway

.

Cross reference shows man has 3 hunting rifles and one handgun; last purchase 22 years ago, no charges, no convictions, no social history.

Data sent to Marshall/LEA deputies for confiscation or forced incarceration for observation.

No knock raid conducted on home, man forcibly thrown to floor, flex cuffed, guns confiscated.

Man placed in hospital for observation for min 21 days.

Court docket to evaluate just/unjust forced observation takes longer than 21 days.

Released? Kept? No matter, Man banned on NICCS from ever owning firearms, weapons not returned.

3 Bill of Rights removed- 2, 4, 5

Happens more and more in the US like this. In this manner one of numerous examples of how Americans are separated from their Rights.

Of course its unconstitutional. It also forces doctors to manage gun control. No wonder the AMA was penetrated by gun control politics years ago.

Obama defending what is constitutional is like a prostitute taking chastity vows.

[sirineou]

Mother died, wife sick with cancer, daughter a crack hooker, man sees family doctor of 35 years.

"What's the point? They were my whole life. Just doesn't seem much to live for any longer."

Doctor prescribes short term SSRI drug so patient can manage the melancholy; gets support group info to patient.

Man drives away. Doctor notes "jesus saves" bumper sticker on rear car bumper or "Public School Teacher and Proud."

Patient data uploaded to State/Federal database IAW with doctor mental health reporting requirements- doctors are now gateway

.

Cross reference shows man has 3 hunting rifles and one handgun; last purchase 22 years ago, no charges, no convictions, no social history.

Data sent to Marshall/LEA deputies for confiscation or forced incarceration for observation.

No knock raid conducted on home, man forcibly thrown to floor, flex cuffed, guns confiscated.

Man placed in hospital for observation for min 21 days.

Court docket to evaluate just/unjust forced observation takes longer than 21 days.

Released? Kept? No matter, Man banned on NICCS from ever owning firearms, weapons not returned.

3 Bill of Rights removed- 2, 4, 5

Happens more and more in the US like this. In this manner one of numerous examples of how Americans are separated from their Rights.

Of course its unconstitutional. It also forces doctors to manage gun control. No wonder the AMA was penetrated by gun control politics years ago.

Obama defending what is constitutional is like a prostitute taking chastity vows.

"Of course its unconstitutional."

I don't understand this, in an other thread i provided you with a quote, and a link in the land mark decision of the SCOTUS not to hear the challenge to gun ownership limitation, thus agreeing that such limitations were constitutional and did not even merit a hearing.

yet you persist in claiming that any limitations are unconstitutional. What is your reasoning?

[pegman]

>33,000 gun deaths per year and all is well? Good on you O!

[howto]

well i was going to post, then realized

I have had too much chang.

Perhaps tomorrow.

[arjunadawn]

Mother died, wife sick with cancer, daughter a crack hooker, man sees family doctor of 35 years.

"What's the point? They were my whole life. Just doesn't seem much to live for any longer."

Doctor prescribes short term SSRI drug so patient can manage the melancholy; gets support group info to patient.

Man drives away. Doctor notes "jesus saves" bumper sticker on rear car bumper or "Public School Teacher and Proud."

Patient data uploaded to State/Federal database IAW with doctor mental health reporting requirements- doctors are now gateway

.

Cross reference shows man has 3 hunting rifles and one handgun; last purchase 22 years ago, no charges, no convictions, no social history.

Data sent to Marshall/LEA deputies for confiscation or forced incarceration for observation.

No knock raid conducted on home, man forcibly thrown to floor, flex cuffed, guns confiscated.

Man placed in hospital for observation for min 21 days.

Court docket to evaluate just/unjust forced observation takes longer than 21 days.

Released? Kept? No matter, Man banned on NICCS from ever owning firearms, weapons not returned.

3 Bill of Rights removed- 2, 4, 5

Happens more and more in the US like this. In this manner one of numerous examples of how Americans are separated from their Rights.

Of course its unconstitutional. It also forces doctors to manage gun control. No wonder the AMA was penetrated by gun control politics years ago.

Obama defending what is constitutional is like a prostitute taking chastity vows.

"Of course its unconstitutional."

I don't understand this, in an other thread i provided you with a quote, and a link in the land mark decision of the SCOTUS not to hear the challenge to gun ownership limitation, thus agreeing that such limitations were constitutional and did not even merit a hearing.

yet you persist in claiming that any limitations are unconstitutional. What is your reasoning?

In another thread you demonstrated that your argument on that point was stronger than what I offered; it was. Over the past 10 years the SCOTUS decisions have turned gun control advocacy on its head. I do not know if the recent ruling was narrow, not narrow, not ripe, applicable broadly, etc. The fact is, the overwhelming decisions by SCOTUS have turned gun control into freefall over recent years. Besides, this is a very different mechanism.

I am not a constitutional lawyer but some things are self evident. In fact, the entire process of swearing an oath is predicated upon this notion. Ultimately, it is up to courts to decide. Courts have not decided that extra judicial mechanisms for denying a person their Bill of Rights are legal. In legal proceedings, a person is deemed incompetent. It is a judicial action. Attendant to this are well known limitations of that individual, from fiduciary to other. By passing such mechanisms can hardly be called due process, even for someone labeled by the health profession. Indeed, medical doctors lack the ability to make this determination without adjudication.

For veterans the process is even more frightening and this is exactly the model they are building on. Let me explain: For years now Obama et al have used a Veterans Affairs process to alienate veterans from their rights. There was the necessary fear mongering to stifle dissent over this outrageous slippery slope, thus veterans have been smeared in DHS pubs as among the greatest threats, indeed, for some years these bulletins listed veterans near the top and islamic terrorism not at all. What they did is use executive office fiat (The VA is an executive run agency) to require the VA to list the names of veterans to a database who were deemed incompetent. The problem is this non judicial process for naming veterans incompetent has been "incompetent for VA purposes." These are fiduciary incompetency hearings carried out not by a magistrate or judge but by a GS employee of the VA. The goal was to ensure veterans who were "housebound" or in "aid and attendance" category were not having their checks diverted and their care was provided for. Thus when such decision was made they would then have a "fiduciary" appointed, either family member, social services, or the state. Still, in these cases, the threshold was still never met for the tried and true judicial process of declaring someone in fact incompetent before a court of law- the standard in the US.

Some veterans may be elderly, some missing limbs, some maybe should have their right to keep and bear arms restricted, but the VA hearing officer mechanism is not the place to do this, it never was. Enter Obama and his hoard of sophists "making the worse argument seem the better." To what extent can we stretch fiat executive power? This was a model enacted a few years ago and the slippery slope opponents noted that it was only setting in place a mechanism to later broadly add others to it. When the Federal government effectively nationalized healthcare this slide became apparent. It becomes evident now.

The VA has for ten years or more thrown psychotropic drugs at veterans, and primarily for off shelf use. Example: A veteran has PTSD, he is proscribed a drug, an SSRI, or other psychotropic. This is classes as first line drug. Ok. But a patient has pain, he is also prescribed these drugs as off shelf use, presumably to lower the pain threshold. Now, in one example, New York, the VA must report all the veterans who have had this drug prescribed. Really? This can be defended. Obama is using linguistic, sophist can openers to now extend and broaden this program making doctors first line magistrates. Of course its unconstitutional. This government has harnessed way too much inclination to demonize Americans and embrace our enemies. This fact exists on merits alone.

[arjunadawn]

One of the foundations that Obama builds upon.

Veterans, Mental Incompetency, Firearms Eligibility In November 1998, the VBA provided the FBI with disqualifying records on 88,898 VA beneficiaries, whom VA rating specialists had determined to be “mentally incompetent” based on medical evidence that they were incapable of managing their own affairs.54 Thus, a fiduciary (or designated payee) was appointed for them. During the determination process, beneficiaries were notified that the VA was proposing to rate them “mentally incompetent,” and they were able to submit evidence to the contrary if they wished.55 This determination process is still followed today at the VA.56

The Veterans Medical Administration has not submitted any disqualifying records on VA beneficiaries to the FBI for inclusion in NICS for any medical/psychiatric reason (like PTSD), unless those veterans had been involuntarily committed under a state court order to a VA medical facility because they posed a danger to themselves or others. In those cases, the state in which the court resides would submit the disqualifying record to the FBI, if such a submission would be appropriate and permissible under state law.57

Nevertheless, the decision by the VA to submit VBA records on “mentally incompetent” veterans to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS mental defective file generated some degree of controversy in 1999 and 2000.58 Critics of this policy underscored that veterans routinely consented to mentally incompetent determinations so that a fiduciary (designated payee) could be appointed for them. Those critics contended that to take away a veteran’s Second Amendment rights without his foreknowledge was improper. They also pointed out that no other federal agencies were providing similar disqualifying records to the FBI. This controversy subsided, but it reemerged when Congress considered the NICS improvement amendments (described above). Also, as of April 30, 2008, VA records made up about one-fifth (or 21.0%) of all the 552,800 federal and state records in the NICS mental defective file.

Now add Social Security. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html#page=1

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/08/foghorn/breaking-va-tries-to-confiscate-disabled-vets-guns-stopped-by-citizens-and-sheriff-standing-guard/

Constitutional? Same as recent case SCOTUS rejected? No.

Edited January 5, 2016 by arjunadawn

[ggt]

Obama writes into law...anything he wishes...everything he does, which is in direct conflict with the US Constitution, is legal according to his appointed legal team of Obama yes people...

"So Let It Be Written...So Let It Be Done!"

Where have we heard that before?

[Publicus]

Second Amendment is not an exemption from the laws.

There are laws regulating firearms rights; there always have been. There will be more. A right is subject to rule of law.

Firearms are especially lethal weapons. Second Amendment is a guarantee or a right under the laws and the due process of law. POTUS is acting within his authority in the Constitution and in existing laws, many of them.

Picture this that the president's expected actions are designed to reduce if not stop altogether. Presently a guy with a bag of firearms decides he is a private dealer. As such he does not have to register or get a license. He does not have to know to whom he is selling. He takes cash. Does not report the cash income to IRS or to the state tax agency. The guy who walks away with the bag of firearms can now sell them to anyone else anywhere anytime because he can say it is a private transaction. Maybe these two guyz are good guys. Chances are however they are not.

[Publicus]

Obama writes into law...anything he wishes...everything he does, which is in direct conflict with the US Constitution, is legal according to his appointed legal team of Obama yes people...

"So Let It Be Written...So Let It Be Done!"

Where have we heard that before?

Couldn't help but notice the post doesn't mention guns.

It hasn't any supporting links either.

Still however, everyone is entitled to an opinion regardless of whether it is generic.

[ggt]

Obama writes into law...anything he wishes...everything he does, which is in direct conflict with the US Constitution, is legal according to his appointed legal team of Obama yes people...

"So Let It Be Written...So Let It Be Done!"

Where have we heard that before?

Couldn't help but notice the post doesn't mention guns.

It hasn't any supporting links either.

Still however, everyone is entitled to an opinion regardless of whether it is generic.

Here is some reading for ya!

The executive branch has the Constitutional responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congress. It is well accepted that an executive order is not legislation nor can it be. An executive order is a directive that implements laws passed by Congress. The Constitution provides that the president “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Thus, executive orders can only be used to carry out the will of Congress. If we in Congress have not established the policy or authorization by law, the President can’t do it unilaterally.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/01/10/presidential-gun-ban-executive-unconstitutional/

Whether it’s climate, healthcare or immigration, Obama has bypassed Congress to implement major policy changes that affect million of people across the country. On climate issues alone, Obama’s actions will raise power prices and cause more layoffs as coal plants are retired. But despite the consequences, the White House shows no indication of slowing down.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/31/bastasch-obama-has-done-more-to-circumvent-congress-than-bush/#ixzz3wNvKlnI5

But the Constitution's explicit prohibition on executive branch law-making hasn't stopped a White House frustrated by a Congress that has neglected to pass most of the White House legislative agenda over the past year. “We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues,” White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told the New York Times. Likewise, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer is signaling that the White House plans to ignore the constitutional process over the next year and pursue a more dictatorial course. “The challenges we had to address in 2009 ensured that the center of action would be in Congress,” Pfeiffer told the Times. “In 2010, executive actions will also play a key role in advancing the agenda.”

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7696-obama-eyes-executive-orders-to-circumvent-congress

The president and executive branch do not have the authority to create new laws, for this would have violated one of the most fundamental purpose of our government, representative rule. The broad powers covered by executive orders exclude the following: 1) creating new legislation apart from Congress; 2) revising current laws without congressional initiative; 3) repealing current laws after they have been signed into law; and 4) creating bureaucracy in connection with the three previous violations. While there is some overlap between legislative and executive powers, the authority to write, alter, and repeal laws lies only with Congress. The only time the president has the authority to tamper with current law is if Congress has delegated authority to him to interpret and implement the law.

http://faithfulpolitics.org/2012/08/31/the-threat-of-executive-orders/

The list goes on and on...the real issue here is Obama's over-reach...not only does he use executive orders to circumvent Congress and the Constitution...but he issues memorandums that are in fact de facto laws to be carried out by Presidential directive...

Obama is smart...understands the political ramifications of a Congress that might try to object to his heavy-handedness...he is covered by a Pro-Dem press that has his back and will spin anything he does to make the Congress seem like spoilers rather than defenders of the Constitution...

Obama has done away with the normal checks and balances which the Constitution was written to provide...effectively make the President...the absolute ruler of the US...

You are welcome...

[Publicus]

Thx for the links to the mass of rightwhinge well financed and highly funded media. It includes several from among the usual rightwhinge mass of well-heeled media suspects perps.

When btw did SCOTUS overrule any Executive Order or executive action by President Obama? Don't bother researching the question for the obvious reason SCOTUS has not done so. Lower courts rulings that don't go anywhere don't speak for SCOTUS either.

The rightwhinge has a year left of the Obama presidency but it shouldn't get its hopes up too high about SCOTUS. To include this one on guns.

Rightwhinge keeps repeating the same lines for seven years. Which makes it political and ideological boilerplate and thus meaningless.

[Publicus]

One of the foundations that Obama builds upon.

Veterans, Mental Incompetency, Firearms Eligibility In November 1998, the VBA provided the FBI with disqualifying records on 88,898 VA beneficiaries, whom VA rating specialists had determined to be “mentally incompetent” based on medical evidence that they were incapable of managing their own affairs.54 Thus, a fiduciary (or designated payee) was appointed for them. During the determination process, beneficiaries were notified that the VA was proposing to rate them “mentally incompetent,” and they were able to submit evidence to the contrary if they wished.55 This determination process is still followed today at the VA.56

The Veterans Medical Administration has not submitted any disqualifying records on VA beneficiaries to the FBI for inclusion in NICS for any medical/psychiatric reason (like PTSD), unless those veterans had been involuntarily committed under a state court order to a VA medical facility because they posed a danger to themselves or others. In those cases, the state in which the court resides would submit the disqualifying record to the FBI, if such a submission would be appropriate and permissible under state law.57

Nevertheless, the decision by the VA to submit VBA records on “mentally incompetent” veterans to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS mental defective file generated some degree of controversy in 1999 and 2000.58 Critics of this policy underscored that veterans routinely consented to mentally incompetent determinations so that a fiduciary (designated payee) could be appointed for them. Those critics contended that to take away a veteran’s Second Amendment rights without his foreknowledge was improper. They also pointed out that no other federal agencies were providing similar disqualifying records to the FBI. This controversy subsided, but it reemerged when Congress considered the NICS improvement amendments (described above). Also, as of April 30, 2008, VA records made up about one-fifth (or 21.0%) of all the 552,800 federal and state records in the NICS mental defective file.

Now add Social Security. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html#page=1

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/08/foghorn/breaking-va-tries-to-confiscate-disabled-vets-guns-stopped-by-citizens-and-sheriff-standing-guard/

Constitutional? Same as recent case SCOTUS rejected? No.

The gun ownership limitation ordinance SCOTUS declined to review was enacted by a duly elected municipality incorporated by the state, its chief duty being the safety and protection of its residents. US (and state) Department(s) of Veteran's Affairs have a specific constituency of strictly volunteers who defend the country by doing the jobs no one else will do that are down, dirty, dangerous.

It is safe to say the clear majority of this specific constituency of military veterans are conservative or are over to far right in their world view to include of course their politics, culture, social norms and so on.

The great national veterans organisations that a number of we vets voluntarily join are also pretty fierce about the Second Amendment. All of 'em have official positions on contemporary public issues as they affect veterans, but also the nation as a whole.

Let's look at the largest national veterans organisation, the American Legion, and its official position on the Second Amendment as adopted at national convention. One part of it is below.

The other five paragraphs of the Resolution read even more like a rightwing testimony and manifesto to the erroneous belief the Second Amendment grants gun owners an exemption from the laws.

Resolution No. 68: Second Amendment

Convention Committee on National Security

RESOLVED, That the membership of The American Legion urges our nation's lawmakers to recognize, as part of their oaths of office, that the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear the arms of their choice, as do the millions of American veterans who have fought, and continue to fight, to preserve those rights, hereby advise the Congress of the United States and the Executive Department to cease and desist any and all efforts to restrict these rights by any legislation or order.

http://burnpit.legion.org/2013/01/american-legion-position-second-amendment

During the past 40 years we've been losing a lot of wars. Vets themselves do no bear the sole blame for it. Still, it would not be difficult to comprehend why so many military veterans might need the excellent services of their entirely taxpayer financed long standing national health and medical care system. It is a system btw that for many decades knows and understands matters psychological-physiological better than just about any other institution of the medical profession.

Myself being a military veteran, the point here is that Americans might feel more secure in their homes and in our homeland if our warriors had been more successful in foreign expeditions over the decades. We might not fear immigration or foreigners as much that so many Americans would have a home arsenal.

While the great majority of vets return to normal society to readjust perfectly well, there seem to be a great number who do not. The numbers noted in the post are pretty staggering. The American Legion and other national veterans organisations do of course oppose the providing of certain veterans records to the FBI. The grounds are that, or so it can be said by someone such as myself, the Legion et al also believe ever so erroneously that the Second Amendment grants an exemption from the laws.

[daveAustin]

Any positive energy towards the nutty gun situation in that neck of the woods has to be a good thing, surely?

[arjunadawn]

Just released to news now, Obama's new restrictions will target social security beneficiaries (this is the same slippery slope Veterans' attack that expands administrative fiduciary incompetence into mental defect). This fiat is in fact the predictable outcome of previous infrastructure setups/programs to blacklist numerous Americans. It began with Veterans X years ago, a window was ported in the Orwellian Affordable Care Act less years ago, and now it is finally broadening with targeting the largest sitting population target on the landscape, the millions on Social Security. Lets be clear, BATF and FBI have already created the parameters of reportable information and those beneficiaries signed up for direct deposit are also included in this vast, despotic net.

"Doctors as magistrate gatekeepers..." Jeez, this is the despotism that all those "wingnuts" predicted; how ironic that the despised right was in fact correct and not only predicted this but predicted when. How does such a thing happen? How are so many so right? This is exactly the behavior that all these "conspiracy loons" predicted. Indeed. some of America's smartest people (and on the Left) have emphatically stated Obama is "becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid... the concentration of power in any branch." This is among the biggest developments in recent US history. This single issue will serve to define the coming year, and will be the illustrative highlight of Obama's incessant abuse of the separation of powers. History will remember this man poorly; the present already regards him as an aberration. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth before/if Obama leaves office but the truly horrific part will be stitching America back together, trying to craft some semblance of a State post-Obama, and trying to discern the endless poison pills he seeded throughout the US government by this anti-Western nihilist, domestically and internationally.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/04/obamas-gun-control-plan-includes-gun-ban-social-security-beneficiaries/

EDIT:

"Obama wipes away tears..." http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/obama-gun-restrictions-217354

"I feel..." and "...for the children" are tried and tested amulets of the radical left. Under the guise of 'feeling' and 'for the children' all manner of horror has been inflicted upon the liberties of those in the West. Whenever there is discourse regarding the rule of law, Rights, or Liberties "I feel" and "for the children" should alert you every time that your opponent is a fraud. Whenever there is an appeal to emotion you can rest assured your liberties are about to be compromised.

Edited January 5, 2016 by arjunadawn

[Publicus]

President Obama just entered the beginning of his eighth and final year as POTUS.

The Supreme Court has never ruled or determined that anything President Obama has done is unconstitutional.

Even if there were one ruling of this character, one mistake could be forgiven. If there were several such SCOTUS rulings, then the extreme right could have a case to work with. But there has not been one instance over the past seven years of the Obama presidency in which SCOTUS has said he'd done anything unconstitutional.

It is in fact quite the opposite. SCOTUS for instance has twice upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. (SCOTUS has in fact ruled for marriage equality.) SCOTUS has declined to receive a petition that it nullify the firearms limitation ordinance of a municipality, enacted by elected representative officials.

Unless the Court issues even one ruling President Obama has acted unconstitutionally, all claims and assertions are opinion, to include lawyers stating their own interpretations, or are common speculation. They are generally politically motivated, ideological claptrap pushed by the mass of well funded and highly financed rightwhinge media, to include a heavy and determined dumping of cynical tripe.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Publicus