In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Please explain...if you can!

guntech59guntech59 Member Posts: 23,188 ✭✭✭
edited February 2009 in Gun Rights and Constitutional Law
How can this statement be true, unless they are reading a different Constitution/ Bill of Rights than I have read?

While the Executive Order may sound too powerful, experts in Constitutional law state that it is not actually un-Constitutional

Is this not "Infringing"?

Executive order, my *!
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    It's the whole 'make up the rules as you go along' mindset.

    Can't get it through the Congress? Hell, we'll just sign an E.O.

    Those 'experts' in Constitutional law need to get a refund on the money they spent for the schooling to become 'experts'.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sarge_3adsarge_3ad Member Posts: 8,387 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I for one, believe that the power to write an executive order should only be limited to citations of valor or heroism, as all other executive orders fall into a unconstitutional category.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 1911 Gunslinger1911 Gunslinger Member Posts: 747 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    An executive order is the same thing as a decree issued by a dictator. It is completely contrary to the system that was established by the Founding Fathers. They(FF) knew firsthand what it was like to live under a dictatorship, and to have a lack of representation in the gov. that is why they set things up as they did. Too much power in the hands of one person ultimately leads to tyranny. There is an old saying "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 1911 Gunslinger
    An executive order is the same thing as a decree issued by a dictator. It is completely contrary to the system that was established by the Founding Fathers. They(FF) knew firsthand what it was like to live under a dictatorship, and to have a lack of representation in the gov. that is why they set things up as they did. Too much power in the hands of one person ultimately leads to tyranny. There is an old saying "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".



    But but, we have non-violent "handing over of power" every 4-8 years.

    Whatever.

    Our choices are selected(remember McSwine polling at ZERO% and ready to drop out? Somehow wins the nomination? Yea, ok. He wasn't "selected".) for us to "choose" from every 4-8 years ensuring that the same agenda moves forward. POTUS is nothing more than a representative of those who control that agenda and wish to control us. The body filling the "representative" suit, does not matter one bit.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • guntech59guntech59 Member Posts: 23,188 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I pulled the quote (in red above), from a locked post, to see if I was the only one that thought it was as stupid as it sounds.

    I actually had to read it 4 or 5 times to see if I read it right.

    Thank you for confirming my thoughts.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    An EO is in and of itself un-Constitutional as it circumvents the checks and balances of a republican form of government.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.