[Oct 14, 2013, 09:20 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
||Re: Morning Metaverse
||Oct 29, 2013, 02:54
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 28, 2013, 23:48:
Beamer wrote on Oct 28, 2013, 23:43:
Also, learn what socialism is. Buy a history book, read Wikipedia - something.
and answer the fucking 23 exec actions question or admit you have no clue what you were talking about and believed uninformed videos rather than learning for yourself. Like you refuse to with socialism.
I'll bet you never read a single thing you bitch about. Too. Believe what other morons say. The more outlandish the better. At least mad max outs out better articles, even if he doesn't bother making any analysis of them and just kind of spans them pointlessly (e.g., makes not attempt at making a point, just lists articles like he's some newsfeed.)
I've answered that 10 times already, when you start making EO's in regards to guns, you're circumventing congress, you're circumventing the Constitution. We have this thing called Due Process, look it up.
Government providing a service, or forcing a service, what would you call it, capitalism? THINK, use your fucking brain.
You haven't answered this, though you did just post a link to someone else's interpretation because you're unable to make you own.
You also haven't answered this because you keep saying "Derrrrr, Glenn beck says most are unconstitutional, but I can't figure out what the 23 are. You told me, but my feeble brain is too slow to specifically say "I believe numbers X, Y and Z are unconstitutional because..." These aren't adhoms, these are specific to you and your absolute inability to make a fucking argument despite you idiotic and irrational belief that saying "most are unconstitutional" is giving fucking facts you pet rock.
Also, next time you accuse me of not reading the Constitution, I remind you to search my history for "law school." You'll find me mentioning it quite often for 3 years. A- in ConLaw - that shit is dry - the Burger court gets redundant.
Anyway, the Supreme Court, long ago, deemed that Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 enables the President to make Executive Orders. That means that it's difficult for something the President is authorized to do by the Constitution to be unconstitutional. Difficult, but not impossible, of course.
The limitations on these orders are pretty clear, thanks to Youngstown Steel, which is pretty much one of the few ConLaw cases anyone remembers from 1L. Youngstown Steel says that an Executive Order cannot make a law.
This is all irrelevant to the discussion, though. Obama did not make any laws. He didn't even sign any Executive Orders. He signed Executive Actions. These are just administrative tidbits.
Your link, by the way, calls these Orders. It says "King Obama." And it claims he's trying to make law.
These are all talking points to get the absolute dumbest people in the country (I mean you) to buy into it. Let's run through those 23 again, shall we? But first, let's review Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers. Yup, as Younstown Steel says, only Congress can make a law. Then there's that Second Amendment: iA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (A note for you, jackass, this is how you cite shit you fucking moron. Stop posting tiny urls to bullshit websites.)
Now, getting back to the 23 actions, with bold being my emphasis:
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system. This is not a law, as federal agencies have billions of requirements but are not regulated by billions of laws. Also, this does not infringe on any right of the second amendment. This is probably the most questionable, but how is having the background check system share data an infringement? Seriously, if you believe it is, explain specifically how it would infringe. Maybe you feel background checks infringe, but you already lost that court case, and since the problem here is the checks themselves, and they've already been found constitutional, anyone arguing otherwise is a maroon
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system. This is not a law, because what the fuck does "address" mean? It's meaningless fluff and not actionable. Also does not infringe on he second amendment for the reasons #1 doesn't
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system. Improving incentives? Not a law, hardly actionable, no infringement
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks. "Direct" is meaningless. Not law, because directing someone isn't forcing them to under law. And not infringing, as it's vague but, again, the categories of individuals prohibited have been defended as constitutional, so it's impossible to argue this without arguing something the Court already deemed you stupid on
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun. Proposing a law clearly isn't making law. This is, at best, a "note to self, ask Congress to do something. Hope they do it." And don't see how it's an infringement, it again just keeps guns out of the hands of people who, Constitutionally, aren't allowed to own them
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers. Publishing a letter is in no way a law or an infringement.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign. Launching a campaign is in no way a law or an infringement
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission). Reviewing standards is hardly actionable, not a law, and not an infringement.
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations. Again, this is a note-to-self, not a fucking law. And not an infringement, I mean, hell, no one even owns these guns to be infringed upon.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement. Releasing a report: neither a law nor an infringement
11. Nominate an ATF director. A fucking stupid bullshit thing because Obama had to do it anyone. not a law. Not an infringement
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations. As mentioned, this barely says anything. "Provide" could mean sending an email. Not a law. Not an infringement
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime. What the fuck does this mean? Christ, these things are such PR fluff. Not a law, not an infringement, not meaningful, not anything. Did a fucking kid's choir sing while he did this?
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. A note-to-self. Not a law. Not an infringement
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies. Again, "Direct" is meaningless. Issuing a report isn't a law, anyway. Nor is it an infringement. Nor is "challenging." All meaningless verbs here.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. Does this mean change the Act, or does this mean make sure people know what's in the Act? In any case, not a law, and totally not an infringement. Worst case scenario - Doc: Do you have guns? Patient: I dunno. Doc: Ok, does it hurt when I do this?
17. Release a letter to health-care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law-enforcement authorities. Release another fucking letter. Not a law, because it says "no law," and not an infringement.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers. Not a law, as it provides incentives (whatever that means, maybe it's a cookie or a lollipop), and not an infringement.
19. Develop model emergency-response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education. HAHAHA, this is creating best practices. No one has to follow them, so not a law. Not an infringement.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental-health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
Releasing another GODDAMN letter. Not a law. Not an infringement. Not even gun related.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges. Meaningless, not anything
22. Commit to finalizing mental-health-parity regulations. meaningless, not anything
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health. "Launch a dialogue?" Meaningless as shit. Not anything.
So, I really fail to see how any of these are even remotely a law, and therefore violate Youngstown Steel. I also fail to see how any of these infringe upon the Second Amendment. The ones that have even a tiny argument rely on the presumption that background checks and prohibited-categories are unconstitutional, but since they ARE constitutional, having been challenged repeatedly and found constitutional repeatedly, and having been currently law in this land, there's no argument to make there.
Also, RollinMoronWhoCan'tPostAThoughtOrFactForShitAndJustLinksToStupidArticles, this is how you make an argument. This is what specifics are.
Lastly, you should review the history of the Second Amendment and its limitations. People always point to it without understanding that we have 220 years of case law whittling and refining what those 27 words mean. They are not blanket and limtless. You cannot buy an RPG. You cannot buy a grenade launcher. You can not buy an Apache helicopter. This is all Constitutional. In particular, you should read Heller, both the decision and the Dissent (then again, you probably fail to understand why Dissents are important.)