Executive Orders

[Tom Servo]

The possibility of any new gun control laws passing through the legislature is almost nil. When I explain this to people, their reaction is "well, then the President's just going to do it through an executive order! ZOMG!"

That's not how it works.

Executive orders exist for the President to clarify or facilitate enforcement of existing laws. They are not meant to enact new ones. The Executive branch does not have the power to create legislation.

So, what is an executive order? We don't really know, as they aren't specifically defined in the Constitution.

Authority for them is vaguely attributed to Article II, Section 5, which states the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." They're a mechanism for execution, not creation.

The Supreme Court has come down on Presidents who've tried to overstep their authority via EO's before. They spoke on the matter in 1952, finding that President Truman's order placing steel mills under government control overstepped his authority. In 2005, the Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that President Bush lacked the authority to enact war tribunals via such orders.

It's unlikely the current White House would try to enact new regulations via executive order, especially with Heller and McDonald being the 800lb gorillas in the living room. Doing so would trigger a court challenge that would not only overturn the ordinance in question, it would set further limits on what could be done with such orders.

 

[CowTowner]

It's unlikely the current White House would try to enact new regulations via executive order, especially with Heller and McDonald being the 800lb gorillas in the living room. Doing so would trigger a court challenge that would not only overturn the ordinance in question, it would set further limits on what could be done with such orders.

Are we so sure that the current White House cares about future limits?

 

[Woody55]

I agree with the OP.

The level of paranoia can be astounding. And self defeating.

And even though President Obama is not going to have another term, he is going to have to consider Democrats in Congress who are going to run in two years.

 

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

Great post sir. People need to take a breath and calm down and realize that the President cannot wave a magic wand and make it so. I am glad to see this post to calm some who have already began to panic.

 

[thallub]

Thanks, Tom Servo.

The level of paranoia can be astounding. And self defeating.

Indeed it is.

A link to presidential orders back to Hoover:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

 

[nate45]

I wish people would wait till at least an idea was proposed. Speculating on what the President might do, when he hasn't even proposed anything yet, seems pointless to me too.
I know, I know, he mentioned AWB II in a debate, but we all know that legislation won't be brought up either, at least not for 2+ years. Its called lip service to part of your base, the other side does it too on certain issues, in case anyone hasn't noticed.

 

[rebs]

What about the NATO treaty ? Can it be shoved down our throats ?

 

[Atbat82]

Treaties generally take 2/3s of the senate "advise and consent" before the president can sign and ratify them. I see no reason why this treaty would be any different.

Of course, this would hardly be the first time I was mistaken.

 

[BarryLee]

So, can EOs be used to implement additional fees and restrictions on gun purchases? I’m not talking about outlawing such purchases or making us subservient to the Blue Berets, but making the process more expensive and onerous.

I know we’ve discussed the possibility before, but exactly what would be the procedure for a Government Agency to add new fees, record keeping or other restriction onto the purchase of firearms? Would it require the Legislative Branch or could it be done without their involvement?

 

[BGutzman]

It's unlikely the current White House would try to enact new regulations via executive order

For some people Tom the end justifies the means. Ive read enough of executive orders since I joined TFL to know that in some cases they do seem to be used to enact laws without it being called a law... Point in case would be the status of Interpol officers...

No need for me to go off into the weeds on it but per Executive order Interpol officers have almost unlimited powers within the boundaries of our nation... My point being this does seem to be a very law like effect...

I agree the vast majority of Executive orders don't fall into the law like category but even a few is a worry.

 

[Tom Servo]

I know we’ve discussed the possibility before, but exactly what would be the procedure for a Government Agency to add new fees, record keeping or other restriction onto the purchase of firearms? Would it require the Legislative Branch or could it be done without their involvement?

The ATF could add those, as it did in 1989, but at this point, it would trigger public outrage and court challenges. The matter would also be subject to review by the House, who would likely quash it. Remember that the House controls the budget for the ATF, and that the ATF isn't too popular in those chambers right now.

 

[WyMark]

No need for me to go off into the weeds on it but per Executive order Interpol officers have almost unlimited powers within the boundaries of our nation... My point being this does seem to be a very law like effect...

Hard to go off into the weeds when that is where you started from. If you want to look at if from a fact based perspective, this article provides a pretty good starting point and some good background.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...obamas-executive-order-regarding-interpol-do/

 

[gc70]

I know we’ve discussed the possibility before, but exactly what would be the procedure for a Government Agency to add new fees, record keeping or other restriction onto the purchase of firearms? Would it require the Legislative Branch or could it be done without their involvement?

To expand on Tom Servo's response, the answer to the question depends on the specific language in individual laws. Laws can range from very specific (i.e. "the Agency may charge an application fee of no more than $5.00") to very open-ended (i.e. ""the Agency may charge an application fee"). If a law is very specific, a federal agency can only do what the law specifies. If a law is more open-ended, a federal agency has flexibility to act within whatever limits (if any) are contained in the authority granted by the law.

Just as Tom pointed out about executive orders, federal agencies can only act within the boundaries of existing laws.

 

[Tom Servo]

The topic at hand is executive orders and what they could cover.

It is not health care, or which politicians confront whom in the shower. If your post was deleted, consider why that might have been.

 

[BGutzman]

International organizations, their property and their assets, wherever located, and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments , except to the extent that such organizations may expressly waive their immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract.

(c)

Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.


(d)

Insofar as concerns customs duties and internal-revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation, and the procedures in connection therewith; the registration of foreign agents; and the treatment of official communications, the privileges, exemptions, and immunities to which international organizations shall be entitled shall be those accorded under similar circumstances to foreign governments.

Heres a little selection of the law where the executive order says Interpol is covered by.... The executive order is used to give Interpol (Regans EO) these immunities. (Public Law 79-291) My point being that if an executive order can given this kind of power to any group than what else can be done. My point had nothing to do with Mr. Obamas subsequent order on this issue. I do however believe this administration believes the end justifies the means on anything it wants to accomplish. (See operation F&F)

 

[jmortimer]

We all know that EOs can have great effect. Millions of illegal alien "youths" just got de facto amnesty until the POTUS is gone and probably forever. We all know that a ban on the importation of firearms/ammo/magazines is but an EO or "Sporting Use" Regulation away. POTUS has stated he will make "hope and change" with or without congress. Exhibit "A" is the EO amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. That is real change you can believe in. I believe the O/P wrong. We shall see.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...That is real change you can believe in. I believe the O/P wrong. We shall see....

Well the OP is absolutely correct about what an Executive Order is. That doesn't mean an Executive Order can't have a noticeable effect in the real world. But it still is not a law or a regulation, it's still subject to the underlying statute or regulation it relates to, and it still is subject to constitutional limitations.

 

[jmortimer]

^ From the O/P - you are wrong
"...people, their reaction is "well, then the President's just going to do it through an executive order!""

and
"...it's unlikely the current White House would try to enact new regulations via executive order..."
I disagree with both the O/P and your post. BO and the EO, a match made in ...

 

[Frank Ettin]

^ From the O/P - you are wrong
"...people, their reaction is "well, then the President's just going to do it through an executive order! ZOMG!""

and
"...it's unlikely the current White House would try to enact new regulations via executive order..."
I disagree with both the O/P and your post. BO and the EO, a match made in ...

Your post is pretty much unintelligible but the facts are:

• A President can't "just do it through an Executive Order." An Executive Order must be pursuant to an underlying statute or regulation and be consistent with the underlying statute or regulation, and an Executive Order must be constitutional. Executive Orders are subject to challenge in court.
  
  
• An Executive Order is not law. As the OP put it:

  ...Executive orders exist for the President to clarify or facilitate enforcement of existing laws. They are not meant to enact new ones. The Executive branch does not have the power to create legislation....

  And legally that is absolutely correct.

 

[gc70]

..