• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Universal background checks

Do you support universal background checks?


  • Total voters
    104
Do you think executive orders for federal agencies are something new?

"All presidents beginning with George Washington in 1789 have issued orders which in general terms can be described as executive orders."

Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope, don't be stupid. The way in which they are now used as a way for the President to side step Congress and for the President to gain power of legislation, however, is relatively new.
 
I haven't said anything about money.Its my opinion that enough angry voters do have significant influence over their elected officials. If most of the emails,faxes, letters and phone calls are telling them to oppose what ever anti-2nd amendment legislation Obama is proposing then that is what they are going to do. Which is why most of the elected officials in pro-2nd amendment states are opposing any anti-2nd amendment legislation. If most of the emails,faxes, letters and phone calls are telling them to support what anti-2nd amendment legislation Obama is proposing then that is what they will do. Which is why elected officials in anti-2nd amendment states are supporting any anti-2nd amendment legislation Obama is proposing.

So because you didn't mention payola to Congress means it doesn't happen? And you will have to show me, since background checks for gun sales was enacted in 1994, when they were ruled to be an infringement of the 2nd Amendment rights. Like I've said, if this Congress can't get it done, the voters will work that problem out over the next couple elections.
 
I don't approve of the way the president is handling the proposed gun safety laws either. He should have been taking a more active and forceful role.

That doesn't change the fact, as shown by all the polls, that the great majority of Americans don't want background checks:

Daily Kos: Yet more polls show Americans strongly support background checks. Will NRA lobbyists trump them?

You said the President's approval rating is 45%, which we'll go with here, even though you didn't provide a link and I've seen other polls that showed him getting a bump this month and moving up to 51%.

But even at your number, the President is still receiving an approval rating 3 times as high as the approval ratings for congress -

"This month's approval rating is on par with last year's average of 15 percent, which was the lowest yearly average registered since Gallup began asking the question way back in 1974."

Gallup-Congressional Approval Rating: Americans continue to give lawmakers low marks.

I didn't put up a link as I put up the CNN poll as a thread. The CBS poll was in a gun thread. So coming back with Daily KOS doesn't change the fact that the majority of Americans are not with the supporting those background checks. Nor a database to be held by the Feds of Law Abiding Citizens that have guns.
 
Nope, don't be stupid. The way in which they are now used as a way for the President to side step Congress and for the President to gain power of legislation, however, is relatively new.

Don't be idiotic, who has made a case to the courts that the president's executive orders were unconstitutional? Interagency orders do not require congressional approval under our rule of law.
 
Don't be idiotic, who has made a case to the courts that the president's executive orders were unconstitutional? Interagency orders do not require congressional approval under our rule of law.

The EO in and of itself is not unconstitutional, who the hell was making that point? Maybe try reading next time. However, during the course of the last few administrations, the EO has been used more aggressively and in a manner for the President to sidestep the Congress and to legislate from the White House. That specific use of the EO is dangerous, breaks the separation of powers, and needs to be illegal.
 
Your numbers are right wing mythology, and obviously you've not seen the new executive orders from the President.

Executive Orders On Gun Control: Obama Will Enforce Existing Laws

Executive Orders On Gun Control: Obama Will Enforce Existing Laws

Here Are The 23 Executive Orders On Gun Safety Signed Today By The President

Here Are The 23 Executive Orders On Gun Safety Signed Today By The President - Forbes

I guess after four years of doing squat, the turd in chief figures he better do something now that he has come out in favor of ending private gun ownership in the USA

Your faith in that turd is touching given his dishonesty and lack of action over his first four years
 
The EO in and of itself is not unconstitutional, who the hell was making that point? Maybe try reading next time. However, during the course of the last few administrations, the EO has been used more aggressively and in a manner for the President to sidestep the Congress and to legislate from the White House. That specific use of the EO is dangerous, breaks the separation of powers, and needs to be illegal.


So who has made this case in court? Or is this just another story from Libertarian fairytales?
 
So who has made this case in court? Or is this just another story from Libertarian fairytales?

It's been alive and well since Clinton. No side wants to bring the other to charge on it because both sides wish to use it when they are in power. Demonstrated, BTW, by the measurement that presidents from Clinton to Obama have made ample use of overbearing EO. You can rally against measurement all you want; it just means you're in the Young-Earth-Creationist camp.
 
It's been alive and well since Clinton. No side wants to bring the other to charge on it because both sides wish to use it when they are in power. Demonstrated, BTW, by the measurement that presidents from Clinton to Obama have made ample use of overbearing EO. You can rally against measurement all you want; it just means you're in the Young-Earth-Creationist camp.

Why hasn't a libertarian taken this "case" to court!
 
Why hasn't a libertarian taken this "case" to court!

SCotUS can decide to hear or not. I hope it gets taken to court at some point because the growth of power of the executive branch is seconded only by that of the judicial branch.
 
SCotUS can decide to hear or not. I hope it gets taken to court at some point because the growth of power of the executive branch is seconded only by that of the judicial branch.

To libertarians, everyone is in on a conspiracy against them?
 
Wow look at Catawba all pissed because the AWB died.
 
To libertarians, everyone is in on a conspiracy against them?

Nope, but it is a never ending battle to properly restrain government and to secure for our posterity the blessings of freedom and liberty.
 
Wow look at Catawba all pissed because the AWB died.

I never thought, or stated, the the AWB would pass, or you could quote where I had.
 
Nope, but it is a never ending battle to properly restrain government and to secure for our posterity the blessings of freedom and liberty.

That sounds all nice and fairytalee, but the fact remains no libertarian has felt strongly enough, about the President's EOs on gun safety, to take it them to court.
 
That sounds all nice ans fairytalee, but the fact remains no libertarian has felt strongly enough about it to take it to court.

Or rather that the courts have not felt it necessary to hear such objection and challenge.
 
Or rather that the courts have not felt it necessary to hear such objection and challenge.


A challenge has to be made to be denied a hearing? Where are these "cases" at in the lower courts?
 
wow so mad

He's gonna be real upset when lots of gun haters get their asses handed to them in the mid term elections
 
A challenge has to be made to be denied a hearing? Where are these "cases" at in the lower courts?

Most of the higher courts have discretion on what they'll hear.

Criticisms

Critics have accused presidents of abusing executive orders, of using them to make laws without Congressional approval, and of moving existing laws away from their original mandates.[7] Large policy changes with wide-ranging effects have been effected through executive order, including the integration of the armed forces under Harry Truman and the desegregation of public schools under Dwight D. Eisenhower.
One extreme example of an executive order is Executive Order 9066, where Franklin D. Roosevelt delegated military authority to remove any or all people (used to target specifically Japanese Americans and German Americans) in a military zone. The authority delegated to General John L. DeWitt subsequently paved the way for all Japanese-Americans on the West Coast to be sent to internment camps for the duration of World War II.
Executive Order 13233, which restricted public access to the papers of former presidents, was more recently criticized by the Society of American Archivists and other groups, stating that it "violates both the spirit and letter of existing U.S. law on access to presidential papers as clearly laid down in 44 USC. 2201–07," and adding that the order "potentially threatens to undermine one of the very foundations of our nation". President Obama later revoked Executive Order 13233 in January 2009.[8]
[edit]Legal conflicts
To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1995 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll.[9] Congress was able to overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it during the period of 1939 to 1983 until the Supreme Court ruled in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha that the "legislative veto" represented "the exercise of legislative power" without "bicameral passage followed by presentment to the President."[10] The loss of the legislative veto has caused Congress to look for alternative measures to override executive orders such as refusing to approve funding necessary to carry out certain policy measures contained with the order or to legitimize policy mechanisms. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.[11]
 
The rationale argument was the legal history of national gun control laws never being ruled unconstitutional. You didn't want to hear that!
Out of all the federal gun laws passed through the years that apply in all states, you finally found one that was ruled unconstitutional....
Oh I see why, you're getting rapped in debate again.

One would think you would be used to that by now.
 
wow so mad

Just the facts Ma'm!

dragnet-dvd-cover.jpeg
 
Oh I see why, you're getting rapped in debate again.

One would think you would be used to that by now.

Fascists go to extreme lengths to excuse their government constructs.
 
Back
Top Bottom