Utah Sheriffs warn Obama

[Galiantus II]

23? Is that right? Tell me: since when does the president have the authority to pass even one measure of legislation? This is unlawful.

"All presidents beginning with George Washington in 1789 have issued orders which in general terms can be described as executive orders. During the early period of the Republic there was no set form with which such orders were required to comply and consequently such orders varied widely as to form and substance.[6] Until the early 1900s, executive orders went mostly unannounced and undocumented, seen only by the agencies to which they were directed. However, the Department of State instituted a numbering scheme for executive orders in 1907, starting retroactively with an order issued on October 20, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln. The documents that later came to be known as "Executive Orders" probably gained their name from this document, captioned "Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)

You know, the constitutional use of an executive order is so the president can tell the executive branch of government what to do, not so he can pass legislation. As things stand with Obama, he is turning executive orders into a much broader power, capible of passing legislation. I know: Bush did it too, but I was against Bush, so telling me so won't affect me.

[Farnhamia]

It's not because his 23 EOs don't materially affect the rights of persons who already own guns. Here's a list, for your information.

Some of those weren't anything, also a nomination is an consecutive action not an executive order.

Just putting the list out there, Greedles.

[Farnhamia]

"All presidents beginning with George Washington in 1789 have issued orders which in general terms can be described as executive orders. During the early period of the Republic there was no set form with which such orders were required to comply and consequently such orders varied widely as to form and substance.[6] Until the early 1900s, executive orders went mostly unannounced and undocumented, seen only by the agencies to which they were directed. However, the Department of State instituted a numbering scheme for executive orders in 1907, starting retroactively with an order issued on October 20, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln. The documents that later came to be known as "Executive Orders" probably gained their name from this document, captioned "Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)

You know, the constitutional use of an executive order is so the president can tell the executive branch of government what to do, not so he can pass legislation. As things stand with Obama, he is turning executive orders into a much broader power, capible of passing legislation. I know: Bush did it too, but I was against Bush, so telling me so won't affect me.

Give us an example.

[Dyakovo]

Overall, this is a dumb debate.
The Army won't kill Americans, I'm sorry, but I know a marine, and he would never kill an American.
So, good luck having the Army beat up the Sheiffs
If anything, issuing such an order would provoke another bloody, costly civil war, and put nations like China at the top of the world.
And nobody wants that. I'm chinese, and I know exactly what horrors my people would throw at the world.
So, I think that Gun control should be a state's right.

No one who isn't a paranoid nut thinks that the military would be called in. If the Utah sheriffs were to actually act on their threat, they would simply be arrested. If they resisted violently, the FBI's snipers are more than competent for handling the situation.
Also, states don't have rights, people do.

[Galiantus II]

She clearly portrayed the states as "tantrum-throwing" children, and the government as the punisher of those children. Sounds an awful lot like the argument that the government knows best.

Because the Federal Government does know more than the States when it comes to Federal policy

Federal policy can't exceed the bill of rights, though.

[Khadgar]

She said nothing of the sort. She portrayed these assholes from Utah as tantrum throwing children, as did I. She never said, nor implied that the federal government knows best.

You are dead wrong, buddy. Also, I take offense to what you just called my sheriff. The fact is, you guys are a very large majority here on NS. I don't think that is the case when it comes to the rest of the nation, however. Please realise that, to me, you look like tantrum-throwing children, but you happen to be getting what you want. Speak nicely.

I'm not required to speak nicely. I'm required to remain within the rules. If you think at any point I'm not, go to the moderation forum. Until then the implied threats aren't anything but giggle inducing. Now if you want to persist in attacking a straw man, feel free, but around here we tend to require people to argue against another's argument, not the argument you dearly wish they'd made.

[Saruhan]

Because the Federal Government does know more than the States when it comes to Federal policy

Federal policy can't exceed the bill of rights, though.

I see references to a Militia, tell me when that's being removed and i'll see your argument

[Galiantus II]

You know, the constitutional use of an executive order is so the president can tell the executive branch of government what to do, not so he can pass legislation. As things stand with Obama, he is turning executive orders into a much broader power, capible of passing legislation. I know: Bush did it too, but I was against Bush, so telling me so won't affect me.

Give us an example.

"18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."
That is law, buddy. My tax dollars at work. I could have picked about 50% of them, but this one stuck out specifically because it violates two laws: spending bills originate in the house, and the president is not the one who controls spending.

[AiliailiA]

Have to love the democratic leftists dreaming about murdering and invading people who wants to keep their guns.

No need for that. Some people might get their doors kicked in, and some people might get tasered resisting arrest. But no murdering or invading.

If criminals shoot first at a law officer, it's a long long stretch to call shooting back "murder".

[Dyakovo]

James Madison (you know, they guy who actually wrote it) felt differently, as evidenced by the original draft...

You can't be serious. If you are going to quote someone, at least use their actual words. Let me tell you something else, Dyakovo: I am not "religiously scrupulous" of bearing arms; I am religious about all the rights of all people, to the point I will fight and die upon seeing anyone - government or not - take them away from me, you, or anyone else. I believe homosexuality to be wrong, yet if I ever see someone get harmed because of their sexual orientation, I will stand up for the person with the opposite belief. I presume you are an atheist. Well, if I ever see a member of my church beat you up for not believing in God, I am on your side.

The difference between the right to own a gun and gain other tools capible of defending you and others, should someone else wish to harm you, is that this right affects your ability to defend your other rights. The reason me, and many others, will be up in arms if the government starts taking more actions to remove guns from society (not outright "turn 'em in", but buy-back programs), is because we have looked at history. Every single time a government has taken weapons from their citizenry, it has ended badly. The government suddenly has carte blanc, and no opposition to its power. Furthermore, enemies of those countries have taken that oppertunity to stage invasions. Do you wonder why Israel still survives, though it is surrounded by countries that wish every jew dead? It is because every adult is trained to use a gun, and the citizens of Israel keep and bear arms.

The U.S, also, has benefited immensely from allowing its citizens to keep and bear arms. How much incentive do other countries have to invade a country where there is at least one gun per citizen? How much incentive do criminals have to rob, rape and murder, when by doing so they risk their own lives? Forget the fact that every massacre in the past year took place in a "gun-free" zone; there are simply not enough police to protect all of us, 24/7, and it is infeasible to make it so. Forget that Chicago, with some of the heaviest gun regulation in the country, also has the highest murder rate; if someone wants to murder, guns are just one of literally thousends of ways they could do so.

I think it is a disgrace that we defend our president, our banks, our stadium, our borders - practically everything- with guns, yet place a sign in front of schools that says "gun free zone". Where do our values lie? Don't innocent children deserve protection? You see, guns are power, and in a gun-free zone, whoever brings a gun has all the power. I postulate that Obama is a crook - for, just like crooks, he wishes that only he has the guns. And what about all of you, who support him? You only support him because you can benefit from his evil acts, or you are ignorant. Just remember this: what is wrong for one person, is also wrong for a coordinated group of people. Myself and other God-fearing Americans happen to believe everyone deserves equal treatment, that we all have the same rights, and that government exists to protect those rights - not to "grant" those rights.

Let me also ask: how do you interpret the rest of the bill of rights, besides the second? How can you interpret any of them to say anything other than "indeviduals deserve these rights", or "the government will be limited in this way"? Why, by interpreting the second amendment to actually give power to the state, rather than limit it, is completely hypocritical of you: you must apply the same logic to all of them, and either interpret them to be meant as deterants to the state, or simply state what you really believe; which is, either you wish to further the bill of rights, or you wish to repal all of them. There is no middle ground to pussy-foot around in. Take a stance: either you are for the people, or you are for the state.

If the government ever comes for my gun, they can have it: if they can pry it from my cold, dead hands. Better to die free than to live a slave.

I did use his actual words. That is the original draft of the second amendment, written by James Madison.
I'm truly sorry for you that reality doesn't match up with your distorted view of it.

I'm also amused by your assumption that I'm somehow against the second amendment because I don't share your delusion, and am opposed to treason.

[Galiantus II]

You are dead wrong, buddy. Also, I take offense to what you just called my sheriff. The fact is, you guys are a very large majority here on NS. I don't think that is the case when it comes to the rest of the nation, however. Please realise that, to me, you look like tantrum-throwing children, but you happen to be getting what you want. Speak nicely.

I'm not required to speak nicely. I'm required to remain within the rules. If you think at any point I'm not, go to the moderation forum. Until then the implied threats aren't anything but giggle inducing. Now if you want to persist in attacking a straw man, feel free, but around here we tend to require people to argue against another's argument, not the argument you dearly wish they'd made.

Fine then, she was saying that opposing the federal governmant, at all, is childish. She made the point about how her brother would whine and complain when told what to do. You know what? I would say that is a completely inacurate analogy, however you spin it. Whether it is states, or people opposing the Feds, it is more legitimate than a child opposing its parents.

[Wamitoria]

I'm not required to speak nicely. I'm required to remain within the rules. If you think at any point I'm not, go to the moderation forum. Until then the implied threats aren't anything but giggle inducing. Now if you want to persist in attacking a straw man, feel free, but around here we tend to require people to argue against another's argument, not the argument you dearly wish they'd made.

Fine then, she was saying that opposing the federal governmant, at all, is childish. She made the point about how her brother would whine and complain when told what to do. You know what? I would say that is a completely inacurate analogy, however you spin it. Whether it is states, or people opposing the Feds, it is more legitimate than a child opposing its parents.

Except it really isn't in this case. They're basically saying that they'll take up arms against the federal gov't should the feds pass as assault weapons ban.

[Farnhamia]

Give us an example.

"18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."
That is law, buddy. My tax dollars at work. I could have picked about 50% of them, but this one stuck out specifically because it violates two laws: spending bills originate in the house, and the president is not the one who controls spending.

Your tax dollars at work, yes, but through an existing program:

Take executive action to provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers: COPS Hiring Grants, which help police departments hire officers, can already be used by departments to fund school resource officers. This year, the Department of Justice will provide an incentive for police departments to hire these officers by providing a preference for grant applications that support school resource officers.

Do you think we can't look this stuff up?

[Dyakovo]

Wait... so the feds are somehow "better" than everyone else? What flavor kool-aid you drinking, buddy?

She said nothing of the sort.

Although they are better than anyone who would threaten treason over a paranoid delusion.

[Galiantus II]

You can't be serious. If you are going to quote someone, at least use their actual words. Let me tell you something else, Dyakovo: I am not "religiously scrupulous" of bearing arms; I am religious about all the rights of all people, to the point I will fight and die upon seeing anyone - government or not - take them away from me, you, or anyone else. I believe homosexuality to be wrong, yet if I ever see someone get harmed because of their sexual orientation, I will stand up for the person with the opposite belief. I presume you are an atheist. Well, if I ever see a member of my church beat you up for not believing in God, I am on your side.

The difference between the right to own a gun and gain other tools capible of defending you and others, should someone else wish to harm you, is that this right affects your ability to defend your other rights. The reason me, and many others, will be up in arms if the government starts taking more actions to remove guns from society (not outright "turn 'em in", but buy-back programs), is because we have looked at history. Every single time a government has taken weapons from their citizenry, it has ended badly. The government suddenly has carte blanc, and no opposition to its power. Furthermore, enemies of those countries have taken that oppertunity to stage invasions. Do you wonder why Israel still survives, though it is surrounded by countries that wish every jew dead? It is because every adult is trained to use a gun, and the citizens of Israel keep and bear arms.

The U.S, also, has benefited immensely from allowing its citizens to keep and bear arms. How much incentive do other countries have to invade a country where there is at least one gun per citizen? How much incentive do criminals have to rob, rape and murder, when by doing so they risk their own lives? Forget the fact that every massacre in the past year took place in a "gun-free" zone; there are simply not enough police to protect all of us, 24/7, and it is infeasible to make it so. Forget that Chicago, with some of the heaviest gun regulation in the country, also has the highest murder rate; if someone wants to murder, guns are just one of literally thousends of ways they could do so.

I think it is a disgrace that we defend our president, our banks, our stadium, our borders - practically everything- with guns, yet place a sign in front of schools that says "gun free zone". Where do our values lie? Don't innocent children deserve protection? You see, guns are power, and in a gun-free zone, whoever brings a gun has all the power. I postulate that Obama is a crook - for, just like crooks, he wishes that only he has the guns. And what about all of you, who support him? You only support him because you can benefit from his evil acts, or you are ignorant. Just remember this: what is wrong for one person, is also wrong for a coordinated group of people. Myself and other God-fearing Americans happen to believe everyone deserves equal treatment, that we all have the same rights, and that government exists to protect those rights - not to "grant" those rights.

Let me also ask: how do you interpret the rest of the bill of rights, besides the second? How can you interpret any of them to say anything other than "indeviduals deserve these rights", or "the government will be limited in this way"? Why, by interpreting the second amendment to actually give power to the state, rather than limit it, is completely hypocritical of you: you must apply the same logic to all of them, and either interpret them to be meant as deterants to the state, or simply state what you really believe; which is, either you wish to further the bill of rights, or you wish to repal all of them. There is no middle ground to pussy-foot around in. Take a stance: either you are for the people, or you are for the state.

If the government ever comes for my gun, they can have it: if they can pry it from my cold, dead hands. Better to die free than to live a slave.

I did use his actual words. That is the original draft of the second amendment, written by James Madison.
I'm truly sorry for you that reality doesn't match up with your distorted view of it.

I'm also amused by your assumption that I'm somehow against the second amendment because I don't share your delusion, and am opposed to treason.

You know what? So am I. And I want the president tried for it.

You call me delusionary? Sir, how can you construe the bill of rights to be granting the state any power at all? Oh, I know it benefits you to interpret it that way, but I really can't see it. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is clear as day. Sure, argue about comma placement, argue all you want that the "militia" refers to a standing army, because it doesn't. If anyone is having a delusion, it is you. Quit drinking the Obama kool-aid.

You used his actual words? I don't think he had that bad of grammar, so would you mind repeating what you think he said?

[Galiantus II]

Fine then, she was saying that opposing the federal governmant, at all, is childish. She made the point about how her brother would whine and complain when told what to do. You know what? I would say that is a completely inacurate analogy, however you spin it. Whether it is states, or people opposing the Feds, it is more legitimate than a child opposing its parents.

Except it really isn't in this case. They're basically saying that they'll take up arms against the federal gov't should the feds pass as assault weapons ban.

Exactly! That's why the "child-throwing-a-tantrum" analogy, if it can be called an analogy - it is more like namecalling than anything else - doesn't work.

[Dyakovo]

It's not because his 23 EOs don't materially affect the rights of persons who already own guns. Here's a list, for your information.

23? Is that right? Tell me: since when does the president have the authority to pass even one measure of legislation? This is unlawful.

Since 1789. The power to issue executive orders is granted by the constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 and Article II, Section 3, Clause 5.

[Galiantus II]

She said nothing of the sort.

Although they are better than anyone who would threaten treason over a paranoid delusion.

"Paranoid"? Would you call the people in Tiananmen Square "paranoid"?! Because that's what happens when the feds get more power. Do you seriously think all our leaders are benevolant, selfless people? How about the president?

[Bottle]

My little brother used to warn our parents that they better not take away his TV privileges OR ELSE.

He'd also scream that "It's a free country!!!!" when he was told to help wash up after dinner.

It would seem that the solution to the tantrum-throwing behavior shown by some of our state governments and elected officials would be Time Outs and a blanket ban on their consumption of sugary snacks until they can get control and speak like big boys and girls.

Wait... so the feds are somehow "better" than everyone else? What flavor kool-aid you drinking, buddy?

There are several levels of fail in this reply. Let's break them down:

1) The assumption that, because one group of badly-behaving individuals has been identified, this somehow equates to me claiming that other groups are "better" than "everyone else." This actually has two subfails within it, since not only is it silly to insist that pointing out Tom's bad behavior means I am saying that Sally never does anything wrong, but it goes a step farther by insisting that if I say Tom is behaving badly then I am saying EVERYONE ELSE behaves better than Tom. Which, of course, makes you come off like a nutty helicopter parent who is unable to brook any criticism of your precious angel's behavior...a disposition that is as unattractive in political discussions as it is at parent/teacher conferences.

2) The assumption that "the feds" are remotely relevant to my post in the first place is quite failtastic, although it is a fail common to states-rights fetishists who seem to think that we have to be oppressed by one government or another and it's just a matter of choosing whether the oppression will come from the states or the feds. Where I live, we (the voters) frequently put elected officials in time out, otherwise known as "voting for the other guy." Not everyone shares your belief that rights are "given" to us by our rulers...some of us maintain that we, the people, retain the right and responsibility to keep our government in line.

3) The hyperbolic reference to the Jonestown massacre, which in this context directly suggests that the only way a person would identify the behavior of these Utah sheriffs as inappropriate would be if the accuser were blindly and fatally devoted to a cult. Clearly, if I see the behavior of these state officials as silly and immature, I MUST be a cyanide-drinking brainwashed slave to Federalism! THERE CAN BE NO OTHER EXPLANATION.

TL;DR: Projection makes you look silly. Keep it up please, I find it endlessly entertaining!

[Dyakovo]

She said nothing of the sort. She portrayed these assholes from Utah as tantrum throwing children, as did I. She never said, nor implied that the federal government knows best.

You are dead wrong, buddy. Also, I take offense to what you just called my sheriff. The fact is, you guys are a very large majority here on NS. I don't think that is the case when it comes to the rest of the nation, however. Please realise that, to me, you look like tantrum-throwing children, but you happen to be getting what you want. Speak nicely.

You can take offense all you like. Not only is he a nut, he's a treasonous scumbag.

[Bottle]

You are dead wrong, buddy. Also, I take offense to what you just called my sheriff. The fact is, you guys are a very large majority here on NS. I don't think that is the case when it comes to the rest of the nation, however. Please realise that, to me, you look like tantrum-throwing children, but you happen to be getting what you want. Speak nicely.

You can take offense all you like. Not only is he a nut, he's a treasonous scumbag.

I honestly think he's more like a little kid who has had too much sugar and is up past his bedtime.

These folks are fed an unhealthy diet of paranoia, toxic masculinity, racism, and misinformation. Small wonder that they are cranky and behave badly.

This doesn't mean we should allow them to mess up our country, of course, but it does mean that we should apply the same firm but fair discipline that we would apply for any over-excited child.

[Dyakovo]

"All presidents beginning with George Washington in 1789 have issued orders which in general terms can be described as executive orders. During the early period of the Republic there was no set form with which such orders were required to comply and consequently such orders varied widely as to form and substance.[6] Until the early 1900s, executive orders went mostly unannounced and undocumented, seen only by the agencies to which they were directed. However, the Department of State instituted a numbering scheme for executive orders in 1907, starting retroactively with an order issued on October 20, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln. The documents that later came to be known as "Executive Orders" probably gained their name from this document, captioned "Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)

You know, the constitutional use of an executive order is so the president can tell the executive branch of government what to do, not so he can pass legislation. As things stand with Obama, he is turning executive orders into a much broader power, capible of passing legislation. I know: Bush did it too, but I was against Bush, so telling me so won't affect me.

No, he isn't. I suggest you actually look at what the executive orders say.

[Ceannairceach]

Although they are better than anyone who would threaten treason over a paranoid delusion.

"Paranoid"? Would you call the people in Tiananmen Square "paranoid"?! Because that's what happens when the feds get more power. Do you seriously think all our leaders are benevolant, selfless people? How about the president?

As apposed to the Confederate state plantations, which happened when the states got too uppity?

What makes states benevolent and selfless as apposed to the federal government? For that matter, if not all people are benevolent, why should I be in favor of anyone having guns?

[Dyakovo]

Give us an example.

"18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."
That is law, buddy. My tax dollars at work. I could have picked about 50% of them, but this one stuck out specifically because it violates two laws: spending bills originate in the house, and the president is not the one who controls spending.

Ah... You don't know what a law is...

[Galiantus II]

23? Is that right? Tell me: since when does the president have the authority to pass even one measure of legislation? This is unlawful.

Since 1789. The power to issue executive orders is granted by the constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 and Article II, Section 3, Clause 5.

"The Executive power" does not mean the same thing as "the legislative power". Obama doesn't like that the Republicans are holding the house, and making it harder for him to make America his own little "Obamatopia", so he is doing what he wants by going against the constitution.

Section 3: nowhere in Section 3 does it say anything about hard power, other than that he is the one who directs the enforcement of laws passed by congress. The only other thing I see there, is that he may make reccomendations for bills to pass congress, and that he can inform congress of information he wants them to know.