TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

JALLEN wrote:One scenario might be:
http://bearingarms.com/obama-bans-guns- ... pens-next/

The incorrect assumption and the end of that scenario is that the newly ascended President Biden would announce a return to Constitutional government. He'd be still trying to figure out what was going on.

If it were only Biden by himself, I would agree. However, I believe the Whitehouse advisors would quickly become "Unca Joe's" handlers. You can bet they wouldn't let him anywhere near a microphone without a carefully crafted and thoroughly rehearsed speech. Even the questions from the (pardon the expression) journalists and Joe's answers would be scripted.

MeMelYup wrote:How do we get White House adviser Valerie Jarrett on the no fly list?

I have the oddest feeling that as soon as Barack departs office, she will relocate to another country, one without an extradition treaty.

striker55 wrote:Obama does whatever he wants, Congress won't stop him no matter what he does. In my 60+ years I've never seen a President get away with the **** he does.

We've never had a moron like Biden as Vice President before.

Lets say, just for giggles, that the Congress has had it with Obama, tired of his high crimes and misdemeanors, and decide to impeach. At this point, Biden becomes President, and would be eligible to run as incumbent twice more. At his age that is unlikely, but who wants to take the chance?

JALLEN wrote:

striker55 wrote:Obama does whatever he wants, Congress won't stop him no matter what he does. In my 60+ years I've never seen a President get away with the **** he does.

We've never had a moron like Biden as Vice President before.

Lets say, just for giggles, that the Congress has had it with Obama, tired of his high crimes and misdemeanors, and decide to impeach. At this point, Biden becomes President, and would be eligible to run as incumbent twice more. At his age that is unlikely, but who wants to take the chance?

I think Biden provides unprecedented protection to the president.

MeMelYup wrote:How do we get White House adviser Valerie Jarrett on the no fly list?

Her boyfriend controls the list.

Does a presidential executive order carry the weight of law?

I don’t know for sure but I don’t think it does. I haven’t seen one yet that lists penalties for non compliance.

It's pretty much a directive to their administration and the different departments. Pretty much a memo setting out policy they want followed.

VoiceofReason wrote:Does a presidential executive order carry the weight of law?

I don’t know for sure but I don’t think it does. I haven’t seen one yet that lists penalties for non compliance.

Is an executive order a law?
Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).
this from wiki so yea I think it does

Also this
http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html

I'm with mojo84. The executive branch has the power to enforce laws but that branch cannot create them. Congress creates laws.

Federalist 47 by James Madison

No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system.

…these facts, by which Montesquieu was guided, it may clearly be inferred that, in saying ”There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates,” or, ”if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers,” he did not mean that these departments ought to have no PARTIAL AGENCY in, or no CONTROL over, the acts of each other. His meaning, as his own words import, and still more conclusively as illustrated by the example in his eye, can amount to no more than this, that where the WHOLE power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the WHOLE power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted.

The magistrate in whom the whole executive power resides cannot of himself make a law, though he can put a negative on every law

Here is an interesting piece on the ceding of power to of the president by the ever more impotent congress.

http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/reviving- ... -congress/