From the WashingtonFreeBeacon.com:
Feingold: Hillary Might Issue Executive Order on Guns
by Joe Schoffstall
Russ Feingold, the former Democratic senator from Wisconsin who is running again in an attempt to win back his old Senate seat, was recorded at a fundraiser saying that Hillary Clinton might issue an executive order on guns.
That should come as no surprise given her background and history. We knew it was in her playbook.
Feingold can be heard in the video discussing what Hillary Clinton could do in relation to guns if she were to be elected president.
“If there’s still Republican control in Congress, and if Hillary is elected, is there anything she can do to uhh…,” a person asks Feingold within the video. “Well, there might be an executive order,” Feingold responds.
“Oh, so she can, I know that Bara…” the questioner counters. Feingold then talks of President Obama’s executive orders throughout his two terms.
“He did some executive orders with the aspects of waiting periods. But what we all need is the Senate, have her there, and then put pressure on the House. And we might win the House,” Feingold says.
I wrote earlier that with Obama enacting such sweeping Executive Orders (EOs) he is setting precedent than can be followed by other presidents. The objection is not necessarily with the number of EOs signed by Obama — in fact he has signed, to date, 252 EOs in seven years compared to George Bush’s 291 in eight years, contrasted with Bill Clinton’s 364 in eight years — but with the overarching and wide-ranging content of the EOs, subject matter best left to Congress and not to one man.
Obama’s EOs are the most restrictive in the history of the presidency, utilizing more compulsory, binding and legally obligatory words like “must” and “shall” than the six prior presidents.
Further, Obama has stated he has done so specifically because the entire DC process is frequently too slow and cumbersome for his taste.
When the president — any president — publicly states that his or her intent is to purposely bypass Congress, that eliminates the concept of “checks and balances” and thusly tends to condense the three branches of government — the Judicial, Legisaltive and Executive — into one: the Executive.
With that follows an imperial presidency and on the heels, nothing good save perhaps that of tyranny.
Finally, I ask: when was the last time a Demorat or Leftist increased your American freedoms instead of reducing them?
I’ll wait.
BZ
“Obama has stated he has done so specifically because the entire DC process is frequently too slow and cumbersome for his taste.”
This is by design. This is so that “kneejerk” legislation does not occur. Making law should take time. It should take effort. This will hopefully ensure that only good laws that the person is truly committed to are passed. If you ask me, it is not enough. How many laws are passed after getting everything in order and all the planets lined up just right, and for that one brief moment, a law is passed, that would never have passed before and after. (Think obamacare).
It should be that all new laws should have to go through the same vote 2 years later, to see if the lawmakers still feel it was a good law. Then, maybe revisit laws every ten years after that. And if it still doesn’t pass, the law simply goes off the books. This will ensure that only good law remains, bad laws go away, and it keeps the lawmakers busy maintaining the current laws on the books so they don’t have time to sit around trying to think up more stupid laws.
After all, everything we do in our household requires maintenance and upkeep. Laws should be the same. That way, laws like obamacare would either remain or go away. The law would have to continue to prove its worth or it is gone. And if dems want to keep laws like obamacare, the bribes would have to be continuing. Also, any law that shows it to be not what was intended, well, it simply does not get renewed. As it is now, getting rid of a law is almost as much work at making a law. Too much work for or lawmakers.
I mean look at all of the ridiculous laws still on the books.
“A woman cannot buy a hat without her husband’s permission in NJ”
“Women must wear a petticoat when walking outside on Sunday in OH”
“A person may not cross state lines with a duck on his head in FL”.
The list goes on and on. Laws like these would simply go away if not renewed. Then, maybe our set of laws would not be 27 volumes of onion skin paper with 02 font fine print written in tongues of 200 years ago. Only good and current laws would stand.
Or maybe I’m an idiot and the current system is fine. Anyone agree or think it should be a different way our laws should be made and retained.
And as for Executive Orders. Those should only be for housekeeping and minor administrative orders dealing with the executive branch. No single person, NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT, should have overbroad and sweeping powers of rule by fiat where he or she simply waves their hand and says “Make it so”. I don’t care who that person is…no one should ever have that power….EVER.
Exactly as I indicate. It is called an imperial presidency. I too call it ruling by fiat.
BZ
Ummm, I think the word you’re looking for is NEVER…
Yes. Never.
BZ