Even though it has been declared outmoded and too hard to understand by brilliant analysts like the Washington Post's resident wunderkind (read "silly, puerile self-important weenie") Ezra Klein, just for fun, it might be worth revisiting that quaint parchment written by dead white Europeans. I recognize that for most of the people in this audience, such a review is unnecessary, but keep in mind that for every one of you, there are probably at least 100 people for whom this information would not be a review, but a complete revelation. Please spread the word if you can get them to stop watching "Entertainment Tonight" and "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo."
The Constitution provides for three branches of government; specifically, the executive, the legislative and the judicial, or as they are commonly known, the President, the Congress and the Supreme Court, and the lower federal courts. The President is the executive, as in the one who sees that the laws, which are enacted by the legislative branch, are faithfully executed. Got it? Executives execute, as in carry out, which brings us to the reason for the executive order. It is a directive to carry out policies, or as Article II, Sec. 3 of the Constitution says to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," NOT to independently make policy, or to willfully impose policies that have been rejected by Congress.
The Obama administration's breathtaking lawlessness has been a constant source of amazement, anger, and anxiety for all freedom-loving Americans. Whether it is appointing officials using the recess appointment power when the Senate is not in recess, unilaterally granting the amnesty to young illegal aliens that Congress declined to grant, or deciding not to enforce duly-enacted laws like the Defense of Marriage Act, Barack Obama has made clear through both his actions and his words that when "we can't wait!," he'll blow his nose on the Constitution and do whatever he wants.
Tomorrow, if news reports are accurate, His Majesty Barack Obama will present his "solution" to "gun violence" surrounded by kiddie human shields, including the "executive action" that had the gang over at the 24/7 televised insane asylum, MS-NBC, practically wetting their panties just thinking about it. Predictably, they pull out their race card, to suggest that those of us who correctly state that any executive orders infringing on the 2nd amendment are illegal, are showing disrespect to the One because of his race. After all, they point out, George H.W. Bush imposed restrictions on "assault weapons," so why can't Obama? As usual, our leftist friends are glossing over some critical details, either because they are ignorant of them, or because they are politically motivated to avoid pointing out critical differences. Pres. Bush 41 did indeed use an executive order to restrict the importation of certain guns in 1989 after a wacko killed 5 and wounded 29 others in January, 1989. Here's the critical part. He acted pursuant to an act of Congress, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, another reactive law, admittedly, but still a legal enactment by Congress. President Bush did not attempt to ban any weapons, or restrict the size of magazines, or do any of the other lawless crap that this bunch is discussing trying to impose on us.
Even though many of the recommendations that are being bandied about would be illegal if imposed by executive fiat, there are still a number of legal actions that Barack Obama could impose by executive order that would burden our 2nd amendment rights. He could act through federal agencies to make it more difficult and more expensive to purchase a firearm and the ammunition that you need to use it. What if, for example, he directs the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate the environmental impact of the lead in bullets and requires ammo manufacturers to pay a tax for cleaning up the alleged "mess" that they cause? What if he directs the Drug Enforcement Administration to conduct more frequent examination of gun store records, making it more difficult for them to conduct business? Oh, yes, Bitter Clinger, don't kid yourself. Barack Obama despises the Constitution in general and the 2nd Amendment in particular. He has shown that he has no compunction about acting as if he is above the law.
Will anyone have the cajones to stop him?