|"We're from the Government. We're Here to Help! Now drop your guns and get on the train." -- "How Do You Kill 11 Million People?" First you have to disarm them. (Photo source: USHMM, courtesy of Żydowski Instytut Historyczny imienia Emanuela Ringelbluma)|
In the days just prior to Obama's first inauguration, Valerie Jarrett proclaimed that he and his cabal would "be ready to rule from day one".
Her exact word was "rule". It was not "lead". They were not "perform the duties of the elected office". She did not say "prepared to serve the citizens in the inherent duties to which we've been elected and appointed".
No. VJ used that word, "rule". That word evokes tyranny. It invokes monarchy or oligarchy. It means dictatorship no matter how you slice it.
Later, just days before election day 2012, Valerie Jarrett said that after Obama was re-elected that they were going to punish those who didn't support them.
"After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.” ~Valerie Jarrett 2012
This is part of Obama's ideology. VJ is his primary adviser. According to the author of The Amateur, It is rare for Obama to act before consulting VJ, and even more rare for him to act against her advice.
Obama has allegedly issued over 900 Executive Orders during his first term. In reality, he has issued only 143, so far. The confusion in that number most likely stems from adding the number of endorsements of executive level regulations issued on his behalf by his growing executive bureaucracy. Those regulations and administrative guidelines are not direct EOs though they carry the same weight and, like EOs, may not have proper legislative backing. One such example was the EPA-attempted ban on incandescent light bulbs.
The real issue with Executive Orders is that their constitutionality is ambiguous. They are supposed to be guidance in how federal agencies will implement legislation. They are not supposed to replace or bypass that legislation. Since FDR, they have increasingly been used to test those limits.
It's clear that Obama sees himself not as an executive but as a dictator. During his second campaign, he referred time and again to being willing to bypass the legislature and issue executive orders if Congress won't do what he demands.
The ambiguity was intentional. It is obvious that Obama will do what he can get away with. He has not yet gathered enough data to figure out what that limit could be.
However, the ambiguity can be easily cleared up. The Second Amendment clearly states that the rights to own and carry (keep and bear) are not to be infringed. In straightforward English, that means that no EO, no legislation, nor any judicial activism can infringe upon that right. That right existed prior to the US Constitution. The Constitution does not grant it. The Constitution just openly stated that the right is never to be infringed.
Will that stop Mr. "900+" imperial decrees from violating the US Constitution anyway? Well, the US Constitution limits his authority. He has yet to operate within those limitations.
Legislation stands little to no chance of passing both houses of Congress. Too many constituents oppose infringing upon the Second Amendment. Politicians like their jobs and the benefits that come with them. They won't risk losing re-election by ticking off the owners of the 88 firearms for every 100 constituents in their districts.
The problem with EOs is that they require some legislation to back them. However, they also require congressional legislation to dismiss them. To be challenged requires violation of them followed by court cases. A court case could take years to reach the Supreme Court before the EO is overturned. Obama is set to appoint two Supreme Court justices to replace two that are earmarked to retire within the next few years. So, Obama will "own" the Supreme Court. The chances of his cabal overturning any of his EOs and supporting the US Constitution are slim to "never gonna happen".
Obama is also considering re-election to a third term. Some of his cronies, including Jose Serrano, are poised to attempt to repeal the 22nd Amendment that forbids a third presidential term. If he wishes to actually pull that off, he may have to tread carefully with new EOs he issues.
Given that repealing the 22nd Amendment may take as long as it took to get it ratified in the first place (over 4 years), he may not get his wish to run for term #3. That being the case, there may not being much restricting him from issuing those EOs. They would probably be overturned and deemed unconstitutional, but not until years after he leaves office.
That leaves us with that question surrounding Joey "Punchy" Biden's ambiguous threats on exactly how far is Obama willing to go.