Obama gives Army executive orders to build a weapon that prevents accidental discharge

On January 4, 2016, Obama issued an “executive order” directing the Pentagon to find ways to make not so much more lethal firearms, but safer ones”   “Obama comes along and tells the Army that, in this administration, money is going into small arms to build — not a deadly weapon, not an effective weapon, not a dominant weapon, not a lifesaving weapon, not a technological cutting-edge weapon — but a weapon that prevents accidental discharge.” – Story

Yeah, I know.  Stupid, right?

A White House fact sheet states: “The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Within 90 days, these agencies must prepare a report outlining a research-and-development strategy designed to expedite the real-world deployment of such technology for use in practice.”

I have previously covered the absurdly dangerous idiocy behind so-called “smart guns.”  Suffice it to say that they’re as ridiculously idiotic as so-called “gun free zones.”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/05/memorandum-promoting-smart-gun-technology/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/31/obamas-gun-control-executive-order-directs-pentago/

By itself, this would only constitute a misuse of taxpayer dollars.  As most people are well aware by now, however, this is a part of Obama’s plan of issuing more “executive orders” to make such technology mandatory, an action that far, far oversteps the bounds of Presidential authority while simultaneously and directly infringing on the Constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Just because Obama says his “executive orders” are legal doesn’t make them legal.  Even if 51% of Congress agreed with him and said they were legal, it would NOT make them legal.  In fact, even if 100% of Congress agreed with Obama, it would STILL not make Obama’s executive orders legal.  They would REMAIN ILLEGAL.

The reason is simple:  Congress can NOT amend the Constitution.  They can only propose an amendment.  Only the States ratify the amendment[SUP]1[/SUP], thereby transforming the proposal into an amendment.

And until such an amendment appears, giving the President authority to issue executive orders, all executive orders are ILLEGAL.

Here’s why:

1.  Our Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Thus, to see whether or not a U.S. President has the Constitutional authority to issue executive orders, we need merely examine the U.S. Constitution.  Therein we find only one instance in which he can issue an order to a civilian.  Article II, Section 2 states, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices…”

That’s it.

His duties as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States” involve members of the military, not civilians.  He can, however, “Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

His authority to make treaties requires “the Advice and Consent of the Senate … provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

He has the authority to nominate “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States,” but no appointment is final without “the Advice and Consent of the Senate.”

He can fill up vacancies during Senate recess, but those commissions expire a the end of the next session.

He is authorized to “give to the Congress information of the State of the Union” including his recommendation of measures for their consideration.

On “extraordinary Occasions,” he can convene one, the other, or both houses of Congress.  If he disagrees with their solution during these conventions, all he can do is adjourn them for a while.

He can receive “Ambassadors and other public Ministers.”

THAT IS ALL, people.  Neither Obama nor ANY U.S. President has the power or authority to issue “executive orders” dictating what We the People can and cannot do.  The “supreme Law of the Land” () and its Tenth Amendment are exceeding clear on this point, and that’s all I need to tell Obama to take his executive orders and shove ’em.

[SUP]1[/SUP]Amendment Process:

[B]Two-Thirds Rule[/B]:  Proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution require two-thirds consensus of either both houses of Congress (2/3 of the House AND 2/3 of the Senate) OR two-thirds consensus of the legislatures of the States.

[B]Three-Fourths Rule[/B]:  Ratifying amendments to the U.S. Constitution (making them legal parts of the Constitution) require three-fourth’s consensus of the legislatures or conventions of the States.

Until they are properly ratified, they are NOT amendments.  They are proposals.

His action directing the Army to do the research into a lamer, less effective firearm is entirely within his authority as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.”  As a retired military officer, I think it’s insanely stupid, not to mention a waste of valuable military resources, as it is at odds with the military’s mission.

He can even take the results and submit them to Congress for their consideration.

What he can NOT do, however, is to mandate the use of such weapons or restrict the use of civilian firearms to such weapons, as that would be a direct and flagrant violation against the Second Amendment’s prohibition against any infringement on the right of the People to keep and bear arms.  Such a change would require a fundamental change to the Second Amendment itself, and that requires consent of either three-fourths of the state legislatures or a convention of three fourths of the states.

I don’t see that happening.

Until then, all civilian, military, and law-enforcement officers remain bound by their oaths of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic,” INCLUDING sitting U.S. Presidents who, for whatever reasons of megalomania, insanity, or criminal activity, think they’re somehow above or beyond the law.

Leave a Reply