OBAMA:

In the aftermath of the tragic shooting in Umpqua Community College in Oregon, President Barack Obama “is seriously considering circumventing Congress with his executive authority and imposing new background-check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume gun dealers,” according to The Washington Post. In 2014, we looked at some of Obama’s past executive actions.

President Obama—the imperial President, the “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone”  – a president who can’t wait to show us his “year of action”—once vowed to do exactly the opposite.

The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.

That was candidate Obama back in 2008. This comment somehow slipped under the radar for the past few years and resurfaced this week.

Proving the absurdity of this campaign promise, Heritage’s legal experts have put together a list of seven illegal actions the Obama administration has taken in the president’s unilateral drive for executive power.

If it seems like there should be more than seven, you’re on to something. It’s more complicated than you think to tell what’s illegal or unconstitutional when it comes to presidential power. Heritage’s Elizabeth Slattery and Andrew Kloster explain:

While it might not be possible to define in all instances precisely when an action crosses the line and falls outside the scope of the President’s statutory or constitutional authority, what follows is a list of unilateral actions taken by the Obama Administration that we think do cross that line.

1. Delaying Obamacare’s employer mandate

The administration announced that Obamacare won’t be implemented as it was passed, so employers with 50 or more employees don’t have to provide the mandated health coverage for at least another year (and longer if they play their cards right). Slattery and Kloster observe that “The law does not authorize the president to push back the employer mandate’s effective date.”

2. Giving Congress and their staffs special taxpayer-funded subsidies for Obamacare

It was uncomfortable for members of Congress when they realized that, through Obamacare, they had kicked themselves and their staffs out of the taxpayer-funded subsidies they were enjoying for health coverage. But the administration said no problem and gave them new subsidies. In this case, “the administration opted to stretch the law to save Obamacare—at the taxpayers’ expense.”

3. Trying to fulfill the “If you like your plan, you can keep it” promise—after it was broken

When Americans started getting cancellation notices from their insurance companies because Obamacare’s new rules were kicking in, the president’s broken promise was exposed. He tried to fix things by telling insurance companies to go back to old plans that don’t comply with Obamacare—just for one year. Slattery and Kloster note that “The letter announcing this non-enforcement has no basis in law.”

4. Preventing layoff notices from going out just days before the 2012 election

There’s a law that says large employers have to give employees 60 days’ notice before mass layoffs. And layoffs were looming due to federal budget cuts in 2012. But the Obama administration told employers to go against the law and not issue those notices—which would have hit mailboxes just days before the presidential election. The administration “also offered to reimburse those employers at the taxpayers’ expense if challenged for failure to give that notice.”

5. Gutting the work requirement from welfare reform

The welfare reform that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996 required that welfare recipients in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program work or prepare for work to receive the aid. The Obama administration essentially took out that requirement by offering waivers to states, even though the law expressly states that waivers of the work requirement are not allowed. “Despite [the law’s] unambiguous language, the Obama administration continues to flout the law with its ‘revisionist’ interpretation,” write Slattery and Kloster.

6. Stonewalling an application for storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain

This was another case where the administration simply refused to do what was required by law. An application was submitted for nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain, but “Despite the legal requirement, the Obama administration refused to consider the application.”

7. Making “recess” appointments that were not really recess appointments

Slattery and Kloster explain that “In January 2012, President Obama made four ‘recess’ appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, claiming that, since the Senate was conducting only periodic pro forma sessions, it was not available to confirm those appointees.” The catch: The Senate wasn’t in recess at the time. Courts have since struck down the appointments, but the illegitimate appointees already moved forward some harmful policies.

More: Slattery and Kloster list even more actions that, while they might not be illegal, are definitely abuses of executive power. That list includes imposing new immigration law by executive fiat and refusing to enforce more than one federal law.

IN THE MEANWHILE – THE SENATE DEMOCRATS  SCHEME HOW TO FORCE GUN CONTROL VOTE

Philip Wegmann

October 09, 2015

In the week after the mass shooting in Roseburg, Ore., Senate Democrats gathered on the steps of the U.S. Capitol to demand stricter gun control and unveil their comprehensive policy package to achieve it.

Frustrated by the inaction of Republicans and hamstrung by a lack of votes, the group of more than two dozen Senate Democrats sought to spark debate by appealing directly to the public.

“The roll call of American gun tragedies is already far too long,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. “The victims and their families deserve better than a Congress that shrugs its shoulder and waits for the next tragedy.”

Rallying around three “principles of action,” the group proposed laws to close background check loopholes, expand background databases, and crack down on illegal gun sales.

Numerically virtually impossible to pass in the Republican-controlled House, gun control legislation also faces an uphill battle in the Senate.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters that Democrats will move when the American people speak. “Once that groundswell is heard,” he said, “we will draft legislation in line with these principles.”

On Thursday, Schumer noted that Senate Democrats plan to employ “all the procedural means that we can” to get a vote. And according to The New York Times, Democrats are preparing to block all other Senate motions to force their legislation onto the floor.

In 2013, the last time the Senate considered gun control legislation, Democrats controlled the chamber. The Manchin-Toomey bill would have required background checks on almost all gun sales. The legislation won 54 votes, falling just six votes shy of the filibuster-proof threshold.

Now, 14 Republican lawmakers would need to join a completely unified Democrat caucus to overcome the current threat of filibuster.

But already one Senate Democrat tells The Daily Signal she plans to oppose key elements of the legislation. “I have made clear where I stand on background checks legislation, and that hasn’t changed,” Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., said in a statement.

“As a result, I can’t support this proposal.”

Even without party unity, Democrats could still tie their proposals to upcoming legislation perceived by some as must-pass, like the highway funding bill. With just 41 votes, the party could force the issue.

From the other side of the aisle Thursday, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, warned Democrats that increased gun control was a non-starter.

“Some of our Democratic colleagues have said that they’re going to introduce some gun control legislation,” he said in a Senate floor speech. “We all know [that] has been tried before and cannot pass this chamber.”

The Republican majority whip has introduced legislation to combat mental health issues connected with gun violence by building legal tools for court-ordered psychiatric supervision.

Cornyn maintains that this bill provides the best avenue toward bipartisan consensus and addresses “the root cause of some of these horrific events.”

If Democrats fail to pass gun control in the Senate, they may succeed in the White House.

According to NBC News, the Obama administration may go it alone, acting on this issue by executive order. The proposal would redefine a gun dealer as anyone selling more than a specific number of firearms.

NBC reports that the president hasn’t decided on a number yet, but anyone above the limit would qualify as “in the business” and incur responsibility for mandatory background checks.

Chris Cox, the executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute of Legislative Action, accused President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats of attempting to politicize catastrophe.

“If Obama and gun control advocates were serious, they would address the underlying issue of America’s broken mental health system,” Cox said in a statement. “Instead, they push gun control initiatives that would not have prevented any of the tragedies they seek to exploit.”

The United Nations, Democratic Party and Obama are trying to take guns away from the America people.  Folks, get ready for a royal battle.

kommonsentsjane