Executive Orders

[thallub]

The Obama Executive order involving Interpol is IAW the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945: 22 USC Chapter 7, Subchapter XVIII:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/chapter-7/subchapter-XVIII

Numerous international organizations enjoy the same priviledges that Obama granted Interpol. Interpol was not granted diplomatic immunity as was stated in the sensational correspondence put forth by the muck stirrers.

Interpol does not have international sleuths who travel willy nilly all over the world at will.

Snopes on the Obama executive order concerning Interpol:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/interpol.asp


More:

The International Organizations Immunities Act, signed into law in 1945, established a special group of foreign or international organizations whose members could work in the U.S. and enjoy certain exemptions from US taxes and search and seizure laws.

Experts say there are about 75 organizations in the US covered by the International Organizations Immunities Act — including the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Monetary Fund, the International Committee of the Red Cross, even the International Pacific Halibut Commission and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

(These privileges are not the same as the rights afforded under "diplomatic immunity," they are considerably less. "Diplomatic immunity" comes from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which states that a "diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State." That is NOT what the International Organizations Immunities Act is.)

..............................................................................................................

Each president has designated some organizations covered by the International Organizations Immunities Act.

President Nixon did it for the United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property.

President Reagan bestowed these privileges to the African Development Bank, the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, and the World Tourism Organization, among others.

President Bush through Executive Orders covered the European Central Bank, the African Union and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...obamas-executive-order-regarding-interpol-do/

 

[BGutzman]

Interpol was not granted diplomatic immunity or as was stated in the sensational correspondence put forth by the muck stirrers.

The quote I put in my previous post is taken verbatum from the law so it seems they do have diplomatic immunity, or simply immunity but again Im not a lawyer I only know common english so I could well be wrong. However the whole subject is missing the point I keep trying to get too.

My point being if an executive order can cause a vast reinterpertation of any law then it in itself becomes a law making tool. That is not to say that every EO is creating a law but rather to illuminate the level of power that can be used.

Certainly EOs can and have been reviewed but have been found in a least a case or two to exceed constitutional authority. That alone tells me in my layman way that this is a potential threat to freedom. I see no clear mandate in the constitution for EO's. I see this as a path that is ripe for abuse and given the nature of any given administration a tool that might well be misused. Freedom is not subject to presidential whim (regardless of person or party) and the fact that it takes a court review to undo a EO shows its power for misuse.

Repetitively good people all over assume others read whatever given document and interpert it the same way they do, when in fact others do not. Who says the president (any president) knows what congress intended..

In any case my point remains, some have no problem using any means to get to an end and EO is a potentially potent way to do so, even if the EO ultimately gets challenged..I dont really care about the Interpol EO, its just a tool in a illustration...

 

[Frank Ettin]

The quote I put in my previous post is taken verbatum from the law so it seems they do have diplomatic immunity,...

Nope, it's not diplomatic immunity. The immunity is at the organizational level and doesn't appear to extend to accredited agents.

...My point being if an executive order can cause a vast reinterpertation of any law then it in itself becomes a law making tool....

How do you reach that conclusion in connection with the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945? Your quarrel is with Congress (of 1945). Congress, in 1945, expressly gave that authority to the President in connection with this law. See 22 USC 288 (emphasis added):

For the purposes of this subchapter, the term “international organization” means a public international organization in which the United States participates pursuant to any treaty or under the authority of any Act of Congress authorizing such participation or making an appropriation for such participation, and which shall have been designated by the President through appropriate Executive order as being entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided in this subchapter....

...Certainly EOs can and have been reviewed but have been found in a least a case or two to exceed constitutional authority. That alone tells me in my layman way that this is a potential threat to freedom...

What you see is the system working as intended.

There always has been, and always will be, disagreements about what is or is not constitutional or what a law does, or does not, mean as applied. Executive Orders have been, and no doubt will in future be, challenged, found to have been issued in excess of proper authority and consequently invalidated in whole or in part by the courts. Congress has enacted, and no doubt will in future enact, laws challenged, and found to be unconstitutional. Courts have issued ruling found to be unpalatable resulting in the enactment of laws to avoid the effects of those rulings.

That all is simply our system of "checks and balances" at work and operating as originally intended. That is why we have a separation of powers.

 

[2damnold4this]

George H. W. Bush declared some firearms as ineligible for importation by saying they had no sporting purpose. If Barack Obama uses an executive order to implement gun control, I would expect it to be something like that.

 

[Tom Servo]

George H. W. Bush declared some firearms as ineligible for importation by saying they had no sporting purpose.

Actually, there was never an executive order in 1989. The ATF had already banned 43 guns from importation, and the President allowed that ban to stand.

 

[thallub]

An executive order may be nullified:

1. By SCOTUS.
2. By a 2/3 vote of congress.
3. By another executive order. Presidents may supercede or nullify executive orders of their predecessors. Case in point: See Obama executive order 13491 revoking Bush II executive order 13440.

 

[2damnold4this]

Actually, there was never an executive order in 1989. The ATF had already banned 43 guns from importation, and the President allowed that ban to stand.

Never said there was an executive order in 1989 w/regards to firearms. It is, however, a clear example of executive power being used for the purpose of gun control. If the Obama Administration uses executive power to implement more gun control measures than it already has, I suspect it would follow the examples set by previous Presidents.

 

[jmortimer]

Last I checked, BHO was at about 138 EOs. Bush was around 280 for 8 years and Clinton was around 360 and FDR was about 10x that at around 3,500 EOs. Absent another mass shooting, I would expect other issues to occupy BHO for the immediate future.

 

[Hal]

and an Executive Order must be constitutional

EO 6102 and EO 9066 sort of punch a hole in that idea don't they?

Taking away a person's private property (gold) under threat of fine and imprisonment and hauling people off to interment camps sort of goes against the Constitution.

 

[baddarryl]

Imagine if they calculated how much damage an EO could do in the short term, the amount of time it would take to get through the courts, and even if there was the political will of the courts to take up such an issue? Case in point: the recent immigrant amnesty order. Has anyone even questioned the legality of it? Even if they did, the political will in this country won't back overturning it. I could easily see the POTUS rolling the dice on this one too.

 

[BarryLee]

Has anyone even questioned the legality of it? Even if they did, the political will in this country won't back overturning it. I could easily see the POTUS rolling the dice on this one too

It is an interesting question based on the current climate in Washington.

If an EO was issued that was not technically an outright AWB, but a set of very restrictive regulations would there be enough people motivated to challenge it? Yes, obviously there would be some, but many are more motivated right now to seem more conciliatory in the eyes of the public. Even though most people support the 2A I could see groups manipulating public opinion to the point that even many pro 2A politicians feel the best strategy might be to just let something like this go.

 

[gc70]

Case in point: the recent immigrant amnesty order.

A couple of points.

There was no Executive Order concerning illegal immigrants. DHS Secretary Napolitano issued a memorandum to the Border Patrol, Immigration Service, and ICE with guidance on how to treat certain illegal immigrants.

There was no amnesty (or pardon) for illegal immigrants. The DHS memo states that it is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion under existing laws to temporarily defer removal proceedings. And, like other situations (i.e. refugees or political asylum seekers) in which aliens are allowed to stay in the country temporarily, the aliens are allowed to legally get a job (better they pay for their upkeep than the txpayers).

 

[Tom Servo]

If an EO was issued that was not technically an outright AWB, but a set of very restrictive regulations would there be enough people motivated to challenge it?

An executive order can't be used to create regulations. That would be a blatantly unconstitutional use of a power that's only implied by the Constitution in the first place. Presidents know this, and even if they were tempted, they've got a cadre of advisors who'd counsel them against abusing it.

That's kind of the point of this thread.

 

[Frank Ettin]

and an Executive Order must be constitutional

EO 6102 and EO 9066 sort of punch a hole in that idea don't they?...

Nope. The issue is who decides if an Executive Order is unconstitutional. And here's a hint: it's not you.

The question of constitutionality is one for the court. You might have an opinion, but your opinion doesn't really count. The opinions of courts on such things will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Yours will not.

Note also that something could be a bad idea or bad policy and still be constitutional.

 

[BarryLee]

An executive order can't be used to create regulations.

Sorry, I guess I did not make my point very well.

The point I was attempting to make is that there may not be a lot of motivation from traditional allies of the Second Amendment to fight any additional restrictions regardless of what mechanism is used to implement them. I think we all know any outright ban is very unlikely, but attempts at the ambiguous “reasonable restriction” are almost inevitable.

 

[Hal]

Nope. The issue is who decides if an Executive Order is unconstitutional. And here's a hint: it's not you.

Thanks for the somewhat snotty reply...

 

[gc70]

EO 6102 and EO 9066 sort of punch a hole in that idea don't they?

Executive Order 6102 (entitled "Requiring Gold Coin, Gold Bullion and Gold Certificates to Be Delivered to the Government") was based on the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, which provided:

During the time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may (A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, and the importing, exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities

EO 6102 defined how much gold could be held before it constituted "hoarding" and what would be done with the excess.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Nope. The issue is who decides if an Executive Order is unconstitutional. And here's a hint: it's not you.

Thanks for the somewhat snotty reply...

Folks toss around "it's unconstitutional" far too casually whenever they think something the government has done is wrong, unwise, bad policy or they just don't like it. As you might have noticed, I don't have a lot of patience with that.

The United States Supreme Court ruling that something is unconstitutional has a great deal of meaning. A federal court of appeal ruling that something is unconstitutional has significant meaning. Someone opining that a court should fine something to be unconstitutional and making a well supported and reasoned argument as to why can have real meaning, depending on the qualifications of the person opining. But a simple "that's unconstitutional" doesn't mean anything.

 

[thallub]

But a simple "that's unconstitutional" doesn't mean anything.

Thats the bottom line.

i hear "its not constitutional" often these days. Never heard that very much until a few years ago: Maybe at age 73, i've not lived long enough.

 

[baddarryl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by baddaryl
Case in point: the recent immigrant amnesty order.
A couple of points.

There was no Executive Order concerning illegal immigrants. DHS Secretary Napolitano issued a memorandum to the Border Patrol, Immigration Service, and ICE with guidance on how to treat certain illegal immigrants.

There was no amnesty (or pardon) for illegal immigrants. The DHS memo states that it is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion under existing laws to temporarily defer removal proceedings. And, like other situations (i.e. refugees or political asylum seekers) in which aliens are allowed to stay in the country temporarily, the aliens are allowed to legally get a job (better they pay for their upkeep than the txpayers).

Ok, thanks for the clarification.