Executive Odors

Posted by Stranded in Sonoma

Ever since Joe Biden stated that he thinks Barack Obama should sign an executive order to confiscate whatever guns the government deems necessary, there has been a lot of talk about what to do.

Well, the first thing to remember is that executive orders are binding only on the Executive Department. They are not binding on the Legislative Department and are not binding on the Judicial Department. Since they do not carry the force of law, they are not binding on the citizens either. Remember that Congress has the legislative power. Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution spells it out clearly.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

If the president can just sign an executive order with the full force and effect of a law, then why bother with a Legislative Department anyway? For that matter, why bother with the Judicial Department as well? A tyrannical president would just continue to sign executive orders in the face of a constitutional judiciary anyway. And doesn’t that sound exactly like a monarchy? You remember monarchies, right? They are the reason we have a constitution in the first place! So be very clear on this: executive orders need not be followed by any citizen.

But what about Executive Order 9066? On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 that authorized the Secretary of War to prescribe certain areas of the country to be military zones. In these zones, the EO allowed the government to exclude any or all persons. Though while it did not name a nationality or ethnicity, in effect, it allowed the government to intern citizens and resident aliens of Japanese Ancestry. Were the Americans of Japanese descent required to go to the internment camps? Absolutely not. 9066 was not binding on the people, only on the War Department. Did they go? Yes, at gunpoint. Was this illegal? No, the War Department was merely following EO 9066. Strangely, it was up to the citizens to NOT go and force the government to take them. Then they would be injured by the EO and have standing to fight it in court.

Well, a court battle did come about. In Korematsu v. United States (323 U.S. 214) Mr. Korematsu argued that Executive Order 9066 was unconstitutional. It wasn’t. The reason for Mr. Korematsu’s arrest was a federal law! From the decision: (italics mine)

In the instant case prosecution of the petitioner was begun by information charging violation of an Act of Congress, of March 21, 1942, 56 Stat. 173, 18 U.S.C.A. 97a, which provides that ‘… whoever shall enter, remain in, leave, or commit any act in any military area or military zone prescribed, under the authority of an Executive order of the President, by the Secretary of War, or by any military commander designated by the Secretary of War, contrary to the restrictions applicable to any such area or zone or contrary to the order of the Secretary of War or any such military commander, shall, if it appears that he knew or should have known of the existence and extent of the restrictions or order and that his act was in violation thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be liable to a fine of not to exceed $5,000 or to imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, for each offense.’

In other words, the Executive Order gave the Secretary of War authority to create military zones and then Congress passed a law which outlined penalties for anyone that violated those military zones. Three of the Associate Justices on the Supreme Court (Roberts, Murphy, and Jackson) dissented from the majority opinion. They found the entire process a violation of constitutional rights. Mr. Korematsu was born here and a citizen of the United States and they mostly based their opinions on that fact. In his dissenting opinion, Mr. Justice Jackson had this to say:

…if any fundamental assumption underlies our system, it is that guilt is personal and not inheritable.

However, the majority of the court found Mr. Korematsu to be guilty and upheld the conviction. Why? Because we were at war and as an exigency of war, they determined that national security was more important. And it was. But let’s be clear on this: Mr. Korematsu was not found guilty of a violation of Executive Order 9066; he was found guilty of a law passed by Congress. And the majority of the Supreme Court found the law to be constitutional. Keep that in mind.

What is the difference between Executive Order 9066 and one that may be signed by Barack Obama? Nothing. They are just EO’s that tell the Executive Department to do something. If Obama signs an EO but Congress does not pass a law, the Department of Justice may be told to confiscate your guns but you are under no compulsion to give up your guns. But what if the Republicans in the House go along and pass a law ordering the confiscation of guns? Well, that’s were the Supreme Court comes in again. Here is a quote from the Supreme Court decision, Miranda v. Arizona (384 US 438).

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.

Remember that quote. The Supreme Court affirmed, in the two cases of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms means that every citizen in the United States has a right to own and possess a firearm. Does this mean that any law passed by Congress that allows for the confiscation of firearms is unconstitutional? You bet! If you want proof, just watch how liberals react when any state passes a law restricting abortions. The ACLU goes into full eugenics mode while bleating about Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose.

So, what all this means is that you, as a gun owner, are under no obligation to hand over your guns to the government just because Obama signs an executive order or even if Congress passes a law based on that executive order. Will the government try to confiscate your guns? Of course they will. They are under orders to do so. You are under no such order to comply. Could things get ugly? Most certainly. But I suspect this is what Obama and Jarrett and all of the socialists in the administration want anyway. They want open, armed, conflict so Obama can declare martial law and suspend all rights. At that point, it will become our second Civil War.

You can forget about Obama’s phony birth certificate. If he signs an executive order to confiscate our guns, he may well be signing his own death certificate.

Advertisements

The government won’t Leaf me alone

You must read this.

The State of Washington will be enforcing a new law that taxes (!) electric car owners $100 per year. Why? Because they use no gasoline and taxes on gasoline help pay for road improvement and maintenance. This does not apply to hybrids because they still use gas. So it seems this is aimed at the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf.

Extrapolate that to everyone in the United States using an all electric car. You won’t have a gas bill but you will be paying a lot more than $100 per year in road maintenance taxes. Why? Because there are no more internal combustion engines on the roads. Right now, even the hybrids are helping to defray the costs of upkeep on the highways and byways. But not so with the all electric cars. So if everyone has an electric car, those taxes could be thousands per year. Tell me again how you are putting one over on the oil companies by owning an electric car?

And speaking of the oil companies, if they’re not selling gasoline to everyone, then the costs for what products they do provide will go up. Such as, asphalt for roads, synthetic rubber used in car tires, and plastics, all which come from petroleum. You know all about plastics; they’re used in electric vehicles to keep the weight down so you can get more than 50 miles out of one charge. Tell me again how you are putting one over on the oil companies by owning an electric car?

This tax and the root cause behind it are so typical of liberals. On one side you have the pious liberals driving a Prius and telling everyone they should too. It’s better for the environment…or something like that. On the other side you have the ultra-liberal Washington State legislature raising taxes and telling everyone it’s good for them because they need the money for road maintenance. Did either of these two groups of rocket surgeons actually think for a moment and let everyone know that if they give up on electric and even hybrid cars and keep using cars with only internal combustion engines, the gas taxes will help pay for the roads? No, because both parties are aiming toward a common goal: fossil fuel usage at zero with no roads to maintain and public transportation (electric light rail) as the only way to get around.

Wait until the State of Washington finds out that they can tax every vehicle owner an extra few hundred dollars and say it’s for road improvements. Because the electric car owners are taxed, the government will claim that the hybrid owners aren’t paying their fair share either. (Middle class liberals not paying their fair share — BWAHAhahahahahahaha!) So they’ll bump the electric tax to $200 and initiate the hybrid tax at $100. Then, with sweaty palms and trembling hands and socialist stupidity, the government will tell every vehicle owner how bad, horrible, wicked, and evil they are for tearing up the roads. Of course, the only way to rectify that situation is to…wait for it…tax every vehicle owner. The taxes will go up to $300 for electric cars, $200 for hybrids, and $100 for all others. Then the legislature will use that money for something other than the roads and the tax rates will increase. Think this is a joke? Think social security, medicare, and 0bamaTax.

You’re welcome for the look ahead.