"We cannot wait for Congress to act on this." So said President Barack Obama last Tuesday in his first address to the nation in 2016. In essence he will now make the laws dealing with the Second Amendment himself because Congress refused to make law he wanted.
Mostly, the executive orders -- new laws made by the executive branch -- expand required background checks and the numbers of those required to obtain a dealer's license to sell guns (which requires tremendous paperwork, expense and about a year to obtain). This action Congress refused to pass three times during the Obama administration. Even gun exchanges between family members come into question. Potentially, this means that people who violate the laws made by the president alone will go to jail or be otherwise punished, as with breaking the laws of kings and dictators.
This is reminiscent of a statement made by the White House just two years ago on executive amnesty. "We're not just going to sit around and wait interminably for Congress. We've been waiting a year already."
In this instance, some in Congress had worked on what was called the Dream Act that would extend amnesty and place illegal immigrants on a course toward full citizenship. Lacking popularity, it twice failed to get the majority vote of both houses of Congress required by the Constitution, thus leaving long-standing existing immigration law unchanged. Obama, failing to get a favorable vote from Congress, openly defied Congress and the Constitution by ordering a like measure to the one defeated implemented anyway. It has since rightly been blocked by the judicial branch as having been an overreach by the president and, thus, unconstitutional.
Executive amnesty was outright contempt for Congress and the Constitution, and the president knew it. Twenty-seven times prior to his enacting of the order he argued that it would be unconstitutional were he to do it. For example, on March 28, 2011, he said, with respect to the idea of nullifying Congress on the deportation issue, "The notion that I can just suspend deportations just through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed."
Indeed, by executive order, Obama has changed existing law at least 30 times, most notably in the Affordable Care Act, which today is not the bill passed by Congress in 2010. In these and the new parade of executive orders on gun control, the president is replacing Congress as the only federal lawmaker of the land.
There is nothing more clear nor basic in the constitution than the separation of federal power into three branches, one to legislate, another to execute that law, and a third to adjudicate possible violations of that law when contested -- a division of power held "sacred" until the last few decades.
The Constitution reads: "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"(Article I, Sec. I).
The Executive branch has no authority to make law -- any law! Nor does it have constitutional authority to alter existing law.
Executive Orders are constitutional only when they cite a single, recently-passed law of Congress, in which that law needs a statement of implementation by the executive branch. Originally, they were but interdepartmental directives.
A president can only suggest a need for new law in his State of the Union Address, and he can either sign or veto a law passed by Congress -- which then, if vetoed, can be overridden by vote of two-thirds of both the House and the Senate to make it law. That's the extent of a president's legislative powers.
I warned my readers when Obama blatantly violated the Constitution on executive amnesty that, "if not challenged by Congress, his alterations would become existing law by practice without the consent of the peoples' representatives, voiding the role of Congress, and that he, upon finding a weak Congress, would repeat the practice of making law by decree." He has!
Some have used the word dictatorial to describe the practice. I renew this warning, not just for Obama but also for presidents who follow from either party, since they will likely use past practice to justify a desired practice and the trend to nullify Congress as the only federal lawmaking body will continue. Issuing of executive orders that have the force and effect of law must stop if we are to preserve liberty.
Obama's present override of Congress on Second Amendment issues is an even more blatant abuse of his oath of office, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." To protect the separation of powers and end Obama's threat to the Constitution, Congress must publicly renounce all his new executive orders and fast track immediately to impeachment. Yes, the Constitution requires that he be retired in twelve months anyway, but a bill of impeachment re-establishes the precedent that the people will not tolerate the defilement of the Constitution, thus discouraging constitutional rogues of the future. Failing to do so weakens Congress' sole role as the federal law-making branch of government, the clarity of the Second Amendment and the integrity of the presidential oath of office.
Democrats must see that their failure to insist on a retraction of all law-making executive orders forever weakens the sole power of Congress to make all law and places us on the road of government by decree or edict of one man. We must choose the Constitution over party. The Constitution is there to protect all parties and all citizens from arbitrary and capricious rules such as just announced. Please let it work.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for more than 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Editorial on 01/13/2016