Texas Congressman threatens impeachment if Barack Obama uses Executive Order to implement gun control
Barack Obama and Joe Biden have both threatened to use an Executive Order in an attempt to curb gun violence. What does this mean? Does it mean that Barack Obama would actually look at banning assault weapons or high capacity magazines? Does it mean he will order a national registry? Or is it to implement new mental health guidelines?
We simply do not know what Barack Obama has in mind, but one thing is certain–there is no way in hell that Barack Obama has the authority to issue an executive order which supersedes an amendment to the constitution, that would have to be passed by the Congress and voted on by the people.
Barack Obama and the Democrats like to compare the president to Abraham Lincoln, but Abraham Lincoln knew that he couldn’t abolish slavery legally with his Emancipation Proclamation (which didn’t free all the slaves as is commonly believed today, it only freed the slaves in the states in rebellion, states like Maryland would have been able to keep its slaves) and that is why he worked so hard to pass the 13th amendment.
And today Texas Representative Steve Stockman threatened to introduce articles of impeachment if Barack Obama tried to use executive order to implement any gun bans:
Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.”
“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment,” Stockman said in a statement.
Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible,” he added. “Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person — much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court.
If the president is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist
Regular readers of America’s Watchtower know that I am not a man who throws around the ‘I’ word, but if Barack Obama actually thinks he has the power to subvert a constitutional amendment then I say it is time we start to take a serious look at this course of action.
America's Watchtower 
Here we go with the *impeachment* BS again… To Rep. Stockman: I appreciate the thought but it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to impeach Obama with a Democratic Senate in place…
LikeLike
I agree Fred, which is why I don’t usually call for impeachment, the Senate will never vote for it anyway. But it is about time for the Congress to stand up to this man
LikeLike
Doesn’t it make sense to see exactly what form any EOs might take? This clown’s just doing a lot of bloviating and posturing . . . getting a headstart on his re-election campaign, it looks like.
Take good care, and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
No we don’t need to see what EO he plans to use. The second admendment “will not be infringed”. The POTUS can not legally use a EO for anything except the executive branch administrations duties. It is illegal to use EO’s for anything to put restrictions on the population of America. That job falls to Congress. The second Ad protects all other Admendments. When it falls you will have a dictator and you will be slaves. Me and my armed brothers will be “Freedom Fighting Rebels” and the majority of the Miliatary is on our side. If he tries you will have civil war and that’s a guarantee.
LikeLike
Yes, which is why I asked the questions instead of jumping to conclusions. If he is looking at guideline changes to issues such as mental health that is one thing but implementing gun bans is another and he has been quiet on his plans even though he already knows what they are.
LikeLike
The House of Representatives, by a simple majority vote, can pass Articles of Impeachment against the President. This basically works the same way as charging someone with a crime. Once those Articles are passed, the Senate acts like a jury, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as the presiding judge. The President is removed from office if two-thirds of the Senate votes to convict.
Do you even remotely believe that you could garner a 2/3 majority against Obama in THIS Senate??
You could have video evidence that Obama was a traitor against the USA, had murdered someone in cold blood and had molested a small dog and the Dems, and a few so-called GOP would do NOTHING… Until that kind of mind-set is overcome, Obama has little to worry about…
LikeLike
Agreed Fred! The Senate will never vote to impeach Obama but we still need men in the Congress to stand up to him, it doesn’t happen nearly enough!
LikeLike
Agreed. Even if he isn’t convicted, at least that will be a nice warning shot: we’re done. Fed up.
LikeLike
We have to let him know somehow and this might just be the only way. It wouldn’t bother him in the least because he really does want to fundamentally tranform the nation and he will do it by whatever means neccessary.
LikeLike
I’m afraid this country has walked straight into a trap, cleverly hidden and in the making for decades.
We’ve allowed the “progressive” movement to go far enough that we have very little chance of actually recovering.
Welfare, increased federal control over the states, taxation on PRODUCTION, allowing the country to become indebted, etc. We’ve lost every fight, and we are seeing the consequences more and more clearly with each passing month.
The progressive movement is nothing less than a movement toward complete government control. If anyone wants to see a well written account of this cycle, read the Gods of the Copybook Headings by Rudyard Kipling. We’ve seen this before, and happening now.
Right now, the only course of action I can see is to have the states still retaining their sanity impeach and prosecute President Obama for his crimes against this country, take back our rights as citizens and overturn the federal controls (welfare, Obamacare, IRS, etc) put in place to reduce our freedoms and fix this system.
If only we’re not too late.
LikeLike
Have the STATES Impeach and prosecute Obama? You missed the part about how Impeachment actually works I guess…
LikeLike
I may have made a mistake in my post. Have the state REPRESENTATIVES(the ones who represent the state) impeach the President. Hope I’m not being sarcastic, but that’s pretty much the states impeaching him.
LikeLike
Sadly I think we have reached the point of no return, the only reason I keep fighting at this point is because I am too stubborn to admit defeat.
LikeLike
LOL. Isaiah! Cons didn’t “let” progressives accomplish their achievements – they won them legislatively and at the ballot box. Your caucus in the House has been exposed as being fractured, and it’s about to be skewered by all sides if it insists on refusing the executive the authority to borrow money to pay the bills that it – the Congress – has already incurred.
The TParty had some credibility when the Koch brothers started it priot to the 2010 elections, but as their involvement has become more well-known, and those involved become tied up in their social issues, their credibility on economic issues is on the wane.
Now with this gun issue, you guys are coming off sounding like people who are insisting that the mentally ill and criminals must have the right to acquire all sorts of armaments. The NRA – now there’s a tyranny – goes silent when there’s a massacre, and then a week later comes out and says the solution to too many guns is more guns.
I think you guys are on the wrong side of history here. Look at smoking and drinking – down a lot, due not to governmental action, but to social pressure. Now look at homosexuality and gay marriage – tolerance of gay people is way up, and gay marriage is supported now by more than half the people. Even those states that recently passed laws against it, I predict, will repeal those laws within ten years.
There are progressives who think the only solution to gun violence is a total ban on guns, and they understand that to do that, the 2nd Amendment must be repealed. They know it’s going to be a long, protracted struggle, but they’re willing to lay the social groundwork so that in a couple of decades, they can repeal the 2nd amendment.
And you guys are just making their job easier by being so intractable! You seem to be saying that school massacres are just the price we have to pay to be a free society. Even if that’s not your belief, that’s how you’re coming across, and it’s this unwillingness to compromise that’s going to lose you your precious Second Amendment, and then you’re going to have to get permission to rent a rifle to go hunting – and won’t that be just tons of fun?
Take good care, and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
Georgia Yankee is a nut job in simple. The second ad. Will never be repealed. There will be war first and the NRA and pro gun members will win. The military is on the side of the second admendment. You also make up facts such as gay marriage. There is less than 18 percent support gay marriage and 74 percent support gun rights. To put it that we support school massacres is another left wing communist propaganda false information. We support arming teachers and armed guards at school. Ended gun free zones will end mass shootings. Arming the public works to perfection just look at Kennesaw Ga! This is a right wing blog you need to find another place to troll and please accept my invitation to Calhoun Ga to discuss face to face. We put Yankees who are communist pigs out of our state. We still ban people from this state and you should be next!
LikeLike
Nobody here is saying mentally ill people should own guns TGY, that is a stretch. Adma Lanza should never have had access to weapons and his mother was irresponsible and gives all gun owners a bad name but that does not mean that responsible, law abiding gun owners should have to pay the price for the actions of an obviously deranged young “man.”
LikeLike
I wish I could find room to disagree with Texas Fred, but I can not. There isn’t a chance that the Senate would ever vote to convict Obama, especially with its current makeup. It would be doubtful Harry Reid would even allow it to the floor for consideration.
Having said that, if Obama does use his supposed executive authority to create a law out of thin air, then it is far past time to call him on the carpet for his actions. He needs to be made to understand his actions are unconstitutional and illegal.
LikeLike
You are right Larry, this is something that will never happen, but if he does do this something has to be done.
LikeLike
Something, but WHAT?
LikeLike
Impeachment would be fine by me!
LikeLike
I wish I knew what that something was.
LikeLike
It certainly is frustrating seeing what is happening and being unable to do anything, isn’t it Larry?
LikeLike
It is about time. What about Bengazi and Ambassador Stevens???? That akin should impeach the DAMN COWARD!!!!! IMPEACH NOW!!!!!
LikeLike
An absolute shame that he was allowed to get away with Benghazi and with Fast and Furious!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on bearspawprint.
LikeLike
Thank you very much!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word… and commented:
Now this is the most sense I have heard!!
LikeLike
Thanks again!
LikeLike
RE: “. . .We simply do not know what Barack Obama has in mind, but one thing is certain–there is no way in hell that Barack Obama has the authority to issue an executive order which supersedes an amendment to the constitution, that would have to be passed by the Congress and voted on by the people.. . .”
John Liming Says: “I am sure the President has enough legal experts to advise him so that he is fully aware of what he can and cannot do with an executive order.”
LikeLike
or he can take one look at John Boehner and realize nothing can stop him.
LikeLike
All too true!
LikeLike
The question you have to ask is, do you trust the people he has advising him? Personally I do not.
LikeLike
You are a really fair-minded individual and I appreciate that.
I am now following your blog.
Thank you for responding.
LikeLike
There are those who would disagree with you on my fair-mindedness but I am trying because I am realizing more and more that the ruling class Republicans in the federal government are no better than the Democrats.
LikeLike
Man, we sure could use a few more like Rep Stockman around…
LikeLike
We sure could!
LikeLike
i’m left with only one question after reading this article: Why do you spell out the full name of President Obama, every time you write his name? It’s always his full name, sometimes even more than once in a sentence. But you never use pronouns.
On a good day, I’d call that rhetoric…but I’m more inclined to think you’re trying to hypnotize your audience, and to lull them into brain-stem reasoning.
LikeLike
Sometimes I write the president although I didn’t in this post. What would you prefer I call him?
I will take your criticism to heart and try to use it to make myself a better person and writer. Thank you.
LikeLike
He doesn’t use his full name. It should read Barrak HUSSIEN Obama. We can even nickname him NO BRAIN HUSSIEN Obama! I prefer that for the communist bastard!
LikeLike
So you’d like Steve to convert his blog to one that concentrates more on namecalling?
LikeLike
Good point Steven, but if I used his middle name that would be racist!
LikeLike
Michael, I believe I saw 2 pronouns in the short blog that Steve posted:
“Does it mean HE will order ” and “if Barack Obama actually thinks HE”
I think that it is the content that needs to have more attention paid to it, rather than the thought that HE might be hypnotizing anyone with the way it is written. I do not think HE needs to worry about being a better person or writer. Take it at face value and enjoy what HE writes.
LikeLike
Michael didn’t say it but he is upset because I don’t put the word ‘President’ in front of the word ‘Obama, and as you can see I refuse to do so even in this comment. When referring to HIM I either use the term ‘the president’ or I call him by name and that is done intentionally. I am sure that Michael finds this disrespectful and he was hoping to draw a reaction from me so I chose to take the high road with my comment because I thought that would aggravate him even more.
LikeLike
I saw this quote and thought of this administration!
“You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of reality.”
~~Ayn Rand
LikeLike
This quote is TOO true and we have gotten to the consequences now!!!! Is Ms Rand part of the Rand PAC. I truly love the RAND PAC!
LikeLike
She wrote Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. She was way before her time.
LikeLike
No matter who she was or when she was here, she has a very good quote that does not expire and plainly is applicable today and most of the forefathers fit her same category. MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA! Today, Tomorrow and Forever!
LikeLike
Rand was a sociopath who idolized a mass murderer. If she were alive today, I’d hope her application for a gun permit were rejected on the grounds that she’s mentally unstable.
TGY
LikeLike
Steve, she is also who Ron Paul named his son Rand after!
LikeLike
TGY: and yet the left idolizes Margaret Sanger who was an avowed eugenist and supporter of Hitler who felt the black race could be eradicated through abortion, isn’t that interesting?
LikeLike
Ain’t that the truth Lou!
LikeLike
Sorry Steve I thought you were talking of implementing new laws. EO’s would be fine to enforce the laws on the books but I’m sure that is not what he has planned. Also how do I subscribe to your blog?
LikeLike
No problem Steven, some of my comments appeared to be directed at people who I didn’t intend to direct them at so went back and edited them to show who I was directing my comments toward.
Over on the right hand side of the blog and under the pictures is a link called “Join or Die” that is where you can subscribe to the blog. Thanks for your interest in subscribing, I probably should move the link to a more visible place.
LikeLike
No we don’t need to see what EO he plans to use. The second admendment “will not be infringed”. The POTUS can not legally use a EO for anything except the executive branch administrations duties. It is illegal to use EO’s for anything to put restrictions on the population of America. That job falls to Congress. The second Ad protects all other Admendments. When it falls you will have a dictator and you will be slaves. Me and my armed brothers will be “Freedom Fighting Rebels” and the majority of the Miliatary is on our side. If he tries you will have civil war and that’s a guarantee.
LikeLike
No we don’t need to see what EO he plans to use. The second admendment “will not be infringed”. The POTUS can not legally use a EO for anything except the executive branch administrations duties. It is illegal to use EO’s for anything to put restrictions on the population of America. That job falls to Congress. The second Ad protects all other Admendments. When it falls you will have a dictator and you will be slaves. Me and my armed brothers will be “Freedom Fighting Rebels” and the majority of the Miliatary is on our side. If he tries you will have civil war and that’s a guarantee.
LikeLike
Sadly the EO has gained more and more power over the years and instead of being used to dictate how a law will be implemented it is being used to implement new laws. This was not what was intended and Barack Obama has taken it to a whole new level.
LikeLike