Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III declared in an exclusive Newsmax TV interview that President Barack Obama could easily be impeached if he bypassed Congress and enacted gun-control legislation by executive order.
Meese’s comments came on the same day President Obama told the White House press corp at the last news conference of his first term that he was reviewing actions, including issuing executive orders, where he could take action without congressional approval to confront gun violence in the nation. Obama said he would present a plan within days.
The options include stronger background checks, a meaningful ban on assault weapons, and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines, Obama said, conceding that was unsure how such steps could pass Congress.
“I’m confident there are some steps we can take that don’t require legislation and that are within my authority as president,” Obama said.
“It would not be legal. It would not be constitutional,” Meese, who served under President Ronald Reagan, tells Newsmax. “And, indeed, if he tried to override the Second Amendment in any way, I believe it would be an impeachable offense.”
Read More at newsmax.com . By Todd Beamon and Kathleen Walter.
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
OK, now you are on Record & others also, so we expect some one to Stand Up to this Evil man in our WH.
For sure, Obama’s moffia thug’s, have act of impeachment possibility all covered! They are not worried about that. God help us!
Yes, God help us that the president has lawyers. Why is the word “impeachment” thrown around so thoughtlessly? Wait to see what he does, then react. Don’t assume you know what is going to happen.
he probably wont be impeached because the members of congress are all a bunch of yes men, no matter what party they belong to. Obama should have been impeached within his first term of office and the same members of congress that should have done it then are still in office so we can only hope that he doesnt destroy america completly before he is out of office.
Exactly, We have the same cast of Characters in the WH, Senate and Congress so nothing will happen.
What is an assault rifle? The answer is right here!
1). http://moonbattery.com/?p=23839
2). http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/01/11/so-what-is-an-assault-rifle-really-we-look-at-the-definitions-and-how-the-term-is-demonized/
3). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8D8b51EwrI&feature=youtu.be
4). http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6lyunRYMenY
5). Exposing Gun Myths! “Never again”! Are you ready to give up you 2nd. Amendment and will you agree to disarm ourselves so big government can have their complete control over us once again? Your call America!
http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=90801
Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms
Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791
Note
1828 Definition
‘ARMS, n. plu. [L. arma.]
1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.
2. War; hostility.
Arms and the man I sing.
To be in arms, to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life.
To arms is a phrase which denotes a taking arms for war or hostility; particularly, a summoning to war.
To take arms, is to arm for attack or defense.
Bred to arms denotes that a person has been educated to the profession of a soldier.
3. The ensigns armorial of a family; consisting of figures and colors borne in shields, banners, &c., as marks of dignity and distinction, and descending from father to son.
4. In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another.
Please keep in mind that the Founders said what they meant and meant what they said in the Constitution and provided us a method to correct errors –
THE ARTICLE V AMENDMENT
http://fundamentalrefounding.ning.com/forum/categories/article-v-state-amendment-project-to-restore-liberty/listForCategory
My post in the NYT . .
GoodBusinessSan Antonio, Texas
FLAG
Take the guns and the armed body guards away form the Progressive Liberal gun banning politicians first and let them be the test market for the silly notions. After a three years test period then we can hold an intelligent argument on the issue.
Only a fool attempts to debate a FALSE PREMISE.
Jan. 15, 2013 at 10:15 a.m.REPLYRECOMMEND
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure our FREEDOM from public and private tyrants by endorsing our God-given right to shoot them in self-defense. Logically, anyone trying to deny us this right is also a tyrant and must be quickly neutralized to prevent the genocides that follow when psychopaths have disarmed societies using bogus pretexts. The incremental low-intensity communist insurgency that we’ve not been effectively fighting will destroy America unless we quickly acquire a fierce mindset and do whatever is necessary to defeat it. We know all we need to know to do what must be done.
http://elect.ErnestHuberForCongress.com/
Easily impeached?!?!?!? He has done so many impeachable offenses now…which one do you think they will finally do it for? Answer…NONE OF THEM. He is untouchable.
I agree, he has been Free to do as he Pleases and NO one will try to Stop him.
PROTECTION RIFEL NOT ASSULT WEAPONS
Why do the constitutional true Americans of the Right allow the left to demonize and humiliate them? When and where did the term “assault weapon” come to be? It appears that it started quite a while ago by Hitler speaking about his new gun design that he liked it so much he called it “sturmgewehr,” or “Storm rifle.” This morphed over the years to assault rifle in military jargon but was never a civilian used term.
The term is used by the military for training in assault situations. Hence the weapons are assault intended weapons.
But in the hands of the civilian population whose gun ownership purpose is for sport shooting, hunting or defense it is a protection rifle not a weapon. Referring to civilian rifles (automatic or no) as assault weapons is improper usage of the world assault.
Calling gun owners protection guns, weapons for assault infers civilian intent to assault. This is an insane idea propagated by the LSM and anti-gun advocates to propagate fear mongering. Calling peace loving protectors an assault threat is an assault on us personally. It ever sounds scary to me!
People keep asking why civilians need assault style weapons. This truly is a moot irrational question. The term protection infers resistance to assault or harm. If people are going to attempt to assault you with assault style weapons…your protection anti-assault plan better be able to stand up against the assault weapons of the enemy or criminal.
In short… fight fire with fire. The civilian population needs to be just as well armed as anyone else, be it criminal or an invasion force.
I have guns for protection and hunting. I have a protection anti-assault rifle not an assault weapon that I want to use to assault people with.
Please gun owners…stop letting the left demonize you as a traitor and a threat because you are willing to keep protection guns and rifles to protect life and to enforce the peace.
Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms
Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791
Note
1828 Definition
‘ARMS, n. plu. [L. arma.]
1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.
2. War; hostility.
Arms and the man I sing.
To be in arms, to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life.
To arms is a phrase which denotes a taking arms for war or hostility; particularly, a summoning to war.
To take arms, is to arm for attack or defense.
Bred to arms denotes that a person has been educated to the profession of a soldier.
3. The ensigns armorial of a family; consisting of figures and colors borne in shields, banners, &c., as marks of dignity and distinction, and descending from father to son.
4. In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another.
http://fundamentalrefounding.ning.com/forum/categories/article-v-state-amendment-project-to-restore-liberty/listForCategory
patti’s notes: good, let him, needs to be inpeached . understand supreme court has hearing on feb.13, 2013 about all his fraud on himself. can’t wait!!!!!!! pl,orl,fla
Yes. impeachment. The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.
We have the duty to protect our selfs, Family and Country.
Further more:
From Watergate we learned what generations before us have known; our Constitution works. And during Watergate years it was interpreted again so as to reaffirm that no one – absolutely no one – is above the law.
So as an American it is our duty to push and force our congress to read, overturn and dismiss the exective orders that can violate the constitution.
We the people can insist on legal actions.
Nothing will ever come of it…. Obama has brainwashed all the people. I saw a toon one time made of Obama as the Pied Piper…. playing his flute and the people were following him cause he promised them to rid the city of mice…. Little did they know they were going into the dangers of his fire. Little did they know he was evil to the core. Bliind followers, they were…indeed!
he should have been impeached long ago. how long does it take the idiots who are in congress to see how much he is against america and its values. he brainwashed women and first time voters to get in.